Hi char,

That you are selective in your criticism of Obama critics is not exactly news. But it's not uncommon for you to resort to ad hominem 'arguments' as a substitute for any substantive counterarguments.

char: "As you admit, this was just one of those shout-outs meant to make people feel good,"

As you admit, it was another of example of Obama's penchant for empty platitudes. I simply added the observation that the proclamation was false and that such shout-outs needn't be false. Apparently, whether what Obama says is actually true or not is unimportant to you.

char: " and it was indeed technically true."

I admitted nothing of the sort, your spin notwithstanding. I pointed out Obama's platitude was factually false, even according to YOUR source. Do you even read the sources that you cite? As I noted, Obama didn't mention that there was a record of  Turk who owned land in New Amsterdam in 1630. He was clear that 'Islam has ALWAYS been a part of America'. You know the context in which he made that assertion and you likewise know it's just not true, Mr. Gibbs. But like a good Obamabot, you soldier on defending his every utterance.

char: "You asked about 1620, the source gave you 1630. No one said the colonies were teeming with Muslims."

I've not suggested that Obama said that the colonies were teeming with Muslims. You've just invented that and then attributed it to me. It's your stock in trade. My query was two-part. I also asked about the role Muslims played in the founding of America. Obama said that 'Islam has always been a part of America.' In the context of his remarks, that's simply not true.

char: "Iowan, you've got "Obama Derangement Syndrome"."

And you have 'Obama Infatuation Syndrome' (and 'Bush Derangement Syndrome'). Now that we have that out of the way . . .

later, bud. iowan15