SkinsHokieFan Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Amazing the length some will go to defend this man. It reminds me of the argument that guns don't kill people, the bullets do.Sure, planting thousands of 'well screened' arab workers on our ports isn't a concern. It definetely doesn't make the ports any less secure or easier to infiltrate or even more difficult for the 'security' already. Thanks cuz every Arab and Muslim in this country has blown **** up My God, some of these arguments from so called liberals shows incredible intolerance Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Look I hate W. I mean I've go those credentials in spades. The guy is a fool, and idiot, whatever you want to say bad about him I'll pretty much agree.But, I think you're dead wrong to call him a traitor for this. There are so many valid things to talk about impeachment over, but this.... I don't think so. My thoughts exactly but I still have a problem with any foriegn companies controlling our ports in any way. Out of principle, we should do this ourselves. Kinda like how we all buy American cars.....right? :mad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I brought this up in another thread, but what does this even mean? Doe sit just mean that they get to collect port usage fees in exchange for financing the repair of cranes? Are the people on the ground going to change at all? What power does this really give this company? Does anyone know the answer to any of these questions? We're not asking these guys to take over the customs bureau, right? I mean if we're concerned about security we should put more inspectors at the ports. We should be asking the people who typically run or work at these ports what the take over would mean in terms of day to day operation. That;s what's important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I brought this up in another thread, but what does this even mean? Doe sit just mean that they get to collect port usage fees in exchange for financing the repair of cranes? Are the people on the ground going to change at all? What power does this really give this company? Does anyone know the answer to any of these questions?We're not asking these guys to take over the customs bureau, right? I mean if we're concerned about security we should put more inspectors at the ports. We should be asking the people who typically run or work at these ports what the take over would mean in terms of day to day operation. That;s what's important. Judging from the outrage, apparantly it gives muslims the ability to blow our ports up. I guess its just that simple. :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ignatius J. Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Because the President of the United States is on one side of an issue.Hence, people are going to take the other side, question his judgement, call for his impeachment, call him an idiot, etc etc, ad nauseum. Because questioning the president is such an aweful and tiresome thing isn't it? Rolling your eyes at legitimate dissent makes you look silly, especially in this case of all cases where the divide is hardly along party lines. I don't think this knee jerk reaction you exhibit explains the general republican uproar OR the amount of support for this plan you've been seeing by the liberal base around here. It isn't a party issue, and it isn't an issue of general disaproval of the president, so please don't try to frame it as one. There are legitimate concerns here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Because questioning the president is such an aweful and tiresome thing isn't it? Rolling your eyes at legitimate dissent makes you look silly, especially in this case of all cases where the divide is hardly along party lines.I don't think this knee jerk reaction you exhibit explains the general republican uproar OR the amount of support for this plan you've been seeing by the liberal base around here. It isn't a party issue, and it isn't an issue of general disaproval of the president, so please don't try to frame it as one. There are legitimate concerns here. Did i say questioning the president is "aweful" or tiresome? No, i didnt. But the fact is every time the President is on TV, whatever he says is an impeachable offense to the liberals on this board. Look at the title to this thread. THAT is tiresome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins4life234 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 King W says he will veto any attempt by Congress to block his haribrained scheme of selling American port security to his Arab buddies. Maybe he should invite his Dubai as well as Saudi buddies over and and explain it all to the Congress, they can all hold hands and make googoo eyes at each other.IMPEACH THE INCOMPETENT FOOL Too bad Bush hasnt broke anylaws meaning he isnt goign to have an impeachment trial. Also congress is controlled my Republicans, meaning they Wouldn't impeach him or find him guilty if for some reason they did. So with that.. SHut up everyone with the "Impeach Bush" Crap as it wont happen unless he breaks some major law. And before anyone says it, the wiretapping, he didnt break any laws doing that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RDSKNfaithfull Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 King W says he will veto any attempt by Congress to block his haribrained scheme of selling American port security to his Arab buddies. Maybe he should invite his Dubai as well as Saudi buddies over and and explain it all to the Congress, they can all hold hands and make googoo eyes at each other.IMPEACH THE INCOMPETENT FOOL Don't you watch 24? Maybe the Arabs have him by the ######. And he is saving millions of lives by doing this??????? :laugh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Wow, we have at least 234 Redskins4Life's. I wonder how many Die Hard's we have? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 The only good thing that will come of this is that is will give the appearance in Americans eyes that Dubya cares about money more then terrorism (which is true BTW, but this isn't a good example of it). Other then that, it is one of the few times I agree with the man. . .I'm not suprised I disagree with the vast majority of posters here though, which just reconfirms to me I'm on the right side of the argument Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I brought this up in another thread, but what does this even mean? Doe sit just mean that they get to collect port usage fees in exchange for financing the repair of cranes? Are the people on the ground going to change at all? What power does this really give this company? Does anyone know the answer to any of these questions?We're not asking these guys to take over the customs bureau, right? I mean if we're concerned about security we should put more inspectors at the ports. We should be asking the people who typically run or work at these ports what the take over would mean in terms of day to day operation. That;s what's important. I think the problem is people are legitmately concerned with security. Would not selling a port give a person vital information about the security of the port. Possible exploitable flaws within the security of the port. This is purely speculation however what is not is that UAE FUNDS TERRORISTS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 The only good thing that will come of this is that is will give the appearance in Americans eyes that Dubya cares about money more then terrorism (which is true BTW, but this isn't a good example of it). Other then that, it is one of the few times I agree with the man. . .I'm not suprised I disagree with the vast majority of posters here though, which just reconfirms to me I'm on the right side of the argument I don't see how trying to work with another gov't in terms of trade and commerce is "caring more about money then terrorism" If anything, money is part of the answer to ending terror, and trade and commerce help in that Glad you are finally on the right side of the argument though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Too bad Bush hasnt broke any laws meaning he isnt goign to have an impeachment trial. That wasn't good enough for Clinton. (Sorry, had to.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Sure, planting thousands of 'well screened' arab workers on our ports isn't a concern. It definetely doesn't make the ports any less secure or easier to infiltrate or even more difficult for the 'security' already. Last time I checked, you had to be a US citizen or have permission from the US government to work in the US. (Although, granted, Bush is working hard on that one.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins4life234 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 That wasn't good enough for Clinton. (Sorry, had to.) From what my dad told me, Clinton's impeachment he had 2 charges of purchary(sp) and two of instruction of justice. That is worthy enough of being impeached even though he wasn't convicted. So yes, Clinton did do something (Sorry, had to.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Look I hate W. I mean I've go those credentials in spades. The guy is a fool, and idiot, whatever you want to say bad about him I'll pretty much agree.But, I think you're dead wrong to call him a traitor for this. There are so many valid things to talk about impeachment over, but this.... I don't think so. Speaking as one of those loony liberals who thinks he should be impeached, for treason, I'm with Iggy, here. If you think this is the worst thing W has done then you haven't been paying attention. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NoCalMike Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I find it hilarious that is Bush vetoed this bill, it would be the first thing he has EVER vetoed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redskins4life234 Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Remember people, If the president Vetoes a bill, it can still be overturned by a 2/3rd vote from congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChocolateCitySkin Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Remember people, If the president Vetoes a bill, it can still be overturned by a 2/3rd vote from congress. Right, we all know this will be overturned if he vetoes the bill. Thats why this seems like insanity even expending the political clout to do this move. Hence, why I proffer that G. W. has some estranged bedfellows that he's prevent from embarassing themselves. This move is so out of character-- i.e. all of the moves china has attempt that the past few years that have been blocked-- that I can't believe he would do this without a specific reason. Of course, maybe I'm reading between the lines too much. However, with something as bizarre of a move as this how can a person not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I find it hilarious that is Bush vetoed this bill, it would be the first thing he has EVER vetoed. My prediction is that it'll be stage managed the same way Homeland Security was. The GOP will fight against it, untill public opinion gets so set against it that they realise they're on the wrong side, politically. They'll then decide that the way to go is to insert some rider onto the bill that the Democrats can't stand. Something like making it illegal for any gay to be within 100 miles of a coast or port. They'll make shure that the republican bill, with the rider, comes up for a vote, while the Democrat bill that was proposed first stays in committee. Six months from now, every GOP member of Congress will be proudly taking credit for protecting our ports (after being forced into it), when the Democrats thought politics was more important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PleaseBlitz Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I find it hilarious that is Bush vetoed this bill, it would be the first thing he has EVER vetoed. Shocker. Thats what happens when your party controls Congress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I find it hilarious that is Bush vetoed this bill, it would be the first thing he has EVER vetoed. And its a damn good bill to veto For being "liberal" there sure is a lot of intolerance in the democratic party. I swear when I saw Mayor O'Malley speak I thought he was about to say "no damn sand ******s will ever control this port!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 I don't see how trying to work with another gov't in terms of trade and commerce is "caring more about money then terrorism"If anything, money is part of the answer to ending terror, and trade and commerce help in that Glad you are finally on the right side of the argument though Re-read what I said, the APPEARANCE, not the reality. It is what I am harping about all the time on here with propaganda. Most Americans don't take time to read the truth, and fall for the first thing that makes sense to them, this is a perfect example. I agree with the rest of your post, why do you agree with Iraq then if you think the way to defeat terrorism is through the wallet, not thruogh the scope of a gun? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 22, 2006 Share Posted February 22, 2006 Re-read what I said, the APPEARANCE, not the reality. It is what I am harping about all the time on here with propaganda. Most Americans don't take time to read the truth, and fall for the first thing that makes sense to them, this is a perfect example. And that APPEARANCE is a good thing? How? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chief skin Posted February 22, 2006 Author Share Posted February 22, 2006 Too bad Bush hasnt broke anylaws meaning he isnt goign to have an impeachment trial. Also congress is controlled my Republicans, meaning they Wouldn't impeach him or find him guilty if for some reason they did. So with that.. SHut up everyone with the "Impeach Bush" Crap as it wont happen unless he breaks some major law.And before anyone says it, the wiretapping, he didnt break any laws doing that. A small organization by the name of the American Bar Association seems to think his royal highness has broken the law on the warrantless wiretapping. Come November his GOP buddies in Congress may all get thrown out courtesy of his past screwups. So never say never Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.