| Author |
Message |
    
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 705
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 6:34 pm: | 
|
I don't want to say this very loud, but you guys need to run with this port security issue. It's the first time the Dems can use a rational argument to be painted as the better security party. I hate to say it but you guys should seize on this issue and not let go for a while.
This one actually has teeth for political purposes and yet I don't see the frenzy. This is a golden opportunity to repaint your image. (And my guys were on a pretty good run! I hope GW nixes this thing quickly and it disappears) |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10767
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 6:44 pm: |
|
The GOP has already taken this over. Senator Frist and the Chairman of the HOuse Homeland Security Committee have come out against the plan.  |
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1582
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 7:42 pm: |
|
Good idea, Southerner. I'll mention it to Howie during morning tea... |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 976
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Tuesday, February 21, 2006 - 10:09 pm: |
|
yes- Frist and Haskert
Senator Menendez on DP World-- Mondays KO show-- In case someone missed a DEM running with it.
http://www.canofun.com/blog/videos/2006/BushUAEPortsKO.asx
|
Twokitties
Citizen
Username: Twokitties
Post Number: 388
Registered: 8-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 8:06 am: |
|
The Dem's campaign should simply be "Doing a Heck of a Job? We Don't Think So. Vote Democrat in November." |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 808
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 8:11 am: |
|
I agree with Southerner on this, but the Dems need to be careful of the Profiling trap....
I find it hillarious that both parties did a 180 on this issue...
-SLK |
Duncan
Supporter
Username: Duncanrogers
Post Number: 5771
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 8:20 am: |
|
And you have to love Bushie saying he will VETO any legislation that wants to put the Kibosh on this plan. It sounds like Dubbya is deep in someones pocket. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 811
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 8:22 am: |
|
The Dems campaign should be "Ho Hey Racial Profiling No Way....unless your are buying a US seaport..." |
Eric Wertheim
Citizen
Username: Bub
Post Number: 184
Registered: 1-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 8:40 am: |
|
I'm going to wait till I have an understanding of what it means before unleashing my opinion but I have to say, the person who sounded the stupidest about this was Chertoff - a man who in his prosecutorial and judicial days was thought of as an extremely competent genius. He said we have to balance security concerns with our desire for a "robust economy," implying that we are actually giving up some safety by letting an Arab company take this job. The only argument that's gonna win here for Bush is that its not really a security issue at all and the argumnent to the contrary is bigoted hype. What a smuck. |
Phenixrising
Citizen
Username: Phenixrising
Post Number: 1426
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 8:40 am: |
|
Dumbya will veto any legislation against this? This is like putting a firebug in charge of the Fire Department.
Nothing like seeing the Repugs battle amongst themselves (Frist et al vs. Bush & Company).
Let the CATFIGHTS begin!
 |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 817
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 8:58 am: |
|
First of all this is NOT a racial profiling issue. All of you who have characterized it as that are just flat out wrong. The issue is one of national security where a nation that can easily be characterized as a rogue nation, that can easily be characterized as one who lends comfort to our sworn enemies, that can easily be characterized as a nation where terrorism is tolerated, will be buying the control of the very ports where the United States are MOST exposed in terms of security risk.
It has nothing to do with the race of the purchasers.
Today on the Rachel Madow radio show she mentioned that the deal was studied by some secret committee, I dont remember the acronym and the deal was approved unanimously. However Donald Rumsfeld is on that committee and just the other day said "I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have because I just heard about this over the weekend."
So there is something fishy going on here.
|
Robert Livingston
Citizen
Username: Rob_livingston
Post Number: 1584
Registered: 7-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:10 am: |
|
Of course there is something fishy going on. We learned from Day 1 this administration was all about getting as much $$$ for their friends as possible, by any means necessary.
And how can this be racial profiling if we KNOW the race? Doesn't profiling happen based on suspicions and assumptions? What we know about the UAE should be enough to void this deal.
The arrogance of this administration is epic.
|
Paris Hiltonberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6821
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:13 am: |
|
"The issue is one of national security where a nation that can easily be characterized as a rogue nation>"
Rogue nation?? I guess we can conclude Turkey is a rogue nation as well. |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 10774
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:16 am: |
|
Every politician I saw, both GOP and DEM, comment in opposition emphasised the fact the company is owned by a foreign government is the reason they are objecting.
The UAE is the sort of place where all opinions are present. I doubt if it would be all that hard for some militants to worm their way into Dubai Port World.
I think this is a valid issue, not just poltical. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5075
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:17 am: |
|
Hoops - You are correct, most of the concerns raised about the deal are based on the specific government involved (UAE). For example, in Schumer's press release last week -
Quote:In light of these critical functions being transferred from a private company based in Britain to a United Arab Emirates government-owned company based in Dubai, the bipartisan group of lawmakers today called for the Treasury Department to carefully review the new arrangement and scrutinize all security issues before control is turned over completely.
However, you can find a little bit of "racial profiling" in some of the right-wing comments, such as the statement from Republican leader Senator Frist -
Quote:Recent reports that a company based in the Middle East is seeking to purchase the operating rights to several U.S. ports raise serious questions regarding the safety and security of our homeland. The decision to finalize this deal should be put on hold until the Administration conducts a more extensive review of this matter.
Frist's statement is based on the fact that it's "a company based in the Middle East", and not on the fact that it's controlled by a government about which there are some concerns.
So, if anyone is looking for racial profiling in this discussion, Senator Frist is closer to that, imho. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3054
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:19 am: |
|
An Arab country owns a British firm that has managed ports for years. Hard to see how that is worse than an Arab country owning major real estate holdings in the US, or holding majority shares in major US corporations. If they are planning on blowing up their own investments or destroying the economy of the nation that drives their economy, then whether they own a part of P&O or not, they will blow us up.
Far far more dangerous, in my mind, is the fact that China holds so much of our foreign debt. Now THAT is a country that can use that power to make us dance to their tune more. I wish more people were screaming about that and passing resolutions to change that situation. |
SoOrLady
Citizen
Username: Soorlady
Post Number: 3010
Registered: 9-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:35 am: |
|
Well said, ESL, well said. |
Eats Shoots & Leaves
Citizen
Username: Mfpark
Post Number: 3055
Registered: 9-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:37 am: |
|
By the way, which countries own the majority of shipping lines that transport all our oil and cars and food and X-Boxes? Why is no one upset about this? I mean, forget port management, how about the ships that can be carrying the bombs that can blow up the ports?
And port security BEFORE the UAE takes over sucks anyhow--where was all the concern then? It sucks now, it will suck in the future, unless we start taking it seriously regardless of who is running the ports.
Suddenly Reps and Dems are up in arms about the UAE and foreign control of our ports. We live in a globalized world--the solution is not isolation but better security enforcement and practical engagement with others. This is all a bunch of political grandstanding, and the Dems will make hay and the Reps will scramble for cover, and real port security will not be addressed while everyone focuses on Arabs owning P&O--and Bushido walked them all straight into it by once again not doing the political legwork of building concensus or even talking to them in detail in advance. Sad, real sad. |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 813
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:42 am: |
|
ESL-
I am glad you brought real estate into the picture. I just learned this morning from my boss that the same gentleman, Sultan, Ahmed Bin Sulayem, who bought our NYC midtown building 6 months ago and who we personally met and shook hands with is also THE major player behind this port deal! Wow....
There use to be this gargantuan American Flag in our lobby that simply disappeared after Sulayem purchased the building. The running joke is that both occurences are connected....
Nohero/Hoops-of course it is the Republicans engaging in profiling. I forgot that the left is incapable of such actions...give me a freaking break.
What you are experiencing is good old fashion politics. Do you think everyone would be up in arms if Sweden was seeking to purchase these ports? |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5076
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:50 am: |
|
Mr. SLK - I'd be happy to "give you a freakin' break". I was just responding to your post from earlier this morning -
Quote:The Dems campaign should be "Ho Hey Racial Profiling No Way....unless your are buying a US seaport..."
Or, to put it another way, "No, you give me a freakin' break!" |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 814
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 10:08 am: |
|
It is called a joke in response to Twokitties post. A joke, you know what what one is, right...?
Ok, you are right, the left is physically incapable of of RP...I got it now.... |
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 45
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 10:09 am: |
|
Racial and ethnic profiling is a useful tool in law enforcement and the war on terror and should be used without apology. I agree with this writer's conclusions:
The aversion to “profiling” is a symptom, minor but telling, of the contemporary Western pathology. Law-enforcers in other parts of the world pay no heed to the dictates of “sensitivity” and anti-discriminationism. Arabs profile other Arabs, Indians profile Pakistanis, Japanese profile Chinese, and everyone profiles Africans. Israel, democratic and friendly to America, profiles everyone entering and exiting all the time, and makes no qualms about it. In 1986 a Palestinian terrorist, Nezar Hindawi, tried to blow up an Israeli airliner by sending his pregnant Irish girlfriend on board with a bomb in her luggage. The El Al screeners in London profiled a young pregnant woman traveling alone as suspicious, and found the bomb of which she had been blissfully unaware.
Not all Muslims are terrorists, but for some years now all terrorists of concern to America’s national security and to the quality of life of its citizens have been Muslims. One percent of Muslims living in the United States were responsible for over 90 percent of terrorist offences and serious threats in the country since 9-11. A young Muslim man is literally tens of thousands of times more likely to carry out a terrorist attack in the United States than an Episcopalian, Roman Catholic, or Orthodox Christian, a Jew, a Hindu, or a Buddhist, or for that matter a Lebanese Christian Arab. Membership of a group is a valid pointer in assuming and judging unobserved behavioral characteristics of an individual, especially in the absence of specific information about that individual’s background. To suggest otherwise is neither moral nor sane.
Cheers
|
tjohn
Supporter
Username: Tjohn
Post Number: 4088
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 10:16 am: |
|
I don't object to the profiling. Profiling tells me that this port deal merits detailed consideration of security risks. Profiling alone is not a sufficient reason to stop the deal.
Or if it is, then we are, in fact, at war with the Arab World and not just the terrorists and let's quit pretending otherwise.
P.S. Did the Irish girl dump her boyfriend? |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5077
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 10:21 am: |
|
Threeringale -
The long passage you reprinted above, is from this essay. The very next line, after what you posted, is the following -
Quote:A person’s Islamic faith and outlook is incompatible with the requirements of personal commitment, patriotic loyalty and unquestionable reliability that are essential in the military, law enforcement, intelligence services, and other related branches of government.
That opinion seems to go beyond mere "profiling", and seems more like bigotry. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3063
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 10:34 am: |
|
Good catch, Nohero. I kind of drift to the right of my leftist kin on the profiling issue, but I do think the statement you found from the original (uncredited) essay goes too far.
(I hope that Irish girl went back to her boyfriend and beat him to a pulp with something heavy before the authorities got to him.) |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2578
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 10:46 am: |
|
http://www.outsourcing-law.com/Foreign%20Investment%20Law/Foreign_investment_USA _Exon-Florio_2005-0109.htm
It isn't profiling to follow laws pertaining to huge coporate entities. This isn't about individuals but governments. I would avoid the trap of seeing it in those terms. |
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 46
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 10:48 am: |
|
Nohero,
I did not want to post the entire article, it is a little long, but I do agree with all of it, including the sentence you quoted. It would be a good idea to pass a new version of the McCarran-Walter Act that would recognize a political aspect to Islam and enable us to legally exclude or deport anyone who advocates jihad or the imposition of sharia law. If this offends the tender sensibilities of Muslims, they could always go back where they came from. I hope that clears things up for you.
Cheers |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2579
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 11:21 am: |
|
What if they came from here? |
Scrotis Lo Knows
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 818
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 11:58 am: |
|
Themp
Is it impossible to profile a group? That is news to me?
Let me keep it basic for you. The UAE is Middle Eastern...enough said. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 706
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 1:52 pm: |
|
Listen, the story isn't the act itself, but rather the political ramifications. Most of you are looking at the little issue. To show outrage over the sale is hilarious considering how much foreign ownership exists in our country of assets and debt (ESL pointed out China which is a much bigger problem than UAE). The big story is how my boy GW finally fumbled the political side of an issue. The selling of the port to whomever will come and go, but the political gift given to the Dems will last. He better back off the veto statement and pretend to listen for a little while. Soon, enough the Dems will do something silly to knock this off the front page but until then this will be a problem for the GOP regardless of how many of them come out against it. (now am I still a cheerleader? I call them how I see them). |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5220
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 2:04 pm: |
|
That presumes the alternative to Bush is a Democratic party with national security as a priority that is believable. And which Democrat is going to make that case? Lieberman right before he's challenged in the primary? |
bottomline
Citizen
Username: Bottomline
Post Number: 384
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 5:01 pm: |
|
Southerner,
I certainly agree that 1) this is a purely political issue, not one of substance regarding national security, and 2) the White blundered badly politically and continues to do so. I’m not so sure the Dems will pick up the spoils, however, because it appears they will be outmaneuvered by disgruntled Republicans.
Republicans are falling all over themselves to repudiate the president on this one, including Congressional leaders like Frist and Hastert, and governors like Pataki. Unless the Republicans lose their nerve and back Dubya after all, I see the Dems as being secondary. For example, junior senator Bob Menendez simply won’t capture as much press as the majority leader.
But it will be entertaining to see how it actually unfolds.
|
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 708
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 5:03 pm: |
|
cjc,
The next election isn't for the Presidency and by 2008 this issue will be long gone.
This situation is all about the upcoming local in nature national election which I would argue is every bit as important as a Presidential election (Congressional Power). Bush just gave local Dems a valid platform to actually boast about security. This was always our fall back topic and the Dems would run from it fast. Now they can point to this political mistake.
I agree that I don't think this would sway a Presidential race but it will give local running Dems an issue to fight back on the security question that has always dogged them.
I don't think it is enough unto itself but it was a politically idiot move by the Admin. The facts and interworkings of the sale may lead to this as being an okay venture, but that isn't the point. This is a political season and this was a terrible political move (and if he has to veto a Republican Congress then we put a big smile on libs faces). They should have waited until December to bring this up after we picked up more seats! I guess Rove was to busy dealing with the Whittington affair to have caught this one. We'll recover but I don't like handing the libs anything. At least make them earn it!
(Luckily, I can always count on Pelosi or Kennedy saying something over the top between now and the election, but what if they actually realize they would be further ahead of they kept quiet until November) |
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 48
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 6:27 pm: |
|
Themp,
You ask a good question. My answer may not meet with universal approbation, but here it is. Illegal immigrants should be summarily deported. Legally resident non-citizens who advocate jihad or sharia should be deported. I don't have a problem with revoking the citizenship of a naturalized Muslim who expressed support for jihad and sharia. I don't believe in birthright citizenship, so any of their children born here would go with them. The question of native-born Muslims who support these views is the problem.
I would watch them closely, and say to them what the British politician said after the London underground bombing last year. (Sorry, but I can't recall his name). He said something like this: If you were born here and you are a Muslim and you have decided that you would like to live in an Islamic society, understand that the vast majority of your countrymen do not want to live like that. There are, however, places that do try to live under Islamic law and maybe you would be happier if you went there yourself. The idea of buyouts for Muslims in Europe makes sense to me and it might even work here. Steve Sailer explains it well, I won't quote him out of context, but here is the link:
http://www.vdare.com/sailer/051106_buyout.htm
I am convinced that the tenets of Islam are incompatible with American values (however imperfectly they have been realized in the past and into the present).
Cheers. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4391
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 8:20 pm: |
|
The ramifications of a veto would be interesting. How many republicans would vote to override, and how many wouldn't? The ones who wouldn't will be in very serious trouble at the polls in November. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5080
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:26 pm: |
|
When I read a statement such as this written above -"I am convinced that the tenets of Islam are incompatible with American values." - I usually find that the writer may not have much real information about Islam, or Muslims, beyond what may be gathered from very anti-Muslim writers.
imho |
Dave
Supporter
Username: Dave
Post Number: 8736
Registered: 4-1997
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:31 pm: |
|
In some ways the tenets of [insert name of religion here] are incompatable with American values simply because American values are highly individualistic and many religions stress doing for others and selflessness. |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5082
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 9:41 pm: |
|
Dave - That's very true.
But, that way of looking at things is probably not the rationale of those who want to deport the followers of [insert name of religion here]. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 712
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 10:49 pm: |
|
Nohero,
I don't understand how so many posters look down at others opinions. How do you know Three didn't study this issue? Maybe he/she did study this issue and came to that conclusion. Perhaps you have studied the issue as well and came to a different conclusion but that doesn't make either one of you correct, but this board is certainly the forum to express an opinion.
I don't think every poster has to spend pages explaining why or how they came to a conclusion. I rather like hearing the conclusion and accepting the poster's opinion whether I agree or not. I have been accused of not explaining a position many times. To that I say I don't have to lay out evidence for an opinion. None of us have to. If some choose to post ad naseum every detail of there scholarly work then so be it and I'll scroll through. I guess, I just assume that most folks who spend the time to come to this site have already thoroughly thought out a position and are willing to give their opinion. If Three has come to this conclusion then why don't you just state you disagree rather than make a claim that she is ignorant. Or is everyone who states an honest opinion ignorant? (because we all know half will agree and half will disagree) |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5085
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Wednesday, February 22, 2006 - 10:54 pm: |
|
Southerner - I understand your point, but in this case I disagree with you. |
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 50
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 6:58 am: |
|
Nohero,
I disagree with President Bush that Islam is a religion of peace. If you want to side with the President, that's OK with me.
Cheers |
Nohero
Supporter
Username: Nohero
Post Number: 5086
Registered: 10-1999
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 7:17 am: |
|
That's a very broad generalization to make about every single follower of Islam.
I think you've demonstrated my earlier point. |
Paris Hiltonberry
Supporter
Username: Strawberry
Post Number: 6824
Registered: 10-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 9:19 am: |
|
I agree with Nohero regarding this. However, one does have to wonder why exactly there is such unrest among Muslims, especially in the Middle East. Take the cartoons for instance. I mean did millions of Catholics go nuts after that bald female singer, O'Connor tore up a picture of the Pope on SNL? Many were angry and made it clear, but that was about that..
I can see the insult those cartoons created but I think the response was a little over kill to say the least. |
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 54
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 1:30 pm: |
|
Nohero,
I can only give my opinion since I am a recognized authority on exactly nothing. I am not fluent in Arabic, have not traveled widely in the Arab world, have not read the Koran from cover to cover, and have not delved deeply into Islamic literature and history. I have read about 8 books on the subject of Islam (about 50/50 positive perspective). In my opinion, Muslims who dump elderly men in wheelchairs over the side of a ship or fly airplanes full of passengers into buildings are not acting contrary to what their religion teaches. In my opinion, there are two kinds of Muslims, active and quiescent. In my opinion, no Muslim should be given a security clearance because there is no way to tell when a quiescent Muslim could become active. If you think that allowing mass immigration from Muslim countries will make America more secure and stable, I disagree with you (and Mr. Bush). But based on what I have read about Muslim assimilation, or lack thereof, in European countries, I don't think it will work here. If that makes me a bigot, in your opinion, so be it.
Cheers |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5228
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 2:26 pm: |
|
It makes you a bigot, but only because you're ignorant (I think). |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 714
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 5:27 pm: |
|
Every one is a bigot in someone's eyes. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5231
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 8:04 pm: |
|
Not true. |
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 55
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 8:09 pm: |
|
cjc,
Is it meaningful to call someone a bigot in a multi-cultural society that is culturally splintered far beyond the superficiality of red state vs. blue state. You and I could agree that someone else is a bigot, unlike thee and me, but who makes us the arbiters of what is or is not acceptable political thought? Are tolerance and diversity universal values found always and everywhere? Or are they more rare, limited to certain times and places? In my ignorance and bigotry, I would opt for the latter, but who can say for sure? Maybe someone will write a book a hundred years from now (in Chinese?), about how Americans were in thrall to political correctness
and sacrificed at the altar of the great god Diversity.
I guess this is all much ado about nothing, since I have noticed that my views on public policy are not being implemented on the national level. You can rest easy in the knowledge that Muslims will continue to come here and some of them will be granted security clearances despite their views of jihad and sharia. Maybe we should let the UAE run our ports for us, we might look bigoted if we turn them down. At least it won't be boring, eh?
Cheers |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5233
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 10:26 pm: |
|
THreeringale -- First of all, bigotry can be accepted political thought in a given society.
Secondly, there is no 'always' and 'everywhere' unless you're talking about math. And even then, e=mc2 has been said to be challenged at the edges of the universe.
There are times that political correctness is accepting of bigotry. Abusive affirmative action and welfare policies come to mind, as did some aspects of the internment policies of WW2. With respect to what we're discussing here -- you are one , I'm sure you have company and that train of thought is on a bit of a roll right now.
There are many Muslims who assimilate effectively into western society, and I've met a number of them right here in Maplewood. What the Muslim faith hasn't gone through in some societies is a modernization that Christianity and other religions have gone through. We all know the horrible things done in the name of Christianity that could be justified by these ancient texts. But Christianity moved, and in many ways Islam did not. The Catholic Church is viewed by many to be an unmoving, unchanging, archaic monolith except along came the militant fanatics of Islam like the Taliban and Wahabis(sp?) to make Catholicism look positively liberal in comparison.
If this UAE company does pose a substantive threat after another investigation I don't want it to get the deal. Being Arab and Muslim doesn't disqualify them in my book. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 981
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 11:27 pm: |
|
TOm-Apparently there are the votes to overide the veto- |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 4399
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Thursday, February 23, 2006 - 11:29 pm: |
|
I'm sure there are, but it won't be unanimous; some dead-ender Republicans will have very rough challenges next November. |
Threeringale
Citizen
Username: Threeringale
Post Number: 56
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 7:23 am: |
|
cjc,
The term bigot is really meaningless outside of your own mind. I am reminded of Peter Brimelow's definition of a racist: someone who is winning an argument with a liberal. There are sound reasons to be wary of immigration, Muslim or otherwise. I find myself in agreement with that old "bigot", Edward Abbey:
To everything there is a season, to every wave a limit, to every range an optimum capacity. The United States has been fully settled, and more than full, for at least a century. We have nothing to gain, and everything to lose, by allowing the old boat to be swamped. How many of us, truthfully, would prefer to be submerged in the Caribbean-Latin version of civilization? (Howls of "Racism! Elitism! Xenophobia!" from the Marx brothers and the documented liberals.) Harsh words: but somebody has to say them. We cannot play "let's pretend" much longer, not in the present world.
Therefore-let us close our national borders to any further mass immigration, legal or illegal, from any source, as does every other nation on earth. The means are available, it's a simple technical-military problem. Even our Pentagon should be able to handle it. We've got an army somewhere on this planet, let's bring our soldiers home and station them where they can be of some actual and immediate benefit to the taxpayers who support them. That done, we can begin to concentrate attention on badly neglected internal affairs. Our internal affairs. Everyone would benefit, including the neighbors. Especially the neighbors
Read the rest of it here:
http://www.numbersusa.com/about/sup_eabbey.html
Cheers |
joel dranove
Citizen
Username: Jdranove
Post Number: 95
Registered: 1-2006
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 9:55 am: |
|
Thems was Islamists who cut off the heads of the hostages in Iraq, for starters.
For more truth about Islam, try thereligionofpeace.com. Thousands of religiously mandated acts of terror every year. Remember, it is a big world, literally, and you can now read about it.
Somewhat closer to home, there is the next example, that of the 23 year old Jewish kid in Paris, tortured to death by Muslims.
The riots by Muslim yutes in Paris, burning thousands of cars, demanding sharia rule in their neighborhoods, just like in England, are not wagging the dog. They are the dog.
Yep, when your religion tells you the world is divided into them and us, and us shall live by a political and religious guide called sharia, and those who don't are to converted or killed, and you shall conquer the world in the name of your prophet, no matter how long it takes, and you almost did conquer Europe, and lost out to the Byzantines, and damn Christians, and those pesky Israelis proved the West wants to defile our land, and ten or twenty or thirty percent or more accept this as "gospel" well, you have a problem.
No muslims spoke against beheadings, pizzeria bombings, flying planes into the WTC, but, they call for the execution of cartoonists, murdered in daylight in Holland a movie maker, a legislator, condemn Salman Rushdie, demand the extinction of Israel, the West, and, no leader of theirs objects.
The few who would object, would be killed in the name of Mohammad by the majoritarians.
Houston, we have a problem.
jd |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5237
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 10:52 am: |
|
The term 'bigot' is not meaningless. |
Southerner
Citizen
Username: Southerner
Post Number: 718
Registered: 2-2004
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 3:02 pm: |
|
Yes it is. |
themp
Supporter
Username: Themp
Post Number: 2595
Registered: 12-2001
| | Posted on Friday, February 24, 2006 - 3:07 pm: |
|
How about 'spigot"? |
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page