Hamas endorses Obama
 

http://newsmax.com/insidecover/Hamas.../17/88754.html

:eek:

If Bruce Springsteen can do it......why not?

Bruce Springsteen is endorsed by Hamas? That seems kind of pointless.

No...that's not it at all....

Use the Google.

Obama wears a turban and is supported by Hamas. Sweet.

Sigh, like anyone needed more "OMG MUSLIM" ammo. This won't phase anyone who knows better, and it will only enforce the crazy from those who are so sure he will make our children speak Arabic by the end of his first term.

Rewriting history a bit there, eh?

So, do we let Hamas dictate who Americans elect by automatically voting for the other candidate? I think not.

I don't know what history book you have been reading but Carter negotiated for the hostages' release prior to his leaving office (Algiers Accords anyone?) ....what may have precipitated Carter's losing the election was the failed and fatal rescue attempt by our military.

if you are thinking about what I think you are referring to (as far as Reagan and his election campaign officers getting the hostages freed) then please put that in the Conspiracy Theory thread.

^^^Actually the old conspiracy theory was that the Reagan campaign operatives communicated with Iran and asked them to hold the hostages until Reagan won the election (the infamous "October Surprise" theory). The first "keep 'em in there" conspiracy rumor was that Carter "wanted" the hostages held through the primary season to help him beat Ted Kennedy. The reality is that the negotiations were conducted through the Carter Administration (Warren Christopher was Sec. of State) with mediation by Algerian diplomats (thus, the release agreement was called the "Algiers Accords"). The accord was signed on Jan. 19, 1981, the day BEFORE Reagan was inaugurated. The hostages were, indeed, formally released just minutes after Reagan was sworn in. Carter, though, initially met them when they were flown out of Iran and into Europe for medical check-ups, etc. Reagan and Bush did the big formal welcome home when they got back here to the states, which is what most people remember.

Carter should have nuked Iran.

This is just crazy! Since when do people who can't vote in the U.S. get to publicly endorse our candidates? Just like those people in Obama, Japan that desperately want him to win, just because of his NAME! I actually feel sorry for him because he also got Farrakhan's "seal of approval" quite some time ago, but this is the straw for the camel's back.

Bingo!

^^^Well, a little bit of "yes" on the first count, though, right, SEC?

Well they get to do whatever they want. How exactly would you stop them? We just get to choose not to listen to them.

SECdomination's logic is backward: If Hamas knows we don't like them, and they endorse a candidate, odds are they expect less support for a candidate. Therefore we should clearly all vote for Obama to thwart Hamas.

/sarcasm

What exactly does an endorsement mean anyways...just because XYZ person endorses ABC candidate menas that the particular one will win...it's just like anything else..it's an opinion of who is 'better'.

Well, a whole lotta "yes" actually. ;)
There was logic there?

I didn't say it was Earth-logic.

I think this is the part where you're veering into the "making it up" territory. At the time, it was seen mainly as a middle-finger to Carter, not fear of Reagan.

Eh, it's completely irrelevant to my opinion of the candidate. I just think it raises interesting questions about what a group like Hamas thinks it's accomplishing -- maybe they want Clinton and are hoping their endorsement will turn people to her.

Where are we going? And why am I in this handbasket? LOL :rolleyes:

As long as you realize you're reading into it only what you put there. Their endorsement might mean that they think he has the best chance of working out a deal where Israel and Palestine live together without shooting each other or blowing up discos. It might mean that they think he'll be the weakest president and the easiest to manipulate. It might mean they'd like to see a brown guy in office. It might mean they discovered he forgets to put the butter away sometimes and they can really relate to that.

It goes on and on. Without them stating why they endorse, and you being able to trust that statement, you're only taking out what you put in.

Yeah, bu the important thing is: has Jimmy Carter given Obama his support?

He's not endorsing til the convention.

I know I know, you were making a funny.

I was thinking more along the lines of this. I wonder if a minority president will change the way the international community views the United States.

I think his proposed actions will have a much greater influence on how we are viewed by the international community rather than his skin color.

I've read stories from reporters in Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. that include the comment that Obama does give the people there hope that America practices what it preaches. Average everyday people, btw, who may or may not be thrilled with the US but aren't on a jihad against it.

And I think that's the difference between the "international community" that macallan speaks of and Mohammed, John, Ivan, etc. on the street.

From what i've been told, a lot of the "admiration" (for a lack of a better term) for Obama is mainly because his father was/is Muslim.

But, I think any president that doesn't have a George W. Bush mentality might be able to change the way the int'l community views us.

Exactly! Everytime I watch international news reports, I am astounded by the Anti-American sentiment on various political issues. EVERY American obviously does not share the same views nor feel superior to the rest of the world.

I don't think it's simply because his father's Muslim, but what it means that America could elect a President with that heritage. There is certainly a tendancy to support the person "like" you, especially when you don't have as much of a stake in the winner.

*nod*
There are some people who should get the lesson from that and apply it to their own perceptions. Like those who think that all Muslims think the same way *cough hint cough*

And as for the media, as much as I like the BBC for example, they have their own bias too.

That's true as well. My professor made that comment when I asked her opinion about Hamas endorsing Obama (my professor's Palestinian).

But your last sentence is totally true--its just like the president of BET said (i'm pretty sure there is already a thread about that so i wont go into it).

While I don't think it is a bad thing to be admired because we're open to electing people from varying backgrounds...I'm not sure I care what those countries think.

Sure, I want the United States to be respected, but do I want the Netherlands to respect us because we're being destroyed by political correctness just like they are? Not really. Simply because something garners respect doesn't mean it is good for America.

Which is why people should take these things for what they are, announced preferences. However people allow them to sway their opinions both for and against.

I think the United States should want to be respected by the rest of the world, and the fact that we're not suggests very strongly that we're doing something wrong. That doesn't mean that we change policy on the whims of Luxembourg, just that we respect the world's opinion.

I avidly disagree with this sentiment, and find it pretty dangerous. I think EU countries are going to experience some very problematic times over the next couple of decades, and much of it is by their own doing. Thus, I'm not sure their opinion about us should really impact our course of action.

Of course I think it is fine when people argue the same points that the international community is arguing, but when they start saying "the international community's tenor about our actions indicates..." I think it gets a bit frightening when used as an appeal to authority.

If everyone hates you, at some point it's not everyone else.

However, I said clearly that we should NOT necessarily change our policies based on the whims of everyone else. I think we should change the course the country is on, but not because of Europe, because the population of this country is unhappy with our course and because I don't think it's in the best interest of our country. My complaint is with the disregarding of other countries' opinions simply because they're European and "liberal" or poor or whatever and only caring about the countries that agree with us. That's a stupid idea and leads to self-delusion in individuals and in nations.

I think when a country is as powerful as the US is that we're going to be disliked by a lot of the international community for that reason alone.

Global popularity as an end in itself isn't really a worthwhile goal; we should concern ourselves with doing what's right while we look out for our own interests. Ideally, we would could do this in a cooperative spirit with others, but it's not essential.

And, I don't really mean you Drolefille, but a lot of the folks who concern themselves with the rest of the world hating us conveniently assume that they hate us for the same reasons that they are dissatisfied with our government or foreign policy.

A some of the world hates us because we pollute the world with porn and radical ideas about women's rights. Others hate us because we have protectionist trade policies and promote a much higher standard of living for our own citizens than we do for the rest of the world.

Our foreign policy may not be helping, but life isn't going to be rosy with the rest of the world because we elect Obama, unless of course, we're willing to change the way we live for the sake of making the international community happy. I'm not particularly interested.

Why? If I want investment advice, I don't go to a guy who has filed bankruptcy 3 times in his life. If I want advice on how to combat terrorism, I'm not gonna look to the Netherlands or France where Islamic extremism is likely to erupt in a big way in the next few decades.

I'm not saying that all opinions are worthless, but a majority of countries saying something in unison doesn't mean much unless those countries have credibility on the subject matter.

I just feel like too many people focus on the bolded things and not that some people hate us because we think we own the world, we talk big but then we don't pay our debts, and when we do "walk the walk" it's invading a sovereign country, one that did not directly threaten us at the time, (Sure it was Iraq, no one really liked them, but it's a precedent that we should NOT have set), because we are perceived not just as a Christian nation but a crazy oversexualized and over-sexually-repressed society all in one go.

Also, we "promote" a high standard of living, but we do not live up to it. People who live in this country are starving. We're the richest country in the world and we cannot manage to feed our own people. It's so ridiculously depressing that most of us just don't even think about it for our own mental health.

This is probably the crux of the matter. But of course, this is ridiculously overstated. The idea that the American poor live in abject poverty when compared to China or India or Africa is absurd. Sure, we can do a better job of helping our fellow citizens, but I think your comment reflects the true ideology of the American left.

They want us to listen to EU countries when they criticize, because they want us to be like them. They want socialistic economic policy and reduced autonomy. They think it is ok to punish citizens for uttering politically incorrect WORDS. I think this argument goes a lot deeper than a simple plea for international respect. I'm not saying it does with you, I'm just expressing why I think this discussion gets pretty frightening, pretty quickly.

Both sides get extremely polarized on it.

The idea that just because people are worse off in India and China shouldn't be a way to dismiss the fact that we are richer than those countries per capita and still have people who are starving. I wouldn't care whether it was the government, or charity, or whoever was providing the food, but it is neither or if it's both it isn't enough and that is incredibly tragic.