| Author | Post |
|---|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 1782 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 02:33 pm |
|
I asked you what specific proposals will Obama bring to the issues of the war on terror and the economy that you agree with.
And what consequences do you think those policies will bring.
|
Gordy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 383 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 02:29 pm |
|
Economic dysfuntion? What really is economic dysfuntion?
|
motherof4
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 02:26 pm |
|
What exactly is your question SueCarol?
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 1782 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 02:22 pm |
|
| You still didnt answer my question, motherof4.
|
motherof4
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 02:20 pm |
|
Very well said! Shadow you are straight to the point and direct...just what this forum needs!
I am also saying it loud and proud- OBAMA HAS MY VOTE!
|
motherof4
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 02:18 pm |
|
Very good point Shadow.
George W. has destroyed this country's finances to a point of economical dysfunction. So many have suffered at his hands, but yet people are defending his policy, his comrades, and the party for backing him? WTH? Gore was supposed to be our President and I still say Bush had his hand in rigging the polls in FL. Now we are supposed to vote for another Republican, who has GW so far up his ass? Black, white, purple, green, I would never vote for someone who votes so closely with Bush. If Colin Powell had run, that would have been a different story. He has experience, as well as fresh ideas. He has also disagreed with Bush on many issues- which shows back bone.
Another reason I choose Obama, however, is that fact he isn't tainted by politics to the point of no return. Sure, all politicians say what they think you want to hear, but some of them make more sense than others. I like the fact he has less experience, it shows me that he would think more like an average person than a politician.
And to answer the question about his family being rich, no they were not. His grandparents worked very hard and were considered to be lower middle class, they struggled and pinched just like many do today. Obama went to private school on financial aid and academics- his intelligence has always been evident. His father went to Harvard on a scholarship based on academia primarily. If you actually have read his books, you would understand he is proud of both sides of his family tree.
But again shadow, good point! (sorry I went off on a whole other tangent!)
|
2times
Member
| Joined: | Thu Feb 14th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 81 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 02:12 pm |
|
motherof4
The problem with the color you have chosen for your font, blue, which when shown on a light blue background, makes it difficult to read and hard on the eyes. (at least as i try to read your post) I think its great that you want to "stand out", but maybe a different color would be easier to read..at least for my eyes. Just my observation, maybe for your eyes and others its OK...
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 1782 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 02:03 pm |
|
So you have done your research...can you tell me then in specifics what proposals you think Obama will bring to the issues of the war on terror and the economy.
Not just bringing "hope and change" but what his actual policies are and what the consequences of them will be.
|
motherof4
Member
| Joined: | Sun Jun 15th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 11 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 01:56 pm |
|
So some of you dislike my choice of font color, wow! I choose to stand out from a crowd, always have, always will...really I don't think my font color should be a topic of discussion, but I see some of you like to dwell on the little things! (big chuckle)
Now, I agree about the young doctor. I would want someone who still cares to make a difference in the world, not a doctor who gives you five minutes of his time for a consult and forgets your name six times within that discussion. Not that younger is always better, but there is something to be said for compassion, kindness, fresh ideas, as opposed to someone who is so set in their ways that they could care less about anything new or changing policy.
On to another topic I have been belittled for- comparing Obama to Jesus. If you actually read what I posted, I was not comparing the two, but showing that during Jesus time, he was also taken to task for handing out hope and the new idea of "GOD". The only comparison was the skin tone...which I'm sure you loved!  For some reason people hate to be reminded that Jesus was Hebrew and looked more like Obama than McCain. (this is a comparison just so yo know where I threw it in). But granted that has nothing to do with his policy, I just threw that in to get under the skin of those who think Jesus was blonde and blue! 
I am happy with something coming from some of these ridiculous remarks, the fact that this has been the best Presidential race in history and that people are actually getting out there, doing their research, and voting.
|
Farmer
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 12:44 pm |
|
| Obama and Hillary, the early years. Attachment: fish.jpg (Downloaded 183 times) Last edited on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 12:45 pm by Farmer
|
Jimmy Ray Trump
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 03:26 am |
|
Farmer wrote: I've tried the debate thing with you JRT. You just keep coming back with redundant road kill. Sorry you can't mentally multi task.
I do not consider a debate to include the following type of comments:
"Picture that. The only guns allowed would be for the feds (and other assorted criminals)"
Nor would I expect a return comment, other than, maybe "I am sorry for the treasonous comment I made."
By this comment, it seems to me that you are a card carrying member of some sort of militia group -- which would not ordinarily be a problem, unless you are complaining about your arsenal being taken away.
Last edited on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 03:27 am by
|
cambridgehighalum
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 137 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 03:11 am |
|
| ..since we're already sidetracked by J.R.T. - Multi-task? Tsh, he can't focus on one topic unless it's 'his' chosen topic. And Farmer is pretty much correct so far, J.R.T. just had to mentally masturbate and get some attention today.
|
Farmer
Member
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 12:49 am |
|
| I've tried the debate thing with you JRT. You just keep coming back with redundant road kill. Sorry you can't mentally multi task. Last edited on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 01:00 am by Farmer
|
Jimmy Ray Trump
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 12:16 am |
|
big mac attack wrote: Jimmy Ray Trump wrote:
By your post, your are insinuating that the feds are part of the "assorted criminals."
Now you are bashing the people that provide you with your farm subsidies. Good move, slick.
My guess is that the only person to have their protection confiscated would be you, with an all expense paid trip to Iraq, if you are lucky. While you are on your vacation, I am sure a visit by the IRS regarding your tax reporting will extend your tour of duty.
Man you know how to beat a dead horse.
I think you mean, "Man you know how to beat a dumb cow."Last edited on Wed Jun 18th, 2008 12:16 am by
|
big mac attack
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 465 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 18th, 2008 12:02 am |
|
Jimmy Ray Trump wrote:
By your post, your are insinuating that the feds are part of the "assorted criminals."
Now you are bashing the people that provide you with your farm subsidies. Good move, slick.
My guess is that the only person to have their protection confiscated would be you, with an all expense paid trip to Iraq, if you are lucky. While you are on your vacation, I am sure a visit by the IRS regarding your tax reporting will extend your tour of duty.
Man you know how to beat a dead horse.
|
Jimmy Ray Trump
Guest
| Joined: | |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 11:45 pm |
|
Farmer wrote: cambridgehighalum wrote: ..good point, crime - no arguing against that! Hey, if they try to outlaw gun ownership, does that mean cars and alcohol are next? Prohibition and car ban at the same time.
Picture that. The only guns allowed would be for the feds (and other assorted criminals), the only bars would be inside the beltway and the only cars allowed would be the big black suburbans.
By your post, your are insinuating that the feds are part of the "assorted criminals."
Now you are bashing the people that provide you with your farm subsidies. Good move, slick.
My guess is that the only person to have their protection confiscated would be you, with an all expense paid trip to Iraq, if you are lucky. While you are on your vacation, I am sure a visit by the IRS regarding your tax reporting will extend your tour of duty.
|
Farmer
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 11:09 pm |
|
| I'd hate to see them try to confiscate all the guns in Dorchester County. I don't think they'd make it past Snow's Turn. If they did, I doubt they'd make it back to Snow's Turn.
|
cambridgehighalum
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 137 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 08:48 pm |
|
| ..I'm with you Farmer, no interest in the gov't or security details being the only one's with guns. Not good for the law-abiding citizen-types out here in the real world.
|
Farmer
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 08:40 pm |
|
cambridgehighalum wrote: ..good point, crime - no arguing against that! Hey, if they try to outlaw gun ownership, does that mean cars and alcohol are next? Prohibition and car ban at the same time.
Picture that. The only guns allowed would be for the feds (and other assorted criminals), the only bars would be inside the beltway and the only cars allowed would be the big black suburbans.
|
cambridgehighalum
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 137 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 08:36 pm |
|
| ..good point, crime - no arguing against that! Hey, if they try to outlaw gun ownership, does that mean cars and alcohol are next? Prohibition and car ban at the same time.
|
CRIMECRUNCHER
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 08:05 pm |
|
| Thanks a lot Mac Mom and everyone else who votes for this gun grabber. What part of 'Shall not be infringed'? do those of you who vote against the 2nd Amendment not understand? My guns have killed fewer people than Teddy Kennedy's car.
|
Corn Nugget
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1094 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 08:00 pm |
|
MacMom wrote:
I don't need any other reasons, but here's a sampling. I'm a confirmed liberal (horrors!) and you can maybe guess why else I'm voting for him. (hint: gun control, women's right to control their bodies, the economy, the war)
Obama's exact words and actions on your hints:
On Gun Control, He sponsored a bill in 2000 limiting handgun purchases to one per month.
As state senator, he voted against a 2004 measure that allowed self-defense as an affirmative defense to those charged with violating local laws making it otherwise unlawful for such persons to possess firearms.[137] He also voted against allowing persons who had obtained domestic violence protective orders to carry handguns for their protection. During a February 15, 2008 press conference, Obama stated, "I think there is an individual right to bear arms, but it's subject to commonsense regulation." (What is your position?)
On abortion he said "I think that most Americans recognize that this is a profoundly difficult issue for the women and families who make these decisions. They don't make them casually. And I trust women to make these decisions in conjunction with their doctors and their families and their clergy."[114] Obama voted against a bill that made it a federal crime for anyone other than a parent to accompany a minor across state lines to obtain an abortion.[115] The bill was signed into law by President Bush in 2005. (Seems to be a little conflict here while advocating family involvement but voting to allow non parents to assist.) What is your position?
On the economy, "We should be asking ourselves what mix of policies will lead to a dynamic free market and widespread economic security, entrepreneurial innovation and upward mobility [...] we should be guided by what works." (Now that is provocative! and revealing)
On the war and in the region, Obama called Israel "our strongest ally in the region," and stated: "We must preserve our total commitment to our unique defense relationship with Israel by fully funding military assistance and continuing work on the Arrow and related missile defense programs."
"You can't have a situation where the United States is called upon to do the dirty work, or the United States and Britain are called upon to do the dirty work, and nobody else wants to engage in actual firefights with the Taliban.
During his 2004 Senate campaign, Obama stated that he had not ruled out military action against Iran. Obama has not declared a change in this stance since the 2004 campaign. In 2006, he called on Iran to "take some ownership for creating some stability" in Iraq. Obama stated that he regards Iran's government as "a threat to all of us," stating that the US "should take no option, including military action, off the table. During a July 2004 interview reported by the New York Times when asked how he would have acted in regard to the Iraq resolution in 2003, Obama answered "What would I have done? I don't know. What I know is that from my vantage point the case [against invading Iraq] was not made" and that he was "not privy to Senate Intelligence reports," using it as a reason to support John Kerry and John Edwards in the 2004 election.[91] Obama defended his words on a later edition of Meet the Press saying that he made the statement because it was during the middle of an election in which his party's presidential nominees had both voted to authorize the war and noting that he was openly opposed to the war as early as 2002. Obama has not supported cutting funding to the war as a way to end U.S. involvement in the conflict. He stated that, "Once we were in, we were going to have some responsibility to try to make it work as best we can"
In an address on national security to the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars on August 1, 2007, Obama stated that as President he would consider military action in Pakistan in order to attack al-Qaeda, even if the Pakistani government did not give approval.[101] Obama said, "I will not hesitate to use military force to take out terrorists who pose a direct threat to America."[102] He also said "As President, I would deploy at least two additional brigades to Afghanistan to reinforce our counter-terrorism operations". He claimed that if elected, "If we have actionable intelligence about high value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will". (So you think the war on terror will stop?)
In your hints, I find nothing will change........he has no answers other than what is already going on. Ya better pick the strongest leader cause promises ain't gonna get it Mac.
|
cambridgehighalum
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 137 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 07:37 pm |
|
MacMom wrote: SueCarol wrote: I have no problem explaining why I am voting for McCain just as I have no problem addressing why I do not like Obama.
If you have made a congnizent decision on who to vote for, it should not be a problem explaining why.
Well, goodie for you. I'm voting for Obama because as far as I know, he's never called his wife a "c**t".
I don't need any other reasons, but here's a sampling. I'm a confirmed liberal (horrors!) and you can maybe guess why else I'm voting for him. (hint: gun control, women's right to control their bodies, the economy, the war)
Now you can all go fuss and disagree with me, but Obama will win, and there is nothing you can do about it.
Atleast you have reasons why you'er voting for someone, although Obama has no idea how to keep our economy fom spiraling further out of control. There is no party that is economically conservative, and Obama is the furthest thing from it: he wants to spend money like crazy during a time when our economy is already struggling AND when the dollar is weak. Small example: he wants the government to do your taxes for you, which in the real world will cost money. A lot of it.
|
CRIMECRUNCHER
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 06:40 pm |
|
| There are good reasons to vote for a candidate, and there are bad resaons. Good reasons, agree with his policies, think he is qualified,like his stlye of leadership, to mention just a few. bad reasons: he is better looking than his opponent(lot of votes went to JFK for this reason), he is young, or a good speaker. Voting for political office is not like chosing a pair of shoes, and therefore requires much more thought and study than many decisions people make. I firmly believe that if one doesn't understand or is not cognizant of the salient issues in a campaign then they do the country a favor if they stay home election day.
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 1782 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 06:11 pm |
|
Mac,
You say you are voting for Obama because of the war and the economy.
Could you expound on that please and explain to me specifically what you think Obama will do about those issues that you agree with.
|
Farmer
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 05:08 pm |
|
| . Attachment: hillary-extends-a-branch.jpg (Downloaded 197 times)
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 1782 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 04:49 pm |
|
What do you think Obama will do that is positive about the war or the economy....sepcifically.
And dont count your chickens before they hatch....the race isnt over yet.
|
MacMom
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1016 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 04:09 pm |
|
SueCarol wrote: I have no problem explaining why I am voting for McCain just as I have no problem addressing why I do not like Obama.
If you have made a congnizent decision on who to vote for, it should not be a problem explaining why.
Well, goodie for you. I'm voting for Obama because as far as I know, he's never called his wife a "c**t".
I don't need any other reasons, but here's a sampling. I'm a confirmed liberal (horrors!) and you can maybe guess why else I'm voting for him. (hint: gun control, women's right to control their bodies, the economy, the war)
Now you can all go fuss and disagree with me, but Obama will win, and there is nothing you can do about it.
|
Corn Nugget
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1094 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 03:43 pm |
|
Thought For The Day
"A TAXPAYER VOTING FOR A DEMOCRAT IS LIKE A CHICKEN VOTING FOR COLONEL SANDERS."
Last edited on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 04:16 pm by Corn Nugget
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 1782 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 03:23 pm |
|
I have no problem explaining why I am voting for McCain just as I have no problem addressing why I do not like Obama.
If you have made a congnizent decision on who to vote for, it should not be a problem explaining why.
|
shadow
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 399 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 03:00 pm |
|
| It's really nobody's business "who" and "why". If you guys and gals really think the Republican candidate is the best choice for America, then vote for him in November. I have no interest in the Republican choice this time.
|
SueCarol
Member
| Joined: | Fri Dec 2nd, 2005 |
| Location: | Maryland USA |
| Posts: | 1782 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 02:43 pm |
|
Actually to the contrary, IF they list his "accomplishments" they will PROVE even to themselves that he is VERY liberal and against what most of us truly believe.
His rhetoric does NOT match his record and they are afraid to admit to his record.
|
Corn Nugget
Member
| Joined: | Wed Feb 14th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1094 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 02:41 pm |
|
| Very good example of all the Obama supporters as well as this thread. There is nothing anyone can come up with and that is actually irresponsible for the future generations.
|
Jlivin
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 265 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 11:55 am |
|
This is a great example of Obama's supporters
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PGeu_4Ekx-o
|
big mac attack
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 465 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 03:32 am |
|
cambridgehighalum wrote: ..still we wait for why certain people wil vote for Obama.
I have ask 2 other times on other threads and have yet to get an answer. Im starting to think they dont even know why
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 02:37 am |
|
CC wrote...
Pete, I think the referrence to islam is an interpretation, or perhaps a translation error. With the notable exception of the prophesies concerning the Messiah, I don't recall many instances of prophetic voices in either the OT or NT which name a specific individual or event in history after the Christ's time. While one may read into various predictions and prognostications that they are addressed to various events ex post facto, there are no events named which with modern man is familliar, eg the Reformation, the crusades, WWII etc.
Aye, as far as I know there is no direct ref. to Islam.
Regarding translation error, that might be true with the "far out" Bibles - I usually refer to the original laguages though - Heb. Aramaic and Greek (through various aids).
In regard to specific individuals or events, in a recent Bible GemLight I quoted from Isaiah that indicated the re-birth of national Israel in 1948. The passage does not set forth 1948 as the year, but does indicate a national rebirth. Israel was wiped off the map after 70AD - got back on in 1948.
The antichrist, though not by that term, is mentioned in Daniel and Isaiah and a few others.
Specific events to occur -
The Jewish temple will be rebuilt
An agreement between Israel and the antichrist will be signed. (Dan. 9)
The antichrist will seat himself therein, establishing himself as "god." Thess
Antichrist breaks the agreement (Dan. 9)
Isa, Eze, other prophets, and Rev. indicate the nations shall gather against Israel
Isa and others indicate the real Christ (Messiah) comes back at that point.
There's a whole lot more that will occur.
What is happening now are the general signs which most say "ho hum" to - it has happened before - not realizing things are slowly getting worse - so slow, most do not recognize the change.
God bless,
Pete
Last edited on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 02:37 am by Pete Macinta
|
cambridgehighalum
Member
| Joined: | Thu Apr 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 137 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 02:34 am |
|
| ..still we wait for why certain people wil vote for Obama.
|
CRIMECRUNCHER
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 01:57 am |
|
| Pete, I think the referrence to islam is an interpretation, or perhaps a translation error. With the notable exception of the prophesies concerning the Messiah, I don't recall many instances of prophetic voices in either the OT or NT which name a specific individual or event in history after the Christ's time. While one may read into various predictions and prognostications that they are addressed to various events ex post facto, there are no events named which with modern man is familliar, eg the Reformation, the crusades, WWII etc. Last edited on Tue Jun 17th, 2008 02:00 am by CRIMECRUNCHER
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 01:21 am |
|
CC wrote...
It seems to me that the prediction of the 'anti Christ' being of muslim descent is rather specious. The Apocalypse of St John, or Revelations if one is a Protestant, was written before islam even existed. The socalled prophet muhammed wasn't around until circa 600 A.D. If I recall correctly the Apocalypse was authored in the 1st Century A.D.
Greetings CC
I think even Roman Catholics - at least the clergy would also say Rev. was written before Islam hit the planet.
However, prophecy does at times deals with future events. The birth, life, suffering of, death, resurrection of, and the return of Jesus is all dealt with in Isaiah, written about 700years before these events actually occurred.
For those that might wonder or say, rats, doesn't prophecy deal completely with the future - the answer is true prophecy is the forth-telling of the will of God. It might mention the past, present, or future or any combination thereof.
God bless,
Pete
|
CRIMECRUNCHER
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 01:12 am |
|
| It seems to me that the prediction of the 'anti Christ' being of muslim descent is rather specious. The Apocalypse of St John, or Revelations if one is a Protestant, was written before islam even existed. The socalled prophet muhammed wasn't around until circa 600 A.D. If I recall correctly the Apocalypse was authored in the 1st Century A.D.
|
Pete Macinta
Member
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 01:03 am |
|
Greetings to all,
Info on the anti-Christ stuff...
first ...
Jlivin wrote
Writing a post that feels like it's shrieking at me written in caps.... comparing Jesus to a presidential candidate..someone camparing a presidential candidate to the Anti-Christ? - I just don't even know where to go with that.
Don't know how old you are but after living half a century plus this is not the first time a presidential candidate / or pres. has been alledged to be the anti-Christ. And, if the good Lord tarries, it will not be the last.
Second...
MacMom wrote
Seriously. You've got posters on here calling Obama the "anti-christ" ...
I think if we read back through this thread or run a word search as I did we will see no poster directly did that - imagine just put up an email he received.
Third, please ignore some of the comments by snopes in regard to the Revelation (short name) being befuddling and placing it in the same rank of Nostradamus. I have read Rev. numerous times, and some of Nostradamus - the latter is really befuddling. Rev. is not so much. Leaves us with questions, yes, but that helps us to study.
What I did read of the snopes page seems to ignore the most Bible scholars agree the Beast in Rev. = the Antichrist when compare with Daniel and other prophetic passages.
Fourth anti-Christ profile
From the first post we have...
The anti-christ will be a man, in his 40s, 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, will destroy everything.
Looking at this phrase by phrase...
1. The antichrist will be a man...
Most likely so. IMO, there is possibility it could be a boy (some kings of Israel and Judah were quite young)
2. In his 40's...
I sure don't recall that anywhere in Scripture! Where'd they get 40 from?
3. who will decieve nations with persuasive language-
True
4. ...massive Christ-like appeal...
Uh, true, but let us keep in mind Christ means Messiah. Whoever the dude is, most of the Jews will dig.
5. the prophecy says that people will flock to him
Yes, most, and so implied by Rev. but through the agency of the False Prophet.
6. he will promise false hope and world peace
True, but more so seen in 1 & 2 Thessalonians than Rev. The first seal of Rev. implies it.
7. and when he is in power, will destroy everything.
I don't know where it says "everything." However, he will destroy the apostate church and will attempt to destroy Israel. The latter is the trigger for Armaggedon (sp?). I personally teach that the True Church will be gone, raptured, before the 2 conditions I just mentioned will take place.
Oooops forgot this...
8. of MUSLIM descent,
Could be true. More accurately, Arab descent. He'd really have to sweet talk the Jews into trusting him though! Abraham is the great ancestor of both Jews and Arabs, and this might be used as a fulcrum for the false unity that is to come between the 2 groups.
God bless,
Pete
|
Jlivin
Member
| Joined: | Thu Jan 17th, 2008 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 265 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Tue Jun 17th, 2008 12:20 am |
|
Farmer wrote: Obama IS charismatic, good looking and a powerful speaker. The problem is experience. He has little. And his platform is mainly "change in America." That's mostly been there, done that politics. He is claiming to be the "saviour" for change in this country based on uniting it's people; all races, creeds and origins. That might have been a good platform 50 years ago, but not the big issue now. This country's future, IMO, depends on strong leadership on foreign policy. I don't profess that we've had the best of that in the last 8 years, but do believe it is the number one issue in the next 4 years. Unfortunately, we need to elect the individual who can best deal with "outside" influences. The "good old days" of waking up in the morning and only worrying about putting food on the table and raising the kids are gone, for now. Today, it's more about worrying where the next terrorist attack is going to be, when our troops are going to come home, where will the cost of gas peak out, are my kids safe in school and do I have any job security,? Isolationism is becoming more and more attractive all the time. But, it's too late for that. We are in a global economy, a global society. What we need is a leader with global experience and global instincts. Not charisma. Vote based on facts, not on emotion or "instant gratification."
Many of the "Sesame Street Generation" believe everything the Boob Tube tells them. When the next terrorist attack happens- they think the culprits should get a stearn talking to and a BIG "Time Out" ~ in the corner preferably.
|
Farmer
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 16th, 2008 11:30 pm |
|
| Obama IS charismatic, good looking and a powerful speaker. The problem is experience. He has little. And his platform is mainly "change in America." That's mostly been there, done that politics. He is claiming to be the "saviour" for change in this country based on uniting it's people; all races, creeds and origins. That might have been a good platform 50 years ago, but not the big issue now. This country's future, IMO, depends on strong leadership on foreign policy. I don't profess that we've had the best of that in the last 8 years, but do believe it is the number one issue in the next 4 years. Unfortunately, we need to elect the individual who can best deal with "outside" influences. The "good old days" of waking up in the morning and only worrying about putting food on the table and raising the kids are gone, for now. Today, it's more about worrying where the next terrorist attack is going to be, when our troops are going to come home, where will the cost of gas peak out, are my kids safe in school and do I have any job security,? Isolationism is becoming more and more attractive all the time. But, it's too late for that. We are in a global economy, a global society. What we need is a leader with global experience and global instincts. Not charisma. Vote based on facts, not on emotion or "instant gratification."
|
CRIMECRUNCHER
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 16th, 2008 11:24 pm |
|
| IF Osama wins AMERICA loses.
|
4thekids
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 16th, 2008 11:06 pm |
|
| Obama is charismatic, but little else.
|
big mac attack
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 465 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 16th, 2008 11:03 pm |
|
Gordy wrote: I want a change in things too but what REALLY does Obama bring to the table that is on the mark ? I don't dislike him he is actually is a good looking guy a good speaker and he appears to be a good husband and father.
But anyone with only 2 years experience in Washington as senator would be a sad nomination for either side.
Oh he is a GREAT dad so good that he would never want his kids PUNISHED with a baby
|
Gordy
Member
| Joined: | Thu Oct 18th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 383 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 16th, 2008 10:56 pm |
|
I want a change in things too but what REALLY does Obama bring to the table that is on the mark ? I don't dislike him he is actually is a good looking guy a good speaker and he appears to be a good husband and father.
But anyone with only 2 years experience in Washington as senator would be a sad nomination for either side.
Last edited on Mon Jun 16th, 2008 10:57 pm by Gordy
|
big mac attack
Member
| Joined: | Tue Nov 20th, 2007 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 465 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 16th, 2008 10:43 pm |
|
MacMom wrote: Same church, different pew. Or, if you prefer, potato, potato. And get ready: Obama is going to win.
Mac Mom, Shadow, Who ever
Someone tell me with out saying Change, Bush 3rd trem or mentioning McCain why you are voting for Obama. What About him do you like?
I am just curious because when I ask this question all I ever hear is CHANGE CHANGE CHANGE what does that mean?
|
MacMom
Member
| Joined: | Sat Mar 25th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 1016 |
| Status: |
Offline
|
|
Posted: Mon Jun 16th, 2008 10:38 pm |
|
Same church, different pew. Or, if you prefer, potato, potato. And get ready: Obama is going to win.
Last edited on Mon Jun 16th, 2008 10:39 pm by MacMom
|
CRIMECRUNCHER
Member
|
Posted: Mon Jun 16th, 2008 10:34 pm |
|
| BUSH'S name isn't on the ballot. McCain isn't George Bush, nor is he going to represent Bush's 3rd term as Osama claims. Should Osama win(not very likely) lots of people will wish Bush had gotten a 3rd term.
|
Current time is 01:52 am | Page:   1 2 3 4 5   |
|