Its all business. Those muslims want to make themselves a problem rather than part of the solution, well then the problem must be realistically identified and solved in the most streamlined economical fashion possible.

Sure as hell doesn't sound like the Dem position.

Well I'm sure that is because it is a realistic "American" solution.

If you are hungry, eat.

If you have nothing to eat, get something to eat.

If its raining, get out of the rain.


Patient: "Doctor, its hurts when I do this."

Doctor: "Well dont do that."

If they want to kill you.....

make them not want to kill you.

How?

Love your enemies... treat others better than they treat you... turn the other cheek... pour hot coals of fire on their head by being nice to them... put down the sword because those who live by the sword will die by the sword... and other various Christian(actual:~) ideals.

Peace and Love

We would have to become a Christian nation in doctrine and in deed...unconstitutional.

Do you think if we'd upgraded the 9/11 terrorists to first class for free, they would have changed their minds and not flown planes full of people and fuel into buildings full of civilians? (not that you believe terrorists actually did so)

I'm afraid there wouldn't be Christians around very long if we all laid down our swords and offered our throats to the type of people that killed Daniel Pearl.

It's been done... by the bloody Romans... and guess who's still around?

Nobody who lived then, that's for sure. Some lasted longer than others. Those eaten by lions didn't fare so well.

Who "won"?

Where's the scoreboard?

Oh, quitit

Such childish stuff is meaningless.

The terrorist piloting the plane is not the terorrist you can stop.

It's the kid screaming in the street this morning whose family is in pieces around him you need to worry about, and make your plans on getting to his child and grandchild early, because that's the terrorist you're going to prevent.

Keep throwing bombs at them and the problem just persists that much longer.

Carter defends Mideast book as accurate

By CHARLES ODUM, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 27 minutes ago

ATHENS, Ga. - Former President Jimmy Carter said Saturday that the storm of criticism he has faced for his recent book has not weakened his resolve for fair treatment of Israelis and Palestinians.


"I have been called a liar," Carter said at a town hall meeting on the second day of a three-day symposium on his presidency at the University of Georgia.

"I have been called an anti-Semite," he said. "I have been called a bigot. I have been called a plagiarist. I have been called a coward. Those kind of accusations, they concern me, but they don't detract from the fact the book is accurate and is needed."

Following the publication of the book: "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," 14 members of an advisory board to his Carter Center resigned in protest. Those former board members and other critics contend the book is unfairly critical of
Israel.

"Not one of the critics of my book has contradicted any of the basic premises ... that is the horrible persecution and oppression of the Palestinian people and secondly that the formula for finding peace in the Middle East already exists," the 82-year-old Carter said.

Carter said he was pleased the book has stimulated discussion of an issue that has been "omitted from the public consciousness" for at least the last six years.

"Israel needs peace and the Palestinian people need peace and justice and I hope my limited influence will help to precipitate some steps," he said.

The three-day conference was arranged to mark the 30th anniversary of Carter's 1977 inauguration.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070121/ap_on_...rter_conference

The walk-out defines the book as a joke.

14 out of better than 200?

There is a joke all right. Check the nearest mirror to see it.

Seven percent immediate turnover rate good in your industry?

Indeed, one always needs a fresh look. Instead of a moldy old stale one that is not merely unpalatable, but likely carcinogenic as well.

Out with the old "stay the course" in with "ideas that actually might work."

Oh and

Whoa, heads up...Cspan is showing the "Carter Years: Lessons for the 21st Century".

Now's the chance for you lefties to improve your grades.

There's no reason the Israelis and Palestinians can't work out peace terms without the US getting involved. Let Carter broker it and he can be a hero, even rub it in on Bush if he wants.

30 years late is better than nothing.

http://www.cartercenter.org/peace/conflict...tion/index.html

The Carter Center Conflict Resolution Program

War and civil strife continue to be the most significant impediments to sustainable development and basic human rights. Devastation from such conflicts has impoverished countries in every major region, in many cases wiping out the achievements of decades of development. The Conflict Resolution Program focuses on preventing, resolving, and ending armed conflict. Often with other Carter Center programs, we also work on post-conflict peacebuilding.

The program monitors many of the world's armed conflicts to better understand their histories, the primary actors involved, disputed issues, and efforts being made to resolve them. When we become involved in resolving conflicts, we address their underlying causes to prevent any resurgence of violence.


Assisted by Council of Experts
The program is the base for the International Council for Conflict Resolution (see list of members). This small body of internationally recognized experts offers advice and assistance in mediating conflict and promoting peace.


Implementing Peace Agreements
An end to fighting does not always mean a conflict has been resolved completely. The sometimes protracted processes that lead to a peace agreement represent the beginning of an even longer process of peace implementation and post-conflict reconciliation. Bringing former combatants together to forge a shared future demands patient, persistent efforts.

President Carter brokered an agreement in 1999 to end rebel violence that put the governments of Uganda and Sudan at odds. The program worked intensively for four more years, however, to implement the agreement.

(Read about other peacemaking efforts in Nepal, Israel/Palestine, Liberia, and Haiti.)


Preventing Conflict
While direct negotiation to resolve armed conflict is the program's major focus, there also is a strong emphasis on preventing conflict. A series of minor crises can signal or contribute to deteriorating societal and political stability. In such situations, parties in dispute often seek a neutral third party to facilitate dialogue that can avert conflict. (Read about the program's conflict prevention work in Venezuela and Guyana.)

Still in the top five
http://www.nytimes.com/pages/books/bestseller/index.html

Yeah, let's listen to a president that actually brokered peace SUCCESSFULLY in the Middle East. Instead of the incompetent boob now occupying 'the house' in the Washington D.C. 'hood.

Yeah, let's all write book reports on "apartheid"...let Sherry grade'em.

You know those people ?

Post their resumes, experience and reading lists and lets see if the rest of us agree that they were so sophisticated, erudite and experienced that we should agree with you.

Tell us all about apartheid too while you're at it.

I assume Jimmah, or at least a loyal minoin, had at least some hand in staffing his fartfest...what does that say about him if he didn't?
God, but you are a dumbfark.

Thank God you think so.

Your respect and affection would be the greatest tragedy in my life.

indeed.

Oh, Lord, no!

In order for you to be the recipient of _bub's groveling adoration or his wetting himself to please you, you'd have to be bart katz!

That wouldn't do at all--

Amazon.com leads with a interview with Carter. Blackmail is an ugly thing.

http://www.amazon.com/Palestine-Peace-Apar...r/dp/0743285026



Editorial Reviews

Amazon.com
The crowning achievement of Jimmy Carter's presidency was the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt, and he has continued his public and private diplomacy ever since, winning the Nobel Peace Prize in 2002 for his decades of work for peace, human rights, and international development. He has been a tireless author since then as well, writing bestselling books on his childhood, his faith, and American history and politics, but in Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid, he has returned to the Middle East and to the question of Israel's peace with its neighbors--in particular, how Israeli sovereignty and security can coexist permanently and peacefully with Palestinian nationhood.
It's a rare honor to ask questions of a former president, and we are grateful that President Carter was able to take the time in between his work with his wife, Rosalynn, for the Carter Center and Habitat for Humanity and his many writing projects to speak with us about his hopes for the region and his thoughts on the book.

A big thank you to President Carter for granting our request for an interview.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

An Interview with President Jimmy Carter

Q: What has been the importance of your own faith in your continued interest in peace in the Middle East?
A: As a Christian, I worship the Prince of Peace. One of my preeminent commitments has been to bring peace to the people who live in the Holy Land. I made my best efforts as president and still have this as a high priority.

Q: A common theme in your years of Middle East diplomacy has been that leaders on both sides have often been more open to discussion and change in private than in public. Do you think that's still the case?
A: Yes. This is why private and intense negotiations can be successful. More accurately, however, my premise has been that the general public (Jewish, Christian, and Muslim) are more eager for peace than their political leaders. For instance, a recent poll done by the Hebrew University in Jerusalem showed that 58% of Israelis and 81% of the Palestinians favor a comprehensive settlement similar to the Roadmap for Peace or the Saudi proposal adopted by all 23 Arab nations and recently promoted by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice. Tragically, there have been no substantive peace talks during the past six years.

Q: How have the war in Iraq and the increased strength of Iran (and the declarations of their leaders against Israel) changed the conditions of the Israel-Palestine question?
A: Other existing or threatened conflicts in the region greatly increase the importance of Israel's having peace agreements with its neighbors, to minimize overall Arab animosity toward both Israel and the United States and reduce the threat of a broader conflict.

Q: Your use of the term "apartheid" has been a lightning rod in the response to your book. Could you explain your choice? Were you surprised by the reaction?
A: The book is about Palestine, the occupied territories, and not about Israel. Forced segregation in the West Bank and terrible oppression of the Palestinians create a situation accurately described by the word. I made it plain in the text that this abuse is not based on racism, but on the desire of a minority of Israelis to confiscate and colonize Palestinian land. This violates the basic humanitarian premises on which the nation of Israel was founded. My surprise is that most critics of the book have ignored the facts about Palestinian persecution and its proposals for future peace and resorted to personal attacks on the author. No one could visit the occupied territories and deny that the book is accurate.

They led with Goldberg?

Jeez, that was pretty bad.

They led with CARTER, and Goldberg was in the W Post, and was the SECOND review. Why do left-wingers just expect that everyone in the media will treat them favorably by right?

They sure as hell don't tell all about the newscasters that pretend to be unbiased on TV news.

Amazon is not a critic. It is the business of selling books. I doubt an Ann Coulter type book gets a Maureen Dowd review first. I'm not saying eliminate negative reviews but to have Goldberg is a bit of a stretch.

I think the point that is being made is whether it's appropriate for Amazon.com to put a political spin on their marketing of the book.

It is not appropriate, regardless.



Just so.

They put reviews and opinions up so people can decide what they want to buy. It's TOTALLY appropropriate. I use reviews on Amazon to decide what is worth spending my hard earned money on. The same thing goes for Circuit City or any number of other sites that provide professional and customer critiques. They do it for all their products.

http://www.amazon.com/Philips-DVP642-DivX-...p;s=audio-video




So only positive reviews, and Carter's own words?

If you only want to shop at left-wing businesses, I'm sure there are plenty.

Uhhh... brian? Hello?


we're not saying it's innapropriate to have a negative review. It's the order of the reviews that I would object to.

that is all. I like many reviews.




I'm not saying eliminate negative reviews but to have Goldberg is a bit of a stretch.

Uhhh... brian? Hello?


we're not saying it's innapropriate to have a negative review. It's the order of the reviews that I would object to.

that is all. I like many reviews.

Carter was first, Goldberg was THIRD.


If democrats are too damned lazy to read past the first one, why do you think they will even get to tthe THIRD?




There are 467 of Carter's book. Take your pick.

Carter doesn't get to review his own book. Who was the second?



This is a review for a DVD player.


shopping?




cool.

The reason for the protest is PRECISELY because Amazon didn't follow their general procedure for THIS BOOK.

They always have the publishers weekly blurb FIRST. Why they didn't with this book is a good question. I'd like to know if they have done this with anyone else.

hmmmmmmmmmm

They did it with Barak Obama, too. Not the negative review, but the "interview thing." Maybe it's a new thing. I looked at a Coulter Book, and they didn't do that there. Possibly because her book never got that popular.

Still, putting that rather long negative review up does seem a little biased.

I note the book has mostly favorale reviews, so Goldberg doesn't appear to be representative of the overall reviews.

I think it's just another cheap shot--they obviously have issue with the content of the book--I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find that whoever is in charge of the placement of the book reveiws is a staunch supporter of Israel & is more than happy with their apartheid policies--

Fortunately, and as Alex Cockburn points out in CounterPunch, it has backfired on them.

It was an inteview, in his words.



Exactly. Books are a commodity people shop for just like DVD players. (and I'm looking for a DVD recorder)

Maybe if you all went to the actual Amazon pages instead of only looking at web pages where there is an obvious left-wing slant.....

Nothing but having it all their way will please them. Go buy something from Amazon and I will too. Screw their boycott.

My brother gave me his RCA DVR/VHS to figure out and teach him how it works. It has a really strange spring sound when you put a tape in though.

Other than that it recorded from tape to DVD fairly well with the first DVD being a coaster. I'm not sure why but I'll attribute it to user error. Two others burned fine.

Now I can manipulate it on the PC.

(have to learn yet another intense, complicated program)

I probably will today or tomorrow. Once my paycheck clears. Looking at a top of the line DVD recorder to replace my old VHS before it wears out.

I signed the petition. It's certainly biased to put up an extremely long, critical and negative rview on the books home page.

I understand the little interview thing, and the publishers weekly blurb is good, as always, as they tend to remain informational rather than subjective.

The Goldberg review is too long and too out of the mainstream of other reviews to get to be on the home page. To be fair, there should have been a more positive one, judging from the samples.

This was judged the most popular and helpful review, by a longshot.

Top of the line? <looong whistle>

Rewritables?

DVDRs are getting much cheaper.

Carter, Clinton Seek To Bring Together Moderate Baptists

Exiles From Conservative Group Targeted

By Alan Cooperman

Washington Post Staff Writer

Sunday, January 21, 2007; A03



Former presidents Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton are leading an effort to forge dozens of small and medium-size, black and white Baptist organizations into a robust coalition that would serve as a counterweight to the conservative Southern Baptist Convention.

The giant SBC, with more than 16 million members, has long dominated the political, theological and social landscape among Baptists, often spawning resentment among smaller Baptist groups. It has also been closely aligned with the Republican Party.

The new coalition, which is Carter's brainchild, would give moderate Baptists a stronger collective voice and could provide Democrats with greater entree into the Baptist community. But Carter and other organizers are trying to walk a fine line, insisting that the alliance is not directly political while touting its potential to recast the role of religion in the public square.

"We hope . . . to emphasize the common commitments that bind us together rather than to concentrate on the divisive issues that separate us," Carter said. "There's too much of an image in the Baptist world, and among non-Christians, that the main, permeating characteristic of Christian groups is animosity toward one another and an absence of ability to cooperate in a spirit of brotherhood and sisterhood."

The Rev. Richard Land, head of the SBC's Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission, said the smaller Baptist groups are in "a search for significance and relevance." He scoffed at the idea that the new coalition would be nonpartisan.

"I'm not going to question their motives. I just know that if I were them, I would be concerned about how it might appear to many people, the timing," Land said. "Purportedly they're going to hold a convention of several thousand people in Atlanta in early 2008, hosted by two former Democratic presidents, one of whom has a wife seeking the Democratic presidential nomination. Some would see that as an overtly political activity."

Carter and Clinton were raised as Southern Baptists but have expressed dismay over the SBC's increasingly conservative bent since traditionalists defeated modernists in a struggle for control of the denomination in the 1970s and '80s.

The leadership battle, which raged over issues such as biblical inerrancy, temperance, homosexuality, abortion and women's role in the church, culminated in 2000 with revisions to the "Baptist Faith and Message" that barred women from serving as pastors and called for wives to "submit graciously" to the leadership of their husbands.

Carter stopped calling himself a Southern Baptist that year. Clinton attended a Methodist church during his years in the White House.

On Jan. 9 at the Carter Center in Atlanta, the two ex-presidents brought together the heads of 40 Baptist denominations and organizations to launch a year-long organizing effort that they hope will climax with the celebration of a "New Baptist Covenant" in early 2008. Clinton described himself as just a "cheerleader" for the effort and declined to be interviewed.

One of the main organizers, William D. Underwood, president of Mercer University in Atlanta, said the covenant's members will spend the coming months identifying joint projects to undertake in international aid, domestic poverty relief and missionary work.

"We're not against any other group of people of faith," he said. "We're against the fact that 100,000 people died last month of malaria. We're against the fact that hundreds of thousands of Africans face starvation each year."

The covenant would not be not a new denomination but a coalition of four historically black Baptist churches -- including the 7.5-million-member National Baptist Convention USA and the 2.5-million-member Progressive National Baptist Convention -- and several predominantly white Baptist groups, including the 1.4-million-member American Baptist Churches USA and the 500,000-member Cooperative Baptist Fellowship.

Together, they have more than 20 million members, outnumbering the SBC, which was not invited to the Atlanta meeting.

"The elephant is no longer in the room. There's been a convergence of the rest of the Baptists in North America," said the Rev. Daniel Vestal, national coordinator of the Cooperative Baptist Fellowship, a group of present and former Southern Baptists unhappy with the SBC's course.

"The thrust here is for a voice of Baptists that has not been heard," said the Rev. William J. Shaw, president of the Nashville-based National Baptist Convention USA. "Most of the representations of Baptists have come from the prominent television personalities, and that's okay, but they don't represent the full sweep of Baptist understanding of the faith."

Shaw said broadcast evangelists such as the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the Rev. Pat Robertson, along with the Southern Baptist Convention, have "downsized the moral message" of the Bible "so that the dominant question has to do with sexuality."

Black Baptist churches, he said, are saying that "sexuality is not the only dimension of morality. The whole business of social justice, of a fair prosecution of offenders, caring for the environment, immigration, even the morality of our foreign policy, are things that really need to be put into the debate."

Land denied that Southern Baptists care only about sexual morality, noting that the SBC was heavily involved in relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina. But he agreed that there appear to be significant disagreements between the SBC and the new coalition.

"One of the areas where we would be in significant disagreement would be our view toward Israel, as highlighted by President Carter's new book," he said, referring to "Palestine Peace Not Apartheid," published in November by Simon & Schuster. Fourteen members of an advisory panel at the Carter Center have resigned over the book's depiction of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Another difference, he said, was made clear last week when Carter spoke of sexual orientation as an "ancillary issue." "Most Southern Baptists would disagree with that," Land said. "We're not going to affirm and accept all sexual orientations."

Although the SBC was not invited to the planning meetings, Carter said he is confident that "many full-fledged Southern Baptists" will join the new covenant.

"We want our whole concept to be receptive and positive and inclusive -- and not exclusive or rejecting any Baptist," he said."

What amazes me is the hypocrisy on the right, who are hyper-sensitive to "bias" from the left, actually condoning bias as long as it comes from the right.

If Amazon did this to a right-wing darling like Coulter, or Goldberg, they'd be hollaring about it and writing their own petitions.

They'd have an angry column on TownHall and Rush would dedicate a show to it.

So much for "bias."

The right wing favors it. The left may as well favor it too.

Careful, Bee--Heaven forbid you point out their gargantuan hypocracy!



Apparently, one cannot object to such obvious bias, either--lest we get accused of attending HAU, or Blame America First, or some such nonsense.

Get the one with the hard drive, it's MORE than worth the extra. I even paid for the larger hard drive, now I don't even burn most things, just save them to watch and delete. You can save a LOT of hours on the 160 gig drive. I think the smaller one is 80 on the Philips, don't know about others. I had one without the hard disk and took it back.

I went to Hate America Gradeschool (HAGS) then Hate America Highschool (HAH) before I attended HAU.