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.
And you have the nerve to tell people they aren't reading and comprehending your posts? You constantly do what you accuse others (falsely) of doing.
Obviously not. The Antichrist would know how to pronounce "nuclear".
I would do the same as I did with President Bush. I would review what the circumstance of the photo taking was, then what subsequent contact there was. As it turns out, President Bush's DOJ had Al Arian arrested.
I would not, as you assume, blame President Clinton for appearing in a photo alone. As I explained before, context and previous and subsequent activity involving the person matters. Not plucking events out of context and demanding that both be evaluated and the same conclusion reached if it isn't warranted.
And your "plain and bland enough" is beyond silly, since the above has been explained to you on this thread yet you ignore it or, more likely, didn't understand it. You are a broken record on the "blindly following" line when it has been demonstrated to not be the case. I have an idea why you relentlessly regurgitate your talking point despite its baselessness.
You based the fact you would not react the same on the behavior of the two men. We know a lot of Clintons bad behavior now - after 8 years - but we haven't had Pres. Bush 8 years. So I think you answered judged on knowledge of 8 years of behavior as opposed to the much shorter time we have for President Bush. Most of us didn't like Clinton before he was elected - but we didn't really know what he could/would do.
So it is valid to say that based on what you know about Clinton's history - you would judge him more harshly. We don't have that much history of President Bush to make that judgement - but I have been very alarmed and surprised at President Bush's actions on many things - so I don't fear questioning him in my mind. Of course, I woudl do the same if we had 8 years of wonderfulness under President Bush - to not do so just makes no sense.
I do at least understand what you said, and it makes sense - to me there is never enough evidence to give a politician a pass on their actions.
Correct..
And when the Antichrist does come, 99.999% of FR will be completely taken in if he has an "R" behind his name. The reverse is also true of the Democrats.
I didn't even think the author was asking if Bush was the anti-Christ - that is nonsense - I thought it dealt with why did so many people think Clinton was and no one ever asks it of Pres. Bush? But of course, we get carried up into Biblical discussion, Clinton was just vile,etc. To me the question of double standard was exactly what the article as about - nothing else.
No it was no side issue - my posts have been the same - it is others who have carried it off into side issues. I posted to two things and have been trying to bring everyone back to those two things - but we have gone all away around the world - now we are talking about Ceasar - geesh.
To put both my posts succinctly (1)I dont' know why anyone (to a post regarding their Christian parents watching Osbourne) would want to pollute their home and mind with that trash. You will note, there is nothing in there about Bush the WH - it was a post regarding something someone else said.(2)Many people use a double standard when looking at circumstances involving the past and present President. Those two things and most of my replies have been a reminder to those who choose to either interpret or just insult - of exactly what I had posted.
"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."
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[
Fwiw...for many millions of sheeple in this country..the above described SickSlick to a tee.
Also....fwiw, "we" Christians are commissioned to "go into the land" and "preach" to the lost. I reckon that could include inviting Ozzy to my home.....
I've spoken to muggers, lovers, and thieves too...does that make me "the anti-Christ"?
I have constantly had to 'regugitate' because no one seems to be answering that - it is been everything else.
Forgive me, - but to say that Clinton would not have been questioned based on one picture and would not have been royally raked over the coals is just a little disingenous. Since you are making your judgements based on the history of the two men - I will make my judgement of that statement based on the past history of how all of us felt about Clinton. It's nice to sit here and say - well if it was just one picture and we never found out that he got anything or did anything I wouldn't have said anything. Really? We both know that is not true - there would still be conspiracy threads going on today had that happened.
No I am saying there is a double standard.
What has Bush done wrong thats been covered up, etc.?
I didn't say he had - I just said he wasn't being questioned as Clinton would have. Did I say he had covered anything up?
"I don't know that anyone has accused me of hating him yet - that will probably come. "
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Okay...alright, are you one of the Dixie Chicks?
lol
Just kidding.......maybe. ( vbg )
FRegards,
Another good funny!
Nothing in the article is false, IMO. But you're not supposed to talk about it on FR.
Carolyn
No, I said that my reaction to Clinton in your hypothetical donor-pic scenario would naturally be predicated on eight years of prior bad acts. Many of which I truly believe were *criminal* acts.
Bush is most of the way thru his first term now, so I'm not giving him a "newness" excuse (your question dealt with 9/11 so I answered with what I would have thought in that time frame). I simply can't think of one thing Bush has done yet that would put him on a genuine par with Clinton, in the arenas of either his criminal behavior, his negligence, or even his overweening arrogance. Bottom line, for me to denounce Bush with the same zeal I denounced Clinton, he'd have to act like Clinton. And he just hasn't, and no amount of straw-grasping by Chuck Baldwin will make it so.
And I disagree with Bush on a number of issues, immigration and land rights being just the first two. But goodness, I hope my sense of proportion would prevent me from wanting to throw the baby out with the bathwater (the jury is still out on whether he'll handle those issues to my satisfaction anyway).
And he makes my favorite liberals in Congress and in groups like People for the American Way and Planned Parenthood and CAIR howl like they were on fire, regularly, which sure makes life more positive overall than it was from 92-2000.
Actually the 666 link is tied to Hillary Rodham Clinton
Hillary Rodham Clinton was elected to the Senate exactly 666 months (55 1/2 years) after Hitler committed suicide in April 1945.
The Power-of-the-Beast Rises Again...
Excuse me, but I spoke for myself. I am not dishonest, and thank you for once again proving my point.
Do you have anyone you love in the military? Did you see the way the sailors 'gushed' when their Commander in Chief visited them, and treated them with respect and love. Are the men and women who are willing to die for your right to speak freely 'worshipers' and 'blind followers' like we are, in your opinion? Is the entire crew of the USS Abraham Lincoln guilty of the things you so flippantly charge us with??
My son's in Iraq, and he 'gushes' about President Bush too. Many Godly people I know in their 60's and 70's 'gush' over this President, because he is beginning to turn the country they love around, and they are thrilled.
Many, many many Americans are thankful to a merciful and almighty God for giving us this man as our leader, to bring dignity, responsibility and honor back to America.......and they don't share your 'distaste' for him, even if they disagree with him on issues. As hard as it's going to be for you to deal with because you don't like the guy, you're going to have to live with the fact that a whole lot of thinking, Conservative, God-fearing people love and respect him.
Sorta from Dixie (Texas), but definitely not a chick -
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.