Sean Hannity had several democrats on his show who criticized Gore, including Susan Estrich. Why the hell is that you can criticize Clinton and congress for what they did by outsourcing to UK and China...yet not criticize Bush for suggesting Dubai? Oh yeah, Bush offers you a tax cut. Damn good thing your patriotism and loyalty don't have a price tag....
Did you even bother to read my post? I said I found it troubling. Not as troubling as having the chinese doit, but still troubling. As for my loyalty having a price tag, don't confuse me with your boy Gore. He's the former Vice President of the country getting paid to tell lies about our country to arabs who would like to blow our children up. Of course, supporting our enemies and telling lies about our country puts him comfortably within the Democrat mainstream.
Your straw-man on Gore is the typical weak argument of the right wing when they are found to be on the wrong side of an issue. Come on, you can say it. Repeat after me: "Bush is wrong." Now, that wasn't so hard was it? You didn't even have to say Clinton or Gore in the same sentence to communicate a simple yet profound concept.
are you kidding? Z doesn't need to read your post - what would be the point? He already knows what you think. He can respond to your posts without reading them. All he has to do is look at your screen name. Now that Rearden pointed out the troll's real reason for being here, it has become way easier to analyze Z's apparently illogical posts. I defy anyone to find one post where Z does or says anything even remotely resembling 'debate'. All he ever does is assert in these threads. He has never once said anything like 'You may have a point' or 'hmmm, I will have to think about that' or ' there is some merit in that view but here is why I disagree' or 'here is an alternative view - can you comment on it?'. If anyone can find an example of Z writing anything that actually represents an attempt to either engage someone who doesn't think like he does or sort through an argument, as opposed to just running down every thing that his opponents post with no reference to the actual posts (like the example above), I would be happy to see it.
btw, Z... just wondering if you had any response to this post? I know you are monitoring a lot of threads, so you must have missed these questions. http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&postid=987186#post987186 Thanks, Nik
Ridge: White House should explain port deal Homeland Security ex-chief says lawmakers' concerns legitimate WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Bush administration needs to show Congress why national security won't be hurt by a deal that gives a company based in the United Arab Emirates management of six major U.S. ports, former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge said Monday. Ridge, appearing on CNN's "American Morning," said, "I think the anxiety and the concern [over the deal] that has been expressed by congressmen and senators and elsewhere is legitimate." Ridge said that during his tenure as secretary of homeland security from October 2001 to February 2005, he sat in on deals with similar national security concerns and officials would not jeopardize national security. "The bottom line is I think we need a little more transparency here," he said. "There are legitimate concerns about who would be in charge of hiring and firing and security measures -- added technology in these ports that we need to upgrade our security." (Watch lawmakers call for deal to be stopped -- 2:55) Ridge recommended that the Bush administration go to Capitol Hill to show how America's security will be enhanced by the deal. "I suspect they can do that," he said. Earlier this month, shareholders of British-based Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O) approved the company's acquisition by a group owned by Dubai Ports World, which is based in the capital of the United Arab Emirates. The Bush administration says the UAE is a key ally in the war on terror, but some lawmakers have suggested the small Persian Gulf nation might have terrorist ties. According to the 9/11 commission report, at least one of the 19 hijackers drew money from bank accounts based in the UAE to help pay for operations. And, according to the report, hijacker Marwan al-Shehhi was from the UAE. Lawmakers call for probe Several lawmakers on Sunday questioned the deal, with two senators calling for a congressional probe. "We certainly should investigate it," Sen. Lindsey Graham told Fox News. "I don't know if we should block it. But it's unbelievably tone deaf politically at this point in our history, four years after 9/11, to entertain the idea of turning port security over to a company based in the UAE, who avows to destroy Israel," the South Carolina Republican added. Indiana Democrat Evan Bayh agreed. "I think we've got to look into this company," he told Fox. Bayh added that the threshold for approving a foreign company's takeover of a U.S. company needs to be high. "We have to do, even if it costs us a couple extra bucks, what it takes to protect this country," he said. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said the sale was reviewed by several federal agencies. "You know, this issue comes up periodically every time a foreign-owned company wants to take over an asset that has national security significance," he said on CNN's "Late Edition." "And there is a legal process Congress created for a committee to sit and review this. It's Treasury, Commerce, DHS, FBI is involved, and DOD is involved. We look at these transactions," Chertoff added. "If necessary, we build in conditions or requirements that, for extra security, would have to be met in order to make sure that there isn't a compromise to national security." Schumer: 'Accident waiting to happen' Sen. Charles Schumer denounced the deal, saying the UAE has "a sad history with terrorism." Speaking at a news conference Sunday with some families of people killed in the September 11, 2001, terror attacks on the United States, the New York Democrat said, "These families know the danger of being careless and casual about terrorism." He called on Bush to intervene. "Outsourcing the operations of our largest ports to a country with long involvement in terrorism is a homeland security accident waiting to happen," he said. Possible legislation London-based P&O has been running ports in the United States since 1999, according to the company Web site. The six ports affected are in New York; New Jersey; Baltimore, Maryland; Miami, Florida; New Orleans, Louisiana; and Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; . On Friday, Sens. Robert Menendez, D-New Jersey, and Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-New York, announced they planned to introduce legislation that would ban companies owned by foreign governments from controlling operations at U.S. ports. Menendez said Sunday that Chertoff's comments show "that the Bush administration just does not get it." "No matter what steps the administration claims it has secretly taken, it is an unacceptable risk to turn control of our ports over to a foreign government, particularly one with a troubling history," he said in a statement. "We cannot depend on promises a foreign government has given the administration in secret to secure our ports."
So Schumer's position apparently is that racial or ethnic profiling is unacceptable for passengers who might actually have a bomb or weapons, but it is fine to profile every business in an entire country, based on the fact that one hijacker lived there. I'm awaiting Al Gore's analysis before I make up my mind. I'm sure he will not want to miss a chance to bash Bush, but I want to see how he rationalizes it with his speech in Saudi Arabia in which he said our country discriminates against Arabs.
Came across this today: "The Emirates are probably the best thing we got going in the near o middle (whatever!) east. They are rich, are not as fanatical (such as the Saudis) Their Dubai airport brings in 1 million tourist dollars a day in the collection of duty free stress (highest in the world) and they are just getting started!. Women can dress, drive and do what they want, no one says anything...why, because everyone goes there to spend their millions. They figured out that oil would not last for ever, and when they run out, they are set. There are no fanatics allowed in this place, they are broad-minded, determined, hardworking, eyes to the grindstone capitalist. (why do I know this...I was there) As a Lebanese told me today, please don't think all Arab countries are a like. Doha, Kuwait, Qatar, Abu Dhabi are all in the same mold. Not fanatic about any religion except making money and doing the same trading they have done for hundreds of years. Dubai is the way ahead of the rest, but everybody is trying to get there."
IF U THINK THE UAE DOESN'T OWN US ALREADY WITH CHINA AS A PARTNER U R NUTS..........TRY 5 DOLLAR GAS AND SEE WHO OWNS WHOM? TAKE UR SHIRT OFF AND SEE THE MADE IN ???? OLD ROSS WAS CORRECT ABOUT THAT GIANT SUCKING SOUND.....IT TAKES A VILLAGE IDIOT..........SHE IS COMING SOON.............AMERICA CAN'T SURVIVE HER..............