Here's a comment for Dubai supporters: If you support this deal, you support sharia law, Islamofascism, misogyny and Anti-Semitism.
Makes as much sense as the opposite.
Typical....
Listen pal, come up with one reason OTHER THAN THEY ARE A-RABS, and you won't be called racist on your reasoning.
ITS THAT DAMNED SIMPLE.
Until then, deal with it.
Its called "the broad brush".
Surely, some of those opposing the deal are doing so because they don't trust Arabs of any kind. There can be no doubt to that statement.
Those who support the deal blindly, in their desire to persuade others to support it, or at least not to oppose it, use the broad brush to scare soft-opponents away from opposition.
It works in both directions. Those who oppose the deal are quick to call supports "Blind lemmings" and pretend that there are no good reasons to support it, which there are.
This is a tricky issue that is not black and white. < period >
I am gonna sit it out and watch.
When the Roman Emperors began to use "barbarians" to administer his borders and fill troop quotas, the Empire began to Decline.
President Bush, call your office!
These same people run the biggest port for the United States Navy. Presidents from BOTH parties do business with the UAE. They provide money and facilities for the training of Iraqi police officers.
Are they perfect? No. We also don't agree with the Chinese on their aspects and behaviors of governance. We still do business with them...even let them run port terminals.
I've failed to see anything in the evidence that separates DP from any other port operator--other than their geography and race.
The "racism" charge is simply shorthand to indicate that the opponents have no evidence that port security will be effected by the deal, and therefore the administration had no legal authority to reject the deal.
But the opponents argue the deal should be thrown out anyway, because of "sharia law, Islamofascism, misogyny, and anti-semitism". In other words, because we do not want to deal with muslim-owned companies. That may be a valid argument, but it is still racism of a sort.
I say of a sort because there IS racism involved, some argue that ARABS should not be allowed to own ports and cannot be trusted -- Arabs are a race. But muslims are not a race, they are a religioun, so it's anti-muslimism that drives the opponents.
The liberals argue from tolerance that being "anti" anything is wrong no matter what the circumstance. I don't hold to that -- it IS ok to be "racist" if a race actually IS evil, although I don't believe any race is such by nature of their race.
Opponents of the deal argue that the muslim religion is evil by its very nature, and therefore all that practice the religion are evil.
My argument on the port deal has been limited to saying that, even if true, this would not be a justification for stopping this deal.
But I would also point out that there are some who claim MOST religiouns are evil.
I am against the above but am OK with DPW operating some terminals in some ports.
IDIOTS.
one more for our side. By the way, we've decided to take a trick from the Dems playbook, and have stopped going to movies. Why subsidize an industry devoted to pressing the hard left Democratic agenda? Anyone agree with this?
I'm trying to find one single accusation against this company or the specific managers of this company.
Some evidence that this company has ever engangered port security anywhere, anytime, ever.
If you oppose the deal, then you must have some evidence to that effect, yes?