On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:05:27 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:18:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:10:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:n70nv1117j0hunt1lrib7589gt454go5i3@4ax. com...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:04:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:sqvmv116tcv4us5dosfabs850blde7tm0o@4a x.com...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:52:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:buumv1dn6hddqqv9repktnfl06smi9c3cu@ 4ax.com...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:41:28 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:51:39 -0500, Harry Krause

wrote:

Fred Dehl wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote in
:

If there is any REAL concern with security, why is this
being
bid
to
any NON American firm?
Would you have preferred it go to HAL?
The answer is simple: protecting our ports should not be
something
contracted out. It should be something handled directly by
the
US
Coast
Guard and the US Border Patrol, and if those organizations
need
to
be
enlarged to handle the job, I know where $2 billion a week
can
be
found
to pay for it.

You are confusing port operations and port security. Don't
feel
badly,
many
of you are doing the same thing.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************


Port operations in the hands of the UAE?

Absurd.

Perhaps. But too many are using the term "port security" to
imply
something
that's not true.

You keep repeating this idea as if it's some sort of revelation,
John.
Do
you think there is any way, or no way the operator of the port
could
have
an
effect on security? Any way? Or no way?


That's not my point. Do you think there is no difference between
port
security and port operations? If not, use the terms
interchangeably.

There is a difference. Operations are handled by the owner or
lessor.
Security is handled by government agencies (so far). Now that we've
established that, do you thing there is any way, or no way the
operator
could negatively affect security procedures?


Not if the port security folks are properly doing their jobs.

They cannot doe their jobs properly, due to no fault of their own.

The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski
Suite 503
Hart Senate Office Building
Washington, D.C. 20510

If you send me your mailing address, I'll send you a book of stamps.


Check your email. The address is on its way. Looking forward to my
book
of
stamps.

I'll also need to see copies of the mail you send your senator, to make
sure
you're telling her to stop misappropriating funds that should be spent
on
security.


Now you're sounding like someone else who adds conditions after making
an
offer that was accepted.
--
'Til next time,

John H

Hey...I've written the same kind of letter to MY chumps. You can do it!


I didn't say I wouldn't do it. I questioned the establishment of
conditions
after the offer was made and accepted.

Here's an idea: Write a letter, staying with the issue, and post it here.
Maybe a whole bunch of us will mail it to our congressmen.

Jeez.....yours looks like she's been out for a few too many bacon buffets
with lobbyists.

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:12:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:
Here's an idea: Write a letter, staying with the issue, and post it here.
Maybe a whole bunch of us will mail it to our congressmen.

Jeez.....yours looks like she's been out for a few too many bacon buffets
with lobbyists.


My what? If you're referring to The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, she
ain't mine. She's Harry's.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:12:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:
Here's an idea: Write a letter, staying with the issue, and post it
here.
Maybe a whole bunch of us will mail it to our congressmen.

Jeez.....yours looks like she's been out for a few too many bacon buffets
with lobbyists.


My what? If you're referring to The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, she
ain't mine. She's Harry's.
--
'Til next time,

John H

I thought you were also in Maryland.

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:12:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:
Here's an idea: Write a letter, staying with the issue, and post it
here.
Maybe a whole bunch of us will mail it to our congressmen.

Jeez.....yours looks like she's been out for a few too many bacon buffets
with lobbyists.


My what? If you're referring to The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, she
ain't mine. She's Harry's.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

You have 27 posts to this *political* thread John. I do not have a problem
with that but I do find it funny that *you* objected to
"political/religious" posts just yesterday.

I think Chuck has posted objections in the recent past yet he also
contributed several posts to this *political* thread.

Welcome back to the darkside. ;-)

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

Doug Kanter wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:12:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

Here's an idea: Write a letter, staying with the issue, and post it
here.
Maybe a whole bunch of us will mail it to our congressmen.

Jeez.....yours looks like she's been out for a few too many bacon buffets
with lobbyists.


My what? If you're referring to The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, she
ain't mine. She's Harry's.
--
'Til next time,

John H


I thought you were also in Maryland.


They won't let him in yet. He'd have to get rid of that bright yellow V8
Mustang.

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:19:57 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:12:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:
Here's an idea: Write a letter, staying with the issue, and post it
here.
Maybe a whole bunch of us will mail it to our congressmen.

Jeez.....yours looks like she's been out for a few too many bacon buffets
with lobbyists.


My what? If you're referring to The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, she
ain't mine. She's Harry's.
--
'Til next time,

John H

I thought you were also in Maryland.


Puh leeze!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:30:31 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:12:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:
Here's an idea: Write a letter, staying with the issue, and post it
here.
Maybe a whole bunch of us will mail it to our congressmen.

Jeez.....yours looks like she's been out for a few too many bacon buffets
with lobbyists.


My what? If you're referring to The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, she
ain't mine. She's Harry's.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

You have 27 posts to this *political* thread John. I do not have a problem
with that but I do find it funny that *you* objected to
"political/religious" posts just yesterday.

I think Chuck has posted objections in the recent past yet he also
contributed several posts to this *political* thread.

Welcome back to the darkside. ;-)



Not political. Discussion of ports is definitely *on* topic! You've not
seen one of my comments refer to the administration, Democrats,
Republicans, or any other political entity, nor have any of Doug's.

You don't netcop very well. Now go back to your room.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:30:31 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:12:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:
Here's an idea: Write a letter, staying with the issue, and post it
here.
Maybe a whole bunch of us will mail it to our congressmen.

Jeez.....yours looks like she's been out for a few too many bacon
buffets
with lobbyists.


My what? If you're referring to The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, she
ain't mine. She's Harry's.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

You have 27 posts to this *political* thread John. I do not have a
problem
with that but I do find it funny that *you* objected to
"political/religious" posts just yesterday.

I think Chuck has posted objections in the recent past yet he also
contributed several posts to this *political* thread.

Welcome back to the darkside. ;-)



Not political. Discussion of ports is definitely *on* topic! You've not
seen one of my comments refer to the administration, Democrats,
Republicans, or any other political entity, nor have any of Doug's.

You don't netcop very well. Now go back to your room.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Wow, the very second post to this thread:

"Here's what this administration is thinking: "Golly these kneepads
make diplomacy so much easier, prince!"

Not political? How absolutely funny!

I was not netcopping John, just bringing out some "netcop" inconsistencies
on your part.

Carry on Sheriff.

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:17:03 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:30:31 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:12:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:
Here's an idea: Write a letter, staying with the issue, and post it
here.
Maybe a whole bunch of us will mail it to our congressmen.

Jeez.....yours looks like she's been out for a few too many bacon
buffets
with lobbyists.


My what? If you're referring to The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, she
ain't mine. She's Harry's.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

You have 27 posts to this *political* thread John. I do not have a
problem
with that but I do find it funny that *you* objected to
"political/religious" posts just yesterday.

I think Chuck has posted objections in the recent past yet he also
contributed several posts to this *political* thread.

Welcome back to the darkside. ;-)



Not political. Discussion of ports is definitely *on* topic! You've not
seen one of my comments refer to the administration, Democrats,
Republicans, or any other political entity, nor have any of Doug's.

You don't netcop very well. Now go back to your room.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Wow, the very second post to this thread:

"Here's what this administration is thinking: "Golly these kneepads
make diplomacy so much easier, prince!"

Not political? How absolutely funny!

I was not netcopping John, just bringing out some "netcop" inconsistencies
on your part.

Carry on Sheriff.


Was that *my* post? Did you find something political in *my* posts? No. I
quickly got away from politics.

Jimmy, go to the bathroom, look in a mirror, and argue with yourself.

Goodbye.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:17:03 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:30:31 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
m...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 22:12:09 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:
Here's an idea: Write a letter, staying with the issue, and post it
here.
Maybe a whole bunch of us will mail it to our congressmen.

Jeez.....yours looks like she's been out for a few too many bacon
buffets
with lobbyists.


My what? If you're referring to The Honorable Barbara A. Mikulski, she
ain't mine. She's Harry's.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

You have 27 posts to this *political* thread John. I do not have a
problem
with that but I do find it funny that *you* objected to
"political/religious" posts just yesterday.

I think Chuck has posted objections in the recent past yet he also
contributed several posts to this *political* thread.

Welcome back to the darkside. ;-)



Not political. Discussion of ports is definitely *on* topic! You've not
seen one of my comments refer to the administration, Democrats,
Republicans, or any other political entity, nor have any of Doug's.

You don't netcop very well. Now go back to your room.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Wow, the very second post to this thread:

"Here's what this administration is thinking: "Golly these kneepads
make diplomacy so much easier, prince!"

Not political? How absolutely funny!

I was not netcopping John, just bringing out some "netcop" inconsistencies
on your part.



Was that *my* post? Did you find something political in *my* posts? No. I
quickly got away from politics.

Jimmy, go to the bathroom, look in a mirror, and argue with yourself.

Goodbye.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

Now you are back into personal attacks and insults? You complained about
that yesterday also.

How funny John.