I believe Hamas on this one, that's sad.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2008
I believe Hamas on this one, that's sad.
23
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 3:19am

http://obamastatesofamerica.com/2008/08/07/obama-endorsed-by-hamas-and-receives-campaign-donations-form-terrorist-hotbed/


According to Federal Election Commission filings, Barack Obama has received illegal donations from Palestinians living in Gaza, a hotbed of Hamas terrorists. Obama received more than $24,000 in campaign contributions over a period of two months last fall from three Palestinian brothers from the “Edwan” family in Rafah, Gaza, which is a Hamas stronghold along the border with Egypt. The story was uncovered by Pamela Geller of the Atlas Shrugs blog. (see Federal Election Commission report)


“The donations are basically through and through illegal — that’s number one. And number two is how the Obama campaign tried to conceal it,” Schlussel Terrorist with hostagechides. “They listed the campaign contributions as coming from Rafah, Georgia. They used the ‘GA’ from Gaza so it makes it look like it’s legal; and then for the zip code it says ‘972,’ which is actually the area code to dial over to Gaza,” she contends.


AND


http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/palestinians-deny-obama-returned-illegal/story.aspx?guid=%7B016C7EE7-AB9E-4242-80E1-6D1BA92FDC9E%7D&dist=hppr


"Palestinians Deny Obama Returned Illegal Contributions, Says Reporter Aaron Klein"


Pages

iVillage Member
Registered: 06-16-2007
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 3:42am
The problem is, the average American is too uneducated and too disinterested in anything other than platitudes to even understand what you're trying to say.
iVillage Member
Registered: 10-17-2008
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 2:07pm

In many ways I agree, but is more frightening to me is the ideologues, the ones who are educated and do see what has happened/is happening, but will look the other way since the person in question is politically aligned with them.

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2008
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 2:15pm

Now why on Earth wouldn't this just be "reverse psychology," as we were repeatedly told in the "Al Qaeda Endorses McCain" thread?

Can ANYONE answer me why, whenever a disreputable group or country or individual endorses Obama, it's PROOF of his shady associations, poor judgment, "judge a man by the company he keeps," and the like, but whenever someone like that endorses MCCAIN, all of a sudden, it's "reverse psychology, because they REALLY want us to vote for Obama, and they know we hate them, so they're smart enough to tell us to do/think/vote for the action/thought/person that the disreputable group really DOESN'T like, because they know (since we hate 'em) we'll just do the opposite?

I've never really understood that whole "reverse psychology" bit, when it comes to pseudo-"endorsements" from shadowy foreign NGOs or even governments making endorsements in the stateside electoral process....but doesn't it stand to reason that if such a thing is true for ONE candidate, then it'd be equally true for the OTHER, as well? Or are we just supposed to INTUIT that "bad guys" are ALWAYS going to be for Obama, and thus if they tell us that straight-up, we can believe it, but if they tell us they like McCain, they're obviously trying to be sneaky and trick us?


Konichiwa, Bitches!
McCain LOST???

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 2:25pm

You noticed that, too?

 

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 2:37pm
well I thought all those associates were good reformed people or good groups??

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 2:40pm

“The donations are basically through and through illegal — that’s number one.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2008
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 2:55pm
Huh? Which ones? Hamas? I don't think they're much different than they have been in the last few years. Or are you talking about Al Qaeda? I don't think they're particularly reformed, either. Or was it someone else?

Konichiwa, Bitches!
McCain LOST???

iVillage Member
Registered: 03-19-2003
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 2:59pm
I reckon she was talking about ACORN and Ayers ... but I really don't know.

Photobucket

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-08-2008
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 3:05pm

I'm about to make an

iVillage Member
Registered: 10-23-2008
Fri, 10-24-2008 - 3:08pm

OK, I guess.

But I wasn't talking about them. I don't think it's reasonable to compare ACORN to terrorists of any kind, it's just not a realistic comparison. "Apples and Oranges" comes vividly to mind.

But comparing Hamas' "endorsement" of Obama to Al Qaeda's "endorsement" of McCain is quite valid - leagues more valid than comparing either of those two groups to Bill Ayers or (especially) ACORN....or G. Gordon Liddy, for that matter. I will repeat: I have yet to hear an argument which convinces me that when we talk about Hamas and Obama, we should take that at face value, but when we consider Al Qaeda and McCain, that's to be regarded as sneaky "reverse psychology." This particular one isn't even so much a matter of ideology (though obviously I'm an Obama supporter), as it is a matter of logic. I'd be quite willing to agree that pseudo-"endorsements" from shadowy middle-eastern groups should be discounted in a domestic Presidential race. That'd be my preference. Or, I suppose, if everyone wanted to, we could agree that such things are CRITICALLY important and should serve as one of our most significant signposts, pointing the way to who'd be the better President. But if we do THAT, we'd need to get an explanation as to why some "endorsements" are to be taken straight-up, while others are to be discounted as "reverse psychology." What are the criteria to determine which is which? How can we tell which to treat seriously, and which have the telltale signs of reverse psychology?


Konichiwa, Bitches!
McCain LOST???

Pages