| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"The Fool" |
| Date: |
20 Dec 2005 02:49:44 PM |
| Object: |
Could Bush be the Anti-Christ? |
Trust me when I say that I have backed Bush for years and campaigned
for him on a number of times, but his recent decision to disregard the
Constitution and give himself unlimited powers started my questioning
of the truth of his faith in Christ.
I know it sounds like treason for a Republican to question Bush, but
consider the following...
....he went to war without proof and didn't apologize upon admission
that it was ALL false.
....he set up secret prisons in other countries to avoid the courts in
this one.
....he is violating the Constitutional 4th amendment right to privacy,
knowingly, and doesn't intend to change. As foundation, he says that
in wartime, he has the right to violate such rights.
This last charge has me the most outraged. First, it's not officially
a war, congress never authorizing Bush to treat it as a war but only a
conflict. Second, if he calls the "war" on terrorism a war, that war
will never end. Thus, the President will have unlimted and unchecked
power for as long as he keeps finding a terrorist somewhere in the
world.
....then, he said that it was treason and unethical to point out his
violations of law.
My God, I feel like we have let the Anti-Christ come into power, and I
helped him. What if that is true? The anti-christ would, indeed,
claim to be faithful, even as he violated the law. Bush MUST be
rebuked...and soon.
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.
|
|
| User: "Bob LeChevalier" |
|
| Title: Re: Could Bush be the Anti-Christ? |
20 Dec 2005 07:43:31 PM |
|
|
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Trust me when I say that I have backed Bush for years and campaigned
for him on a number of times, but his recent decision to disregard the
Constitution and give himself unlimited powers started my questioning
of the truth of his faith in Christ.
Whereas I have little doubt of his faith is Christ. He has the same
ignorant self-confidence that you have. If Bush were smarter, I might
agree with you.
What I doubt is his understanding of Christ's teachings, and his
acceptance of those teachings, as opposed to the teachings of Paul.
And for Cheney, I have no trust at all.
I know it sounds like treason for a Republican to question Bush,
Only to hard-core Republicans. Most Americans think that it is our
DUTY to question. Not to mention our right.
...he is violating the Constitutional 4th amendment right to privacy,
knowingly, and doesn't intend to change. As foundation, he says that
in wartime, he has the right to violate such rights.
Actually, he asserts that he has the AUTHORITY to do so. Either as
inherent authority as commander in chief in time of war, or granted
authority by the Act of Congress in response to 9/11, which he has
interpreted in such as way as would allow him to utterly ignore the
constitution and be absolute dictator if necessary, so long as he
could justify (to himself, I guess) that he was doing so for the good
of the country. The Act of Congress more or less tells him to do what
is necessary, so he has a thin but extant pretext, but of course
Congress does not have the power to authorize the President to ignore
the Constitution so that pretext must ultimately fail.
Abraham Lincoln asserted similar enormous power, and violated the
constitution. We consider Lincoln a hero, because he violated the
Constitution, but then he also "preserved, protected, and defended"
the Constitution, and thus upheld his oath of office. Without the
moral fortitude of Lincoln, this country and its constitution would
have fallen apart.
Congress could have impeached Lincoln and been justified in doing so,
but it would have destroyed the country. The question is whether the
threat to this country is so great that we need to give up our
freedoms at the behest of one man merely on his say so. Bush simply
hasn't made the case that the threat to the country is worth what he
is requiring us to give up. In the time of Lincoln there was little
question as to the threat.
Would we temporarily give up our right to privacy if it would prevent
the nuclear destruction of New York or another large city, and all of
its inhabitants? It is plausible that Bush has intelligence to the
effect that bin Ladin is up to something that drastic and has the
potential to do it. What is the price of 100,000 or even 10 million
lives, if it were to come to that?
Interestingly, during the Cold War, the right-wing answer was "Better
dead than red", and thus they would not trade any of our fundamental
freedoms in order to have "peace". Bush seems to have chosen
differently - "better a dictatorship than potential megadeath" - after
all, to him the constitution is "just a piece of paper".
In an acute crisis, I could see myself supporting his choice. But he
has himself said that the war on terror is an open-ended one. And
that means that his usurpation of constitutional limits is also an
open-ended one. The threat of nuclear terrorism or bioweapon
terrorism, or any other kind that would kill thousands or even
millions, will probably NEVER go away. The genie cannot be put back
in the bottle.
So will we live in a free country that is at risk, or will we be safe
and less-than-free.
It is a time when each of us needs to choose what is more important to
us.
This last charge has me the most outraged. First, it's not officially
a war, congress never authorizing Bush to treat it as a war but only a
conflict.
The Authorization for the Use of Military Force passed in Sep 2001
gave the President the authority
"to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations,
organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized,
committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September
11, 2001."
Taken to an extreme, that would authorize even a dictatorship IF
Congress has the Constitutional power to authorize a violation of the
Constitution, which the "liberal courts" have said that it doesn't.
If he "determines" that *YOU* aided the terrorist attacks, he has the
authority to order you shot, tortured or whatever. There are NO
limits in the wording. There are no limits to the power that the
President could assert, if that law is constitutional.
In the legislative history, there are limits, as quoted here
http://thinkprogress.org/2005/12/20/did-not-expand/
but legislative history isn't law.
Second, if he calls the "war" on terrorism a war, that war
will never end.
Of course. But the "liberals" have been complaining about this from
the beginning, and the demands for a timetable in Iraq have merely
been to determine what if any conditions will end THAT war.
Thus, the President will have unlimted and unchecked
power for as long as he keeps finding a terrorist somewhere in the
world.
How late you realize the threat.
Updating the old adage.
First they came for the "ragheads". Then they came for the
"liberals". And then they came for YOU.
...then, he said that it was treason and unethical to point out his
violations of law.
Sounds like what every right-winger has been saying about everyone
else for years. Anyone who didn't goose-step with the Pres was a
"traitor", not to mention a "socialist" and a "liberal" and every
other bad thing they could think of.
So welcome to the ranks of the liberal-socialist-traitors of this
country. Now you KNOW your adopted nickname is accurate, Fool.
My God, I feel like we have let the Anti-Christ come into power, and I
helped him. What if that is true? The anti-christ would, indeed,
claim to be faithful, even as he violated the law. Bush MUST be
rebuked...and soon.
How late he sees the truth! I don't think Bush is the Anti-Christ
(though one never knows - anyone seen him naked to look for a tattoo
of "666"?), but indeed, it is precisely the sorts of things that he is
doing that would be the techniques of the Anti-Christ to gain the
power.
lojbab
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Could Bush be the Anti-Christ? |
21 Dec 2005 09:34:39 AM |
|
|
In article <rq9hq1pu9dvd44qu6hdc8qka947okbd8o1@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
{...}
...he is violating the Constitutional 4th amendment right to privacy,
knowingly, and doesn't intend to change. As foundation, he says that
in wartime, he has the right to violate such rights.
Actually, he asserts that he has the AUTHORITY to do so. Either as
inherent authority as commander in chief in time of war, or granted
authority by the Act of Congress in response to 9/11, which he has
interpreted in such as way as would allow him to utterly ignore the
constitution and be absolute dictator if necessary, so long as he
could justify (to himself, I guess) that he was doing so for the good
of the country. The Act of Congress more or less tells him to do what
is necessary, so he has a thin but extant pretext, but of course
Congress does not have the power to authorize the President to ignore
the Constitution so that pretext must ultimately fail.
Abraham Lincoln asserted similar enormous power, and violated the
constitution. We consider Lincoln a hero, because he violated the
Constitution, but then he also "preserved, protected, and defended"
the Constitution, and thus upheld his oath of office. Without the
moral fortitude of Lincoln, this country and its constitution would
have fallen apart.
Congress could have impeached Lincoln and been justified in doing so,
but it would have destroyed the country. The question is whether the
threat to this country is so great that we need to give up our
freedoms at the behest of one man merely on his say so. Bush simply
hasn't made the case that the threat to the country is worth what he
is requiring us to give up. In the time of Lincoln there was little
question as to the threat.
Would we temporarily give up our right to privacy if it would prevent
the nuclear destruction of New York or another large city, and all of
its inhabitants? It is plausible that Bush has intelligence to the
effect that bin Ladin is up to something that drastic and has the
potential to do it. What is the price of 100,000 or even 10 million
lives, if it were to come to that?
Interestingly, during the Cold War, the right-wing answer was "Better
dead than red", and thus they would not trade any of our fundamental
freedoms in order to have "peace". Bush seems to have chosen
differently - "better a dictatorship than potential megadeath" - after
all, to him the constitution is "just a piece of paper".
In an acute crisis, I could see myself supporting his choice. But he
has himself said that the war on terror is an open-ended one. And
that means that his usurpation of constitutional limits is also an
open-ended one. The threat of nuclear terrorism or bioweapon
terrorism, or any other kind that would kill thousands or even
millions, will probably NEVER go away. The genie cannot be put back
in the bottle.
So will we live in a free country that is at risk, or will we be safe
and less-than-free.
It is a time when each of us needs to choose what is more important to
us.
Well summarized.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "toto" |
|
| Title: Re: Could Bush be the Anti-Christ? |
21 Dec 2005 10:00:49 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:34:39 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <rq9hq1pu9dvd44qu6hdc8qka947okbd8o1@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier <lojbab@lojban.org> writes:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
{...}
...he is violating the Constitutional 4th amendment right to privacy,
knowingly, and doesn't intend to change. As foundation, he says that
in wartime, he has the right to violate such rights.
Actually, he asserts that he has the AUTHORITY to do so. Either as
inherent authority as commander in chief in time of war, or granted
authority by the Act of Congress in response to 9/11, which he has
interpreted in such as way as would allow him to utterly ignore the
constitution and be absolute dictator if necessary, so long as he
could justify (to himself, I guess) that he was doing so for the good
of the country. The Act of Congress more or less tells him to do what
is necessary, so he has a thin but extant pretext, but of course
Congress does not have the power to authorize the President to ignore
the Constitution so that pretext must ultimately fail.
Abraham Lincoln asserted similar enormous power, and violated the
constitution. We consider Lincoln a hero, because he violated the
Constitution, but then he also "preserved, protected, and defended"
the Constitution, and thus upheld his oath of office. Without the
moral fortitude of Lincoln, this country and its constitution would
have fallen apart.
Congress could have impeached Lincoln and been justified in doing so,
but it would have destroyed the country. The question is whether the
threat to this country is so great that we need to give up our
freedoms at the behest of one man merely on his say so. Bush simply
hasn't made the case that the threat to the country is worth what he
is requiring us to give up. In the time of Lincoln there was little
question as to the threat.
Would we temporarily give up our right to privacy if it would prevent
the nuclear destruction of New York or another large city, and all of
its inhabitants? It is plausible that Bush has intelligence to the
effect that bin Ladin is up to something that drastic and has the
potential to do it. What is the price of 100,000 or even 10 million
lives, if it were to come to that?
Interestingly, during the Cold War, the right-wing answer was "Better
dead than red", and thus they would not trade any of our fundamental
freedoms in order to have "peace". Bush seems to have chosen
differently - "better a dictatorship than potential megadeath" - after
all, to him the constitution is "just a piece of paper".
In an acute crisis, I could see myself supporting his choice. But he
has himself said that the war on terror is an open-ended one. And
that means that his usurpation of constitutional limits is also an
open-ended one. The threat of nuclear terrorism or bioweapon
terrorism, or any other kind that would kill thousands or even
millions, will probably NEVER go away. The genie cannot be put back
in the bottle.
So will we live in a free country that is at risk, or will we be safe
and less-than-free.
It is a time when each of us needs to choose what is more important to
us.
Well summarized.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
-- cary
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
The Outer Limits
.
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Could Bush be the Anti-Christ? |
21 Dec 2005 04:01:12 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:00:49 -0600, toto wrote:
On Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:34:39 +0000 (UTC),
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <rq9hq1pu9dvd44qu6hdc8qka947okbd8o1@4ax.com> Bob LeChevalier
<lojbab@lojban.org> writes:
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
{...}
...he is violating the Constitutional 4th amendment right to privacy,
knowingly, and doesn't intend to change. As foundation, he says that
in wartime, he has the right to violate such rights.
Actually, he asserts that he has the AUTHORITY to do so. Either as
inherent authority as commander in chief in time of war, or granted
authority by the Act of Congress in response to 9/11, which he has
interpreted in such as way as would allow him to utterly ignore the
constitution and be absolute dictator if necessary, so long as he
could justify (to himself, I guess) that he was doing so for the good
of the country. The Act of Congress more or less tells him to do what
is necessary, so he has a thin but extant pretext, but of course
Congress does not have the power to authorize the President to ignore
the Constitution so that pretext must ultimately fail.
Abraham Lincoln asserted similar enormous power, and violated the
constitution. We consider Lincoln a hero, because he violated the
Constitution, but then he also "preserved, protected, and defended"
the Constitution, and thus upheld his oath of office. Without the
moral fortitude of Lincoln, this country and its constitution would
have fallen apart.
Congress could have impeached Lincoln and been justified in doing so,
but it would have destroyed the country. The question is whether the
threat to this country is so great that we need to give up our
freedoms at the behest of one man merely on his say so. Bush simply
hasn't made the case that the threat to the country is worth what he
is requiring us to give up. In the time of Lincoln there was little
question as to the threat.
Would we temporarily give up our right to privacy if it would prevent
the nuclear destruction of New York or another large city, and all of
its inhabitants? It is plausible that Bush has intelligence to the
effect that bin Ladin is up to something that drastic and has the
potential to do it. What is the price of 100,000 or even 10 million
lives, if it were to come to that?
Interestingly, during the Cold War, the right-wing answer was "Better
dead than red", and thus they would not trade any of our fundamental
freedoms in order to have "peace". Bush seems to have chosen
differently - "better a dictatorship than potential megadeath" - after
all, to him the constitution is "just a piece of paper".
In an acute crisis, I could see myself supporting his choice. But he
has himself said that the war on terror is an open-ended one. And
that means that his usurpation of constitutional limits is also an
open-ended one. The threat of nuclear terrorism or bioweapon
terrorism, or any other kind that would kill thousands or even
millions, will probably NEVER go away. The genie cannot be put back
in the bottle.
So will we live in a free country that is at risk, or will we be safe
and less-than-free.
It is a time when each of us needs to choose what is more important to
us.
Well summarized.
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
-- cary
--
Dorothy
There is no sound, no cry in all the world
that can be heard unless someone listens ..
The Outer Limits
It is better to live on your feet
than to die on your knees.
- Robert Anson Heinlein
++ gray
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Secret Squirrel" |
|
| Title: Re: Could Bush be the Anti-Christ? |
21 Dec 2005 01:42:43 PM |
|
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
"The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:1135111784.275653.301880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
I know it sounds like treason for a Republican to question
Bush, but consider the following...
...he went to war without proof and didn't apologize upon
admission that it was ALL false.
...he set up secret prisons in other countries to avoid the
courts in this one.
...he is violating the Constitutional 4th amendment right
to privacy, knowingly, and doesn't intend to change. As
foundation, he says that in wartime, he has the right to
violate such rights.
You left out that he contended that he had the power to
wage offensive war against another country without the
consent of Congress, let alone a declaration of war. And
don't forget him and his subordinates approving of torture.
But hey, the US Constitution is just a "goddamned piece of
paper" to Bush (yes, he apparently did say that). So maybe
we shouldn't be surprised?
This last charge has me the most outraged. First, it's not
officially a war, congress never authorizing Bush to treat
it as a war but only a conflict. Second, if he calls the
"war" on terrorism a war, that war will never end. Thus,
the President will have unlimted and unchecked power for as
long as he keeps finding a terrorist somewhere in the
world.
Bingo! George Orwell predicted this, you know? Everlasting
war becomes the method by which civil liberties are "temporarily"
put on hold, never to come back.
That's why the Powell doctrine is so important, which the
Bushites ran roughshod over. Under the Powell doctrine, you
don't use military force unless you define an objective and
an achievable, foreseeable end, an exit strategy. "The War
on Terrorism" has no exit strategy.
My God, I feel like we have let the Anti-Christ come into
power, and I helped him. What if that is true? The
anti-christ would, indeed, claim to be faithful, even as he
violated the law. Bush MUST be rebuked...and soon.
I'm not going to go with the "anti-Christ" claim, but that's
what an American fascist would do---wrap himself up in the
flag, and homilies, and the Bible, and pose as the defender
of "traditional values" all the while doing his utmost behind
the scenes to act counter to the real content of everything
he portrayed himself as protecting.
Sort of like Hitler did.
Secret Squirrel
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQEVAwUBQ6ibAT/rA6+b3AyhAQGe5Qf7B2NiAy84HKSyxCL3t8ANyKB4MVlWd7uj
XR/7mqNT1ekWJIY9YfNijUB7kaphEX6Q0FdBBrbHKW+XJ62rgwEHAMlLF4oz6dpb
OhI8uMgCPk2q9nlAGgvivzUiCe1+3w80t4TOLp6Vbe8CLwLsMoIHaAhZxRPqMsFO
1tLH1yGghNw9PmdeOJIqgl7fw3BU1stz7DEwaC5W8UB0BFUv9HCX3D/74RtAHVVw
G13Vtm+oXZxC9HZ/k/DGbj9FhZLz7RmmUKZdCsaKpPSwaO0DZFUfrCZJdYOa7AbP
jg0PAg6UUwOpxk1hBHa2NQHziHfY/PJaymvaIV7DjRreEFS37RkULw==
=wouQ
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Could Bush be the Anti-Christ? |
20 Dec 2005 02:57:05 PM |
|
|
In article <1135111784.275653.301880@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> writes:
Trust me when I say that I have backed Bush for years and campaigned
for him on a number of times, but his recent decision to disregard the
Constitution and give himself unlimited powers started my questioning
of the truth of his faith in Christ.
I know it sounds like treason for a Republican to question Bush, but
consider the following...
...he went to war without proof and didn't apologize upon admission
that it was ALL false.
...he set up secret prisons in other countries to avoid the courts in
this one.
...he is violating the Constitutional 4th amendment right to privacy,
knowingly, and doesn't intend to change. As foundation, he says that
in wartime, he has the right to violate such rights.
This last charge has me the most outraged. First, it's not officially
a war, congress never authorizing Bush to treat it as a war but only a
conflict. Second, if he calls the "war" on terrorism a war, that war
will never end. Thus, the President will have unlimted and unchecked
power for as long as he keeps finding a terrorist somewhere in the
world.
Well, some of us reached these same conclusions just a bit sooner, but
in any case, welcome aboard (this rather sad ship)
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Could Bush be the Anti-Christ? |
21 Dec 2005 11:01:48 AM |
|
|
Ken,
If it wasnt for clueless plebs like you (and the Supreme Court - the
spoilt, clueless, failed oilman little rich kid coudnt have been shoe
horned into power in the first place!)
hang your head in shame!
Freethinker
"An eye for an eye will leave us all blind"
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Brze" |
|
| Title: Re: Could Bush be the Anti-Christ? |
20 Dec 2005 03:49:30 PM |
|
|
On 20 Dec 2005 12:49:44 -0800, "The Fool" <kands00@hotmail.com> wrote:
Trust me when I say that I have backed Bush for years and campaigned
for him on a number of times, but his recent decision to disregard the
Constitution and give himself unlimited powers started my questioning
of the truth of his faith in Christ.
I know it sounds like treason for a Republican to question Bush, but
consider the following...
...he went to war without proof and didn't apologize upon admission
that it was ALL false.
...he set up secret prisons in other countries to avoid the courts in
this one.
...he is violating the Constitutional 4th amendment right to privacy,
knowingly, and doesn't intend to change. As foundation, he says that
in wartime, he has the right to violate such rights.
This last charge has me the most outraged. First, it's not officially
a war, congress never authorizing Bush to treat it as a war but only a
conflict. Second, if he calls the "war" on terrorism a war, that war
will never end. Thus, the President will have unlimted and unchecked
power for as long as he keeps finding a terrorist somewhere in the
world.
...then, he said that it was treason and unethical to point out his
violations of law.
My God, I feel like we have let the Anti-Christ come into power, and I
helped him. What if that is true? The anti-christ would, indeed,
claim to be faithful, even as he violated the law. Bush MUST be
rebuked...and soon.
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
Don't scare yourself. Bush is not the Anti-Christ. He is merely one of
the minions. The Anti-Christ is the shadow of all those minions. Don't
be scared by Bush, be scared by what's behind Bush.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
