[daybreakcoming]

Are they going to smuggle in a nuke? Well hell, why not just blow it up in the port before it gets unloaded? By the time it actually reaches the dock, its a bit late to stop it, isn't it?

And therein spotlights the lack of reasoning on the anti-port side. I have always thought if there was a nuke or dirty bomb on a ship at the Houston port - they could do as much or more damage in the channel before they ever dock for unloading.

The Heroes of Flight 93 and the Shoebomber Flight have given the enemy pause. What unholy warrior coward wants to be taken down by dirty infidels without finishing their murderous mission? The enemy lies in wait for the left and the media to finish us off. Thanks for a well-thought out post.

[Stellar Dendrite]

ping

[XJarhead]

Thanks, but well-thought out posts don't matter on this issue. If there's one thing I've learned in the past few weeks, that's it.

I can't remember how many times I asked opponents of the deal to describe specifically how control of unloading terminals threatened our security. Never got an answer that contained even a hint of reasoning. All I'd get was "Bushbot" or "RINO", or conclusory assertions based on false premises like "giving other countries control of our ports damages our security." It just gets old.