Posted on 03/10/2006 8:16:05 PM PST by crushelits
I have more fear of this Dutch business buckling some day to some stupid World Court order regarding the US than I have of Dubai Ports World.
They seem to have been the first news service to report that this was a case of a foreign government actually taking over MAJOR PORTS.
Since no one took over any ports at all ~ just a handful of cranes for loading container ships ~ Yahoo's credibility as a source should be thoroughly shot.
If you find yourself believing another Yahoo story see your doctor.
So he's saying, if this deal doesn't go through, the UAE will side with the terrorists?
What great friends.
The fact you didn't mention either party is suspicious and leads me to evaluate the probability that you are an agent of Chicom disinformation.
They all have leases and they've already been approved. It would cost the taxpayers billions to buy them out.
Brian Williams again described it the very same way tonight. Amazing.
>>Yeah, the media sure gives him LOTS of opportunities to explain things to us, when they're not asking about Abu Grabe or WMDs. Can't figure out why he can't get the "message out" especially with such a cooperative media.<<
Reagan managed just fine.
They shift their investments around from time to time. Every now and then the retirement fund is brought to public attention when one of the companies it owns gets in trouble.
Your problem is with the law, not the President. I suggest you write your Congress-critters.
Drat! Betrayed by my own overconfidence!
>>Partners, that shake down their friends like a criminal protection syndicate, are precisely the kind of partners that we don't need. <<
Exactly what I think. Any ally who will turn on you like this, is no ally at all. They are "for sale to the highest bidder."
Some ally. What a joke.
Just fine? Reagan was exceptional at getting his message out. You think what he accomplished was common somehow?
Nice piece of logic. "We won't sell to them because they are not an ally. See? Now they won't buy from us. Some ally."
Reagan, although he had a hostile press, didn't have NEAR the open hostility that President Bush has faced. At least there was a small attempt to appear to be respectful of the presidentcy, that is gone today.
BTW, when Reagan wanted to address the nation, the networks wouldn't have even DREAMED of saying no like they do today.
When I read your cr*p and a whole lot like it posted recently since the takeover of FR by the Juvenile Set, I get down on my knees and offer thanks to the almighty that we have an adult in the White House.
Too bad we don't have more in the Congress. To say nothing of on this board.
>>Just fine? Reagan was exceptional at getting his message out. You think what he accomplished was common somehow?<<
You missed my point entirely. The poster had implied that Bush couldn't get his message out because of a hostile press. I said that Reagan managed to get his message out just fine.
By "just fine" I did not mean "just fine and nothing more." I meant that he did a very effective job as a communicator. That he got his message out just fine, that he was not hampered, that his communication skills were there.
I did not realize that "just fine" was such an obscure term. Don't they ever use that term where you live?
Let me offer you a suggestion that may help you.
Why don't you take your two fingers and stick them in your ears.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.