Posted on 03/10/2006 10:28:49 AM PST by RWR8189
PROTECTIONISTS, REJOICE! The dastardly United Arab Emirates company that would have presumed to unload containers of underwear and toothpaste on U.S. soil has backed down, and it will now divest its U.S. port interests to an American entity. Rest assured, the nation is now safe from dangerous Middle Eastern accountants and port logistics specialists.
Dubai Ports World did what was necessary, if not necessarily fair, on Thursday by agreeing to give up the U.S. operations of its newly acquired British ports company. The House Appropriations Committee had voted 62 to 2 on Wednesday to block the deal; a similar bill was pending in the Senate.
Although President Bush rightly stood by the acquisition and vowed to veto any bill that stood in its way, he was fighting a losing battle that only deepened a growing rift in the Republican Party. Dubai Ports World officials wisely recognized that they had to put some distance between themselves and their new U.S. assets. The company probably will sell its U.S. assets or create a U.S. company with a separate board to run them.
Much as we wish it would go away, the fight may not be over yet.
For one, the terms of the divestiture remain unclear, and some members of Congress are demanding more details. Will it be enough for Dubai Ports World to create a U.S. subsidiary? Will it have to open headquarters in the United States? Pay its employees in dollars?
(Excerpt) Read more at latimes.com ...
Exactly! Basing action on feeling is what the problem is here.
The feeling isn't the problem..........I think we ALL had it at first. The problem is not investigating thoroughly enough to get rid of the feeling, and replace it with accurate information.
Thank you, you have proven my point. Trust your feelings.
He already has. Its got one page and one word. Bushbots. And then he had to think.
Admitting it was a bad question, p? Or admitting that you lost the debate about it?
(Sometimes abbreviated as 'bot.' :)
Then maybe bill should give all his money back since he isn't in power and has no 'power' anymore. And carter, he's in their pocket as well. :-)
Doh!
That's weak, even for you.
YOU said you'd look over your shoulder. Which means you'd gather evidence before acting. Not "I'd trust my feelings and run".
Now, why has your side decided that in this case evidence gathering is not important, but you should just run based only on a "feeling"?
(sister) ;-)
Is that what you really think rational conservatives should do, p?
Be afraid when there is no cause for fear? Seriously??
Exactly -- messr. Clinton is just going after $$$, not supporting or pushing any policy. He's just doing what he's being paid to do.
You are supporting the POLICY of current, in-power Ds like Schumer and Hilly. So you can *NOT* now claim in November to be the party that will stop them. It's now clear you are not much different from them.
they never had a argument, just faith and belief.
What movie was that where the main character was paranoid, and for no reason while he was walking down the street he'd break into a dead run?
I read everything I could get my hands on concerning this now dead deal, and no matter how I looked at it, I couldn't shake the felling too many things were wrong with it. In the final analysis, I went with my gut feeling.
"You are supporting the POLICY of current, in-power Ds like Schumer and Hilly. So you can *NOT* now claim in November to be the party that will stop them. It's now clear you are not much different from them."
Nor are you much different from Kerry and Carter who favored the deal.
62-2 in a majority republican committee. Get it?
Exactly.
And what evidence did you have to show you letting DPW run our ports was a danger to us?
When you looked over your shoulder, did you see anyone there?
Wow, you have it bad.
Just kidding! Don't know.
My point exactly -- now in November, the R party can no longer say it will be the ones to oppose the D party and MSM when they do this kind of emotional scare tactics.
The R party just proved they will not stand up to the Hillys and the Schumers, but would in fact support them and pass their polices, as long as the MSM can whip up a public frenzy.
So why should I vote for them?
If you 'felt' you were being followed, but you didn't see any evidence that anyone was actually following you, would you act as if you were in danger? Or just keep walking?
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.