1 Nah, we all just have obnoxiously bigoted attitudes, remember?

2 Rusty takes adolescent pleasure in pretzel logic and sophistry, but Vinnie just acts adolescent.

3 "Pretzel logic". Er, how so? Declarative statements don't make an argument.

4 Liberalism's greatest hypocrisy is that it demands "tolerance" for everyone and everything, but in fact it's intolerant of intolerant beliefs. Such self-contradiction compares favorably with "There are no absolutes in life," which of course is itself an absolute statement. Thus there's a real double-standard with liberalism's "tolerance," which has limits after all. But it goes even further: liberals demand tolerance, but in their actions they've shown they're intolerant of anyone who simply disagrees, no matter how peacefully. As I've become more libertarianism than conservative, I've recognized that "the right to free speech" is best used to OFFEND people. Is your position so weak that you must use coercion (especially government force, i.e. laws and jails) to subdue your critics? One of my favorite Thomas Jefferson quotes is, "It is error alone that needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself." Libel and slander have remedies in courts, but otherwise, let people say what they want. Foolishness and idiocy tend to become apparent. Like I wrote in my satire on what if Christians and Jews went on rampages (thanks for linking before, Rusty), Christ told Peter to put away his sword, because at any time he could have summoned entire legions of angels to defeat the Romans. Is Mohammed of such little power that his reputation (as shady as it is) must be defended by earthly violence? Never mind Allah, who always seems to take a back seat.

5 That was pathetic. obstinate: perversely adhering to an opinion, purpose, or course in spite of reason, arguments, or persuasion So your obstinate hypothetical is completely useless as it fails to show that it meets this definition. In fact, it looks like a prejudice. intolerant: a. unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters b. unwilling to grant or share social, political, or professional rights : BIGOTED You obviously have the right to say what you want, we just think you sound like an idiot. By definition then, it is not intolerance. Thirdly, who gives a damn about whether or not "cultures produce equal hostility to liberty"? We aren't talking about picking a government to represent us, we're talking about picking a company to run large sections of our ports. I don't give a damn if it is an American company, I still want to see a 45 day commission to check the security of the company. That isn't prejudging, that is deciding that our national security counts no matter what company it is.

6 Like the saying goes, Rusty. I don't think you're a bigot, I think you just hate everyone. :OD

7 Rusty, You are engaging in ridiculous session of acrobatic semantics here. No doubt you felt it profound after you blew some weed.

8 Background, you can knock off the superior intellectual seriousness anytime. Vinnie was just engaging in a little levity.

9 I don't feel like this is just a semantic argument, I feel like it is a heuristics argument and what that reveals hidden assumptions embedded in the structure of our language. When language conflates reasonable suspicion with unreasonable suspicion, the words used in the language have to be examined. Carefully. So, when some suggest that it is unreasonable to put Muslim companies under higher scrutiny, they are basing that on...er...what exactly? An underlying assumptiveness that "all people are the same, regardless of religious ideologies". A common statistical inference error is called the "ecological fallacy". This fallacy results when one applies a generality to the specific. For instance, it would be an ecological fallacy to claim that because most Muslims support Palestinian terrorists, that we can know what the feelings of a specific Muslim is on Palestinian terrorism. However, just because it is an ecological fallacy come to a condlusion, it does not make it unreasonable to put that person under heightened scrutiny. The fact remains that an individual Muslim is much more likely to support Palestinian terrorism than, say, the individual Jew. We must operate in the real world, and in the real world there is a much higher chance that acts of terror will come from Muslims than any other religious faction. So, my fears over the UAE are not unreasonable, rather they are quite reasonable. The opposite seems much more true to me: those who claim there is no difference between a British company and a UAE company are the ones functioning under an unreasonable assumption, not me. One based on plattitudes and slogans--the ABC After School Special view of the world. This does not mean that I would ultimately be against the Dubai ports deal--just that it will take more convincing since I have a reasonable suspicion. I am very open to the notion that we MUST take the deal in order to secure some sort of cooperation from Dubai in a current war. But, that is just weighing one need against another.

10 I dug it Rusty. In spite of some above comments I feel I'm deeper now and that's what matters. Heh.

11 I don't have a problem with anyone who has reservations about this ports deal. I understand perfectly why some do and any reservations I have (which may not be to the same degree) are for the very same reasons. What does bother me are those who scream bloody murder over it with not only a lack of facts or information, but they're armed with misinformation as well. They're also using their ignorance to bludgeon others who are trying to gain a better understanding of it and come to their own conclusion. This is not to say that I think Rusty is one of those people. I think he has some valid points. He's also been very diplomatic about it, laying out a concise and reasoned argument with facts pertaining directly to why he is opposed. That's more than I can say for some here.

12 Whatever happen to sticks, and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me? The ports deal will be a problem when the information of what comes in, and what is going out will be worth it's weight in gold.

13 Rusty:"And isn't it prejudging when one assumes--contrary to all statistical evidence--that cultures produce equal hostility towards liberty?" It may be. If so, allow me to be "a bigot". Hostility towards liberty is primarily coming from your beloved King George and his ziocon cadre of greedy goons. Watch the money. (Dubais, or not to buy, that is the question!)

14 Yeah, Rusty, all those radical Muslims don't want to deny you free speech and free expression, they just want to deny you the right to speak or express yourself on Islam. Heck, you have all those other religions you can slander, but we will kill you if you tell the truth about Islam. Makes sense, doesn't it? Clearly King George is in on the plot, and all the Zioconistas and their allies in the corporate media who wish to take over the World and turn everything into a Wal-Mart parking lot.

15 INVESTORS from the United Arab Emirates helped fund the $23 million Neil Bush raised for Ignite!, the learning systems company that holds lucrative No Child Left Behind Act contracts in Florida and Texas. http://www.watchermagazine.com/?p=3839 Watch the money, honey.