PDA

View Full Version : AOL's Polls On BUSH



Gayle in MD
03-10-2006, 01:20 PM
These are current for when I signed on Friday, 3P:23 est.

Foreign Policy 28,373 voted 85% Poor, 9% Fair 7% good
Domestic 28,251 voted 87% Poor 7% Fair 6% good
Leadership 15,717 voted 85% Poor 8% Fair 7% good
Iraq 15,786 voted 89% Poor 6% Fair 4% good
Overall 88% Poor 6% Fair 6% good

67% say the country is on the wrong track.
93% say if they had to vote for him in 08, they wouldn't...this from a 15,949 number polled

While watching discussions on C-Span this morning, I was surprised how many republicans called in to say they had voted republican for their life times, or since Eisenhower, and would not vote republican again.

Gayle in Md.

moblsv
03-10-2006, 03:03 PM
I saw a Bush/Cheney '04 bumper sticker this morning and realized that I haven't seen very many lately. I wonder how many people have taken those off of thier cars in shame in the past year.

pooltchr
03-10-2006, 07:55 PM
Your poll shows an approval rating of between 12 and 15 percent.
The latest Zogby poll shows approval rating at 38 percent.
(Certainly not good, but no where near as negative as your numbers)
Which only proves that polls can have very different results, perhaps based on how the questions are worded, or perhaps on the demographics of those polled.
I wonder how many AOL users are actual voters, or even old enough to vote.
I know you enjoy spreading what you consider to be bad news or anything negative about GW, but I don't know how much validity I would put on this particular poll.
Steve

Drop1
03-10-2006, 08:44 PM
please tell me the good parts about Bush's admistration,from your own view. What part of Iraq do you like,or the handling of Katrina,or the selling of the ports? Maybe the deal he cut with India,or the stalled immigration program.The most popular politician in America is a Republican.Guess who? I always figure,that if you pay for the poll,you can get any figure you want. Tell me you think Bush is a good President. I'm not against Republicans,I'm against Bush,and the people who pull his strings.

Cueless Joey
03-10-2006, 11:32 PM
That's ok.
As soon as gas prices stabilize at $2.25 a gallon, we're all gonna be happy.

Gayle in MD
03-11-2006, 06:53 AM
People who attack the messenger, rather than the message, usually do so because they are incapable of refuting the message itself.

I really don't know why you continue to respond to me...it isn't going to change anything. While you may be a die hard Bush supporter, the numbers approve of this president, or this administration, are taking a nose dive. There is a bill right now, with impeachment language. Everytiime Bush breaks the law, Republican majority members, change the law, to protect him. This is not democracy. Sandra Day O'Conner is even warning the American People of dictatorship. I don't post to change your mind, or anyone else"s, just to discuss the issues of the day, with like minded folks here, who see these events as I do, and often they pm me, glad that they have gotten something they missed. If you can't take knowing that others see things differently than you, tough. It must be hard for you knowing that you Bushies have made fools of yourselves on here attacking me for my opinions, Now that much of what I wrote about is now dopcumented, and now that two thirds, minimum, of the country sees things my way. What's your excuse???? Poor loser????

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
03-11-2006, 06:56 AM
Alright, since you asked...We went into Iraq with the intention of getting Saddam out...DONE! The war itself has not gone as well as it could have, but I do believe in the long run, the country will be more stable than before. I do have concerns about the cost of rebuilding the country.

Selling the ports???
Of all the countries in the middle east, UAE is the only one we can consider friendly. This is the only country where our military ships can get into port for refueling, or for supplies. They provide us with munitions that we use to fight other countries in the region. They have come under attack from their neighbors for their support of the US, yet they continue to support us. They were the first country to agree to container inspections before they even depart for the US, not just after they get here. With all the talk about our trade defecit, I would think that telling a company that they can not spend US Dollars in our country would send a message we really don't want to be sending. "We spend our money in your country, but we really don't want the same in return" /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif
Withour the UAE on our side, our ability to operate in the middle east would be greatly restricted. They have done more to help us in the war against terror than any other country over there. The scare tactics that have been used to fight this plan are nothing but a smoke screen, and now the deal has fallen through, primarily because so many people don't understand that you can't lump all the middle eastern countries into one big group and say they are all bad. Right now, we have one strong friend in the middle east,and we are telling them we don't like their money, and don't want them investing in our country.

I have stated here before that I do not agree with everything the administration is doing, but DAMN, the anti-Bush crowd seems to just want to stop him from doing anything at all.

The ports deal would have been a good thing for us, both economically and politically, but it's more important to make GW look bad than it is to let something good happen for this country.

You asked...
Steve

pooltchr
03-11-2006, 06:59 AM
Gayld,
Nowhere in my post did I attack you. I simply pointed out that the numbers you quoted seem to be out of line from other polls. You are so defensive, you can't even understand what I wrote.
Steve

Gayle in MD
03-11-2006, 07:56 AM
Nice try Steve, but a quick review of your general way of responding to negative info on Bush, in my posts in particular, would certainly prove my point regarding your way of responding to them. Every post from you is accusatory, and sarcastic, including this one. Your statement, attaches YOUR defensive opinion of why I post negative facts regarding this administration. I think it is safe to say, that your, and a few other's, responses indicate that some of you take them as a personal affront if they include factual, negative information about Bush.

This administration has used fear of terrorism to manipulate the American People in order to break our laws, slander people, lock innocent people up, torture them, and basically run rough shod over the Constitution, and its provisions for checks and balances. Now, when they hire a company owned by an Arab country with long running ties to terrorism, all of a sudden, we're supposed to say, Oh, that's fine, just great? It is time for the Arab world, which has done very little to come out against the terrorist organizations, or publically express disdain for their murderous tactics, to accept OUR reality regarding THEIR Militant, Murderous Extremists. As far as I am concerned, I don't trust ANY ARAB NATIONS TO OWN OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. The point is this. Bush broke the law again. They did not follow procedures. They lied again. UAE is the foremost shipping organization for shipping Nuclear weaponry to our enemies, drugs, and money laundering to terrorist organizations. They were one of only three countries who openly, defiantly supported the Talibon. The top family has had ties with bin Laden, for years, and atleast one opportunity to get bin Laden, was thwarted because their Prince's were with him. If there were no ports to promote this illegal, immoral war, our country would be far ahead of the game, IMO.

It is utterly ridiculous for Americans to see militant
Arabs, all over the Middle East, burning our flag, screaming "Death To America" and expect us to be blase' over the prospect of having an Arab Country with UAE's history running our ports. It is time for them to take some responsibility for what THEIR EXTREMIST PEOPLE did in this country.

Bush has us in so much debt, he is trying to assuage our debt situation with his open trade tactics, even if he has to sell off our infrastruture to do it. His administration should have known better than to try to sneak this deal through. Just one more time when they went about things in a sneaky, underhanded way. Every single Nucelar expert said that this deal was disasterous for our country, and for the prospect of deterring other countries in their efforts of Nuclear Proliferation. Americans are not allowed to own anything in THEIR country! This was just one more hair brained idea by this incompetant, deceitful administeration. I think that it is time for America to stop sucking up to countries that are helping Bush run this country into the ground. It was absolutely wonderful to see atleast ONE situation which is bad for this country, where Americans had a voice, and used their power as tax payers to stop more Bush indiocy, even if it WAS only because those stinking, corrupt, money-mongering Republicans are only thinking of their re-election campaigns. I am VERY defensive about MY COUNTRY! That is why I am totally against George Bush.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
03-11-2006, 08:50 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> Nice try Steve, but a quick review of your general way of responding to negative info on Bush, in my posts in particular, would certainly prove my point regarding your way of responding to them. Every post from you is accusatory, and sarcastic, including this one. Your statement, attaches YOUR defensive opinion of why I post negative facts regarding this administration. I think it is safe to say, that your, and a few other's, responses indicate that some of you take them as a personal affront if they include factual, negative information about Bush.

This administration has used fear of terrorism to manipulate the American People in order to break our laws, slander people, lock innocent people up, torture them, and basically run rough shod over the Constitution, and its provisions for checks and balances. Now, when they hire a company owned by an Arab country with long running ties to terrorism, all of a sudden, we're supposed to say, Oh, that's fine, just great? It is time for the Arab world, which has done very little to come out against the terrorist organizations, or publically express disdain for their murderous tactics, to accept OUR reality regarding THEIR Militant, Murderous Extremists. As far as I am concerned, I don't trust ANY ARAB NATIONS TO OWN OUR INFRASTRUCTURE. The point is this. Bush broke the law again. They did not follow procedures. They lied again. UAE is the foremost shipping organization for shipping Nuclear weaponry to our enemies, drugs, and money laundering to terrorist organizations. They were one of only three countries who openly, defiantly supported the Talibon. The top family has had ties with bin Laden, for years, and atleast one opportunity to get bin Laden, was thwarted because their Prince's were with him. If there were no ports to promote this illegal, immoral war, our country would be far ahead of the game, IMO.

It is utterly ridiculous for Americans to see militant
Arabs, all over the Middle East, burning our flag, screaming "Death To America" and expect us to be blase' over the prospect of having an Arab Country with UAE's history running our ports. It is time for them to take some responsibility for what THEIR EXTREMIST PEOPLE did in this country.

Bush has us in so much debt, he is trying to assuage our debt situation with his open trade tactics, even if he has to sell off our infrastruture to do it. His administration should have known better than to try to sneak this deal through. Just one more time when they went about things in a sneaky, underhanded way. Every single Nucelar expert said that this deal was disasterous for our country, and for the prospect of deterring other countries in their efforts of Nuclear Proliferation. Americans are not allowed to own anything in THEIR country! This was just one more hair brained idea by this incompetant, deceitful administeration. I think that it is time for America to stop sucking up to countries that are helping Bush run this country into the ground. It was absolutely wonderful to see atleast ONE situation which is bad for this country, where Americans had a voice, and used their power as tax payers to stop more Bush indiocy, even if it WAS only because those stinking, corrupt, money-mongering Republicans are only thinking of their re-election campaigns. I am VERY defensive about MY COUNTRY! That is why I am totally against George Bush.

Gayle in Md. <hr /></blockquote>

My response to you was related to the poll numbers you posted. I am confident if they showed his popularity was very high, you would not have posted it. You have a history of posting negative information, but not positive comments about the administration. That is a fact. If you take that as a personal attack, so be it.
You are so blinded by your hatred of this administration, that you just can't bring yourself to admit anything that might be positive. So be it.

Every time you answer one of my posts, you manage to cover every possible topic that you have repeated over and over and over and over and over again. You twist what I am saying, don't consider that there just might be some truth in an opposing opinion. With you, it's either your way or the wrong way. No one can have a conversation with you because you are the only one who can possibly be right, and anyone who disagrees must be wrong.

Personally, I don't give a rat's a$$ about your opinions. You are nothing more than a mouthpiece for the anti-Bush crowd. I don't remember reading anything you have written that offered legitimate solutions to the problems we try to discuss on the forum. All you do is bit*h about Bush, the administration, and republicans.

I would suggest that you grow up, but I fear it is probably too late for that.

Steve

9 Ball Girl
03-11-2006, 09:37 AM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote pooltchr:</font><hr>Which only proves that polls can have very different results, <hr /></blockquote>That is sooo true. I mean, look what happened in Florida during the election of '00. /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Wendy~~~ /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif

Drop1
03-11-2006, 12:02 PM
Steve: Thanks for the answer. I don't understand the priorities of the Republican platform, and the reverence for Bush. Julliani is the most popular Republican by one poll. I don't think he will run,couldn't take the cut in pay. /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

pooltchr
03-11-2006, 12:37 PM
Take a look at the report below (kinda long) to see that we haven't been doing a very good job with the ports operating as they have been. How much worse could it be with a company from the UAE running them??? Now that they have agreed to sell off the part of the business that operates our ports (Probably to Mersk-Sealand, another foreign owned company), it just looks like it will still be business as usual...which seems like it hasn't been all that good...

WASHINGTON - Lapses by private port operators, shipping lines or truck drivers could allow terrorists to smuggle weapons of mass destruction into the United States, according to a government review of security at American seaports.

ADVERTISEMENT

The $75 million, three-year study by the Homeland Security Department included inspections at a New Jersey cargo terminal involved in the dispute over a Dubai company's now-abandoned bid to take over significant operations at six major U.S. ports.

The previously undisclosed results from the study found that cargo containers can be opened secretly during shipment to add or remove items without alerting U.S. authorities, according to government documents marked "sensitive security information" and obtained by The Associated Press.

The study found serious lapses by private companies at foreign and American ports, aboard ships, and on trucks and trains "that would enable unmanifested materials or weapons of mass destruction to be introduced into the supply chain."

The study, expected to be completed this fall, used satellites and experimental monitors to trace roughly 20,000 cargo containers out of the millions arriving each year from Europe, Asia and the Middle East. Most containers are sealed with mechanical bolts that can be cut and replaced or have doors that can be removed by dismantling hinges.

The risks from smuggled weapons are especially worrisome because U.S. authorities largely decide which cargo containers to inspect based on shipping records of what is thought to be inside.

Among the study's findings:

_Safety problems were not limited to overseas ports. A warehouse in Maine was graded less secure than any in Pakistan, Turkey or Brazil. "There is a perception that U.S. facilities benefit from superior security protection measures," the study said. "This mind set may contribute to a misplaced sense of confidence in American business practices."

_No records were kept of "cursory" inspections in Guatemala for containers filled with Starbucks Corp. coffee beans shipped to the West Coast. "Coffee beans were accessible to anyone entering the facility," the study said. It found significant mistakes on manifests and other paperwork. In a statement to the AP, Starbucks said it was reviewing its security procedures.

_Truck drivers in Brazil were permitted to take cargo containers home overnight and park along public streets. Trains in the U.S. stopped in rail yards that did not have fences and were in high-crime areas. A shipping industry adage reflects unease over such practices: "A container at rest is a container at risk."

_Practices at Turkey's Port of Izmir were "totally inadequate by U.S. standards." But, the study noted, "It has been done that way for decades in Turkey."

_Containers could be opened aboard some ships during weekslong voyages to America. "Due to the time involved in transit (and) the fact that most vessel crew members are foreigners with limited credentialing and vetting, the containers are vulnerable to intrusion during the ocean voyage," the study said.

_Some governments will not help tighten security because they view terrorism as an American problem. The U.S. said "certain countries," which were not identified, would not cooperate in its security study "a tangible example of the lack of urgency with which these issues are regarded."

_Security was good at two terminals in Seattle and nearby Tacoma, Wash. The operator in Seattle, SSA Marine, uses cameras and software to track visitors and workers. "We consider ourselves playing an important role in security," said the company's vice president, Bob Waters.

In theory, some nuclear materials inside cargo containers can be detected with special monitors. But such devices have frustrated port officials in New Jersey because bananas, kitty litter and fire detectors which all emit natural radiation set off the same alarms more than 100 times every day.

The study applauded efforts to install radiation monitors overseas. "While there is clearly value in nuclear detection at a U.S. port, that is precisely the concern it is already on U.S. soil," it said.

Finding biological and chemical weapons inside cargo containers is less likely. The study said tests were "labor intensive, time-consuming and costly to use" and produced too many false alarms. "No silver bullet has emerged to render terrorists incapable of introducing WMD into containers," it said.

Sen. Patty Murray (news, bio, voting record), who advocated the study, said: "There are huge holes in our security system that need to be filled." The Washington Democrat said the study "shows us there are major vulnerabilities over who handles cargo, where it's been and whether cargo is on a manifest."

Part of the study tested new tamper-evident locks on containers and tracking devices.

"It's important to figure out what works and what doesn't," said Elaine Dezenski, Homeland Security's acting assistant secretary for policy development. She said the study "gave us a much better view of vulnerabilities." The U.S. is looking for weaknesses across the shipping system to learn where terrorists might strike, she said.

The study, called "Operation Safe Commerce," undercuts arguments that port security in America is an exclusive province of the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection and is not managed by companies operating shipping terminals.

The theme was an important element in the Bush administration's forceful defense of the deal it originally approved to allow Dubai-owned DP World to handle significant operations at ports in New Jersey, Baltimore, New Orleans, Miami and Philadelphia.

Bush and senior officials sought to assure lawmakers that safety at ports would not decline.

"I can understand people's consternation because the first thing they heard was that a foreign company would be in charge of our port security when in fact, the Coast Guard and Customs are in charge of our port security," Bush said Feb. 28. "Our duty is to protect America, and we will protect America."

DP World promised on Thursday to transfer fully to an American company its U.S. port operations it acquired when it bought London-based Peninsular &amp; Oriental Steam Navigation Co.

It was unclear how such a sale might occur, but the divestiture was expected to involve major operations at the six U.S. ports and affect lesser dockside activities at 16 other ports in this country.

Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., a leading critic of the Dubai deal, said anyone suggesting that port operators and shipping companies were not involved with security was "living in La-La land."

"You can obviously have stuff in containers that doesn't make it onto manifests, either by design or from the actions of bad actors," Menendez said in an AP interview Friday. "A terminal operator is so involved in the overall security equation of ports."

Parts of the U.S. study examined the safety of containers sent to the same cargo terminal in New Jersey that DP World would have managed jointly and operated with its Denmark-based rival, Maersk Sealand.

Hundreds of pages of study documents obtained by the AP do not list specific security lapses at the New Jersey terminal. The final two cargo containers being tracked under the study were expected to arrive there this week from the Middle East.

But the study broadly described problems in warehouses and other storage areas that raised doubts about the safety of containers brought to New Jersey's port. It cited problems with protective fences and gates, surveillance cameras and emergency plans.

The lengthy study has been beset by problems. Japan refused to allow officials to attach tracking devices to containers destined for the United States. Other tracking devices sometimes failed. Many shipping companies refused to disclose information for competitive reasons.

Some containers in the study were aboard a ship the Coast Guard held 11 miles off New Jersey's coast for security reasons in August 2004. An anonymous e-mail had claimed a container filled with tons of lemons was deliberately contaminated with a biological agent. The lemons were fumigated and burned, but no trace of poison was ever found; the containers also were destroyed.

Parts of the study could not be finished at all. U.S. officials went to Pakistan to inspect how workers in Karachi handle cargo containers. But they canceled plans for a return inspection because of an outbreak of terrorist attacks there.

Drop1
03-11-2006, 01:17 PM
I would have to make a study of the UAE,and why they are the solution for non American ownership of American ports. Give me a couple of days. My understanding is that five percent of cargo ships are inspected.

Gayle in MD
03-11-2006, 06:37 PM
Steve, my posts are regarding things I am concerned about, not about you, personally. Unfortunately, there are many concerns. Your first response was not just about poll numbers, it was about me, personally.

The second post to me has the word, YOU, or YOUR in it twenty-one times, and indicates a personal vendetta against me, personally. Deny it, fine, but it is obvious.

I have posted my thoughts and feelings regarding the administration. Once again, I suggest that if they are enraging, don't read them. One would hope that by your age, you would be able to take responsibility for your own decision to read something, and the emotional responses which will obviously follow, without attacking the person who wrote it, over and over and over and over again.

I take an active part in politics. I don't have to defend my right as an American citizen to have an opinion. I can't recall, BTW, any genius ideas or solutions for our country posted by you. My personal feeling is that Bush should be impeached, for everything from War Crimes, to Treason, and many other infractions of our laws in between. That is MY solution for solving our present problems which He created, and continues to create with every dangerous, illogical, illegal decision he makes. While I am sure that will outrage you, I suggest in advance, that you take responsibility for that. It isn't about us, Steve, it is about our country, and what George Bush is doing to it. Public debate over the issues of the day is a valuable asset, and should be embraced by all lucky enough to live in a country that gaurantees such rights of free speech. Nothing could be more childish than choosing to read what one person in particular, writes,.... over and over and over and over again, and then whining over having read it, and attacking the writer. One should take responsibility for one's automatic emotional responses of outrage, and maturity, is certainly the hallmark of such abililty.

Again, since my posts seem so enraging, I suggest, for the umpfteenth time, stop reading them. Personal attacks over differing political opinions are silly.


Gayle in Md.

"I never considered a difference of opinion, over politics, religion or philosophy as cause for withdrawing from a friend."

Gayle in MD
03-11-2006, 06:42 PM
Quite a few I would guess. The numbers of callers to C-Span on the Republican line, bashing Bush, and the Republican Majority, have gone through the roof! It's funny watching those righties on there trying to deal with unexpected outrage coming in on the Republican line, LOL.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
03-11-2006, 07:22 PM
In response to

Poster: pooltchr
Subject: Re: AOL's Polls On BUSH

Alright, since you asked...We went into Iraq with the intention of getting Saddam out...DONE! the stated reason wwe went to Iraq was because suupsedly Saddam had WMD's and was involved with bin Laden, and 9/11. both of which turned out to be untrue. Since then, there has been much documentation that CIA estimates were that he didn't have them, and in fact hated bin Laden, Bush ignored the info, and burried it. The war itself has not gone as well as it could have, Bush refused to listen to advice that he wasn't going in with enough troops, hence the kaos which followed the occupation, and continues to this day. but I do believe in the long run, the country will be more stable than before. So far, this has not proven to be a result of our occupation. Bush was also warned about this predictable result. I do have concerns about the cost of rebuilding the country. At the cost of $17,000 a second, one would hope we would all be concerned, given our present debt.

Selling the ports???
Of all the countries in the middle east, UAE is the only one we can consider friendly. This is not true. We have friendly relations with Jordan, for example, also with Isreal, Supposedly Saudi Arabia, just to name a few. This is the only country where our military ships can get into port for refueling, or for supplies. Again, it isn't the ONLY country, there are several others. They provide us with munitions that we use to fight other countries in the region. They don't provide us with anything. We buy our munitions from a number of places. They have come under attack from their neighbors for their support of the US, yet they continue to support us. Other than allowing us to buy from them, and pay for docking there, how do they support us? They were the first country to agree to container inspections before they even depart for the US, not just after they get here. They are a business, as all businesses, they try to avoid operating in a way which causes them to lose business. Their effort has been to try to erace their close ties to terrorists, drugs, illegal munitions trafficing, and prostitution rings which sell children for sex. With all the talk about our trade defecit, I would think that telling a company that they can not spend US Dollars in our country would send a message we really don't want to be sending. They can buy many other things, and have. They don't have to own the most vulnerable part of our infracture. "We spend our money in your country, but we really don't want the same in return" No one is allowed to buy their infrastructure in their country, not even Real Estate.
Withour the UAE on our side, our ability to operate in the middle east would be greatly restricted. Absolutely untrue. There are many ports, they don't have a manopoly on ports. We have other allies. They have done more to help us in the war against terror than any other country over there. I don't know why you would say this. It doesn't match what I have read at all. The scare tactics that have been used to fight this plan are nothing but a smoke screen, Oh, does Bush and the Republican Party have a monopoly on Scare Tactics? and now the deal has fallen through, primarily because so many people don't understand that you can't lump all the middle eastern countries into one big group and say they are all bad. Americans were concerned over a Country with such shady dealings having contracts to operate our ports, and for very good reason. This country is run by despots. They are as bad if not worse than most. Right now, we have one strong friend in the middle east,and we are telling them we don't like their money, and don't want them investing in our country. AGain, UAE is not the end all to allies in the Middle East. We never heard anything about them until Bush tried to pull off this deal. There are economic reason why he wants this, one of which is to mask our raging deficit by selling off our infrastructure, regardless of the National Security threats. WE are telling the world, that we don't want to sell off our infrastructure, to ANY other countries. Given what heppended here on 9/11, that makes sense, ta take complete responsibility for our Ports, bridges, highways, Airports, Trains, it isn't just about the UAE, most Americans did not know how much of this was going on before this came up, becuase it is all handled in secret, and doesn't usually create very much notice.

I have stated here before that I do not agree with everything the administration is doing, but DAMN, the anti-Bush crowd seems to just want to stop him from doing anything at all. That is because everything he does is about money for his friends, and often we do not see them as OUR friends, and most of what he is supposed to do, isn't handled competantly, or with any regard for the opinions of experts in the various fields. That is why once it is obvious that he has F-ed up once again, people get fed up with him.

The ports deal would have been a good thing for us, both economically and politically, but it's more important to make GW look bad than it is to let something good happen for this country.

No one makes George Bush look as bad as George Bush himself. Most Congressmen and Senators do not agree with you, nor does the majority of the American people, especially since Bush has cut funding for other HLS measures, and especially, Security wise, from the Coast Gaurd, to FEMA, and the Port Authority. His failure to address our safety, documented by the 9/11 committee when he got an F on his responses to their suggestions, the safety of our ports, in particular, has been overlooked, and since shipping containers are the most vulnerable for Nuclear Weapons, Americans were astounded that this plan could ever get off the ground, even if it was all handled in secret.

You asked...
Steve

pooltchr
03-11-2006, 08:10 PM
Gayle,
We aren't selling the ports, or our infrastructure. This is a company which is buying another company that has contracts to OPERATE the ports...not to own them. It makes no difference any more. Someone else will get the contracts...maybe Haliburton!!!! How much more secure would you feel then?
Steve

Gayle in MD
03-12-2006, 11:44 AM
Much Better...I'd rather be stolen from, then blown to bits!

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
03-12-2006, 11:48 AM
WAHOO! Soon I hope...it's boating season! We're trying to figure out a way to use Pelican and Sea gull do do for gasoline, plenty of that around our marina, LOL. Our outriggers are the tallest around...we get plenty...

Hmmmm, think those damn birds might be Republicans /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Cueless Joey
03-12-2006, 03:36 PM
You better stock up now before we bomb Iran.