Skip to comments.
SAVAGE INTERVIEWING CHUCK SCHUMER!
Posted on 02/17/2006 3:43:01 PM PST by outofhere2
Michael Savage is talking to Chuck Schumer at this very minute.
TOPICS: News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 109th; gosavage; maritime; michaelwiener; portsale; savage; savageforpresident; savagewanker; talkradio; trojanhorseports; uae
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 621-634 next last
To: outofhere2
What you have here are people threatened that Bush may lose support over this but he put himself in this position, not Savage or Schumer or Clinton or Binky Rabbit. And just HOW did Bush put himself in this 'position'? Tell us all please, just what BUSH did here?
321
posted on
02/17/2006 5:10:58 PM PST
by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: MikeA
To: FreeReign
Exactly right.
And all you have to do is get the ship into the port. You never have to unload it to do major damage.
323
posted on
02/17/2006 5:11:17 PM PST
by
P-40
(http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
To: blogblogginaway
I guess some people have concrete inside their skulls. You are hopeless. You are not worth the effort.
To: RegulatorCountry
"Operate. Control. Both involve authority; it's just a matter of degree. Word parsing is not going to make this go away."
Being ignorant of the facts is not going to make it go away either. The PoAs could cancel the contracts and this all goes away but they won't. They are in the pockets of the operators ("He is it cold up there? Let's get on our jet and go see the port of Miami or would you prefer Kingston or Rio.") Being on the PoA is the cushiest job on the planet. It is their responsibility for contracting for management and they screwed up by not having M&A protection (on purpose no doubt).
This is nothing more than the national politicians bailing out the locals.
325
posted on
02/17/2006 5:12:07 PM PST
by
Sunnyflorida
((Elections Matter)
To: Alberta's Child
Peter King -- for those who don't remember this -- was one of the very few Republican members of Congress to vote against the articles of impeachment drawn up against Bill Clinton in 1998. He basically voted "No" in exchange for a presidential appointment to some kind of delegation to Northern Ireland -- which served as a great sales pitch for some stupid book he had written about the problems in Northern Ireland. Not only did Peter King vote "no" on articles of impeachment, he was also the first Republican to come out aginst impeachment and he did so on every Freeping Sunday show.
King is not to be trusted.
To: P-40
UAE would be running the ports and doing security.
To: RegulatorCountry
"No, I'm not sure at all. And, I'm even less sure when the port is being operated by a company owned by the bastards ... get it?"
What I get is that you apparently think there is something having a UAE-based port administrator will allow terrorists to do that they cannot do right now (or haven't already done).
To: outofhere2
Repeat. UAE would be doing security as well. Meaning they could alter manifests saying container has automobile parts when its actually something else.
To: Pukin Dog
Thank you for your sound reasoning. I agree with everything you said in this post.
dims have truly found a way to fire up some in our base. We had better find a way to remain united against evil, not only for the sake of the Party, but for the very continuance of our way of life.
dims in power would be the end of this Great Nation.
LLS
330
posted on
02/17/2006 5:16:06 PM PST
by
LibLieSlayer
(Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
To: Stellar Dendrite
I was not taking about her, or you. Read this thread and find the ones that I was talking about. You know they exist.
LLS
331
posted on
02/17/2006 5:19:34 PM PST
by
LibLieSlayer
(Preserve America... kill terrorists... destroy dims!)
To: WoofDog123
"What I get is that you apparently think there is something having a UAE-based port administrator will allow terrorists to do that they cannot do right now (or haven't already done)."
And, I get that you apparently think that this is irrational. Truthfully, though, what I think and what you think are mere drops in the bucket of public opinion. I do know where this appears to be headed, and it ain't good for the fall. It's time to back away from this.
To: P-40
I was driving home and Savage was the only thing on so I was reluctantly listening to him rant about the "Bushbots", BLAH, BLAH, BLAH!. After hyperventilating to the point where he had to take an oxygen break, mentioned that Chuck Schumer was the only Senator with any sense that opposed the the deal, KISSY, KISSY, SMACK....
I'm sure that Schumer was listening to him and jumped on the opportunity to help discredit the President.
To sum it up, Savage is a total jerk and a self serving peon with an inferiority complex. his days on radio are numbered because he progressively alienates the majority of conservatives. And he is only getting worse each day.
333
posted on
02/17/2006 5:20:08 PM PST
by
PSYCHO-FREEP
(M.S.M. CREED: "Truth has no substance until we give it permission!")
To: PSYCHO-FREEP
his days on radio are numbered because he progressively alienates the majority of conservatives.
His numbers look pretty good though. He ticks off a lot of Republicans but I'm not so sure about conservatives...and those two are not always the same.
334
posted on
02/17/2006 5:22:53 PM PST
by
P-40
(http://www.590klbj.com/forum/index.php?referrerid=1854)
To: oceanview
Nothing will change as far as the rules and regulations for a tenant of a port. What do you think 'would' change? I don't think they offered to buy a successful company to make changes.
To: Keith in Iowa
A raving lunatic talking to a schmuck. I'm underwhelmed.Which is which?
Mark
336
posted on
02/17/2006 5:26:05 PM PST
by
MarkL
(When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
To: P-40
Savage numbers are growing because he tells it like it is. He not tied to the President or the Dems. That is why he is really doing a service in letting the public know about this port deal. THEY ARE PLAYING SCHUMER"S INTERVIEW NOW ON SAVAGE
To: oceanview; Sunnyflorida
this required approval from the treasury department. Not just Treasury.
The committee earlier agreed to consider concerns about the deal as expressed by a Miami-based company, Eller & Co., according to Eller's lawyer, Michael Kreitzer. Eller is a business partner with the British shipping giant but was not in the running to buy the ports company.
The committee, which could have recommended that President Bush block the purchase, includes representatives from the departments of Treasury, Defense, Justice, Commerce, State and Homeland Security.
Dubai firm set to take charge of 6 U.S. ports
338
posted on
02/17/2006 5:26:07 PM PST
by
DJ MacWoW
(If you think you know what's coming next....You don't know Jack.)
To: MikeA
Thank you for your informative posts.
To: outofhere2
Chuck Schumer is trying to stop the sale of the six ports to UAE. Talks about the potential of planting a nuclear device at one of these ports. This is an important issue because Savage hates Chuck Schumer but Schumer is right on this one.I have to admit, a stopped clock is right twice a day, with Schumer, maybe once... MAYBE. But you're right. Whoever OK'd this deal needs to be given his or her walking papers!
Mark
340
posted on
02/17/2006 5:27:29 PM PST
by
MarkL
(When Kaylee says "No power in the `verse can stop me," it's cute. When River says it, it's scary!)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 301-320, 321-340, 341-360 ... 621-634 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson