Skip to comments.
Bush will veto any bill to stop port deal
AP ALERT
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.
TOPICS: Heated Discussion
KEYWORDS: 1handwashestheother; blahblahblah; botsusingtheracecard; buchananbrigade; bushbotsbluedresses; bushbotscirclewagons; bushclintonbushclint; bushsellout; clownposse; coulterwillexplode; d; dontworrybehappy; downfallofbush; dubaidubaidu; dubaidubya; dusappersinatizzy; eternalevil; failedcivicsclass; gameoverman; globalists; homelandsecurity; homosexual; howlermonkeys; howlinbots; howlinmonkeys; howlinsgang; hysteriatrain; ilovekeywords; jorgealbush; kneejerk; kneepadsstat; libtard; masshysteria; moonbatsonparade; muchadoaboutnothing; newworldorder; nonstory; openborderbushbots; pantiesinabunch; ports; ratpackattack; ratpackdunces; religionofports; surrendermonkeys; texasholdem; treason; uae; vetothisbutnotcfr; waronterror; wppff; wsayswhatmeworry
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 901-920, 921-940, 941-960 ... 3,061-3,079 next last
To: BearArms
Just a couple comments. There are many who seem to sincerely believe that Bush was put into office by God and, therefore, can do no wrong. They support him despite his outrageous, and frankly unconservative, policies in certain areas. This largely explains the BushBot phenomenon. It's an irrational messianic support for a skilled and probably quite cynical politician who is adept at convincing certain people that he possesses divine sanction. They forget that God puts all leaders into office, that does not mean that he is there for good. After all He put Pilate in office ( John 19:11)
To: Rutles4Ever
Everyone who rushed to the defense of China when they tried to buy Unocal, raise your hand. Right here.
922
posted on
02/21/2006 2:19:18 PM PST
by
Alberta's Child
(Leave a message with the rain . . . you can find me where the wind blows.)
To: stands2reason
How could he sell it to Congress?
His veto will be overwritten anyway because the folks in Congress, in an election year particularity, will be nuts to sustain the veto.
Imagine the campaign against incumbents who vote to sustain- particularity if there is a terrorist attack anywhere against American interests prior to election day.
To: onyx
Im responding to your post 911 (significant). I finally caught up with the tread so I'll say g'bye. I never got involved in Harriett Myers or other FR fanfares but this topic has me interested.
To: Pukin Dog
your comments don't reflect well on your knowledge of foreign contribution to this nation.
I'll say it again, many of those nations you cite have not attacked the U.S. Maybe I'm p*ssing in the wind.
925
posted on
02/21/2006 2:19:42 PM PST
by
Tulsa Ramjet
("If not now, when")
To: feinswinesuksass
Thank you for that reply. I too am open to further input.
To: Alberta's Child
Anti-trust has nothing to do with it. You are right, it doesn't now, but wait until some crazy Governor goes off half-cocked.
927
posted on
02/21/2006 2:20:00 PM PST
by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: Brian Mosely
If Bush vetos the bill, people will want to take the law into their own hands if one port is nuked. 'Nuff said.
928
posted on
02/21/2006 2:20:10 PM PST
by
ex-Texan
(Matthew 7:1 through 6)
To: Brian Mosely
I would love to know what Bush is thinking. He doesn't lift a finger to stop out of control spending, instead he actively encourages it. Says he wants to reform social security, then does nothing to support his plan. Says he is strong on National Security, while he refuses to do anything about the border (and demonizes anyone who tries to) and now says a company from a country with a checkered history to say the least can run our ports.
It is time that we got past this nonsense of voting for the lesser of two evils, one party or the other has to be able to find someone who actually represents a good choice, my dream is that both parties would.
929
posted on
02/21/2006 2:20:24 PM PST
by
Hawk1976
(Ideas got Republicans into office, new ideas will help keep them there.)
To: finnman69
"Except he is doing no such thing. Our ports remain US ports. It's a management deal. Port Security remains US Customs just like before." The people who are blindly defending this sale to Dubai seem to want us to think that they won't be involved in port/maritime operations and security, and that their ownership is on paper only, like shareholders. This is not true. You're trying to lull everyone with the false notion that the Coast Guard and Customs will be handling everything, and hence we are safe.
The reality is that the Dubai maritime company will be hiring security and dock workers, and will be involved in port security operations. In fact, if this sale is allowed to go through then our Coast Guard and Customs agents will have all the more people to watch and things to do. It's sheer stupidity.
930
posted on
02/21/2006 2:20:42 PM PST
by
TheCrusader
("The frenzy of the mohammedans has devastated the Churches of God" Pope Urban II ~ 1097A.D.)
To: Junior_G
Now I have wasted more time replying to you, but thanks for editing my comments to you in FULL democrat mode...lol.
931
posted on
02/21/2006 2:20:51 PM PST
by
onyx
(IF ONLY 10% of Muslims are radical, that's still 120 MILLION who want to kill us.)
To: Rockitz
Actually, I'm guessing he's trying to award an "ally" in the WOT. He has to walk a narrow line in convincing the Muslim world that this is a War on Terror as opposed to a War on Islam and maintaining national security.Interesting point.
To: Bikers4Bush
he will lose significant political face over this. So what? He's out, right? There was an article about how he's going to spend his retirement.
933
posted on
02/21/2006 2:21:05 PM PST
by
LouAvul
To: Travis McGee
If Hutuchson Whampoa outbid the Dubai company, would we let the Chinese operate our ports? Why not?
934
posted on
02/21/2006 2:21:11 PM PST
by
Alberta's Child
(Leave a message with the rain . . . you can find me where the wind blows.)
To: CharlesWayneCT
Rush is comfortable bucking his entire audience. Hannity is scared of losing his, and will say whatever he thinks they want to hear. Exactly right. Hannity is also afraid of his wife.
935
posted on
02/21/2006 2:21:11 PM PST
by
Pukin Dog
(Sans Reproache)
To: onyx
I left the sire, I just cannot take it anymore. The dims stinky attitude is catching.
936
posted on
02/21/2006 2:21:12 PM PST
by
Coldwater Creek
("Over there, over there, We won't be back 'til it's over Over there.")
To: KC_Conspirator
"Bush won't veto any spending, but he pulls this veto threat out of his hat for this?"
Actually, he's threatened to use his Magic Veto Powers at least once before, when Congress was mulling a bill to CUT BACK Medicare prescription drug costs. Bush threatened to VETO a DECREASE in SPENDING.
3 more years!! 3 more years!!
937
posted on
02/21/2006 2:21:29 PM PST
by
Blzbba
(Sub sole nihil novi est)
To: onyx
Politically, it's a TONE DEAF deal. No kidding ... the sound bite war on this one is unwinnable.
And to escalate the whole thing by threatening his first veto over THIS ISSUE was ... as evidenced by this thread racing toward 1000 posts ... a miscalculation.
To: jimbo123
939
posted on
02/21/2006 2:22:12 PM PST
by
TankerKC
(Pull your head out.)
To: Hawk1976
It is time that we got past this nonsense of voting for the lesser of two evils Yep....sure helped in '92 didn't it.....
940
posted on
02/21/2006 2:22:30 PM PST
by
Lakeshark
(Thank a member of the US armed forces for their sacrifice)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 901-920, 921-940, 941-960 ... 3,061-3,079 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson