1. #51
    MembersZone Subscriber
    ChiefReason's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Illinois-where pertnear is close enough!
    Posts
    5,636

    Default

    The net effect could look amazingly similar to that of Smoot-Hawley. And if you don't know about Smoot-Hawley and its horrific effects you really don't know enough to even participate in the discussions and probably shouldn't be allowed to vote.
    Smoot-Hawley Tariff
    The Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of June 1930 raised U.S. tariffs to historically high levels. The original intention behind the legislation was to increase the protection afforded domestic farmers against foreign agricultural imports. Massive expansion in the agricultural production sector outside of Europe during World War I led, with the postwar recovery of European producers, to massive agricultural overproduction during the 1920s. This in turn led to declining farm prices during the second half of the decade. During the 1928 election campaign, Republican Presidential candidate Herbert Hoover pledged to help the beleaguered farmer by, among other things, raising tariff levels on agricultural products. But once the tariff schedule revision process got started, it proved impossible to stop. Calls for increased protection flooded in from industrial sector special interest groups and soon a bill meant to provide relief for farmers became a means to raise tariffs in all sectors of the economy. When the dust had settled, Congress had agreed to tariff levels that exceeded the already high rates established by the 1922 Fordney-McCumber Act and represented among the most protectionist tariffs in U.S. history.
    The Smoot-Hawley Tariff was more a consequence of the onset of the Great Depression than an initial cause. But while the tariff might not have caused the Depression, it certainly did not make it any better. It provoked a storm of foreign retaliatory measures and came to stand as a symbol of the ‘beggar-thy-neighbor’ policies (policies designed to improve one’s own lot at the expense of that of others) of the 1930s. Such policies contributed to a drastic decline in international trade. For example, U.S. imports from Europe declined from a 1929 high of $1,334 million to just $390 million in 1932, while U.S. exports to Europe fell from $2,341 million in 1929 to $784 million in 1932. Overall, world trade declined by some 66% between 1929 and 1934. More generally, Smoot-Hawley did nothing to foster trust and cooperation among nations in either the political or economic realm during a perilous era in international relations.
    The Smoot-Hawley tariff represents the high-water mark of U.S. protectionism in the twentieth century. Thereafter, beginning with the 1934 Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act, American commercial policy generally emphasized trade liberalization over protectionism. The United States generally assumed the mantle of champion of freer international trade, as evidenced by its support for the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT), the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), and the World Trade Organization (WTO).
    Visit www.iacoj.com
    Remember Bradley Golden (9/25/01)
    RIP HOF Robert J. Compton(ENG6511)

  2. #52
    55 Years & Still Rolling
    hwoods's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Glenn Dale Md, Heart of the P.G. County Fire Belt....
    Posts
    10,740

    Thumbs down Well...............

    OK, Here's where I am. NOBODY runs anything in the U.S. except companies or people that are free from influence from foreign sources of any kind. WE NEED TO GET OUT OF CRAP LIKE THIS. AMERICA FOR AMERICANS. PERIOD.
    Never use Force! Get a Bigger Hammer.
    In memory of
    Chief Earle W. Woods, 1912 - 1997
    Asst. Chief John R. Woods Sr. 1937 - 2006

    IACOJ Budget Analyst

    I Refuse to be a Spectator. If I come to the Game, I'm Playing.

    www.gdvfd18.com

  3. #53
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by hwoods
    OK, Here's where I am. NOBODY runs anything in the U.S. except companies or people that are free from influence from foreign sources of any kind. WE NEED TO GET OUT OF CRAP LIKE THIS. AMERICA FOR AMERICANS. PERIOD.
    Free trade keeps Americans enjoying a very high quality of life. Quit interacting with the rest of the world and we will suffer.
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  4. #54
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    It's funny to watch the changes in attitude take place on the left. They start with "You can't search any arabs in the airports, Tha would be PROFILING" And now here they are "Get those shifty ARABS out of our ports!!!" Hypocracy at it's best and most entertaining!
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  5. #55
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    Hypocracy at it's best and most entertaining!
    Riiiight. It's painfully obvious which side is rolling in hypocrisy.
    Once again...

    Iraq- no connections to 911/al Qaeda, no cooperation with western corporate big wheels. Invaded by U.S. military under false pretenses and its resources siezed. Mass misinformation and panic spread, as the new Bush anti-terrorist beurocracy machine comes to life. The mere mention of the word "bomb" can get your *** arrested. Standing too long and taking too many photos of a bridge can result in your *** hauled off for questioning. Everyone goes out and buys all the duct tape.

    Saudi Arabia- Home to most of the 911 hijackers, including the mastermind, Osama bin Laden. High level of support for bin Laden and al Qeada within the populace. Many connections to terrorists. High level financial support for terrorists. Plays well with western corporate big wheels. Long history of support by the Bush family, in spite of atrocious way their "kingdom" is operated. Gets invited by the Bushies to control part of a critical infrastructure here on our own soil. Bush claims to have known nothing of the deal until it was over. Threatens to instantly veto any opposition, though. Bullcrap flags thrown by everyone, except the knee-jerk Bush-bots, who just can't admit they were wrong. Millions finally see the neocon Bushies for what they really are, and regret ever voting the fools into power.

  6. #56
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman
    Riiiight. It's painfully obvious which side is rolling in hypocrisy.
    Once again...

    Iraq- no connections to 911/al Qaeda, no cooperation with western corporate big wheels. Invaded by U.S. military under false pretenses and its resources siezed. Mass misinformation and panic spread, as the new Bush anti-terrorist beurocracy machine comes to life. The mere mention of the word "bomb" can get your *** arrested. Standing too long and taking too many photos of a bridge can result in your *** hauled off for questioning. Everyone goes out and buys all the duct tape.

    Saudi Arabia- Home to most of the 911 hijackers, including the mastermind, Osama bin Laden. High level of support for bin Laden and al Qeada within the populace. Many connections to terrorists. High level financial support for terrorists. Plays well with western corporate big wheels. Long history of support by the Bush family, in spite of atrocious way their "kingdom" is operated. Gets invited by the Bushies to control part of a critical infrastructure here on our own soil. Bush claims to have known nothing of the deal until it was over. Threatens to instantly veto any opposition, though. Bullcrap flags thrown by everyone, except the knee-jerk Bush-bots, who just can't admit they were wrong. Millions finally see the neocon Bushies for what they really are, and regret ever voting the fools into power.
    American companies have made far more money providing contracted services to the Saudi's then they have or ever will provide us.

    Noz, you are really stretching more then normal here .
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  7. #57
    Forum Member
    Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MIKEYLIKESIT
    How active is the president in running the show? I believe this merits some honest debate.
    He doesnt. The VP runs the show. Has since day one. Bush is just a figure head, put in place because the Republicans knew DC could never win an election on his own. Besides, its much easier to "slip" things by peope when your operating from the shadows like a VP does.
    Fire Marshal/Safety Officer

    IAAI-NFPA-IAFC/VCOS-Retired IAFF

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government"
    RUSH-Tom Sawyer

    Success is when skill meets opportunity
    Failure is when fantasy meets reality

  8. #58
    MembersZone Subscriber
    E229Lt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Posts
    2,987

    Default

    Somebody explain these connections to me:

    Carlyle Group- CSX Rail- Dubai Ports

  9. #59
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    He doesnt. The VP runs the show. Has since day one. Bush is just a figure head, put in place because the Republicans knew DC could never win an election on his own. Besides, its much easier to "slip" things by peope when your operating from the shadows like a VP does.
    You proof of this how? This has to be the most laughable thing I have read on here yet. Blind allegations are so much fun.
    Give me a break.

  10. #60
    Forum Member
    DennisTheMenace's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Washington, DC/Northern Virginia
    Posts
    3,717

    Default

    How to Lose Friends

    Friday, February 24, 2006; A14



    AMONG MANY other things, the president's job description requires him to keep abreast of economic and political developments around the world; respond to disasters such as Hurricane Katrina; oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; appoint people to run embassies and government departments; come up with solutions to the health care crisis, the education crisis, the energy crisis; and represent the United States at major international conferences. When he does any of these tasks poorly, the American people and their politicians are well within their rights to criticize him, as we often do, too.

    On the other hand, the president's job description does not include taking a personal interest in decisions about whether foreign companies based in countries that are America's allies should be allowed to purchase other foreign companies that are based in countries that are America's allies. This is particularly the case when such purchases do not have any discernible impact on American security whatsoever.

    In other words, the White House's "admission" that President Bush was unaware that Dubai Ports World, a company based in the United Arab Emirates, had purchased Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., a company based in Britain -- and thereby obtained management control of the business operations of six U.S. ports -- strikes us as completely unnecessary. Why should the president know? Twelve government departments and agencies, including the departments of Treasury, State, Defense and Homeland Security, had examined the deal over a three-month period and found it acceptable. Perhaps the White House should have anticipated this week's political storm and prepared for it. But because the objections are irrational, even that complaint is questionable.

    At a hearing yesterday, senators complained that they had not been notified of the transaction -- though, as Deputy Treasury Secretary Robert M. Kimmitt noted, the companies involved had issued a press release on the matter in November. Senators complained, in the face of considerable testimony to the contrary, that the government's review had been "casual" or "cursory." And, in attempting to cast aspersions on the reliability of the United Arab Emirates, they reached back to its behavior before Sept. 11, 2001 -- a standard of judging under which neither the Clinton nor Bush administrations would fare all that well.

    In fact, as administration officials testified yesterday, since Sept. 11 the United Arab Emirates has been a valuable ally. Last year, according to Deputy Defense Secretary Gordon R. England, 56 U.S. warships, 590 U.S. Military Sealift Command ships and 75 allied warships were hosted in the United Arab Emirates -- at a port managed by the very same Dubai Ports World. To our knowledge, none of the objecting members of Congress have expressed alarm at the national security implications of that situation. Yet the six ports now in question will be far less dependent on Dubai's goodwill, because security there is controlled by the Coast Guard and U.S. Customs and Border Protection, no matter who's doing the accounting. American longshoremen will load and unload cargo, no matter who pays their salaries.

    If members of Congress really want to burnish their "tough on terrorism" credentials, they should start by focusing on real presidential lapses, which are sufficient, and forget about the phony ones. As Mr. England said yesterday, the war on terrorism demands that the United States "strengthen the bonds of friendship and security . . . especially with our friends and allies in the Arab world." That means allies should be treated "equally and fairly around the world and without discrimination," he said. And he suggested that it is the terrorists who want the United States to "become distrustful, they want us to become paranoid and isolationist."

    If so, they must be feeling pretty content right now.

    © 2006 The Washington Post Company
    ..............
    Be for Peace, but don't be for the Enemy!
    -Big Russ

    Learn from the mistakes of others; you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.

    Quote Originally Posted by nyckftbl View Post
    LOL....dont you people have anything else to do besides b*tch about our b*tching?

  11. #61
    Forum Member
    Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jasper45
    You proof of this how? This has to be the most laughable thing I have read on here yet. Blind allegations are so much fun.
    Give me a break.

    Blind, hardly. Im not one of the many here who are blinded by their love for this country to the point that they belive beyond all doubt anything GW does or says.

    Proof, I have no proof. Its just what I think. We are still alowed to think here, or did GW target that as well?

    Im sorry, but I just have a very hard time with the idea that somebody that comes accross as such a dope can actually be running things.
    Fire Marshal/Safety Officer

    IAAI-NFPA-IAFC/VCOS-Retired IAFF

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government"
    RUSH-Tom Sawyer

    Success is when skill meets opportunity
    Failure is when fantasy meets reality

  12. #62
    MembersZone Subscriber
    Diane E's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 1998
    Location
    Maryland (but always a Long Islander first)
    Posts
    1,103

    Default Didn't see this as I read through the posts...

    AP Newsbreak: Ex-Clinton official helped lobbyist defend Dubai ports deal

    By DEVLIN BARRETT
    Associated Press Writer

    February 23, 2006, 4:19 PM EST

    WASHINGTON -- A principal in former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright's consulting firm went with a lobbyist to Capitol Hill to defend a Dubai company's ports security deal, but was rebuffed by Sen. Charles Schumer, The Associated Press has learned.

    Carol Browner, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency under Bill Clinton, is a principal at The Albright Group LLC.

    On Feb. 14, Browner went to Capitol Hill with former Long Island Democratic congressman Tom Downey, a registered lobbyist, on behalf of the Dubai-based company DP World, whose approval to take over port operations at six major U.S. cities has created political havoc.

    The Albright Group's role in the effort by DP World to win government approval illustrates the intersection of government, global commerce, and long-standing relationships among powerful people.

    Albright's spokeswoman said she was not personally involved in the U.S. ports issue. But the company does work with Downey's lobby firm, Downey McGrath Group Inc., and Albright herself was in China consulting for DP World in recent days.

    Both Albright's and Schumer's offices confirmed that Browner was present during the meeting. At the time, the senator was rallying opposition within Congress to the DP World deal.

    "After we first criticized the deal, Browner and Downey met with our staff and were unpersuasive," said Schumer spokesman Israel Klein. "Senator Schumer is going to continue to fight this deal."

    Downey did not return calls seeking comment.

    Calls to Browner were referred to Albright Group spokeswoman Jamie Smith, who confirmed that Browner "definitely made some calls around and even went up and checked in with Sen. Schumer's office."

    Smith would not say who Browner called.

    Downey's Web site lists Albright as a client.

    Smith acknowledged that The Albright Group referred DP World to Downey. But, she stressed: "We do not lobby. We didn't hire them on this."

    During the past week, as U.S. criticism was building over the deal, Albright and others at her firm were working for DP World in China on trade issues there.

    "Secretary Albright was in China with government officials and people in the private sector to help them better understand DP World's interests in China," said Smith, who declined to elaborate.

    DP World is a state-run company based in the United Arab Emirates, which has sparked concern that their operation of U.S. terminals could lead to infiltration by terrorists.

    Smith said DP World "is a great company, and we are going to continue to work with them on China," she added.

    Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's spokesman, Philippe Reines, said neither Browner nor anyone else at Albright's firm sought to sway the senator on the issue. Clinton, D-N.Y., was one of the first lawmakers to offer legislation blocking the deal.

    At a Thursday briefing before the Senate Armed Services Committee, Clinton and other lawmakers pressed administration officials to explain their decision to approve the DP World deal.

    Clinton called the approval process "a failure of judgment" because officials "did not alert the president, the secretary of the treasury and the secretary of defense" that several critical U.S. ports would be turned over to a foreign country.

    Opponents of the deal are seeking an emergency floor vote in Congress next week to delay approval before a scheduled March 2 takeover of operations in the six U.S. ports.

    The chairman of the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey said Thursday the agency would file a lawsuit in New Jersey state court seeking to cancel the 30-year-lease for the marine operations at Port Newark that DP World would own.

    Copyright 2006 Newsday Inc.
    "When I was young, my ambition was to be one of the people who made a difference in this world. My hope is to leave the world a little better for my having been there."
    -- Jim Henson (1936 - 1990)

  13. #63
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    He doesnt. The VP runs the show. Has since day one. Bush is just a figure head, put in place because the Republicans knew DC could never win an election on his own. Besides, its much easier to "slip" things by peope when your operating from the shadows like a VP does.

    Here, I brought your post from before, word for word. You do have quite the conspiracy theory going here; however, it is just that, a theory, speculation. What it is not is fact. I love it when people want “facts” for something they disagree with, yet expect others to just accept their opinion as fact, with no proof, period.

    Proof, I have no proof. Its just what I think. We are still alowed to think here, or did GW target that as well?

    What, now if someone questions your opinion you accuse them of restricting your right to free speech? Give me a break. Think and post what you like, just make sure you’re prepared to defend it. I thought that was the American way, or has the “left” taken that from us now?

  14. #64
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ThNozzleman
    Riiiight. It's painfully obvious which side is rolling in hypocrisy.
    Once again...
    Don't worry noz - we'll get some nice white people to run the ports so your side won't feel uncomfortable with with it's naked racism!
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  15. #65
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    2,503

    Default

    No profiling in the airports but keep those filthy animals out of the ports. Don't you know the democrats only want "white" foreigners to have those jobs? Brits - fine, arabs - No way! The lefts true colors are showing again! Hahahahaha
    I am a complacent liability to the fire service

  16. #66
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    Noz, you are really stretching more then normal here .
    Eh? Everything I posted is 100% true.
    American companies have made far more money providing contracted services to the Saudi's then they have or ever will provide us.
    And that has what to do with letting Saudi Arabia (a nation chock full of terrorists and their supporters) control ports here in America?
    Don't worry noz - we'll get some nice white people to run the ports so your side won't feel uncomfortable with with it's naked racism!
    Ummm...right. What the hell does racism have to do with it? This has nothing to do with protecting the individual rights of people, and everything to do with a nation that supports terrorism (and other vile practices against humanity) setting up shop in our nation's ports.
    You are getting more and more desperate in your paranoia.
    No profiling in the airports but keep those filthy animals out of the ports. Don't you know the democrats only want "white" foreigners to have those jobs? Brits - fine, arabs - No way! The lefts true colors are showing again! Hahahahaha
    No, scratch that; you've lost it completely, kid.

  17. #67
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    We are not talking about heavily armed military bases on foreign soil; we are talking about multiple ports on OUR soil
    I should have explained my position better, and with more detail. This company is not going to be responsible for the security maintained in these ports, which will still be the Coast Guard, as well as Customs. My whole point with pointing out our military bases was simple. It is possible we are reaching out to other nations who have helped in the war on terror, which the UAE has; in fact, they have been very helpful. This is not big business, its politics, if this is the case. I have not decided whether this is a good or bad idea yet; on the surface, it looks bad, but the reason it does is that the UAE is an Arab country. I sure would hate to have that racism tag thrown around. It s odd how the tide has turned though.
    If Bush had blocked this from the beginning, I am quite sure that many on the left would have taken the opposite position, and perhaps called him a racist, or a bigot.
    I also find it odd how people are screaming now for keeping this control in the US, when in fact it hasn’t been for some time now. If this indeed a true security threat, kick all of these other companies out, prevent any other companies from bidding.
    Last edited by jasper45; 02-24-2006 at 06:09 PM.

  18. #68
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    I also find it odd how people are screaming now for keeping this control in the US, when in fact it hasn’t been for some time now.
    That's not the point. The point is the glaring hypocrisy of Bush and his neocon imperialists. Thousands upon thousands have died in Bush's stupid war on a nation that had less to do with terrorism than Saudi Arabia...yet, he's still wheeling and dealing with these people (as he has for years) in spite of the terrible human rights violations of its authoritarian Islamic theocracy. To call these bastards our "allies" is ridiculous, at best. It's all about the money, oil, and corporate expansion. It always has been. It's not so much the fact that Saudi Arabia is gaining control of some of our ports, but the complete discrepancy between our treatment of nations, depending on whether or not they wheel and deal the way our government wants them to. Anyone here want to take a shot at explaining just why we destroyed Iraq, yet welcome the Sauds and their nasty oppressive government with open arms?
    Get it?

  19. #69
    Forum Member
    Dave1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Gator Country
    Posts
    4,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jasper45
    Here, I brought your post from before, word for word. You do have quite the conspiracy theory going here; however, it is just that, a theory, speculation. What it is not is fact. I love it when people want “facts” for something they disagree with, yet expect others to just accept their opinion as fact, with no proof, period.




    What, now if someone questions your opinion you accuse them of restricting your right to free speech? Give me a break. Think and post what you like, just make sure you’re prepared to defend it. I thought that was the American way, or has the “left” taken that from us now?
    Easy friend. I was just giving my opinion, nothing more. We are still permitted opioins, are we not? And since it is an opinion, I have no facts. I never said I did, nor did I suggest this to be the absolute truth. Do you often jump on people for thier opinion?

    And just so we understand each other, this isnt about right or left, as Im neither. My view is neutral as far as political parties. Its just for me, after hearing the man speak for the last 6 years, he doesnt come accross as being the sharpest tool in the shed. And for me, that raises questions.Thats all.
    Fire Marshal/Safety Officer

    IAAI-NFPA-IAFC/VCOS-Retired IAFF

    "No his mind is not for rent, to any god or government"
    RUSH-Tom Sawyer

    Success is when skill meets opportunity
    Failure is when fantasy meets reality

  20. #70
    Forum Member
    ThNozzleman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Jefferson City, TN
    Posts
    4,339

    Default

    Its just for me, after hearing the man speak for the last 6 years, he doesnt come accross as being the sharpest tool in the shed. And for me, that raises questions.Thats all.
    Maybe pulling all those high g's while defending Texas from the Viet Cong addled his brain!

  21. #71
    the 4-1-4
    Jasper 45's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    ...A great place, on a Great Lake
    Posts
    2,784

    Default

    Easy friend. I was just giving my opinion, nothing more. We are still permitted opioins, are we not? And since it is an opinion, I have no facts. I never said I did, nor did I suggest this to be the absolute truth. Do you often jump on people for thier opinion?

    Opinions are fine, but you did not refer to your “theory” as being that, it was spoken from a factual point of view. That’s all, no more or less.
    In addition, yes, if I disagree with an opinion I will voice it; is there now something wrong with that? I always thought that is what debate was all about. If you don’t like people questioning your opinion, don’t voice it.
    It really is not a big deal. I just found it odd that when confronted you make the accusation that I was somehow restricting your freedom of speech.

  22. #72
    Forum Member

    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Bossier Parrish, Louisiana
    Posts
    10,676

    Default

    Have made the decision that staying clear of the political debates is the wisest course of action.

  23. #73
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default Yo 4th

    I am curious if your opinions on this particular subject are something that the men at the firehouse kitchen table agree with. I know firemen and I know westsiders. I bet your're in the minority on this one. Be honest now
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

  24. #74
    MembersZone Subscriber
    E229Lt's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Posts
    2,987

    Default

    Why does this have to be a Left vs Right debate. How about a few people just give their gut feeling, you know, what YOU think. Not how each side is spinning it.

    For me, I'm just not comfortable with the idea because that little voice in my head is yelling really loud right now.

  25. #75
    Forum Member
    MIKEYLIKESIT's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Division 24
    Posts
    4,360

    Default

    Artie I think this is one case where the left and the right both want to take some time to sort through all of this.
    IAFF-IACOJ PROUD

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. An open letter to George Wendt
    By FlyingKiwi in forum Hurricane Katrina & Rita Forums
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-08-2005, 09:37 AM
  2. George A. Wendt-Boonton, NJ Fire Department
    By NJFFSA16 in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 54
    Last Post: 06-29-2005, 07:27 PM
  3. Another George Wendt Thread; or When will there be a change?
    By blancety in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 10-10-2004, 02:10 AM
  4. Calling George Wendt
    By glowpop in forum Firefighters Forum
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 12-04-2002, 10:21 AM
  5. This is all getting too heavy for me
    By EastKyFF in forum The Off Duty Forums
    Replies: 56
    Last Post: 11-28-2002, 10:39 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts

Log in

Click here to log in or register