Posted on 02/27/2006 9:38:02 AM PST by Lizavetta
Just heard on the radio......
If I could say what I wanted to say about you, I'd be banned forever!
Trust me, this would be NO loss to anyone.
And have you thought about getting some mental health treatment? Think about how weird it is that you become so uncontrollably angry in a discussion about an actor that you feel the need to spit such venom that it would get you banned from FR. Seriously dude, we're talking about an ACTOR. Try to keep some perspective here if your mental capacities will still allow you to do that. It's not worth losing your friggin' mind over! Maybe you should think about getting some anger management therapy and hopefully some medication to go along with it.
MikeA = Jihad lover!
LOL, you get so angry over a discussion about an actor that you attack me personally and engage in childish name calling?? LOL, seems like you're the one who needs to get a life...and talk about a loser. You waste your passions on this topic? Man, I cannot get over you people who are still stuck on the elementary school playground in terms of your inability to deal with differing views and in your complete lack of facility to form a coherent and non-abusive reply to something you don't agree with. It's sad really. I guess mommy didn't teach you how to deal like an adult with disagreement. Too bad.
You really are deranged aren't you. Either that or you have the mental capacity of a 12 year old. Go back to listening to Michael Savage telling you to hate all "ragheads."
ABSOLUTELY! GREAT FLICK.
Coincidentally, Dennis Weaver was the guest panelist on "What's My Line?" last night on the game show network.
That particular show was originally aired in the sping of '62.
"If we disagree with you, we're attacking you personally?"
Unlike you, I don't have a problem being disagreed with. It's the name calling that constitutes personal attacks such as you turning my last initial into an obscenity. But hey, I can't expect much from those utterly lacking in breeding. I'm moving on to have adult discussions with people who can operate at something more than a 3rd grade level. Good riddance.
This is about you damning one single American citizen, while you defend the UAE, owners of Dubai Ports World, and whose banking system supplied the financing means for shuffling the cash funding for 9-11, between the UAE and foreign banks. The same UAE that ran cover for Osama Bin Laden. The same UAE who gave refuge to terrorists.
MikeA = Jihadist!
And a different vowel. If I was a DUmmie, I'd be worried.
"I've been around here longer then you have, bozo."
Who cares how long you've "been here?" What does that establish other than that you've not learned in all that time how to post like a civil, substantive, thinking adult in all that time? It doesn't make you any more right or your opinion any more valid or valuable than mine.
"You're gonna have to come up with something stronger then juvenile ad hominem responses."
You mean like the incredibly childish "MikeA=Jihadist?" You mean something real strong, substantive, intelligent and thought provoking like that?
Now that I've dispensed of your two most ridiculous conceits, are you really too big of a simpleton to grasp that a government isn't guilty of what goes on in its banking system? And are you really too ugly of a person to grasp that people can disagree with you on this topic without being in the pockets of the UAE or Al Qaeda or are you so ungenerous and unthinking a person that you would just trash the good many conservatives, including many long term Free Republic users since length of time registered on Free Republic establishes some odd cache with you, as all being "jihadists?"
Oh, and please cite your source for when the UAE gave refuge to Al Qaeda terrorists. I'll wait...and by the way, a terrorist merely being from the UAE doesn't make the govt. culpable or complicit in their actions. Or is the US govt guilty of supporting terrorists too because of the numerous Al Qaeda cells comprised of American citizens found here, not to mention Tim McVeigh having been an American or the 7-7 Bombers being British subjects. I guess the US and British govts are terrorist-supporting too just because some of their citizens are huh??
Seriously, are you really this simple-minded or is this an act? Now whine to me some more like the hypocrite you are about ad hominem attacks even as you once again post the incredibly assinine "MikeA=Jihadist" horsecrap again. Oh, and is George W. Bush a "jihadist" too because he feels the UAE deal is safe? What about all the other many good, patriotic conservatives who also feel this UAE deal is not what you demagogues are making it out to be and feel that there are no substantial reasons to oppose it? Are you going to accuse them all of being terrorists too? What a turd you are.
So you're a liar too. What's next, mister jihadist?
Your juvenile outbursts and ad hominem personal attacks are meaningless and your little boy sniping doesn't impress me either.
Your defense of the United Arab Emerites inexcusable. The UAE is a well known supporter of terrorism throughout the world. The citizens of the UAE are Islamic "jihadists", Muslim Islamofascists and first class haters of America. You want to give these low-lifes access to American ports of entry. I know where your loyality lies and its not with America and the American people. Your loyalty lies with the UAE "jihadists".
I would like to apologize to everyone on this thread, minus one FReeper. This thread was about the death of Dennis Weaver, Gunsmoke`s "Chester" to me. It wasn't my intention to get off on a tangent that wasn't related to the original article. Sorry.
"Your defense of the United Arab Emerites inexcusable. The UAE is a well known supporter of terrorism throughout the world. The citizens of the UAE are Islamic "jihadists", Muslim Islamofascists and first class haters of America. You want to give these low-lifes access to American ports of entry. I know where your loyality lies and its not with America and the American people. Your loyalty lies with the UAE "jihadists"."
You are really a terribly ugly person. So all these conservatives who say this UAE deal is not what nuts like you are making it out to be, nor that the UAE is what you claim including the president of the United States are all traitors, jihadists and UAE puppets? Is this your claim?
Oh, and I notice you couldn't provide any sourcing for your claim that the UAE gave refuge to Al Qaeda terrorists. I thought as much.
Some facts for you to consider, if facts and truth can even cut through the fog of your mental illness any longer:
Since 9-11, UAE central-bank officials have strengthened antimoney-laundering and terror-financing laws and have increased oversight of the financial system. Recently, the UAE has moved to the forefront of Gulf states in cooperating with U.S. diplomatic initiatives against terrorism and nuclear proliferation. In little-publicized missions, State and Treasury Department officials have been shuttling to the Emirates over the past two years to work out cooperation.
Only last week, the State Department's nonproliferation chief, Steven Rademake, was in Abu Dhabi seeking to coordinate new security initiatives. Current and former U.S. officials say the UAE has provided significant assistance both in passing along terrorism tips and in helping apprehend suspects. In the lead up to Sept. 11, UAE officials passed along information that led to the arrest of several "major terrorism suspects," said Mr. Kattouf, the former ambassador.
"These were not small fries." U.S. officials say that UAE has continued to pass along significant intelligence. The country was also the first in the region to implement the U.S. cargo-security initiative to prescreen containers destined for the U.S.
And from today's National Review.online. I guess the National Review are a bunch of "jihadists" too eh?
AN ORGANIZED DISINFORMATION CAMPAIGN ON THE PORT DEAL
My friends, there is an organized disinformation campaign going on in the discussion of the Dubai Ports World deal. Draw whatever conclusions you wish about whether the deal is worthwhile, but please do not buy into these blatant misrepresentations, and please don’t spread them in your discussions.
Clearly, this is a hot-button issue, and there are plenty of reasons for concern in the UAE’s past behavior, particularly before 9/11. Of course, we’re hearing from guys like Ret. Gen. Tommy Franks and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Peter Pace that UAE is “a friend” and “very, very solid partners” in the war on terror. And Sen. John Warner observed that the U.S. military has docked more than 500 ships in the past year in the UAE and uses their airfields to perform support missions for both Afghanistan and Iraq. But some folks still feel as if they can’t trust the UAE, and/or they want a fuller review. Fair enough. I don’t begrudge someone for having concerns about this deal.
However, I do begrudge someone for not having their facts straight. And long after I, and many others, pointed out that this deal is significantly different than what we were initially told, a particular group of people continue to dramatically misrepresent – aw, hell, let’s call it what it is – continue to lie about what it entails.
There are plenty of folks on the GOP side of the aisle repeating and spreading the lies. But check out the comments on the other side of the aisle.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton:
“Senator Menendez and I don’t think any foreign government company should be running our ports, managing, leasing, owning, operating. It just raises too many red flags. That is the nub of our complaints,” said Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., speaking via teleconference in response to Bush’s announcement.
As reported in USA Today, 80 percent of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles are run by foreign firms. And the U.S. Department of Transportation says the United Kingdom, Denmark, Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore, China and Taiwan have interests in U.S. port terminals. The blogger Sweetness and Light observed that the National Shipping Company of Saudi Arabia, which is partially owned by the government of Saudi Arabia as well as Saudi individuals and establishments, operates berths in the ports of Baltimore, Newport News, Houston, New Orleans, Savannah, Wilmington, N.C., Port Newark, New Jersey, and Brooklyn, New York. (The link has an inadvertently haunting photo, BTW.)
The argument from Democrats now that “foreigners” shouldn’t be operating U.S. ports is either protectionism, xenophobia, or both. And it is at least a decade late.
All over the weekend, Democrats continued to fundamentally misrepresent what the deal entails.
Sen. Dianne Feinstein:
Do we want our national security assets to be sold to foreign powers? … Do we want, let's say, American companies that own nuclear power plants to be bought out by foreign entities?
New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine:
When Americans expressed concern about turning our ports over to the government of this country…
There are those who raise false charges of discrimination when we raise genuine concerns about security — who say that no one cared when a British company ran the ports. But Dubai is not Britain — and the fact of the matter is that port security does not begin and end at the pier in Newark.
The cargo shipped here is part of a global supply chain: a container that is loaded in Malaysia or the Philippines and then makes a stop in Dubai is unloaded in Newark or Baltimore, and eventually gets delivered to Cleveland.
So there is more than just cause for concern.
We cannot afford to let this administration be stubborn in their mistakes and casual about our security. Senators Clinton and Menendez have introduced legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from buying U.S. port operations.
That’s not even the worst of Corzine’s comments. Among the reasons that he has concerns about the UAE is that, “eleven of the hijackers involved in the 9/11 attacks traveled to the U.S. through the airport in Dubai.” Got that? A terrorist catching a connecting flight within your country signifies, in Corzine’s mind, a tie to terrorists. By that standard, Portland, Maine, Logan Airport in Boston, Newark International, Dulles International, and Fort Lauderdale in Florida have “ties to terrorists” – after all, the 9/11 hijackers passed through those airports as well.
Of course, New Jersey’s genius Senator, Frank Lautenberg, also thinks that a terrorist passing through an airport within your borders makes you an enemy in the war on terror:
“Dubai has allowed terrorists to pass freely through their own country,” said Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., this week. “Why in the world should we let this rogue government control ports in the United States?”
I take it New Jersey’s state government would qualify as a “rogue government” as well? I eagerly await your call for sanctions against your home state, senator.
Rep. Steve Rothman described the deal as “security contracts.” Wrong, wrong, wrong.
Sherrod Brown, Democratic member of the House, running for Senate in Ohio, Feb. 24:
In response to the proposed outsourcing of America's port security to the United Arab Emirates…
(HT: RCP.)
From the DNC:
This isn't about holding a Middle Eastern company to a different standard, this is about turning over control of six of our nation's major entrances to ANY foreign country… For this, to hand over our port security to a foreign nation, [President Bush] is willing to break out the [veto] pen for the first time.
Elsewhere, the DNC describes the deal as “the transfer of our national security to a foreign government.”
Sad to say, Republicans have joined in what can only be described as a disinformation campaign:
“The security of America is not for sale, and I hope that President Bush will correct this mistake by suspending this deal and investigating the reasoning behind this misguided decision,” Rep. Chris Smith, R-N.J., said.
By the way, on Saturday, the Washington Post reported that the intelligence community strongly supported the deal, a tantalizing bit of information for those of us who strongly suspect there’s an intelligence-sharing aspect of this deal that has not been publicly disclosed.
A former senior CIA official recalled that, although money transfers from Dubai were used by the Sept. 11 hijackers, Dubai's security services "were one of the best in the UAE to work with" after the attacks. He said that once the agency moved against Pakistani nuclear scientist Abdul Qadeer Khan and his black-market sales of nuclear technology, "they helped facilitate the CIA's penetration of Khan's network."
Dubai also assisted in the capture of al-Qaeda terrorists. An al-Qaeda statement released in Arabic in spring 2002 refers to UAE officials as wanting to "appease the Americans' wishes" including detaining "a number of Mujahideen," according to captured documents made available last week by the Combating Terrorism Center at West Point. The al-Qaeda statement threatened the UAE, saying that "you are an easier target than them; your homeland is exposed to us."
One intelligence official pointed out that when the U.S. Navy no longer made regular use of Yemen after the USS Cole was attacked in 2000, it moved its port calls for supplies and repairs to Dubai.
For all we know, this deal may be the quid pro quo for the biggest intelligence-sharing bonanza with an Arab state since the 9/11 attacks. Look at a map of the Middle East. Check out what country is opposite the UAE on the Persian Gulf, and try to imagine why we might want intelligence-sharing or other cooperation with this state.
The UAE is, in its actions right now, an ally. The Democratic party as a whole appears hell-bent on scuttling this deal, and ruining relations with this ally. For all that party’s relentless talk about the U.S. needing allies and strong partnerships, they will urinate all over one of our comrades in order to score points against the president.
However, this is the same party urging us to continue sending aid to the Palestinians, where it can be used by the new government of Hamas.
The Democratic Party would humiliate, alienate, and punish our allies while sending financial aid to terrorists and sucking up to our enemies. Do not buy into the line that they are pushing.
UPDATE: A great, far-ranging discussion over at Winds of Change, a hangout for liberal hawks.
[Posted 02/27 06:16 AM]
By the way, you have the nerve to accuse me of this: "Your juvenile outbursts" and then make these hysterical, unsupportable claims, or I should call it slander: "So you're a liar too. What's next, mister jihadist?" and this? "The UAE is a well known supporter of terrorism throughout the world. The citizens of the UAE are Islamic "jihadists", Muslim Islamofascists and first class haters of America. You want to give these low-lifes access to American ports of entry. I know where your loyality lies and its not with America and the American people. Your loyalty lies with the UAE "jihadists".
You've got one hell of a nerve accusing someone of making "juvenille outbursts" when you can't even support your position on the ports issue without implying someone is a supporter of terrorism and questioning their loyalty to their nation. And it's even more amazing that you say that in the context of my criticism of Dennis Weaver's attacks on the WOT on the liberation of Iraq, which you defend, and yet I'm the "jihadist" and the one disloyal to the nation? LOL, you are too funny
He was. Saw him on c-span going on about abortion.
Judging by your post, I'd say he had more class, grace and wit in his little finger that you have on your entire person. He was a good actor and gracious person, regardless of his politics.
"Judging by your post, I'd say he had more class, grace and wit in his little finger that you have on your entire person. He was a good actor and gracious person, regardless of his politics."
And he worked with Moveon.org. So if that's your idea of class, grace and wit then I prefer to be left out of it. Check my post #137 to get just a few details of Weaver's hard left positions and his anti-liberation of Iraq, anti-war on terror positions that are little different than Sean Penn's.
The thing is, you and others have no problem excoriating the likes of Jane Fonda, Susan Sarandon and Tim Robbins. Yet Weaver was intimately and deeply involved with the politics of the latter two. But since he has a Texas accent, wears cowboy boots and a big belt buckle you guys act like he's worthy of beatification. Sorry, I'm not gloating over his death but I'm not going to fall into this idol worship that makes him out to be some sort of hero just because he talks with a twang. If disdain of Hollywood liberals is good enough for Sean Penn, Barbara Streisand, Susan Sarandon, Tim Robbins, George Clooney and other Hollywood leftists then it's good enough for Weaver.
That's enough, knock it off.
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.