Scraps

I don't see the two as being remotely similar. The opposition to the port management deal is done on a security basis. The position might be flawed because people might have the wrong idea of what port operations are really being contracted out, but I think the heart of many of those opposed is in the right place. The textile issue was one of pure job protection in an era of globalization. Were national security concerns first and foremost in anyones mind? Is the UAE really a third world country? Seems like they have to be one of the richest Arab countries in the world. Hardly similar to Pakistan.

Ah my mistake.

Did you read and understand the poll? Never mind, stupid question on my part.

Outsourcing the management of these ports will not avoid the fact that longshoremen will be loading and unloading the ships in these ports. I don't see how this has anything to do with unions or the high cost of American labor.

Teague and Reed are free agents. They can not be released. I'm a bit amazed that everyone except myself so far want to cut the most productive players on that list and are content to keep a 10.8 million dollar backup lineman.

Jack will undoubtedly cause some commotion that will force the motorcade to take a different route and provide POTUS with plausible deniability.

If you'd just shoot down one of those contracts over the equator while wearing a clown suit, balancing on a beach ball at the South Pole, we wouldn't have these problems.

Or they relied to much on Afghans who could be easily bought.

Most of the border between us and Canada or Mexico is thousands of miles of plains. It was certainly not necessary to seal the entire border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. There were certainly a limited number of passes accessible from Tora Bora. We tried to do this at Shahikot during Operation Anaconda, why not here?

How did Bin Laden get into Pakistan? He had to travel there somehow. How do you know that US forces could not have been put into blocking positions?

Was she using 9/11 to justify invading another country?

Not if things go from bad to worse. In literally every muslim country that has held elections in the last decade, free or partially free, fundamentalist Islamists have gained strength. The most vivid example being the Hamas victory. What is so good about an assbackward society that is legitimized by the vote of its people?

We save over $400 billion, 2273 Americans are still alive, 10s of thousands of Americans haven't been maimed all in an effort to lead Iraq to a civil war or to be allied with Iran AND we concentrate on the real threat.

The full disaster that Iraq will be has yet to be seen. Give it time.

Pat Robertson?

No, I'd call him a bald faced liar in that case. I'm keeping in mind that the guy defected 15 years ago and hence might have limited knowledge about the programs and the regime 3 years ago. I'm also suspect that these defectors might conform the information they give to something they believe I want to hear for their own agenda. Did this guy offer anything really new? Didn't the National Intelligence Estimate say that Saddam wouldn't give WMD to another country unless he were about to be overhthrown? How does his information conform with the what the Iraq Survey Group found? From what I've heard, it doesn't really jive. Sorry, but after reading what he had to say, I can't help but shrug my shoulders and ask "so what?"

Yes, I did. Please explain yourself since I'm obviously not going to bring you the right rock.

Wasn't that argued on the basis of the 14th amendment? Wasn't there at least a constitutional basis for the argument?

Really? Sounds like you want our press to be a propoganda tool and I do not.

Actually, its pretty clear to me that they don't understand the concept of a free press. If they did, they wouldn't be going nuts over a few cartoons, threatening to kill doctors and aid workers from Denmark simply because they come from the country where the cartoons originated. They wouldn't be demanding that the editors of the newspapers be prosecuted under laws that don't exist and they wouldn't be demanding laws forbiding images of Muhammad in countries that have a free press and aren't Islamic to begin with. Furthermore I think that they get most of their information for Al Jazeera and treat our press with a jaundice eye. If the US media presented an image of peaches and cream like you desire, they'd just fool us for a little while.

Isn't that how things are handled in the Islamic world?

See, it works.

What is an example of an evolving civil right or liberty?

I don't think any strict constructionist will argue that the constitution is an inflexible document. It is flexible and can be changed. The originators of the document even provided a means to change the document. It has been changed through the ammendment process many times in the past. Why don't you try the process they provided?

Don't be silly. You're not Darin. Darin is you.