Sean Hannity Live Thread - Mon Feb 27th

[sofaman]

Come one, come all, to the Hannity Show. Constructive criticism welcome...bashing is not.

Happy Monday!

[CWOJackson]

I don't think we are related...I leave idocy up to you.

[mnehring]

Nor is it about 'the UAE has changes since 9-11' either, that is only a blip on the entire argument on the pro side, yet Sean paints that as the entire argument from the pro side...

[holdonnow]

Once again, the president used the phrase "manage a port." This is the problem - the contract is not public, the operations they will actually undertake are not really known, and pardon me if some of us want to know more. If you don't, so be it. But most Americans do, most of Congress does (of both parties), and that's democracy. Now, go pound sand with your personal attacks.

[CWOJackson]

Once again, the President has been forced to respond in the language of this fabricate hysteria.

[isrul]

You just made me flash on a possible South Park episode. Hannity and a shootout with Cartman "sweet".

[holdonnow]

No we are not related in any way. I am embarrassed to have to address you at all. Your points are sophomoric and childish, so I thought you'd enjoy a taste of it yourself.

[LibertyLee]

I've learned a lot from reading sofaman and others on the other side. So we can engage in spirited argument. I don't like folks who call me Bush-bots or worse, and I don't approve of anyone calling the anti-ports side ignorant or unpatriotic. This is one where I can see the concern...I was a little surprised to see Newt somewhat against it, not for the traditional reasons, but because it shows how antiquated and stodgy the information gathering of the government has become and how that leads to failure to "connect the dots" While I STILL think the deal should go through, we've got to improve the process--I don't believe that Congress should take it back, though. Frankly, I don't trust 535 politicians to be good regulators. Overseers, Maybe, although they get up on their high-horse politically too much.

[A.Hun]

Here are some interesting links from from Customs.

This is the application to manage a port:

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/import/commercial_enforcement/ctpat/onlinectpat_app_process/marine/app_marine_port_auth_operators.xml

"DP World will operate at the following terminals within the six United States’ ports currently operated by the United Kingdom company, P & O:
Baltimore - 2 of 14 total
Philadelphia - 1 of 5 (does not include the 1 cruise vessel terminal)
Miami - 1 of 3 (does not include the 7 cruise vessel terminals)
New Orleans - 2 of 5 (does not include the numerous chemical plant terminals up and down the Mississippi River, up to Baton Rouge)
Houston – 3 of 12 (P&O work alongside other stevedoring* contractors at the terminals)
Newark/Elizabeth – 1 of 4
(Note: also in Norfolk - Involved with stevedoring activities at all 5 terminals, but not managing a specific terminal.)"


This is a breakdown of responsibilities for ports:

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/newsroom/fact_sheets/trade/securing_us_ports.xml

For the heck of it...this is a list of all US ports:

http://www.cbp.gov/xp/cgov/toolbox/ports/

[threeleftsmakearight]

Jerry Doyle is on a right-wing channel on my satellite radio...I've yet to hear evidence that he's remotely close to being a conservative.

[CWOJackson]

You keep bringing up a family name...idiot. I was under the impress you thought we were related.

[oceanview]

go after it Mark, I have stopped posting on these port threads because I am disgusted with this. but seeing your post here gave me some new found hope.

Please listen to Peter King's interview with John Gambling this morning - he is livid, he says the white house hasn't even spoken to him on this issue, and he promises a full accounting from his committee. King also talked about the political damage from this.

but you mention the coming solution here, and I am not sure why the white house isn't making a positive case that certain changes will be made to security measures as part of this deal, why not get out ahead of it. first, they didn't want an extension - and now we have a 45 day extension, but they appear to want to use that only for PR and arm twisting.

[TruthSetsUFree]

"You can question this without being disloyal to the president."

And I appreciate how both you and Sean have handled this on your shows, Mark.

"I resent efforts to demonize Sean, who has supported this administration 99% of the time, and worked hard in 4 states to re-elect the president."

I agree with you ... it really bugs me why so many FReepers are so hostile toward Sean. I can't at all figure it out. It makes no sense. I understand disagreeing or even critiquing style, but not the personal attacks.

[Txsleuth]

I am glad you are monitoring this thread...

Can you tell me if I was correct, earlier in the thread, when I said that unless the law is changed, the same CFIUS group would have to do a new investigation...albeit with the actual Chairmen of the different cabinets...

The law did have it as a classified procedure...and had no pre-deal procedure for Congressional oversight...right?

[beyond the sea]

Hey smart guy (Mark) ......... I LOVE you........... still do, F.Lee!

Get a grip!

I set you up at 4:00 a.m. on a Saturday morning .................about David Boies with Ill. discrepancies in court............. when L. Sander Sauls was in deep trouble trying to make things right in 2000. Get a grip!

Sean is a SERIOUS LIGHTWEIGHT............... flyweight?

I like him and you like him ......... give him an education! He needs one.

God Bless America!

[MNJohnnie]

The problem is the Port Deal Hysterics are so willfully ignorant and rabidly arrogant at the same time. They simply REFUSE to listen to anyone who actually UNDERSTANDS how the Ports and Terminal Companies ACTUALLY work. So they throw around all this absolutely stupid Chicken Little rhetoric and utterly refuse to listen TO THE FACTS. Really been a shameful display by people on our side who SHOULD know better.

[navynucmom]

Jerry Doyle stated a few months ago that he was no longer a Republican...I think he may have gone the way of O'Reilly and says he is an independent...he was on Bush's until after the election...now he goes on rants.....haven't listened to him in a while.

[new yorker 77]

I am not hostile to Sean.

I support him and defend him in every day life when I am confronted by liberals who can not stand him.

I have been given the middle finger and cursed at as I drive through Manhattan and Westchester with a W'04 bumper sticker and his show on the radio.

I have been told, "You listen to that NAZI". To which I reply, "You must be confused. I'm not listening to Hillary Clinton."

I have made it an effort to attend his freedom concert every year since he has held it.

I should have not used the word 'idiot' in reference to him. You are right on that. Chalk it up to my spending last night in the emergency room to see if someone had broken their hip.

I also only did so after he used it in reference to those implying that he is being bigoted.

I am listening to him and plan to continue to listen to him.

On this issue, I side with Rush Limbaugh. Not because he told me to, but because I did not like the quick response against this.

The bottom line is this.

I think if the Singapore based company that was competing with the UAE company for P&O had won the deal, no one would give a crap.

Other than that, I will hold off on the venting. That is unless I eat the wrong food, but that's another story for another day.

[LibertyLee]

This is the problem - the contract is not public, the operations they will actually undertake are not really known, and pardon me if some of us want to know more.

Is it not true that the very statute creating the CFIUS requires that the information be secret? The information given to the government concerns proprietary information such as software used, methods of production, corporate information and contact, etc. The law Requires that the information be secret so a company does not have to reveal competitive information but still give all the information to the regulators. You would not otherwise get cooperation in providing this information if the company thought the information would be leaked.

[holdonnow]

I've gone through a ton of information on this company and the UAE and talked to many people on both sides. We are all talking generalities. These deals are individual, each has to be approved on their own merits, and clearly a national security review, according to deputy treasury secretary Kimmit was not done in the 30 day review. A better review won't hurt anyone or anything, which is why the White House agreed to it.

[holdonnow]

That's correct. That's why the law was passed. They have more secrecy then when a US company is buying another company, which post 9/11 seems very silly.