Herman Cain has announced his candidacy for the nomination

major bean wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote:

major bean wrote: Well, I am a moron then. But so is the news agency of the BBC and CNN and every newscast that I have heard on the radio since Obama made his unfortunate speech. I have only heard conflicting opinions on the forum only, the reservoir of genius.

If you are able to comprehend the quote that you posted, it merely states that this is the first time that President Obama has made that demand. You were the one who stated that President Obama was the first president to make this demand.

This was posted by me a couple of pages back.

Obama calls for Israel's return to pre-1967 borders
May 19, 2011|By Tom Cohen, CNN
In the past, the United States has unofficially backed a two-state solution to the Israel-Palestinian conflict based on the borders in place prior to the war 44 years ago in which Israel seized the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Golan Heights and Sinai Peninsula.

In a major speech Thursday, Obama became the first president to formally endorse the policy , but he also acknowledged the need for modifications through the negotiating process due to conditions on the ground.

Your argument is not with me, but with CNN.

the link: http://articles.cnn.com/2011-05-19/politics/obama.israel.palestinians_1_israel-palestinian-conflict-borders-settlements?_s=PM:POLITICS

And if you had put the full quote in your post it would have stated:

President Barack Obama on Thursday made official the long-held but rarely stated U.S. support for a future Palestinian state based on borders that existed before the 1967 Middle East war.

major bean wrote: I do not agree with Cain or Obama on this issue. Obama made the situation much worse by even mentioning the subject. We should mind our own business. The '67 boundry has always been an unspoken bargaining chip that has never been mentioned publicly. By publicly acknowledging this topic, Obama has lessened its power in nonpublic negotiations. Advantage; Palestinians.

And if you were paying attention, I posted this earlier. Photo-fish even took exception to it.
You liberals just stick together and try to defend one another, no matter how idiotic the other liberal sounds.

I love statements where you can swap out the word "liberals" for: "conservatives"--and it's still true.

THERE SHE IS!. I knew that you would pipe in. Do you all post in tandem? This is like tagteam wrestling. What a hoot!
LJ, you just proved what I posted. Thanks!

You're welcome... And you proved your own post, (with the obvious correction)... Thanks for posting it!

That's too deep for me.

That's not a surprise.

I rarely can make sense out of disconnected logic.

Your observation seemed fairly straight-forward to me... Sorry you can't make any sense out of what you perceive to be your own "disconnected logic." I merely pointed out that if you swap the word(s) "liberal" for "conservative", it's just as valid. Sorry that's a concept that appears to be too difficult for you to "make sense out of."

Better luck next time.

"Never wrestle with a pig because you'll only get muddy and the pig enjoys it."

http://carboncoach.typepad.com/the_carb ... nt-to.html