The Phony Fracas

[OCA]

That's called morals. There is nothing immoral about a foreign company running port operations. There is plenty immoral about prostituting one's offspring.

Correct, there is nothing immoral but there is something inherently dangerous with this particular deal but heck if you are willing to roll the dice......hope they don't come up snake eyes.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It's immoral to allow free-market capitalism to work as intended? That is what you're saying, you know.

Free market capitalism does not trump security. According to your same logic, I should be able to purchase a half hour with a child. Is stopping child prostitution the same as socialism? No.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Currency today is basically fiat currency, made valuabe by military force, and serves basically as a control system.

 

[OCA]

Free market capitalism does not trump security. According to your same logic, I should be able to purchase a half hour with a child. Is stopping child prostitution the same as socialism? No.

Isn't that what Bush is always saying? National security is his number 1 concern? I just don't understand why he's willing to go all in, to use a hold'em phrase, on this one deal. Somebody, anybody please explain the benefits to America as the risks are well known.

 

[dilloduck]

Isn't that what Bush is always saying? National security is his number 1 concern? I just don't understand why he's willing to go all in, to use a hold'em phrase, on this one deal. Somebody, anybody please explain the benefits to America as the risks are well known.

Our ports will be open for business rather than rusting.

 

[OCA]

Our ports will be open for business rather than rusting.

Wow, is that the best you could do? As if this Brit company will just pack their shit and leave before the dust settles on this deal.

 

[dilloduck]

Wow, is that the best you could do? As if this Brit company will just pack their shit and leave before the dust settles on this deal.

There is no Brit company. What about that don't you understand ?

 

[OCA]

There is no Brit company. What about that don't you understand ?

Ok, oh wise one, then who is it? Oh maybe it is the USMB conspiracy group you were so fond of that runs it, lmfao!

 

[dilloduck]

Ok, oh wise one, then who is it? Oh maybe it is the USMB conspiracy group you were so fond of that runs it, lmfao!

P&O has been sold. If the US does not want to lease to the company that bought it, we have to lease to a DIFFERENT one. This pipe dream of just keeping the same old FOREIGN country operating these ports is your fantasy--as is you thinking about USMB conspiracies.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Isn't that what Bush is always saying? National security is his number 1 concern? I just don't understand why he's willing to go all in, to use a hold'em phrase, on this one deal. Somebody, anybody please explain the benefits to America as the risks are well known.

Yep. This little stunt makes him a dirty liar.

 

[dilloduck]

Yep. This little stunt makes him a dirty liar.

And he's really spying on the Dems too----that stuff about NSA and terrorism is all a bunch of bunk. :rotflmao:
You guys crack me up.

 

[5stringJeff]

Free market capitalism does not trump security. According to your same logic, I should be able to purchase a half hour with a child. Is stopping child prostitution the same as socialism? No.

There's a flawed anaolgy. But I'll say it again, the company in question is not running port security, they are running port operations. Big difference.

 

[OCA]

P&O has been sold. If the US does not want to lease to the company that bought it, we have to lease to a DIFFERENT one. This pipe dream of just keeping the same old FOREIGN country operating these ports is your fantasy--as is you thinking about USMB conspiracies.

Should I drudge up some of those old threads Dildo? Don't play dumb, you know exactly what i'm talking about.

Yes we have to lease to a different one but........and this is a big but, we must be very careful to whom and has been thouroughly documented in a thousand different ways this past week, this deal had danger written all over it. Far too risky, it should be scrapped.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

There's a flawed anaolgy. But I'll say it again, the company in question is not running port security, they are running port operations. Big difference.

No. It's not a flawed analogy. ANd it's also not a big difference.

 

[OCA]

Yep. This little stunt makes him a dirty liar.

Yep, he's been pulling this shit for a while now only he's caught now. Glad to see you can see it for what it really is unlike some of the sheep who are busy wating for ol'GW to throw a couple more flakes of alfalfa to them.

 

[OCA]

There's a flawed anaolgy. But I'll say it again, the company in question is not running port security, they are running port operations. Big difference.

Port security or port operations it makes no difference, we are giving them an opening and they will use it. These people are not stupid.

 

[dilloduck]

Port security or port operations it makes no difference

, we are giving them an opening and they will use it. These people are not stupid.

you're hopeless. You cant tell the difference between the US Coast Guard and a port operations? Prove to me they have access to all the same security info as you claim.

 

[5stringJeff]

Port security or port operations it makes no difference, we are giving them an opening and they will use it. These people are not stupid.

It's not like terrorists haven't already been trying exploit any weaknesses we have in our security. I fail to see how transferring the management of these ports from the UK to the UAE suddenly makes them more susceptible to terrorist exploitation. We're going to have the same Coasties and the same customs agents at the ports, and the company will be subject to the same DHS regulations as the old one.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

It's not like terrorists haven't already been trying exploit any weaknesses we have in our security. I fail to see how transferring the management of these ports from the UK to the UAE suddenly makes them more susceptible to terrorist exploitation. We're going to have the same Coasties and the same customs agents at the ports, and the company will be subject to the same DHS regulations as the old one.

It has to do with access to information and procedures.

 

[OCA]

you're hopeless. You cant tell the difference between the US Coast Guard and a port operations? Prove to me they have access to all the same security info as you claim.

LMFAO! I've never read someone so naive.