login
Dubai Port Deal Part II
-
No new posts
|
 2006-03-10 7:38 AM |
Elite  2421  |  Subject: Dubai Port Deal Part IIReferencing this thread: http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=36118&posts=67#s ...that got away from the port deal and got into the semantics of terror bombings. Dubai officically pulled out of the port deal and IMHO Congress has taken gread strides to hurt our position in the Middle East and basically make us look like a buch of ignorant, racist pricks. Hey guys, why can't you be bipartisan on something that will actually help this country, like more money for schools. I understand their concern and I understand the desire for more studies, but the implied and sometimes overt message that they spewed forth over and over was that we can't trust them because they're Muslim, so they must therefore be more than willing to harbor and support terrorists. The UAE has been our friend for a number of years now. We conduct military exercises there on a regular basis, we have USN ships harbored there. Why? Because that's one of the most secure and US friendly countries in the region. They have (as was pointed out in the other thread) contributed hundreds of millions (if not more) to our economy and they have now successfully been completely alienated... thanks politicians. Idiots. bts |
| 2006-03-10 10:52 AM in reply to: #366069 |
Master 1867    The real USC, in the ghetto of LA | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Brett - 2006-03-10 7:38 AM Referencing this thread: http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=36118&posts=67#s ...that got away from the port deal and got into the semantics of terror bombings. Dubai officically pulled out of the port deal and IMHO Congress has taken gread strides to hurt our position in the Middle East and basically make us look like a buch of ignorant, racist pricks. Hey guys, why can't you be bipartisan on something that will actually help this country, like more money for schools. I understand their concern and I understand the desire for more studies, but the implied and sometimes overt message that they spewed forth over and over was that we can't trust them because they're Muslim, so they must therefore be more than willing to harbor and support terrorists. The UAE has been our friend for a number of years now. We conduct military exercises there on a regular basis, we have USN ships harbored there. Why? Because that's one of the most secure and US friendly countries in the region. They have (as was pointed out in the other thread) contributed hundreds of millions (if not more) to our economy and they have now successfully been completely alienated... thanks politicians. Idiots. bts That was my position, but i didnt get much bounce. Esp when China (govt controlled) runs ports here in Long Beach. |
| 2006-03-10 10:56 AM in reply to: #366069 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Brett - 2006-03-10 6:38 AM Referencing this thread: http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/discussion/forums/thread-view.asp?tid=36118&posts=67#s ...that got away from the port deal and got into the semantics of terror bombings. Dubai officically pulled out of the port deal and IMHO Congress has taken gread strides to hurt our position in the Middle East and basically make us look like a buch of ignorant, racist pricks. Hey guys, why can't you be bipartisan on something that will actually help this country, like more money for schools. I understand their concern and I understand the desire for more studies, but the implied and sometimes overt message that they spewed forth over and over was that we can't trust them because they're Muslim, so they must therefore be more than willing to harbor and support terrorists. The UAE has been our friend for a number of years now. We conduct military exercises there on a regular basis, we have USN ships harbored there. Why? Because that's one of the most secure and US friendly countries in the region. They have (as was pointed out in the other thread) contributed hundreds of millions (if not more) to our economy and they have now successfully been completely alienated... thanks politicians. Idiots. bts Hear! Hear! It's nothing more than pathetic political games on both sides of the aisle trying to play to voter's base emotions in the upcoming mid-term elections. -Chris |
| 2006-03-10 11:10 AM in reply to: #366069 |
Master 4101 Denver | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Yup, what you guys said. Nice message to the rest of the world: we're all for free trade unless you're an arab. |
| 2006-03-10 11:14 AM in reply to: #366069 |
| Elite 2458 Livingston, MT | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II or Chinese. Think Unical. |
| 2006-03-10 11:31 AM in reply to: #366069 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Factoid: 80% of US ports are run by non-US companies. Congress - haven for pandering idiots. |
| 2006-03-10 11:33 AM in reply to: #366069 |
Master 2052 Colorado | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Yes. I was quite surprised this morning when I found myself agreeing with Bush. |
| 2006-03-10 11:36 AM in reply to: #366069 |
Master 1867 The real USC, in the ghetto of LA | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II I think that it demonstrates the fact that so many politicians, and americans are go anit-bush that they will make ****** of themselfs and get swept up in over-hyped media without looking at any facts. (as the media was miss reporting the "sale of security") I lost alot fo respect for alot of people over the issue, and W was not one of them, it appears that he might have been right. For that he gets no bounce. |
| 2006-03-10 11:40 AM in reply to: #366401 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Not sure how you made that causal connection, Abraham. I'm just not seeing those dots connecting AT ALL. The ports deal was not a Bush bashing exercise. It was an Arab/Muslim bashing exercise. |
| 2006-03-10 1:11 PM in reply to: #366069 |
Expert 783 South Bend, IN | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II My whole issue is that we can OPENLY disparage an ARAB company, but God forbid we frisk one in an airport, while the 90 year old blue hair Methodist woman standing in front of me is getting an elbow deep cavity search at teh airport. Chuck Schumer is a Schmuck |
| 2006-03-10 1:43 PM in reply to: #366407 |
Master 1867 The real USC, in the ghetto of LA | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Renee - 2006-03-10 11:40 AM Not sure how you made that causal connection, Abraham. I'm just not seeing those dots connecting AT ALL. The ports deal was not a Bush bashing exercise. It was an Arab/Muslim bashing exercise. but the rhetoric was "how could this administration (bush) sell our security to a country that aids terrorists." that was the basic bull that was spewed from politician and american mouths. If you had watched ANY CNN or debate im sure you would have seen the connection of "Bush is evil for allowing this...." and "Is bush crazy?...." edit: are you saying there wasnt an anti bush agenda behind the uproar? Edited by tyrant 2006-03-10 1:44 PM |
| 2006-03-10 2:02 PM in reply to: #366591 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II tyrant - 2006-03-10 1:43 PM Renee - 2006-03-10 11:40 AM The ports deal was not a Bush bashing exercise. It was an Arab/Muslim bashing exercise. edit: are you saying there wasnt an anti bush agenda behind the uproar? That is what I'm saying. It wasn't Bush bashing. It was opportunistic, I'mallforsecuritychestthumping, Arab/Muslim bashing. By Republicans and Democrats alike. Early campaigning with free airtime. Bush started the "Be Afraid!" PR tactic, now everybody's jumped on that bandwagon. The clowns are climbing over each other trying to look all "There's no need to fear! Underdog is here!" about our security. |
| 2006-03-10 2:19 PM in reply to: #366615 |
Master 1867 The real USC, in the ghetto of LA | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Renee - 2006-03-10 2:02 PM tyrant - 2006-03-10 1:43 PM Renee - 2006-03-10 11:40 AM The ports deal was not a Bush bashing exercise. It was an Arab/Muslim bashing exercise. edit: are you saying there wasnt an anti bush agenda behind the uproar? That is what I'm saying. It wasn't Bush bashing. It was opportunistic, I'mallforsecuritychestthumping, Arab/Muslim bashing. By Republicans and Democrats alike. Early campaigning with free airtime. Bush started the "Be Afraid!" PR tactic, now everybody's jumped on that bandwagon. The clowns are climbing over each other trying to look all "There's no need to fear! Underdog is here!" about our security. be afraid? WTF.... does anyone know of a date... what was it..... i think in september, was it the 11th? be afraid? i was saying that back in 1999 to everyone i knew, and then it came true. we DO need to be afraid. It was bush bashing in the beginning that was muslim bashing by relation. Every politicain dished bush and utilized muslim bashing as their excuse. it made me fing sick. those politicians are sick people. when we have the leaders of the democrats (i know republican too, but they are the "conservitive" so they are more inherant to it) to be so filled with racist views is sick. i think that this will be forgotten by the next presidential election wich is good BC hillary doesnt want to have to explain her position. The whole thing made me sick. it was so shameful. |
| 2006-03-10 2:21 PM in reply to: #366640 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Whatever. |
| 2006-03-10 2:23 PM in reply to: #366646 |
Master 1867 The real USC, in the ghetto of LA | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Renee - 2006-03-10 2:21 PM Whatever. i just love how so many people hold every little statment against bush, but we let our other politicians be openly racist, and hurt our global position (in ways as bad as the war in Iraq), and everyone is so quick to forget. it was a nice conversation |
| 2006-03-10 2:24 PM in reply to: #366648 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II tyrant - 2006-03-10 2:23 PM Renee - 2006-03-10 2:21 PM it was a nice conversationWhatever. At least it was good for you. |
| 2006-03-10 2:35 PM in reply to: #366649 |
Master 1867 The real USC, in the ghetto of LA | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Renee - 2006-03-10 2:24 PM tyrant - 2006-03-10 2:23 PM Renee - 2006-03-10 2:21 PM it was a nice conversationWhatever. At least it was good for you. its an open forum, you can say your mind. i wont entice you, but responding with "wahtever" is so childish. at least you had enough respect to answer my post. |
| 2006-03-10 2:48 PM in reply to: #366659 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Abraham, you are in over your head. I'm not going to debate you. Mark Twain said something very wise about this topic, which I am trying to heed. I will ask, however, that you apologize for your ad hominen attack. I don't expect you to actually apologize, but asserting my boundaries is something I do. |
| 2006-03-10 2:53 PM in reply to: #366674 |
Master 1867 The real USC, in the ghetto of LA | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Renee - 2006-03-10 2:48 PM ad hominen attack ad hom·i·nem P Pronunciation Key (hm-nm, -nm) adj. Appealing to personal considerations rather than to logic or reason: Debaters should avoid ad hominem arguments that question their opponents' motives. had i made one i would have apologized. i like the slap in the face compliment type of move. (passive agressive) i would love to play further but i have to go to work. Edited by tyrant 2006-03-10 2:56 PM |
| 2006-03-10 2:58 PM in reply to: #366679 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Had you clear reasoning ability, you would see that I did not compliment you. That's twice you've resorted to name calling. Shame on you. Edited by Renee 2006-03-10 2:59 PM |
| 2006-03-10 3:03 PM in reply to: #366069 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Now now kids. You're in agreement that the objections to the deal were poorly intentioned and opportunistic, yet you're still arguing with eachother. By questioning the deal, it *was* directed at Bush and his administration. Here's a quote from Nancy Pelosi: “America’s ports are often the gateway into and out of our country. The unilateral decision of the Bush Administration to allow the sale of port operations to a foreign government raises serious national security concerns." That sure seems to me that it's aimed at the Bush Administration, not at the UAE. -Chris |
| 2006-03-10 3:05 PM in reply to: #366688 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Actually, Chris, I'm not arguing with Abraham. That would be folly. Name calling always deserves to be called-out. Edited by Renee 2006-03-10 3:14 PM |
| 2006-03-10 3:26 PM in reply to: #366692 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Renee - 2006-03-10 2:05 PM Actually, Chris, I'm not arguing with Abraham. That would be folly. Name calling always deserves to be called-out. Pot, meet kettle. |
| 2006-03-10 3:35 PM in reply to: #366715 |
Buttercup 14334 | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Interesting. And disappointing. Edited by Renee 2006-03-10 3:38 PM |
| 2006-03-10 4:39 PM in reply to: #366725 |
Pro 3906 St Charles, IL | Subject: RE: Dubai Port Deal Part II Renee - 2006-03-10 2:35 PM Interesting. And disappointing. What is? I find it a bit ironic that you deride tyrant for insulting you, yet you belittle him and make smarmy comments back.
|
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK