 |
SwiftVets.com
Service to Country
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
 Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 10:12 pm Post subject: Gore Rises |
 |
|
Be afraid. Be.Very.Afraid...(highlights mine)
| Quote: | Internet revolution that elected Obama could save Earth: Gore (AFP)
Sat Nov 8, 2008 11:30AM EST
SAN FRANCISCO (AFP) - Former US vice president Al Gore said an Internet revolution carrying Barack Obama to the White House should now focus its power on stopping Earth's climate crisis.
The one-time presidential contender turned environmental champion told Web 2.0 Summit goers in San Francisco Friday that technology has provided tools to save the planet while creating jobs and stimulating the crippled economy.
"The young people who have been inspired by Barack Obama's campaign and the movement that powered Barack Obama's campaign want a purpose," Gore said.
"One of the reasons we were all thrilled Tuesday night is it was pretty obvious this was a collectively intelligent decision."
The Internet's critical role in Democrat Obama's victory in the presidential race against Republican John McCain was a "great blow for victory" in addressing a "democracy crisis" stifling action against climate change, Gore said.
Breitbart - cont'd |
"The young people...want a purpose".
This is becoming Kafkaesque.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
TEWSPilot
Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1235
Location: Kansas (Transplanted Texan)
|
| Posted: Sat Nov 08, 2008 11:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
And Obama's financial guru's flagship is taking on water...must be melting icebergs from Wall Street....any connection here? (...see "Act of God")
| Quote: | Berkshire Hathaway Profit Falls 77% on Investments, Insurance
By Erik Holm and Linda Shen
Nov. 8 (Bloomberg) -- Billionaire Warren Buffett's Berkshire Hathaway Inc. posted a fourth straight profit drop, the longest streak of quarterly declines in more than a decade, as hurricanes hurt returns at insurance operations and investments lost value.... |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| A thought occured to me...can 2 messiahs co-exist? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TEWSPilot
Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1235
Location: Kansas (Transplanted Texan)
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
...even worse, add one more, and they would form an "unholy trinity"...
| Quote: | Revelation 13:18 (New International Version)
This calls for wisdom. If anyone has insight, let him calculate the number of the beast, for it is man's number. His number is 666. |
Conspiracy theorists could say each member of this unholy trinity could be represented by the number 6, and we could have all sorts of fun playing numbers games.
Actually, I find this article to be the most accurate interpretation, and it fits with my own research. God decried the fact that His "people perish for lack of knowledge."
| Quote: | WHO IS THE ANTICHRIST?
This article first appeared in the Ask Hank column of the Christian Research Journal, volume 28, number 1 (2005). For further information or to subscribe to the Christian Research Journal go to: http://www.equip.org
For centuries Christians have speculated about the identity of the Antichrist. Likely candidates have included European monarchs and popes of the Roman Catholic Church. Major international crises of the twentieth century provided other prime suspects such as Adolf Hitler, Mikhail Gorbachev, Saddam Hussein, and Osama bin Laden. American president George W. Bush and British prime minister Tony Blair have also surfaced on the lists of prophecy pundits.
So, who is the Antichrist? Rather than joining in this sensationalistic game of pin-the-tail-on-the-Antichrist, Christians need only go to Scripture to find the answer. The apostle John exposed the identity of antichrist when he wrote, “Who is the liar? It is the man who denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a man is the antichrist––he denies the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also” (1 John 2:22–23 NIV). In his second epistle, John gives a similar warning: “Many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist” (2 John 7 NIV). John did not reserve the title “antichrist” for any one particular individual; rather, he taught that anyone who denies the incarnation, messianic role, or deity of Jesus is the antichrist.
John did indicate in the book of Revelation, however, that one individual would personify evil in a unique way as the ultimate archetype of all the types of antichrist. Instead of referring to this individual as the Antichrist, John referred to him as “the Beast.” So, who is the Beast of Revelation? Again we must properly interpret Scripture to find the answer.
First, John explains to his first-century readers that with “wisdom” and “insight” they could “calculate the number of the Beast, for it is man’s number. His number is 666” (Rev. 13:18 NIV). It stands to reason, therefore, that the individual John had in mind must have been alive during the first century. No amount of wisdom or insight would have enabled first-century Christians to identify a far-future individual. It would have been cruel and dangerously misleading for John to suggest to first-century Christians that they could identify the Beast if in fact the Beast was a twenty-first-century institution or individual.
Furthermore, an examination of the historical context in which John was writing reveals that John was appealing to a widely used method of associating each letter of the alphabet with a corresponding numerical value. This process is known as gematria. According to gematria, six hundred sixty-six is the sum value of the Hebrew letters (not recognizable to the Roman authorities of John’s day) that spell the name of the first-century Roman Emperor whom the great nineteenth-century biblical scholar Milton Terry called “the veriest incarnation of wickedness”: Nero Caesar.
Ancient accounts of Nero’s life, most notably that recorded in The Twelve Caesars by second-century Roman historian Gaius Suetonius Tranquillus, identify Nero as a desperately wicked individual who grossly violated each of the Ten Commandments through a long litany of disgusting demonstrations of depravity. Included among his appalling atrocities were his castration of a young boy named Sporus whom he then married publicly, his persecution of the Christians whom he had dressed in tar jackets and put on stakes and then burned at night to light the streets, his demand to be worshiped as God, and the brutal murders of some of his closest family members, including his mother Agrippina, his wives Octavia and Poppaea, and Poppaea’s young son, Rufrius Crispinius, whom Nero had drowned during a fishing trip for allegedly playing childhood games in which he pretended to be the Emperor.
Finally, Nero is rightly identified as the Beast of Revelation––the archetypal Antichrist––because of the unique and horrible quality of the “great tribulation” he ignited. The horror of the great tribulation included not only the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, but the persecution of the apostles and prophets who penned the Scriptures and formed the foundation of the Christian church of which Christ Himself was the chief cornerstone. Thus, Nero and the great tribulation he instigated are the archetypes for every antichrist and tribulation that follow before we experience the reality of our own resurrection at the second coming of Christ.
— Hank Hanegraaff |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 12:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
Tews, that was "messiah", small m's  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TEWSPilot
Admiral
Joined: 26 Aug 2004
Posts: 1235
Location: Kansas (Transplanted Texan)
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 1:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| WE know that, but do THEY? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I have seen this "Web 2.0" concept referenced several times but never took the time to look into it. Gore's recent comments at the "Web 2.0 Summit" in San Francisco provided me the impetus I needed. With just a cursory look, its ideological roots seem apparent and, given this is Al Gore, perhaps not unexpected.
Here's a quick look...
| Quote: | Web 2.0
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The argument exists that "Web 2.0" does not represent a new version of the World Wide Web at all, but merely continues to use so-called "Web 1.0" technologies and concepts.
In a podcast interview Tim Berners-Lee described the term "Web 2.0" as a "piece of jargon." "Nobody really knows what it means," he said, and went on to say that "if Web 2.0 for you is blogs and wikis, then that is people to people. But that was what the Web was supposed to be all along."
Although Bruce Sterling reports he's a fan of Web 2.0, he thinks it is now dead as a rallying concept.
Critics have cited the language used to describe the hype cycle of Web 2.0 as an example of Techno-utopianist rhetoric.
Techno-utopianism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Techno-utopianism or technoutopianism refers to any ideology based on the belief that advanced science and technology will eventually bring about a utopia or, more precisely, a techno-utopia, a future society with ideal living conditions for all its citizens.
Karl Marx believed that science and democracy were the right and left hands of what he called the move from the realm of necessity to the realm of freedom. He argued that advances in science helped delegitimize the rule of kings and the power of the Christian Church.
Techno-utopianism, atheism, and rationalism have been associated with the democratic, revolutionary and utopian left for most of the last two hundred years.
Critics have cited the language used to describe the hype cycle of Web 2.0 as an example of Techno-utopianist rhetoric. Web 2.0 is not the first example of communication creating a false, hyper-inflated sense of the value of technology and its impact on culture.
During the 1990s dot-com boom, when the speculative bubble gave rise to claims that an era of "permanent prosperity" had arrived, techno-utopianism flourished, typically among the small percentage of the population who were employees of Internet startups and/or owned large quantities of high-tech stocks. With the subsequent crash, many of these dot com techno-utopians had to rein in some of their beliefs in the face of the clear return of traditional economic reality.
In the late 1990s and during the 2000s decade, technorealism and techno-progressivism are stances that have risen among advocates of technological change as critical alternatives to techno-utopianism.
Techno-progressivism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Techno-progressivism, technoprogressivism, tech-progressivism or techprogressivism (a portmanteau word combining "technoscience-focused" and "progressivism") is a stance of active support for the convergence of technological change and social change. Techno-progressives argue that technological developments can be profoundly empowering and emancipatory when they are regulated by legitimate democratic and accountable authorities to ensure that their costs, risks and benefits are all fairly shared by the actual stakeholders to those developments. |
I wonder if Gore has any particular "legitimate democratic and accountable authorities" in mind? 
Be afraid. Be.Very.Afraid |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BuffaloJack
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1637
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 10:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The Web 2.0 concept is just a means to extend the internet to meet current and future needs.
Remember when your DOS machine had a 640K upper memory limit?
The O/S needed improvement to address more memory space.
The internet in is a similar state. Originally set up with addresses of the form 000.000.000.000, it is reaching saturation and we are running out of addresses. They'll just extend it from a 4 byte structure to a 6 byte or 8 byte structure and that will tide us over for years to come. The problems comes in that routers and other hardware will need upgrades to accomodate a new IP address structure that is longer. There are some other features needed that were not originally anticipated such as video, VOIP, streaming audio, security enhancements and some other stuff. It will probably be transparent to the average user.
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Me#1You#10
Site Admin
Joined: 06 May 2004
Posts: 6503
|
| Posted: Sun Nov 09, 2008 10:40 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BuffaloJack wrote: | | The Web 2.0 concept is just a means to extend the internet to meet current and future needs. |
Perhaps you're right Jack, but I get the impression that it has little to do with structure but more to do with the use of the internet as a means to facilitate and institute massive social change. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BuffaloJack
Master Chief Petty Officer of the Navy
Joined: 10 Aug 2004
Posts: 1637
Location: Buffalo, New York
|
| Posted: Mon Nov 10, 2008 1:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
The mechanics of Web 2.0 are just mechanics; it's just an addressing scheme and communications protocol.
There probably are a lot of people with designs on controlling it though.
The Europeans already tried once about 3 years ago, and Mr. Bush stopped them by simply stating that the internet was ours and was going to remain that way. The Europeans wanted the UN to be in charge and set rules for access, content and ways that various governments could tax it and limit their citizens use of it. Since the development was through our DARPA and it had never been fully given up, we controlled all the cards.
If memory serves me, the democrats were fully on board with letting the UN be in charge and set the rules.
Nothing good can come of letting it our of our possession.
_________________
Swift Boats - Qui Nhon (12/69-4/70), Cat Lo (4/70-5/70), Vung Tau (5/70-12/71) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
