Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 03/09/2006 View Wed 03/08/2006 View Tue 03/07/2006 View Mon 03/06/2006 View Sun 03/05/2006 View Sat 03/04/2006 View Fri 03/03/2006
1
2006-03-09 Home Front: WoT
US lawmakers vote to block ports deal
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by Fred 2006-03-09 00:00|| E-Mail|| Front Page|| [509 views since 2007-05-07]  Top

#1 That one wasn't hard to predict.
Posted by 3dc 2006-03-09 00:20||   2006-03-09 00:20|| Front Page Top

#2 Podhoretz predicted this 10 days ago. Political cowardice runs amok, now. November looks bad.
Posted by hunter 2006-03-09 04:35||   2006-03-09 04:35|| Front Page Top

#3 
"November looks bad."

No. November looks good. The Majority Public opinion is dead set against this port deal. The only thing the Republicans can do now is kill the deal or risk looking like they're rewarding a Terrorism supporting country.

The fact that Bush was kept in the dark or misinformed or misread the publics reaction, and the possible political and PR consequences is sad.

However, it is one more example of his failure to communicate with the public in a timely fashion, or accurately gauge public sentiment.

I've looked at the reasoning and facts on both sides of the argument over the ports deal, bottom line, it stinks and does not feel right from a gut standpoint. Let it die.

Nana
Posted by Nana 2006-03-09 07:35||   2006-03-09 07:35|| Front Page Top

#4 Nana - You've looked at the facts?

Right. Name a major US port with no berths under foreign management. Go ahead, I'll be around to read your dazzling command of the facts.

Fact: Port berth management collects fees from shippers. They pay the longshoremen who handle the cargo.

Fact: Security is handled, at ALL US Ports, by the Coast Guard and Customs. Period.

Okay, where did we lose you?

Rational people decide based upon the available facts. Intelligent people also seek to verify them as best they can.

You have made an emotional decision (i.e. your "gut") and no inconvenient facts will dissuade you, now. Sadly, you're as common as sand on a beach. Emotions are easily manipulated and you're today's prize fool.

Good job, Citizen Nana.

Hunter was dead right. See comment #19 in this thread for a fact-based exposition of this bogus issue.
Posted by .com 2006-03-09 08:25||   2006-03-09 08:25|| Front Page Top

#5 
.com, I'm opposed to ALL foreign operation of US ports. Does the UAE allow American operation of their ports, or, can Americans own businesse in the UAE without having a UAE citizen as majority owner?

I have looked at All the facts that have been listed here and elsewhere, plus all of the arguments pro and con, and I still say this is a bad idea.

That is my opinion, you have a different one, great! However, you exhibit a tendency to belittle and call names when someone does not share your opinion.

Rational people also examine facts and make decisions on what is right. Example: Abortion is legal, that's a fact! Doesn't make it right.

I think you're just a dried up old fart that used to work in the "patch" and you miss your faded glory days.

My decision was made because I do not believe that the UAE are our friends, any more than the Sowdies are. I see no reason to reward them with a juicy port management deal. Also, they still have under the hood connections with terrorists.

And, last but not least, the majority of the American people do not want this. For my part, I have informed my representatives that if this isn't killed, they won't be too much longer in office. The port deal is real bad JUJU!

If you don't like my opinion, go pound broken glass up you a$$, sonny boy!

Nana
Posted by Nana 2006-03-09 08:42||   2006-03-09 08:42|| Front Page Top

#6 I do have a tendency to belittle stupidity and emotional bullshit parading around as considered opinion. Guilty, indeed.

You have NO facts to support your brain fart, do you?

I'm opposed to all the things I think are bad things and in favor of all the things I think are good! So There!

ROFL.

Btw, did you bother to read the thread link? Can you answer the question I posed? Do you actually know fuck-all about any of this?

No.

RFSP. HAND.
Posted by .com 2006-03-09 08:50||   2006-03-09 08:50|| Front Page Top

#7 From HuffPost: According to the New York Times, foreign-based companies own and/or manage over 30% of US port terminals. According to Time Magazine, over 80% of the terminals in the Port of Los Angeles are run by foreign-owned companies, including the government of Singapore. In fact, APL Limited, controlled by the Singapore government, operates ports in Los Angeles, Oakland, Seattle and Dutch Harbor, Alaska. Chinese government-owned companies control terminals in the Port of Los Angeles and other West Coast ports, as well as both ends of the Panama Canal.

They at least got one part correct, this deal is about terminals, not ports. Ports are owned by cities or states. They lease space for terminals to load and unload cargo. It doesn't look like U.S. companies are interested in operating to many terminals, I don't know why.

Next paragraph may reveal a motive for the outrage:

Senators Clinton and Menendez have announced that they are introducing legislation to prohibit companies owned or controlled by foreign governments from purchasing port operations in the United States. But they should go one step further. Profit-making corporations, foreign or domestic, should not be allowed to own key strategic infrastructure. Corporation's responsibility is to their shareholders, not to the nation. If there's a conflict between security and profits, profits will come first. Strategic infrastructure should be owned and controlled by institutions that put the interests of the American people above profits. This could take the form of government ownership, or more likely ownership by non-profit joint government/private entities.

And we know how efficent those are.

In the end, the issue comes down to the Bush Administration's ideology of privatizing everything from social security to port ownership.

Funny, I thought port terminals had been privately owned for decades.
Posted by Steve">Steve  2006-03-09 08:58||   2006-03-09 08:58|| Front Page Top

#8 Goddamnit, Steve! This isn't about facts, it's about how we feeeeeeel!

Wave that goddamned magic wand and fix it!

*poof*

There! That's better!
Posted by .com 2006-03-09 09:03||   2006-03-09 09:03|| Front Page Top

#9 The port operators also handle hiring the rent a cops on site. They track the shipping.

It doesn't take a genis to figure out that these arabs could have a container shipped in and routed to avoid general inspections then smuggle the terrrorist or bomb out via the rent a cops. At least one container in the past was found with used suppies from a former smuggling trip.

All that aside who in their right mind would want to put any country whose national religion calls for our dead, conversion or dhimmitude in charge of any part of our ports? THe UAE has in the past smuggled nuclear parts for Iran! Hello? Would you want these arabs in charge of luggage at any of our airports?

No.

This is another Harriet Meyers mistake. Except this one is dealing with the very desert religion that brought us 9-11. And they will try again.

I love our President but I love my families, our nation's security more. We have muslim terrorist crossing our mexican border and he wants to hand over a port without fixing the boarder problem? I don't think so. This is insane.
Posted by Icerigger 2006-03-09 09:33||   2006-03-09 09:33|| Front Page Top

#10 Sigh. Read the comments #10 & #19 in the link I provided.

As for the assertion about rent-a-cops being hired by the terminal operator - prove it. Let's see the link. Then explain how the Port Authority is circumvented by your rent-a-cop.

Port Authorities have their own police forces.

When you're ready, got your links and proof all lined up, post it -- tell Oldspook he's full of shit and you've got the goods on his dumb ass.
Posted by .com 2006-03-09 09:42||   2006-03-09 09:42|| Front Page Top

#11 Okay. I'm done. There ain't no fixing it once people "decide" - they ignore everything else that's said, any and all proof to the contrary, and simply cast further and further afield for something, anything, to make a case - no matter how rickety or silly.

No system is perfect. One thing is certain: people are the key. Corrupt people are just as dangerous as ideologically driven people.

This is insane, alright, it's also downright embarrassing.
Posted by .com 2006-03-09 09:50||   2006-03-09 09:50|| Front Page Top

#12 .com, Take a deep breath, relax and look at this from a different perspective.

Since day 2 the facts have been apparent that this deal is not objectionable on national security grounds. The opposition is not based on rational thought. It is based on irrational fear aroused by the mo-toon circus.

People are fed up with and afraid of the muzzies. That's good. Demonstrating it on this issue is not particularly good, as it is irrational. But it is good that people are flipping their bits to make the Arabs the bad guy as opposed to buying the PC ROP garbage. It is a necessary step on the path to being prepared for the conflict that has to come with the MM (even though they're Persians).

It's not rational. Getting ready to accept significant economic disruption and military action are not strictly rational activities either. Especially for the civilian population not directly involved in planning or executing them except to pay the price in dollars and blood.

The people are now getting ahead of Bush on calling the enemy the enemy. Bush needs to redirect these negative vibes to the MM. He's not doing a great job at that, as far as I am concerned. Fortunately, Kofi, al-Baradei and Atamydinnerjacket will pick up the slack for him.

This signals to me that Bush, if he lays out the case properly, should not have trouble getting congressional approval for whacking the MM before November. All these critters are going to have a hard time expalaining to these irrational voters why they are such hawks with Arabs who want to deal with the stevedores at our ports but wimps with mullahs who want to send nukes to those ports.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-09 10:10||   2006-03-09 10:10|| Front Page Top

#13  All these critters are going to have a hard time expalaining to these irrational voters why they are such hawks with Arabs who want to deal with the stevedores at our ports but wimps with mullahs who want to send nukes to those ports.

Not a problem. Opposing the ports deal doesn't require them to do anything, or to put anything on the line. Chuckie Schumer and the Hildebeast get to sound tough without actually taking a stand on anything.

Whereas nailing the MMs entails risk, blood and treasure. You'll never find Chuckie and Shrillary anywhere near that.
Posted by Steve White">Steve White  2006-03-09 10:18||   2006-03-09 10:18|| Front Page Top

#14 They may want to pass a law the forbids foreign owned terminals, but that would severly damage our ports capability. FYI the UAE already runs terminals that are shipping crates/cargo/goods to U.S. ports. If they are such a security threat why not forbid shipments coming from those terminals? You see how this can digress into a chicken/egg argument very quickly and I think the committee was wrong and the President is right. Remember the balyhoo about "domestic spying"? After the dust settled they (Congress) made sure that activity could continue with their stamp of approval. It may take longer but they will soon see the errors of their ways.
Posted by Cyber Sarge 2006-03-09 10:18||   2006-03-09 10:18|| Front Page Top

#15 You've found a silver lining.

It's sad that most people will never even hear the facts.

It's embarrassing that even among those who do, some (many? most?) aren't up to the task of rational analysis, sans knee-jerk emotions.

You've got to admit it's a mixed bag, lol.
Posted by .com 2006-03-09 10:21||   2006-03-09 10:21|| Front Page Top

#16 Whereas nailing the MMs entails risk, blood and treasure. You'll never find Chuckie and Shrillary anywhere near that.

Depends on what their polling results are.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-09 10:33||   2006-03-09 10:33|| Front Page Top

#17 "nailing the MMs"

No problem there, just trot out the old film clips of the blindfolded US Embassey personnel being taken hostage in Tehran in '79. Pick some of the juicier NightLine bits. Slap 'em together with some appropriate music.

You'll have a campaign that will trip every emotional knee-jerk trigger in America in a jiff.

Bombing starts 5 minutes later with the usual 8%-10%. paper-mache giant puppet / pink-tank crowd being the only ones who object.

Silver lining.
Posted by .com 2006-03-09 10:36||   2006-03-09 10:36|| Front Page Top

#18 Bad decision, guys. Bad, bad, bad.

Posted by mojo">mojo  2006-03-09 10:42||   2006-03-09 10:42|| Front Page Top

#19 Coulter said it best.

There are at least 3,000 reasons why a company controlled by a Middle Eastern Muslim emirate should be held to a different standard than a British company. Many of these reasons are now buried under a gaping hole that isn't metaphorical in lower Manhattan.

Side note: The Port Authority, which patrols the W.T.C. site and the adjoining PATH station, contracts a battery of security guards.

http://www.downtownexpress.com/de_118/dosecurityguards.html

There is your link. If you feel good about that why no lobby to have CAIR hire security at your local nuclear plant. How freaking stupid can the defenders of this mistake be? On your planet it would have been a good idea to turn over 22 of our ports to the kriegsmarine during WWII.

If you can't see a problem with turning over any part of port work to our muslim terrorist funding, nuclear smuggling enemies then you need to visit the hole in New York, brush up on your arabic, and then tell us what part of sharia law and dhimmitude you like best.
Posted by Icerigger 2006-03-09 11:04||   2006-03-09 11:04|| Front Page Top

#20 Which decision is bad?
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-09 11:14||   2006-03-09 11:14|| Front Page Top

#21 The simple fact that the UAE was a conduit for some of the 9-11 highjackers, a transshipment point for Khan's nuclear proliferation and today remains a country where nearly 20% of its population admires bin Laden first and foremost plus over 60% of that same population declares themselves to be Muslim first and foremost has to stand for something. Top it off with how the UAE will not be required to maintain a complete set of books stateside and this begins to reek.

As much as I detest the communist Chinese operating any of our ports, they have much more to lose by starting a nuclear exchange and, more importantly, do not participate in an overtly death-cult religion. The martyr instinct is simply too strong in Muslims in general to entrust them at this point in history.

However contrary to my own position, Nimble Spemble's post is a tour de force on why it may not be such a bad thing for the American public to go with this particular rejection of Arab ownership.

I'll repeat, all it takes is one relatively small nuclear device detonated in one of our major harbors to kill untold thousands and set back our economy TEN YEARS to the tune of a QUADRILLION dollars. Tell me how this is worth the risk.
Posted by Zenster 2006-03-09 11:32||   2006-03-09 11:32|| Front Page Top

#22 The MOST SIGNIFICANT thing about the port deal is this: Bill Clinton has been acting without authority behind the scenes to put the deal through because he somehow makes a profit personally. Meanwhile Hillary is bitching, moaning, and throwing around the PC theatrics against the ports deal, but she benefits from the same private profit deal Bill has going. As usual, they're working both sides.

I don't know what's going on, because, on one hand, I agree with .com and Cyber Sarge that the port deal is NO BIG DEAL, in the world of international commerce/business, but then, there's the Clinton involvement aspect, which has not come to full light just yet. Of course Bill and Hillary are up to something, and it's probably something more than trying to raise money from Arabs for Hillary's campaign. The other thing that's really bothering me is that the UAE is accepting Bill's unofficial forays into the (illegal) deal-making.

So, something's up, and it has nothing to do with the legitimacy/advisability issue regarding the ownership of foreign ports by foreign interests.

Posted by ex-lib 2006-03-09 11:39||   2006-03-09 11:39|| Front Page Top

#23 I mean "other than the issue of the ownership of US ports BY foreign interests."
Posted by ex-lib 2006-03-09 11:41||   2006-03-09 11:41|| Front Page Top

#24 I am not a longshoreman, but someone who was one explained it to me like this: They aren't "taking over a port" they are taking over the operation at one or several piers. The port is "owned" by the city where is exists and they inturn lease/sell piers to PRIVATE firms. The firms charge each ship that wants to load/unload goods at their pier. The managers of the pier use the fees to pay the longshoreman and fees to the port authority that controls security. Shipping lines dock at your pier depending on what type of pier you have and what services you provide. Given that DPW would do nothing except collect fees and pay people someone explain the security risk? I mean you can pay off longshoremen or security at any pier and you wouldn't have to spend millions of dollars buying one. If the bad guys wanted to send bombs/people/arms into the country they picked teh MOST expensive way to do it.
Posted by Cyber Sarge 2006-03-09 12:35||   2006-03-09 12:35|| Front Page Top

#25 .com, I think you're missing something: blocking the ports deal lets a lot of people in government and regress pretend they're doing something when in fact they aren't doing anything but pissing off the major transshipment point we have for military supplies going to our forces in Iraq.

It doesn't matter that it actually hurts us more than it helps us, they can pretend they're doing something. They can also bitch about foreign involvement in our ports while not reversing any of their policies that have screwed up everything from the oilfield to metalworking industries and everything else. They finally figured out a solution to the fact that they've been screwing American businesses out of business: ban foreign investment.

It isn't going to work _either_, but this whole issue isn't about how things actually work, or getting them to work.
Posted by Phil 2006-03-09 12:47||   2006-03-09 12:47|| Front Page Top

#26 Unfortunately, this is largely a political issue when it shouldn't have been.

My best advice would be for the Reps to pull the carpet out from under the donks. Why?

(1) Because Dubai, a great ally in the WoT, will respond to this farce by withholding future support. We rely on the graciousness of Dubai for docking, intel, etc. There will be a backlash.

(2) Because the donks couldn't hold themselves for two weeks into the 45-day review; in short, they are wetting all over themselves to be the first to pull the plug on the deal.

In a Senate committee meeting today, Sen. Dorgan, a principle in the march of the lemmings, tried to safeguard an adverse Senate vote by asking Condi what the ramifications would be from Dubia, Rummy interjected that there is no way of knowing how such a highly supportive ally would respond.

Dorgan was not pleased.
Posted by Captain America 2006-03-09 12:53||   2006-03-09 12:53|| Front Page Top

#27 The bright side is that this whole thing is going to backfire.
The UAE is going the retaliate, and that means with their money. They are going quit shopping from us. And that is not a drop in the bucket. The are already the number one purchaser of the new Boeing jets, a deal that is soon to be cancelled. They'll be flying Airbus. And many of our shipbuilders will also soon be out of work. And all those union workers will soon know who to blame. ALL of congress. Not just the Ds and Rs.
And forget about our ships berthing in Dubai (a great place to stop by the way). Nope, now maybe we can berth in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan.
Good move congress.
Screw a semi-friendly country so then we have to deal with truly unfriendly countries.
Posted by Urako 2006-03-09 12:58||   2006-03-09 12:58|| Front Page Top

#28 They were talking about this very issue on CNBC this morning. And mentioned in passing was something I thought important: all this talk can change nothing. When the UAE company bought P&O, they also acquired the contracts P&O holds. And we're stuck with them until the contracts run out, however many years down the road. I don't know if it's true, but in my youthful experience as an eeeeeevil landlord (actually, it was Mr. Wife who was the evil landlord; I was the good one), properties purchased with existing tenants meant the rents couldn't be raised until those tenants moved out... or the lease came up for renewal.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-03-09 13:00||   2006-03-09 13:00|| Front Page Top

#29 they aren't doing anything but pissing off the major transshipment point we have for military supplies going to our forces in Iraq.

Yup. So all you folks who are really really concerned about our security better start digging bunkers in your backyards. Because as a result of your pissing and moaning about this deal, it will get a lot harder to deal with Iran etc. OVERSEAS and we will be reduced to fighting here.

Bet on it.

You guys have broken the first rule of military defense: defense IN DEPTH. Layers. Fighting there and then backing it up here too.

Pfeh.
Posted by Slavique Shinenter9520 2006-03-09 13:50||   2006-03-09 13:50|| Front Page Top

#30 DPW just pulled out of the deal so all for not.
Posted by Cyber Sarge 2006-03-09 13:57||   2006-03-09 13:57|| Front Page Top

#31 The deal is dead. DPW is saying it will sell the contracts to a US company. Probably at a substantial discount as the only company to bid will be....Halliburton?

Anyway, we can bet that's not the only pain we will suffer. Thanks to all the idiots who were so scared of furners "opwning" our ports. I feel so much safer.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-09 14:00||   2006-03-09 14:00|| Front Page Top

#32 quote: The are already the number one purchaser of the new Boeing jets, a deal that is soon to be cancelled. They'll be flying Airbus.

They already fly Airbus. They have 50 Airbus planes and 40 Boeing. They were one of the first customers for the A380.

quote: the major transshipment point we have for military supplies going to our forces in Iraq.

And they do all this for free, right? And derive no economic benefit to boot?
Posted by Snerenter Ebbavitch1623 2006-03-09 14:05||   2006-03-09 14:05|| Front Page Top

#33 quote: Anyway, we can bet that's not the only pain we will suffer.

Oh the Pain! The sky has just fallen! ...on my poor, poor head. Feel the pain! Feel my pain!
Posted by Angogum Slumble8908 2006-03-09 14:08||   2006-03-09 14:08|| Front Page Top

#34 Frankly, I'm glad it was canceled. Not that the government of Dubai is hostile towards us, but that its people are. I'm sick of us treating the Muslim world with respect -- much more than they deserve -- and getting shit and bullets back in response.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2006-03-09 14:14|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-03-09 14:14|| Front Page Top

#35 As I see it this was a perfect opportunity to nail the Democrats as untrusting the patriotic American Union Longshoreman who are the only ones who would get near the cargo and the Republicans couldnt' get their message out/lined up.

This was not about port security and the fact that so many people thought it was, will continue to thin it is, just goes to show how bad the Bush Administration is at getting their message out.

On the bright side perhaps Halliburton will take over the docks and really drive the Dems to distraction.
Posted by rjschwarz">rjschwarz  2006-03-09 14:22||   2006-03-09 14:22|| Front Page Top

#36 I have said this before, the cartoon sh*t did it for the muslims, people are like f*ckem now, they get no ports they get nothing. I knew this is going to go this way and now the hatred will begin. It is going to get ugly.
Posted by djohn66 2006-03-09 14:28||   2006-03-09 14:28|| Front Page Top

#37 Frankly, I'm glad it was canceled. Not that the government of Dubai is hostile towards us, but that its people are. I'm sick of us treating the Muslim world with respect -- much more than they deserve -- and getting shit and bullets back in response.

Gotta agree with you on this one aspect (and one which I have already alluded to). Nowhere in the entire Arab world does America get a fair shake. The Saudis are supposed to be our bestus ally. Need I say more? Everywhere we go, the bywords are betrayal, deceit, perfidy and backstabbing in general. Good points have been made about our need for local berthing vis the Iraq campaign. From what I've seen, none of these smaller Arab domains are going to shut their doors if we continue to dump millions into their laps. And that is the real jist here, these @ssholes are our friends only so long as the money flows. There is absolutely no ideological, political or etchical concord driving any of this. Just the buckaroos. Remove all cash from the equation and watch what happens.
Posted by Zenster 2006-03-09 14:39||   2006-03-09 14:39|| Front Page Top

#38 Regardless of the outcome of the ports deal it is not in the best interests of the UAE to blow up their relationship with the US. The leaders there are not stupid. They have to deal with internal politics just as we do over here.

The US Govt. will do other things to make nice to them. Sure, they might have to do some symbolic tit for tat, but that is all that will come from this. They are not going to turn our ships away, nor turn down the huge amount of money they are getting to recieve our military equipment.

And don't forget that they are a lot more worried about Iran than we are since they are so close and so dependent on the Straits of Hormuz being kept open.

Personally, I think this whole brouhaha is bullshit and I don't beleive our security would have been affected one iota. But I absolutely agree that this is blowback from the cartoon seeth-fest. More and more people in the US are starting to see Muslims as freaks, rightly or wrongly. DPW is paying the price for that.
Posted by remoteman 2006-03-09 14:43||   2006-03-09 14:43|| Front Page Top

#39 And that is the real jist here, these @ssholes are our friends only so long as the money flows.

So long as we shovel over the jizya, you mean. No doubt our "diplomats" do enough abasement to satisfy that part of the requirement. Though I suspect it won't be enough pretty soon.
Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford  2006-03-09 14:49|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/]  2006-03-09 14:49|| Front Page Top

#40 The horrors keep piling up.

Did you know that foreign investors own at least 14 power generation plants in the United States? Power plants! At any moment power generation could be cut to hundreds of thousands of customers--homes and businesses--and we would have no say! To say nothing of foreign ownership of car manufacturing facilities in the United States. The Japanese get angry with us? Expect Toyota and Honda plants to close. And until they do close them expect them to watch our Native Manufacturers like hawks, examining how our Good American companies make cars...just to do it themselves!!!

And it doesn't end there. How many billions of dollars have the Canadiens invested in this country, putting to risk housing developments, apartment complexes, all under the evil thumb of the Foreigner!!!!!!!

Foreign investment in the country has to stop. We have to let Uncle Pierre, or Uncle Achmed, or Uncle Bruce know that they have no rights to American investment.

Only after we remove all foreign investment from this country will we be safe. And if they don't sell cheap...we nationalize!

What a great time to be a True, Blue American. We don't need people with different faiths, creeds or nationalities to invest here. All we need is to have Congress pass a law and America will becomd safe again.

(/btw, sarc off)
Posted by OregonGuy">OregonGuy  2006-03-09 14:50||   2006-03-09 14:50|| Front Page Top

#41 .com

Even if security is handled by Coast Guards I think it is much better to have the ports in hands of people who will not turn a blind eye if they accidentally learn of a jihadist plot, let alone if ports are in the hands of people who will actively help jihadis with their plots.
Posted by  JFM"> JFM  2006-03-09 14:50||   2006-03-09 14:50|| Front Page Top

#42 
Icerigger, Zenster, .com has his own set of facts and reasoning that he goes by. Any other facts or reasoning that conflicts with his chosen opinion is invalid.

You can tell by the way he hurls insults and invective, as though that might intimidate you into seeing things his way.

Posted by Nana 2006-03-09 14:58||   2006-03-09 14:58|| Front Page Top

#43 I wasn't that furriners was going to run the ports, It is because muslims' was going to run the ports. If they would have said India was going to run the ports nobody would have said nothing.I am not codoning that activity, but that is how it is
Posted by djohn66 2006-03-09 14:59||   2006-03-09 14:59|| Front Page Top

#44 
"I'm opposed to all the things I think are bad things and in favor of all the things I think are good! So There!"

So am I! But your attitude is that what you think is always right, and if anyone disagrees, they're wrong. Some of us might see you the same way you say you see us.

Posted by Nana 2006-03-09 15:00||   2006-03-09 15:00|| Front Page Top

#45 
"There ain't no fixing it once people "decide" - they ignore everything else that's said, any and all proof to the contrary, and simply cast further and further afield for something, anything, to make a case - no matter how rickety or silly."

The exact same case could be made and applied to you!

Posted by Nana 2006-03-09 15:02||   2006-03-09 15:02|| Front Page Top

#46 Chuck S. got what he set out to do. If any here trusts this Senator you are a fool. You just gave this gun banning bastard a win that hurts the WoT.
Posted by SPoD 2006-03-09 15:02|| http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/]">[http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/]  2006-03-09 15:02|| Front Page Top

#47 I wasn't that furriners was going to run the ports, It is because muslims' was going to run the ports.

ChiComs running ports is OK, but not muslims. Okay.
Posted by Nimble Spemble 2006-03-09 15:05||   2006-03-09 15:05|| Front Page Top

#48 
"...do nothing except collect fees and pay people someone explain the security risk?"

And send the profits home to the UAE where they are off the books, and/or cannot be scrutinized by us as to where they go.
Posted by Nana 2006-03-09 15:09||   2006-03-09 15:09|| Front Page Top

#49 :] You just gave this gun banning bastard a win that hurts the WoT.

Oh my God! Run for the hills! Run for the hills! They have won!
Posted by Ben Dover For Islam 2006-03-09 15:10||   2006-03-09 15:10|| Front Page Top

#50 Hey I didn't say it was fair, I am just saying when a whole hell of a lot of Americans don't want something, it is not going to happen
Posted by djohn66 2006-03-09 15:10||   2006-03-09 15:10|| Front Page Top

#51 :> You have made an emotional decision...Emotions are easily manipulated and you're today's prize fool.

I concur!!! ...er, I mean, I concur.


Posted by Spock 2006-03-09 15:13||   2006-03-09 15:13|| Front Page Top

#52 You don't know where the profits from all the Hutchinson-Wampoa-controlled facilities here go.
Posted by Phil 2006-03-09 15:15||   2006-03-09 15:15|| Front Page Top

#53 Maybe, just maybe, Michael Moore was correct about the Bush family and their releationship with the Arabs.
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-09 15:16||   2006-03-09 15:16|| Front Page Top

#54 Cutting to the chase, Port - or Pier - operators would have comprehensive knowledge of Port security systems, thus, allowing a terrorist infiltrator to bypass same. All Muslims are subject to jihad recruitment, and studies reveal that middle and upper class Arabs form the bulk of al-Qaeda membership. The unholy Koran says: "Jihad is prescribed to you." You can take the Muslim out of jihad, but you can't take jihad out of the Muslim. However, you can put a leash - or a noose - on them.
Posted by Listen To Dogs 2006-03-09 15:24||   2006-03-09 15:24|| Front Page Top

#55 You don't know where the profits from all the Hutchinson-Wampoa-controlled facilities here go.

That's riiiight! Follow the money!!
Posted by ][e 2006-03-09 15:25||   2006-03-09 15:25|| Front Page Top

#56 Just Curious:
You don't like the President? Some do:
http://www.bushislord.com/
Some don't:
http://www.bushisantichrist.com/
(pardon my cut-and-paste browser)
Posted by Listen To Dogs 2006-03-09 15:52||   2006-03-09 15:52|| Front Page Top

#57  Hey I didn't say it was fair, I am just saying when a whole hell of a lot of Americans don't want something, it is not going to happen

Well, there's an old saying, want in one hand, shit in the other, and see which one fills up first.
Posted by Phil 2006-03-09 16:03||   2006-03-09 16:03|| Front Page Top

#58 "The is a 10 foot tall Penguin behind you!"
Posted by SPoD 2006-03-09 16:11|| http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/]">[http://sockpuppetofdoom.blogspot.com/]  2006-03-09 16:11|| Front Page Top

#59 LTD:

In Farenheit 9-11, Michael Moore went into great detail about the relationship between the Bush family and and the Arabs.

In light of President Bush's support for this deal while everyone else is denouncing it, you telling me you dont think its a coincidence?
Posted by Just Curious 2006-03-09 16:19||   2006-03-09 16:19|| Front Page Top

#60 Nana and Just Curious are leftist agenda types. Just FYI.
Posted by ex-lib 2006-03-09 16:29||   2006-03-09 16:29|| Front Page Top

#61 Hey screw you , if you don't like the way it went down, not my problem. I do not give a shit one way or another, but 80 percent of the people did not want the deal live with it.
Posted by djohn66 2006-03-09 16:46||   2006-03-09 16:46|| Front Page Top

#62 80 percent of the people don't, or are incapable of, understanding the complexities of the deal--thanks to the MSM, in large part.
Posted by ex-lib 2006-03-09 16:51||   2006-03-09 16:51|| Front Page Top

#63 And if the UAE gives us a big "Screw You" with respect to

1) basing rights
2) intelligence passing

will that be a net gain or net loss in the view of the "80%"?

--80% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
Posted by eLarson 2006-03-09 16:54|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com]  2006-03-09 16:54|| Front Page Top

#64 Incidentally, the deal seems to be off. The UAE is reportedly going to transfer the terminal management to a US company.

link to more links
Posted by eLarson 2006-03-09 16:57|| http://larsonian.blogspot.com]">[http://larsonian.blogspot.com]  2006-03-09 16:57|| Front Page Top

#65 Look I can agree all day with you, but it was not me to convince. Bush did not convince a majority of the people, a big majority said no, guess what no deal.
Posted by djohn66 2006-03-09 16:58||   2006-03-09 16:58|| Front Page Top

#66 Right dj. I think it's tough to get the message out, since the conduits of information have their own agenda (the MSM). BTW, the MSM really get their rocks off if they can manipulate the public into this or that direction. Power addicts, mostly.
Posted by ex-lib 2006-03-09 17:00||   2006-03-09 17:00|| Front Page Top

#67 So, let's agree that all of the people need all of the facts in order to draw logical conclusions about security. And, that the MSM have never and will never supply all the facts on any issue. Now, with about 5,000 people crossing the borders every day, shouldn't the same level of debate force immediate action by the phuckan Senate ?
Posted by wxjames 2006-03-09 17:05||   2006-03-09 17:05|| Front Page Top

#68 Oh a lot of people don't like the illegal immigrant stuff either, I think it is going to be a big campaign issue this november
Posted by djohn66 2006-03-09 17:11||   2006-03-09 17:11|| Front Page Top

#69 80 percent of the people don't, or are incapable of, understanding the complexities of the deal--

We're just too stupid. Forgive us.
Posted by Wheatch Glick3121 2006-03-09 17:15||   2006-03-09 17:15|| Front Page Top

#70 Looks like the pitchfork pat wing wins a round.

/wop wop wop wop
Posted by 6 2006-03-09 17:34||   2006-03-09 17:34|| Front Page Top

#71 The razor blade sez there are two major groups.

1) Some people "decide" based upon emotions. The IQ curve is in play - obviously - dismiss them out of hand.

2) Some people decide based upon facts.

***

The razor blade sez Group Two splits into two subgroups:

a) Some people restrict themselves to reality. A constant re-assessment and re-balancing based upon changing facts and circumstances - and experience. It's a lot of work and requires one to evolve - as reality evolves.

b) Some people speculate outside of reality. The primary persuasion tool is fear. Fear of black helicopters, OWG, CAIR providing security at the local nuke plant, fear of the boogeymen under their beds, fear of, well, just about everything. I think of them as turtle-people.

***

The razor sez subgroup b splits into two subsets:

i) Some people fear-monger using facts but not experience or rationality. They are very careful about which facts they feature - and which must be minimized - to generate the desired accolades for their position.

ii) Some people fear-monger without any impediments whatsoever, such as facts or reality.

***

Observations from a Group 2a member:

I am embarrased by Group 1, but recognize how the IQ curve applies and emotion is all they have going for them. Oh look, Sesame Street is on!

I am fascinated by the gyrations of 2b(i). Maybe there's something there, but probably not. Experience dictates that hollering does not equal substance and worst case extrapolation is primarily useful for bounding an argument. In the end, they are also embarrassing for their tenacity despite the lack of actual supporting evidence.

I am laughing my ass off over the BDS-addled subset 2b(ii). "Maybe, just maybe", lol, they are totally insane. The droll troll nym chameleon actually thinks it can weasel in and snarf up a few weaklings to join the Kool Aid Brigades. Lol - please, anyone who is tempted is encouraged to go. Please. Hurry. *giggle*

***

Icerigger: That was your proof?
"The Port Authority, which patrols the W.T.C. site and the adjoining PATH station, contracts a battery of security guards — as well as police officers — to patrol the property."

There are regular cops mixed in there, I see.

And, once again, I direct you to Oldspook's comments - especially the parts about politics and funding.

You make yourself look like a moron to jump to the most extreme idiocy you could dream up to "drive your point home" - that's not logic, that's proof you belong in 2b(i).

***

Fallout: This mindless exercise has weakened precisely those who would defend you and yours. The political process, the whore of whores, has won the day. Truth was murdered. Again.
Posted by .com 2006-03-09 17:41||   2006-03-09 17:41|| Front Page Top

#72 djohn, the borders will be a big deal in November ?
It's March for Jake's sake. It should be a big deal now. 5,000 per day equals about 1,200,000 chances to become an illegal between now and then. Why wait ? Why allow waiting by the phuckan Senate ?
Posted by wxjames 2006-03-09 18:22||   2006-03-09 18:22|| Front Page Top

#73 wxjames, I've seen more and more articles about the border issue, starting when the Minutemen began their patrols -- including items on NPR, which means the Progressives are no longer pretending it's not an issue. I've also started noticing letters to the editor on both sides of the issue, here in Cincinnati, which is about as far from all the borders as can be gotten in the continental U.S. I'd say that the peepul have noticed that illegal migration has reached unacceptable levels, and given that even Hillary Clinton has started to speak on the subject, we won't have to wait until November for things to start happening in DC. It was only the other day that the governor of Arizona (?) announced that she wants to put her units of the National Guard along the border to supplement the Border Patrol.
Posted by trailing wife 2006-03-09 22:13||   2006-03-09 22:13|| Front Page Top

#74 Yes, yw - it was Arizona. And 'November' has a lot to do with Governor Naplitano's actions. Come 2007 and her re-election, it'll be back to the same ol' same ol'.
Posted by Pappy 2006-03-09 22:51||   2006-03-09 22:51|| Front Page Top

#75 I've also started noticing letters to the editor on both sides of the issue, here in Cincinnati,

That's probably because papers are actually pringing the ones they've been receiving all along but never printed before. Why are they printing them now? Probably because the democrats are delusional that they can suddenly make this their issue. Dream on.
Posted by 2b 2006-03-09 22:54||   2006-03-09 22:54|| Front Page Top

#76 I can't help being naive, 2b. It's the way I was drawn. ;-)

And anyway, why have the papers suddenly noticed that it's an issue? Possibly because the number of letters to the editor on the subject?
Posted by trailing wife 2006-03-09 23:09||   2006-03-09 23:09|| Front Page Top

#77 ROFL, tw!
Posted by .com 2006-03-09 23:18||   2006-03-09 23:18|| Front Page Top

#78 
"Nana and Just Curious are leftist agenda types. Just FYI."

For myself, I've voted Rebublican my whole life. You're an idiot. You cast about accusations without knowing the difference between your ass and a hole in the ground.

Posted by Nana 2006-03-09 23:47||   2006-03-09 23:47|| Front Page Top

#79 
"80 percent of the people don't, or are incapable of, understanding the complexities of the deal--thanks to the MSM, in large part."

Doesn't matter! This is still a mojority rule country. Enough Americans wrote their Reps. and said this is BS, we don't want it. On both sides. And they were listened too, you don't like it! Tough titty!

Posted by Nana 2006-03-09 23:50||   2006-03-09 23:50|| Front Page Top

#80 I'm, still parsing the broken glass bit.

Now it's titties.
Posted by .com 2006-03-09 23:53||   2006-03-09 23:53|| Front Page Top

#81 
"Now it's titties."

I was looking for the lowest common denominator! I guess I wasn't far off the mark. I'm amazed at how quick you responded, though I shouldn't have been.

Do you actually have a job, or do you just draw SSI for whatever mental illness you have?

Posted by Nana 2006-03-10 00:00||   2006-03-10 00:00|| Front Page Top

#82 Lol, I'm retired, Nana.

I can always go back to work, if I want to, but I don't have to.

You're stuck with being a fool forever.
Posted by .com 2006-03-10 00:04||   2006-03-10 00:04|| Front Page Top

00:04 .com
00:00 Nana
23:53 .com
23:52 Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, AK
23:50 Nana
23:47 Nana
23:47 Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, AK
23:44 Nana
23:42 Frank G
23:40 Frank G
23:40 Nana
23:40 Al Gore
23:38 Frank G
23:37 twobyfour
23:36 Frank G
23:30 Alaska Paul in Hooper Bay, AK
23:29 Rafael
23:28 badanov
23:27 .com
23:25 Ulaigum Ebbereck6419
23:20 Pappy
23:18 .com
23:17 .com
23:11 Frank G

Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
18.204.48.199

Merry-Go-Blog










Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com