Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

N.C. CONGRESSWOMAN [SUE MYRICK] ON PORTS DEAL: "HELL NO!"
Associated Press via Greensboro News-Record ^ | February 22, 2006

Posted on 02/22/2006 1:42:25 PM PST by southernnorthcarolina

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-151 next last
To: SmoothTalker

Doubly so due to the fact that ZERO ports are being sold. This is simply the contract for port operations (in Baltimore, for instance, 2 of 12 terminals).


21 posted on 02/22/2006 1:50:32 PM PST by clawrence3
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: wideawake

"With that kind of inane, childish showmanship, she should be running for the head of the DNC.

Presisely, the fact that she may be running for governor explains a lot.


22 posted on 02/22/2006 1:51:12 PM PST by traderrob6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

"Your CAFTA vote is going to sink you, no matter how hard you try to appease after the fact."

Did she vote for or against CAFTA?


23 posted on 02/22/2006 1:51:20 PM PST by NapkinUser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: southernnorthcarolina

It would be fitting if Haliburton were to buy the UAE company and then they would be the hero.


24 posted on 02/22/2006 1:51:40 PM PST by right right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: clawrence3

Since foreign companies already run ports, such as China running LA, wouldn't this bill be a Bill of Attainder based on race?


25 posted on 02/22/2006 1:53:03 PM PST by massgopguy (massgopguy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: NapkinUser

"Did she vote for or against CAFTA?"

We're in NC. Which do you think would be problematic, here?


26 posted on 02/22/2006 1:54:32 PM PST by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: SmoothTalker
OH, sheesh....THEY ARE NOT SELLING THE PORTS!!!!
27 posted on 02/22/2006 1:54:35 PM PST by goodnesswins (Too many idiots....so little time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: SmoothTalker
Selling the ports is a travesty but this classless letter doesn't reflect well on Myrick.

The ports are ran by P&O now... which is based in the UK. Why is selling them a travesty?

28 posted on 02/22/2006 1:56:04 PM PST by trashcanbred (Anti-social and anti-socialist)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator

Nah... no split.... most are too cowardly to lead and the rest have too hard a time following along without being distracted by a noisy dim or a loose headline.


29 posted on 02/22/2006 1:56:12 PM PST by right right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: southernnorthcarolina

Way to go Sue!


30 posted on 02/22/2006 1:56:35 PM PST by tomahawk (Proud to be an enemy of Islam)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: steel_resolve
Hehehe..We do hold the reps to a much higher standard don't we? Darn shame they have put themselves in the public eye isn't it?

Poor thing must have lost her way or forgot where she was.

It's a loss of orientation thing.

31 posted on 02/22/2006 2:03:43 PM PST by Earthdweller ("West to Islam" Cake. Butter your liberals, slowly cook France, stir in Europe then watch it rise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

Those objecting to the acquisition of Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. of London by Dubai Ports World are displaying irrational fear and political demagoguery. Perhaps they would like to stop all trade with the Middle East, and ban all Arabs from investing in the U.S.? One Arab prince owns millions of shares of Citibank - should he be forced to sell it all right now? Perhaps the morons in Congress would like to stop importing oil from Arab countries? Hey, why not stop all trade with Communist China too?
If anything, the acquisition will bring increased scrutiny to port activities. The sale is in accordance with free enterprise, economic sense, and the rule of current law.


32 posted on 02/22/2006 2:04:48 PM PST by pleikumud
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: right right
OMG! that may be the evil Rove's plan, in cohoots with Cheney. It's all been a brilliant ruse.
33 posted on 02/22/2006 2:06:29 PM PST by isrul
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry

"Which do you think would be problematic, here?"

I guess that means she voted for CAFTA, and if she had voted against it would have been a tie and another expensive trade agreement wouldn't be bringing the third world a little closer to home.


34 posted on 02/22/2006 2:07:27 PM PST by NapkinUser
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: southernnorthcarolina
Just another Congress Critter who did NOT bother to learn a single thing about the deal and just reacted based on the Democrat Senate Election Committee Press Release. Curious why supposed "Conservatives" are so desperate to push Democrat Party propaganda on the Port Deal?? Do any of you even KNOW there is NO American Company that does this? Do any of you even KNOW that this same has all ready shipped millions of containers to the USA for overseas ports it operates? Do any of you even KNOW that the Port Operations Company has NO Security function?

But of course emotive hysteria and political grandstanding is SO much easier then THOUGHT for the Whine All The Time crowd. Hard to determine which is more appalling, the Port Deal foes ignorance or their bigotry.

35 posted on 02/22/2006 2:07:35 PM PST by MNJohnnie ("Close the UN, Keep Gitmo!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
Why can't they ever get this right? Foreign company #1 runs those ports, foreign company #2 bought foreign company #1 and inherits the contracts, which include those ports. The only thing here is that Bush okayed the merger and continuance of the contract.

Except that "foreign Company is OWNED by the government. So in effect it is a contract that ceded those posts to a foreign nation .. and according to the news Bush was clueless on this deal, as were the congress and the senate.

36 posted on 02/22/2006 2:10:03 PM PST by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mamzelle
W could do a better job of explaining and persuading. Keep in mind, he's asking for this on top of his refusal to take our border enforcement seriously.

Our enemies do not need to attack us, we will give them anything they want

37 posted on 02/22/2006 2:11:03 PM PST by ears_to_hear
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: southernnorthcarolina

It is not a buy, it is a lease.


38 posted on 02/22/2006 2:11:07 PM PST by buck61 (luv6060)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: southernnorthcarolina

Sorry my man but I just can't get excited about that old time populism. It reeks of small mindedness. It reeks of cowardice. It's just so Al gore.


39 posted on 02/22/2006 2:13:29 PM PST by kinghorse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ears_to_hear
It "cedes" nothing. It's not as though we're swapping land for peace here. It's a management contract for services.
40 posted on 02/22/2006 2:14:18 PM PST by July 4th (A vacant lot cancelled out my vote for Bush.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-151 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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson