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! *****
******************************************

A post of yours made just yesterday:

"Jimmy, the only OT posts to which I object are the political/religious or
otherwise inflammatory posts that start the acerbic name-calling."

How funny.

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

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:35:58 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"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
om...
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! *****
******************************************

A post of yours made just yesterday:

"Jimmy, the only OT posts to which I object are the political/religious or
otherwise inflammatory posts that start the acerbic name-calling."

How funny.


Did I object to something other than what I mentioned?
--
'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 19:35:58 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


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


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


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:084nv155bj7j64l8459skcrpii7edcnfj5@4ax. com...
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! *****
******************************************

A post of yours made just yesterday:

"Jimmy, the only OT posts to which I object are the political/religious or
otherwise inflammatory posts that start the acerbic name-calling."

How funny.


Did I object to something other than what I mentioned?
--
'Til next time,

John H

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


It was the name calling and personal attack John, all the while posting in a
political thread. Why you just hit a home run John. :-)

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

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:11:59 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:35:58 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


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


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


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:084nv155bj7j64l8459skcrpii7edcnfj5@4ax .com...
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! *****
******************************************

A post of yours made just yesterday:

"Jimmy, the only OT posts to which I object are the political/religious or
otherwise inflammatory posts that start the acerbic name-calling."

How funny.


Did I object to something other than what I mentioned?
--
'Til next time,

John H

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


It was the name calling and personal attack John, all the while posting in a
political thread. Why you just hit a home run John. :-)



Yeah, I guess 'Jimmy' was pretty bad. Sorry.
--
'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 20:11:59 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 19:35:58 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


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


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:jeanv19jenhpbb9bbcu5lm1elvfrcashlr@4ax. com...
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:30:31 -0500, " JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT
comREMOVETHIS wrote:


"JohnH" wrote in message
news:084nv155bj7j64l8459skcrpii7edcnfj5@4a x.com...
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! *****
******************************************

A post of yours made just yesterday:

"Jimmy, the only OT posts to which I object are the political/religious
or
otherwise inflammatory posts that start the acerbic name-calling."

How funny.


Did I object to something other than what I mentioned?
--
'Til next time,

John H

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


It was the name calling and personal attack John, all the while posting in
a
political thread. Why you just hit a home run John. :-)



Yeah, I guess 'Jimmy' was pretty bad. Sorry.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

You just don't get it *Johnny*. ;-) Have a nice evening.

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

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:52:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter"

wrote:

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
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.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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


In the long run, the two become one and the same.

Then where was the outrage when the Naval Port of Long Beach, Calif was
leased to the Chinese Army (COSCO) for not much more than the money agreed
to be spent by the government to upgrade the facility?