SS: Ahh yes, you have an indefensible position, so you resort to namecalling. Nice job.
I fail to see the name in that. However, you staked out a position, not me. I (and a dozen others) have soundly refuted it. You have yet to post one thing of substance to back up the outright lies "control our security interests" "control our ports."
I characterize that lack of intellect as "stupid" but that is not name-calling.
Ok, since you are obviously into semantics, let's just refer to it as "calling someone stupid" when you should either post a informed response.
However, you staked out a position, not me.
Oh, I thought we each had a position, which was in contrast to one another.
I (and a dozen others) have soundly refuted it.
I saw some passionate arguments in favor of allowing the deal to go forward. But only you seemed to be attacking those who disagree with you as "stupid".
You have yet to post one thing of substance to back up the outright lies "control our security interests" "control our ports."
Again with semantics. Substitute "operate" for "control". I suppose we could always take back our ports militarily if we ever went to war with the UAE. My point is why should we have to? Why should we allow another government to "own", "operate", "inhabit", "rent", "lease", or otherwise "control" in any way any of the ports in this country?
I believe that out of 300 million Americans, we could find a company owned by one or more of them to do the job instead. In fact, it should be required. That idea is just sort of obvious to me, and that shouldn't cause anyone to say that I am "stupid". You could certainly disagree, and that wouldn't be "stupid" either, just a difference of opinion.
I've been on Free Republic for quite some time now, and it's a good thing to argue these issues. But sometimes the President, and you, are just wrong. He is wrong on the borders too.