http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qi...30125358AA1hRgT

Barack Obama and antichrist seem to flow well together. He posseses many of the characteristics depicted in the book of Relevations. He has middle-eastern descent, his name, "Barack", means "blessed", he is cunning, and is a powerful speaker. He has considered running for president in 2008. Nostradamus prophesized the name of the antichrist is "Mabus." This can relate to why Obama is the antichrist. If you write obama+bush, you end up with obamabush. Do you spot "mabus" in the middle? Bingo. This is a strong indication that Obama will succeed Bush as president in 2008, further confirming the prohpecy. This is my personal take on the antichrist. I want to hear your thoughts. Is Obama the next antichrist? thanks.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread263393/pg1

Barack Obama = Antichrist?

I was pondering the supposed "end times", and all the speculation that Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden are the true antichrist. (according to references of the bible, and other propecies)

My question is this...

Could Barack Hussein Obama be the so-called antichrist that the bible speaks of? Are other prophecies such as nostradamus pointing to several head figures actually pointing to one individual with the combined names of them all?

This is of course speculation by me at this point, but i'd like to hear your thoughts and ideas on the matter.

What do you think will happen if Barack gets elected president of the U.S.?
Will he be another Bush?, or worse?

I thought the job was already taken... He couldn't be any more of an Antichrist than the current occupant of the Oval Office.

He's certainly no more of an "Antichrist" than the Hillary one.

Hillary people started this?

http://www.smirkingchimp.com/thread/3093

According to Nostradamus we have to worry about a big bad called Mabus...

Could it be OBAMA? Nostradamus loves to use anagrams.

Sorry, been looking at a lot of 911 websites. It gets to you after a while.

I like Hillary Clinton for Prez. Her balls are big enough.

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f27...ania-31277.html

The aztecs were a little more conservative. Their expectation was that the world would end on december 24, 2011.

Theres also a good bit of dissent on whether the mayan version is the 21'st or 23'd of december.

Now...get the scary movie music ready...Nostradamus predicted three antichrists. One is believed to be napoleon, the second hitler. The third is referred to as Mabus. Ray Mabus is the former governor of Mississippi and ambassador to saudi arabia. He is currently a senior advisor to Obama. Nostradamus claimed that Mabus would be a relatively insignificant player in a scenario that would play out into WWIII. Some have also laid claim that Saddam Hussein was Mabus.

Obama gave a couple of excellent speaches in his life. Otherwise he is just an ordinary speaker in everyday appearences. I am sure he is a good guy but I do not believe he can win in November.

This thread is a joke isn't it?

http://www.lydiasarticles.com/articledetai...+the+antichrist

1. MABUS: Nostradamus named the Anti-Christ as Mabus. Now try this on for size: OBAMA+BUSH=OBAMABUSH. Now look at the middle few letters of the word. MABUS

2. 2012: Nostradamus said that the world would end in 2012. If Obama wins the elections, he will be president till at least 2012.

3. Religion: Obama’s father was Muslim. His middle name is Hussein.

4. Iraq: Obama wants to pull out troops from Iraq.

5. He is Pro-Abortion.

6. He wants to bring about peace in the middle-east. It is stated that the Anti-Christ will bring about peace in the middle-east.

7. He will be a world leader. Barack Obama will be the leader of the most powerful country in the world if he is elected.

8. Obama advocates that people use contraception, this directly violates the bible.

yes it is but it just goes to show how crazy people can try to connect stuff that they do not understand. I'm laughing right now the more I read these people trying to connection Obama to the anti-Christ. BTW I'm most likely to vote for Obama I like him.

After extensive study of this over many years (I probably put in 5 minutes over those years), I have conclused that "Mabus" stands for "Ma Bush". I'll let you all figure out who that is. (Hint: also know as BarBar Ma Bush.)

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/05/22/mabu...ma_on_middl.php

Mabus to advise Obama on Middle East issues

Former Mississippi Gov. Ray Mabus, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia during the Clinton administration, is joining Sen. Barack Obama's presidential campaign as an unpaid adviser on Middle Eastern issues.
Â
Mabus told The Associated Press on Tuesday that he'll also travel around the nation to make campaign appearances for the Illinois senator.

"I think that Obama, more than anybody else, has a chance to unify this country," Mabus said. "This country has been so divided, particularly by this administration, that I think (Obama) is talking about problems in a different way. I think he's a new voice from a new generation. That's what America needs now."

Mabus, now 58, was Mississippi governor from January 1988 to January 1992, serving during a slump in the state's economy. While supporters praised his efforts to move Mississippi's schools off the bottom of national rankings, opponents said he left a state budget that was stretched too thin.

Mabus lost his 1991 re-election bid to blunt-spoken contractor Kirk Fordice, who became Mississippi's first Republican governor since Reconstruction.

Mabus was governor when another young Democrat, Bill Clinton, was governor of Arkansas. After Clinton became president, he appointed Mabus to the ambassadorship. Mabus held the job in Saudi Arabia from 1994-96.

Now, Clinton's wife, Sen. Hillary Clinton of New York, is running for president.

Asked why he's not supporting Hillary Clinton, Mabus said: "This is about being for somebody and not about being against anybody."

Political scientist Marty Wiseman said Mabus, who has been working in private business since returning from the ambassadorship, "may have been out of the limelight a little too long for just the name to contribute much."

"On the other hand, it doesn't hurt to have a former ambassador to Saudi Arabia advising on Middle Eastern issues," said Wiseman, director of Mississippi State University's John C. Stennis Institute of Government.

Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki said Mabus will have "a leadership role in the campaign in Mississippi and across the nation."

Mabus serves on the advisory board for the Center for Middle East Public Policy at the RAND Corporation, a nonprofit research group. He's also on the board of directors of America-Mideast Educational and Training Services, Inc., a Washington-based nonprofit group designed to strengthen ties among the U.S., the Middle East and north Africa.

Mabus is not the only Mississippi politician to publicly endorse a 2008 presidential candidate.

Republican U.S. Rep. Chip Pickering in February became the Mississippi chairman and Southern co-chairman for the campaign of Sen. John McCain of Arizona. In a news release, Pickering called McCain "a proven leader in national security."

Gov. Haley Barbour, a former Republican National Committee chairman, has said he'll wait to endorse a presidential candidate.

Mabus said he does not know whether Obama will make campaign stops in Mississippi, a state that last gave its presidential electoral votes to a Democrat in 1976.

I''ve not excluded Obama as I have the other centrist candidates but I am a strong Kucinich supporter.

Good Lord..


that anyone would even post that here is obscene.

Has this forum finally hit bottom ?

Or is it simply that reason has taken a vacation ?


And don't give me the crap " I am just posting an article. I am not saying its so "

The fact it has been posted here at all says it all. Jason you need to improve your selection of reading sources.

This is how hate gets spread. By well meaning people thinking they are discounting something by repeating it.

There needs to be an owner's manual for the brain that gives cautions about lifestyles that produce fuzzy thinking. In order of increasing risk:

1. Smoking grass.

2. Smoking grass, not inhaling, and marrying Hillary

3. Getting born again and obsessing about the book of Revelations.

4. Entertaining CTs

We (humanity) won't get anywhere peaceful and prosperous as long as we allow ourselves to be ruled by fear. Especially fear of an avenging God or Devil bringing about the end times. Only human beings are insane enough to destroy themselves deliberately. The fearmongergers, "holy joes", and war and weapons merchants are among the richest people in the world (and always have been) because they know how to scare people into giving up their natural rights and their very life's blood. They divide us against each other with a "bumper sticker" mentality that should have insulted us enough into throwing them bodily from the train, thousands of years ago.

Instead it has created a "sub-rosa" effect on mankind's consciousness, and since ancient times, we have had the equivalent of modern day republican "thinking' spread so far around the world that we have story after story, and movie after movie about an apocalypse being our "divine destiny"! After which of course all will be milk and honey as soon as we in the name of our (insert god or ideaology here) get rid of the "evil other". And after each regional apocalypse throughout history, (that seemed world wide to the locals), the only thing that happpened was mass death and misery for the many and any "milk and honey" left was in the hands of the few, who avoiding the fray themselves, promised the many their's was waiting for them in the "after-life".

We've seen the movie before if we study history, as we await another end times brought to us by another "God" according to another fearmonger who wants power. We have our own Tyrant here as history will record if we survive him to write it down. Tyranny Russian or American or Iranian "style" is still tryanny, and fear is it's stock and trade.

So whether here or in Russia or Iran, etc., people of the world please "vote" again for the "Republican" candidate who will keep us safe from our many enemies, and in addition we will have the divine certainty we are doing "God's" will.

Fuzzy logic is a highly respected field of mathematics.

So is chaos theory.

I just thought it being weekend we could use a laugh

Due to decades of atheism as state religion, Russians might be the most secular of the three ethnicities. This appeal would need to substitute "father Putin and mother Russia for 'God's will." For the secularism of the American corporate wannabes, substitute "unlimited economic growth" and "always low prices."

I agree. Which is why I left the insert slot. But it comes down to the same thing. Support what is clearly not in your interest, and be bamboozled into believing it is to the degree you will kill and die for it.

I don't think we'll have to worry about it Obama isn't electable.

More than a few people thought that about Ronald Reagan in 1980. The Carter people, for example.

Gotta love the Dems... they somehow manage to pick the least electable candidates. Hillary & Obama leading the race... it looks like they may just manage to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory... again.

Ah... what the heck... why spoil a good record.

I agree about candidates to the degree that while Biden would be best. Obama would be the worst we could pick if we want to win.

Campaign contributors have invested a total of nearly 200 million in their two campaigns before a single vote has been cast.

Might we have a few prophets on this board gifted with devine revelation not available to millions of other Americans? I don't think so. It may be conventional wisdom that Barack and Hillary are not electable, but it is not common sense. There's a difference.

Iowa is an anancronism.

There are almost zero blacks in Iowa
Probably Obama and his family are the first many Iowa'ns ever saw or talked to.
What is it 4 percent? Totally unlike almost every other state in the nation.
Why is it Iowa has any relevance at all to the primary system...the influence needs to be stopped for future elections. It has helped to corrupt the system.

Which is why Hillary was so against SC and Nevada moving up and why she loves Iowa...to bad the Vilasck people didn't run and become favorite son, that way no body would have bothered
with Iowa.

Sometimes the best canidate is simply not electable. I think Hillary, Biden or Dodd (do not remember how to spell his name) are the best running.

With Gore out of the race, Obama is the best candidate (unless Bloomberg runs, then he is the best candidate).

An Obama/Gore ticket would be unbeatable, Obama can do the campaign Al doesn't like, Al can do the climate thing.

You just want a republican to win. Admit it you like Huckabee.

I want a liberal.
Bloomberg is a democratic liberal, always was, always will be.
So is Obama.

Gore is a relatively new liberal(like Biden). In 1988 Gore was rightwing but he has been freed.

I've known Liberals. Liberals are friends of mine. You "Huck"...are no Liberal!

I never met a liberal that was a Goldwater groupie before

Does the term trojan horse ring a bell? I bet Arnold is more a liberal than Hillary ever was.

Simply wrong, Graham.

Barack has been drawing as large or larger crowds of white people here in Iowa as Hillary. They both have roots in the Midwest. Saying that Iowans don't follow candidates from the Chicago area because of bigotry is like saying that Iowans never watch a Bear game on Sunday afternoon. Barack and Hillary both both have an easier time making connections with Iowans than Edwards with his thick Carolina accent.

We'll see what happens on Jan. 3.

Really? Well I guess you've never met (or heard of) Stephanie Miller (a Goldwater groupie and now a very Liberal Talk Show host on AAR) who is the daughter of William Miller, Goldwater's running mate. Guess you're wrong again Huck!

You should really just get it off your chest Huck. You are so disgruntled that you want to destroy the Dem Party. You have said as much about the Huckabee thing. Four more years of a Republican in the WH and there won't be anymore elections. You claim you want a weak Repub, but the DOJ and the SC would go completely corporatist, and you know it. Want me to resurrect the thread? You want us to field a candidate sure to lose, and you even gave your rationale cold and sober. You don't want the Dems to have control of the WH and Congress. Even though you know that is the only way we can reverse the damage to the republic.

Just admit it and we can go on. Huckabee in 09! Yay! But I guess you'll continue your denial by saying you want some other sure loser like Kucinich, or Bloomberg, or Nader, or Sheehan. Or maybe Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton could run again right?

then he can win anywhere if he can win Iowa
So what's the problem?

He will win every blue state, can win every single close state, and also win some southern states no other democrat can win

And he will put alot ofother states in play
No one else can say that

Edwards can't win in either Carolina but Obama might win both

only sure loser is Hillary, however, I already said if she is the nominee she and any other dem will win
So you can't pull ths crap on me
But I won't vote for her (unless she has a really good vp)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cQ5MxSmOdOQ

Barack Obama.That is who.

Typical Republican answer. Nothing but Bull! You already said "Da fix is in" (@G4) with Hillary as the winner. Now you do a complete back-flip and say she's a loser! You are taking on their traits Huck. And the only crap around here is coming from you. You admit you won't even vote Dem.

Come on take a deep breath and let it all out. HUCKABEE in 09!

Money is one thing... votes are another. The money just goes to show that some candidates have vast campaign money machines and a lot of connections. Hillary has a clear edge in this department but a lot of contributors hedge their bets...

Aside from the money.... Never mind the baggage that Hillary is carrying or the relative lack of experience of Obama, I seriously doubt that this country will be color-blind and gender-blind when it comes to actually casting votes. There is a lot of unseen and unspoken bias... not to mention that the GOP will have a field day with either Hillary or Obama (though more so with Hillary imho). If anyone believes that the desire of the Democrats will easily overcome the mudbath that the GOP will heap upon the Democratic candidate, I fear they are mistaken. The negatives for Hillary will probably motivate the right far more than the left will be motivated by her. Just my $ 02.

I said I won't vote for Hillary

she is not a democrat

she is a loser

(but she will win if she is the nominee)

wait how did this turn into what it has become? It's completely off subject

better waterboard me

actually, I didn't intend to post in this thread, but somehow got confused by trou's rambling...either that or arneoker put 2 diff. threads together again

Don't look at me! You invited the "anti-christ" to this thread with the title Jason.

I'm sure the Carter people thought they had a lock on it, eh?

Didn't Reagan beat Carter by about the widest margin in history? I remember that was right after my Dad retired and he was bragging about putting his pension in CDs at 19% which was probably so good because the little house the wife and me bought had a 24% mortgage. Yeah, those were the good old days.

Yes there were reasons why Reagan won, other than some nasty conspiracy, whether real or fantastical.

And there are reasons why so many people loathe Bush, and by extension, the Republicans.

People who think that Obama would be putty in Republican hands may have some Carterian type smugness to overcome. Or they will invent some nasty conspiracy themselves about why he will win. In fact, if Obama is the nominee and wins (as I think would be most likely) I would bet money that the Right will have invented some CT to explain it all.

You must be thinking about the 1984 Reagan-Mondale race. The Reagan-Carter race wasn't exactly close, but it wasn't all *that* lopsided. Reagan won the popular vote 50.7% to 41%.

STOP with the FACTS already! You'll "insult" somebody! I know!

Well, the electoral vote that year (489-49) was extremely lopsided, which made that election look a lot more one-sided than it really was.

Despite that, Reagan barely topped 50%. John Anderson ran a strong independent race that year, getting almost 7% of the vote. He likely cost Carter several traditionally Democratic states that would have made the EV more respectable. But although that election wasn't close, it was not a blowout of historical proportions.

John Anderson got 7 or 8 percent that year, most of whom would have voted for Carter
It really could have turned around one or two big state difference

What really hurt was actually Ted Kennedy much as I love him, but he really had no reason to run that year, and he stumbled on the trail (shades of Hillary08).

Had Carter freed the hostages and not been sabatoged, most likely he would have won.

The use of, "Loaded" terms in political discourse is the way of doing Negative campaigning in
a stealth (underhanded) way. Reagan and his handlers exploded on the scene with
this Methodolgy before Carter and his followers knew what hit them (I was among them).
Carter, though he was better than anyone sense then, had his own form of tunnel vission...