Rumrunner6900 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 This is a problem in itself. Bush puts too much trust in people who work beneath him. I know they will not be in control of Port security. I can seperate the two issues. However, Port security is lax as it is. The fact that a state owned company, a state sympathetic to the Taliban to AQ and a state that boycotts Israel, owns this company does not sit well with me. And it's all Dubya's fault! He has all the time in the world to micromanage the bloated gov't that lies within the beltway. Damn him! :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ccsl2 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 What I find funny is the liberal hypocrisy. Dems will ***** and moan about searching a Saudi in full garb at the airport as racial profilin'. Now, if a UAE company takes over port OPERATIONS, not SECURITY, they scream to the heavens. I have never heard Dems going crazy over searching a Saudi and calling it racila profiling....I don't call it racial profiling..I call it the way of the world post 9/11.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 And it's all Dubya's fault! He has all the time in the world to micromanage the bloated gov't that lies within the beltway. Damn him! :doh: Who appointed the people who ok'd the deal? Let me point you in this direction. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2249504&postcount=8 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Bufford, if this deal took away port SECURITY from the COAST GUARD, then I'd have a problem. As it turns out, that's not the case whatsoever, though democrats have been clamoring as if it was. What I find funny is the liberal hypocrisy. Dems will ***** and moan about searching a Saudi in full garb at the airport as racial profilin'. Now, if a UAE company takes over port OPERATIONS, not SECURITY, they scream to the heavens. This thing has been blown WAY out of proportion and you know it. Dems will ***** and moan? Ummm, you haven't been paying attention that more than 2/3 of American's are ****ing and moaning on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumrunner6900 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Who appointed the people who ok'd the deal? Let me point you in this direction. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2249504&postcount=8 And I in turn will point you towards posts 18, 20, and 21 of this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Dems will ***** and moan? Ummm, you haven't been paying attention that more than 2/3 of American's are ****ing and moaning on this one. Including the Republican Gov.'s of MD and NY? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Dems will ***** and moan? Ummm, you haven't been paying attention that more than 2/3 of American's are ****ing and moaning on this one. Yeah, I'm not digging Frists crusade on this either. I think he sounds like a moron. But dems are using this to improve their pathetic record on national security just in time for the midterm elections. And yes, the repubs up for reelection are doing the same damn thing. I noticed you didn't refute my portion of the post on Coast Guard security. That's what I thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
webnarc Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I dont know about you fellas, but I'm scared. Aww, poor baby is scared. Dude, this is how politics works in Washington. Your naivete is astounding. You trumbed his naivete with rudeness. Good work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 And I in turn will point you towards posts 18, 20, and 21 of this thread. Which I have already refuted. Can you make an argument on your own? THIS IS BUSH'S FAULT. The fact that he promised a veto makes it his fault if the deal goes through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DjTj Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 I know they will not be in control of Port security. I can seperate the two issues. However, Port security is lax as it is. The fact that a state owned company, a state sympathetic to the Taliban to AQ and a state that boycotts Israel, owns this company does not sit well with me. It doesn't sit well with me either, but it also doesn't sit well with me when a mid-20's man of Arab descent sits next to me on an airplane ... but I don't frantically try to get off the airplane; I'll probably try to start a conversation with him, because I trust that the security procedures we have in place are working. Unlike Dubya, I don't make all my decisions with my gut. If this deal has been vetted by the proper security people and it has been approved, I'm not going to go crazy about it just because I have a bad feeling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
@DCGoldPants Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Yeah, I'm not digging Frists crusade on this either. I think he sounds like a moron. But dems are using this to improve their pathetic record on national security just in time for the midterm elections. And yes, the repubs up for reelection are doing the same damn thing. I noticed you didn't refute my portion of the post on Coast Guard security. That's what I thought. why would you use the Coast Guard as a defense? Its against your point. The Coast Guard warned that "intelligence gaps" prevented a broad assessment of any security risks posed by the takeover of some U.S. shipping terminals by a United Arab Emirates company, a Senate hearing revealed Monday. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/27/ports.dubai/index.html Punch drunk much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rictus58 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Yeah, I'm not digging Frists crusade on this either. I think he sounds like a moron. But dems are using this to improve their pathetic record on national security just in time for the midterm elections. And yes, the repubs up for reelection are doing the same damn thing. I noticed you didn't refute my portion of the post on Coast Guard security. That's what I thought. No one is disputing the CG authority on Port security. But, lets get real. 5% of all shipments are inspected. FIVE PERCENT!!!! How easy would it be for someone to get around it. especially with intimate knowledge of the inside workings of the port. Why does this UAE company want to keep records outside of american soil? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Monk Fan Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Who appointed the people who ok'd the deal? Let me point you in this direction. http://www.extremeskins.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2249504&postcount=8 Even in the piece you linked, there is a quote that erroneously conflates port operations and port security. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 if this sale was to, say, a german company. would the uproar be the same? no. this seems to be more a fear of Arabs then anything else. imo, of course. Bingo. And this plays oh so well in the Middle East Thanks guys for making my arguments with family that much harder :applause: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Bufford, if this deal took away port SECURITY from the COAST GUARD, then I'd have a problem. As it turns out, that's not the case whatsoever, though democrats have been clamoring as if it was. What I find funny is the liberal hypocrisy. Dems will ***** and moan about searching a Saudi in full garb at the airport as racial profilin'. Now, if a UAE company takes over port OPERATIONS, not SECURITY, they scream to the heavens. This thing has been blown WAY out of proportion and you know it. Nice try, but save your outrage. Regardless of the merits of the port deal, the outcry has not been orchestrated by the Democrats. The earliest and loudest yelling has been by the Pat Buchanan wing of the Republicans. The Democrats are happy to join in of course, but don't make it out like this was a big Hillary/Dean set-up job that was sprung on the President, because it wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 First, we should be worried about any foreign power having such an influence upon our ports. The sad fact is, a lot of people really don't care, and it is just another brick to American sovereignty being lost. Brick, by brick - and so called "conservatives" don't care unless it wins them points in making a fuss about this issue. Many didn't bat an eye when China was trying to make port purchases on the west coast, so why the fuss now? Shouldn't China be a security issue as well? To me, this may be one big red herring to throw us off from more pressing matters - why the sudden fuss about this port deal? (And this is coming from someone that has not trusted the deal from the beginning.) Second, the UAE port deal also highlights the continuing problems we have with cronyism with this administration. Cronyism is an issue that has long plagued our government, but no one really cares since it is seen as the way that "things are done." That thought is very much alive with our current Presidency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hokie4redskins Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Pat Buchanan is an isolationist. Of course he's against it. If he had his way, we'd build a huge fence around this country and cut off all contact with the outside world. Bufford, reread your quote. It doesn't say there are "gaps" in security. It says there are "gaps" in a full assessment. If that's the case, I'm willing to wait the 45 days it'll take to fully review this deal and I'll reserve my judgment until then. Regardless, this is still blown way out of proportion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 The port issue as a whole. Republican and Democrats alike have a problem with this deal which shows it isn’t an issue of partisian politics. It’s a matter of common sense. Those who lack it will blindly follow GW. Or, it's possible that Republicans and Democrats have problems with this deal because the deal looks bad in a sound bite. It couldn't possibly be a case that a lot of members of Congress would rather, come October, that people be talking about Senator Lardbutt's bold stand against the port deal than, say, his voting record on the pork, I mean, highway, bill. (Or the Patriot extentions. Or the Medicare cuts. Or warrantless wiretaps. Or . . . ) But I guess that's just because of my blind support for Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Predicto Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 Pat Buchanan is an isolationist. Of course he's against it. If he had his way, we'd build a huge fence around this country and cut off all contact with the outside world. Yes. But you haven't answered my point. The Demos did not create this furor, but you implied that they did. And to argue that the President is not responsible is silly. He said he would veto any effort to block this sale. This is a guy who never vetoes anything - this is the first veto he could come up with? Let's face it. This Administration has been stoking the fire of Americans' fear of terrorism since the day after 9-11, and he has been doing it for political reasons. Security against terrorism, more than anything else, was the issue that got Bush re-elected. With all of America on pins and needles for five years, why is anyone surprised that an uproar like this has happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crazyhorse1 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 And this is different from the past 230 years how? No need to be scared...been going on since before you and I were born and long after we will be dead! You're flat out wrong. I've studied the presidency for forty two years. There's never been anyone like this clown. He has stolen two elections; tortured, kidnapped, and murdered suspected enemies by torture; violated international agreements and laws; lied to congress; dismantled government agencies; taken care that the laws of the land not be enforced; defied courts and the Constitution; in effect suspended the Bill of Rights; waged unprovoked war on false pretenses; allowed access to American soil to suspected terrorists for profit (ports); allowed a terrorist attack of the United States through negligence; failed to pursue the terrorists who attacked the United States; failed to respond to one of the greatest natural disasters in U.S. History; outted a CIA agent; encouraged uniting church and state; promoted give-a-away tax breaks for the rich while gutting programs for the poor and middle class; drove the country into debt; supported cronyism and hence sweatshops and forced prostitution via Jack Abramoff and probably the worse congressional scandal in history, etc. Please don't try to pass off the nonsense that other U.S. Presidents were even in their wildest fantasies as dangerous as this moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Major Harris Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 what crazyhorse said. i saw your name in the thread and expected as much. stay on topic. we know how you feel about bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rumrunner6900 Posted February 28, 2006 Share Posted February 28, 2006 You're flat out wrong. I've studied the presidency for forty two years. There's never been anyone like this clown. He has stolen two elections; tortured, kidnapped, and murdered suspected enemies; violated international agreements and laws; lied to congress; dismantled government agencies; taken care that the laws of the land not be enforced; defied courts and the Constitutions; suspended the Bill of Rights; waged unprovoked war on false pretenses; allowed access to American soil to suspected terrorists for profit; allowed a terrorist attack of the United States through negligence; failed to pursue the terrorists who attacked the United States; failed to respond to one of the greatest natural disasters in U.S. History; outted a CIA agent; encouraged uniting church and state; promoted give-a-away tax breaks for the rich while gutting programs for the poor and middle class; drove the country into debt; supported cronyism and hence sweatshops and forced prostitution via Jack Abramoff and probably the worse congressional scandal in history, etc.Please don't try to pass off the nonsense that other U.S. Presidents were even in their wildest fantasies as dangerous as this moron. Hmmm....someone needs a nap! I was referring to government in general. And I refuse to get into a worthless argument with another moonbat of either side of the aisle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 Which I have already refuted. Can you make an argument on your own? THIS IS BUSH'S FAULT. The fact that he promised a veto makes it his fault if the deal goes through. He promised to vetoe any deal that blocked the sale, which technically i dont know if congress can do that since its a british company Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 And you shouldn't seperate the two..Even if the UAE company will not being doing the "security", they will have vital information as to the security operations strenghths and weaknesses of the port...and all it takes is 1 person privy to that information to flip and give it up to an terrorist organization and then you have a serious issue on your hands. All it takes is one ME person witha camera right now to do it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seabee1973 Posted March 1, 2006 Share Posted March 1, 2006 You're flat out wrong. I've studied the presidency for forty two years. There's never been anyone like this clown. He has stolen two elections; tortured, kidnapped, and murdered suspected enemies by torture; violated international agreements and laws; lied to congress; dismantled government agencies; taken care that the laws of the land not be enforced; defied courts and the Constitution; in effect suspended the Bill of Rights; waged unprovoked war on false pretenses; allowed access to American soil to suspected terrorists for profit (ports); allowed a terrorist attack of the United States through negligence; failed to pursue the terrorists who attacked the United States; failed to respond to one of the greatest natural disasters in U.S. History; outted a CIA agent; encouraged uniting church and state; promoted give-a-away tax breaks for the rich while gutting programs for the poor and middle class; drove the country into debt; supported cronyism and hence sweatshops and forced prostitution via Jack Abramoff and probably the worse congressional scandal in history, etc.Please don't try to pass off the nonsense that other U.S. Presidents were even in their wildest fantasies as dangerous as this moron. How did he steal 2 elections? How did he murder enemies? How did he do all that crap? You have not studied to many presidencies Because if you did you would know at leats 2 other presidents did illegal wire tappings. I president sold nuclear secrets to china Lets not talk about church anmd state when you Have Kerry Giving campaign speeches in churches. Lets talk about the president the president who failed to capture the peoiple that bombed the Us embassy in Kenya That bombed the airforce barracks that Bombed the Uss Cole, The terrorist that killed 19 americans at a german niteclub, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.