Posted on 05/03/2003 9:47:29 AM PDT by MatthewViti
During the eight years of Clinton's presidency, I was repeatedly asked, "Chuck, do you think Bill Clinton is the antichrist?" (Of course, I answered no.) Therefore, it is more than interesting to me that since G.W. Bush became president no one has asked if I thought he was the antichrist. Not one single person! Instead, many people attribute to Bush god-like qualities, which actually makes him a better candidate than Clinton was.
You see, one of the chief characteristics of the coming antichrist is that he appears "as an angel of light." Therefore, an obvious reprobate such as Bill Clinton is immediately disqualified. The antichrist, by very definition, is a master deceiver. He must be someone who appears as good and benevolent. The bite is in his tail not in his tongue. In reality, Bush's angelic persona makes him much more dangerous than bad boy Billy.
For example, while Clinton was in the process of appointing numerous homosexual activists to his administration, copious letters from Christian leaders such as Jerry Falwell, James Dobson, and D. James Kennedy flooded America's Christian community. Appeals for protest and resistance were heard from pulpits throughout the country. A massive media campaign began against Clinton.
Today, however, President Bush is in the process of copying Clinton's numerous appointments of open homosexuals to high positions of government, but there are no letters, no warnings from pulpits, and no media campaigns opposing it. Just the opposite. Bush is being defended, lauded, and glorified for everything he does, no matter how unconstitutional or unscriptural it might be.
When Clinton only talked of legalizing embryonic stem cell research, he was castigated and condemned. Bush actually made the procedure legal, and yet, he was praised and honored. Clinton was denigrated when he tried to convince Israel to give up land for peace. Now, Bush is in the process of actually trying to create an independent Palestinian state for Israel's enemies (with Jerusalem as its capital, no less), yet continues to receive glowing adulation. If Clinton even suggested that America's immigration laws might need to be liberalized, he was denounced in the harshest terms; but Bush can actually grant limited amnesty to thousands of illegal aliens, and there is not the faintest whisper of protest.
Do you recall how Clinton was criticized for the "low lifes" he invited to the White House? Well, Bush recently invited wild man rocker, Ozzie Osbourne, to the White House. Have you heard any notable Christian leader take Bush to task for that?
You remember Ozzie Osbourne, don't you? He is the former front man for the heavy metal band, Black Sabbath. He is famous for stage antics such as biting the heads off birds and bats. His abuse of drugs and alcohol are also well known. Furthermore, Ozzie Osbourne desecrated The Alamo by pissing all over it. In spite of this, George W. Bush is said to be one of Osbourne's biggest fans. As such, Osbourne was recently invited to the White House for dinner. Have you heard any criticism of Bush for this?
Obviously, I do not believe President Bush is the antichrist any more than I believed Bill Clinton was. However, I do believe that Bush possesses more deceptive qualities than Clinton did and, therefore, is more dangerous. I also now understand more clearly how even "the elect" can be deceived. Bush' s acceptance by the overwhelming majority of Christian people proves the country is ready for the antichrist, whoever he is.
LOL! And posting a year old article by a known malcontent with a "buzz" title such as "Is Bush the Antichrist?" should be overlooked.
JMO, you intially threw out the mud and when the mud was thrown back, you get indignant.
Can someone say the addage, "I can throw it out, but can't take it".
That's so far removed from the truth that it's laughable. I'm not a malcontent, nor do I throw mud on FR. What I pointed out was the fact that it's wrong to call another freeper names and throw out insults that are devoid of any intelligence. If you want to disagree with someone, you can do so by discussing the content and not declaring someone else a nutcase.
But see it however you like.
MM
Huh, I guess the inflammatory title of the article just zoomed over your head and that is what caused the controversy.
It doesn't really matter though, IMO. You will always reside in your world of that the mud you initally throw out, should not be thrown back at you.
“Condemnation without investigation is the height of ignorance.” --Albert Einstein
Yeah right, whatever. You sure were defending vigourosuly earlier in this thread, the false notion that Bush had Ozzy Osbourne over for a White House dinner.
Look you are held to the standard of posting this inflammatory article and your weasling and Clintonian parsing trying to back out basically shows to me that you have an agenda and that you are mad that a lot of people are going throw the mud you throw out right back at you.
but your 209 is the only unintentionally funny reply on the thread.
I'm deeply disappointed!
And yet it doesn't take an Einstein to figure out Bush didn't invite Oz to the WH.
Then I'll go back and look at your sources.
JMO, but by posting this year old article with the inflammatory title and self-absorbed commentator ranting, you were not looking for "honest" debate, but just trying to intiate a flame war.
That's a very nice quote, but I doubt very much that Einstein was referring to the lunatic ramblings of someone like Chuck Baldwin when he said it.
When did I ever say I didn't want anything "thrown back" at me? I've said nothing in defense of myself, other than to explain my point some three or four times. My defense was for the original poster, who I don't know, but who did bring up some points worth discussing/verifying/refuting/whatever. As for the title, attention-grabbing titles that don't quite represent the content are used on FR many times per day.
Never mind, doesn't matter. Keep filling up FR threads with one-line insult zingers that contribute positively nothing to meaningful discussion, no matter the topic. It's such a brilliant use of bandwidth, especially the cheese threads. Wonderful discourse that speaks so highly of the community.
Carry on!
MM, who doesn't know whether to laugh or shake his head in wonder, and decides to do both as he signs off.
You're not alone. Party loyalists and Bush-bots follow and defend anything the cult leader says and does. I'm a conservative and still looking for a candidate to vote for in '04.
Richard W.
Its just as wrong to make such an accusation when you have only read two or three postings out of over 200.
Those zingers must have hit a nerve. Now go clean your face of the mud that was intially thrown out by you and then thrown back at you.
Maybe you will learn a lesson. I highly doubt it though. Malcontents seem to thrive in their own perceived victim class world, IMO.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.