|
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
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! ***** ****************************************** |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
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. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:33:41 -0500, JohnH wrote:
You are confusing port operations and port security. Don't feel badly, many of you are doing the same thing. If you think operations and security don't overlap, you are the one that is confused. |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
"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? |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:48:01 -0500, thunder wrote:
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:33:41 -0500, JohnH wrote: You are confusing port operations and port security. Don't feel badly, many of you are doing the same thing. If you think operations and security don't overlap, you are the one that is confused. Overlap and totality are two different things. Saying the UAE would be responsible for port security is flat wrong. The responsibility for port security remains where it is. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
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! ***** ****************************************** |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
"JohnH" wrote in message ... 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. 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? |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:01:31 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: 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. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** It's a mighty fine line, once you get into it. Don't you get weary of rationalizing Bush's dumb decisions? Next time you ship a car overseas, or return it to the Port of Baltimore, you'll see the difference between port security and port operations. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:03:24 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: 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. This is a display of a lack of knowledge about the two. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:04:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . 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. 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. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:06:37 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: JohnH wrote: On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:01:31 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: JohnH wrote: 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. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** It's a mighty fine line, once you get into it. Don't you get weary of rationalizing Bush's dumb decisions? Next time you ship a car overseas, or return it to the Port of Baltimore, you'll see the difference between port security and port operations. -- That's about as dumb as trailering a boat from here to the Gulf of California. OK. -- '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 21:04:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:52:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message m... 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. |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:10:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:04:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:52:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message om... 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. -- '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 21:10:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:04:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message m... 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. |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JohnH wrote: Not if the port security folks are properly doing their jobs. -- 'Til next time, John H Are you really that naive? We can't even protect consumer electronics and cars from being stolen at the ports. But at least the mafia (which doesn't exist) has a patriotic and self serving stake in maintaining a facade of port safety. I wonder about Arab owners, though. What's their angle? |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:18:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message .. . On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:10:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:04:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message om... 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 ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:22:47 GMT, "Doug Kanter"
wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JohnH wrote: Not if the port security folks are properly doing their jobs. -- 'Til next time, John H Are you really that naive? We can't even protect consumer electronics and cars from being stolen at the ports. But at least the mafia (which doesn't exist) has a patriotic and self serving stake in maintaining a facade of port safety. I wonder about Arab owners, though. What's their angle? Again, where did 'ownership' enter into the deal? The job being contracted is the management of *port operations*. No one is selling the Port of Baltimore to anyone. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:28:22 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote: Doug Kanter wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... JohnH wrote: Not if the port security folks are properly doing their jobs. -- 'Til next time, John H Are you really that naive? We can't even protect consumer electronics and cars from being stolen at the ports. But at least the mafia (which doesn't exist) has a patriotic and self serving stake in maintaining a facade of port safety. I wonder about Arab owners, though. What's their angle? I've seen nothing happen in the last 50 years that would lead me to believe any Arab nation is worthy of trust. Perhaps the extension of some trust to a Muslim country would belay the idea that the US is against all Muslims. -- '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 21:18:21 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message . .. On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:10:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message m... On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:04:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message news:sqvmv116tcv4us5dosfabs850blde7tm0o@4ax. com... On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:52:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message news:buumv1dn6hddqqv9repktnfl06smi9c3cu@4a x.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! |
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
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 ... On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:10:59 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message om... On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 21:04:30 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message news:sqvmv116tcv4us5dosfabs850blde7tm0o@4ax .com... On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:52:13 GMT, "Doug Kanter" wrote: "JohnH" wrote in message news:buumv1dn6hddqqv9repktnfl06smi9c3cu@4 ax.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. -- '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 22:05:27 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. |
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? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com