T1B

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:59 pm**

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,187307,00.html

I'd be willing to bet that after Rep. and Dem leaders in the House and Senate essentially told the White House to go fuck themselves, Bush was on the phone to DPW asking them to withdraw from the port deal. The Bushites are hemorrhaging support in both houses, and I'm guessing he didn't want to waste the last vestige of his political clout on this idiocy.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:09 pm**

Rove's administration is totally unconcerned. Consider this: as Republicans oppose the president on this issue, they are building political capital for themselves at no cost to the oval office, which faces no election. They themselves will point to their record as Protectors of the American People, the deal will get done regardless, and all the pols are happy.

Just another strawman for the American People.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:21 pm**

mvscal wrote: Hats off to the bigots...

I laughed.

Way to shit on the most important ally we have in the Gulf. That was just "brilliant".

We should just cower in fear of upsetting them, right?

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:46 pm**

Fukk 'em if they don't want our ships, planes, and drunken servicemen. We'll take our business elsewhere.

But when it comes to the emirates’ cooperation in the war on terrorism and in intelligence gathering, there is concern that some help may be pulled.

You mean like the help they provided on 9/11 or in sending nuclear goodies to North Korea? Yeah, thanks for that.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:47 pm**

I'm actually in complete agreement with mvscal on this.

It's pretty much Bush's own fault, though, because it's total political grandstanding, playing to the national paranoia that he and his admin have spent the past 4 1/2 years cultivating. The only reason he's not on the same bandwagon is because of the large corporations that are up in arms over it.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:55 pm**

Mikey wrote:It's pretty much Bush's own fault, though, because it's total political grandstanding, playing to the national paranoia that he and his admin have spent the past 4 1/2 years cultivating.

Yep

Coupled with the fact that the sum of his political discourse about the deal amounts to "either do it or else" is what set the stage for this. Lines in the sand like this never turn out well.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:10 pm**

mvscal is right about how stupid this is to block ad Mikey is right also about how a lot of this is the chickens coming home to roost for the Bush admin.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:12 pm**

So a controversy pops up about a foreign company taking over our ports. Mvscal starts ranting about what a great ally they are,

And then that "great ally" responds to the possible nixing of the deal by threatening to retaliate economically or by withdrawing terror support.

And this is the company we want in charge of our ports?

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:23 pm**

mvscal wrote:That's what happens when you fuck somebody after they bend over backwards to accomodate your every request.

Fuck that noise.....you'd have us believe they're our bestest buddys

aren't you the one that said UAE was all about business?

This isn't the way "businessmen" respond....

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:29 pm**

mvscal wrote:That's what happens when you fuck somebody after they bend over backwards to accomodate your every request. Or is that too "nuanced" for you?

Fuck off, idiot.

You have just summarized the entire Middle East's view of the United States in one post.

Good job you fucking idiot. Go back to work and contribute to this economy instead of leeching off of it.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:37 pm**

Mister Bushice wrote:So a controversy pops up about a foreign company taking over our ports. Mvscal starts ranting about what a great ally they are,

And then that "great ally" responds to the possible nixing of the deal by threatening to retaliate economically or by withdrawing terror support.

And this is the company we want in charge of our ports?

Guess what? We "started it". What "great ally" won't let you do business on their home turf? They've always let us in, who can blame them for saying fuck you now?

If we want to nix the port deal, then why should they buy our planes, helicoptors, etc.? They can go elsewhere to get what they need. It's business, right?

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:47 pm**

Mikey wrote:Guess what? We "started it". What "great ally" won't let you do business on their home turf? They've always let us in, who can blame them for saying fuck you now?

They've "always let us in" because without the US, their dictatorship would have been overrun by any number of larger neighbors.

If we want to nix the port deal, then why should they buy our planes, helicoptors, etc.? They can go elsewhere to get what they need. It's business, right?

I could give a shit if they buy our planes. Seriously, it is of no importance to me wether plutocrats from Boeing or Airbus benefit from the Emirates petrodolars.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:48 pm**

Mikey wrote:
Mister Bushice wrote:So a controversy pops up about a foreign company taking over our ports. Mvscal starts ranting about what a great ally they are,

And then that "great ally" responds to the possible nixing of the deal by threatening to retaliate economically or by withdrawing terror support.

And this is the company we want in charge of our ports?
Guess what? We "started it". What "great ally" won't let you do business on their home turf? They've always let us in, who can blame them for saying fuck you now?

If we want to nix the port deal, then why should they buy our planes, helicoptors, etc.? They can go elsewhere to get what they need. It's business, right?

And this is why Bush is a miserable president. A good president would have got this deal done. This is just another reason why he quite possibly will go down in history as the worst president ever! I'm ok with the Dubai deal. But, he's a failure and many have been stating this for years now.

Failed to get allies in the war in Iraq
Failed to get bin Laden
Failed to hold Saudi Arabia accountable
Failed to stop N. Korea from getting nukes
Failing to stop Iran from getting nukes
Failed to close our borders
Failed Hurricane Katrina
Failed getting Iraq under control
Failed to inform the public about the Dubai deal
etc
etc

He's an incompetent assclown. All he does is threaten and boast about how cool he is and how tough he is. When he's a failed buisnessman, non veteran, unintelligent, ignorant speaking moron.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:49 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Actually that's exactly how businessmen respond to flaky and unreliable partners.

Maybe in your world....

In the real world, they just move on to the next deal......

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:52 pm**

Felix wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Actually that's exactly how businessmen respond to flaky and unreliable partners.
Maybe in your world....

In the real world, they just move on to the next deal......

When a customer ain't buyin' the vehicle he's selling, mvscal punches them in the face.

"You buy this car, or I break your fuckin' neck!"

I'm not joking either, but how long until Halliburton gets this contract?

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 9:58 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:I could give a shit if they buy our planes. Seriously, it is of no importance to me wether plutocrats from Boeing or Airbus benefit from the Emirates petrodolars.
That's because you're a fucking idiot. Boeing has no employees? They pay no taxes? They have no small shareholders?

Thanks for demonstrating the monumental stupidity of what passes for "progressive" thought once again.

Hey, compared to the potential problems that allowing a state owned company from Dubai entree into our ports would have caused, I could care less. They want us to trust them? Then stop producing terrorists.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:01 pm**

mvscal wrote:
BSmack wrote:I could give a shit if they buy our planes. Seriously, it is of no importance to me wether plutocrats from Boeing or Airbus benefit from the Emirates petrodolars.
That's because you're a fucking idiot. Boeing has no employees? They pay no taxes? They have no small shareholders?

Thanks for demonstrating the monumental stupidity of what passes for "progressive" thought once again.

Ooooh! mvscal gets all patriotic when it comes to money. He doesn't mind the billions being spent on Iraq as opposed to domestically. He doesn't mind the amount of business we have been losing based on worldwide xenophobia of the US. He doesn't mind that deals have been going to China from India worth billions more than this deal, because of our relationship with Pakistan.

No, mvscal lives in a fantasy world where Dick Cheney says: "Go fuck yourself" and he cums at that very moment over and over again.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:26 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Boeing has no employees? They pay no taxes? They have no small shareholders?

Exactly how many planes can a country with a total population of about 2.5 million really use?

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:28 pm**

And this new mystery mvscal is worried about things like bigotry and offending Arab dictatorships.

Who are you and what have you done with the REAL mvscal??

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 10:54 pm**

mvscal wrote:
Uncle Fester wrote:And this new mystery mvscal is worried about things like bigotry and offending Arab dictatorships.

Who are you and what have you done with the REAL mvscal??
Bigotry as a personal opinion is fine. It makes for a piss poor business model, though.

AWA HAW HAW HAW HAW AHAW! WI WI WI WI!

Sincerely,
France

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:15 pm**

mvscal wrote: So much for Dimocrats being the party of "diplomatic nuance".

I guess you've conveniently forgotten how to blast "nuance." Just take a complex issue and hammer it down to sound bites that satiate the public -moreover, the angry, white male voter - you have loooooooved to rile lo these many years.

And now it's burned you. Tough shit.

Sucks to be spinning helplessly for a lame duck.

Posted: **Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:26 pm**

mvscal wrote: Bigotry as a personal opinion is fine. It makes for a piss poor business model, though.

You seem to be taking this harder than the UAE.......

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:05 am**

mvscal wrote:
Degenerate wrote:
mvscal wrote: So much for Dimocrats being the party of "diplomatic nuance".
I guess you've conveniently forgotten how to blast "nuance." Just take a complex issue and hammer it down to sound bites that satiate the public -moreover, the angry, white male voter - you have loooooooved to rile lo these many years.

And now it's burned you. Tough shit.

Sucks to be spinning helplessly for a lame duck.
And what exactly did you pathetic assholes win out this?

You tying yourself up on a message board and one less lead for you to sell another used Cavalier.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:19 am**

mvscal wrote: And what exactly did you pathetic assholes win out this?

Well, they're sending "BODE" emails to the Cafferty files on CNN at a record pace right now. So at least they have this little victory to gloat over, after having been forced to pack sand on so many other issues and occasions.

I think W just threw them this little bone to chew on as a distraction while he was really pursuing another agenda...getting the Patriot Act renewed.

That Bush is crazy like a fox that way. While the Dems are pre-occupied with being pompous, outraged, and self-serving, dude always winds up with the choicest hen in the chicken coop.

Rack him.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:39 am**

Felix wrote:
mvscal wrote:
Boeing has no employees? They pay no taxes? They have no small shareholders?
Exactly how many planes can a country with a total population of about 2.5 million really use?

It's an international airline. A lot more people than those 2.5 million would use them.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:45 am**

Funny how the editors of the nation's premier Liberal mouthpiece are in agreement with what mvscal has been saying (sort of...actually what they say here is pretty much what I was saying in a couple of posts).

Funny also how most of you normally "Liberal" fellows are taken in by the pandering paranoia pimps.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060320/editors

[font=Tahoma]The Nation[/font]

Fearmongering on Dubai
[from the March 20, 2006 issue]

Rise by fear, fall by fear. Having deliberately nurtured a national security panic for the past four-plus years, President George W. Bush richly deserves to be trampled in its latest running: the uproar over his Administration's decision to hand management of six US ports to a state-owned Dubai firm. Bush is cornered by his own bulls--Bill Frist and Dennis Hastert warning darkly of national security threats implied by Arab ownership of American ports, other Republicans accusing him of coddling Dubai's state-socialist enterprise. Democrats, seeing a weakened President, pile gleefully on, but they, too, seem unconcerned about the corrosive implications of national security scares and economic xenophobia.

Although the Coast Guard reportedly warned the President that gaps in intelligence make the risks in the deal involving Dubai Ports World hard to evaluate, the question of mangement-company ownership has little to do with genuine security issues, since the ports are policed by the Guard, Customs and Homeland Security.

The more important public safety problem, as Senator Carl Levin points out with welcome sanity, is that the Administration has long treated the nation's ports as the poor stepchild of transportation security. Of 11 million containers shipped through US ports annually, 95 percent are never inspected or opened; and since the attacks of 9/11 just $630 million has been spent on port security, compared with $18 billion for airports. Human trafficking, drugs and smuggling all flourish thanks to the lax standards of shipping ports and the scant resources made available to police them.

And foreign management of ports is nothing new. The work crews who load and unload vessels in American harbors already draw their paychecks from companies based in Singapore, Denmark, the United Kingdom, Japan and Taiwan. Is DP World more likely to support terrorism than British-owned P&O? No, and thus an unmistakable whiff of anti-Arab bigotry wafts from the argument.

So what's really at stake? It's another case of Democrats and Republicans alike happily promoting corporate globalism with little regard for the public interest until the implications become too embarrassing: in this case, the control of the nation's ports being traded by transnational corporations. If Americans should revolt against the DP World contract it's not because investors come from unpopular places like China or Dubai but for the same reasons that Bolivians revolted against Bechtel Corporation's takeover of water utilities: because American harbors should not be just another commodity to be traded like cotton futures. Rather, they are the people's birthright, as crucial to the transportation infrastructure and economy as highways and airports. It's there that Congressional Democrats should be taking their stand. Yet which Democrat has the nerve to call for a public takeover of the ports?

It's hard not to cheer as the DP World fight blows a big hole in what's left of the Bush Administration agenda, but we must realize that by framing the Dubai deal as a national security threat, Democrats are paradoxically reinforcing Bush's master narrative of a permanent and all-encompassing "war on terror." They are also dangerously enhancing the equation of Islam with terrorism that Bush so deftly exploited to launch the Iraq War.

Democrats should see the panic over the DP World deal as an opportunity for a truly nervy rudder-turn--challenging the toxic premises of Bush's national security policy and confronting the obsession with secrecy that led to the consummation of the deal out of sight of Congress. The Dubai Ports World scandal is a scandal--but mainly because it is the latest chapter in this Administration's ongoing, sweeping betrayal of the public interest. Playing to fear is a mug's game that only Bush can win.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:07 am**

mvscal wrote: No, he isn't.

shhh...it's called spinning.

And who the hell stole Mikey's password?

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:15 am**

War Wagon wrote:
mvscal wrote: No, he isn't.
shhh...it's called spinning.

And who the hell stole Mikey's password?

No, I haven't turned into a dittotard. I'm just hella smarter than the rest of the Libs.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:26 am**

mvscal wrote:
And what exactly did you pathetic assholes win out this?

Win? I don't think there was a "win" to be had......

Rather, I think it was a message to Bush and his crones that they are nothing more than employees (and short term at that) of the citizens of the United States.

But buck up little soldier, rumor on the street says that Haliburton is the leading candidate to take over operation of the ports.......

(that'd be a huge fucking surprise)

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2006 2:09 am**

Felix wrote:....rumor on the street says that Haliburton is the leading candidate to take over operation of the ports.......

Like I said. Crazy like a fox.

So the only question that remains then is whether the haters whine more or less loudly.

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2006 3:22 am**

It's all pqart of a sinister Rove/Cheney plot.

Enter Haliburton

Posted: **Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:33 pm**

Diogenes wrote:It's all pqart of a sinister Rove/Cheney plot.

Enter Haliburton

That's what I said.

Posted: **Sat Mar 11, 2006 12:50 am**

PSUFAN wrote:
Diogenes wrote:It's all pqart of a sinister Rove/Cheney plot.

Enter Haliburton
That's what I said.

Rack the Evil Geniuses for getting over once again.

Posted: **Sat Mar 11, 2006 3:37 am**

mvscal wrote:That's what happens when you fuck somebody after they bend over backwards to accomodate your every request. Or is that too "nuanced" for you?

Fuck off, idiot.

Have you changed your tampon yet?

Posted: **Sat Mar 11, 2006 4:54 am**

Remember when mvsPretzel's argument was that the Dubai company wasn't really an Arab company, that there were Westerners on the board, etc.? Amazing to see him now squakking that we've needlessly slapped Dubai Itself, our only Arab ally, in the face...

Posted: **Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:02 am**

^^^

War Wagon wrote: So the only question that remains then is whether the haters whine more or less loudly.

Question answered. More loudly.

Posted: **Sat Mar 11, 2006 6:46 am**

I think that mvscal just takes the oppositional opinion so he can vent his pent up anger.

If Dubai wants to make money, they will invest here. 2 billion dollars doesn't go very far in very many countries in terms of profit taking.

Amazing that mvscal is so hardline on shooting down muslim sand rats yet wants us to be licking the boots of the UAE.

Again I think it's the debating tactic of a sullen, angry man. take the opposite viewpoint and rant.

Too bad, because he really does impress me with his knowledge at times that is obviously not an instant google.
If he could actually debate more civilly, the threads he posts in would be far less tedious.

Posted: **Sat Mar 11, 2006 10:36 am**

Mister Bushice wrote:I think that mvscal just takes the oppositional opinion so he can vent his pent up anger.

If Dubai wants to make money, they will invest here. 2 billion dollars doesn't go very far in very many countries in terms of profit taking.

Amazing that mvscal is so hardline on shooting down muslim sand rats yet wants us to be licking the boots of the UAE.

Again I think it's the debating tactic of a sullen, angry man. take the opposite viewpoint and rant.

Too bad, because he really does impress me with his knowledge at times that is obviously not an instant google.
If he could actually debate more civilly, the threads he posts in would be far less tedious.

This just happens to be one of those time where he is better informed than most of you.

Posted: **Sat Mar 11, 2006 11:58 am**

mv wrote:
We need those people and their willing cooperation. They provide us with key military facilities in the region. We risk losing those bases and we gain absolutely nothing in return for our pointless insults.

Need them for WHAT???
It's your own countries very own wrongful greed infested attempts at dominating others which is what got your ass in the 9/11 sling in the first place.

You need to learn from your mistakes, not repeat that which enhances your nations vulnerablity.
You need to change your ways and demand that your Admin$ stop being global bullies, and then perhaps the globe will cease conspiring towards your downfall.

Tick Tock

Posted: **Sat Mar 11, 2006 7:37 pm**

his just happens to be one of those time where he is better informed than most of you.

It's really not a matter of him being better informed as much as him having a very specific opinion about what should have happened. It didn't happen the way he thinks it should have, but it happened the way a lot of people wanted it to.

It's that mentality of wanting to have military bases available for us to use so we can attack middle east countries like Iran vs the mentailty of us improving our own security here and sending a message to arab countries that association with terrorists is going to have a negative backlash into their wallets. The US has been and will continue to be the place for foreign investment. It will be their loss if they decide to pout and don't invest, but I don't think they are that stupid.

Also, I disagree with the principle of the US being the worlds police force, always have. Mvscals whole idea of making nice nice with dubai is to ensure we maintain a military foothold for future conquest. But just because he believes that doesn't make it the right thing to do. It's just another opinion of the way things should be.

T1B

So much for Dub's "Line in the Sand"

So much for Dub's "Line in the Sand"