930 Forums
=> GENERAL DISCUSSION => Topic started by: on February 25, 2006, 12:41:00 pm
-
I wonder...why don't they outsource the executive branch of government?
Wait, it's already been outsourced to the Saudi royal family.
-
clever
-
haliburton subcontracting
-
Would it be possible to outsource the Iraq war to The United Arab Emirates, as well..?
-
Maybe we should put little crescent moons next to each and every little star of our flag.
-
Originally posted by Jaguar:
Maybe we should put little crescent moons next to each and every little star of our flag.
Or tear's.
-
i don't understand why people are getting their panties in a bunch about this, considering the only reason it is going to be managed by a company out of dubai is because that company bought out the brittish company that was already doing it! pretty racist if you ask me.
-
I have to agree. It does smell more like rascism than anything else. Many of the comments I've read by Baltimore's mayor sound just like something George Wallace would have said in the '50s. I agree that there is a legitimate security concern, but the vitriol is out of proportion.
-
We have nothing to fear from these Arab gulf countries...
<img src="http://homepage.mac.com/cfj/.Pictures/9-11/wtc-2-plane.jpg" alt=" - " />
We're just being racists, as per usual.
-
Originally posted by Rob_Gee:
Originally posted by Jaguar:
Maybe we should put little crescent moons next to each and every little star of our flag.
Or tear's. [/b]
tears would work for a bunch of cry-babys!
or how about dollar signs? $$$$$$$$
-
Originally posted by Got Haggis?:
i don't understand why people are getting their panties in a bunch about this, considering the only reason it is going to be managed by a company out of dubai is because that company bought out the brittish company that was already doing it! pretty racist if you ask me.
There are clear distinctions between British and UAE ownership. How about the fact that 85% of the people in UAE hate our guts, think the 9/11 attack was well deserved etc; this is all documented in poll after poll:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/zogby80.html (http://www.mediamonitors.net/zogby80.html)
If the British had these feelings I'd agree that we shouldn't have allowed them control either, but let's deal in reality
-
Amen! Not to mention the Arab method of war, Jihad. They seem to prefer the dirty-tricks style of mayhem. I say they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt if they wage war in this underhanded, guerilla manner.
Originally posted by edbert:
Originally posted by Got Haggis?:
i don't understand why people are getting their panties in a bunch about this, considering the only reason it is going to be managed by a company out of dubai is because that company bought out the brittish company that was already doing it! pretty racist if you ask me.
There are clear distinctions between British and UAE ownership. How about the fact that 85% of the people in UAE hate our guts, think the 9/11 attack was well deserved etc; this is all documented in poll after poll:
http://www.mediamonitors.net/zogby80.html (http://www.mediamonitors.net/zogby80.html)
If the British had these feelings I'd agree that we shouldn't have allowed them control either, but let's deal in reality [/b]
-
I think we should put all the Americans of Arab descent in internment camps, just to be safe. I mean, you just can't trust those sneaky little camel jockeys. I saw one of 'em hanging out by the reservoir the other day.
-
Would this include Paula Abdul too? If so, then I am in favor.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I think we should put all the Americans of Arab descent in internment camps, just to be safe. I mean, you just can't trust those sneaky little camel jockeys. I saw one of 'em hanging out by the reservoir the other day.
-
Kareem Abdul Jabbar would have to go too.
Did you see Airplane?
Originally posted by just plain Dupek:
Would this include Paula Abdul too? If so, then I am in favor.
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
I think we should put all the Americans of Arab descent in internment camps, just to be safe. I mean, you just can't trust those sneaky little camel jockeys. I saw one of 'em hanging out by the reservoir the other day.
[/b]
-
this whole issue is just pure red meat for the ignorant masses who say to themselves:
hmmm, i don't really know anything about international relations or our new allies in this war on terror, but it just doesn't seem right that some country with "arab" in its name is "running our ports"
in denouncing bush, lindsay graham said that this was "politically foolish" of him to do, which is completely correct, it's POLITICALLY idiotic because of all the fucking xenophobic morons who live in this country and can't process the higher brain functioning necessary to comprehend this deal and who are susceptible to red meat demagoguery by politicians on the left and on the right .... but that says nothing about the PUBLIC POLICY implications of the deal
this issue is probably dead in the water, but noone who is against the deal is actually talking about real issues, they're just using bush's weak political posture to rile up the blind-faith-ignorant masses
-
Thanks for unmuddying the waters, HoyaP. We all trust your sage Ivy League take on the "big picture". Your educational dollar is obviously being well-spent.
BTW, it's too bad Cheney can't just go out and shoot someone else to take the heat off of Bush.
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
hmmm, i don't really know anything about international relations or our new allies in this war on terror, but it just doesn't seem right that some country with "arab" in its name is "running our ports"
i havent gotten that far yet in my reasoning. I am still stuck on "why is a company from ANY other country running our ports???" (or your ports, for the sake of details)
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
this issue is probably dead in the water, but noone who is against the deal is actually talking about real issues,
so what are the real issues, hoya?
-
Originally posted by Thom Foolerie:
i havent gotten that far yet in my reasoning. I am still stuck on "why is a company from ANY other country running our ports???" (or your ports, for the sake of details)
a completely legitimate issue ... my point is that all these people opposing the deal aren't discussing the deal on public policy grounds, they're just using demagoguery to stir up xenophobic emotions in people like dupek
maybe companies from other countries should not be running key infrastructures like ports on our soil ... but we're not having a reasoned discussion about this issue, talking about what we've done previously with our ports, discussing what responsibilities these companies have, etc ... we're simply freaking out and appealing to the basest instincts of our most uneducated citizenry
by the way, it's convenient that UAE has "Arab" in it's name, isn't it? makes it alot easier for the real morons who might not understand what or where "Yemen" is to get riled up
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
just using demagoguery to stir up xenophobic emotions in people like dupek
it's convenient that UAE has "Arab" in it's name, isn't it? makes it alot easier
With 'allies in the war on terror' like these, who needs enemies?
-
Originally posted by Thom Foolerie:
so what are the real issues, hoya?
the real issues are best dealt with by technocrats who actually understand the security implications of the deal, not politicians ... does anyone even know the details of what these companies do at the ports?
all i'm saying is that this deal should be considered by people outside of the political sphere who aren't susceptible to this political "piling on" against a weakened president ... perhaps it comes out through a detailed review that it just isn't safe to have this company "running" our ports ... fine, don't let them ... i'm not supporting the deal, i'm just sick of the political posturing
-
the war on terror!!! I love that phrase. it sounds so valiant! i mean, terror, thats a pretty big foe.
did you guys ever win that war on drugs?
the war on terror seems even tougher. But hopefully if the US can concur terror, we can start the next battle
"The War On Fear!!"
or
"The War on Sadness"
or "The War on Lonlieness"
-
Originally posted by Thom Foolerie:
"The War on Lonlieness"
<img src="http://static.flickr.com/5/7921404_aab7fdaa51.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by Thom Foolerie:
the war on terror!!! I love that phrase. it sounds so valiant! i mean, terror, thats a pretty big foe.
did you guys ever win that war on drugs?
the war on terror seems even tougher. But hopefully if the US can concur terror, we can start the next battle
"The War On Fear!!"
or
"The War on Sadness"
or "The War on Lonlieness"
How about "The war on Indie"
We already won the "War on HFS in DC"
-
<img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/team_dupek/58bb1993.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
How about the War on Fat!
you guys are getting your asses WHOOPED in that
-
<img src="http://www.celebrities.pl/chow_yun-fat/chow7.jpg" alt=" - " />
Bring it on, maple leaf boy!
-
Originally posted by Thom Foolerie:
How about the War on Fat!
you guys are getting your asses WHOOPED in that
I'd have to agree with you there, that war has been kicking my ass for a few years now.
-
Tell me about it. I ran 20 miles on Saturday, and my weight was still up today by two pounds over what it was on Friday.
Originally posted by Rob_Gee:
Originally posted by Thom Foolerie:
How about the War on Fat!
you guys are getting your asses WHOOPED in that
I'd have to agree with you there, that war has been kicking my ass for a few years now. [/b]
-
Originally posted by Charlie Nakatestes, Japanese Golfer:
Tell me about it. I ran 20 miles on Saturday, and my weight was still up today by two pounds over what it was on Friday.
you live THAT far from a Dunkin Donuts??? jeez.
-
I couldnt run 20 miles in 20 years in the shape I am right now.
-
Originally posted by Rob_Gee:
I couldnt run 20 miles in 20 years in the shape I am right now.
doesnt mean you are fat though!
i couldnt run fucking 2 miles and i am 6'1" 180lbs.
-
Even the name sounds suspicious...
Dubai :
As in..."DO you BUY this port deal ?"
I think what we are actually BUY-ing is a huge boatload of DOO !
-
not to mention... <img src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40741000/jpg/_40741866_jacksonafp2_203.jpg" alt=" - " />
<img src="http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40741000/jpg/_40741872_jacksonafp_203.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Some facts about Dubai Ports World (the company that bought the British company that already handled operations.
1) They are operating the Port Terminals, NOT the ports themselves. Security will continue to be handled by the US Coast Guard
2) The company's COO is an American (Ted Bilkey)...the board of directors also contains British and Australian members
3) There are U.S. customs agents on the ground at the ports IN Dubai that inspect cargo before it gets loaded on any ships. It has been that way for years.
4) DB Ports World has a HUGE financial interest in doing everything to maintain security. If anything, they have a LARGER commitment to security than any other company would since any problem would result is MASSIVE losses for them.
I was a huge O'Malley supporter before this..but he just sounds stupid whenever he talks about this...being a typical politician.
-
Originally posted by Got Haggis?:
I was a huge O'Malley supporter before this..but he just sounds stupid whenever he talks about this...being a typical politician.
yeah. O'Malley probably doesnt even care about the Port Deal. but he can't sit back and say nothing, because after all, he supposedly represents the people of Baltimore, who seem to be generally concerned.
he looks like he is trying to convey a message he doesnt necessarily agree with.
-
until very recently this story was just a standard business story thats been reported on since last year. with the deal being studied by those who were qualified to approve it or not. it then became a hot button political topic that of course no politician can't avoid commenting on for fear of losing face to those people think the terrorists are going to hit their town.
the company isn't going to take for the entire port, they will still remain under the control port aurthorities a function of local/state government. the deal only involves the places with in the port where the ships dock and transfer goods. work which is still going to be done by local longshoremen.
the bigger question is why hasn't the federal goverment standardized security procedures in ports like they'v been promising for years.
-
There is a good op-ed piece in today's NY Times pointing out that, if we really cared about port security, the technology exists to scan the contents of every container -- even before it leaves its foreign port bound for the U.S. It could be implemented and fully paid for with a $20 surcharge on each container. They already do it in Hong Kong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/opinion/28flynn.html (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/28/opinion/28flynn.html)
-
kosmo and ggw, you're sounding way too rational here
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
kosmo and ggw, you're sounding way too rational here
Should I go back to the internment camp idea?
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Should I go back to the internment camp idea?
i think dupek would appreciate that
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
i think dupek would appreciate that
<img src="http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y25/team_dupek/96bb3018.jpg" alt=" - " />
Appreciate this, Hon.Elijah Denton
-
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
this whole issue is just pure red meat for the ignorant masses who say to themselves:
hmmm, i don't really know anything about international relations or our new allies in this war on terror, but it just doesn't seem right that some country with "arab" in its name is "running our ports"
in denouncing bush, lindsay graham said that this was "politically foolish" of him to do, which is completely correct, it's POLITICALLY idiotic because of all the fucking xenophobic morons who live in this country and can't process the higher brain functioning necessary to comprehend this deal and who are susceptible to red meat demagoguery by politicians on the left and on the right .... but that says nothing about the PUBLIC POLICY implications of the deal
this issue is probably dead in the water, but noone who is against the deal is actually talking about real issues, they're just using bush's weak political posture to rile up the blind-faith-ignorant masses
<img src="http://www.whitehouse.org/initiatives/posters/images/port-security.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
<img src="http://www.theprotrsion.com/neurome/images/49_final.jpg" alt=" - " />
-
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
kosmo and ggw, you're sounding way too rational here
Should I go back to the internment camp idea? [/b]
ggw is a good buddy of Pierce's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUd43vyjmrA&search=Pierce%20Bush).
Pierce is a leader of tomorrow.
-
Originally posted by FREE RANDY CUNNINGHAM:
Originally posted by ggwâ?¢:
Originally posted by HoyaParanoia:
kosmo and ggw, you're sounding way too rational here
Should I go back to the internment camp idea? [/b]
ggw is a good buddy of Pierce's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUd43vyjmrA&search=Pierce%20Bush).
Pierce is a leader of tomorrow. [/b]
:eek:
That was a public service announcement against inbreeding, wasn't it?