Jump to content

TheWorldNewsOrg

Trump insists he put ‘no pressure’ on Ukrainian President Zelenskiy

Topic Summary

Created

Last Reply

Replies

Views

TheWorldNewsOrg -
James Thomas Rook Jr. -
13
240

Top Posters


Recommended Posts


The Democrat Party has top to bottom gone bat-crap crazy, and what they used to be good at is now concentrated, unmitigated EVIL.

They are trying to destroy the properly elected President of the United States with CONTINUOUS lies. If one doesn't work, they try another. When that doesn't work, they keep attacking with more completely made up lies.

Democrat House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is incredibly competent at this evil slander, and is rabid to bring down Trump with any vile thing she can dream up ... RELYING on the fact that Democrat voters in general do NOT know what is real and what is not.

Here is the PROOF from the transcript that Pelosi wants to impeach the President for high treason.  Her suppositions are bald face slander, and pure, unadulterated evil, on parade!

The Democrat Party has become a cancer on the heart of America.

The following is a photo of the transcript of the "treasonous" phone call.

Download it and pass it on.

YOU read it and decide if it was a "quid pro quo" conversation, worthy of bringing down a U.S. President.

 

 

Ukrainian Transcript of Trump's call  .jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

YOU read it and decide if it was a "quid pro quo" conversation, worthy of bringing down a U.S. President.

Some do. Some don’t.

I think the key point to take away from this is is, not only can people not agree on what to do in light of the facts, but they cannot even agree on what the facts are.

Pew Research puts it this way:

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/08/23/republicans-and-democrats-agree-they-cant-agree-on-basic-facts/

The Bible puts it this way:

But know this, that in the last days critical times hard to deal with will be here.  For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, haughty, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, disloyal,  having no natural affection, not open to any agreement, slanderers, without self-control, fierce, without love of goodness,  betrayers, headstrong, puffed up with pride, lovers of pleasures rather than lovers of God,  having an appearance of godliness but proving false to its power. (2 Timothy 3:1-5)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

Download it and pass it on.

I even fashioned this into a post, old boy. Thanks for the inspiration:

https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/09/you-read-it-and-decide-if-it-was-a-quid-pro-quo-conversation-worthy-of-bringing-down-a-us-president.html

(any comments go here, not on the post itself. I won’’t allow them there. We must not tic off the Librarian. (that old hen)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

I think that the new president of Ukraine wants a ride on Trump's plane and is willing to buy Javelins 

Well, one can hardly blame him for that.

Forgive me. My family made me drive Ramblers (AMC) growing up—the ultimate in child abuse. I developed an unreasonable underdog defense mentality about them.

 

DC9CBB7F-A479-41AD-9926-4076EA0BAF31.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a 2-seater AMX; Javelins were almost the same (with some hood and grill differences) but were 4-seaters (in 1970). I was always afraid that under such a large hood, I'd open it and a Gremlin would pop out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, JW Insider said:

That's a 2-seater AMX; Javelins were almost the same (with some hood and grill differences) but were 4-seaters (in 1970). I was always afraid that under such a large hood, I'd open it and a Gremlin would pop out.

AMC didn’t have a lot of money. They recycled a lot, often detrimentally but in this case for the better. Some of the best looking cars around were AMC but also some of the most hideous 

378FA682-D22A-4761-8384-FA0BBA9B4EC4.jpeg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/26/2019 at 1:09 AM, James Thomas Rook Jr. said:

When that doesn't work, they keep attacking with more completely made up lies.

Back to the topic of the OP. I think that the Democrats have show a usual level of stupidity, and then in addition, are falling into a huge trap here. I have seen Giuliani so sloppy at times that he doesn't realize he was being an accidental whistleblower himself (against Trump), but I saw him much better prepared on this particular story (in a Fox News interview) and even there he hinted that the Democrats are walking into a trap. Trump himself does not usually come across so well prepared on any particular news story, either, and he often wings it with statements he ends up walking back.

But this is so clearly a story they are well prepared for, not just in defense against attacks by Democrats, but as a proactive strategy to bring down Biden a couple notches, and embarrass the Democratic party.

The Democrats had many Republicans on their side in creating a big anti-Russia strategy that attempted to tie everything Trump did to a close "nefarious" association with Putin. To this end, Democrats even sloppily tried to tie Paul Manifort to Russia, when Manifort was mostly an anti-Russian working for Ukraine's interests (which are opposed to Russia).

A lot of people think that it's unfair to speak of any nation as having a "Nazi" agenda, but Ukraine is really an exception, because it has truly held onto the Nazi legacy from 1945 until today. Although we don't know if the new president, a former Jewish comedian, will attempt to stem the Nazi party which has dominated official Ukrainian government agencies for years.

Democrats had to ignore this "Nazi" agenda when FaceBook and the Democrats were looking into Ukrainian accusations against Russia. Ukraine had to be presented as "the good guys" to try to paint Russia in such a bad light.

Inseparably, Russian oil pipelines always ran through Ukraine although Russia only recently created some workarounds, so the "oilgarchs" of Russia and Ukraine might have less leverage now. But corrupt "officials" and "unofficials" from the US and elsewhere have been able to profit off the oily corruption between these two states for years.  I mention this because the only parry to the sword hanging over Biden right now was the fact that Trump's former campaign manager Paul Manifort was ALSO involved in getting money from related entities in Ukraine. Then, Biden's son (Hunter) was evidently put on the board of a mid-sized energy company and paid about a million euros a year. Ukraine's Attorney General wanted to look into this and his father, VP Joe Biden, tried to get that Attorney General removed. (There are also additional monthly payments totalling closer to 2 million a year going to undisclosed persons.) 

The Democrats have already gloated over the demise of Manifort, but on separate grounds, so that it would just create confusion or appear like sour grapes to try to present Manifort as Biden "parity." Letting the whole Mueller thing play out was a bit risky, but has paid off for Republicans. Democrats are now just grasping at the few remaining straws.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How many US citizens are put behind bars each year on "technicalities"?

Sounds to me like this country could end up in a civil war over stuff like this.

Although the Senate probably won't convict him if impeached...... unless the Republicans would also like to secretly get rid of Trump?

Could this be another Julius Caesar scenario?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now





  • Topics

  • Posts

    • Wouldn't a core doctrine be one in which we put "unwavering" faith. This is the whole reason I mention "core" or "key" doctrines. If we were to be killed unless we publicly renounced our faith in Jehovah God as the Creator, and Jesus Christ as the one through whom the Ransom comes, we should be willing to die for that doctrine. I would not be willing to die over my certainty that Jesus was only using hyperbole when he said that the men of Sodom would do better in a resurrection of the unrighteous on Judgment Day, than persons in towns that rejected Jesus during his earthly ministry. (Only the most diabolical of inquisitors would ask such a question anyway. I think I would go for "theocratic war strategy. 😉 )
    • I like that. It's an excellent explanation of one of the points made in the day's text and commentary. Perhaps. And so were all the 1 year old babies destroyed in the Flood. And so were the 185,000 of Senacherib's troops. I used that one because it's one for which most of us would be the least surprised if we discovered that the WT changed the teaching again.  Not sure what you mean. I already believe that the primary core doctrine is God's value through his Son's ransom sacrifice. Other doctrines are also just as necessary, though.  There actually is a contradiction between the Bible and AD 1914. And we don't need any independent understanding not supported by Scripture, such as the independent understanding of John Aquila Brown, or more specifically, that of Nelson H Barbour, neither of which were supported by Scripture. It should ALWAYS be the exploit of any faithful Witness to uncover truth and try to resolve any contradictions that can be resolved by Scripture itself, not anything independent of Scriptural support.  On the matter of the 1914 doctrine, an easier explanation with human controversy --but no scriptural controversy-- has already been posted. Easier isn't proof that it's better, but it's definitely easier. Here it is: Jesus came to earth to preach about a God's Kingdom through Christ and give himself over to death as a perfect ransom for sin, to fulfill the Law, and SIT AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING since the time of his resurrection in 33 CE. That's it. Simple. No contradictions with any Scripture. From that point on, in 33 CE he SITS AT GOD'S RIGHT HAND and therefore RULES AS KING ruling in the midst of enemies, including war, famine, sickness, and will continue ruling as king until God has put all enemies under his feet, including the last enemy: death.  The current belief in 1914 creates a contradiction with this very point, because we are currently forced to ignore 1 Cor 15:25, which indicates that "sitting at God's right hand" is the same as "ruling as King." Right now, our current teaching is that Jesus sat at God's right hand in 33, and THEN LATER began ruling as king in 1914. Paul says that Jesus began ruling as king WHEN he sat at God's right hand. I'm swapping them because they mean exactly the same thing to me. No difference. Doctrine means teaching. True but notice the words that Paul used instead of "sit at my right hand" here: (1 Corinthians 15:25) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. Turns out that when a king sits on a throne, this is actually an expression meaning rule as king. Just like when we say that a man "sat on the throne" starting in AD 1066, for example. Turns out that a king does not have to stand up from a throne to begin ruling as king. Turns out that sitting on a throne is not a synonym for just waiting around. By that logic, Jesus is not even NOW ruling as king, because God has not yet put the last enemy Death beneath his feet. (1 Corinthians 15:25,26) 25 For he must rule as king until God has put all enemies under his feet. 26 And the last enemy, death, is to be brought to nothing.
    • If only you would stop quoting outside sources, and just be more basic with your comments, then i may understand them . Yes I understand 'if your throw out all the good, only the bad is left.  But the reverse is, if you only see the good, you are not being honest with yourself or others.  @Arauna is a case in point.  
    • @JW Insider Quote " The day's text is about the resurrection, and the commentary speaks of the importance of including this among our key doctrines, as if it might not have been "up there" with the rest. " That seems rather strange to me. But then they are getting short of things to say.  However, i would have thought every Christian, no matter what ever 'sect' or  pigeon hole you put them in, would definitely believe in the resurrection of Jesus Christ, and put it up near the top of important beliefs.  However making Bible Facts, doctrines, seems unfair to God and to the Bible itself.  doctrine a belief or set of beliefs held and taught by a Church, political party, or other group.   It's as if the JW Org tries to 'own' such things. @TrueTomHarley quite often goes on about the things that the JW Org teaches. As if those things 'belonged to the JW Org'.  Whereas a lot of the same beliefs are held by thousands of people, and they not all being of the same organisation.     Quote " The Teaching about Christ's Kingdom -  Of course that final one might be a nod to "1914" as a key teaching, but it is worded here in such a way that no one could dismiss Christ's Kingdom as a key teaching. "   Now here we see a difference between Bible truth and JW doctrine.    Christ's Kingdom is Bible truth.   1914 is JW Org doctrine.   (This would bring us back to. Would a person be d/fed or 'watched' if they did not believe the 1914 doctrine?)    Matthew 22 v 44    ‘Jehovah said to my Lord: “Sit at my right hand until I put your enemies beneath your feet”’? So if Jesus was to sit at Gods right hand, until God had put Jesus' enemies beneath Jesus' feet.  Then Jesus could not have had the power to do it himself. Therefore surely Jesus was not ruling as King immediately ?    As for 1914, we know that no one of the Bible Students or JW leaders, were or are inspired of Holy Spirit. So maybe 1914 is just another guess or misuse of scriptures.    What is your view of the difference between 'Core doctrines' and Key teachings ?    And you seem to keep swapping expressions from Core doctrines, to Core teachings, to Key teachings.  Can you explain the difference please ?    
    • I confess that I am falling well short of the 100 times a day that I ought. I ask your forgiveness. Human limitations is the only excuse I have to offer. If you negate the upside, then all there is left to look at is the downside, and that is the case with many here.  I keep coming back to a line from The Scarlet Letter: “It is remarkable, that persons who speculate the most boldly often conform with the most perfect quietude to the external regulations of society.” Nobody speculates more boldly, departing from the herd-like thinking of this world, than Jehovah’s Witnesses. True to that Hawthorn line, they have no difficulty conforming to the “external regulations of their society.” Though Hawthorn does not say it, the reverse is also true. Those who cannot “conform to the external regulations of that society” and so leave it, perhaps guys like Shiwiiiii, are the most non-bold thinkers of all. They are individualistic in superfluous ways, but conformist in all the ways that matter.
    • Perhaps you are reading something into the book of Jude that I haven't been able to see. To me, the reason for the letter was this: Jude 4 I say this because some ungodly people have wormed their way into your churches, saying that God’s marvelous grace allows us to live immoral lives. This was similar to the problem in Corinth, where certain brothers were PROUD that they could put up with a notorious case of incest, due to a misunderstanding and misuse of "undeserved kindness." (1 Corinthians 5:1, 2) . . .Actually sexual immorality is reported among you, and such immorality as is not even found among the nations—of a man living with his father’s wife. 2 And are you proud of it? Should you not rather mourn, so that the man who committed this deed should be taken away from your midst? Such persons who used the idea of forgiveness, mercy, and undeserved kindness (grace), as an excuse for loose/brazen conduct were not blowing the whistle on wrongdoing, but were PROMOTING wrongdoing. It was the same as dismissing and speaking abusively against things that Jesus himself had said to "prove false to our only owner and Lord, Jesus Christ." Michael wouldn't even speak abusively of the Devil and yet these people are going to go further than that and think it's OK to speak abusively of Jesus and the angels? It's also possible that the leaders (elders) are considered the "glorious ones" but this makes less sense to me. Perhaps a topic for further discussion?
  • Popular Now

  • Recently Browsing

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online (See full list)

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.