Posted on 02/24/2006 3:08:30 AM PST by KentTrappedInLiberalSeattle
Rules for them, but not for thee?
Now you're simply flailing. Neither condition #2 or #3 in any way gainsays the first one; they are ameliorative, not contradictory.
He is not in favor of the deal
He doesn't have to be "in favor" of the deal, by your oddly draconian definition of the term -- which, apparently, would include his undergoing multiple public orgasms every time the faintest shadow of the thought crossed his mind -- for the genuine meat of his argument is, and remains: Allow the contract to go through. This is simple, obvious and shriekingly self-evident.
This is still America and we follow the law.
Point to the specific sentence(s) where Krauthammer plainly, unequivocally advocates anything to the contrary.
If Congress is not in favor of Arab countries running port operations then Congress needs to pass laws that say so.
Point to the specific sentence(s) where Krauthammer plainly, unequivocally advocates anything to the contrary.
A drop-dead certain way not to be accused of cramming words, inelegantly, into any given author's mouth is to Not Cram Words, Inelegantly, Into Any Given Author's Mouth.
Krauthammer argues -- persuasively, I might add -- IN FAVOR of the deal. He needn't pledge allegiance to it, simultaneously, in order for this to be so. This is, as you pointed out, "still America."
Have you actually read the thread? Tell me who jumped ugly first and we'll talk.
And if you think that the language used by that poster is acceptable, then we have nothing to discuss.
We'll simply have to agree to disagree, then. Again: I don't hand out brownie points for gender.
Now I have to leave the intellectual arena & get the garbage outi>
You, there; me, here. :)
There are NO U.S. firms in the business of managing these kinds of facilities; they got out of the business because of the unions. All of these commercial operations are already run by foreign companies, including a firm from the UAE and one from Saudi Arabia.
The fact that DP World bid on the purchase isn't surprising; they're very invested in this field and are very good at what they do. So good that the U.S. Navy already relies upon them.
I, in turn -- rightfully, and in perpetuity -- reserve the no less sovereign right to point and giggle, if and whenever you (or anyone else) elects to do so in any/all public fora.
Win-win. :)
"The greater and more immediate danger is that as soon as the Dubai company takes over operations, it will necessarily become privy to information about security provisions at crucial U.S. ports. "
This is one of the sillier arguments I've seen and I'm surprised to see it come from Krauthammer. Seeing as Dubai Ports World runs ports all around the world, including in Australia, it is highly likely that they are already familiar with security provisions. What they don't know about US security provisions, certainly they could figure out without actually managing them. And it's doubtful that US security provisions differ very much from those in Australia or other countries.
What this boils down to is that a lot of the critics, sadly including Krauthammer, find it necessary to now rationalize their initial Arabaphobic kneejerk reaction with "clever" little arguments like this.
Kuwait already runs terminals in the US? Oh my! They'll soon become familiar with port "security provisions!" We're doomed! This is now getting very funny!!
Point 2 and Point 3.
Special requirements that do not apply to other foreign companies operating in our ports.
Man, you have some serious issues you need to work out this morning.
Take a break troll.
:)
I really hate to break this startling news to you but the loonies are freaking out that the Arabs will be running our ports...which makes it a very significant failure in word choice.
Yeah, I like reading flamewars. FR has a good one from time to time.
Tell me who jumped ugly first and we'll talk.
Oh, I'm indifferent as to who started this one. I was simply noticing that YOU failed to ping a poster to your mild insult. Adding my little bit of fuel to the fire, if you will. I know YOU know the rules about pinging, and figured my comment would get a rise. LOL.
But in the closed confines of this thread, it's unlikely that the poster you are insulting will miss your insult, hence being called on a this "ping infraction" is a bit of a cheap shot, a formality. Like being cited for a "rolling stop" where there is clearly no traffic.
... if you think that the language used by that poster is acceptable, then we have nothing to discuss.
Now you're changing the subject.
Yeah. I enjoy the holy living heck out of publically humiliating baldfaced liars. Go fig, huh...? :)
Take a break troll.
Troll: a newsgroup post that is deliberately incorrect, intended to provoke readers; or a person who makes such a post. (e.g.: "Krauthammer is against the Dubai Port deal.")
Game, set and match. :)
In light of the big, blazing, neon Allow the contract to go through, right there in plain sight, for all the world -- including "the loonines" "freaking out" (how ironic, considering some of the more patently Krauthammer-basjings in this very thread) to see...?
Ummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm... no.
Not really.
No.
Pssssssst...the operative word here is "control". As Limbaugh likes to say, words have meaning.
Typo correction.
AGAIN: Point to the specific sentence(s) where Krauthammer plainly, unequivocally advocates anything to the contrary.
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle.
If Congress is not in favor of Arab countries running port operations then Congress needs to pass laws that say so.
AGAIN: Point to the specific sentence(s) where Krauthammer plainly, unequivocally advocates anything to the contrary.
Wriggle, wriggle, wriggle.
Parse the meaning of the six large, red, bold letters in Post #115 for me.
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.