[Earthdweller]

Wow!..Republicans are fighting like cats and dogs..Hilary has proven herself to be a bigot...The La times acknowledges that Bush was right about something and its raining little green apples in Indiana.

[Old_Mil]

safe from dangerous middle eastern...accountants and...logistic...

What about enginners? You forgot to mention engineers in that list of dangerous middle easterners.

Mohamed Amanullah Atta, a tall, slim, 33-year-old electrical engineer [who, of course, was one of the 9/11 hijackers]. I'm not sure who is more dangerous to our nation - the actual terrorists, or those Americans who labor under the misconception that Islam is a religion of peace, that Muslims can be befriended and made allies, and that education, peace, prosperity, and democracy are the cure.

[mlc9852]

Yeah, call those who oppose this protectionists. And I would call those who support the deal anti-semites. Fair enough.

[jazusamo]

Can't believe that editorial came from the LA Times. They will surely get a letter from BarBra telling them to cancel her subscription again.

[processing please hold]

Many, not all, but, many Americans have not forgotten 9-11 and never will. If I could kick saudia arabian bussiness out, I would gladly do that too.

[GSlob]

Well, for the sake of discussion, and as a rhetorical device, substitute the ports in question by more obvious national security enterprises of major importance - say, Lockheed Martin, Newport News shipyard, or Pantex plant [nuclear warheads]. Obviously, a proposition to cede control of such strategic assets would be a no-no.
This being the case, the principle of "protected enterprises" is unassailably true, and the only question remaining is where to draw the line.

[prairiebreeze]

Although President Bush rightly stood by the acquisition and vowed to veto any bill that stood in its way,

Man you KNOW how it pained the LA Slimes to print that, LOLOL!

Jeeze, this is the best, funniest thing I've read about this whole rotten-smelling debacle. Maybe it's the silver lining to a very black cloud...ping!

[Edit35]

The only protectionists are the UAE government, which according to its own website, does not allow foreigners to own a business in their country (outside the very small free trade zone) unless IT IS 51-PERCENT OWNED BY AN UAE NATIONAL.

Google the UAE govt and do your own research if you don't believe me.

The UAE's official website requires one to register, and I dont feel like it.

I saw a representative today on CNBC confirm the 51-percent ownership, and that peaked my interest, so I checked it out and found that it is the UAE which is the TRUE PROTECTIONIST.

[tumblindice]

"Goodbye Dubai, Protectionists Rejoice"

I'd like my daughter to not ever have to explain to her child, as I had to explain to her a few years ago, why we couldn't go up in the Sears tower. I would like to be safe from a cult of dangerous, death-worshipping savages.

Apologists for weakness in this country called Reagan an "amiable dunce" and now call George W. Bush a "chimp"--and those of us who voted for him, but remain baffled by his notions of 'national security' at home, are being smeared . . . by fellow conservatives as . . . "idiots". (See tag-line)

I think those who agree with me have been very patient with you. You'd better stop and re-build all your ruins, peace and love can win the day . . despite all your losing.
http://users.wolfcrews.com/toys/vikings/

[Clemenza]

Thanks again a-sholes! By having your head up yourselves, you have PO's not only one of our few allies in the Middle East, but a great management company with a great record all over the world for managing terminals.

But we rillly showed it to dem rag-heads, di'ent we Jetro? /saracasm

[GOP_1900AD]

Globalist Neoliberal Economic Utopians repent! In all seriousness, there is a non protectionist argument against the port deal. I see a difference between sugar subsidies and national security. Globalists cannot draw this distinction. It's not because they are unable to, it's because the "Flat World / Fast World" construct falls apart the minute we rank various economic activities versus their criticality vis a vis national security. The reason globalists refuse to do this, is because once one admits that the possibility of real war between real nation states (as opposed to war against non state actors and rogues) still exists, then the whole premise of the "Flat / Fast World" fall apart. Globalists know this and therefore they must knee jerk oppose any act or inquiry which may subject any economic activity to considerations beyond simple profit and loss.

[syriacus]

Next plan...let's build our ports 20 miles out to sea.

Shanghai Celebrates Giant Port Amid Worries of Overcapacity

SHANGHAI — In many ways, Shanghai's new port is a work of wonder. Built amid a cluster of craggy islands, Yangshan Deepwater Port is connected to Shanghai by a six-lane bridge that meanders across 20 miles of water. The government has not disclosed the project's cost, but local media put it at about $1 billion.

If we put our international airports out at sea, too, we can build a wall around our coutry.

[Jim Noble]

(Protectionists Rejoice)

A journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step.

Hooray!

[Huck]

Isn't this a misuse of the term? I mean, I'm used to perjorative substituting for substance, but protectionism has to do with TRADE issues. This was a SECURITY issue. The objection had nothing to do with the economics of who gets the wage earning jobs, or what price something sells at--isn't that what protectionism addresses? It had to do with port security.