Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 2/22/2006 12:22:54 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/22/2006 12:24:27 PM EDT by txgp17]
Link Posted: 2/22/2006 5:27:14 PM EDT
I give her a big "hell yeah" for her "hell no". Maybe all is not lost in politics, I can't believe they are actually considering it. Idiots.
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 11:11:53 PM EDT

she is racist! Its that simple
Link Posted: 2/27/2006 11:43:27 PM EDT
short and sweet.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:38:02 AM EDT
the letter is a "fake"!
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:22:49 AM EDT
See my sig !
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 6:27:44 AM EDT
It is not a fake
myrick.house.gov/
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 8:42:55 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 8:43:09 AM EDT by txgp17]

Originally Posted By tttony:
the letter is a "fake"!

Umm, It's sorta like, ummm, kinda like, uhh....

hosted on HER website!
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 8:49:31 AM EDT
Made the Raleigh paper last week

www.newsobserver.com/280/story/410337.html
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 1:17:33 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 1:31:07 PM EDT by PanzerMK7]
I hate to break it to all of you guys but this is not that big a deal, the only real difference is that the port workers paychecks will be signed by someone in the U.A.E., instead of someone in Britain. The ports are mostly guarded by a state’s port authority, which often leases pier and terminal space to private companies. These firms generally rely on low paid contract guards to patrol the facilities and staff the entrances and exits. The captain of the port (an officer in the U.S. Coast Guard) is responsible for inspecting and regulating ships coming in and out. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, which has absorbed the personnel and the border inspection functions of both the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Customs, is responsible for inspecting foreign vessels’ cargoes and clearing crews and passengers. So there will be no change in the ports overall security, which is already abysmal as it is.

In fact, if this deal were too fall through it could deal a severe blow to the American economy, allow me to explain. The same British company that is selling the American ports also owns the rights to several southeast asian ports, which have access to the worlds fastest growing markets, it has already been established in interviews with agents of the company purchasing the ports that if they could split off the U.S. ports and purchase only the S.E. Asian ports they would gladly do so. The only thing stopping them is that the British company wants to sell the ports as a package. If legislation were passed forcing the British firm to split the ports, they would still sell them, only now the lucrative S.E. Asian ports would go to the U.A.E company, and the stagnating American ports would likely be sold to several different, much smaller companys. This would destroy any economy of scale/efficiency boost that go's along with dealing with a single, large entity. End result, the cost of doing business with U.S. ports jump's significantly, further limiting the incentives for foreign companies doing business with American companies. This could prove a devestating blow to an already reeling American economy.

All of the congressmen raising Hell over this transaction are guilty of one of two things.

1. They are manipulating the ignorance of the general public to bolster their prospects in the upcoming mid-term elections.

2. They are just really stupid.

Edited for clarity and spelling.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 2:33:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 2/28/2006 2:34:07 PM EDT by AssaultRifler]

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
I hate to break it to all of you guys but this is not that big a deal, the only real difference is that the port workers paychecks will be signed by someone in the U.A.E., instead of someone in Britain. The <snip>



The fact UAE doesn't recognize Isreal gets to me, they can kiss my ass on that one and operate Al Queda ports. Political posturing has consequences.
Link Posted: 2/28/2006 4:16:02 PM EDT
Ummmm, O.K.
Link Posted: 3/8/2006 4:52:09 PM EDT
Well, it's been two weeks since this story first broke, and it still is major news, most on the right are scrambling to split from the president on this, and the left is just rubbing it's hands together maniacally. I thought this would just be another flash in the pan terror scare. It's ironic to think that for all the things this administration has done that I disagree with, they are finally being turned on because of something that I see no problem with . I must have a gift for not seeing eye to eye with the average American.
Link Posted: 3/18/2006 5:25:30 PM EDT
Sue used to be my rep in Charlotte.

I agree with her comments.

Glad to know she finally got something figured out. Unusual.

This was a no brainer.
Link Posted: 3/24/2006 7:59:12 PM EDT

Originally Posted By PanzerMK7:
I hate to break it to all of you guys but this is not that big a deal, the only real difference is that the port workers paychecks will be signed by someone in the U.A.E., instead of someone in Britain. The ports are mostly guarded by a state’s port authority, which often leases pier and terminal space to private companies. These firms generally rely on low paid contract guards to patrol the facilities and staff the entrances and exits. The captain of the port (an officer in the U.S. Coast Guard) is responsible for inspecting and regulating ships coming in and out. The Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, which has absorbed the personnel and the border inspection functions of both the Immigration and Naturalization Service and Customs, is responsible for inspecting foreign vessels’ cargoes and clearing crews and passengers. So there will be no change in the ports overall security, which is already abysmal as it is.

In fact, if this deal were too fall through it could deal a severe blow to the American economy, allow me to explain. The same British company that is selling the American ports also owns the rights to several southeast asian ports, which have access to the worlds fastest growing markets, it has already been established in interviews with agents of the company purchasing the ports that if they could split off the U.S. ports and purchase only the S.E. Asian ports they would gladly do so. The only thing stopping them is that the British company wants to sell the ports as a package. If legislation were passed forcing the British firm to split the ports, they would still sell them, only now the lucrative S.E. Asian ports would go to the U.A.E company, and the stagnating American ports would likely be sold to several different, much smaller companys. This would destroy any economy of scale/efficiency boost that go's along with dealing with a single, large entity. End result, the cost of doing business with U.S. ports jump's significantly, further limiting the incentives for foreign companies doing business with American companies. This could prove a devestating blow to an already reeling American economy.

All of the congressmen raising Hell over this transaction are guilty of one of two things.

1. They are manipulating the ignorance of the general public to bolster their prospects in the upcoming mid-term elections.

2. They are just really stupid.

Edited for clarity and spelling.



Yes, but remember they always left out that Bush had just put a DP Exec in as head of the Maritime Administration... While this is more or less sorta settled, I just wanted to point that...

Top Top