Politics as (un)usual: Now discussing the Dubai Ports World Deal

Discussion in 'Archive: The Senate Floor' started by KnightWriter, Dec 21, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    Ports are an old issue for Democrats. This is a genuine issue, not something democrats are politicizing dishonestly. Problem is the funding is resisted because it doesn't make any republicans richer.

    Clinton:
    On homeland security, Democrats tried to double the number of containers at ports and airports checked for weapons of mass destruction. It cost $1 billion. It would have been paid for under our bill by asking the 200,000 millionaires in America to cut their tax cut by $5,000. Almost all 200,000 of us would like to have done that, to spend $5,000 to make all 300 million Americans safer.

    The measure failed. Why? Because the White House and the Republican leadership in the House of Representatives opposed it. They thought our $5,000 was more important than doubling the container checks at our ports and airports.

    If you agree with that, by all means, re-elect them. If not, John Kerry and John Edwards are your team for the future.


    Kerry:
    The measurement is not: Are we safer? The measurement is: Are we as safe as we ought to be? And there are a host of options that this president had available to him, like making sure that at all our ports in America containers are inspected. Only 95 percent of them -- 95 percent come in today uninspected. That's not good enough.

    Kerry again:
    95 percent of the containers that come into the ports, right here in Florida, are not inspected. Civilians get onto aircraft, and their luggage is X-rayed, but the cargo hold is not X- rayed. Does that make you feel safer in America?


    As the Senate Democratic Policy Committee has documented, since 9-11, Senate Republicans have voted to defeat Democratic measures to increase funding for port security.
  2. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    Bendu,

    The problem is that you are complaining quite a bit about things, but you aren't willing to bring ideas to the table about how to do things better.


    It's a myth that there are no ideas out there by the people who criticize Bush. If you're as smart as you say you are, you would have already known about all the times that Democrats have brought this issue to the table, with thoughtful solutions in place as well. The problem is, these proposals cost money, and they don't benefit the companies that put Bush in power. It's old news. I don't know why you'd rather hear my ideas than the ideas of public servants whose good ideas have already been rejected in favor of Bush's tax cuts.
  3. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Bendu, you have simply shown your lack of reading comprehension yet again.

    I didn't say that no one was bringing ideas to the table. I simply said that you aren't bringing any ideas to the table. Just because the Democrats may have ideas doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to add your own ideas to the discussion here.

    You are simply being lazy by saying that you don't need to come up with your own ideas when Mr44 or I ask you to. You accuse us of mindlessly defending Bush, but you are simply parroting the Democrats. That is hypocrisy at its finest. If you aren't willing to bring your own ideas to the table, and instead will rely on partisan information and viewpoints, why do you attack others who you perceive to do the same (except that they disagree with you)?

    Basically, through your laziness, you only expose your own hypocrisy.

    Kimball Kinnison
  4. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    Mud slinging will get you nowhere. I agree with the many previous Democratic proposals regarding increasing port security since 9/11, and the Senate Republicans and the Bush team have blocked them. Call it parroting all you want.

    You do realize it is pointless for me to come up with something beyond scanning every container. What could be better than that? I suppose increasing watchtowers. What does it prove for me to say something so obvious? You're really just bullying to demand such a banal and obvious response.

    You just don't like that I am winning.
  5. Mr44 VIP

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2002
    star 6
    I think you're missing the point, but if it makes you feel better, rock on!
  6. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Winning? When the senate floor starts keeping score then you may claim you're winning. You know, there's no shame in admitting you're wrong. So far all I've seen have been KK, E_S, Jabba, and Mr44 posting sound arguments and you continually saying they're wrong with little to no proof. Are you aware of what that looks like, right? That you're clinging desperately to your argument while it sinks lower into the depths of e-blivian. Not a good way to go out.
  7. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    Winning? When the senate floor starts keeping score then you may claim you're winning. You know, there's no shame in admitting you're wrong. So far all I've seen have been KK, E_S, Jabba, and Mr44 posting sound arguments and you continually saying they're wrong with little to no proof. Are you aware of what that looks like, right? That you're clinging desperately to your argument while it sinks lower into the depths of e-blivian. Not a good way to go out.

    How can I be wrong that there might be a security risk if the Dubai deal went through? Without a proper inquiry, how can my statement be incorrect?

    And how can I be wrong that Bush has done little to improve port security, when still only about 5% of cargo is inspected?

    What you see as sound arguments just do nothing to sate my concerns, nor the concerns of a large number of people far more established, experienced and educated than any of you. This forum is small peanuts. The real debate rages on in Washington.
  8. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7

    How can I be wrong that there might be a security risk if the Dubai deal went through? Without a proper inquiry, how can my statement be incorrect?

    Well...I might be raped by a shark in the right circumstances...that doesn't mean it'll ever happen. If we worry about what might happen then nothing will ever get done based on what might happen. You'll be too worried about circumstances to fix or change and then some terrorist will sneak something through because you're not watching for it. You're off somewhere fixing an imaginary problem. And that'll ruin your weekend real quick.

    As to being wrong...you've been proven wrong on several occasions. I was with you for a while and then after learning more about this deal I'm kind of leaning toward the other side of this argument. Not because there's some magical thing that's been said that'd make me change my mind, just that I don't watch enough Bond films to think there's some terrorist boogeyman nation trying to sneak weapons in.

    And how can I be wrong that Bush has done little to improve port security, when still only about 5% of cargo is inspected?

    And you could say the same thing about the last three presidents. It doesn't justify GWB's laziness. Just that it's nothing new and the government's doing the best it can to deal with the problem at the moment (and I don't trust the government usually) but I do know that there's a lot more to deal with at the moment coupled with port security.

    What you see as sound arguments just do nothing to sate my concerns, nor the concerns of a large number of people far more established, experienced and educated than any of you. This forum is small peanuts. The real debate rages on in Washington.

    Not really rages...more of a whimper. Sound arguments do nothing to placate your concerns? Well, that just about puts this into perspective...there's no point in debating this with you as your position is clearly from a standpoint of irrational fears. Not an actual threat.
  9. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    If we worry about what might happen then nothing will ever get done based on what might happen.

    And we have yet another contender for someone-I-would-not-like-running-my government. Prudence is like gold these days.

    Hey fire, why don't we just see how this thing plays out. I just want this deal to be given scrutiny that is appropriate to the concerns Americans, Republicans and Democrats have all shown for it. The verdict is not in, I'm afraid. How many people are really weighing in on this puny thread compared to the real world. My voice more closely matches what people are saying in the real world than the ever-trusting KK and the Star Wars 20-something Bush-loving gang.

    As for "sound arguments", I've seen a lot of arguments, just not fully sound ones. There has been a failure to distinguish between companies that are located in a foreign country and companies that are controlled by a foreign government. The fact that a foreign government owns the acquiring company is crucial because U.S. law mandates additional investigation in such cases if the acquisition might affect national security. KK and others tout the fact that Customs will be in charge of inspections. Truth is that private terminal operators are almost always responsible for guarding the area around their facilities. Customs may be in charge, but they're not usually present.

    Sound arguments do nothing to placate your concerns? Well, that just about puts this into perspective...there's no point in debating this with you as your position is clearly blah blah blah

    I hate to point out the obvious, but I said that what you see as sound arguments do nothing to placate my concerns. Which to any intelligent person implies that I don't see the arguments as sound.

    As to being wrong...you've been proven wrong on several occasions.
    No conservative on these boards has ever changed my mind about anything substantial. Please cite examples that show that I have been defeated. Go way back if you wish! Just find places where I have been on the wrong side of history (things that have played themselves out already) and the conservatives have been unquestionably correct. And don't bother with little scraps like me being wrong about some statistic from a flawed study, or being wrong about who would win an election. Give me examples of when I have been provably incorrect in my very beliefs and ideals when in comparison to KK, 44, and the rest of the Bush gang. Opinions and hypotheticals are not submittable.
  10. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Bendu

    PPOR. Either provide proof for your statements, or shut up and go away. You are past the point of rational discussion.

    1) Prove that "Customes may be in charge but they're not usually present". Have you ever been to a port terminal? I was at one in May of last year, as part of my honeymoon cruise. Customs has an office right there where you get off the boat, and everyone who comes off of the boat has to go through Customs screening. Customs is present immediately at dockside.

    2) Just because you think that the deal might affect national security doesn't mean that it meets the criteria for additional investigation set forth in law. There are actually two criteria put forth in law:
    (1) there is credible evidence that the foreign entity exercising control might take action that threatens national security, and
    (2) the provisions of law, other than the International Emergency Economic Powers Act do not provide adequate and appropriate authority to protect the national security.
    There are also 5 factors that are specified for it to be determined to be a threat to national security, none of which seem to be the case with this deal:
    (1) domestic production needed for projected national defense requirements;
    (2) the capability and capacity of domestic industries to meet national defense requirements, including the availability of human resources, products, technology, materials, and other supplies and services;
    (3) the control of domestic industries and commercial activity by foreign citizens as it affects the capability and capacity of the U.S. to meet the requirements of national security;
    (4) the potential effects of the transaction on the sales of military goods, equipment, or technology to a country that supports terrorism or proliferates missile technology or chemical and biological weapons; and
    (5) the potential effects of the transaction on U.S. technological leadership in areas affecting U.S. national security.
    And, in any case, such an investigation was done to examine potential national security threats from the deal, and they determined that there were none. That evidence has been posted for you several times.

    If anything, it should comfort you that it wasn't the top officials making that determination (I thought you didn't trust them anywyas), but instead it was left to people who are experts in their fields.

    You are completely clueless! This statement here provides far more insight into how your brain processes things (or doesn't process, as the case may be). Jabbadabbadoo and FID are about as far as you can get from part of a "Bush-loving gang". Ender_Sai has repeatedly criticized the Bush administration. However, suddenly you lump them together like that because they disagree with you.

    Is Jimmy Carter part of this nebulous "Bush-loving gang"? How about the Washington Post? Are they no longer "people ... in the real world" because they disagree with you?

    Like I said before, you don't speak for the majority of people, except for in your own delusions. You've already demonstrated that you are unable to listen to opposing views, so wh
  11. Jabbadabbado Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Mar 19, 1999
    star 7
    NYT this morning.


    After two days of behind-the-scenes negotiations with the Bush administration and Congress, the Dubai company seeking to manage terminals at six American ports is expected to announce by Monday a deal inviting the government to conduct a broad new review of security concerns, senior administration officials and a company adviser say.

    If an agreement is completed, the state-owned company, Dubai Ports World, will "voluntarily" ask the Bush administration to pursue the lengthier, deeper investigation that Democrats and Republicans in Congress have been demanding since controversy over the transaction erupted at the beginning of the week.

    The White House plans to portray the action as the company's own decision, giving administration officials a face-saving way of backing away from President Bush's repeated declarations in recent days that there is no security risk in having the port terminals operated by a company controlled by the emir of Dubai, part of the United Arab Emirates.


    This sounds like a fairly adept political solution.
  12. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    Here's a question for those who are freaking out about the deal (particularly you, Bendu).

    If, after the additional review, it turns out that the deal is exactly as Mr44, Ender_Sai, Jabbadabbadoo, Bush, and I have described, will you admit that your concerns were wildly overstated? Will you admit that CFIUS's review of the deal was sufficient? Will you (particularly you, Bendu) apologize for the wild accusations that you have made against those who disagree with you?

    Or, will you simply ignore it and forget about this entire incident? Will you simply brush it under the carpet and act like it never happened?

    My money is on the latter, but I'm willing to be surprised.

    Kimball Kinnison
  13. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    And we have yet another contender for someone-I-would-not-like-running-my government. Prudence is like gold these days.

    I am sorry that my idea of setting priorities was not Chicken Little enough for you. My mistake, a sensible government looks through all of the holes and closes them. Yep. Well if we're going to have a government like that then we might as well live in an authortarian state because no leak is ever going to be closed all of the way. If a terrorist is determined enough to blow the hell out of your building or bus, or pizzeria, or whatever, then they're going to do it. There is no stopping a determined person. And you may get one, two, three of the attempts but you'll never get them all. So being paranoid about every little thing that comes from the Middle East, or from some boogeyman nation of the week is a pointless waste of time.

    I call this piece...The Liberal Hypocrisy. And I think it fits the discussion.

    "The terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming they're coming through the land! The air! The sea! Let's see...they could get through our ports dressed as frog men. Quick, kill all of the frog men. Let's erect fences around our borders and take extreme security measures against Arabs. Sure I'm liberal and racial profilinig is wrong...but these people could be dangerous and they could make bombs out of bananas, you don't know! They could upset my tranquility of fighting for the black man and saying, 'I have African-American friends' to defend myself when someone dares say I'm a racist, but let's watch out for the Arabs; you just can't trust those people. It's only racist to discriminate against African-Americans because of what they've been through. Any other groups that are discriminated against is a-okay by me."

    Hey fire, why don't we just see how this thing plays out. I just want this deal to be given scrutiny that is appropriate to the concerns Americans, Republicans and Democrats have all shown for it.

    I have been watching it play out and everyone's showing how racist and hypocritical our politicians and many Americans are which wasn't much of a surprise but to see racism on parade really disgusts me.

    The verdict is not in, I'm afraid. How many people are really weighing in on this puny thread compared to the real world. My voice more closely matches what people are saying in the real world than the ever-trusting KK and the Star Wars 20-something Bush-loving gang.

    I'd say the more sensible people in the world reside in this thread. The irrational ones are people who will not accept any argument no matter how sound. Hell, I may not like a lot of conservative posters here, but some do make rational arguments. And discounting an argument based on the person's political leanings is just foolish. Will it make you feel better if the Democrats hold your hand and tell you it's going to be all right? Okay then. Just wait for the Democrats to approve this decision for you since it's clear you won't let anyone's arguments (no matter how sound) change your mind. But if the Democrats say it's okay then you can sit at ease and sleep sound at night.


    Btw, I'm no fan of GWB, in fact I've been against his presidency since 2001. Even after 9/11. If you're going to call, E_S, Jabba, and myself bush lovers for agreeing one little time with his decision I'm going to have to take away your 'liberal' membership card. We can discuss what to replace it with later. Maybe 'Moonstruck liberal' will work best.

    Sheesh...never thought I'd see the day when KK defended me even a smidgen.

  14. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    If, after the additional review, it turns out that the deal is exactly as Mr44, Ender_Sai, Jabbadabbadoo, Bush, and I have described, will you admit that your concerns were wildly overstated?

    Absolutely not. You have all argued against this review taking place in the first place. My only argument has been that we don't know enough to conclude that there is no concern without the in-depth review.
  15. BenduHopkins Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Apr 7, 2004
    star 4
    I call this piece...The Liberal Hypocrisy. And I think it fits the discussion.

    "The terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming they're coming through the land! The air! The sea! Let's see...they could get through our ports dressed as frog men. Quick, kill all of the frog men. Let's erect fences around our borders and take extreme security measures against Arabs. Sure I'm liberal and racial profilinig is wrong...but these people could be dangerous and they could make bombs out of bananas, you don't know! They could upset my tranquility of fighting for the black man and saying, 'I have African-American friends' to defend myself when someone dares say I'm a racist, but let's watch out for the Arabs; you just can't trust those people. It's only racist to discriminate against African-Americans because of what they've been through. Any other groups that are discriminated against is a-okay by me."


    Do you not see how this is exactly what the conservatives have told Americans in order to bolster support for military violence against the arab world, for taking away their civil liberties? Do you not see that in the case of conservatives in power, it is a phony excuse, but that liberals actually believe there is a terrorist threat that needs to be addressed through homeland security and detailed intelligence rather than attacking people with weapons based on flimsy connections? You sound like you are believing the right wing spin that is painting liberals as xenophobes for taking caution in something, when history has showed that liberals have consistently been against racial profiling, xenophobia, dissapearing muslim suspects without trial, etc. Please don't be so naive. You have a choice. You don't have to fall for the grand lie.

    If you're going to call, E_S, Jabba, and myself bush lovers for agreeing one little time with his decision I'm going to have to take away your 'liberal' membership card.

    Re-read my statements carefully. I never included you E_S, or Jabba in that description.
  16. Kimball_Kinnison Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Oct 28, 2001
    star 6
    The problem is that even after an additional review, you can still keep coming up with additional reasons why it could be a threat to national security.

    How can you claim that the first review was inadequate if the additional review reaches the same results? How, then, was the initial review deficient?

    It's true, we don't know enough, but that doesn't mean that CFIUS doesn't. Basically, you are arguing that because you haven't taken the time to actually research the matter (I've gone back to many of the original reports in the financial press from last November), CFIUS must not have actually looked into it as well. They did a three month review! Since you haven't actually addressed any of the substance of their review to show how it is deficient, why should we expect that you would change your story with any additional review?

    Kimball Kinnison
  17. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Do you not see how this is exactly what the conservatives have told Americans in order to bolster support for military violence against the arab world, for taking away their civil liberties?

    Told them what, that liberals in America are hypocrites? No, I very much discovered that on my own. Liberals and Democrats here say they?re not racist because they champion civil rights, but the second some Arab company wants to buy a few ports in the US they both get their panties in a bunch and start decrying the decision to allow the ports to be bought, because Arabs are, after all, the great boogey man these days. I wish the days of the USSR would come back. I so miss the trials and calling people anti-American. It was such a fun time that I never got to experience. But wait, we have our own USSR. The terrorists! And we?re not persecuting our own Americans this time. We?re persecuting other nations! So it?s okay. Even if there are racial undertones.

    Do you not see that in the case of conservatives in power, it is a phony excuse, but that liberals actually believe there is a terrorist threat that needs to be addressed through homeland security and detailed intelligence rather than attacking people with weapons based on flimsy connections?

    You know?I hate to say this but you?re starting to sound like every conspiracy nut from the JFK assassination to the ?fake? moon landing mission. ?It?s so obvious what they?ve done, they?ve pulled the wool over your eyes too!? No, I?m saying that allowing this deal is the least of our worries and the media has over-hyped this one and whipped people into an anti-Arab frenzy.

    You sound like you are believing the right wing spin that is painting liberals as xenophobes for taking caution in something, when history has showed that liberals have consistently been against racial profiling, xenophobia, dissapearing muslim suspects without trial, etc. Please don't be so naive. You have a choice. You don't have to fall for the grand lie.

    No, I believe that liberals are hypocrites, that conservatives are just as bad, and that our society has an underlying xenophobic attitude toward anyone that isn?t white or black. Liberals have been consistently against racial profiling? Hmm...not in this case.

    Re-read my statements carefully. I never included you E_S, or Jabba in that description.

    Yes, but your reply was to me. And I?m one of the people who has gone on the side that this is abso ?*********? lutely ridiculous. So while you may not have mentioned our names other than KK?s. You did make the implication.
  18. DeathStar1977 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Jan 31, 2003
    star 4
    After giving this some thought, I have a few more questions:

    The difference between allowing foreign airlines into the country as opposed to the ports is that, as far as I know, the airport security is far tighter than port security. If this is indeed the case, then shouldn?t we be very careful as to who manages the ports, at least until the security at the ports is much better? My understanding is that this was reviewed and considered before the approval. But since this isn't just another business transaction/free trade situation considering that it involves an important security component, I can understand the concern. Perhaps what I am asking is a sort of chicken-and-egg question, that we should be very, very careful as to who manages the ports until the security is much improved.

    How much access to port security info does a managing company have? I admit this may be difficult to answer, but I thought I'd throw this out there anyway.

    I read an article in the AP that the DWP would not be required to keep business information in the U.S., which is routine in these situations. Is this merely a technicality or should this be cause for alarm?

    http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060223/ap_on_go_pr_wh/ports_security_60

    This may be redundant...how much oversight will we, the U.S. government, have over the DWP? Will we be able to access their business info as it relates to the ports at any time we want?

    And again, what is the actual record of the UAE in regards to terrorism? Pros and cons are welcome, as is compare and contrast regarding other nations.
  19. Nightowl TFN Timetales Writer

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 4
  20. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    The implication that Americans, including a fair number of Republican leaders, are reacting negatively to the sale out of racist attitudes or Islamophobia is, well, probably true, which is not the same as insane. No nation on Earth is more welcoming or inclusive of others than the United States, which presumably is why people keep mobbing our borders. But Americans are also not simpletons.

    Yes they are. That's all they've ever been. That's why the US has just two parties. And why Americans elect leaders like GWB. That's why racist attitudes are governing the political stooges now. Your article did nothing to dispel that Americans aren't being racist in their response. It's saying, "Hey, we're racist, but that's okay because we were attacked by arab terrorists." I'd hate to see if some Africans destroyed the world trade center. Would we have genocide? Maybe that's too harsh. How about bringing slavery back? Or maybe concentration camps like we did for the Japanese in world war II. No, wait, not concentration camps. Detainment camps. You know...because there's a world of difference.
  21. Darth Fierce Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Feb 6, 2000
    star 4
    Just because you're Islamophobic. . . doesn't mean you're wrong
    By Kathleen Parker (Orlando Sentinel)
    Published February 26, 2006

    Arabs are better off losing U.S. port contract
    Ray Hanania | Special to the Sentinel
    Posted February 26, 2006




    The second article is nothing more than ideological ranting.

    The first one illustrates an interesting point (though not intentionally). It has occurred to me during this UAE issue that a lot of people are being called the R-word who are not accustomed to such an accusation. Rather, many of them are accustomed to throwing it around against other people. A nice lesson to be learned from this experience would be to be a bit more judicious in the future regarding the use of the R-word.

    Look at some of the verbiage from the article:



    "Just because you're Islamophobic doesn't mean you're wrong"

    "Some foreign companies are more foreign than others."

    "...a world gone mad over a few political cartoons"

    "wondering whether it's such a good idea to increase even administrative traffic between "over there" and here."

    "not going to pretend not to notice that the perpetrators [of 9/11] are all Middle Eastern men of a certain complexion."

    "That's not racist, though it may be racially aware."

    "I'm cautious around snakes even though many are non-poisonous."



    I would suspect that this type of language, if uttered by the author's political opponents, would beget the R-word faster than a jump into hyperspace. And I must say, at the risk of ignoring my own advice, I think the author, well, I'll just say she needs to spend a bit more time examining her beliefs.

    Imagine President Bush after 9/11 likening Arabs to snakes.

    I think a lot of people could use this experience as a chance to reflect on appropriate use of the R-word in the future.
  22. Nightowl TFN Timetales Writer

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 4
    I think a lot of people could use this experience as a chance to reflect on appropriate use of the R-word in the future.

    Thank you, Darth Fierce. That's just the reaction I was hoping for when I posted the articles. =D=

    But Americans are also not simpletons.

    Yes they are. That's all they've ever been.

    Great way to win hearts and minds there, Fire_Ice_Death... :oops:
  23. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    I've never stated nowhere, not in a memo, an e-mail, snail mail, or anywhere that I'm out to win the hearts of people. I'm stating my views and my views at the moment aren't particularly favorable of Americans. Despite being one I have an absolute disdain for a good portion of people within American society. Particularly: Religion, US liberals, Conservatives, Democrats, and Republicans. They can all go take a flying leap off a bridge for all I'm concerned. Ideology usually leads to the insanity you see before you. And all of those are ideologies. Even the political organizations these days. Simpletons are the people that have knee-jerk reactions to things like this port buyout. They have racist attitudes and try to justify them like your articles did. So no, I'm not trying to win over anybody because they've given no reason for me to try and win them over.
  24. Nightowl TFN Timetales Writer

    VIP
    Member Since:
    Jul 8, 1998
    star 4
    Then, sir, I pity you.

  25. Fire_Ice_Death Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 15, 2001
    star 7
    Pity me...for...what? Not caring what people think?
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.