Has the election already been held?

The messages you are viewing are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select the boards given in left menu

kept quiet from everyone but the government...until the internet, of course.. These are new oil and gas finds.

The so-called reserves are held in case of emergency, so the prez and cabinet members can get out of the way of a red alert. Not for the citizens.

for his hateful words. Israel now refuses to do business with him because of his bizarre remarks about Sharon.

Needless to say, I was very happy to see this.

Israel pulls plug on Pat Robertson deal
Officials angry over evangelical leader's comments about Sharon's stroke

JERUSALEM - Israel won't do business with Pat Robertson after the evangelical leader suggested Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's massive stroke was divine punishment, a tourism official said Wednesday, putting into doubt plans to develop a large Christian tourism center in northern Israel.

Avi Hartuv, spokesman for Israel's tourism minister, said officials are furious with Robertson's suggestion that the stroke was retribution for Sharon's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip last summer. We can't accept this kind of statement, Hartuv said.

Robertson is leading a group of evangelicals who have pledged to raise $50 million to build the Christian Heritage Center in Israel's northern Galilee region, where tradition says Jesus lived and taught.

Under a tentative agreement, Robertson's group was to put up the funding, while Israel would provide land and infrastructure. Israeli officials believe the project will generate tens of millions of tourism dollars.

But the project now is in question in light of Robertson's comments, said Hartuv.

We will not do business with him, only with other evangelicals who don't back these comments, Hartuv said. We will do business with other evangelical leaders, friends of Israel, but not with him.

A day after Sharon's stroke on Jan. 4, Robertson suggested the prime minister was being punished for dividing God's land, a reference to the August pullout from the Gaza Strip and four West Bank settlements.

God considers this land to be his, Robertson said on his TV program The 700 Club. You read the Bible and he says 'This is my land,' and for any prime minister of Israel who decides he is going to carve it up and give it away, God says, 'No, this is mine.'

Robertson's comments also drew condemnation from other Christian leaders and even U.S. President George W. Bush.

The ministry's decision was first reported in Wednesday's edition of The Jerusalem Post.

Christian center planned near Galilee
Robertson's Christian Heritage Center was to be tucked away in 35 acres of rolling Galilee hills, near key Christian sites such as Capernaum, the Mount of the Beatitudes, where tradition says Jesus delivered the Sermon of the Mount, and Tabgha -- on the shores of the Sea of Galilee -- where Christians believe Jesus performed the miracle of the loaves and fish.

The project underlines how ties have strengthened in recent years between Israel and evangelical Christian groups that support the Jewish state.

Israel was considering leasing the land to the Christians for free. Tourism Minister Avraham Hirschson predicted it would annually draw up to 1 million pilgrims who would spend $1.5 billion in Israel and support about 40,000 jobs.

Hirschson, however, is one of Sharon's biggest supporters, and a member of the centrist Kadima party recently founded by the prime minister.

Hartuv left the door open to continuing the project, but only with people who don't back Robertson's statements.

We want to see who in the group supports his (Robertson's) statements. Those who support the statements cannot do business with us. Those that publicly support Ariel Sharon's recovery ... are welcome to do business with us, Hartuv said. We have to check this very, very carefully.

we will be provided the usual substandard party-approved (both parties) candidates to choose from - if it is an actual contested election. How often does a rogue candidate even get past the primaries in this country? And how effective could this hypothetical nonpartisan candidate be if elected, when the other kids in the House and Senate won't let him play?

Most candidates don't stand much chance against any incumbent. Seems that we vote based on 'name recognition' and don't much care in what context we recognize the name. Has to be the explanation for how some of these guys (and gals) stay in office term after term despite the fact that we despise them. Nobody can unseat them without party approval. And if you spend enough advertising bucks in the several weeks before election we'd vote for Genghis Khan.

Same theory as they use in product advertising. Say the name and slogan enough times on TV and when we get to the stores we'll recognize it on the shelf and figure it must be okay. See? All the hard decision-making has been done for us!

Obama was anointed by the democrats; McCain was anointed by the republicans, and I did not see a whole lot of difference between them. Both promised to take us in the same direction at slightly different speeds. So I voted for the lesser of two evils (lot of good it did me). And when you do that, it's easy to forget you still voted for evil.

Sad to say, we seem to get the candidates and products we deserve. We vote for whoever the party runs, buy the products that spend most on advertising, and that's pretty much that.

I am at a complete loss as to how to change any of this because it all seems to be one big interconnected system. Throwing the bums out is a great idea, but replace them with what? More party clones? I don't think a true populist candidate stands much chance against the two party machines we have.

Here's a clue, no one really listens to hatred. You need to cozy it up a bit, put a little whipped cream on it, disguise it a little. All the personal attacks and name-calling, while typical of you libbies, isn't very palatable. KnowwhatImeanVern?

(CBS) If last year�s presidential election were being held today, the results might well be different than the results of a year ago. 41% of registered voters say that if the 2004 election were being held today, they would cast their ballot for Democratic candidate John Kerry, while 36% say they would vote for President George W. Bush. 13% say they would vote for someone else, and 6% wouldn�t vote at all.

IF 2004 ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY�
(Registered Voters)

John Kerry

41%
George W. Bush

36%
Someone else

13%
Not vote

6%

In this poll, 12% of registered voters said they didn�t vote in 2004. Among those who did vote, 45% said they voted for Kerry last year, and 46% said they voted for President Bush. 2% reported voting for Nader, and 7% won�t say for whom they voted.

If the election were held this year, both candidates would retain more than eight in ten of the voters who supported them last year, according to this poll. But President Bush would lose about 3% of those who said they voted for him last year to his Democratic opponent. And although none of those who supported Kerry last year would now vote for Bush, 13% say they would support another candidate. But among voters who either didn�t vote in 2004 or voted for another candidate, or refused to say for whom they voted, Kerry leads Bush by 34% to 11%.

IF 2004 ELECTION WERE HELD TODAY�
(Registered Voters)

In 2004, voted for: Kerry
John Kerry

81%
George W. Bush

-
Someone else

13%
Not vote

4%

In 2004, voted for: Bush
John Kerry

3%
George W. Bush

84%
Someone else

7%
Not vote

3%

In 2004, voted for: Other/didn't vote
John Kerry

34%
George W. Bush

11%
Someone else

23%
Not vote

16%

For detailed information on how CBS News conducts public opinion surveys, click here.

This poll was conducted among a nationwide random sample of 936 adults, including 828 registered voters, interviewed by telephone October 30-November 1, 2005. The error due to sampling for results based on the entire sample and the sample of registered voters could be plus or minus three percentage points.

to migrate to alaska. Ms. Palin will be returning there in Nov permanently. They have been expecting a massive Rapture-induced influx of people, so they probably won't shoot you unless you are wearing a fur coat. You might as well go, coz you are gonna be totally miserable for the next 4 years as Barack begins the long journey of righting the sinking ship called U.S.

Do you think this will be a high voter turn-out year? Voter registrations are waaaay up this year. (Barring, of course, the fraudulent registrations which will hopefully have been resoved by election day.)

It's certainly been the most hotly contested campaign season I can recall - and I've been voting since the late 70s. There's so much bravado and blustering coming from both camps, and the media clearly chose their darling many moons ago, it seems like people will either be so sick of it, or apathetic about the outcome, that a lot of folks simply won't bother to show up.

I know there's been a massive push to register young voters. Our college campus has been crawling with people trying to stir up support for a certain candidate. My daughter and her friends are apporached every time they attend an event, from football games to local band open mic nights. But do you think everyone will actually turn up on election day?

And this may be totally UN-PC, but I'm not so sure everybody SHOULD vote. I mean, if you're too lazy to register, are you really going to be doing your due diligence and educating yourself about each candidate's policies and proposals?