I tell you, I didn't know that Pat Robertson tried to get on the republican ticket in 1988...sm

and I was enjoying the 700 club last year.  They have some good Christian stories on there and motivational things that I actually liked.  That was until one day Pat started talking politics and throwing his opinions around as if they were God's.  That show hasn't gotten a rating point from me since then.  He's definitely a radical in my book.

• Once powerful Christian Coalition teeters on insolvency...see article. - Democrat
  • By their fruits you shall know them:) - Zauber
    • Another saying. - SOY
      • I think your verse fits you to a tee. - Zauber
        • Isn't amazing that you judged, sentenced, and stereotyped someone just from one Bible verse they - sm
          • SOY was the one who made it personal anyway. - Democrat
            • She said SOME or did you miss that? nm - sm
              • No actually, she said MANY on this board, so from my interpretation she's talking about the most - Democrat
                • You are - Always right! :)
                  • Thanks! - Democrat
              • And it's up to you and SOY - to judge US on THIS board? see msg.
                • Amen to that! nm - Democrat
                • Oh, yeah yeah, whatever. There's plenty of satan here, that is for sure! - ...
                • Applauding!!! - Lilly
                  • You're welcome, Lilly. - see message
                    • And another *right-on* post! - Lilly
                      • Don't worry! - The Rapture Will pass You by.
                        • Bush Kool-Aid.nm - Democrat
                        • I guess God himself has spoken to you and informed you - Democrat
                          • I don't have inside info on rapture, - Lilly has
                            • Now, now, dear, it's not nice to lie. - Lilly
                              • Sorry - You're the liar
                                • Then prove I said what you accused me of saying. - Lilly
                                  • That was easy! - sm
                                    • Again... WHERE DID I SAY I HAVE AN INSIDE TRACK? - Lilly
                                      • Unfortunately, there are some who are only here to be disagreeable...nm - Democrat
      • Amen. - Alicia
    • I tell you, I didn't know that Pat Robertson tried to get on the republican ticket in 1988...sm - Democrat
      • No more of a radical than Jesus was. - Alicia
        • Two different kinds of radicals...sm - Democrat
          • So in other words, if fishers of men do not agree with your politics sm - ?
            • Since when do fishers of men advocate plotting murder? - Zauber
            • I'm not sure what you're getting, but do you think Jesus - Democrat
              • Again, it wasn't a comparison. - ?
                • I'm not competing with you though. nm - Democrat
        • Are you comparing Pat - Robertson to Jesus???
          • It doesn't appear they are. - Are you?
            • Yes, they clearly WERE. - Zauber
              • No, they clearly were NOT. - M
                • I think it's the meaning of "more" that evades you. SM - Democrat
                  • No it isn't!!! That is absolutely NOT a comparison! Get real! nm - sm
                    • Whatever you say sm... - Democrat
                      • You are always - Right :)
            • no - x

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

running through your veins.  You're totally whacked.

Get some help.

people who publicly claim that they and their followers are the only people who are good enough to go to heaven.  It's easy for Americans to just dismiss these snake oil salesmen and their followers as whackos, just laugh at them and brush them off as having no importance.

You're right.  The inmates are going to be running the asylum if Harriet Miers becomes a Supreme Court Justice, and America will continue its downward 5-year spiral backwards time.  I already wrote to Senator Harry Reid a couple days ago, basically asking what he was thinking when he was hoodwinked by Bush and Miers.  I've also written to many of the Senators on the Judiciary Committee.  I obviously don't live in all of their states, but at the federal level, I feel my voice is just as important in such a serious matter as this.  I do live in Senator Specter's state, and he will probably be tired of hearing from me before it's all said and done.

I hope those who have strong concerns about precisely the things described in the article you posted do the same and write to the Senators on the Judiciary Committee...unless you're okay with the Bible replacing the Constitution and the inmates running the asylum.

As far as God's actual involvement in all this, I'm starting to wonder if God is getting fed up with the inherent evil of this White House and all the lies and corruption that accompany it.  Maybe it's actually God's love and pursuit of the truth that will result in Bush's house of cards toppling over in the next few weeks as, one by one his scandals, are revealed to the world and hopefully many indictments will be handed out.

Sarah Palin's name has been discussed many times, but don't look to the regular news stations to hear about her.  I selected her as my first choice for VP prior to this in an on-line poll.

I'm glad that some people will listen to what the woman has done and also offers before criticizing.  Actually, she's accomplished more on paper than Obama has.  Do a side-by-side comparison.  And be prepared for all the DNC talking points, as you'll hear all of them on ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, NPR, etc.  Then come back here and tell me I'm wrong about what these organizations say.

The DNC had first dibs at putting a woman on their ticket, so don't blame the RNC.

One last thing:  She's not the insider politician that Obama claims to not be as he (selected) an insider for 30 years for his VP.  The facts speak for themselves.  I need no talking points, nor does the RNC.

Isn't anybody on our board a Republican besides me?    I'm disappointed that McCain didn't start getting tough earlier in his campaign.  He doesn't have the charisma and speaking style that Obama has, but I believe that he has what it takes to lead our country.  I also think President Bush has done an excellent job. 

Avraham Hirschson, the Israeli tourism minister, said: I'm not a theologian, I'm the minister of tourism, and I'm not interested in the politics of our tourists as long as they come here. They come here as tourists, and they're friends of Israel.

    Even as he was pledging to "change the way government does almost everything," the senator from Arizona announced his commitment to much, much more of the same.

    He pledged to maintain endless occupations of distant lands that empty the U.S. Treasury of precious resources that might pay for infrastructue renewal, housing and job creations initiatives for hurting Americans.

    He outlined trade and tax policies that would extend, rather than alter a failed economic status quo.

    He reintroduced flawed proposals for health care, education and entitlement reforms that Americans have wisely rejected.

    And he threatened to achieve "energy independence" by declaring:

    "We will drill..."

    "We'll drill..."

    "More drilling..."

    McCain's rhetoric was that of a liberated man declaring his independence from his party's failed president and corrupt Congresses.

    But his platform was that of Republican candidate who, for all of his talk of reform, offers the crudest continuity to a country that is crying out for change.

http://www.truthout.org/article/the-anti-republican-republican-who-is-really-a-republican

his own personal reasons.

http://www.tompaine.com/articles/20050620/why_george_went_to_war.php

The Downing Street memos have brought into focus an essential question: on what basis did President George W. Bush decide to invade Iraq? The memos are a government-level confirmation of what has been long believed by so many: that the administration was hell-bent on invading Iraq and was simply looking for justification, valid or not.

Despite such mounting evidence, Bush resolutely maintains total denial. In fact, when a British reporter asked the president recently about the Downing Street documents, Bush painted himself as a reluctant warrior. "Both of us didn't want to use our military," he said, answering for himself and British Prime Minister Blair. "Nobody wants to commit military into combat. It's the last option."

Yet there's evidence that Bush not only deliberately relied on false intelligence to justify an attack, but that he would have willingly used any excuse at all to invade Iraq. And that he was obsessed with the notion well before 9/11—indeed, even before he became president in early 2001.

In interviews I conducted last fall, a well-known journalist, biographer and Bush family friend who worked for a time with Bush on a ghostwritten memoir said that an Iraq war was always on Bush's brain.

"He was thinking about invading Iraq in 1999," said author and Houston Chronicle journalist Mickey Herskowitz. "It was on his mind. He said, 'One of the keys to being seen as a great leader is to be seen as a commander-in-chief.' And he said, 'My father had all this political capital built up when he drove the Iraqis out of Kuwait and he wasted it.' He went on, 'If I have a chance to invade…, if I had that much capital, I'm not going to waste it. I'm going to get everything passed that I want to get passed and I'm going to have a successful presidency.'"

Bush apparently accepted a view that Herskowitz, with his long experience of writing books with top Republicans, says was a common sentiment: that no president could be considered truly successful without one military "win" under his belt. Leading Republicans had long been enthralled by the effect of the minuscule Falklands War on British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher's popularity, and ridiculed Democrats such as Jimmy Carter who were reluctant to use American force. Indeed, both Reagan and Bush's father successfully prosecuted limited invasions (Grenada, Panama and the Gulf War) without miring the United States in endless conflicts.

Herskowitz's revelations illuminate Bush's personal motivation for invading Iraq and, more importantly, his general inclination to use war to advance his domestic political ends. Furthermore, they establish that this thinking predated 9/11, predated his election to the presidency and predated his appointment of leading neoconservatives who had their own, separate, more complex geopolitical rationale for supporting an invasion.

Conversations With Bush The Candidate

Herskowitz—a longtime Houston newspaper columnist—has ghostwritten or co-authored autobiographies of a broad spectrum of famous people, including Reagan adviser Michael Deaver, Mickey Mantle, Dan Rather and Nixon cabinet secretary John B. Connally. Bush's 1999 comments to Herskowitz were made over the course of as many as 20 sessions together. Eventually, campaign staffers—expressing concern about things Bush had told the author that were included in the manuscript—pulled the project, and Bush campaign officials came to Herskowitz's house and took his original tapes and notes. Bush communications director Karen Hughes then assumed responsibility for the project, which was published in highly sanitized form as A Charge to Keep.

The revelations about Bush's attitude toward Iraq emerged during two taped sessions I held with Herskowitz. These conversations covered a variety of matters, including the journalist's continued closeness with the Bush family and fondness for Bush Senior—who clearly trusted Herskowitz enough to arrange for him to pen a subsequent authorized biography of Bush's grandfather, written and published in 2003.

I conducted those interviews last fall and published an article based on them during the final heated days of the 2004 campaign. Herskowitz's taped insights were verified to the satisfaction of editors at the Houston Chronicle, yet the story failed to gain broad mainstream coverage, primarily because news organization executives expressed concern about introducing such potent news so close to the election. Editors told me they worried about a huge backlash from the White House and charges of an "October Surprise."

Debating The Timeline For War

But today, as public doubts over the Iraq invasion grow, and with the Downing Street papers adding substance to those doubts, the Herskowitz interviews assume singular importance by providing profound insight into what motivated Bush—personally—in the days and weeks following 9/11. Those interviews introduce us to a George W. Bush, who, until 9/11, had no means for becoming "a great president"—because he had no easy path to war. Once handed the national tragedy of 9/11, Bush realized that the Afghanistan campaign and the covert war against terrorist organizations would not satisfy his ambitions for greatness. Thus, Bush shifted focus from Al Qaeda, perpetrator of the attacks on New York and Washington. Instead, he concentrated on ensuring his place in American history by going after a globally reviled and easily targeted state run by a ruthless dictator.

The Herskowitz interviews add an important dimension to our understanding of this presidency, especially in combination with further evidence that Bush's focus on Iraq was motivated by something other than credible intelligence. In their published accounts of the period between 9/11 and the March 2003 invasion, former White House Counterterrorism Coordinator Richard Clarke and journalist Bob Woodward both describe a president single-mindedly obsessed with Iraq. The first anecdote takes place the day after the World Trade Center collapsed, in the Situation Room of the White House. The witness is Richard Clarke, and the situation is captured in his book, Against All Enemies.

On September 12th, I left the Video Conferencing Center and there, wandering alone around the Situation Room, was the President. He looked like he wanted something to do. He grabbed a few of us and closed the door to the conference room. "Look," he told us, "I know you have a lot to do and all…but I want you, as soon as you can, to go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this. See if he's linked in any way…"

I was once again taken aback, incredulous, and it showed. "But, Mr. President, Al Qaeda did this."

"I know, I know, but…see if Saddam was involved. Just look. I want to know any shred…" …

"Look into Iraq, Saddam," the President said testily and left us. Lisa Gordon-Hagerty stared after him with her mouth hanging open.

Similarly, Bob Woodward, in a CBS News 60 Minutes interview about his book, Bush At War, captures a moment, on November 21, 2001, where the president expresses an acute sense of urgency that it is time to secretly plan the war with Iraq. Again, we know there was nothing in the way of credible intelligence to precipitate the president's actions.

Woodward: "President Bush, after a National Security Council meeting, takes Don Rumsfeld aside, collars him physically and takes him into a little cubbyhole room and closes the door and says, 'What have you got in terms of plans for Iraq? What is the status of the war plan? I want you to get on it. I want you to keep it secret.'"

Wallace (voiceover): Woodward says immediately after that, Rumsfeld told Gen. Tommy Franks to develop a war plan to invade Iraq and remove Saddam—and that Rumsfeld gave Franks a blank check.

Woodward: "Rumsfeld and Franks work out a deal essentially where Franks can spend any money he needs. And so he starts building runways and pipelines and doing all the necessary preparations in Kuwait specifically to make war possible."

Bush wanted a war so that he could build the political capital necessary to achieve his domestic agenda and become, in his mind, "a great president." Blair and the members of his cabinet, unaware of the Herskowitz conversations, placed Bush's decision to mount an invasion in or about July of 2002. But for Bush, the question that summer was not whether, it was only how and when. The most important question, why, was left for later.

Eventually, there would be a succession of answers to that question: weapons of mass destruction, links to Al Qaeda, the promotion of democracy, the domino theory of the Middle East. But none of them have been as convincing as the reason George W. Bush gave way back in the summer of 1999.

A DAY IN THE LIFE OF JOE REPUBLICAN Joe gets up at 6 a.m. and fills his coffeepot with water to prepare his morning coffee. The water is clean and good because some tree-hugging liberal fought for minimum water-quality standards. With his first swallow of coffee, he takes his daily medication. His medications are safe to take because some stupid commie liberal fought to insure their safety and that they work as advertised.

All but $10 of his medications are paid for by his employer's medical plan because *some liberal* union workers fought their employers for paid medical insurance - now Joe gets it too. He prepares his morning breakfast, bacon and eggs. Joe's bacon is safe to eat because some girly-man liberal fought for laws to regulate the meat packingindustry.

In the morning shower, Joe reaches for his shampoo. His bottle is properly labeled with each ingredient and its amount in the total contents because some crybaby liberal fought for his right to know what he was putting on his body and how much it contained.

Joe dresses, walks outside and takes a deep breath. The air he breathes is clean because some environmentalist wacko liberal fought for laws to stop industries from polluting our air. He walks to the subway station for his government-subsidized ride to work. It saves him considerable money in parking and transportation fees because some fancy-pants liberal fought for affordable public transportation, which gives everyone the opportunity to be a contributor.

Joe begins his work day. He has a good job with excellent pay, medical benefits, retirement, paid holidays and vacation because some lazy liberal union members fought and died for these working standards. Joe's employer pays these standards because Joe's employer doesn't want his employees to call the union. If Joe is hurt on the job or becomes unemployed, he'll get a worker compensation or unemployment check because some stupid liberal didn't think he should lose his home or go hungry because of his temporary misfortune.

It's noontime and Joe needs to make a bank deposit so he can pay some bills. Joe's deposit is federally insured by the FSLIC because some godless liberal wanted to protect Joe's money from unscrupulous bankers who ruined the banking system before the Great Depression.

Joe has to pay his Fannie Mae-underwritten mortgage and hisbelow-market federal student loan because some elitist liberal decided that Joe and the government would be better off if he was educated and earned more money over his lifetime.

Joe is home from work. He plans to visit his father this evening at his farm home in the country. He gets in his car for the drive. His car is among the safest in the world because some America-hating liberal fought for car safety standards. He arrives at his boyhood home. His was the third generation to live in the house financed by Farmers' Home Administration because bankers didn't want to make rural loans. The house didn't have electricity until some big-government liberal stuckhis nose where it didn't belong and demanded rural electrification.

He is happy to see his father, who is now retired. His father lives on Social Security and a union pension because some wine-drinking, cheese-eating liberal made sure he could take care of himself so Joe wouldn't have to.

Joe gets back in his car for the ride home, and turns on a radio talk show. The radio host keeps saying that liberals are bad and conservatives are good. He doesn't mention that the beloved Republicans have fought against every protection and benefit Joe enjoys throughout his day.

Joe agrees: We don't need those big-government liberals ruining our lives! After all, I'm a self-made man who believes everyone should take care of themselves, just like I have.

but this one is actually funny!

http://www.pnionline.com/dnblog/attytood/archives/003008.html