But would it be credible, or just another right wing mouthpiece?

Birdzeye, can you for once manage to intelligently discuss the topic instead of throwing around the same tired "cry foul" crap about the poster?

If you disagree with the information in the OP then find a source to support your position and post it with some relevant discussion otherwise I'm going to report you for trying to derail this thread.

Discuss the issue at hand or leave.

Birdzeye hasn't made any posts here that are reportable so please don't abuse the Report Posts feature by reporting posts that don't violate the rules.

OE has already expressed my feelings about the OP when he wrote:

__________________


"When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty." Thomas Jefferson

Walter Mondale: "George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize." George Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."

Oh, so now you're getting personal, eh, Bourne? And you seriously expect me to believe you're really interested in serious discussion despite that?

Do you think I'll be intimidated by your threat to "report" me?

Come up with a source that isn't as blatantly biased as NR. As Michael commented, you'd be having a hissy if someone on the left cited Democratic Underground as a source (and I'd agree with you if you did).

Why am I not surprised. Fine, until he posts something which even remotely resembles a response to the issue presented in the OP I'll ignore him.

Just give us an unbiased source. That's all I asked for, and you had a hissy fit. You're the one who's keeping the issue from being discussed. Live with it.

I have provided you with an unbiased source.

Once again, and for the last time, if you want to counter the information in my source post your own source with some relevant discussion and we can debate. Otherwise from this point on I'm going to simply ignore you.

National Review is not an unbiased source, except in the eyes of far right wingers.

Once again, please provide a truly unbiased source. NR doesn't qualify.

My understanding is that Obama WILL NOT sit with Hamas unless they change their position on certain issues. I doubt very much that Hamas will comply, and I believe that Obama's camp knows this. In other words, it is very easy to offer "change" in the form of sitting and talking with the enemy, especially when you know that the Hamas will not comply with the requirements for such a meeting.

"That's why I have a fundamental difference with President Carter and disagree with his decision to meet with Hamas," Obama said. “We must not negotiate with a terrorist group intent on Israel’s destruction,” Obama said. “We should only sit down with Hamas if they renounce terrorism, recognize Israel’s right to exist, and abide by past agreements.”

"Hamas is not a state. Hamas is a terrorist organization," he said.

Obama criticizes ex-President Carter's Hamas meeting | Politics | Reuters

Hamas is not a state. Do you think it is?

__________________
"Moreover, I am cognizant of the interrelatedness of all communities and states...Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly. Never again can we afford to live with the narrow, provincial "outside agitator" idea. Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere within its bounds."



~Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.