You are not logged in. Login Now
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-154    
 
Author Message
25 new of 154 responses total.
klg
response 125 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 20:22 UTC 2006

(Now you're getting the hang of it NH!)
cyklone
response 126 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 2 21:43 UTC 2006

Dude, jep took the time to point out specifically where Richard lied. You, 
on the other hand, play much looser with the "facts" you toss around. 
You're also an expert at ducking any serious comments or questions that 
challenge your position, prefering the easy targets like Richard to the 
many points those like johnnie makes, and which you are apparently unable 
to rebut.
richard
response 127 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 3 02:11 UTC 2006

cyklone, I did NOT lie, I stated the truth as I understood it.  
Neither you nor JEP are in any position to say I lied unless you can 
read my mind.  My posts were honest.  
klg
response 128 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 3 02:15 UTC 2006

(In other words, when a Liberal makes an error it's honest.  When a
Republican makes an error, it's an impeachable offense.)
cyklone
response 129 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 3 04:26 UTC 2006

There you go again, resorting to transparently false rhetoric.

BTW, richard, claiming "I stated the truth as I understood it" doesn't 
really make you much different from the fundie christians and muslims you 
claim to dislike. Just a little something to think about . . . .
jep
response 130 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 3 14:32 UTC 2006

re resp:128: klg, I think the president of the United States, making 
decisions about going to war, should be held to a higher standard than 
a user in a casual discussion forum, don't you?  Honestly?

I agree with you that one has to make some allowances for anyone to 
make mistakes, including the president.  However, especially on the 
really big issues, the president has to be held accountable for the 
decisions he makes.

re resp:127: Richard, I pointed out flaws in what you had said 
previously.  If you just made a mistake, you should just say "Sorry, I 
goofed" and come up with a new position.  If you continue to 
cite "facts" which obviously are not true, after they've been pointed 
out to you, it's very difficult for me to call those citations anything 
else but lies.  (Unless you're incapable of understanding reality due 
to low intelligence or insanity... I assume you are not.)
edina
response 131 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 3 16:04 UTC 2006

Yeah, I'll agree with a lot of the above.  Richard, you could spare yourself
a lot of grief if you qualified what you said with "in my opinion" or "from
what I've seen".  You state a lot of opinion as fact.  Why, it's nearly as
annoying as when you do the "well if you believe X, you MUST believe Y" dance.
gull
response 132 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 3 22:34 UTC 2006

Re resp:116: That seems nonsensical.  Why would anyone bother to  
filibuster a nominee who clearly didn't have enough votes to be 
confirmed in the first place?  The very fact that they filibustered 
suggests they thought the votes might be there. 
 
albaugh
response 133 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 9 20:48 UTC 2006

From: BreakingNews@MAIL.CNN.COM [mailto:BreakingNews@MAIL.CNN.COM] 
Sent: Thursday, March 09, 2006 1:48 PM

-- Dubai-owned company has decided to transfer fully the U.S. operation of 
   P&O ports in North America to a U.S. entity, according to Sen. John Warner.

tod
response 134 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 9 21:06 UTC 2006

IMPEACH IF A VETO
nharmon
response 135 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 9 21:10 UTC 2006

IMPEACH IF ALITO
albaugh
response 136 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 9 21:32 UTC 2006

IN PEACH IF JAMES
nharmon
response 137 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 9 21:36 UTC 2006

IF JAMES IN PEACH THEN JUDGE ITO

(BTW, am I the only person who when hearing about Alito's nomination 
for the first time on the radio thought "That Judge from the OJ case?")
tod
response 138 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 9 21:43 UTC 2006

Ito Hirohito
Danielson
Danielson
<plays Cheech & Chong guitar chorus>
happyboy
response 139 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 9 22:37 UTC 2006

"mezzican americans they like to eat tacos..."

 ---cheech
tod
response 140 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 9 22:39 UTC 2006

Yea, I played with that dude maaan
nharmon
response 141 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 9 22:53 UTC 2006

Wasn't he with motown?
tod
response 142 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 9 22:54 UTC 2006

And a little magic dust..
richard
response 143 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 10 01:19 UTC 2006

looks like the UAE deal is dead.  The people in Dubai are pulling out 
after the House voted overwhelmingly on a bill that would have blocked 
the deal.  UAE now says they will sell their interests in U.S. port 
operations to an american company.

Hillary Clinton is co-sponsoring a bill that would make it illegal for 
foreign countries to own ANY vital U.S. infrastructure, such as 
ports.  

Bush had no chance on this issue because everyone in the House has to 
get re-elected this year, and none wanted a "you let the arabs take 
over our ports" noose put around their necks by their opponents.  
bru
response 144 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 10 03:55 UTC 2006

I wonder how such a bill will effect the security industry since Wackenhut
handles a large portion of the security (even the DHS office is patrolled by
Wackenhut guards, adn Wackenhut is a british owned company.)
klg
response 145 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 10 03:58 UTC 2006

Are you sure about that Hillary Rob 'em Clinton item??  The deal wasn't
for ownership of the ports.  It was for operation.

Everyone in the House doesn't have to get re-elected.  Some congressmen
are retiring.
slynne
response 146 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 10 04:16 UTC 2006

I admit that I dont know a lot about this deal. I do know that UAE are
well known for managing their own ports very well. Part of me wonders
how much this house vote was based on prejudice and if it would have
been voted down so overwhelmingly if the company that wanted to run the
ports was European or something. On the other hand, it probably is a
good idea from a security point of view to have such important
infrastructure run by American companies. 
nharmon
response 147 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 10 13:19 UTC 2006

I also do not know a lot about this situation. There seems to be a lot 
of conflicting information. For example, some people are saying that 
UAE shouldn't control ports because they won't let Isrealis use them. 
And then we have a chairman of Israel's largest shipping firm endorsing 
the ports deal.

It seems that this issue has become less about finding the truth, and 
more about flinging egg onto each other's faces.
twenex
response 148 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 10 15:36 UTC 2006

It is truly pathetic and contemptible than Congress and the American people
whinged on about this and screamed blue murder after all the damage they have
let Bush & Co. do so far.
richard
response 149 of 154: Mark Unseen   Mar 10 16:15 UTC 2006

The Hillary Clinton bill would make it law that we run our own ports.  No more
chinese running the ports in California, no more british running ports in the
east.  In these times, we must run and control our own infrastructure.  These
countries were paying a premium for the honor of running our ports, but
sometimes things are about more than business
\.
 0-24   25-49   50-74   75-99   100-124   125-149   150-154    
Response Not Possible: You are Not Logged In
 

- Backtalk version 1.3.30 - Copyright 1996-2006, Jan Wolter and Steve Weiss