Obama in bed with terrorist group Hamas?

This has nothing to do with American terrorists. It has to do with a suppossed meeting between 'Obama advisers' and 'Hamas' that may or may not even have happened.

 

Never go to sleep while your mortal enemy is alive and well!

 

Not bad advice, but that does not mean we do not talk to him/her/them .

 

Do you know the terrible things that Hamas has done? You don't talk with such people. You can't reason with evil.

 

...and you can't debate stupid (not a person, a view).

 

Yes, we might discuss surrender terms with them, provided they're willing to give up, else there's not much to talk about.

 

As a poster and starter of a thread...... you owe no obligation to a referenced report to title your post with their title....

If you start a thread, then you own the title and all the comments and criticisizms which arise from it.

This thread was titled with a question mark in punctuation. It honestly leads the BB members to enter the thread with a question to discern for themselves whether or not our agreement is with the article. This is much different than posting a title without punctuation which inclines a person to read it as a declarative statement of fact or truth. BIG DIFFERENCE.

You choose for yourself which you show..... honesty and class...... or tasteless choice and misrepresentation.

 

This was before the election. Nuf said.

 

Bauer is not the author of the article in question. He is the person being asked about the published report that Obama met with Hamas.

Here is the sum total of Bauer's words:

"If the meeting in fact took place, it would be deeply troubling, not only because the meeting would have been with Hamas -- a group that clearly promotes terrorism -- but also...because there would be absolutely no reason in the world for a representative of Barack Obama, as a candidate, to be having such meetings abroad,"

and

"If it isn't, there is [sic] still plenty of other things that we know happened in the campaign that has [sic] made those of us who are pro-Israel very concerned, and things that have encouraged those who tend to be more pro-Arab-Muslim when it comes to controversies in the Middle East,"


Please point out which of these words of his say that "it really doesn't matter" if the report is true or not.

 

While he hopes the report is not accurate, Bauer suggests it does not really matter. "If it isn't, there is [sic] still plenty of other things that we know happened in the campaign that has [sic] made those of us who are pro-Israel very concerned, and things that have encouraged those who tend to be more pro-Arab-Muslim when it comes to controversies in the Middle East," he adds.

Bauer admits he has deep concerns about the future of U.S.-Israeli relations under an Obama administration.

 

Talk about selective quoting

From the article:

 

Mostly because it is so seldom that we agree... and because I am so frequently critical of your opinion...... I'd like to say:

KUDOS, kudos to you BaptistBeliever for fairly representing Bauer's quote: :applause: :thumbs:

 

This is exactly what I am talking about in regards to being able to separate editorization from quotation.

It is the writer of the article that is reading into Bauer's words to say that it does not matter if it is true or not.

Bauer is not saying it.

This is so simple it amazes me that you do not seem to comprehend the distinction.

 

Okay, explain to me what Bauer's 'it' refers to if not the report of the meeting.

 

I think I understand where the confusion is:

This is the author of this article. Bauer's quote comes from consulting with him regarding his opinion of the report. At no time does the author or Bauer state primary sources.... in fact it is an opinion piece based upon reports and denials:

Why report or pass on information which may not be true?

1) The report may have importance if true: An unanswered issue.
(Recall the strong change of opinion based upon the allegation that Palin didn't know the difference between a country and a continent?.... whether verified or not, some changed their approval of her based upon this report: To them it was important. Likewise the conflict of reports that Obama's grandmother admits presence at his Kenyan birth, and that the Birth Certificate published is only proof that his birth was registered in Hawaii, and may or may not be proof that a live birth occurred in that state.)

2) It may draw out primary sources which either verify or deny, sources which are considered to be more credible and/or less conflicted in interest than either of the two sources recorded in this report: To reveal the truth.

3) An agenda on the part of the reporter to promote his POV: Political or character assassination. Imo, this article is balanced: It does not hide the fact the author and Bauer have a pov which makes this report of interest to them.... but they do not misrepresent that there remains a question as to whether the report is true or not.

Pick which is the correct answer: (1), (2), or (3).

 

Yes, "it" refers to the report.

Now - saying "if this is true then..." and "even if this is not true then..." is NOT saying "it's doesn't matter if it is true or not".

Do you see the distinction?

The reason that this makes a difference to me is that there seem to be so many opinons and judgments made that are based off of misunderstanding that is the result of poor reading comprehension. (Again not talking about you - just people in general)

Those misinformed opinons and judgments are then passed on to others who accept them as fact.

And that is how - in part - we have gotten to such a sad state of affairs in terms of the political divisions between people.

 

Roger

Who said the American voter thought past the next pay check?:BangHead: :BangHead: :BangHead:

 

Exactly. That is the only thing that was important.

Like Clinton kept reminding himself - 'Its the economy stupid'

 

Could be for many reasons..... shall we read minds? One reason for concern is posted in the article.

Bauer may have in mind the Logan Act, where citizens are not allowed to advise or bargain with officials of other governments or recognized adversives, without the permission of the President or State Department. Whether or not Obama has this permieeion before the election has not been published that I know of. He did visit Kenya about a year ago and during his 8 day trip was highly visible and gave credibility to his cousin?/ friend Odinga's campaign, as a US Senator. Someone in Obama's campaign verified a meeting between Obama and Iraqi's regarding a policy change to wait 'til after the election. This may be innocent.... However, the news-worthiness of meeting just to shake hands and share introduction is suspect when one is in the process of their own presidential campaign.

No doubt secret negotiation can and do take place. Our society is open and expects transparency and campaigns are won on such ideals and promises. However, if and when secret negotiations take place, it omits respect of the public to know that there is purpose to the meeting: Other parties which may be affected are also neglected and to what ends it may work for or against them but impact them is suspect.



THINK

 

Everyone is innocent until proven guilty. Do you want to change that?