Posted on 02/21/2006 12:32:20 PM PST by Brian Mosely
ABOARD AIR FORCE ONE (AP) — President Bush says the deal allowing an Arab company to take over six major U.S. seaports should go forward and he will veto any bill that would stop it.
Been reading those Harlequin Romances lately Howlin?
I already said I was kidding. It was bait. Glad so many took the bait and ignored the rest of the post.
bttt
I don't know, I'm just trying to keep up with the "Gang of 10".
So, in the spirit of Free Trade during the GWo(s)T, would you support Kuwait gobbling up our Power Grids?
How very true. You see the same names jumping to Bush's defense no matter what the issue is. And even though the issues are not close to being the same, the arguments look remarkably the same.
The good news is that the result will be the same as the last bonehead Bush move, he will reverse himself and do something to appease the conservative base.
Oh please. This is not your first venture onto this forum.
Your counting is subpar too.
They could revive the "Know nothings" party.
What's a 'nic'? My screen name? I came here because close family said this is the best place for the voice of Conservativism on the Internet. They didn't tell me it's also home to BGR-bullies.
Lame. The President approved the deal and is standing by it. If you didn't mean him, then who? It was his call. The idea that he would sell our troops out for money is disgraceful.
Link? Oh nevermind...we both know you don't have direct quotes to back up your assertions.
BTW, I'm not "demonizing" people who disagree. I'm just pointing out that they're operating on emotions vs facts.
No, but that was going to be my second question to you.
Think for myself? I'm not the one reading off of the WH talking points list about the "Top 10 reasons allowing UAE to own our ports".
If American companies decide it's not profitable to be in the utility business, then we'll have to cross that bridge.
Keep your day job. Humor isn't your strong suit.
I don't believe I followed that debate, and I had no position therefore about it.
I was nervous about a chinese company buying out all the broadband assets of Global Crossing. But I do see the chinese as a little more of a threat to us, and owning the bandwidth as more dangerous than making money operating ports.
I see no evidence that Bush evaluated the deal in the manner you suggest, and my reading of the applicable law wouldn't allow him to make a decision based on that type of analysis. The law is clear, and only allows the interference in a sale under strictly defined conditions which i've seen no evidence of having been met by this sale.
The best the opponents can offer is history and fear of a changed operation in the future. The law only allows rulings against a deal for clear and identifiable security threats attributable to the deal.
If our country owned the port, and Bush was proposing we sell them to the UAE, I would be vocally opposed to the deal. But that is not what is happening here. We already gave control of the ports to a foreign firm (although u.s. companies actually run them, just like some of our best weapons are built by U.S. branches of foreign companies). This is just changing who gets the money from operating the ports.
If the UAE ever does anything to try to use this deal for to damage our security, I see nothing to prevent the U.S. from terminating the leases at that point, and taking action against the UAE if necessary. I just don't see that as a problem -- DP World is run by people who want to make money, and ports blowing up doesn't make money.
Whatever you need to believe.
Do you think that allowing Saudi Arabia to gobble up our Power Grids, in the spirit of "Free Trade", would be a good idea?
Yes, and as usual, their first and last resort is to personal attack. With Harriet Myers we were all sexists and now we're all racists.
The good news is that the result will be the same as the last bonehead Bush move, he will reverse himself and do something to appease the conservative base.
Let's hope you're right. Of course, this crowd will then tell us what a fine piece of 'strategery' it all was, eh? ;-)
I'd like to see some evidence of that. My understanding is that they went only to living survivors of camps, which included children.
That's a damn lie and you know it. But who here will be surprised that you'll be untruthful?
I pointed out to you that he was lucky to HAVE a living child, regardless of whether he approved of her lifestyle or not.
Up the thread you accused some of us of not liking you because of your relationship to Alan; you couldn't be more wrong; it's because you're such a nasty poster, who sticks the knife in and then feigns innocence and victimhood.
You earned the disdain all by yourself.
Well, we're crossing a critical bridge right now.
Only, it's not critical to YOU.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.