or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Government Sells Port Authority to UAE Royal Family
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Government Sells Port Authority to UAE Royal Family - Page 3

post #81 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
The reason people are upset is because the the U.S.A. is being sold out by its own govt, by the corporations to the point they cant even see why its wrong. Same thing is going on with the mexican invasion, millions of illegals and bush & the republicans took 5 years just to start talking about it during a time of so called war.

Basically all that has happened is that you voted in a group of people who were totally devoid of principles.

This is not really a partisan or left/right issue - it is more one of morality and standards.

Get rid of them and get someone in the White House (Rep or Dem) who has principles and personal integrity before America is completely sold down the Swannee. That's all it takes. Not so difficult.
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #82 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam
So far, my problems with the deal are this:

Why was it something that was attempted to be done without serious review?

And yes, I must admit that I do have some problems with international entities (particularly an entity which is not really purely an economic entity but also is a state) owning and operating entry points . . . I guess I just kinda believe in the idea of a nation rather than simply flows of International Capitol without roost or responsibility . . . .

here is a question: why were we soo up in arms when Chinese state-owned Gas-Prom wanted to purchase ours? is there a similarity here? Are some of the people who were suspicous about that also suspicious about this sale?

Now that people are pointing out issues with relationships between UAE and 'terrorists' I have to wonder about it, att leastt up to the point of wanting a far more in depth level of circumspection.


. . . . but really, at some point before I take a vitriolic stand either way, I'm gonna do a little research . . . right now = too busy

Nice post.


I see a broker in this deal. Who knows for sure but I for one would not be in the least bit taken back to come to find out that "Daddy" Bush 41 has been up to some deal-making (all brokers get their cut in the deal). It is just a bit strange for a president who has never vetoed a thing to come out and threaten a veto like this.

I agree with pfflam that we should reserve ultimate judgement until further info is revealed.

If only this admin was more of the nature of being clear, honest and truthful...

Fellows

Ohh and Bush suggests that this is a private business matter..

I take issue with that notion. Around 3,000 people lost their lives on Bush's watch in 2001. Since then more lives have been lost in wars in the middle east.

I believe a matter of major sea port management of 6 major American sea ports is a public matter.

The coast guard is wonderful and all please don't mistake however those who manage the ports in my humble opinion should be held accountable to the scrutiny of the American people.

For the record, I don't trust Bush.
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #83 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
The reason people are upset is because the the U.S.A. is being sold out by its own govt, by the corporations to the point they cant even see why its wrong. Same thing is going on with the mexican invasion, millions of illegals and bush & the republicans took 5 years just to start talking about it during a time of so called war.

Exactly, and along with them are large numbers of OTM's.

Join me at http://www.fairus.org
post #84 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Basically all that has happened is that you voted in a group of people who were totally devoid of principles.

This is not really a partisan or left/right issue - it is more one of morality and standards.

Get rid of them and get someone in the White House (Rep or Dem) who has principles and personal integrity before America is completely sold down the Swannee. That's all it takes. Not so difficult.

I wonder if the three stooges are available? Im sure they would and could do a better job.
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #85 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
I wonder if the three stooges are available? Im sure they would and could do a better job.

Or even better, Iggy and the Stooges - in fact that would be great!
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
What is Faith? When your good deed pleases you and your evil deed grieves you, you are a believer. What is Sin? When a thing disturbs the peace of your heart, give it up - Prophet Muhammad
Reply
post #86 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
Nice post.


I see a broker in this deal. Who knows for sure but I for one would not be in the least bit taken back to come to find out that "Daddy" Bush 41 has been up to some deal-making (all brokers get their cut in the deal). It is just a bit strange for a president who has never vetoed a thing to come out and threaten a veto like this.

I agree with pfflam that we should reserve ultimate judgement until further info is revealed.

If only this admin was more of the nature of being clear, honest and truthful...

Fellows

Ohh and Bush suggests that this is a private business matter..

I take issue with that notion. Around 3,000 people lost their lives on Bush's watch in 2001. Since then more lives have been lost in wars in the middle east.

I believe a matter of major sea port management of 6 major American sea ports is a public matter.

The coast guard is wonderful and all please don't mistake however those who manage the ports in my humble opinion should be held accountable to the scrutiny of the American people.

For the record, I don't trust Bush.

Yay Fellows!!!


The term that you used perfectly illustrates the problem with the present reigning ideology:

PUBLIC

The Current Neo-Con Regime simply does not beleive in anything 'Public', there is no longer any Public Space, or any Public accountability, or any Public Common Good . . . in the eyes of the Neo-Cons there is no such thing as 'The Public'

. . . the problem though, is that a real Public is left getting shafted by their refusal to realize the realities of Public needs!!
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #87 of 195
Thomas Friedman has tossed in his two cents and it is a good read.

Nick

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #88 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by pfflam

The Current Neo-Con Regime simply does not beleive in anything 'Public', there is no longer any Public Space, or any Public accountability, or any Public Common Good . . . in the eyes of the Neo-Cons there is no such thing as 'The Public'

Is this still a neo-con regime? Seriously. Wolfowitz is gone. Feith is gone. Perle is gone. All of the architects of the Iraq invasion are gone. A few days ago, Fukuyama jumped ship.

To a degree, I can see this port issue as really just another business deal, with specific national interests in exporting American jobs to friendly ME countriesget ME countries, businesses, and individuals to have a vested interest in the American economy and they will be less likely to blow shit up. Additionally, such a tactic allows the ME to police itself: if your uncle makes a pretty good living in a US port, why would you blow things up that might hurt him? It's the standard economic leverage we've been deploying (with pretty good success) for a long, long time.

The thing that pisses me off about all of this is how Bush, in his cabinet address, tossed out that little "if you oppose me you're a racist" card specifically because the idiot Dems would go running after it like a dog after a tennis ball.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #89 of 195
Is there any significance to the fact that UAE is not a 'company' -as Freidman says it is- but is, in fact, a state . . . ie: a country, not just a corporate entity?
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

Reply
post #90 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by trumptman
Thomas Friedman has tossed in his two cents and it is a good read.

Nick

Yes he makes a good point and to some degree I agree with his point 99% of the time.

However THIS case is different.

This is a case of a company of the state ie: state owned.

It is a mistake in this case.

Fellows

Something else to consider is that the British owned company answered to shareholders and this UAE company has no shareholders.
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #91 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
Yes he makes a good point and to some degree I agree with his point 99% of the time.

However THIS case is different.

This is a case of a company of the state ie: state owned.

It is a mistake in this case.

Fellows

It isn't really state owned... It is owned by the Royal family of the country...
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #92 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
It isn't really state owned... It is owned by the Royal family of the country...

I think I understand what you are trying to say but indeed it is not a private company, not a public company indeed it is a state owned company.

State owned meaning the government can do as it wishes to and through this "company".

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #93 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
Something else to consider is that the British owned company answered to shareholders and this UAE company has no shareholders.

Does that really matter? And, if so, why?
post #94 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
Does that really matter? And, if so, why?

I believe it does.

Why?

accountability.

Fellows
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
May the peace of the Lord be with you always

Share your smile, Have respect for others, and be loving to all peoples

Paul in Athens: Acts 17 : 16-34
Reply
post #95 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by segovius
Basically all that has happened is that you voted in a group of people who were totally devoid of principles.

This is not really a partisan or left/right issue - it is more one of morality and standards.

Get rid of them and get someone in the White House (Rep or Dem) who has principles and personal integrity before America is completely sold down the Swannee. That's all it takes. Not so difficult.

I can fully understand disagreeing with the policies of the administration. What I can not understand is thinking like you've demonstrated in this post. It's complete polarization that really disqualifies everything you may say afterwards. It's also a convenient way of not really having to discuss issues or jusitfy your positions on them. Instead, you just dismiss the administration as immoral and lacking in integrity and of selling out America...therefore anything they do must not be in the interests of the country.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #96 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I believe it does.

Why?

accountability.

Fellows

Accountablity for what?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #97 of 195
I think selling are ports to any nation is a bad idea (but I'm all for selling Bush, maybe to his buddies)

Here's a fun fact, does anyone know why the UAE or more specifically Dubai (the richest Arab nation) is so interested in are ports and why in the last few years they have spent so much money?

The answer... There running out of oil! by 2016 there oil reserves will be depleted and there trying to turn there country (which is beautiful) into a resort for people in the west, so thats a big reason they have "cleaned up".

But that is still no reason to completely trust them, the ruling family has absolute control and lets say they have a change of heart, are we willing to gamble the security of this country?

Dubai is only interested in maintaining there wealth and money, and like history has proven thats the perfect mix for corruption, we can't be sure they won't sell us out for the right price.

Anyway it's late and i'm starting to not make sense so tomorrow (later) I'll fix my post and add a few things more that have not been discused.
MacBook 1.83GHz, 1GB of Ram --> A more elegant notebook, for a more civilized age

An apple a day, keeps Microsoft away
Reply
MacBook 1.83GHz, 1GB of Ram --> A more elegant notebook, for a more civilized age

An apple a day, keeps Microsoft away
Reply
post #98 of 195
Well , I think you lot may get a little more upset when you find out that A LOT US airports are controlled by ......

Clue : Not a US company.

But hey, you knew that already ?

Whilst your having a cry think about this.

What will happen to YOUR job when every other country says NO MORE US OWNERSHIP ??

I think most of you here have this totally out of context , they are not buying any ports at all. Go check the facts.


PS . If you want to get upset about something go have a look at the US trade position . US consumers are selling out the country as fast as they can. Start worrying about China, the next super mega power.
It's a matter of taste
Reply
It's a matter of taste
Reply
post #99 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Fellowship
I believe it does.

Why?

accountability.

Fellows

What if it was a privately held (U.S.) corporation?

P.S. The shareholder "accountability" you refer to is accountibilitty for profits only. Nothing more.
post #100 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Apple
But that is still no reason to completely trust them, the ruling family has absolute control and lets say they have a change of heart, are we willing to gamble the security of this country?

This deal does not "gamble the security of this country". Stop it. Security still lies with the U.S. authorities. It is a business deal to manage the ports (probably more efficiently, in fact, than the previous owners).

Quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Apple
Dubai is only interested in maintaining there wealth and money, and like history has proven thats the perfect mix for corruption, we can't be sure they won't sell us out for the right price.

And this makes them different from any other profit-making enterprise (U.S.-based or not) how?
post #101 of 195
The bottom line is our U.S. govt is for sale to the multinational corporations, and now state owned corporations. Its all about paying for those reelection campaigns and they dont have the scrupels to say no. So in the end we have people like Bush representing the UAE, the illegal mexican, or building the next superpower China. New Orleans whats that?
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
VOTE OUT ALL INCUMBENTS! Its the only way we can clean up Congress.
Reply
post #102 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Accountablity for what?


I've been busy the last few days because I had to put my dog that I've had for 12 years to sleep. But I'm back now.

So I'll answer 2 questions that you've asked at once. Yes Bush is selfish.

He doesn't care if he sinks his own party with bad press.

My local paper the other day had an article on the front page about the federal comprehensive survey on personal finance done every 3 years. Do you know what they found? After the sluggish recovery of the last recession only the upper crust gained. The poor lost ground again because a lot of them had to get new jobs with lower wages ( let's do some hamburger " manufacturing " ). Those that kept their jobs didn't see their salaries grow as fast as they should. So the poor are behind even more now.

These are facts found by our own government SDW.

And before you start yes he is responsible for the sluggish recovery with his inept handling of the recession ( and we've been all over that ) spending huge amounts on stupid wars and ineffective measures in a time of economic strife .

This business about the ports is just another example. He'll do anything for business if he sees a profit. He doesn't care who falls through the cracks. Even his own party.

Then there's the business of the unnecessary wars he's waged. But we've been all over that as well ( where's OSB or the WMD? ).

So yes he should be accountable for all of that. Just as the UAE should be if they're going to own one of our ports.. The fact that they have no shareholders means they can do or say anything they want.

Unfortunately Bush will probably get away scott free from consequences to any of this and talk about how he'd do it again in his memoirs ( just like Nixon ).

We'll just have to settle for the bitter lesson of what kind of person not to elect in the future.

I for one will be satisfied just to get rid of someone so blatantly bad for our country.

You can poo, poo and spin doctor this all you want but the cat's out of the bag now for the bulk of the rest of us.

Why the hell doesn't Bush go hunting with Cheney?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #103 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
This deal does not "gamble the security of this country". Stop it. Security still lies with the U.S. authorities. It is a business deal to manage the ports (probably more efficiently, in fact, than the previous owners).

Why should I? This is a free country, where we have the right of free speech and if I want to say something I can, and you can't order me to stop. Second if I feel that this will not help with security only make it worse, it is my belief and I'll ask you to respect that. Third prove to me that my making this deal it will help us?

Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
And this makes them different from any other profit-making enterprise (U.S.-based or not) how?

That's my point, that why I said history has shown us... thanks for helping me make my point.

oh and those companies are usually private owned when it's state owned there is a whole lot more risk... again look at history.
MacBook 1.83GHz, 1GB of Ram --> A more elegant notebook, for a more civilized age

An apple a day, keeps Microsoft away
Reply
MacBook 1.83GHz, 1GB of Ram --> A more elegant notebook, for a more civilized age

An apple a day, keeps Microsoft away
Reply
post #104 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Chris Cuilla
What if it was a privately held (U.S.) corporation?

P.S. The shareholder "accountability" you refer to is accountibilitty for profits only. Nothing more.

Profits aren't the only thing shared with shareholders. It's anything that might affect those profits. Like doing something the host country might not like. This move is just stupid.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #105 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Apple
Why should I? This is a free country, where we have the right of free speech and if I want to say something I can, and you can't order me to stop. Second if I feel that this will not help with security only make it worse, it is my belief and I'll ask you to respect that. Third prove to me that my making this deal it will help us?

Calm down sparky. I wasn't really "ordering" you to do anything. Second, if I think you are wrong (regarding the security claim you have made) I don't have to respect that view at all. You have the right to blather on all you want. Go for it. Finally, I never claimed "making this deal it will help us" (I assume you are talking about the port deal). I just think the security "concerns" are a red herring.



Quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Apple
when it's state owned there is a whole lot more risk... again look at history.

Do tell...
post #106 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac
This move is just stupid.

Please elaborate.
post #107 of 195
In the middle of ripping the Administration, Joe Klein weighs in on this.

Quote:
His Middle East-democracy campaign is Wilsonian. His support for the Dubai ports deal is reminiscent of Jimmy Carter's support for relinquishing control of the Panama Canaldifficult to explain politically but in the nation's best long-term interests. Does anyone actually believe that the management suits in Dubai would run those ports any differently from the suits in Britain? Wouldn't the new Arab owners be even more conscious of security, since they wouldn't want their newly bought assets destroyed by terrorists? Several intelligence experts told me last week that Dubai has been our most reliable Arab ally since Sept. 11. Even Richard Clarke, the former Bill Clinton and Bush counterterrorism specialist, who rarely has a kind word for this Administration, said, "The President is right on this one. Dubai has done everything we've asked of them. They tightened their banking system to prevent money laundering after 9/11. They've handed over al-Qaeda suspects."

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #108 of 195
On one hand, all the Republicans in Congress against this have me looking into why this is a good deal, but on the other hand it's still backed by this administration and is smells of ulterior motives.

There should be nothing wrong with this normally but I'd like all the details possible put on the table. Joe Klein makes a good point.
post #109 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by midwinter
To a degree, I can see this port issue as really just another business deal, with specific national interests in exporting American jobs to friendly ME countriesget ME countries, businesses, and individuals to have a vested interest in the American economy and they will be less likely to blow shit up. Additionally, such a tactic allows the ME to police itself: if your uncle makes a pretty good living in a US port, why would you blow things up that might hurt him? It's the standard economic leverage we've been deploying (with pretty good success) for a long, long time.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #110 of 195
By LIZ SIDOTI, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 54 minutes ago
WASHINGTON - Citing broad gaps in U.S. intelligence, the Coast Guard cautioned the Bush administration that it was unable to determine whether a United Arab Emirates-owned company might support terrorist operations, a Senate panel said Monday.

ADVERTISEMENT

The surprise disclosure came during a hearing on Dubai-owned DP World's plans to take over significant operations at six leading U.S. ports. The port operations are now handled by London-based Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Company.

"There are many intelligence gaps, concerning the potential for DPW or P&O assets to support terrorist operations, that precludes an overall threat assessment of the potential" merger," an undated Coast Guard intelligence assessment says.

"The breadth of the intelligence gaps also infer potential unknown threats against a large number of potential vulnerabilities," the document says.

Sen. Susan Collins (news, bio, voting record), chairman of the Senate Homeland Security committee, released an unclassified version of the document at a briefing Monday. With the deal under intense bipartisan criticism in Congress, the Bush administration agreed Sunday to DP World's request for a second review of the potential security risks related to its deal.

The document raised questions about the security of the companies' operations, the backgrounds of all personnel working for the companies, and whether other foreign countries influenced operations that affect security.

"This report suggests there were significant and troubling intelligence gaps," said Collins, R-Maine. "That language is very troubling to me."

Administration officials defended their decision not to trigger a 45-day review of national security implications of such a deal.

"In this case, the concerns that you're citing were addressed and resolved," Clay Lowry, the Treasury Department's assistant secretary for international affairs, told lawmakers.

The Coast Guard indicated to The Associated Press that it did not have serious reservations about the ports deal on Feb. 10, when the news organization first inquired about potential security concerns.

"Any time there's a new operator in a port our concern would be that that operator has complied with the (International Ship and Port Facility Security) ISPS code overseas and we just want to take a look at their track record," Cmdr. Jeff Carter, Coast Guard spokesman, said at the time. "And then we would look forward to working with them in the future ensuring they complied with all applicable regulations and international agreements," he added.

___

On the Net:

Coast Guard: http://www.uscg.mil
post #111 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Aurora
The bottom line is our U.S. govt is for sale to the multinational corporations, and now state owned corporations. Its all about paying for those reelection campaigns and they dont have the scrupels to say no. So in the end we have people like Bush representing the UAE, the illegal mexican, or building the next superpower China. New Orleans whats that?

Stop. Please. Stop the madness. Let's see some documentation that the the reelection campaigns are being paid for by the aforementioned parties. If you have none, then don't make the claim. The fact of the matter is that there is only one President is recent memory that had part of his campaign paid for by say, the Chinese. Guess who that was? Oh, and did I fail to mention how the US government under that same President sold advanced missile and computer technology to....wait for it...China?
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #112 of 195
When did China become our enemy? Did this happen while I was on vacation?
post #113 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
When did China become our enemy? Did this happen while I was on vacation?

Eastasia has always been our enemy!
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #114 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Eastasia has always been our enemy!

No! Eurasia has always been at war with Eastasia!


Eastasia is our ally!
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #115 of 195
Quote:
I've been busy the last few days because I had to put my dog that I've had for 12 years to sleep. But I'm back now.

First, sorry about your dog. Mine is 12 too..or will be shortly.


Quote:
y local paper the other day had an article on the front page about the federal comprehensive survey on personal finance done every 3 years. Do you know what they found? After the sluggish recovery of the last recession only the upper crust gained. The poor lost ground again because a lot of them had to get new jobs with lower wages ( let's do some hamburger " manufacturing " ). Those that kept their jobs didn't see their salaries grow as fast as they should. So the poor are behind even more now.

"Sluggish" is a subjective term. I find it odd that you'd use it considering you won't ackowledge my claim that the US economy is "strong, overall". Secondly, can we get that data that you implied existed in the article? I'd like to see what "the poor losing ground" means. I also want to know what "salaries no advancing as fast as they should means.


Quote:
And before you start yes he is responsible for the sluggish recovery with his inept handling of the recession ( and we've been all over that ) spending huge amounts on stupid wars and ineffective measures in a time of economic strife .

Economic strife? That's a bit, I don't know...extreme, isn't it? But still...I'll play ball. Answer me this: How, specifically, is GWB responsbile for what you claim was a "sluggish" recovery? I'd like to know what speicific (or "ineffective") policies you take issue with, and what you would have done differently. Secondly, what evidence do you have to support your apparent conclusion that Bush's spending on "stupid wars" had anything to do with what you perceive as a lackluster economy?




Quote:
This business about the ports is just another example. He'll do anything for business if he sees a profit. He doesn't care who falls through the cracks. Even his own party.

Usupported. This is your perception and nearly impossible to prove or back up with any sort of fact.


Quote:
Then there's the business of the unnecessary wars he's waged. But we've been all over that as well ( where's OSB or the WMD? ).

Hmm...I'm checking, but you still have not answered my question as to what your problems are with the port deal. Anyway....I again will point out that "unnecessary" is term of personal opinion. In addition, why are you using the word "wars" (plural)? If you label Iraq as an unnecessary war...what is the other one...or others?

Quote:
So yes he should be accountable for all of that. Just as the UAE should be if they're going to own one of our ports.. The fact that they have no shareholders means they can do or say anything they want.

No it doesn't. Not at all. They can't refuse our security operations, for example. They wouldn't be allowed to refuse entry of goods that we need. There any number of things they can't do. Also, my understand is that the company that would run the ports is a public-private company...a hybrid of sorts.

Quote:
Unfortunately Bush will probably get away scott free from consequences to any of this and talk about how he'd do it again in his memoirs ( just like Nixon ).

There it is. Bush is a criminal! He should be prosecuted for what he's done to this country! The bastard! But you know...we'll just ignore everything that the Hate America Left has done over the years to undermine national security, steal our incomes and destroy our economy. They should get off scott free too!


Quote:
I for one will be satisfied just to get rid of someone so blatantly bad for our country.

That statement really just shows how unreasonable and polarized you are. I don't agree with everything Bush has done nor Republicans in Congress... certainly. But to call him "bad for the country"...that just shows a lack of thinking and intellectual honesty on your part.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #116 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Darth_Apple
Why should I? This is a free country, where we have the right of free speech and if I want to say something I can, and you can't order me to stop. Second if I feel that this will not help with security only make it worse, it is my belief and I'll ask you to respect that. Third prove to me that my making this deal it will help us?



That's my point, that why I said history has shown us... thanks for helping me make my point.

oh and those companies are usually private owned when it's state owned there is a whole lot more risk... again look at history.

Um...are you 12 years old? Really. You can say what you'd like, but no one has to respect it if it's nothing but rhetorical blather. You can't show how the deal would hurt security. Your position is utterly unjusitifed. In addition, I will second Chris Cullia's statement: No one is claiming that the deal with "help" security. That's a strawman tactic you're using.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #117 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by Outsider
When did China become our enemy? Did this happen while I was on vacation?

They may not be our enemy, but they are a concern. There is no doubt in my mind that China wishes to rise to a position in the world that rivals the US economically and militarily. Given that China is a communist nation 5 times our population, that concerns me.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #118 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
They may not be our enemy, but they are a concern. There is no doubt in my mind that China wishes to rise to a position in the world that rivals the US economically and militarily. Given that China is a communist nation 5 times our population, that concerns me.

Get fucking!
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
post #119 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Get fucking!

That was really weird.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #120 of 195
Quote:
Originally posted by dmz
That was really weird.

I hold SDW2001 personally responsible for our deficit in population.
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
"In a republic, voters may vote for the leaders they want, but they get the leaders they deserve."
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Government Sells Port Authority to UAE Royal Family