Maybe you finally hounded her off the board, too.

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

The Governing Board of the
National Council of Churches
USA (http://tinyurl.com/7ptbk)
invites you to join them in
this call to pursue peace and
justice in Iraq. You can sign
the statement at:
http://tinyurl.com/77lz7 .

President Bush's job approval has dipped below 40 percent for the first time in the AP-Ipsos poll, reflecting widespread doubts about his handling of gasoline prices and the response to Hurricane Katrina.

Nearly four years after Bush's job approval soared into the 80s after the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11, 2001, Bush was at 39 percent job approval in an AP-Ipsos poll taken this week. That's the lowest since the the poll was started in December 2003.

The public's view of the nation's direction has grown increasingly negative as well, with nearly two-thirds now saying the country is heading down the wrong track.

Sambo's ranting and raving backed up with her "so called" facts are actually quite laughable. And then......to top it off - we have the whiners who proclaim "she backs it up with facts." HA!! Sofa King Wee Todd id!!!! Baaa, baaaa - the sheep must follow. Amazing, absolutely amazing. Watching that mass - pizza the hut Sambo - go gurgling out into space in a blaze of fire just made my day. To you, my most sincerest respect.

You publicly post on the other board that you *try not to visit the bog of eternal stench.*

Well, doesn't look like you are trying all that hard. Or is that another example of Conservative honesty, like your buddy on the other board lies 3 times before suddenly deciding to be *up front* (in her own words) about the whole bogus line of crap she was spouting.

You and your 2 friends don't respect anyone unless they're a member of your little club, think exactly as you think, belong to the same political party as you belong, and believe in the very same little narrow SUBsection of one particular religion.

That's what I interpret from YOUR WRITTEN WORDS. Your posts don't show respect. They only show twisted *facts*, ignorance, anger and hatred.

You can't be *respectful* on your own board but suddenly, when you come here - HERE - the place YOU call *the bog of eternal stench* you suddenly discover some respectability during your mouse click from there to here?

You're becoming quite a bore. You and your friends stated you don't want us on your board, but you're not happy unless you're picking a fight. You and your *gang* told us to leave and not to post on *your* board. Maybe that should work both ways.

Out of ALL the problems with radical Conservatives, maybe the most annoying thing is that you don't believe in equality at all. You believe in SUPERIORITY. Somewhere along the line, someone made you think you were special and above everyone else. Sheesh! You're not happy unless you're dictating to everyone else in the country what they're allowed to do in their own personal lives regarding life, death, science, etc. You even think YOUR GOD IS BETTER than everyone else's.

You want to make the rules, censor people and tell them which boards they can and cannot post on, but YOU want to invade them all and spew your ignorance and hatred.

In my heart, I believe there are sincere, honest, intelligent Conservatives out there who are capable of a sensible debate. I've seen them. (I hope you don't chase them away, too.) But and your crew don't fall in that category, and this will be the last of your inane posts I will subject myself to.

Can we get the political board back to the true purpose of this board � to share opinions of why we like our candidate. Not bash and cut down others because they don�t agree with you.

I stayed away from this board for the past couple days because anyone who had anything positive to say about Sarah Palin got slammed, bashed, kicked down, etc. After awhile I found it all too draining, and was not seeing any reason to come. Yes, I did see some of it towards people who favored Barack Obama, but if you read the posts again it is mostly towards anyone who favored Sarah Palin/John McCain.

I thought the political board was for posting information regarding politics and candidates. What I have seen for the past few days is that it has been an attack board. Especially if you have anything positive you want to share about Sarah Palin. You say something good about her and you get attacked, you answer back, and you get attacked more, and then when you get mad and pretty much say stop attacking me, they come back with this �Geez, I�m allowed to have an opinion�.

Another thing I am tired of seeing is the slanderous, hate filled, really off the wall comments about Sarah Palin. The latest was something about her daughter actually had her baby. Talk about just bizarre comments. I thought what�s next, she�s an alien from another planet? The more I kept reading the more the comments were getting just really weird and bizarre. Of course nobody ever having any proof of any of these allegations. I then came to realize that the posters were just trying to get a fight going.

I also saw posts that had nothing to do with politics but attacking a poster named Sam. Again, probably trying to get another fight going for no good reason and on things that have nothing to do whatsoever with politics. I�ve read �Sam is like an annoying nat that you sway away�, �Sam, please let me know where you work� or �she must have her quota� or �sam is to the politics board as oracle is to the� This childish rhetoric is getting old. I�m not defending sam she is a big girl and I can see by her posts she can take care of herself, but my point is that this has nothing to do with politics. If you want a fight maybe you could request that the administrator create a separate �fight and degrade� section.

I�ve read the administrators post a couple different times called Beware of Flaming. She/he said as long as we realize that not everyone is going to agree we shouldn�t wear our feelings on our sleeves and a little more oversight on here would be good. Let people express his or her opinion and move on. If you don�t like someone just ignore that person. �It�s not rocket science, you know� (I liked that statement)

I consider posting on this board a privilege and not a right. If you don�t agree with something and you post that you don�t agree and state the facts why (and are civilized about it) that�s one thing, but when you bash and degrade others without showing proof and just want to start fights and belittle others it just seems a bit juvenile to me.

I come to the politics board to hear ideas and stuff (facts) about the candidates. That is how I�m learning about each one, but I don�t want to read people attack other posters for no good reason. I'd like to hear about Obama/Biden & McCain/Palin, but I want to hear facts.

If you like to fight so much why don�t you pick on people that you can fight to face to face.

End of 2006?
On Monday, Iraqi Interior Minister Bayan Jabr suggested U.S.-led forces should be able to leave Iraq by the end of next year, saying the one-year extension of the mandate for the multinational force in Iraq by the U.N. Security Council this month could be the last.

�By the middle of next year we will be 75 percent done in building our forces and by the end of next year it will be fully ready,� he told the Arab satellite station Al-Jazeera.

New issue of an obscure accountant's magazine with an article written by mcclain recently released. He states that he is proud of his role in deregulating the financial sector and was looking forward to deregulating health care industry. Glub, glub, glub, down the toilet he goes. Hoisted by his own petard.

Michael Moore on Larry King. A couple of the most striking things he said about Palin: Would you turn the keys to your house over to someone you've known for 7 weeks? How about dropping your kids off with someone you've known for 7 weeks while you go on vacation? Another huge AMEN when he said Obama isn't running against McCain, he's running against ignorance.

I am well aware that Moore is a Democrat although, like me, he said he has problems with some of Obama's plans.

Of course the Pubs were given rebuttal time and what's the first thing they did? Attack Moore for blaming the pubs for the Wall-Street bailout. Said, "Obama and Biden voted for it." Bless Larry's heart, he said, "Why did you leave McCain out, he voted for it too." Started with some cockamaney reason why Obama and Biden's vote was bad but McCain had it right. I turned the TV off in disgust.

Right now I would vote for Michael Moore for president. I'm sure the dems would get him a haircut and a shave and put him in a suit and he'd do just fine.

USS Cole victim's mother refuses to meet with Obama.............she is shocked and said she made the wrong choice in voting for Obama. LOVE IT! Hate she has lost her son like so many others, but she is finally realizing this guy is a butt kisser. These terrorists killed her son and unfortunately it took this to wake some of them up. Now that he is so worried about torturing terrorists and closing down Gitmo, they are finally waking up to the reality that is Obama.

Obama is letting them drop charges against terrorists for this horrible sick crime..........yep, thank all of ya'll who put him in there!

Diane McDaniels is her name.........good for you mom! She ain't drinking his Kool-aid NO MORE!

SCARBOROUGH: Now, today, President Bush again refused to answer questions about the White House CIA leak case. But he did have this to say.

GEORGE W. BUSH, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: I don�t know all the facts. I want to know all the facts. The best place for facts to be done is by somebody who is spending time investigating it.

I would like this to end as quickly as possible, so we know the facts. And if someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration.

SCARBOROUGH: Ah, nuance. I love nuance. Before, it was, if somebody leaked this information, they are not going to work in the administration. Now it has been elevated to, if somebody committed a crime, they are not going to work in our administration.

Now, a far cry, obviously, from what the White House had to say back in September 2003. Listen to what White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan had to say back then.

SCOTT MCCLELLAN, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: If anyone in this administration was involved in it, they would no longer be in this administration.

With me now to talk about this boiling Washington summer scandal are Peter Beinart�he�s the editor of �The New Republic��and also Republican pollster Kellyanne Conway.

You know, I have been saying all along that somebody lied to George Bush, because George Bush would not have gone out a year ago and said, hey, if somebody was involved in this leak, they wouldn�t work in my administration, if he knew that Karl Rove was involved. Now we�re talking about obviously an indictment. Does this mean the White House now understands they are going to have to backtrack?

PETER BEINART, EDITOR, �THE NEW REPUBLIC�: They have already started backtracking.

I mean, Scott McClellan said the idea that Karl Rove was involved with this was�quote, unquote��ridiculous.� Now, of course, it is undisputed that Karl Rove was involved in this. That alone seems to me is reason for Scott McClellan, if he has any dignity at all left, to resign.

BEINART: Because once a press secretary loses all credibility by being lied to by his bosses and then lying to the press as a result, the only honorable thing to do is resign. It�s pretty well�it�s pretty�because has no credibility left. He is now basically a walking pinata.

SCARBOROUGH: All right, Peter, let�s talk about what we know. Let�s talk about what we do know, Peter.

SCARBOROUGH: We know that either Karl Rove or Scooter Libby or the president or somebody in the Cheney-wing of the White House lied to Scott McClellan. Is that safe to say? Somebody is lying here.

BEINART: Yes. Someone lied to him, because he would not have gone out and said it was ridiculous that Karl Rove was involved without someone telling him that.

There is no way this guy would have gone out and made the statement that he made last year had he not been lied to, right?

CONWAY: There is no evidence that anybody lied to Scott. And there is certainly no evidence that Karl Rove was a producer of any information.

If anything, the two most recent news accounts about this issue suggest that Karl was the recipient of the information from a media source, not the producer of that information. And, look...

SCARBOROUGH: Well, he produced�he produced it to �TIME� magazine and Cooper, didn�t he?

CONWAY: No. There is no evidence of that. In fact, when Joe Wilson himself testified before the..

SCARBOROUGH: Where have I been? I mean, I am sorry. I thought I read the �TIME� magazine article. I thought I saw Matt Cooper on �Meet the Press� this weekend saying that he got the information from Karl Rove.

SCARBOROUGH: I mean, was I�was it all a dream? Was it like the last season of �Dallas�?

But that�again, when you are the subject of a grand jury investigate, as it is going on now, you are not allowed to discuss it. So, Karl can�t really defend himself.

What other reports have suggested is that, perhaps, immediately, perhaps, hypothetically speaking, someone in the media called Karl and said, I have this information. I am going to do a story about it.

Now, letting it fly out there in the ether does not mean that Karl provided the information. Nor does it mean that he corroborated, verified or encouraged it. If anything, he may have tried to kill it on the�on the�with the inference that the person not go out and use inaccurate information.

Now, let�s remember what this information is about, serious stuff, that the vice president allegedly sent Joe Wilson over to Niger to check out the uranium story. And then, when Joe�when Joe Wilson, the same guy, testifies to the Senate Select Intelligence Committee, he says, I may have used a little bit of literary flair, the same guy who poses in �Vanity Fair.� This is not a credible person.

SCARBOROUGH: Let me ask you this, Peter. I want to bring this up. The thing that I found very interesting�and, obviously, I respect Kellyanne and have for some time and agree with her a lot more than I disagree with her.

But it seems, in this Karl Rove case�if we want to call it a scandal, we can call it a scandal�that if every time you start talking about Karl Rove, Republicans start talking about Joe Wilson. Now, I think Joe Wilson is a liar. I think he is a joke. But it seems to me he is not relevant to this leak, is he?

What Kelly is doing is repeating exactly the same talking points that every other Republican has been repeating all week.

BEINART: And the point is, I happen to think Joe Wilson has a lot more credibility than Karl Rove. But it is totally irrelevant.

The question�even if you think that Joe Wilson is the biggest liar in Washington, it is absolutely sleazy to go after him by going after his wife. That is not...

BEINART: The people who went out and said, who said that his wife is a covert operative for the CIA, which got the CIA so upset that they asked the Justice Department to do an investigation, those people.

And is very likely those people are either Karl Rove, Lewis Libby, Ari Fleischer, or all of the above.

What we do know is that�is that there was a State Department memo which had this information. We know that Fleischer was reading that memo.

And we know that this information got to Robert Novak. It is conceivable -yes, I will grant it is conceivable that, somehow, some reporter got it and spit it back to these guys in the administration. But it is more likely that they got it from the State Department memo and then they fed it to Novak in an effort to discredit Wilson.

SCARBOROUGH: Kellyanne, let me ask you a question here. I am just curious. And I have been asking my Republican friends this question for the past couple weeks. Let�s say Bill Clinton�s top political adviser had decided to reveal the identity of a CIA agent to a reporter from �TIME� magazine to get back at that person�s spouse? What would you be saying? What would Republicans be saying about Bill Clinton and Bill Clinton�s top political adviser?

SCARBOROUGH: ... that what everybody in Washington knows is actually the case, that this was passed on from Karl Rove to Matt Cooper at �TIME� magazine. What would you say if the Clinton administration had engaged in this type of activity?

CONWAY: I would say exactly what I said when the Clinton administration was engaged in far worse, something called Whitewater, which Peter was against investigating, even though people...

SCARBOROUGH: I�m talking about the outing of a CIA agent in a time of war. That is all I�m asking.

CONWAY: And my answer is what it was then, which is that I respect the rule of law enough to allow the investigatory process to work its way out.

If we all respect the law as it is written and the investigatory process that is currently undergoing, Joe, then the facts will be known. And the president will keep to his commitment that anyone who broke the law will be out of there, including�anybody.

SCARBOROUGH: Well, that is a different commitment from what we heard in the fall.

SCARBOROUGH: The commitment that was made before was anybody that revealed the identity of a CIA agent would be fired.

CONWAY: Joe, Karl beat the Democrats twice now, though, Karl has beaten the Democrats black and blue in two presidential elections.

The bottom line is that a CIA agent has been outed. I don�t care whether a Republican did it.

SCARBOROUGH: She went to �Vanity Fair.� And, again, I think Joe Wilson and his wife are shameless. But they did that after they were already revealed.

SCARBOROUGH: So, I just�again, I don�t like�I think Joe Wilson is a joke. The fact that this guy lied about just about everything involved in his African trip and then wrote a book called �The Politics of Truth� is shameless.

Now that I have preached, the question is this. Is somebody going to jail over this? Is somebody going to be indicted?

BEINART: I think it is�I would say the chances of someone being indicted are a bit better than 50-50. The chance of someone going to jail I think are relatively low. I would say less than one in four. That is my guess.

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.