Skip to comments.
We heard you loud and clear
Gulf News ^
| 3/12/06
Posted on 03/12/2006 8:29:15 AM PST by Valin
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-115 last
To: trubluolyguy
Even if you counted every single terroist act done by Muslims terrorists in the last 100 years it wouldn't comprise 10% of the Muslim population. But what do you care about math or facts? They're "all" members of the Cult of Death in your book --- even the ones serving in our military to combat terror while you smear them. I don't see a need for this conversation to continue. You've made it clear you are proud of your bigotry and there is nothing I can do to persuade you to think otherwise. I do think this is a nice thread to keep bookmarked, however, when people cry that supporters of the port contract are unfairly labeling opponents as bigots.
To: soccermom
I don't see a need for this conversation to continue
Finally something we agree on.
102
posted on
03/13/2006 11:11:26 AM PST
by
trubluolyguy
(Nothing says "Go Away" like a bloody head on a fence post.)
To: JABBERBONK
A. I did not insult you so why did you call me a lefty? No Sarcasm.
B. Their leadership wants Taiwan and more and plan to push us out of the western Pacific to get it. They run the Panama Canal and it's eastern and western approaches. So it seems to me that they could delay our response with ease when they decide to go after Taiwan.
103
posted on
03/14/2006 5:01:54 PM PST
by
Nuc1
(NUC1 Sub pusher SSN 668 (Liberals Aren't Patriots))
To: trubluolyguy
I think they will move on Taiwan if the Commies are not overthrown. Their control of the Panama canal and approaches and control of some of our heavy lift ports give me cause for concern. IMO they will move to support IRAN in the UN and on the ground if they see an opportunity.
104
posted on
03/14/2006 5:10:28 PM PST
by
Nuc1
(NUC1 Sub pusher SSN 668 (Liberals Aren't Patriots))
To: EagleUSA
Hmm.. needs fixing..
"The people of America are not incredibly stupid, and care misunderstand mightily about what actually affects their security and their soverignty. Now, there is clearly no doubt as to the truth and reality of that."
105
posted on
03/14/2006 5:14:39 PM PST
by
freedumb2003
(American troops cannot be defeated. American Politicians can.)
To: freedumb2003
Hmm.. needs fixing..
----
I really should have used a 50% qualifier...that would have worked --- :-)
To: LowCountryJoe
So you would have their lemming listeners have you tell them how to think?
107
posted on
03/14/2006 5:40:06 PM PST
by
abigailsmybaby
("This is the sort of English up with which I will not put." Winston Churchill)
To: trubluolyguy
You mean China isn't exchanging bullets with us. They are most decidedly at war with us - economically and idealogically - the other two means of destroying an enemy.
108
posted on
03/14/2006 5:55:13 PM PST
by
Havoc
(Evolutionists and Democrats: "We aren't getting our message out" (coincidence?))
To: EagleUSA
I still await some indication as to how this deal would actually have risked port security in any way. I have asked and asked, but no one has ever provided any scenario creating a true risk to security of any port.
To: abigailsmybaby
You're right! I'll admit that I'm trying to influence people reading this forum but the difference between the talk shows and this forum are huge. Here, there's no call screener that will prevent dissenters from getting on and debating the host logically and intelligently. On talk radio, the dissenters that you do manage to hear have been filtered and sifted through so that, in general, the more clever ones are not allowed into the calling queues. On this forum if one writes something anyone can attack it, criticize it, add to it, amend it, etc but it's rarely filtered.
110
posted on
03/14/2006 6:01:46 PM PST
by
LowCountryJoe
(I'm a Paleo-liberal: I believe in freedom; am socially independent and a borderline fiscal anarchist)
To: LowCountryJoe
You left out degrade people for having a different opinion than you by calling them names.
111
posted on
03/14/2006 6:24:56 PM PST
by
abigailsmybaby
("This is the sort of English up with which I will not put." Winston Churchill)
To: abigailsmybaby
yeah, I do that too. Is thin skin 'in' 'round here now?
112
posted on
03/14/2006 7:30:23 PM PST
by
LowCountryJoe
(I'm a Paleo-liberal: I believe in freedom; am socially independent and a borderline fiscal anarchist)
To: LowCountryJoe
Gee, I thought one of the rules to posting on FR was no name calling. Did that get repealed?
113
posted on
03/14/2006 7:36:15 PM PST
by
abigailsmybaby
("This is the sort of English up with which I will not put." Winston Churchill)
To: abigailsmybaby
114
posted on
03/14/2006 7:41:53 PM PST
by
LowCountryJoe
(I'm a Paleo-liberal: I believe in freedom; am socially independent and a borderline fiscal anarchist)
To: Air Force Brat
Another FReeper who's name I forgot has pointed out this is another masterpiece by K. Rove.
It gave Pubbie congresscritters an opportunity to look even tougher on security than the President. It may halt the usual loss of seats during the next mid-term elections.
But the overall appearance looks bad.
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-60, 61-80, 81-100, 101-115 last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson