A
archangel
Guest
ScreamingEagle said:About as old and worn as the "stupid" approach.
:moon4: :funnyface
and the kiss my butt smiley is a little 'RUSTY'...Rusty!
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
ScreamingEagle said:About as old and worn as the "stupid" approach.
:moon4: :funnyface
ScreamingEagle said:So your calling Bush a liar is really only a supposition on your part?
Admit it.
rtwngAvngr said:But what's important here is the deal. It's bad, stupid and unsafe.
ScreamingEagle said:What's more important here is the slackness of our security systems.
ScreamingEagle said:What's more important here is the slackness of our security systems.
rtwngAvngr said:That's right, rules will solve everything. Nevermind the reliablity of those charged with implementing them and keeping them secret.
ScreamingEagle said:Trust but verify.
Tightening up security measures will go a long way to protecting America. Dissing holding companies of allies will not.
Why insult and lose allies and then maybe lose the war where we have chosen to fight it? If we lose it over there we for sure are going to have to fight it over here. There will be nothing to stop it here. Like Archangel says, our system needs a makeover, otherwise they will be bringing in bombs left and right through our big sieve.
As a side note, I find it hillaryous that liberals are so mightily concerned now about WMDs --- from an area that supposedly didn't have any.![]()
rtwngAvngr said:Not at all. I'm saying it's not that great a business, yet it has strategic value, if taking over the world is something one is interested in.
rtwngAvngr said:Not at all. I'm saying it's not that great a business, yet it has strategic value, if taking over the world is something one is interested in.
rtwngAvngr said:"Trust But verify" was the motto used in inspecting nuclear proliferation of countries not supposed to have them. Don't you think it odd that you're using this phrase regarding operators of our ports?
trobinett said:It appears that the "cooling off" period called by both sides is a good idea.
At first blush, I was against this buy out, but once I did some background work, got the facts, weighted the advantages vs any disadvantages. It became apparent, that this is a good deal.
Having said that, I still think the "cooling off" period is a good call, so discussion's like on this board, and others can take place, and more people become comfortable with the deal. :usa:
OCA said:Got any examples of how this is a good deal for us? I mean none have been put forward by anybody yet but thousands of reasons why this deal is bad exist.
dilloduck said:The very same people working in these ports today will STILL be working in these ports. Makes for a smooth transition.
dilloduck said:The very same people working in these ports today will STILL be working in these ports. Makes for a smooth transition.
OCA said:LMFAO! Is that the best you can do? Because the same people will be working there? But the management will be from a terorist supportive country, sound thinking from a person who takes a position only because someone he dislikes takes a position i.e. Hillary and Schumer. Don't be afraid, you won't turn into a lib just because you might agree with them on 1 issue, you must become more of a man than this.
dilloduck said:I was reading off of your copy.
archangel said:please bring me up to speed on this comment...sorry I may be a little dense in this venue!