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

To: indcons

I should point out that the number 6 came from all sources in opposition to this deal. I don't think the administration ever said anything like "hey, it's only 6 ports", although I've read that here.

It is "interesting" that the number is 21, but I imagine the others aren't as comprehensive as the 6 -- there must be some reason why those 6 stood out for the opponents to harp on that number for so long.

This also once again points out that there are american companies running these ports -- they are simply subsidiaries of foreign companies. And after the deal, the same american companies will run the ports, reporting to the same people in the foreign company -- it's just that now THAT company's board will be reporting up to the board of a different company.


60 posted on 02/24/2006 7:34:45 AM PST by CharlesWayneCT
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: CharlesWayneCT
It is "interesting" that the number is 21, but I imagine the others aren't as comprehensive as the 6 -- there must be some reason why those 6 stood out for the opponents to harp on that number for so long.

Because NY, Philadelphia, LA, MIami gets people's attention whereas Gulfport, Savannah, Brownsville would not.

62 posted on 02/24/2006 7:39:17 AM PST by commish (Freedom Tastes Sweetest to Those Who Have Fought to Preserve It)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

To: CharlesWayneCT
"...it's just that now THAT company's board will be reporting up to the board of a different company."

And the unions are concerned about future contract negotiations with them.

63 posted on 02/24/2006 7:41:29 AM PST by CWOJackson
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies ]

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