Government Sells Port Authority to UAE Royal Family - Page 4

Deleted inadvertently rude post.

Don't worry, with Bush's illegal alien amnesty and unending thirst for cheap labor our population will equal India's soon, then on to top China!
No more American middle class? No more drinking water for california, florida, texas, and nevada? No more parkland left? Pollution problem worse? Unending sprawl from sea to shining sea?
So what!? Companies will have cheap labor! Isn't that what its all about?

George W. Bush is the worst President in the history of the United States.
And I'm no liberal. This is coming from a Republican.

Steve I hear you, a Bush Republican is not by any means a Reagan republican. I also am a former republican, all it took 1 term of Dubya and a blind republican Congress to wake me up. Congrats on leaving that shameful party. They have sold out the American people at every chance they have had. I urge everyone to get registered to vote and lets change this crap.

Yup. I am thoroughly disgusted with both Bush (who I didnt vote for because I knew he wasnt worthy to be in the White House in the first place) and Congress. Except for a few diehard true Republicans, the rest of them are jackals and suckups like Arlen Specter. Here folks are saying that the population is growing too fast and there is an outcry against illegal immigration and this yutz wants to increase legal immigration which is already at 1 million per year!

Wake up America!
http://www.fairus.org

I and others have already.

Thanks SDW!

It really is the toughest thing about pet ownership.

Sam was actually 14 ( Dalmation/Lab mix, black and white and about 95 pounds ). Sam was very gentle, and just wanted to be everyone's friend. I got him when he was 2 when an old girl friend of mine and I broke up 12 years ago ( good thing to as she didn't have a clue how to take care of a big dog ).

Anyway, The term " sluggish " was a quote from the article in my local paper. A conclusion from the federal reserve survey.

I haven't had time to look extensively for the data ( as I knew you'd ask ). The survey is called the " Comprehensive Survey of Consumer Finances " and it's done every 3 years. The survey is done by the Federal Reserve.

The article is by Sue Kirchhoff ( Gannette News Service ).
It did add here ( in a local insert ) that locally the area incomes for Polk and Marion counties did rise to be fair.


It also said that from 2001 to 2004 the average family income fell 2.3 percent.

I'll let the rest go for being so understanding about my recent loss.

If your point is that we have an immigration problem and that Bush has not done enough to combat it, I agree.

I don't know how you get from that to "no more American middle class" and "no drinking water" and then proceed to blame him for "unending sprawl." That's a bit extreme.

Speaking of extreme: You truly believe that Bush is the worst President in US history. I find that both unjustified and unsupported. On what are you basing this assertion? Is it because you disagree with the Iraq war? Or that you too disagree with him on immigration? Or both? The fact is that while I'm sure you can point to several areas of disagreement with Bush, you'd be hard pressed to justify your statement with any objective facts.

OK, here we are again. They have "sold out the American people.". How? And more importantly...while you as a "Republican" may disagree with the administration on any number of issues, where are you going to go with your vote instead?

High immigration levels lead to sprawl, dwindling wages for all Americans but especially the poor and middle class, and a few States are in danger of severe water shortages due to uncontrolled population growth.

Why is Bush so bad?
1. Deficit out of control
2. Skewed tax cuts that increase the divide between the haves and have-nots
3. Did not capture Bin laden, let him escape into Pakistan where our 'ally' refuses to capture him.
4. A war in Iraq that not only wasn't necessary, it is actually causing more problems than before.
5. Iran buiding Nuclear Reactors under his watch.
6. Borders as unsecure as before. After 9/11 you'd think Bush would have sealed the borders better. He did nothing because of fear of offending his girlfriend Vicente Fox and because his business buddies did not want to see their supply of cheap labor cut off.
7. A dirty, sleazy admninistration made up of Dick Cheney and other assorted scum who give no bid contracts to companies they have ties to.
8. High gas prices with no end in sight.
9. Relaxed pollution controls.
10. Refuses to site Japan, China, and other nations for currency violations that hurt our industry or whats left of it.
11. Proposes an Arab country with previous ties to the Taliban and money laundering for terrorists, take over ports in the United States. This one is so ridiculous even I couldnt believe that Bush was this big a dink.
12. Homeland Security is a big, disorganized mess.
13. Katrina-mishandled from before the storm even hit.

I'm sure I will come up with more, but those are some of the reasons why Bush is the worst President in the history of the US. That moron didn't deserve to step foot anywhere near the White House. Shame on the Democrats for not being able to nominate someone better than Kerry.

Steve forgot about 100 other things, look the president is suppose to represent the people, not the corporations above all else. Only a republican zealot couldnt see this.
We need a new party for sure but the two would never allow that. So we have slim pickens to choose from. Thats why I like it when both partys control parts of govt. One party running the show has shown to show blatant corruption everywhere even to the point of not obeying its own laws with border enforcement and selling out strategic interests in our country to foreign state owned companys for christs sake.
Anyone defending Bush because he 's republican has lost the ability for rational thought. Both partys suck, vote out all the old farts..............everyone of em and outlaw lobiest.

Where?

Now...to the list...while you certainly have a point on several items...in your rush...you've included some interesting ones:


And what do you propose? Should we invade? Bomb them? Sanctions? Install a democracy? What is the solution?


And the POTUS is responsible for this how exactly?

EDIT: In real terms...these are not currently the highest prices we have ever seen. Secondly...as for "no end in sight"...we actually peaked (fall of '05) below the historically highest prices and have come down. Not to where we were say 1-2 years ago...but your statement is somewhat dubious.


Ummm...I don't know that Bush actually proposed this business deal. But, that aside, well...the other things in regard to this have already been "debated" for about 4 pages...and it should be clear...this is a mountain from a mole-hill.

You're hysterical. It's like jimmac squared.

1. The deficit is decreasing. Oh sure..it's big. But it's not as high as a percentage of GDP as it was during parts of 1980s. I agree we need to eliminate it, but it's not a crisis.

2. If we're going to cut taxes, we have to cut taxes for those that pay the taxes, not those who don't. Ironically, Bush didn't even do this. The lower brackets have been dropped significantly, for example. Furthermore, what is your problem with the so called "rich?" Does someone who makes $200,000 a year not deserve to keep his money? Is it the government's job to redistribute his wealth to the "have nots?" Is the government the ultimate arbitor of social/monetary injustice? Under Bush's cuts, I...a middle income American, saw some substantial tax relief too. Is that wrong?

3. "Let him" escape? Really...can you tell me what he or the military should have done differently? What decision did Bush make that caused him not to be caught?

4. That's your opinion, nothing more. I disagree that invading was unecessary and I certainly disagree that it has caused more problems than it has solved.

5. Ummm...OK. "His watch?" I'm not sure what that means. Are you saying that we have caused them to undertake this action? You understand they've had nuclear facilities for some time, yes? And as for "allowing" Iran to build nukes, what do you propose? Would you support an invasion or massive air strikes? I'm thinking you would not. How do we, how does any President stop Iran?

6. Agreed on immigration. It is my most serious point of disagreement with Bush.

7. That's just ridiculous rhetoric.

8. WOW! hahaha. Let me ask you...what do we do to lower gas prices? And furthermore, you do know we still pay less than half of what the rest of the world pays for gas, yes? Will you support a short-term solution until we no longer power cars on gas...such as drilling in ANWR or The Gulf?

9. Specifics, please.

10. Cite them? I'm not sure what that means.

11. Key word: Previous. Their actions since 9/11 have been positive. This is for the other thread, but I've still heard little reason not to let the deal go through other than UAE taking part in the Israeli boycott. Other than that, there is no concrete reason to disallow the deal. Our banking system is used for terrorism all the time. Maybe we shouldn't be allowed to own our own ports.

12. Uh. OK. How so?

13. Disagree. I think the pre-planning was excellent. The government was just not as prepared as it thought it was. For one thing, no one anticpated the absolutely incompetent response of Nagin and Blanco. As for the federal level, what should Bush have done differently? I'm not sure you understand the President's role in these situations. Other than invoking the Insurrection Act and militarizing New Orleans, I'm not sure what else he was supposed to do. Same goes for FEMA: Their job is to coordinate responses with local officials, not take over.


All I see is vague disagreements that look a lot like Democratic talking points. That certainly doesn't support you assertion that Bush is "the worst President in history."

Edit: I forgot to address your first statements.

I must ask, how did you conclude that high immigration states lead to sprawl? Where are these water shortages you are talking about?

This is all a plan by the Republican leadership to allow Republican legislators to distance themselves from The President in preparation for the mid term elections. Republicans need to have something about which they disagree with the Regime so that they can argue against those calling them blind Regime loyalists. They now have the port deal in addition to the border issue. Rove's fat little fingerprints are all over this one.

You could be right about that, actually. It could be one way to combat "Party Fatigue" for the 06 and 08 elections.
I wouldn't put that past Rove.

On Iran, the reactors should have been stopped before they were built with help from shrub's pal, Putin. Now that they are built and with the lunatic now in charge of Iran miltary action will happen, in my opinion. This time it will be a intenational effort.
Bush didnt propose the UAE deal, in fact he was kept out of the loop supposedly by his incompetent scheming staff. You would think he would be hesitant to approve of the deal but he came out in full force in favor of it, no doubt due to the fact that some of his staff actually has ties to the regime. Big surprise, eh?

The deficit is not decreasing. he allowed it to get this big didn't he?
Afghani tribesmen were sent to capture bin laden, not our troops. They allowed him to escape into pakistan, where he now lives amongst our 'allies'.
If you disagree that invading Iraq hasnt caused more problems than it solved than you are just ridiculous. No need for further clarifications.

Look, I'm no liberal. But to just support Bush because liberals put him down is ludicrous. Even his own Party members have come to the conclusion that he's an inept incompetent sleazebag.
From someone who usually votes Republican-George W. Bush is an abject failure as a President.

It looks like this story has come to a head.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/03/...ity/index.html

"UAE firm to transfer port operations to 'U.S. entity'"

Dubai gave up. It's just as well.

How many people want to bet that that "US entity" being mentioned is somehow connected to Bush/Cheney/Halliburton?

Too bad for them.

Yet another casualty of the American public's irrational fears, ignorance and prejudice.

I have a ten pence piece already on that one.

Actually I think it was a result of common sense, intelligence, and being fed up with shrub's arrogance and incompetence.

Congress actually did something right! I am shocked.
Now, no illegal alien amnesty!

Almost certainly not.

Actually, I'm split on this one. I'm leaning towards agreeing with Chris here. That's where my prejudice against Bush gets involved, though. If it wasn't him, I honestly wouldn't question the deal. I'm trying to check myself there, so had I been in Congress (and not hopelessly bound by my party or my constituents) I probably would have approved this deal unless someone gave another reason why not to. UAE is not a bad place. It's heavily business oriented, and would have no interest in terrorism, and would be sure to screen employees better than the US government itself, because if something went wrong here, it would be a disaster for them.

In the end, seeing the opposition, they played the conservative card to maintain their other business interests.

Something is very wrong with a party who is selling us less liberty and freedom from one side of their mouth and letting the arab/mexican run our borders and ports. Very Wrong indeed but the American people called them on this. Dirty bastards are selling out this country on everything.

I think Bush was doing the right thing for the wrong reason, while Congress did the wrong thing for the wrong reason.

Nods.

It's all over now, but I do wonder how different Congress' reaction might have been if the firm in question was, say, Chinese, Indian, Italian or Israeli, to take 4 random examples....

Or France or Germany or England (oh...wait)

You know...

1) The fact that you assume that Dubai Ports World's logistical (not security) management of these ports would lead to terrorist attacks in the U.S. reveals both your ignorance and prejudice.

2) The largest, deadliest terrorist attacks in U.S. history (9/11) happened with privately held American companies running the (airport/airline) security.

The irrationality comes from the fact the automatica assumption that anything connected to the Arab/Muslim world would lead to terrorism. These guys want to do business. If this had been a company in Germany (who sold weapons, and such to Saddam & Sons) or France (who sold weapons, and such to Saddam & Sons). I doubt anyone would have blinked an eye. This is pure politics. It looks bad, that's all.

1. The deficit is projected to decrease and should be smaller this year than last. In any case, we don't disagree that we need to eliminate it.

2. That was a military decision that you're criticizing solely on the basis of outcome. If he had been caught, you'd be hailing it. Either way, you don't know that only Afghans were sent to capture him. I'd like to see some documentation on that one.

3. Nice argument on Iraq. Very well thought out and you make several good points. [/sarcasm].

4. Even his own party? Why...because they disagree with him on the ports deal?


Your assertion was that Bush will go down as one of the worst Presidents in history. To make that point, you're going to need a lot more than a list of issues on which you disagree.

Are you saying that I am "someone who thoroughly supports this administrations and its policies of abusing the Terror Alert system to get votes"? Please do elaborate.


Because it is not convenient for you.

Not "hot and bothered" at all. A little dismayed...but hey. Just pointing out a pertinent fact that this hysteria was simply about politics...not a real security threat.

He's referring to when Kerry was up in the polls, the administration would raise the terror alerts to flip it back to Bush's favor. It's a well known, and now admitted, practice in the run up to the 2004 election.

Read the statement I quoted again.

OK I see the update. These smiley's aren't very indicative as a response. For example:

<-- Chewing gum while thinking hard...

or

<-- I'm having a bad day.

The military already said that they used Afghan tribesmen to smoke out Bin Laden after we had him trapped. This is common knowledge already. They allowed someone else to do what our military should have been doing. The men on the ground said they were shocked at this. The tribesmen allowed Bin Laden to escape into Pakistan, where he now lives amongst our 'allies'.
Bush has an approval rating of 37%. Obviously Republicans can't satnd him either. I'm suprised his approval rating is even that high, the man is a trainwreck of arrogance and ignorance all rolled up into one. Add a dash of incompetence and you have the worst President in the history of the US.

Bingo!

Hillary was a large pusher for the resistance to the sale. Yet another proff of how unfit she is as a presindetial candidate.

For the advocates for an open liberal society there should be no question in this debate. Port facilities operation should be open for everyone who see an interest in such business. This is going to affect the ME elites (The conservative "old royal family"-type, the liberal "How the heck to we develop our countries?"-type and the extreme "Blow up all we don´t like"-type) view on how the west really see their role in the internationale society in a VERY negative way.