Rex proves my point. He would rather take cheap shots at typos than discuss and debate issues. That attitude is a shame  as it drives people away from this forum. I wish those of us who would like an adult discussion of issues could have one without the juvenile attitude of the "gotcha" commandos.

AzSandslinger, if you like to play the  gotcha game over typos please read your first post on this subject. you will find that horse crap ( a rather crude way to say that you think a point is irrelevant) is two words not one, and  premis should be premise. I did not mention these points before as I felt that they were not relevant. I made the assumption that your errors were typos.

rex- If you will read my posts with care, you will note that in the first one I said that Obama rejected the endorsement of Hamas. In a follow up post I also stated an argument in Obama's favor regarding the endorsement. I had hoped for a discussion of the possible thinking of Hamas and how they misjudge Americans if they think that opposition to terrorism is a partisan issue in the US. If you review the history of the 20th century you will find that the record is replete with times when opponents of US policy felt that they would be would be better off with one President rather than another. Most of the time they were in error.

Perhaps such a discussion is too academic for such a partisan time (election year). That's a shame, it could have been interesting.

Posted By HiggsBoson on 05/04/2008 3:42 PM
Poor Obama, first Drummer72 endorses him, then Hamas

Thanks,
Higgs

Ha. You're forgetting Rev. Wright. (although now I'm not sure if he's endorsing him anymore. Lover's quarrel.)

Posted By HiggsBoson on 05/04/2008 3:42 PM
Poor Obama, first Drummer72 endorses him, then Hamas

Thanks,
Higgs

Got a better option?

If Obama gets elected, it's gonna be interesting, very interesting!  

A Marxist president trying to convince a Capitalistic Congress to give up a system that allows ownership of property for one that doesn't.  I don't think many members of Congress, even Democrats, are going buy into that!      

Here's just a few of my reasons.  There's lots more where this came from.  How much of it is true I don't know, but the sheer number of sources available on the Internet seem to confirm it.     

www.aim.org/aim-report/is-barack-obama-a-marxist-mole/

www.ibdeditorials.com/IBDArticles.aspx

thinkprogress.org/2008/04/14/lieberman-its-a-good-question-to-ask-if-obama-is-a-marxist/

www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/2289

I do not support Obama, and could never vote for him. Having said that, I must also state that, in fairness to him, he is no Marxist. From what I have read of his positions, his thinking is in line with the left wing of the Democratic party. That group is akin to the Social Democrats of Europe, Socialist but not Marxist. The number of web sites that say he is a Marxist is irrelevant. Both the left and the right have numerous sites that seek to demonize their opponents by using exaggeration, misinterpretation, and downright lies. Both sides follow Hitler's admonition to "Make the lie big,make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it."

The web is a great tool for research but one must always be on the alert for agenda driven sources, many of them have little regard for fairness or honesty.

hastings,

I don't know that Obama is a Marxist, all I'm saying is that the preponderance of evidence points me in that direction.  Obama admits that some of his friends are known Marxists.   Whether we like it or not, we are known by the company we keep. 

drummer,

It's also known as guilt by association and knowing this, wise people choose their friends and associates very carefully.    Like I said, whether we like it or not, we are known by the company we keep.

Maybe Hamas is publicly endorsing Obama so that we will get freaked out and vote for Hillary, which is probably who they actually want in the oval office. I bet she fills her bathtub every night with 'dirty' money.