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 ...
Do you think both of them would say to go with your gut even when the evidence says otherwise?
What % of the time would you say gut feelings are correct?
If you interpt my words incorrectly, that's your problem, not mine. Have a nice evening. I'm off to another thread to see if the sky has fallen or that it is 1929 all over again because the deal was killed.
And this is supposed to be persuasive?
If you note, she hasn't posted any proofs, yet claims she has. She started the postings on this thread with her own bloviating personal insults, and once again demeaned Ronald Reagan if you noticed.
She can't have anyone make any favorable comparisons relative to W, apparently. And for the record, if you were keeping track, no, I don't think W is a 'demon.' Voted for him twice for Pete's sake. So Hardly. I have many, many, many conservative doubts about him...as does every sincere, authentic "Barry Goldwater Republican"...who should thereby be a conservative...
But manifestly OWF is an unlikely candidate to fit that profile.
Note how swiftly she piled onto my remark about Big Tent moderates who are so self-righteous, showing their ugly nature ...and she promptly wore that shoe as her own!
All while casting stones at your's truly.
So believe in her...if you want to believe in lies.
Bailing?
No answer to my point about running from nothing?
Understood.
Someday, perhaps not too far away, the opponents of this deal are gonna wake up and cringe at what they've done.
LOL!
My wife and family say the same thing!
They just won't touch my finest creations!
They make the exaggerated claim that Electric stoves are my nemesis...
Ah -- Trump, well . . . I like the show 'the apprentice', but let's just say I'm not sure I consider him a good example of wise judgement.
Seriously, the idea that your gut feeling is never wrong . . . man, is it possible you've never been wrong about a hunch?
I'm pretty good, and I shoot maybe 75%, when I am very experienced with the topic.
Which *none* of us are.
So when you have a topic you've never even looked into before, and you then do some quick reading, what % chance do you think you might nail the exact right take on 'gut' feelings?
Pretty low.
And again, isn't that exactly what we've been saying about the Ls all these years? "Feelings" are more important than "evidence and reason"?
"The lack of evidence doesn't matter, it's the nature of the charges that's important!?"
Touche' you got 'em! Good show!
I'm off to another thread to see if the sky has fallen or that it is 1929 all over again because the deal was killed.
That sounds like an excellent suggestion, especially as we are seeing vicious and frankly shrewish name-callers suddenly pile on at the end of the thread...who are of dubious authenticity. 'Bots.
Number one........you went on and on and on about a book you were writing about how magnificent Reagan was and how awful Bush was. I can find the posts if you need the proof.
Secondly, I said absolutely nothing bad about Reagan. It is a common characteristic of Bush bashers to look at Reagan through rose colored glasses and ignore his failings, and to ignore Bush's accomplishments and ignore his successes. Paul did that BIG time.
Both Reagan and Bush are/were amazing, strong, solid leaders.......both should be admired by any real conservative. Neither is/was perfect. Neither should be demonized by conservatives, as Bush is every day on this forum.
I don't need to defend my conservative credentials to someone like Paul. They stand for themselves, and my history is long and solid as a conservative.
I am not even close to being a 'moderate,' and the proof of that is that the thread on which I first had the misfortune of running into the braggart, Paul Ross, was on a thread about abortion. There is no area of the political realm in which I can be called a 'moderate.'
So, Paul.......cut it out. But if you insist on lying about me, please have the courtesy to ping me, as per FR rules.
And so you've supported killing this deal on a 50/50 hunch?
Yes
I just wish they'd admit that it's a weak basis on which to make political, or economic decisions.
Wow.
I mean -- gosh. You can't be . . . wow.
Nuff said, I suppose.
So the R party is not the party of reason and evidence any longer.
I'm shocked they are admitting it so blatantly.
It's as if they are unaware of how bad that is.
I'm truly, completely shocked at these last few admissions.
This is a debate forum, not a coffee klatsch. If you can't stand the heat .... :-)
I have to go have an adult beverage and contemplate the 'conservatives' who have said in so many words that they are willing to make policy decisions based on hunches and feelings, even when the evidence goes the other way.
"It's not the nature of the evidence, it's the seriousness of the charges."
Just -- wow.
The only thing that can be said for it, is that it's honest. Otherwise, there's not a thing conservative about it.
I'm leaving as well. Nice doing battle with you. You're a smart one, you are. :)
As has been pointed out before, the UAE and Israel actually ahve some trade, and Israel was a supporter of this deal.
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.