The Port Deal and Race was it a factor at all(Of Course Not)

The Emirates Economist | 03/12/06 | bayourant

[wardaddy]

I'm sorry dear but a weighted anti-Muslim bias sure makes sense to me.

Islam has been clashing with Judeo-Christian based civilization for about 1200 years now....and about any other non-Muslim demographic in their way.

Not to mention, they sure enjoy killing the hell out of each other when it suits them

So being wary of muslims doesn't bother me a bit.

We will win this when they fear us and in particular our will to prevail. Some like the UAE already knew this more or less and as well as knowing where their bread is buttered and have tried more or less to saddle up to us

which is why I reluctantly leaned towards supporting W on this ports deal(unlike most of my compadres) though I thought he handled the politics and his own party clumsily

I am not one bothered by race period unless it's used against me to deflect candor that minorities or majorities find uncomfortable.

Islam is a problem. Failure to recognize that and an unwillingness to do so simply because that might be considered bigoted is naivete in the face of an enemy that would exterminate us given the chance.

Are you in favor of no restrictions on Muslim immigration to this country too?

Some social moderates here love that idea.

I wouldn't give any of them a foothold here unless they are at risk for having helped us.

Wherever Islam goes....death follows.

Btw....I was married to an ethnic Arab Christian and have two daughters with her, one of whom lives with me and have Maronite DNA on my mom's side so save the racist stuff for someone else...lol

btw...at least one good thing came out of bayourant (bayourod) lying about holdonow......JR canned him-her...good riddance

[hosepipe]

[ The Port Deal and Race was it a factor at all(Of Course Not) ]

NAH!.. it was just a diversion from the Mexican Border..
Worked beautifully too..

Its getting stale (the port deal) and boring.. Expect a new diversion soon.. maybe this week..
Cause if the republican and democrat leaders agree on ANYTHING its total inactivity to stop Mexican Border insurgency..

[Travis McGee]

Was bayourant (bayourod) canned again?

[Sally'sConcerns]

I don't know whether he lives in the UAE or not. That's not what's important to me. Matter of fact, I don't know he even said he lived in the UAE, he may have. I do know there was one poster on the pro side who stated they were in the UAE but I can't say it was definitely him and since I can't search for his posts now, I can't check it out. Again, though that's not why I asked for reconsideration.

You know, you say he wasn't the most convincing, persuasive person - blah, blah, blah which is fine. The thing is, I don't consider myself to be one of those either. I'm simply a run of the mill poster who loves my access to FR. I would hope someone would stick up for me in the event of a misunderstanding even though I'm not one of the "important" people.

What I find interesting is the people on this thread who are expressing sentiments such as yours about this being an open and shut case are the one's in disagreement with his position on this particular issue. If the shoe had been on the other foot and you had been the one to make the mistake (and that's what I see it as) I would have asked Jim to reconsider for you. When I see something which I honestly view as a misunderstanding I'll stand up for that poster regardless of whether I agree with their position on a particular issue of not. I prefer not to vanquish those on the opposing side by banning.

I regret you have personal friends who have been permanently expelled. Hopefully it wasn't due to a misunderstanding.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Yeah, I suppose.

I wasn't implying that there should be an insurmountable standard erected for re-admittance, only that there was nothing so compelling or intriguing about this person that would merit such a request.

I guess if other people want to make a brief for him they're perfectly entitled to, but I agree with you in the sense that it's not much of an issue.

I just wanted to express my concern that other people would be willing to the mat for users who were rightfully banned, while not supporting other, much more worthy, cases.

[oceanview]

no, that's why no one cares that the UAE owns it. if they would stick to buying hotels and casinos, and stay away from security related infrastucture and defense contractors - we would all be OK.

[spectre]

To: All Mark Levin Live Thread...

Oh well I am turning him off. He just called a great general a Dirtbag. Said he didnt know what he was talking about. Evid all the military was wrong. He again is dumping on a partner on the war on terror when the time is to try to repair the damage. When a talk show host call patriots dirtbags time to give it a rest

50 posted on 03/09/2006 5:13:38 PM CST by bayourant

[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies | Report Abuse ]

[oceanview]

the steps that the administration is asking americans do to as part of the war on terror - are all rooted in fear.

we take off our shoes at airport check-in, because we fear someone with a shoe bomb boarding the place.

we fill out additional forms when doing banking transactions, because we fear a domestic terror network being funded by financial transactions we cannot track.

and on and on. all of it is rooted in fear of the unknown, fear of what might POSSIBLY be security risks. Is that all hysteria? Is the Patriot Act hysteria? I don't think so.

you can't talk about these kinds of things non-stop, have Tom Ridge out there asking people to buy plastic sheeting and duct tape, and then turn port operations over to the UAE with a willy-nilly "trust us" as the basis for accepting it. no way. that's why this bombed politically with 80% of americans.

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

You're probably right that I would be more willing to grant the benefit of the doubt to someone who happens to agree with me, but the reason I voiced my concern isn't because that particular user took issue with my point of view.

There are certainly plenty of people on FR that disagree with me vehemently, but what I took exception to was his actions, not his personal beliefs on this particular subject.

If he had not started a vanity attack thread-using some of the same scurrilous accusations that had been lodged by certain advocates of the DP World terminal agreement-his advocacy would be immaterial.

I guess you could give him the benefit of the doubt and credit him with a common mistake, instead of a malicious lie, but that still doesn't absolve him from responsibility for not researching whether or not this very derogatory epithet-which called into question the integrity of a very respected, distinguished talk show host and attorney-was genuine.

[Cboldt]

... only that there was nothing so compelling or intriguing about this person that would merit such a [re-admittance] request

I don't know, on way or the other. Never swapped barbs with the bloke, or took sides in concert. All I can say is the guy never got my attention as being an ass or a good-guy, and some FR posters get my attention those ways. Count me as a "no evidence" witness.

I'd go to bat in your favor, FWIW.

[Mr. Mojo]

Good post, WD. Anti-Muslim bias didn't appear out of thin air -- they've well earned it.

Soccermom: Islam isn't a race, so leave the race card in the deck. Prominent non-Arab ones include Ibrahim Hooper (the white spokesman for CAIR) and Louis Farrakhan (the black NOI leader). Plenty of Christian Arabs too, as WD mentioned.

And suspicion regarding the UAE in particular isn't unfounded either, considering UAE officials have regularly waived-through or turned a blind eye to the shipment of nuclear triggers to Pakistan and nerve gas precursors to Iran. And in '03, despite U.S. protests, UAE customs officals allowed American electrical switches (which are ideal for detonating nukes) to be sent to Pakistan.

Oh yeah, and then there's the 70 tons of heavy water (a component for nuclear reactors) sent from China to Dubai, where the shipping labels were then changed to mask the transaction.

Despite what many pro-deal folks have been asserting, this broken deal won't be the end of our relationship with the UAE. The U.S. Navy will remain stationed there (for our mutual benefit), and WOT intel will still flow back and forth. Looking back, this will all be a minor blip on the radar.

[soccermom]

"I'm sorry dear but a weighted anti-Muslim bias sure makes sense to me." OK, then don't complain when opponents of the port deal are charged with an anti-Muslim bias.

[Mr. Mojo]

"then don't complain when opponents of the port deal are charged with an anti-Muslim bias."

No, there were being charged with racial bias, which as I mentioned above is a whole different thing.

[soccermom]

"Soccermom: Islam isn't a race, so leave the race card in the deck. Prominent non-Arab ones include Ibrahim Hooper (the white spokesman for CAIR) and Louis Farrakhan (the black NOI leader). Plenty of Christian Arabs too, as WD mentioned."

Spare me the 5th grade social studies lesson. I'm aware of that and that was part of my point in another thread. God forbid there is another attack on Ameican soil, I predict it will come from Americans recruited from our prison system. (But the important thing is, we're keep our eye on those A-rabs, aren't we?) The hysteria toward the UAE illustrates precisely why it is a matter of race. Richard Reid was an Islamic terrorist from England, but we're perfectly fine with letting a British company hold the contract. I can point you to a thread where I made the point that not all Arabs are Muslim. But that doesn't matter to the hotheads in this forum. I can point you to another thread where the poster is completely unapologetic about his stance that ALL Muslims are part of the "Cult of Death."

The reality is this was about bigotry. In one breath, you're claiming that the bias is well-earned and in the next you're complaining about the race card. Sorry, you can't defend bigotry and then complain that the race card is being used.

[Elyse]

I guess you could give him the benefit of the doubt and credit him with a common mistake, instead of a malicious lie, but that still doesn't absolve him from responsibility for not researching whether or not this very derogatory epithet-which called into question the integrity of a very respected, distinguished talk show host and attorney-was genuine.

But that is the whole point he THOUGHT that he heard it with his own ears. People were asking him for proof and it was frustrating for him because he didn't have a tape of the show. He said he heard it on the show himself. When I first listened to the tape I thought I heard Mark Levin call the general a mudball.

If I had been listening to the show that day then I would have only heard it one time. I would have come on here all indignant and said well he didn't call him a dirtbag but he called him a mudball which is no different. Then people would have been yelling at me and I'd probably be banned right now.

[Mr. Mojo]

Richard Reid was an Islamic terrorist from England, but we're perfectly fine with letting a British company hold the contract.

RR was a lone terrorist, unafiliated with any British company or the British gov't. The instances of questionable (at best) behavior I listed in post #831 were committed by the gov't of the UAE. Comprehend the distinction?

Sorry, you can't defend bigotry and then complain that the race card is being used.

Again, anti-Muslim bias is completely different than a racial bias. If you're going to make accusations then at least make them accurately.

[Sally'sConcerns]

I understand what you're saying. I'm not sure you understand exactly where I'm coming from. Here's the opening 'shot' of his vanity:

Did Race play a role in the Port Deal discussions? The very charge is met by the likes of Sean Hannity and others with Righteous Indigination. In fact, to mention it makes you the true problem. Mark Levin in fact called a MAjor General a dirtbag over that charge. The below cartoons may be an issue now in the UAE. They are not cartoons about that ole darn prophet however. THere will be no boycotts over these but remember still they dont help things. The cartoonist just give us what we want sometimes. From MSNBC the following cartoon. There were many others that through the glory of the net are available to all.

One line of his vanity was about Mark Levin calling the Major General a dirtbag. One line...his whole rant was not directed at Mr. Levin. He also directed it towards Sean Hannity and cartoons from MSNBC.

I personally don't see his opening as specifically calling out Mr. Levin. He used 3 separate examples to support his contention of racism being an issue. It just so happened Mr. Levin was on FR when the rant was published and posted almost immediately taking exception to a statement attributed to him.

You're treating his rant as if it's directed solely at one person which it wasn't. As far as research, why would he research something he'd posted at the beginning of a thread 3 days ago and where he'd not been challenged? Not one FReeper stated he'd misheard holdonnow on the initial thread. I read the thread in question last night and the link is posted somewhere on this thread but I just don't have the fortitude to once again read through this whole thread in order to reference it in this particular post.

Please don't act as if the sole purpose of this thread was to call into question the integrity of a very respected, distinguished talk show host and attorney as it wasn't. Do some research of your own before you make the accusation this thread was solely to call out Mark Levin.

If he had not started a vanity attack thread-using some of the same scurrilous accusations that had been lodged by certain advocates of the DP World terminal agreement-his advocacy would be immaterial.

I'm not sure which "same scurrilous accusations" you're referring to in this particular paragraph. To me it appeared the main thrust of the vanity was to point out the cartoons he deemed to be racist. One text sentence was directed at Hannity and one text sentence was directed at Levin. The remaining "accusations" were comprised of cartoons. I suppose in your mind he shouldn't have made mention of either Hannity or Levin and only drawn attention to the cartoons. Is that your issue, that he shouldn't have mentioned Hannity or Levin and simply based his vanity on the one source of the cartoons?

As a side note, I want to apologize if I'm being somewhat dense or negative or combative or whatever. There have been numerous fires set by arsonists in my area and we've had some very bad fires as a result. Last night the police were looking for someone seen trying to set fires at different places near my home. While they didn't find any fires, the smell of woodsmoke was very strong and I was hesitant to go to bed until the all clear was called (which was very close to dawn this morning). (I live in rural Oklahoma and fires have encroached on our small town.)

[Cannoneer No. 4]

Dubai Ports: Who was Right, the President or Congress?

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

Thanks!

I appreciate it.

Although, I can't see myself ever getting in trouble with the powers that be.

*smirk*

;-)

[Do not dub me shapka broham]

http://www.uselesslinks.com/