2
   

Dubai Ports: Shame on the Democrats!

 
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Mar, 2006 10:28 pm
parados wrote:
Quote:
Any complaints about boogeymen and racist reactions to muslims point to the people that have used those arguments for the last 4 years.


Quote:
The lion's share of the blame still rests with those politicians who played on ignorance and bigotry for political gain;


I'm just curious what you think is the difference in logic between these two statements Bill. Care to explain why you think one is OK and the other isn't based solely on the statements themselves.
Were that the whole of my point, which it wasn't; you still wouldn't have a point.

Blaming the actual people who hold a position for holding it; follows just fine.

Blaming someone else for the position those folks hold; doesn't follow.

Move on, man.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 08:58 am
Good one Bill. I love the way you change meanings in statements rather than just deal with the statement itself.

You never did ask who or what I meant in my statement. You made major assumptions and ran with it.

Lets see part of what I based my statement on..

Quote:
"I would say, you could say that 80-85 percent of mosques in this country are controlled by Islamic fundamentalists,"
That statement was made by Representative Peter King in 2004 on the Sean Hannity show. Coulter and Hannity were my other examples of bigotry.

King was probably the first one to bring up Dubai and the ports and one of the leading proponents in stopping the deal.

You never bothered to ask if I could back up my statement. You just got off on making up what you thought it should mean. The strawman I kept referring to that you keep denying.

It seems we agree. The lion's share of blame does rest with those that have played on bigotry and ignorance and it points to those that have used those arguments. Representative King showed his bigotry then and now.



Was my statement a non sequitur? Possibly. But no more than yours is. And certainly no more than your claims about my argument were.

Let me give an example of how I think our argument went
I said.. A cat is an animal
Some animals are amphibians
therefore a cat is an amphibian

You responded. That is a non sequitor a horse isn't an amphibian

Me - I never said a horse was an amphibian

You - Yes you did. You said a horse was an insect on another thread. that proves you think a horse is an amphibian.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 10:51 am
LaughingLaughingLaughing You're killing me, Parados. Denying your obvious meaning now, is no different than it was then. Proscribing a different meaning after the fact; and then making comparisons to a fragmented sentence (even after this fragmentation has been pointed out), rather than any actual point that was made, is ridiculous. Watch:
Example: "Were I a pretty woman; I'd be afraid to walk alone down a city street at night." Now in your ever-twisting logic, or lack thereof, would you think:
A. I don't think I'm a pretty woman
B. I'd be afraid to walk alone down a city street.

Get yourself a grip man. If you have to reach that far, perhaps you should ask yourself why? We've covered this thoroughly enough and if you don't have the decency to own up to the obvious meaning of your own words; I'll not waste any more time showing you they don't match fragmented sentences (Rolling Eyes).
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 01:57 pm
Bill,
I keep forgetting. You know what I think better than I do.

In the future I will try to remember to ask you what I meant after I post so that you can clarify it for me. Perhaps you could clarify everyone else's posts for them too.

I still have 2935 other posts that you haven't provided my real meaning for. Could you do that soon so I can get a grip on what I really think.

Perhaps I misrepresent my own argument. That would perhaps explain your ability to state my position is completely different from what I actually said.

I guess I don't need to answer your question Bill since you already know my answer even if I answer it different from what I "think." But just in case you need some help about what I think. Your example is conditional. I don't believe my or your statements were conditional.

I look forward to your explanation of my thinking in this post, Bill. Glad you are so willing to help those of us incapable of saying what we really think.
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Tue 28 Mar, 2006 08:03 pm
Parados; you are usually reasonable in disagreement... and then there's now. I've thought this over; and I understand you've invested too much in denial to turn back now, but I'm confident our dialog will insure we don't soon revisit that. No worries. See you next time.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 29 Mar, 2006 11:20 pm
OCCOM BILL wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
In another thread I may explain why in this field of dreck the Republicans are marginally better that the Democrats, but for now, a plague on both their houses!
Be sure and link it because this I'd be curious to see, being as I currently disagree. Democrats can pretty much be depended upon to oppose Bush, whether he's right or wrong, if there is any foreseeable political gain to be had. But when the Republicans reached for the bigotry card for political gain in this instance, they abandoned their own President and weakened the cause they supposedly mutually support. This, IMO, is the greater wrong.


We agree in substance.

As respects this particular issue, it is far less a divergence of political adherence that Republicans argue a xenophobic response, than Democrats who would lay claim to an appreciation and embrace of all things foreign and unusual.

I don't mean to excuse those Republicans who chose to abandon Bush and play to the prejudices of their constituents. A plague on both their houses.

Republicans and Democrats who have vociferously opposed this deal are equally partisan scum. However, which position is most at odds with their Party's creed?
0 Replies
 
OCCOM BILL
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 12:33 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Republicans and Democrats who have vociferously opposed this deal are equally partisan scum. However, which position is most at odds with their Party's creed?
I'll grant you that, easily. And I suppose I'd agree with your earlier assessment if were judging from each Partisan's respective shoes, as you seem to be... but I'm not. I'm wearing my own.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Thu 30 Mar, 2006 09:15 am
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Republicans and Democrats who have vociferously opposed this deal are equally partisan scum. However, which position is most at odds with their Party's creed?

Clearly, it's the Republicans.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Mon 3 Apr, 2006 09:03 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
Finn d'Abuzz wrote:
Republicans and Democrats who have vociferously opposed this deal are equally partisan scum. However, which position is most at odds with their Party's creed?

Clearly, it's the Republicans.


Clearly?

Then it should not be difficult for you to provide us with the details that support this assertion.
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 Apr, 2006 03:08 am
And in other news:

Tom DeLay will announce today he is leaving Congress.

Now you can go back to arguing about morality in the First Party of God, Guns and Anti-Gays.

Joe(It's a good day for the Republic)Nation
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  1  
Reply Wed 3 May, 2006 07:57 am
Joe Nation wrote:
Oralloy wrote:
Quote:
The Republicans may have led the way in voting against the deal, but it was the Democrats who led the way in inciting the people with demagogy until the Republicans had no choice.


Since truth matters so much, please post here what you consider the three most inflammatory remarks by any Democrat on this issue, no, check that, any Democratic officeholder. Andy Rooney doesn't count.


Joe(waiting right here)Nation



Sorry for making you wait so long, but the real world has had my attention.

There was the demagoguery that Schumer was spewing after the UAE pledged to sell the ports. Had he not been interested in demagoguery, he'd have announced that he was satisfied with it. He instead ranted about how it wasn't enough.

And then there was Dean saying that the Republicans had a "pre-9/11 view of the world".
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Dec, 2006 03:53 pm
Quote:
Dubai Ports to depart U.S.
Arab company to sell 6 seaport operations


Associated Press
Published December 12, 2006


WASHINGTON -- Dubai Ports World, the company whose planned takeover of major U.S. port operations ignited a political firestorm early this year, has agreed to sell those operations to AIG Global Investment Group.

The company announced the deal Monday. The operations at six major U.S. seaports in New York/New Jersey, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Miami, Tampa and New Orleans were valued at about $700 million, but DP World did not disclose the sales price.

The deal also involves stevedoring operations in 16 locations along the Eastern Seaboard and Gulf Coast and a passenger terminal in New York City.

"While we are disappointed to be exiting the U.S. market, the price we received was fair," Sultan Ahmed Bin Sulayem, the chairman of DP World, said in a statement announcing the deal.

AIG Global Investment Group is an asset-management firm, with more than $635 billion in assets. Its parent company is New York-based insurance firm American International Group Inc. AIG's managing director Christopher Lee said the company is "very committed to ensuring that it continues to be one of the industry leaders in setting standards for port security."

DP World is based in the United Arab Emirates and is the largest marine-terminal operator, with 51 terminals in 24 countries.

The Bush administration had agreed in January to allow DP World to acquire the U.S. port operations, but as soon as the deal became public it was fiercely attacked by members of both political parties.

Critics of DP World cited the UAE's history as an operational and financial base for the hijackers who attacked New York and Washington on Sept. 11, 2001, and the government's past support of the Taliban government before those attacks.

As a result of the public pressure, DP World ultimately agreed to sell off its U.S. assets.
Source
0 Replies
 
Joe Nation
 
  1  
Reply Tue 12 Dec, 2006 08:03 pm
Americans are nuts.

Don't ask us to be sensible, please, we are talking about our port security.

Just because we haven't done a blessed thing to bolster it since the attacks of 9/11 doesn't mean we don't intend to someday. AND

we sure don't want to have some foriegn company, especially an Arab LOOKING country in charge of our port security even if we don't know a cotton picking thing about port security, we don't want that.

We don't.

We would rather do a kneejerk thingie about it and make them sell to AIG

I hope you bought the stock last week
Joe(I think they grow corn someswhere)Nation
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 07/24/2021 at 02:16:14