|
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
Gene Kearns wrote: No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, this is just nuts! And particularly affects: New York New Jersey Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Baltimore, Maryland Miami, Florida New Orleans, Louisiana http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185479,00.html http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1644106 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/...ity/index.html http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3652381.html If there is any REAL concern with security, why is this being bid to any NON American firm? This is just plain nuts! -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely profitably) involved in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests. GWB's first partner when he entered the oil drilling business was Salim Ben Ladin, Osama's brother. There's probably some private family- business reason for turning port security over to an Arab firm. This is one of those changes that will come about by Executive fiat, should it materialize, as most Democrats in congress oppose it and even many of the Republicans normally delighted to toe the Administration's line are courageously speaking out against this ludicrous proposal. I understand that we can actually consider firing all the TSA employees who work airport security. It will save the country billions of dollars per year, as it is rumored that a group of folks currently living in caves along the Afghanistan/ Pakistan border are willing to do the job for less than minimum wage. Further rumors suggest that a (totally unrelated, of course) lecture tour for the immediately retired President Bush will then be arranged to begin in 2009; $1mm per appearance at a long series of middle eastern universities. Think of the money we could save if we turned the security of our southern borders over to undocumented "guest workers", it would get rid of thousands of border patrol people currently sucking the govt. teat for an acutal living wage. The $billion or so in savings could be used to justify another several billion in tax cuts for the folks in the very highest income brackets. If we really want to save some dough, we could disband most of our armed forces. There are some pretty bold mercenaries available right now, and we could save the taxpayers countless dollars if we simply took some of the 40% (or whatever) unemployed in Iraq and put them in charge of our weapons and defense systems. They would probably work for $1 a day........heck, a lot of them would gladly *pay* for the privilege. The cheapest labor to guard the henhouse will almost always turn out to be.......the fox. (And I don't mean the so-called news network) |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... wrote in oups.com: Think of the money we could save if we turned the security of our southern borders over to undocumented "guest workers", it would get rid of thousands of border patrol people currently sucking the govt. teat for an acutal living wage. How's that border patrol working? Pretty well, in places where they're not overwhelmed for various unrelated reasons. |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
"Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... "Doug Kanter" wrote in : "Fred Dehl" wrote in message ... wrote in oups.com: Think of the money we could save if we turned the security of our southern borders over to undocumented "guest workers", it would get rid of thousands of border patrol people currently sucking the govt. teat for an acutal living wage. How's that border patrol working? Pretty well So you like the idea of Mexicans getting liquored up and killing people on the roads? Happens every WEEK 'round here. How did you draw that conclusion from my words? |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
Fred Dehl wrote: wrote in oups.com: Think of the money we could save if we turned the security of our southern borders over to undocumented "guest workers", it would get rid of thousands of border patrol people currently sucking the govt. teat for an acutal living wage. How's that border patrol working? Just exactly as well as it is supposed to. A "leaky" Mexican border suppresses wages (and thereby increases corporate profits in the short term) throughout the entire country. Seattle isn't exactly on the Rio Grande, but if I wanted to hire an experienced, often fairly skilled worker for a fraction of the wage demanded by a hard working citizen trying to support a modest house and small family I know exactly where to go on any given day and there will be several dozen to choose from. The fact that Pedro or Manuel is waiting at the curb, toolbox in hand, and ecstatic to work for $10 an hour (without any of the normal nuisances like social security, fringe benefits, workman's comp, or any need to withhold income taxes creating additional administrative costs) means that if Joe Schwartz, graduate of advanced carpentry and framing at Local Community College in 1989 wants to come and pound a few nails as well he better get with the program. If I'm a remodeling contractor reselling the labor to some homeowner for $75 an hour, my gross is a whole lot better if I pay Pedro Velasquez $10 and keep $65 than if I have to pay Joe Schwartz $30 an hour, plus $10 in taxes and benefits, and only get to keep $35 an hour for myself. Bottom line, Pedro works and Joe doesn't- unless Joe is willing to work a lot cheaper than he's used to. If you put the working class in charge of border policies, rather than the privileged class, you'd have far fewer undocumented workers in the US. |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote:
The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely profitably) involved in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by British based P&O for years. If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port "security". God help us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote: The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely profitably) involved in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by British based P&O for years. If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port "security". God help us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company P&O was not in charge of Port Security. they leased the port facilities. The Security is still under the CG. May not be good security, but the foreign company is not the security. Do not think it is wise to give a major money making operation to a foreign company to run. Especially one paid for by the USA. Worst one was Port of Long Beach naval yards. Leased to COSCO China Overseas company. An arm of the Chinese military. And the administration in charge at the time leased it for about $245 million over the length of the contract with the provisos that the Government would put $235 million in to upgrades. Nice deal if you can get it. |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:33:22 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote: The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely profitably) involved in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by British based P&O for years. If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port "security". God help us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company P&O was not in charge of Port Security. they leased the port facilities. The Security is still under the CG. May not be good security, but the foreign company is not the security. Do not think it is wise to give a major money making operation to a foreign company to run. Especially one paid for by the USA. Worst one was Port of Long Beach naval yards. Leased to COSCO China Overseas company. An arm of the Chinese military. And the administration in charge at the time leased it for about $245 million over the length of the contract with the provisos that the Government would put $235 million in to upgrades. Nice deal if you can get it. Finally, someone who knows the difference between port security and port operations. Thanks, Bill. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
JohnH wrote: On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:33:22 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote: The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely profitably) involved in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by British based P&O for years. If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port "security". God help us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company P&O was not in charge of Port Security. they leased the port facilities. The Security is still under the CG. May not be good security, but the foreign company is not the security. Do not think it is wise to give a major money making operation to a foreign company to run. Especially one paid for by the USA. Worst one was Port of Long Beach naval yards. Leased to COSCO China Overseas company. An arm of the Chinese military. And the administration in charge at the time leased it for about $245 million over the length of the contract with the provisos that the Government would put $235 million in to upgrades. Nice deal if you can get it. Finally, someone who knows the difference between port security and port operations. Thanks, Bill. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** You can't completely separate the two. The vast majority of Muslim people are fine individuals who worship the very same God that most westerners do and are certainly as sincerely devout as the average American Jew or Christian, if not more so. We're in no danger from the vast majority of Muslims. However, if you suddenly have scores of Arab Muslims running around US ports it then becomes much, much easier put those one or two people into place that we really are in danger from because those one or two are extremist, religious, fanatics. Do I believe the Arab Muslims should be barred from employment in port operations or other occupations? Certainly not........but neither does it make a lot of sense to see how many Arab Muslims we can concentrate into a single, security sensitive industry. During WWII, I would like to think that I would have spoken out against dispossessing the Japanese Americans and sending them to internment camps- but I wouldn't have been in favor of putting as many Japanese Americans as possible into the manufacture of armaments, either. |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
wrote in message oups.com... JohnH wrote: On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:33:22 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote: The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely profitably) involved in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by British based P&O for years. If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port "security". God help us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company P&O was not in charge of Port Security. they leased the port facilities. The Security is still under the CG. May not be good security, but the foreign company is not the security. Do not think it is wise to give a major money making operation to a foreign company to run. Especially one paid for by the USA. Worst one was Port of Long Beach naval yards. Leased to COSCO China Overseas company. An arm of the Chinese military. And the administration in charge at the time leased it for about $245 million over the length of the contract with the provisos that the Government would put $235 million in to upgrades. Nice deal if you can get it. Finally, someone who knows the difference between port security and port operations. Thanks, Bill. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** You can't completely separate the two. The vast majority of Muslim people are fine individuals who worship the very same God that most westerners do and are certainly as sincerely devout as the average American Jew or Christian, if not more so. We're in no danger from the vast majority of Muslims. However, if you suddenly have scores of Arab Muslims running around US ports it then becomes much, much easier put those one or two people into place that we really are in danger from because those one or two are extremist, religious, fanatics. Do I believe the Arab Muslims should be barred from employment in port operations or other occupations? Certainly not........but neither does it make a lot of sense to see how many Arab Muslims we can concentrate into a single, security sensitive industry. During WWII, I would like to think that I would have spoken out against dispossessing the Japanese Americans and sending them to internment camps- but I wouldn't have been in favor of putting as many Japanese Americans as possible into the manufacture of armaments, either. The majority of the employees will be American. Maybe a few execs will be Arab. I understand that the Dubai company is the largest operator of port operations in the world. Most ports are leased out to companies. Do not understand why. Port of Oakland, which I grew up by and dad did a lot of work on ships there when I was a younger me, is run by the Port of Oakland. A quasi-government operation. Same as Port of San Francisco. Why can not NYC run there own port? |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
ink.net... The majority of the employees will be American. Maybe a few execs will be Arab. I understand that the Dubai company is the largest operator of port operations in the world. Most ports are leased out to companies. Do not understand why. Port of Oakland, which I grew up by and dad did a lot of work on ships there when I was a younger me, is run by the Port of Oakland. A quasi-government operation. Same as Port of San Francisco. Why can not NYC run there own port? All true, but there's still something odd about the current situation. The Senate (including some of Bush's most typical and automatic Republican supporters) want to introduce legislation to slow things down a take a closer look at the deal. But, Bush says he'll veto any bill which meddles with the purchase of the company. That should strike ANYONE as a bit strange. It's almost as if he has some sort of personal stake in the purchase. |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:55:53 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... The majority of the employees will be American. Maybe a few execs will be Arab. I understand that the Dubai company is the largest operator of port operations in the world. Most ports are leased out to companies. Do not understand why. Port of Oakland, which I grew up by and dad did a lot of work on ships there when I was a younger me, is run by the Port of Oakland. A quasi-government operation. Same as Port of San Francisco. Why can not NYC run there own port? Actually, I thought they did. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey runs the three major airports, all of the cross Hudson bridges and tunnels, including the PATH trains, has it's own police force, and, I believe, owns the ports this UAE company is to run. http://www.panynj.gov/ All true, but there's still something odd about the current situation. The Senate (including some of Bush's most typical and automatic Republican supporters) want to introduce legislation to slow things down a take a closer look at the deal. But, Bush says he'll veto any bill which meddles with the purchase of the company. That should strike ANYONE as a bit strange. It's almost as if he has some sort of personal stake in the purchase. He does seem a little out of step on his threaten vetoes. Remember when he threatened to veto the torture bill? |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:55:53 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... The majority of the employees will be American. Maybe a few execs will be Arab. I understand that the Dubai company is the largest operator of port operations in the world. Most ports are leased out to companies. Do not understand why. Port of Oakland, which I grew up by and dad did a lot of work on ships there when I was a younger me, is run by the Port of Oakland. A quasi-government operation. Same as Port of San Francisco. Why can not NYC run there own port? Actually, I thought they did. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey runs the three major airports, all of the cross Hudson bridges and tunnels, including the PATH trains, has it's own police force, and, I believe, owns the ports this UAE company is to run. http://www.panynj.gov/ All true, but there's still something odd about the current situation. The Senate (including some of Bush's most typical and automatic Republican supporters) want to introduce legislation to slow things down a take a closer look at the deal. But, Bush says he'll veto any bill which meddles with the purchase of the company. That should strike ANYONE as a bit strange. It's almost as if he has some sort of personal stake in the purchase. He does seem a little out of step on his threaten vetoes. Remember when he threatened to veto the torture bill? There are so few viable reasons for this. Dare I venture (again) into the theory about his intellect? Or....wait...here's a good one: His advisors are "plants" from the other side of the aisle! They're being paid (by dark forces) to feed him lame ideas. |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message . .. Doug Kanter wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 12:55:53 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: "Calif Bill" wrote in message ink.net... The majority of the employees will be American. Maybe a few execs will be Arab. I understand that the Dubai company is the largest operator of port operations in the world. Most ports are leased out to companies. Do not understand why. Port of Oakland, which I grew up by and dad did a lot of work on ships there when I was a younger me, is run by the Port of Oakland. A quasi-government operation. Same as Port of San Francisco. Why can not NYC run there own port? Actually, I thought they did. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey runs the three major airports, all of the cross Hudson bridges and tunnels, including the PATH trains, has it's own police force, and, I believe, owns the ports this UAE company is to run. http://www.panynj.gov/ All true, but there's still something odd about the current situation. The Senate (including some of Bush's most typical and automatic Republican supporters) want to introduce legislation to slow things down a take a closer look at the deal. But, Bush says he'll veto any bill which meddles with the purchase of the company. That should strike ANYONE as a bit strange. It's almost as if he has some sort of personal stake in the purchase. He does seem a little out of step on his threaten vetoes. Remember when he threatened to veto the torture bill? There are so few viable reasons for this. Dare I venture (again) into the theory about his intellect? Or....wait...here's a good one: His advisors are "plants" from the other side of the aisle! They're being paid (by dark forces) to feed him lame ideas. The whole deal is rather bizarre. But, then, so is the entire concept of allowing a foreign national corporation "operate" our ports, especially in light of the world "terrorist" situation since Bush assumed office. Only US companies should be allowed to handle port or airport operations in this country. And not "shell" companies controlled by overseas interests. Meanwhile, he's got 500+ people in prison in Cuba for who-knows-what, but he's willing to trust all the personnel of a company from the Middle East. |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message
... On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:30:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: There are so few viable reasons for this. Well, actually, there are. This Dubai company is the largest in the world and actually is a fairly responsible company. From a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense. I agree, sort of. For centuries, the shipping biz has been dominated by the British and the Dutch. I'm not questioning anyone's business acumen here. Last night, the news indicated that Bill Frist wanted to slow down the deal, just to take a closer look at it. Bush doesn't even want THAT to happen. Something stinks. Or, it could be nothing more than him being defensive because he's getting flak from his own people on other ideas, too, and he wants something, ANYTHING to fly without interference. |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:45:19 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:30:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: There are so few viable reasons for this. Well, actually, there are. This Dubai company is the largest in the world and actually is a fairly responsible company. I'm starting to think this is much ado about nothing. At least in New York, I don't believe Dubai Ports is going to be operating "the port", just a terminal. In NY, other "port" operators include American Stevedoring, Inc., Overseas Orient, Maersk, and Maher. P&O is the company Dubai Ports is buying: http://portal.pohub.com/portal/page?...hema=POGPRT L From a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense. However, from a security standpoint, I'm not so sure. Come to think of it, the only other company who could provide these type of services in the US is Halliburton. And we all know how untrustworthy Halliburton is. :) |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
Doug Kanter wrote:
"Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:30:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: There are so few viable reasons for this. Well, actually, there are. This Dubai company is the largest in the world and actually is a fairly responsible company. From a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense. I agree, sort of. For centuries, the shipping biz has been dominated by the British and the Dutch. I'm not questioning anyone's business acumen here. Last night, the news indicated that Bill Frist wanted to slow down the deal, just to take a closer look at it. Bush doesn't even want THAT to happen. Something stinks. Or, it could be nothing more than him being defensive because he's getting flak from his own people on other ideas, too, and he wants something, ANYTHING to fly without interference. Or is he rewarding past large campaign contributions? |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
"Don White" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "Shortwave Sportfishing" wrote in message ... On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 13:30:55 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: There are so few viable reasons for this. Well, actually, there are. This Dubai company is the largest in the world and actually is a fairly responsible company. From a business standpoint, it makes perfect sense. I agree, sort of. For centuries, the shipping biz has been dominated by the British and the Dutch. I'm not questioning anyone's business acumen here. Last night, the news indicated that Bill Frist wanted to slow down the deal, just to take a closer look at it. Bush doesn't even want THAT to happen. Something stinks. Or, it could be nothing more than him being defensive because he's getting flak from his own people on other ideas, too, and he wants something, ANYTHING to fly without interference. Or is he rewarding past large campaign contributions? Yes. The blowjob factor. |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On 21 Feb 2006 18:20:58 -0800, wrote:
JohnH wrote: On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:33:22 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote: The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely profitably) involved in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by British based P&O for years. If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port "security". God help us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company P&O was not in charge of Port Security. they leased the port facilities. The Security is still under the CG. May not be good security, but the foreign company is not the security. Do not think it is wise to give a major money making operation to a foreign company to run. Especially one paid for by the USA. Worst one was Port of Long Beach naval yards. Leased to COSCO China Overseas company. An arm of the Chinese military. And the administration in charge at the time leased it for about $245 million over the length of the contract with the provisos that the Government would put $235 million in to upgrades. Nice deal if you can get it. Finally, someone who knows the difference between port security and port operations. Thanks, Bill. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** You can't completely separate the two. The vast majority of Muslim people are fine individuals who worship the very same God that most westerners do and are certainly as sincerely devout as the average American Jew or Christian, if not more so. We're in no danger from the vast majority of Muslims. However, if you suddenly have scores of Arab Muslims running around US ports it then becomes much, much easier put those one or two people into place that we really are in danger from because those one or two are extremist, religious, fanatics. The longshoremen's union is going to become all Muslims? I don't think so. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message Which Arab country would *you* trust? I enjoy visiting Egypt, but I always feel a wave of relief once the plane I'm on leaves Egyptian airspace. This is a serious question. Algeria Bahrain Comoros Bjibouti Egypt Iraq Jordan Kuwait Lebanon Libya Morocco Mauritania Oman Saudi Arabia Somalia Sudan Syria Tunisia Qatar U.A.E Yemen Without hesitation ...... None of the above. RCE |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
Harry Krause wrote:
"Which Arab country would *you* trust?" Notice the word Arab? I just wanted you to further confirm your racism. Sorry, dummy, but "Arab" isn't a race. You are as racist as they come, Krause. Are you still claiming Palestinians are not really Palestinians? -- Skipper |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:21 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com