|
Grex > Agora56 > #115: Bush administration wants to let United Arab Emirates control six U.S. ports | |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 154 responses total. |
jep
|
|
response 121 of 154:
| 
Mar 2 18:12 UTC 2006 |
re resp:120: klg, I skip over most of what you say.
You ridicule people a lot.
You make a lot of accusations such as with, for example, your "richard
LIES" message wrappers.
You take a lot of people's comments out of context to reverse their
meaning.
I don't find any of these things to be reasonable. I don't find them
entertaining, and Grex to me is an entertainment.
My perception, from what I have read, is that you are pretty rabidly
one-sided about your views. I haven't really read that much of what
you've posted, but I've read enough to have an idea what to expect.
To some extent, you and I are coming from the same side on a lot of
discussions. You, bru and I are the conservative face of Grex. I wish
I could count you as "one of my own" as I do bru, but I can't. Bruce
and I generally want to be pleasant and a part of the community, like
the vast majority of Grexers. You seem more similar to those who want
to vandalize the system.
|
klg
|
|
response 122 of 154:
|
Mar 2 20:17 UTC 2006 |
Wait a second. You can tell RW he's lying and it's ok. But I do it
and it's "accusations?" I think my "scrolls" are fun. It's a lot less
venemous than the "abuse" I get. But do I complain about it???
Don't worry, though. I won't invite you over for dinner. (See the
electric chair discussion. It's called a JOKE.)
|
nharmon
|
|
response 123 of 154:
|
Mar 2 20:18 UTC 2006 |
US OVER FOR DINNER ** KLG WONT INVITE US OVER FOR DINNER ** ** KLG WONT
You know KLG, these scrolls are a lot of fun.
Yeeee haw!
DINNER ** KLG WONT INVITE US OVER FOR DINNER ** ** KLG WONT INVITE US
|
tod
|
|
response 124 of 154:
|
Mar 2 20:19 UTC 2006 |
How To Serve Man
|
klg
|
|
response 125 of 154:
|
Mar 2 20:22 UTC 2006 |
(Now you're getting the hang of it NH!)
|
cyklone
|
|
response 126 of 154:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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:
|
Mar 9 21:06 UTC 2006 |
IMPEACH IF A VETO
|
nharmon
|
|
response 135 of 154:
|
Mar 9 21:10 UTC 2006 |
IMPEACH IF ALITO
|
albaugh
|
|
response 136 of 154:
|
Mar 9 21:32 UTC 2006 |
IN PEACH IF JAMES
|
nharmon
|
|
response 137 of 154:
|
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:
|
Mar 9 21:43 UTC 2006 |
Ito Hirohito
Danielson
Danielson
<plays Cheech & Chong guitar chorus>
|
happyboy
|
|
response 139 of 154:
|
Mar 9 22:37 UTC 2006 |
"mezzican americans they like to eat tacos..."
---cheech
|
tod
|
|
response 140 of 154:
|
Mar 9 22:39 UTC 2006 |
Yea, I played with that dude maaan
|
nharmon
|
|
response 141 of 154:
|
Mar 9 22:53 UTC 2006 |
Wasn't he with motown?
|
tod
|
|
response 142 of 154:
|
Mar 9 22:54 UTC 2006 |
And a little magic dust..
|
richard
|
|
response 143 of 154:
|
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:
|
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:
|
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.
|