To: TBP
Follow the money. The ports deal had 0% to do with security and 100% to do with union politics.
16 posted on
05/04/2006 9:31:18 AM PDT by
USNBandit
(sarcasm engaged at all times)
To: USNBandit
The ports deal had 0% to do with security Taht is not true. It had a lot to do with security. Allowing a nation that is an active supporter of terrorism to control our ports (and thus to control the manifests) would have been extremely dangerous.
18 posted on
05/04/2006 9:52:36 AM PDT by
TBP
To: USNBandit
Follow the money. The ports deal had 0% to do with security and 100% to do with union politics.Isn't that funny...Most of the country was against the deal...Know what??? Most of the country doesn't belong to a union...Guess you know what you're talking about...
31 posted on
05/04/2006 11:50:06 AM PDT by
Iscool
(You mess with me, you mess with the whole trailer park...)
To: USNBandit
The ports deal had 0% to do with security and 100% to do with union politics. Congratulations! You win the grand prize!
The union politics was played by the Democrats; the Republicans were cowed by the Democrats.
39 posted on
05/04/2006 12:04:05 PM PDT by
sinkspur
( I didn't know until just now that it was Barzini all along.)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson