What? You make no sense once again. :(

-Rudey

Wow - I didn't think we'd start playing the sympathy card in this thread, but I guess so.

Let's get this out of the way: it's not just that you're Democrat, liberal, or dislike Bush. There are Democrats on this site, critics of Bush, etc., who intelligently lay out their positions and aren't always on the attack.

If I remember correctly, you've never posted anything even remotely moderate; mostly, it comes off as some anti-Republican crusade. Your posting of the letter looked to be more of an inflammatory post than an actual response to the topic.

You're more than welcome to your beliefs; just don't start with some "dead in a ditch" comment when someone calls you on it.

There are better ways to call me out on it. Your post is a good example of a good way to call out someone.

Posting a statement saying "get a life" is just trying to pick a fight instead of calling out my views or post.

If I or certain others lay out our positions they are torn apart because they are viewed as wrong or unintelligent. I did bother to lay it out in the past but was called stupid and unintellgent anyways so why bother? Must be because I am always on the attack right?

Basically you now admit it was an off-topic attack. That's great.

You also make comments about dying in a ditch. I don't understand. Drama queen much?

And now you're making claims that someone is picking a fight with you, except it is you that posted repeatedly and finally admitted to posting an attack.

Seriously, stop. Communication is not your strong point.

-Rudey

But that is debate. What did you expect, everyone to just say "Well, if he says it, then he's right." If your arguments have holes, people are going to call you on it.

Who are these certain others? If people disagree, they're going to say something, and if they think an argument is weak, they're going to have issues with the argument.

Also, how many posters are there on this board? You can't reasonably expect every poster to say "That TKE, he sure has some great ideas."

There aren't going to be any pity parties; there are plenty of posters on both sides who have, time and again, intelligently laid out their ideas.

I never said it wasn't an attack. The issue was it off topic or not. That is what I was disagreed with.

There should be no doubt by anyone many of my political related post are an attack on Bush and sometimes the more conservative Republican party members.

I never tried to hide it I even have had in my profile under interest "spreading my political propaganda" for years.

If McCain runs in 08 you won't see me bashing him and if he wins you won't see many if any post bashing him as President.

If a certain few Democrats run and/or win the job of President you might see me attack them too.

KSigkid makes a good point about debate, and I may just do that more even though it will be called stupid and unintelligent anyways.

I do apologize, I was being over dramtic with the ditch comment. It was a bad heat of the moment choice of words to get my point across.

I guess most my responses were to imply there is a better way to disagree with or say you don't like my post than saying "get a life", calling someone stupid, or insane.

I am sure you are a very intelligent person. I just don't understand why insults are replies to some people, when it deals with a post you disagree with or dislike.

Is trying to insult people the most likely way to get them to stop posting the stuff you disagree with?

"Communication is not your strong point." I would have to agree with that statement to. Good thing I am not a speech writer or debater.

Get a life.

-Rudey

Thanks for the advice. :)

No prob. Quote me on it.

-Rudey
--For dexterity

Re: U.S. /Dubai Port Deal
 

SMH

:(

I heard/read today that Dubai gave up on the deal. LOL. They said "Damn this, y'all can have it".

Re: Re: U.S. /Dubai Port Deal
 

I have heard too that those guarding the port had dealings with 911 and thus feel that our security would be compromised:eek:

#1 The UAE firm will NOT be handling the security details for the ports. That would be under the homeland security
#2 Yes, some of the 9/11 hijackers were from UAE. However, here's another shocking news, some were also from Saudi Arabia and the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia runs 6 ports.

Which 6 ports does it run?

And even if you don't run security, you know quite a bit about the inner workings of a port. A bank teller might not be the security guard at a bank, but he would know how that security works.

-Rudey

Yup, however, ultimately it is the responsibility of the Homeland Security to check all the employees of the ports to ensure there are no Al-Qaeda mole. It all goes back to Homeland Security. If Homeland Security is run properly, there should be no problem. Plus, has there been any allegation that the particular firm has any connection to Al-Qaeda?

About the 6 ports, I have to retract that statement for the time being. It seems that the Saudi firm runs a terminal in those ports. Here is a good editorial about how the entire thing is being blown out of proportion and I personally feel it has an underlying xenophobic message:

Link to the Editorial

Do you realize how ridiculous that statement sounds?

The word "Properly" is subjective. What you meant is the word "Perfect". Security systems run the way they run and that's that. People make mistakes. Terrorists and thieves will always exist. Nowhere is there no crime.

And the UAE is a partial owner in this firm. Is that the same UAE that hosted Osama? I believe so. That's an Al-Qaeda tie right there.

But the kicker about the entire thing is that the UAE and this company support an embargo against Israeli goods (coincidentally the Israelis are supportive of this deal for some bizarre reason). That sounds...xenophobic.

-Rudey

Does anyone know if the Congressional vote yesterday in which Republicans allegedly "killed" the deal is binding and everlasting?

So, the UAE firm should not do business because the Homeland Security cannot totally guaranteed that they will not messed up. Since the UAE is in the middle east, they are Arabs and most likely muslims. Since the 9/11 hijackers were Arab Muslims, them camel jockeys cannot be trusted. hence, the UAE firm (who were cleared by the US Navy and the British government) should not partake in the running of the US ports. is that the gist of your argument?

Nobody can guarantee anything. What don't you understand??

Yes the UAE is Arab (The A stands for Arab) and Muslim.

Camel jockeys? If you have ethnic stereotypes you want to perpetuate, then make it more clear.

My argument is laid out pretty clearly. If you have a specific question about it, ask.

I'm hoping it's the language barrier, but otherwise you sound silly.

-Rudey

Here was my understanding - the Arabs were getiing upset that Congress did not want them over the port and began making financial threats as well as would not continue to provide intelligence concerning the "war on terrorism". So, Dubai pulls out to save the relationship between the U.S. and the U.A.E.

My question is.... because of all the controversy - won't the Arabs still be offended, because ultimately, they still lost out on the deal, no matter who pulled it?????:confused:

Tickled Pink 2


I am tickled pink with Your Post which is to true!:)

The Arabs of course will be upset as We want their Oil and Ports for our Militarty Ships, but dont want them to run Ports in the US.

Reported In The Kansas City Star this morning, who runs the Ports?

The Mafia is still a strong influence with the people who work the docks.

Homeland Security is a joke. The Coast Guard has been strapped for cash and is supposed to be in charge. Right! :(

We want partners for a world Democracy but on Our Govts. terms only!:(

We are held captive by the Oil Countrys and that is it. Period.

This country and its Major Mgfs have for Years denied us the oil saving products that can be produced to keep Profits up!:(

I just feel that Our Duley Elected Morons have left Egg on Our Faces! It may also cause problems in the future!

Congress blocked the deal beacuse of racism. Every time anyone says anything is racist they usually get ignored, at best.


Racism is a bigger threat to our national security than the UAE. Federeted Principalities who formed to resist the house of saud are ARAB. Not every Arab is in Al-Qaida or has ties. Seriously. If you are against the deal, you're a racist. You might realize it or believe it, but there is no other reason than racism as to why the UK can oversee something and the UAE can't.

Are you joking or do you actually believe what you just wrote?

He has posts like this all over Greekchat. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find a post of his that makes sense. Usually nobody replies to him but he posts a lot so it's strange.

-Rudey

Yeah, dude. Racism is just as dangerous to this country on the inside as terrorism is on the outside.

Well, I am against the deal as to the UK, UAE, Nigeria, Japan and anyone else. My position is that American companies should operate our ports, pure and simple. Many countries have all kinds of views that not too pro-American and could be less than diligent in protecting our interests and borders so it isn't fear or racism toward Arabs that motivates my view point, it is pro-American economy and protection of our borders that is my motivation. If the issue is that there aren't enough American port security companies here, then there is the incentive for Americans to get on the ball and handle business. American borders and ports should be controlled by Americans, pure and simple. It makes sense.

Uh, what do you do? For a living, I mean.

Responded to in a PM, as that is compeltly irrelevant.