According to The Book of Revelations: The Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent, who will deceive the nations with persuasive language, and have a MASSIVE Christ-like appeal....the prophecy says that people will flock to him and he will promise false hope and world peace, and when he is in power, he will destroy everything.
Oh, also, Revelations does not say this. At all. The closest it comes, in a section thought to refer to the Anti-Christ, is this:
[1] And I stood upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the name of blasphemy. [2] And the beast which I saw was like unto a leopard, and his feet were as the feet of a bear, and his mouth as the mouth of a lion: and the dragon gave him his power, and his seat, and great authority. [3] And I saw one of his heads as it were wounded to death; and his deadly wound was healed: and all the world wondered after the beast. [4] And they worshipped the dragon which gave power unto the beast: and they worshipped the beast, saying, Who is like unto the beast? who is able to make war with him? [5] And there was given unto him a mouth speaking great things and blasphemies; and power was given unto him to continue forty and two months. [6] And he opened his mouth in blasphemy against God, to blaspheme his name, and his tabernacle, and them that dwell in heaven. [7] And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations. [8] And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world. [9] If any man have an ear, let him hear. [10] He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword. Here is the patience and the faith of the saints.
According to The Book of Revelations: The Anti-Christ will be a man, in his 40's, of MUSLIM descent,
Wasn't Islam established as a religion long after the Bible was written?
Muhammad was born in approximately 570 A.D., and estimates of the date of the Book of Revelations' writing range from approximately 70-100 A.D. (according to Wikipedia).
Goddammn, I love that show so much. That's the sort of politician I want in office.
Then congratulations, that's what you're voting for. A fictional character.
No, I'm voting for someone who's mostly in line with my views. The politicians depicted in West Wing do not and never will exist. That's who I want in office, not the person who can actually be put there.
No, I'm voting for someone who's mostly in line with my views. The politicians depicted inWest Wingdo not and never will exist. That's who Iwantin office, not the person who can actually be put there.
How do you know that it's a person who is line with your views? Because they say so? Because the media says so?
Everything you think you know about the candidates is a story. A story told by the campaigns and the media. Everything you know is hearsay. Politics in the media is no different than any of the reality shows, except it's just bigger and on every channel. What do you really and truly know about any of these people? Nothing. They spin stories, and you buy into the narrative that jives with you best. It's no different.
No, I'm voting for someone who's mostly in line with my views. The politicians depicted inWest Wingdo not and never will exist. That's who Iwantin office, not the person who can actually be put there.
How do you know that it's a person who is line with your views? Because they say so? Because the media says so?
Everything you think you know about the candidates is a story. A story told by the campaigns and the media. Everything you know is hearsay. Politics in the media is no different than any of the reality shows, except it's just bigger and on every channel. What do you really and truly know about any of these people? Nothing. They spin stories, and you buy into the narrative that jives with you best. It's no different.
What do you really, truly, know about anyone other than the things they tell you? Nothing. Not a thing. People spin stories all the time, about all manner of subjects.
The only option with politics is to listen to what is said and vote for whoever claims to represent you. What else do you do? Vote for the person whose claims don't represent your views? The odds are that a candidate who espouses politics in line with your own is more likely to actually do things with which you agree. They won't do it 100% of the time, but the guy with whom you don't agree at all is more likely to represent you to a far lesser degree. So, I go with the person who is more likely to actually do what I want.
No, the system isn't perfect, and really, it's quite broken, but short of actual revolution, there's nothing we can do to fix it. Tell me, what would do, oh wise one?
You can judge a person by their actions as opposed to their words. But even then, how do you know the real truth of how they have acted in the past?
Basically I'm just trying to lead up to the point that a democratic form of government is inherently broken beyond a very small scale. In a small town, you actually have the opportunity to be intimately familiar with the candidates to the point where you can make a valid judgment about who you would like to represent you. The presidential election is really just an acting competition. You put on a show 24/7 for many many months, and if your show is more popular, you win.
You can judge a person by their actions as opposed to their words. But even then, how do you know the real truth of how they have acted in the past?
Basically I'm just trying to lead up to the point that a democratic form of government is inherently broken beyond a very small scale. In a small town, you actually have the opportunity to be intimately familiar with the candidates to the point where you can make a valid judgment about who you would like to represent you. The presidential election is really just an acting competition. You put on a show 24/7 for many many months, and if your show is more popular, you win.
Right, the idea in an election is to compare words during campaigning to actions during the term of office. There is never a 100% matchup. The idea is that I pick the person who is most likely to perform the actions I'd like, based on their campaign platform. I also consider past actions in that, but because of the broken nature of the political process, you can't always say that a past action is inconsistent with a stated goal; it's entirely possible that a candidate voted for a measure based on some political maneuvering because of the broken nature of our political system.
Yes, a democratic form of government is broken. Direct democracy is especially broken at such a large scale, and even our representative democracy is broken on a scale as large as ours. Yes, campaigning is generally a bunch of acting and pandering, and the actions a candidate will take in office don't always match what they've said during campaigning; however, as I've said, there's at least some correlation, so I have to go with that in the absence of a better system.
The only way to change it is, literally, a revolution. You can't fix a broken system by using said broken system; you have to build a new system.
I like how you say there "is never a 100% matchup", and "you can't always". It's more like, "we're lucky if there's more than a 1% matchup", and "you can almost never". You say "campaigning is generally a bunch of acting and pandering". No, it's entirely acting and pandering.
There is a simple answer to this. Ignore everything but C-SPAN. Every media outlet is telling you a story. C-SPAN lets you watch the actual government with your own two eyes. It's the real deal, not a story. You can learn what's going on first-hand rather than going based on stories and acting.
I like how you say there "is never a 100% matchup", and "you can't always". It's more like, "we're lucky if there's more than a 1% matchup", and "you can almost never". You say "campaigning is generally a bunch of acting and pandering". No, it's entirely acting and pandering.
There is a simple answer to this. Ignore everything but C-SPAN. Every media outlet is telling you a story. C-SPAN lets you watch the actual government with your own two eyes. It's the real deal, not a story. You can learn what's going on first-hand rather than going based on stories and acting.
The media have a vested interest in spinning things in the direction of making more money. There are no unbiased sources of information; that's why you have to pay attention to as many sources as possible, and from the various accounts deduce what is most likely to be occurring.
You need to have strong evidence to back up the "less than 1% matchup." I can get Obama's and McCain's senatorial voting records and demonstrate a good deal of matchup between actual actions and statements that constitute platforms. It's not 100%, and that needs to piss you off, but it's way more than 1%.
I'm not sure why you're lecturing me about this; I already know how to deal with the political process, and I'm already saying that I agree that the system is broken. What gives?
Scott, That maybe true but you can't pick whether a new politician is going to do what they say if they are not in congress yet to be noticed on C-SPAN... Apparently you want just incumbents to be elected because you know how they are going to act. Also why don't you look at Bill Clinton Campaign Promises and see if he actually attempted to or actually did deliver his campaign promises. He did way more then your 1%. Unfortunately for him they blundered their Health care plan but they still attempted to put it through. Bush changed his policies especially on Foreign Policy after 9/11 from what he campaigned on but he would say that was a Pre-9/11 World, even with his apparent flip-floping Bush still accomplished or set forth to attempt most things on his agenda. (Attempting a Partial birth Abortion ban bill, Stopping federal spending of Stem Cell Research, He promised to appoint "ahole" supreme court justices, Cut taxes in the manner he did) So if you want to be all "WAHHHAMBULANCE, Politicians break campaign promises or under deliver" That's because of the system. A administration has to prioritize what they are going to handle first, sometimes the congress works with them and sometimes against them. Bush Sr. in his campaign said NO NEW TAXES, he went back on that promise and lost reelection to Bill Clinton. The system is Flawed but nowhere as Flawed as you think. Candidates fullfill way more then 1% of what they promised. Maybe you should look closer.
Scott: Someone will get elected. That someone could be Bush Junior or Obama. Make a choice; it affects you.
God-damn, do you need perfect information when you go grocery shopping? Do you debate whether the lettuce farmers are pandering with their packaging, or whether the pudding snack packaging is accurately portraying the said pudding?
To paraphrase Scott in a recent discussion we had:
It's bullshit that different kinds of apple juice don't list their ingredients. What kinds of apples? It's total shit that one apple juice and another apple juice taste different, yet are allowed to list the same single ingredient: apple juice. We need to do something about this. It's false advertising. How am I supposed to know what's in it? They're labeled the same. It's bullshit.
He's very distrustful of any claims made by food products and picks on me when I get happy that there is free range meat.
But he still buys food, right? I mean, he doesn't just retreat within a shell of distrust, go home, and starve, right? At some point he has to decide which product to buy regardless of what lies the product may or may not perpetrate, or whether it will taste as good as he suspects, or whether the nutrition facts are accurate, or whether the food will look in reality as it does on the box/container/bag/etc.
But he still buys food, right? I mean, he doesn't just retreat within a shell of distrust, go home, and starve, right?
And he still votes for Obama in the end, too. He buys the least dubious eggs, the best tasting apple juice, and the least evil/out-of-touch/stupid/ignorant/pandering candidate. He just complains about them the entire time.
I'll admit that I'm similarly cynical about our democracy (and our food product marketing): I'm just more willing to research and investigate than he is. I'm more excited about Obama than I've ever been about any political candidate for any office in my entire life. The fact that, despite this, I'm still fairly dissatisfied with his platform and his pandering has made me realize just how broken democracy is at it's very core in this modern world. It's a terrible system. The only thing it has going for it is that it's functioned historically better on average than all of the alternatives.
Obama will function better on average than all of the alternatives. That's the best thing I have left to say about him.
The thing I'm railing against is not the system itself. We all rail against it equally in our own way. The problem is the way people act towards it, and actually give credence to the bs. The way you people act towards the election politics is no different than the way millions of people act towards reality shows and such. If you recognize the election is just a bad three-ring media circus, why have you all bought tickets?
Because it does matter Scott, If Gore would have been president there is a really really really good chance we would not be in Iraq right now. While the differences might not be so great all the time, there are differences between the two candidates. Your choice does matter.
Comments
Apparently the writer forgot about 2001-2002 :-p
TO ALL MY FRIENDS...
LIBERAL OR CONSERVATIVE...
FYI only.
George Bush has been in office for 7 1/2 years. The first six the economy was fine.
A little over one year ago:
1) Consumer confidence stood at
a 2 1/2 year high
2) Regular gasoline sold for $2.19 a gallon
3) The unemployment rate was 4.5%
4) The DOW JONES hit a record high-- 14,000 +
5) American's were buying new cars, taking
cruises, vacations overseas, living large!
But American's wanted 'CHANGE'! So, in 2006 they voted in a Democratic Congress and yes--we got 'CHANGE' all right. In the PAST YEAR:
1) Consumer confidence has plummeted
2) Gasoline is now over $4 a gallon
and climbing!
3) Unemployment is up to 5.5%
(a 10% increase)
4) Americans have seen their home equity
drop by $12 TRILLION DOLLARS
and prices are still dropping
5) 1% of American homes are in foreclosure
6) as I write, THE DOW is probing another
low ~~ $2.5 TRILLION DOLLARS HAS
EVAPORATED FROM THEIR STOCKS,
BONDS & MUTUAL FUNDS
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIOS!
YES, IN 2006 AMERICA VOTED FOR CHANGE...AND WE SURE GOT IT!
REMEMBER THE PRESIDENT HAS NO CONTROL OVER ANY OF THESE ISSUES, ONLY CONGRESS DOES.
AND WHAT HAS CONGRESS DONE IN THE LAST TWO YEARS?
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.
NOW THE DEMOCRATIC CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT CLAIMS HE IS GOING TO REALLY GIVE US CHANGE, AND HE HAS THE BACKING OF A DEMOCRATIC CONGRESS!!!!
JUST HOW MUCH MORE 'CHANGE' DO YOU THINK YOU CAN STAND?
Everything you think you know about the candidates is a story. A story told by the campaigns and the media. Everything you know is hearsay. Politics in the media is no different than any of the reality shows, except it's just bigger and on every channel. What do you really and truly know about any of these people? Nothing. They spin stories, and you buy into the narrative that jives with you best. It's no different.
The only option with politics is to listen to what is said and vote for whoever claims to represent you. What else do you do? Vote for the person whose claims don't represent your views? The odds are that a candidate who espouses politics in line with your own is more likely to actually do things with which you agree. They won't do it 100% of the time, but the guy with whom you don't agree at all is more likely to represent you to a far lesser degree. So, I go with the person who is more likely to actually do what I want.
No, the system isn't perfect, and really, it's quite broken, but short of actual revolution, there's nothing we can do to fix it. Tell me, what would do, oh wise one?
Basically I'm just trying to lead up to the point that a democratic form of government is inherently broken beyond a very small scale. In a small town, you actually have the opportunity to be intimately familiar with the candidates to the point where you can make a valid judgment about who you would like to represent you. The presidential election is really just an acting competition. You put on a show 24/7 for many many months, and if your show is more popular, you win.
Yes, a democratic form of government is broken. Direct democracy is especially broken at such a large scale, and even our representative democracy is broken on a scale as large as ours. Yes, campaigning is generally a bunch of acting and pandering, and the actions a candidate will take in office don't always match what they've said during campaigning; however, as I've said, there's at least some correlation, so I have to go with that in the absence of a better system.
The only way to change it is, literally, a revolution. You can't fix a broken system by using said broken system; you have to build a new system.
There is a simple answer to this. Ignore everything but C-SPAN. Every media outlet is telling you a story. C-SPAN lets you watch the actual government with your own two eyes. It's the real deal, not a story. You can learn what's going on first-hand rather than going based on stories and acting.
You need to have strong evidence to back up the "less than 1% matchup." I can get Obama's and McCain's senatorial voting records and demonstrate a good deal of matchup between actual actions and statements that constitute platforms. It's not 100%, and that needs to piss you off, but it's way more than 1%.
I'm not sure why you're lecturing me about this; I already know how to deal with the political process, and I'm already saying that I agree that the system is broken. What gives?
God-damn, do you need perfect information when you go grocery shopping? Do you debate whether the lettuce farmers are pandering with their packaging, or whether the pudding snack packaging is accurately portraying the said pudding?
I'll admit that I'm similarly cynical about our democracy (and our food product marketing): I'm just more willing to research and investigate than he is. I'm more excited about Obama than I've ever been about any political candidate for any office in my entire life. The fact that, despite this, I'm still fairly dissatisfied with his platform and his pandering has made me realize just how broken democracy is at it's very core in this modern world. It's a terrible system. The only thing it has going for it is that it's functioned historically better on average than all of the alternatives.
Obama will function better on average than all of the alternatives. That's the best thing I have left to say about him.