| Topic: |
Sociology > Education |
| User: |
"The Fool" |
| Date: |
22 Dec 2005 11:50:29 AM |
| Object: |
Is Bush the AntiChrist, pt 2 |
I was scanning the major news networks news pages and channels and
finding almost nothing on Bush's violation of the Constitution, and it
is reinforcing my question of if Bush is the antichrist.
When Clinton broke minor laws and legal procedure, we heard about it
almost every day for years. When Reagan was charged, we heard about
that almost every day. In the last election, Kerry's charges of Bush's
wartime record were front page news almost every day. When Nixon spied
on one person, it was news everywhere. Yet, here we are with a
President violating the Constitution itself, and few are saying
anything about it. In fact, most are praising it. It still reminds me
of a quote from Star Wars III, where the main woman figure was watching
the Chancellor disolving the Senate to form an Empire for the purpose
of safety. The crowd cheered, and she said, "So, this is how liberty
dies, with thunderous applause." How true, it seems.
I don't know if Bush is the anti-christ or simply the Satanic version
of John the Baptist clearing the legal way for him. However, think
about it. He is establishing the legal precendent that any future
leader can sweep away human liberties upon seeing a possible threat
(subjective threat). What happens when that leader sees Christianity
or religion in general as a threat?
the President is subject to the law, not above it. He only has his
position because the Constitution gives him that position. If he
violates the Constitution, therefore, he is destroying his own
authority to lead. There needs to be a public rebuke of the President,
if not more. If Congress wants to tie it to a troop support bill or
such to show they are not supporting terrorism, so be it. However, the
law REQUIRES that something be done.
Ken Clifton
christianjedi.com
christiancelebrity.com
somebodysaveme.com
.
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush the AntiChrist, pt 2 |
22 Dec 2005 12:38:53 PM |
|
|
In article <1135273829.459893.286670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Fool" <writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
I was scanning the major news networks news pages and channels and
finding almost nothing on Bush's violation of the Constitution, and it
is reinforcing my question of if Bush is the antichrist.
When Clinton broke minor laws and legal procedure, we heard about it
almost every day for years. When Reagan was charged, we heard about
that almost every day. In the last election, Kerry's charges of Bush's
wartime record were front page news almost every day. When Nixon spied
on one person, it was news everywhere. Yet, here we are with a
President violating the Constitution itself, and few are saying
anything about it. In fact, most are praising it. It still reminds me
of a quote from Star Wars III, where the main woman figure was watching
the Chancellor disolving the Senate to form an Empire for the purpose
of safety. The crowd cheered, and she said, "So, this is how liberty
dies, with thunderous applause." How true, it seems.
It's not sexy. It's not tabloidish. Bungled burgling, blowjobs
in the Oval Office, this stuff sells papers. And when things
reach the level of Congressional investigations into the
executive branch the coverage goes up sharply too, be it
Watergate or Monicagate or Irangate.
But for the moment, all you have is a President violating
some rather abstract legalities that many people wouldn't support
if the first place -- there has been at least one study in which
people were asked if they would support the following ideas, those
ideas actually being the Bill of Rights, but rephrased by the pollsters
so that the original language would not be recognized...the result
being that several of the first ten amendments garnered little
popular support. And secondly most people think that these
acts will really only be directed against people "who deserve
it", the terrorists.
What is needed to provoke more clamour, unfortunately, is
having a human face being put to the issue by some outrageously
mis-directed snooping directed against some suitably appealing
and innocent victims. But until then, it will remain abstruse
in the minds of most people.
That's the psychoogy of the situation as I see it. But
the politics of it are far more simple: the Republicans
are firmly in control of the Congress, and if the Republicans
have no interest in investigating their own president, well
then, there will be no investigation.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
| User: "A Veteran for Peace" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush the AntiChrist, pt 2 |
22 Dec 2005 01:56:34 PM |
|
|
In article <doerrt$ann$1@onion.ccit.arizona.edu>,
(Cary Kittrell) wrote:
In article <1135273829.459893.286670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Fool"
<writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
I was scanning the major news networks news pages and channels and
finding almost nothing on Bush's violation of the Constitution, and it
is reinforcing my question of if Bush is the antichrist.
When Clinton broke minor laws and legal procedure, we heard about it
almost every day for years. When Reagan was charged, we heard about
that almost every day. In the last election, Kerry's charges of Bush's
wartime record were front page news almost every day. When Nixon spied
on one person, it was news everywhere. Yet, here we are with a
President violating the Constitution itself, and few are saying
anything about it. In fact, most are praising it. It still reminds me
of a quote from Star Wars III, where the main woman figure was watching
the Chancellor disolving the Senate to form an Empire for the purpose
of safety. The crowd cheered, and she said, "So, this is how liberty
dies, with thunderous applause." How true, it seems.
It's not sexy. It's not tabloidish. Bungled burgling, blowjobs
in the Oval Office, this stuff sells papers. And when things
reach the level of Congressional investigations into the
executive branch the coverage goes up sharply too, be it
Watergate or Monicagate or Irangate.
But for the moment, all you have is a President violating
some rather abstract legalities that many people wouldn't support
if the first place -- there has been at least one study in which
people were asked if they would support the following ideas, those
ideas actually being the Bill of Rights, but rephrased by the pollsters
so that the original language would not be recognized...the result
being that several of the first ten amendments garnered little
popular support. And secondly most people think that these
acts will really only be directed against people "who deserve
it", the terrorists.
What is needed to provoke more clamour, unfortunately, is
having a human face being put to the issue by some outrageously
mis-directed snooping directed against some suitably appealing
and innocent victims. But until then, it will remain abstruse
in the minds of most people.
That's the psychoogy of the situation as I see it. But
the politics of it are far more simple: the Republicans
are firmly in control of the Congress, and if the Republicans
have no interest in investigating their own president, well
then, there will be no investigation.
-- cary
here's the investigation and you can sign on.
Stand with Congressman Conyers...Demand Censure
for Bush-Cheney
Misconduct
by Adam Goldberg Wednesday, Dec. 21, 2005 at
12:17 PM
http://www.indybay.org/news/2005/12/1792108.php
Congressman John Conyers, Jr. is taking steps against the Bush
Administrations handling of
the Iraq War and its collection of intelligence. He is
going to need you to stand with him in
fighting for accountability.
This administration must be held accountable for its misdeeds. Join
Congressman John
Conyers, Jr. in sending a message to the President,
the media, and the American people that
we are not going to stand for an imperial
presidency any longer. Sign on to his letter at
http://johnconyers.com/ "I am taking steps against
the Bush Administrations handling of the
Iraq War and its collection of intelligence. I am
going to need you to stand with me in fighting
for accountability. Join me to demand censure for
Bush and Cheney in addition to the creation
of a Special Committee to investigate impeaching
the Bush Administration for its widespread
abuses of power. I have sought answers from the
administration to questions arising from the
Downing Street Minutes, the Valerie Plame leak, and
scores of other abominable abuses of
power that pervade the activities of this White
House.
--
Impeach Bush ! a noble cause
Operation Iraqi Liberation = O.I.L.
--
Impeach Bush ! a noble cause
Operation Iraqi Liberation = O.I.L.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gray Shockley" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush the AntiChrist, pt 2 (no. Bush is just a pissant.) |
23 Dec 2005 01:38:17 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:38:53 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1135273829.459893.286670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Fool"
<writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
I was scanning the major news networks news pages and channels and
finding almost nothing on Bush's violation of the Constitution, and it
is reinforcing my question of if Bush is the antichrist.
When Clinton broke minor laws and legal procedure, we heard about it
almost every day for years. When Reagan was charged, we heard about
that almost every day. In the last election, Kerry's charges of Bush's
wartime record were front page news almost every day. When Nixon spied
on one person, it was news everywhere. Yet, here we are with a
President violating the Constitution itself, and few are saying
anything about it. In fact, most are praising it. It still reminds me
of a quote from Star Wars III, where the main woman figure was watching
the Chancellor disolving the Senate to form an Empire for the purpose
of safety. The crowd cheered, and she said, "So, this is how liberty
dies, with thunderous applause." How true, it seems.
It's not sexy. It's not tabloidish. Bungled burgling, blowjobs
in the Oval Office, this stuff sells papers. And when things
reach the level of Congressional investigations into the
executive branch the coverage goes up sharply too, be it
Watergate or Monicagate or Irangate.
But for the moment, all you have is a President violating
some rather abstract legalities that many people wouldn't support
if the first place -- there has been at least one study in which
people were asked if they would support the following ideas, those
ideas actually being the Bill of Rights, but rephrased by the pollsters
so that the original language would not be recognized...the result
being that several of the first ten amendments garnered little
popular support. And secondly most people think that these
acts will really only be directed against people "who deserve
it", the terrorists.
What is needed to provoke more clamour, unfortunately, is
having a human face being put to the issue by some outrageously
mis-directed snooping directed against some suitably appealing
and innocent victims. But until then, it will remain abstruse
in the minds of most people.
That's the psychoogy of the situation as I see it. But
the politics of it are far more simple: the Republicans
are firmly in control of the Congress, and if the Republicans
have no interest in investigating their own president, well
then, there will be no investigation.
-- cary
Republican doesn't always mean corrupt.
Bush is gone; "he" just doesn't realize it yet.
Bush may have supporters like Kennie Klodhopper but he'll (is?)
losing support among Americans.
Five years ago, folks in Mississippi would've moved to some foreign
country (Talabama?) if there could be a chance of Hillary Clinton
becoming President Hillary Clinton.
Some of them are now supporting her.
We'll always have corrupt, evil, filthy maggots like Clifton but
Daner can tell you about King (nomore) Ted Stevens having the
"worst day of his life". Cram that oil up your *****, Senator
Stevens, it'll make it that much easier for George W C Bush43 to
slide on in.
Gray Shockley
------------------------------
The basic rule is this:
Never support weakness;
always support strength.
- Frank Herbert
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Is Bush the AntiChrist, pt 2 (no. Bush is just a pissant.) |
23 Dec 2005 04:56:51 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 23 Dec 2005 01:38:17 -0600, Gray Shockley
<grayshockley@gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, 22 Dec 2005 12:38:53 -0600, Cary Kittrell wrote:
In article <1135273829.459893.286670@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> "The Fool"
<writingken@yahoo.com> writes:
I was scanning the major news networks news pages and channels and
finding almost nothing on Bush's violation of the Constitution, and it
is reinforcing my question of if Bush is the antichrist.
Do you need to ask? It's pretty obvious to anyone with a brain that
Bush is the anti-Christ, and will most likely cause the end of all
life on Earth.
When Clinton broke minor laws and legal procedure, we heard about it
almost every day for years. When Reagan was charged, we heard about
that almost every day. In the last election, Kerry's charges of Bush's
wartime record were front page news almost every day. When Nixon spied
on one person, it was news everywhere. Yet, here we are with a
President violating the Constitution itself, and few are saying
anything about it. In fact, most are praising it. It still reminds me
of a quote from Star Wars III, where the main woman figure was watching
the Chancellor disolving the Senate to form an Empire for the purpose
of safety. The crowd cheered, and she said, "So, this is how liberty
dies, with thunderous applause." How true, it seems.
It's not sexy. It's not tabloidish. Bungled burgling, blowjobs
in the Oval Office, this stuff sells papers. And when things
reach the level of Congressional investigations into the
executive branch the coverage goes up sharply too, be it
Watergate or Monicagate or Irangate.
But for the moment, all you have is a President violating
some rather abstract legalities that many people wouldn't support
if the first place -- there has been at least one study in which
people were asked if they would support the following ideas, those
ideas actually being the Bill of Rights, but rephrased by the pollsters
so that the original language would not be recognized...the result
being that several of the first ten amendments garnered little
popular support. And secondly most people think that these
acts will really only be directed against people "who deserve
it", the terrorists.
What is needed to provoke more clamour, unfortunately, is
having a human face being put to the issue by some outrageously
mis-directed snooping directed against some suitably appealing
and innocent victims. But until then, it will remain abstruse
in the minds of most people.
That's the psychoogy of the situation as I see it. But
the politics of it are far more simple: the Republicans
are firmly in control of the Congress, and if the Republicans
have no interest in investigating their own president, well
then, there will be no investigation.
-- cary
Republican doesn't always mean corrupt.
Bush is gone; "he" just doesn't realize it yet.
Bush may have supporters like Kennie Klodhopper but he'll (is?)
losing support among Americans.
Five years ago, folks in Mississippi would've moved to some foreign
country (Talabama?) if there could be a chance of Hillary Clinton
becoming President Hillary Clinton.
Some of them are now supporting her.
We'll always have corrupt, evil, filthy maggots like Clifton but
Daner can tell you about King (nomore) Ted Stevens having the
"worst day of his life". Cram that oil up your *****, Senator
Stevens, it'll make it that much easier for George W C Bush43 to
slide on in.
Gray Shockley
------------------------------
The basic rule is this:
Never support weakness;
always support strength.
- Frank Herbert
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
