Posted on 02/23/2006 12:30:50 PM PST by ARCADIA
NEW YORK -- The Port Authority said Thursday it will file suit to block a Dubai-based firm from taking over operations at a Port Newark container terminal, saying the federal government has not given them assurances about security issues.
(Excerpt) Read more at newsday.com ...
LOL! I get it perfectly; the Coast Guard isn't concerned about this issue, you are. I'll rely on the Coast Guard, not your nervous stomach.
Why should any responsible person allow that kind of post to stand without challenging it?
notigar.........I have been involved in multiple discussions with multiple people on this subject, and have merely called a spade a spade in this case.
If people don't want to be called Bush haters, then they should not say he is an evil man.
Is that too much to ask? (It's been happening all over the place the last few days, and it's inexusable).
I am defending, not attacking. There is a difference.
And I'd appreciate the FR courtesy of being pinged if you talk about me. Thanks.
That's really good F16, cause I believe she's dead............and she was wrong most of the time anyway. ;)
What kind of jobs do you and Rush think many of our enlisted men fighting in Iraq seek out after a hitch serving their country?
I can tell you. Many seek out union jobs paying a living wage.
It seems like all the non-union multi-million dollar jobs blowing hot air are taken by people that never served.
What I find interesting is those of us who are asking for me facts are seeing posts screaming about being morons, and kneejerkers, etc. Posters are hostile in their 'get your facts straight' attitude and apparently there are a lot of experts on "port operations" on Free Republic. Some of us are still trying to get the facts and wrap around this situation, which by most accounts, is a bit complex. However, it doesn't help the situation one bit when others who consider themselves "more informed" are jumping up and down like jerks and jacka$$es. Talk about having the Dems push your buttons! There is plenty of hyperventilating on all sides and it doesn't do one bit of good. Everybody needs to just settle down abit IMHO.
ARCADIA is permitted to offend us..........especially those of us who are Christians........by calling the President a false prophet (i.e. an evil pretender), but we are not permitted to call that 'hate.'
Interesting set of rules, indeed..........
notigar, do you make the rules of all the 'games' you play?
eerrrr, shoud have said asking for "the" facts,,,
Ignore the facts if you wish.
Not at all.
China and Iran have close ties. Iran wants to destroy Israel.
Does that really seem harmless to you? Really?
(Please note that I am a Rush listener, but I disagree with him quite often).
What I am asking is........why are you questioning me about calling someone else on what I believe to be completely irresponsible attacks on someone like Rush, or the President, when you don't seem to have a problem with those who are doing the attacking?
What is the standard here? They are permitted to say anything, and I am not permitted to challenge them, and say what I think? I'm really curious as to the rules of this 'game' you are playing....
you can obviously say whatever you want. But you are turning it into "haters". And then using that as a straw man argument to avoid the facts, I believe.
Interesting info. Got a source and a link?
You may be reading more into it than was meant. Maybe some of us expected too much. He's a Repub and never claimed to be a conservative. I have been disappointed and even surprised at times. That may account for a certain amount of posters bitternes. We got a Christian in office and thought he was OUR GUY. I admit to scratching my head at times. But I don't know if that poster meant he's evil. I myself have examined this deal against end times prophecy and don't like what I see. That doesn't mean Dubya's evil. Misguided maybe but not evil.
And I'd appreciate the FR courtesy of being pinged if you talk about me. Thanks.
THAT is an absolute. It's common FR courtesy.
Do you realize how evil a false prophet is? How deceitful? How Satanic?
Is it a 'straw man' to challenge that kind of characterization? Am I the one with the problem here? Or do you recognize that calling the President a 'false prophet' is hateful?
The impression I am getting, is that you think that anyone can say anything they want about the President or 'bushbots' and you'll be OK with that, but if we call them as we see them and fight back, then we are at fault.
You'll forgive me if I fail to see the logic in the rules of your 'game.'
I don't say anything to those who just disagree with this decision. I know lots of people who do..........I'm not even settled on it myself.
The hysterical attacks on the President for this decision have demeaned and dirtied this forum. The rational discourse that should follow an issue like this is destroyed by those who are out of control.
And I will continue to call those people on their false attacks, whether it fits your 'rules' or not.
Excellent.
It was an angry poster on an internet forum. I don't see it as harmFUL by any means. Just angry. And there's sure enough of that lately.
What I am asking is........why are you questioning me about calling someone else on what I believe to be completely irresponsible attacks on someone like Rush, or the President, when you don't seem to have a problem with those who are doing the attacking?
I can talk to you but stay away from, uh, nuts? There are few posters who agree about the bashing on both sides. You were one and I "know" you as we've chatted before.
What is the standard here? They are permitted to say anything, and I am not permitted to challenge them, and say what I think? I'm really curious as to the rules of this 'game' you are playing....
I've seldom seen you use the same "tools" they do. You're usually above that. Just wanted to "keep you there". Sorry.
A Biblical false prophet is evil.....Satanic. Those were the words he used. Those were the words he apparently meant.
If he meant to say that he was 'disappointed' he could have done so, but he chose the words that said that President Bush is an evil man.
As one who has decided to spend time every day uplifting the President in prayer, I know that political ideology and spirituality are not one and the same thing.
The President is a Christian.....a strong one. There is no doubt of that from anyone who knows him. He is not as conservative as most of us would like. But that is not remotely related to his being evil.
And when someone says the President is evil, I will say that he is a Bush hater..........because it is accurate.
You cannot dissuade me from telling the truth, no matter how badly you may want me to stop.
It is possible to be angry, and still be responsible.
When you are a child, you may say and do things you shouldn't in anger, but as an adult, you are supposed to be in control of that...........and if you LOSE control, there should be an apology that follows.
I'm sorry if I don't give such a wide berth to people who, IMO, are lying and being irresponsible. There has been no apology for evil words said in anger here.
And I do note that you challenged me on my 'hater' comment (and I am perfectly calm here). Have you challenged them on their 'angry' words and false charges, or is there a double standard here?
And sound as mad as a spitting cat. Goodnight.
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.