The Anti-Christ

**The An-Jel** · 03-20-2008, 09:50 PM

I was listening to the constituents of our latest and soon to be election and was naturally quite disturbed. No one can disturb you like people who haven't a clue whats going on in the world especially people who simply don't care what is going on in the world.
More to the point, Barack Obama as the Anti-Christ. Bill Clinton was, George Bush was, hell I think in Ronald Reagan's second election he was declared as such.
What gets me is that people who want peace like Christians will declare anyone who wants the only answer to Peace is a single world government. True damnation of a people is to separate themselves from each other is in effect an Anti-Christ type posture. If we can't get it together as a race that includes the different species... hence black, hispanic, natives, asians, etc. How is the world ever going to have peace?
I support Barack very limitedly, McCain and Clinton even less but America is still the most powerful nation in the world and if we can't achieve peace through what we have now how is it suppose to happen?

romansh · 03-20-2008, 10:02 PM

Welcome back An-Jel
things were making sense for a while .....

**The An-Jel** · 03-21-2008, 01:37 AM

And it's the same sense

**Skepticologist** · 03-21-2008, 11:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The An-Jel

I was listening to the constituents of our latest and soon to be election and was naturally quite disturbed. No one can disturb you like people who haven't a clue whats going on in the world especially people who simply don't care what is going on in the world.
More to the point, Barack Obama as the Anti-Christ. Bill Clinton was, George Bush was, hell I think in Ronald Reagan's second election he was declared as such.
What gets me is that people who want peace like Christians will declare anyone who wants the only answer to Peace is a single world government. True damnation of a people is to separate themselves from each other is in effect an Anti-Christ type posture. If we can't get it together as a race that includes the different species... hence black, hispanic, natives, asians, etc. How is the world ever going to have peace?
I support Barack very limitedly, McCain and Clinton even less but America is still the most powerful nation in the world and if we can't achieve peace through what we have now how is it suppose to happen?

As far as I'm concerned, we Americans have been relegated to figuring out who among our candidates is the least objectionable. None of them, given our system that requires huge sums of money in order to be even marginally viable, can be said to truly represent the middle or lower classes, which constitute the majority among us, and which should, according to our democratic ideals, have their say in how we're governed.

The best we can do is to vote for the candidate who represents the greatest potential for change, because the status quo is completely unacceptable. From my perspective, that candidate is Barack Obama. I don't figure he'll be our savior, but because he offers the best hope of something different, I'm willing to give him a shot at it.

**WilliamBlue** · 03-22-2008, 12:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skepticologist

The best we can do is to vote for the candidate who represents the greatest potential for change, because the status quo is completely unacceptable. From my perspective, that candidate is Barack Obama. I don't figure he'll be our savior, but because he offers the best hope of something different, I'm willing to give him a shot at it.

IMHO it seems like most intelligent people would not want the job, i.e. put your whole family thru that wringer we call the media among other things. I myself would not do it and don't understand people who do, thus I feel a full disconnect.

To me, it seems like corporate America owns both the parties and I really do not like what they are doing to our government thus I am a registered libertarian, it may be a wasted vote today but we have to start somewhere and the more votes a third party gets the more other Americans/media will take them seriously.

Oh yeah and welcome back An-Jel

**Skepticologist** · 03-22-2008, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WilliamBlue

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skepticologist

The best we can do is to vote for the candidate who represents the greatest potential for change, because the status quo is completely unacceptable. From my perspective, that candidate is Barack Obama. I don't figure he'll be our savior, but because he offers the best hope of something different, I'm willing to give him a shot at it.

IMHO it seems like most intelligent people would not want the job, i.e. put your whole family thru that wringer we call the media among other things. I myself would not do it and don't understand people who do, thus I feel a full disconnect.

To me, it seems like corporate America owns both the parties and I really do not like what they are doing to our government thus I am a registered libertarian, it may be a wasted vote today but we have to start somewhere and the more votes a third party gets the more other Americans/media will take them seriously.

Oh yeah and welcome back An-Jel

I personally don't think a third party is a viable answer. In fact, I'm unconvinced that the party system of politics itself is a viable answer. You hit the nail on the head when you intimated that the two existing parties have been bought and sold by corporate America. After all, under our present system, no one can approach viability as a candidate for high office without a huge infusion of money, and where else is that money going to realistically come from? Here's a clue: The nickel-and-dime contributions of ordinary Americans who are already struggling to maintain their positions in the lower rungs of the middle class will never even begin to outweigh the donations of their employers.

Consequently, the intelligence of a serious candidate is essentially a moot point. His or her viability is determined not on the basis of his or her intelligence or personal characteristics, but on his or her backers, and not insignificantly, his or her wealthiest backers.

I recall having been completely non-plussed by George W. Bush's election in 2000, and even more completely non-plussed by his re-election in 2004. I asked myself how the American people who, after all, are the ones who actually pull the levers in the voting booths, could possibly have voted an obvious simpleton and social Neanderthal into office, not just once but twice. And the only answer I could come up with is that they were totally and completely duped by practitioners like Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh who are expert in pulling emotional strings that have nothing to do with actuality and everything to do with the perpetuation of power by the ruling class in America.

Ostensibly, the American system of government is based on majority rule. And the majority the founding fathers had in mind when they conceived of this country was not a majority of dollars, but a majority of people, with or without dollars.

Abraham Lincoln idealized an American government "of the people, by the people, and for the people". Unfortunately, his vision as morphed into a government "of the rich, by the rich, and for the rich", and that's a completely different ideal.

GX · 03-22-2008, 07:52 PM

You have all hit the nail on the head with your prescient comments as far as Im concerned. There is however one more important factor here that needs to be addressed: The media. As of now, 9 corporations own over 90% of the print, radio and television media. It was not like this during the social and political upheavals of the 60's and 70's and it is my guess that the government allowed media consolidation so as to eliminate competition and to foster corporate and governmental control of the information flow. IMHO, the media barons choose which candidate they wish to give saturation coverage and which ones they wish to ignore. Ron Paul was making a lot of headway in polling and the early debates which should have garnered apporpriate media coverage but they deliberately chose to ignore it.

In this society, the competitive, accurate, fair flow of information needs to considered as essential to maintaining a democracy by and for the people and the media conglomerates should be forced to divest their holdings to a bunch of smaller companies as was the case in the 60's and 70's.

**The An-Jel** · 03-23-2008, 02:15 AM

Thanks for the Welcome backs!

**Skepticologist** · 03-23-2008, 09:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GX

You have all hit the nail on the head with your prescient comments as far as Im concerned. There is however one more important factor here that needs to be addressed: The media. As of now, 9 corporations own over 90% of the print, radio and television media. It was not like this during the social and political upheavals of the 60's and 70's and it is my guess that the government allowed media consolidation so as to eliminate competition and to foster corporate and governmental control of the information flow. IMHO, the media barons choose which candidate they wish to give saturation coverage and which ones they wish to ignore. Ron Paul was making a lot of headway in polling and the early debates which should have garnered apporpriate media coverage but they deliberately chose to ignore it.

In this society, the competitive, accurate, fair flow of information needs to considered as essential to maintaining a democracy by and for the people and the media conglomerates should be forced to divest their holdings to a bunch of smaller companies as was the case in the 60's and 70's.

Some excellent points, GX. I've contended that any candidate for high office in this country has already been bought and sold. Otherwise, like Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich or Paul Wellstone, they wouldn't be viable candidates. And the increasingly fewer and wealthier media conglomerates are just additional players in the moneyed power structure that is approaching the status and efficacy of an absolute monarchy.

And what do ordinary citizens like you and me, who are sitting on the sidelines and watching the wealthist 1% continue to exert their influence on the policies adopted by the elected representatives they were largely responsible for electing, do about it?

I humbly admit to being out of ideas, at least ideas that might have a chance of working without the infusion of millions of dollars that can realistically come only from the wealthiest among us who are not at all interested in upsetting the status quo.

romansh · 03-23-2008, 09:57 PM

The American method of electing its top official always reminds me of the sage advice ....

Quote:

If you are going to make a mistake - make it quickly.