Rooster7

Excellent point Ed. Just like lobotomies were once commonly practiced - calling something a "medical procedure" does not make it noble or even humane. And in the case of abortion I believe it is murder (whether or not the participants realize it or not)..

Excellent point Ed. Just like lobotomies were once commonly practiced - calling something a "medical procedure" does not make it noble or even humane. And in the case of abortion I believe it is murder (whether or not the participants realize it or not)..

Merlyn,

Being an atheist, I imagine it was really easy for you to over simplify my response and to form that conclusion. Regardless, whatever thought pops into your head, it surely must be the right answer. Some folks might think that's a nice place to be - answerable to only one's self. As for me, I prefer to bow down to a Holy God.

I don't claim to have a full understanding of God. The Bible clearly teaches that God's ways are not man's ways. Would I kill children if God commanded me to do so? I would try to do whatever God might command me to do. That does not mean my obedience would come easily or even that I would succeed. But if I did rebel, I would be wrong. God's righteousness is absolute and unquestionable. I am not going to conjecture as to why God commanded Joshua to kill everyone in that city. However, I know that God has ultimate control over everyone's destiny. So, while we may morn the passing of our friends and family - God may well be welcoming those individuals into a kingdom of peace and joy that is incomprehensible to us. With that said, I do not know what became of those children. Nor can I witness the world through their eyes. Only God knows what an individual experiences emotionally, mentally, and physically. We can only speculate. Whatever the outcome for those children or anyone else, I know God's righteousness and his love endures forever.

The whole idea of Oliver North expounding on values and morals is ridiculous.

The above is offered by a man, who does not recognize an immutable foundation or force for his own morality. Ridiculous indeed!

Regardless of what Oliver North may or may not have done, the compass he proclaims is true. It's much superior to the ponderings of any man or any collection of men - something no atheist can honestly declare.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

I could provide you with links to many essays by learned people who assert the same thing, but I doubt you would give them credence.

Sounds like youre taking this a little personally. Let me assure you, I know many learned people as well and they do not share your view. And interestingly, I doubt you would give them much credence. So why even go there try arguing the points presented.

Christianity never really crossed my mind, but it seemed unfair to drag Jews into your argument when they would, in reality, want to have nothing to do with putting "God" on our money.

I dont pretend to speak for all Jews or all Christians, but I referenced them because by definition, they have contributed to our countrys Judeo-Christian values. And while some or many or even most Jews may argue against putting In God We Trust on money; some or many or even most Jews would likely argue that this sentiment is valid for them as a people, and given our countrys history, it should be our National motto. Regardless of how the numbers parse out to be, certainly there are many Jews that comprise the majority in this country who do embrace the motto.

But then you bring up two different (although related, true) points and want me to discuss them with you.

In my post, they were the original points. But, I have no great desire to pursue a discussion with you. I merely want the truth represented.

What I DO have a problem with is when people try to use the presence of the motto on our currency and on our monuments as proof that we were founded as a Christian nation.

No, they are not proof just by products.

Why hasn't there been an amendment to the Constitution to do away with separation of church and state and establish Christianity as the state religion?

Because the clause as it was written, is good. Its the more recent bogus interpretations of the clause that need to be discarded. And btw, there is no movement in this country to force Christianity on anyone, except in the minds of the delusional.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

DanKroh,

Let's keep the argument meaningful.

I agree: Orthodox Jews may have a problem with God's name being printed on money (or anywhere else for that matter).

And, if it pleases you, I will also acknowledge: "In God We Trust" has not been adopted by Christians or Jews as their official motto.

But, I can't seriously believe that my original post led you to believe that I thought otherwise. The above red herrings which you seem to want focus your argument upon, are not substantive to the discussion.

I intended to make two simple points:

1) In God We Trust has been embraced by a majority of Americans (then and now), stemming from a personal commitment that God in fact exists and affects our lives.

2) The minority, who take issue with In God We Trust, have no Constitutional argument supporting the idea that their rights have been violated.

If youre compelled to argue with me then focus on these two points. Everything else is just a worthless distraction.

DanKroh,

Still trying to get the story right...

IN GOD WE TRUST

Your description of events implies that the inspiration behind these words was mere political appeasement, meant to encourage a generation confronted with the Cold War. While not an official motto, most Americans embraced those words nearly 100 years before Stalins reign. In God we trust is not a transitory sentiment brought about by the fear of communism or panic stirred by McCarthyism. It was, and has been, the motto of Christians and Jews for thousands of years - and was adopted by this country because it reflects the sentiments of the majority. If the minority cannot accept that fact, so be it. Their self-imposed bitterness does not constitute a violation of their Constitutional rights. I expect to see that verified in the Supreme Court one day soon.

I like Oliver North. I agree with many of his sentiments.

And let's the get the story right and complete:

According to the U.S. Dept. of Treasury, the motto 'In God We Trust' came about not at the time of the Constitutional Conventions, but due to increased pressures to recognize God on coins and money during the Civil War. In April 22, 1864, Congress passed an Amendment authorizing the motto to be placed on the two-cent coin. It appeared on various coins throughout the years, and appeared on paper money in 1957

Rooster will weigh in with his predictable lightening rods.

Guilty as charged, Im sure. I like to cut to the chase. If you breakdown most of these issues - it comes down to a few core beliefs (i.e. Does God exist? Who is God? Is human nature good or bad? What is our purpose in life?). In you have a good idea as to what you believe (in regard to the aforementioned questions) and especially if you are confident in the answers, then you too will be fairly blunt in your reaction to most other questions and just as passionate as I (and many others).

So if I offend, I apologize to this extent its not my goal to offend. I just want to wade through the non-sense, and weigh in on something thats more substantial. Heres an analogy. It seems to me, we are like a bunch of contractors arguing over what color to paint the rooms of a house. When in fact, we havent even agreed as to what kind of house we are building.

Still as Trevorum pointed out, the conversations have been interesting - if not always polite.

Newbie Den Leader,

Just so you dont misinterpret where I am coming from, I am on your side of this debate. However, in response to this:

In my particular scenario, we have reminded the church leaders that the Scouts are not required to be members of the church in order to be in the Pack.

Are you aware that the church leaders are able to change that policy at will? That is to say, as the CO, they are free to establish a policy which would restrict membership to boys who are tied to their organization (i.e. families belonging to the church, boys attending a particular public or private school, etc.). Im not suggesting that one way is preferred over the other I can understand why a church would restrict its Pack or Troop membership or open it up there are arguments for both views. Regardless, the CO has control over this policy decision. Having said that, I would be careful as to how you remind the church leaders as to what is or is not required of the Scouts in your Pack. Youre attitude could sway their decision, one way or the other.

Backpacker,

I have my doubts about Merlyn and his numbers. Regardless, it isnt always about numbers. That is to say, I dont think the BSA should tailor the program to satisfy the majoritythey should put forth a program that they feel best serves the boys. If the program that they offer (including its membership policies) causes some folks to go else where, so be it. There are other options for those people to pursue. Its not the BSAs moral obligation to make everyone or even most folks happy. And for the most part, the BSAs success should not be measured by how many, but by how well the boys are being served.

Furthermore, at the Pack or Troop level, I dont believe the BSA can be blamed for any decline in quality or quantity. If my kid joins a Troop, I will take a long, hard, close look at the CO and the leaders they have employed to run the program. That is where the rubber meets the road. If parents neglect to take this precaution, and instead rely on the BSAs reputation, then shame on them. The BSAs reputation, good or bad, does not assure anyone that their son will be in a quality unit. Its the volunteers at the Pack or Troop level that will make that program run well, or not. Just like any other organization, it comes down to whos really running the show. Frankly, I dont understand what kind of support Packs or Troops are hoping to obtain from the national organization (or even if a significant number of Packs or Troops are seeking such support). The BSA offers a program to chartering organizations. As part of the package, the BSA offers uniforms, policies, procedures, best practices, fund raising ideas, alternative programs, camps, and other resources. They offer more than enough resources for any CO to garner and use, as they see fit, to make their Pack or Troop successful.

If I blame the BSA for any failure (and here, I dont know enough to speak definitively), it would be for the breakdowns that have occurred at their camps (i.e. boys who were molested by camp personnel and/or injured due to some negligence). In these cases, I believe the organization at the national level has an obligation to take extreme measures to ensure every boys safety. They may well do this I dont know. Regardless, I hold them accountable for making all of the reasonable and necessary precautions to protect the boys at BSA sanctioned camps.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

Some Christian churches even require an interview with elders before being accepted into the congregation. What would be the purpose of that except to restrict membership?

Yes that is the point, to restrict the membership at least this is the rationale for many Presbyterian churches. However, that does not mean one cannot attend their church services, participate in fellowship, or join a bible study. So why would a church stop someone from becoming a member? Two things happen when one becomes a member:

1) The church publicly recognizes that person as a believer someone who believes the same things that you do about Christ, Gods love, Gods righteousness, salvation, and a myriad of other doctrinal issues. Members of that congregation will trust that individual, as someone who takes Gods Word seriously someone who is attempting to follow Christ in every way.

2) In Presbyterian churches and many other churches, that person is now able to vote at congregational meetings. He helps make decisions in directing the path of the church decisions, which as a believer, need to be biblically based.

The elders are merely protecting the local church and its body of believers. It is not meant to alienate the non-believer, but it is necessary. If non-believers are allowed to become members of a church, they have the potential to cause great harm.

I imagine that the BSA has a similar philosophy. If youre a baseball team, and you keep allowing football players to join who really rather play football, eventually your team will fail or become a football team. The BSA feels strongly that their values are paramount to their success. If they allow others to join who do not agree with their values, then eventually, they will either fail to achieve their goals or the organization will change into something else. You may not feel that to be a bad thing since youre not enamored with the BSAs stated values (or how they interpret those stated values either way) but Im certain it matters to them. Just like conservative churches highly treasure the bible, the doctrine that it teaches, and the body of believers under their care - the BSA wants to protect the Scouts, their families, and the values that they have rallied around. While it is admirable and desirable to bring others into the family care keepers of organizations such as the BSA (or a church), need to ensure that the principles that they embrace, are not sacrificed for the sake of growth.

GB,

You may believe as you will, but you have damned me to hell.

No one chooses a faith so they can have the satisfaction of saying to someone else, you are damned to hell. My heart, mind, and soul, tells me that the bible is true. I read it, and God speaks to me. Whether I am the only one or billions believe as I do matters not to me. I know who Christ is, what he has done for us, and I understand why we should all be on our knees accepting his gift. With that said, I did not write the Gospels I just believe them. So if the Gospels speak to you and the news does not appear to be good then understand it is Gods Word with which you take issue, not I. I am simply, and happily, one of his sons disciples. I have no knowledge of, much less control over anyones salvation, and never have I claimed otherwise.

funscout,

Although Christians oppose the practice of homosexuality, we should never reject a Homosexual in our church. We are taught that you can hate the sin, but should still love the sinner. Besides, it doesn't make sense to turn away those who don't live up to the Christian ideals. After all, what is church for? It is to allow a fellowship with each other and with God, in order that we can HELP each other grow spiritually.

In general, I agree. No one is qualified to be in the church if one must be without sin. However, I think there is a line to be drawn that is biblical. If someone comes into your church proclaiming that their sin is not sin; then you have a problem. You have someone who is not repentant. If hes not claiming to be a believer, this should not be surprising or give reason to be alarmed. But it does tell us as believers, that we are dealing with someone who may not be ready to come to Christ. If this person claims to be a believer and is rebelling against the teachings of the church, then you have a different set of problems. Of most concern to me, you have someone whos willing to spread his ideas which are contrary to Gods Word, within the body of believers. This is very dangerous and not tolerated by most conservative churches.

GB,

Of the 10,000 or so religious sects, denominations and organized belief systems, every one of them thinks they are right and not only are the other 9,999 wrong, but are they are on the fast lane to Hell.

This is a huge generalization and does not attempt to look at the differences in a reasonable manner. Most Protestant churches do not believe that their denomination is an exclusive path to Heaven and all others shall perish. There are a set of core beliefs, which most churches would acknowledge as being truth the Holy Trinity, Jesus atoning sacrifice on the cross, mans sinful nature, our need for repentance, salvation through our heartfelt acceptance of Christ, the bible being Gods truth, etc.

Are there some churches that do not believe these things? Of course, that is true. And I further agree that disagreement in these core beliefs separate many churches. However, it is a gross overstatement and misleading to say all Christian denominations see themselves as having an exclusive path to God's kingdom. In fact, as every believer knows, God looks at individuals not denominations. However, as individuals, Gods word calls us to believe and act in a specific way.

"Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it. "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. Matthew 7:13-15

BrentAllen,

I absolutely agree with your post. Too often - parents, teachers, and other adults try to become a peer to children - it's not the right way to go. That's not to say we cannot be friendly, but there's a line that adults should not cross - and there's a line that a boy should not cross.

Saddam was a bad guy. Duh!

So are quite a few others scattered around the planet. We haven't made a move on N. Korea. We haven't rescued the people of Iran. We haven't liberated Myanmar. And there are plenty more. We didn't take Iraq because Saddam was a bad guy.

Are we to take on all enemies at the same time? Is this the WWF?

He was a bad guy back when we were supplying arms to him and he was an ally. That didn't seem to bother us then.

So its black and white when it comes to U.S. diplomacy? We either declare war or we fully support our allies? Please you really have no idea what our government was saying to Hussein at that time.

The spin that Bush was the victim of bad advice doesn't hold up - it's just a feel-good self-deception for some of us to maintain the faith. The reports containing the faulty intelligence also included statements of uncertainty. But Bush and his cronies told us there was no doubt. When someone in authority - in command of deadly force and about to use it - says there is no doubt, I take that as an absolute. And I bought the lie along with most of the rest of us. I am at least honest enough to admit I was duped by them.

No doubt some reports were less certain than others, but there were sources that expressed certainty. And your bias is showing when you reference Bush aids and advisors as cronies. Lastly, you have no way of knowing if any intelligence was faulty. The British still stand by their reports.

Kahuna was correct in saying there is a difference between something that is not true and a lie. The difference is knowing that a statement is false when you make it. And unless Bush didn't read the reports before making the decision (which would have been apocalyptically stupid...do you like that option?), he knew there was doubt.

Some reports expressing doubt does not translate into all or most reports expressing doubt. You accuse Bush of picking and choosing to fit his needs Perhaps you do so because of your familiarity with the tactic.

Saddam, having destroyed the WMD, was then required to prove they didn't exist. But there's no way to prove a negative and although his bluster was stupid, he HAD actually destroyed them. Yes, the WMD were there during the Clinton years. Yes, he used them on the Kurds. But they were destroyed. He said so and in that, at least, he was correct. If you think you know more than Bush's own WMD team, show us the evidence. Prove it. Produce a single gram of enriched uranium, or just 100 ml of some biological agent. You can't. All you have is an unshakable conviction based on blind faith in a liar.

Yeah right you take the word of a man who murders thousands (Hussein) over a man who seeks to rid the planet of murders (Bush).

Another irony: the WMD was destroyed as a result of, get this, DIPLOMACY, the UN, and international pressure.

Oh yes, the great human achievement called the U.N. the U.N. that forms a human rights commission that includes Libya and Syria. Get serious. The U.N. is an outdated organization which has become so phony that dictators and despots exploit them at will and sadly, much of the organization willingly participates in their own exploitation. To state that UN diplomacy caused Iraq to disarm, only goes to show how truly blind you are to reality.

Sadly, as of today the US body count stands at 2285, the US maimed and wounded number 16,653, and the Iraqi civilian body count is somewhere around 30,000. And thanks to the lie, I too am partly responsible. At least I'm honest enough to admit it. So are quite a few others scattered around the planet.

Grieving over the sacrifices made by our military, the families of those serving, and the death of innocent civilians, is not a sentiment which can only be appreciated by those who wish to retreat from war. I dare say that those who understand why the sacrifices are being made feel this pain as much or more than those who wish to run from it.

SR540Beaver,

Yes, individuals allude the police all the time. They are one person out of millions of US citizens and they have the ability to move across 48 states at will. Now, if the police were looking for say 1,000 people as a group, it would be much harder to allude detection.

Except were not looking for 1,000 people or even one person, were looking for an inanimate object which has no going needs to address. Barrels of chemical or biological weapons do not require upkeep.

Let's remember, Saddam was supposed to have bunkered "stockpiles" of WMD's and factories to produce them with. We are not talking about a single vial of anthrax.

Whether or not the Bush administration and/or the media used the term stockpiles is irrelevant. WMDs can be stored and hidden. And the existence or non-existence of factories does not mean that they are no such weapons in the country.

Let's also remember that about 99% of the deck of 55 or whatever it was were captured. Many of these people were the leaders of his WMD programs. Let's remember that we "own" the country and can go wherever we want, whenever we want without restriction. Don't you find it interesting that with all of the top leadership and scientists captured, crack US inspection teams having free movement about the country and three years to look, we have no stockpiles of WMD's to show for it or even a single factory.

So, this lovely group of individuals willingly performs all sorts of heinous acts whenever Saddam Hussein beckons, but theyre not willing to lie to Americans on his behalf. Yeah, I see your point.

Again with the factoriesIf you acknowledge that Hussein had weapons at one point, why do you need to see functioning factories to be convinced that he still possesses them? If hes trying to convince the world that he doesnt, the first thing hes likely to do is to dismantle the means to make them.

Do I think Saddam never had WMD's? Of course not. There is no question that he had them at one time and even used them once against his own people a decade or more ago.

Oh, and since murdering thousands of Kurds, he suddenly became a man of sensibility and peace. Do you really believe that?

What many don't want to acknowledge is that the sanctions actually worked.

And explain to me how did these sanctions work? Saddam could not stand to see his people suffer? The poor people of Iraqthe people which he allowed his sons to prey upon to murder, rape, and torture.

If Saddam were such a threat to US national security, why did he do nothing to harm us in the 12 years after Gulf War 1? What was he waiting for? Each year his infrastructure, military might and power rusted away.

It seems very plausible to me that he waiting until he was strong enough to put up a good fight. His infrastructure was not getting weakerthats just bogus. His infrastructure was growing.

He used the fear of WMD's to keep his people and his neighbors in line.

Doesnt that argument support the idea that Saddam wanted to keep his weapons?

He never used them and/or destroyed them because he knew what the US would do if he did use them.

He may not have wanted to use themat least not anytime soon on usbut he wanted the WMDs just the same - to gain strength in the region and to nullify our influence in the region.

I think he destroyed them, but kept the fact secret as insurance to keep his enemies guessing.

Again, he did this out of the goodness of his heart?

GWB came along and decided to call his bluff and to shoot first and ask questions later.

Man, is your memory shortor perhaps you didnt read the papers. Bush gave Hussein numerous opportunities to comply with the UN inspectors.

Even when Saddam said he didn't have them, the admin's take is that he is a liar and can't be trusted.

Given his actions in the previous months, the administration had every right to believe him to be a liar. All signs indicated that he had something to hide.

He was damned if he did and damned if he didn't.

I remember when Hussein didnt. When exactly was it that he did?

The war was on the agenda and would happen regardless of the status of WMD's.

Yes, were all familiar with the liberal revisionist construction of events, but the fact is it didnt happen that way. We begged Hussein to comply with the inspectors. He refused to allow them full access.

One other note for the "WMD's buried for a rainy day folks". Dig a hole in your backyard 10 to 15 feet deep. Place your car and a jar of pickles down there. Fill the hole back up with all of that heavy dirt. Come back in 5 years an dig them up. See if the pickles are edible and if the car will drive. WMD's (even of the nuclear variety) have a limited shelf life even under optimum conditions. You can't just bury them in the sand, dig them up years later and use them. It just doesn't work that way according to the weapons inspectors I've heard talk about it.

What difference does that make? His goal would be to hide the evidence of his non-compliance. If they work when he finally digs them up (wherever or however he has hide them) then Hussein can triple his pleasure. His pleasure being 1) He looks as if he had complied as the UN requested, 2) He embarrasses the U.S. by making it appear as they were the aggressors, and 3) He has working WMDs. If they dont work, two out of three, aint bad. In the end, Hussein has created a win/win situation thanks mostly to the liberal American media, an incredibly progressive thinking Europe, and the extremely gullible who live amongst us.

packsaddle,

So Hussein was a victim? The "Bush lied" accusation is old and tiresome. He acted on the intelligence that was given him. And, there is still plenty of reason to believe that the intelligence was accurate.

So you have quotes from the Presidents inspection team stating that its impossible for there to be any hidden WMDs in Iraqthat theres no way to hide them in the ground undetected.

And by the way, this has nothing to do with doing the job right. It has to do with our limitations. I know we all like to believe that the US government can control all events as long as we have the right administration overseeing it but lets get real for a second.

From all indications, it was all destroyed prior to the war.

Perhapsbut what makes WMDs so easy to find? We have fugitives in this country that have managed to allude being detected by millions of law enforcement agents. These are individuals who presumably need water, air, and food and eventually must go about in the public to find the same. Whos to say what might be buried in the desert? With billions of oil revenues to spend and a neglected populace, you find it so improbable that Hussein found a way to hide these weapons indefinitely for a rainy day? Dont you think these people were smart enough to prepare for such an invasion?

In affect, its the same thing. If no one can say something positive about the council, then lets assume that jkhny is a reliable source and all these horrible things he's saying must be true. Remarkably close to guilty until proven innocent to me.

Seems to me that Rooster pretty much represents the other side of what might be called the "screaming Bush hater" side of the coin. That would be the side that lovingly supports Bush regardless of his actions and can see no wrong in anything he does.

I doubt very much that theres anything I can say that would change your mind in regard to that conclusion. However, the facts are, while I do like Bush a lot, I never said the port deal was a good idea. It may be a horrible idea. Its too early for me or anyone else to really know. Still, I happen to believe that our president, his administration, and all the agencies that support him, might know things that we do not. Regardless, it's so incredibly early in the discovery process, I feel its fair to say that those who condemn Bush based on what they know today, are simply exposing their political leanings and their lack of common sense.

As I said early on in this thread, it remains to be seen whether the port deal is really a security problem or not.

Actually TRUE.

The real issue is that Bush allowed his own party in Congress to get blindsided by this.

But this statement is incredibly wrong the real issue is not how well President Bush appeases his own political party or even if he works well with them (which, is desirable, but not necessary). The real issue is how well President Bush is working to serve us the Nation. If his actions harm this country, then we have good reason to criticize him. If his actions serve us well, then we do not. This needs to be examined without political hysteriasomething that has not occurred yet.

Prairie_Scouter seems to believe, those unwilling to jump on a bandwagon preordained to ridicule the President, must love him unconditionally. Sorry this is bad logic and a poor excuse for those who lack judgment. Yes, America is free and its great that we all can express ourselves publicly without fear of reprisal from the government But this right, does not make our words honorable. So, it may be your right to express contempt for the President but I have little respect for those who spew nonsense, just so they can feel good about themselves and the political party of their choosing.

Lisabob,

To tell you the truth, Im not sure where I stand on this port deal myself. Unlike you though, I feel the administration has done an excellent job of analyzing this countrys enemies, as well as its allies, and have made good decisions in response to the same. In regard to this particular issue, I am waiting to hear more. Most of this thread has not been very informative unless you believe cherry picking headlines and quotes from equally uninformed, yet speculative reporters and overexcited political commentators is an effective way of getting an intelligent synopsis. Frankly, I doubt that we the general public will get to know what the administration knows. And even if we did, we dont have the advantage of dozens of intelligence agencies guiding us through the nuances. There comes a time when you have to trust your leaders.

Too bad some folks dont seem capable of doing that. Let me ask you something If we took the collective knowledge and wisdom of every individual posting to this forum and compiled a report for the President, so that he can make informed decisions to guide us through the War on Terror, how useful do you think it would be. It is ridiculous how much speculative nonsense is being thrown about in this thread. If this story was three months oldor even three weeks old, there might be enough information out there for folks to conjecture about what we should have, or should not have done. As it is -most are using this story as a springboard to get their jabs in on a President which they still cannot get behind. Their loss, but I grow tired of it. The criticisms are printed in editorials, blogs, and forums such as these before the facts can be fully determined, or some in cases - manufactured.

(This message has been edited by Rooster7)

You know what really burns my butt - Folks who purposely tell only half the story. Folks who are so intent on being right that theyre willing to mislead others just so they can claim their victory. Case in point:

From the AP -

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Homeland Security Department objected at first to a United Arab Emirates company's taking over significant operations at six U.S. ports. It was the lone protest among members of the government committee that eventually approved the deal without dissent.

The department's early objections were settled later in the government's review of the $6.8 billion deal after Dubai-owned DP World agreed to a series of security restrictions.

I suppose the third sentence was not relevant to Backpacker. Most others like those who have not covered their eyes and screamed I hate Bush might feel differently.

I can ingest and provide rejoinders to arguments that are founded on reason. This thread is not about reason. Its merely a vehicle to bash Bush. Thats the way I see itbut hey, who am I just another ultraconservative Republican thats trying push my bigoted and repressive Right Wing Christian values on the likes of Backpacker.

John, youre wasting your breath. This thread is a case study for mob mentality. Whenever theres cause for concern (real or imagined, great or small) or a possibility to misinterpret events (which is quite possible for the truly well informed, much less those who chase headlines) the disgruntled and disillusioned always seek their prey. At the end of the day, they must have their pound of flesh. If respect for the truth, much less for ones leader, be a casualty - do you really think it matters to them?