How utterly torn up the pro dealies are

[rtwngAvngr]

no--it's called leaping to conclusions with out facts ----you done it with the port deal and now you doing it with me. Get back to me with some hard evidence. Your continual speculation is worthless. Until you can do that, you just blowing hyterical smoke.

No. THeir involvement with terrorism is documented and verifiable. I'm not gonna do your research for you. I've posted enough here to convince myself.

So you're not gonna tell us where you stand? You're just a drama queen.

 

[dilloduck]

No. THeir involvement with terrorism is documented and verifiable. I'm not gonna do your research for you. I've posted enough here to convince myself.

So you're not gonna tell us where you stand? You're just a drama queen.

Well at least you've convinced someone. I've repeatedly stated that I intend to wait for the facts to come out--the facts that pertain strictly to the port lease.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Well at least you've convinced someone. I've repeatedly stated that I intend to wait for the facts to come out--the facts that pertain strictly to the port lease.

SO you're NOT for it? Seems like you are. It's laughable to say you've reserved judgement.

 

[musicman]

A political ploy to attack the administration and look stong on national security. It was Schumer and Hillary who jumped all over it. Dick Morris has even suggested that since Bill is an agent for a Dubai company, Hillary was freaked that it would screw up her image.
We will see real soon here how serious these people are about torpedoing the deal.

Well - paraphrasing Kathianne - President Bush's performance on border security scarcely inspires one to give him "carte-blanche" on a deal like this.

Again paraphrasing - I believe RWA stated that GW's first allegiance appears to be to the New World Order.

And - if I interpret you correctly here, Dillo - you're saying that the Democrats are loudly, hypocritically playing politics with the issue (surprise, surprise).

I'm in a hell of a fix, then. I happen to believe that ALL THREE statements are correct!

 

[dilloduck]

Well - paraphrasing Kathianne - President Bush's performance on border security scarcely inspires one to give him "carte-blanche" on a deal like this.

Again paraphrasing - I believe RWA stated that GW's first allegiance appears to be to the New World Order.

And - if I interpret you correctly here, Dillo - you're saying that the Democrats are loudly, hypocritically playing politics with the issue (surprise, surprise).

I'm in a hell of a fix, then. I happen to believe that ALL THREE statements are correct!

I don't see how you can honestly say that Bush has been given "carte-blanche".

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I don't see how you can honestly say that Bush has been given "carte-blanche".

You've given it to him. You're turned off your brain regarding selling port management deals to Islamic Theocracies, business savvy though they may be.

 

[dilloduck]

You've given it to him. You're turned off your brain regarding selling port management deals to Islamic Theocracies, business savvy though they may be.

I haven't given him anything---Last I heard, there are still people investigating. If people are over-seeing a proposal that he has claimed to support , you can't honestly call that carte blanche.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I haven't given him anything---Last I heard, there are still people investigating. If people are over-seeing a proposal that he has claimed to support , you can't honestly call that carte blanche.

Oh. It's carte blanche. It's people unwilling to do what's right due to fear of a lib takeover. This is how we lose everything, constantly shifting our logic and sense for partisan purposes. I fear a lib takeover too, but if I go along with an islamic takeover to prevent a lib takeover, what have I really gained?

 

[Annie]

I haven't given him anything---Last I heard, there are still people investigating. If people are over-seeing a proposal that he has claimed to support , you can't honestly call that carte blanche.

But you posted that the 'dems' and 'weak minded' folks, 'killed' the deal by insisting on further review. Now you are in favor of review, ya know 'to get more information', come to a 'reasoned decision?' I thought we were just supposed to rely on CFIUS?

 

[dilloduck]

Oh. It's carte blanche. It's people unwilling to do what's right due to fear of a lib takeover. This is how we lose everything, constantly shifting our logic and sense for partisan purposes. I fear a lib takeover too, but if I go along with an islamic takeover to prevent a lib takeover, what have I really gained?

I haven't shifted a damn thing for any purposes. YOU are the one who joined the DU.

 

[Gunny]

Oh. It's carte blanche. It's people unwilling to do what's right due to fear of a lib takeover. This is how we lose everything, constantly shifting our logic and sense for partisan purposes. I fear a lib takeover too, but if I go along with an islamic takeover to prevent a lib takeover, what have I really gained?

Okay, what exactly is "doing what's right?" And I'm NOT attacking you. Legit question.

You responded previously with "pass a law." What law that disenfrachises a corporation from something it has legally acquired would be constitutional?

Again, I don't believe ANY foreign government should have ANY control over something that to me is a vital National asset. But it's ALREADY done. We sold off to the Brits. I'm sure the "Mother country" mindset was in play at the time. But now the "Mother country" has sold out to a country many Americans see as a problem.

Yes, it is fact there are terrorists in the UAE. The terrorist threat level was always "high" whenever we were in port. At teh same time, the government of the UAE has been one of our staunchest supporters in the region.

Port security is not going to change. Where the profits go is what will change. While I prefer those profits to go to a US corporation, no US corporation even entered a bid.

In the balance is, do we offend one of our staunchest supporters in the ME for something we have no control over and have not controlled since the Brits bought it?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Okay, what exactly is "doing what's right?" And I'm NOT attacking you. Legit question.

You responded previously with "pass a law." What law that disenfrachises a corporation from something it has legally acquired would be constitutional?

Again, I don't believe ANY foreign government should have ANY control over something that to me is a vital National asset. But it's ALREADY done. We sold off to the Brits. I'm sure the "Mother country" mindset was in play at the time. But now the "Mother country" has sold out to a country many Americans see as a problem.

Yes, it is fact there are terrorists in the UAE. The terrorist threat level was always "high" whenever we were in port. At teh same time, the government of the UAE has been one of our staunchest supporters in the region.

Port security is not going to change. Where the profits go is what will change. While I prefer those profits to go to a US corporation, no US corporation even entered a bid.

In the balance is, do we offend one of our staunchest supporters in the ME for something we have no control over and have not controlled since the Brits bought it?

Laws can be very specific.

I don't trust the UAE the same as the brits.

I don't believe it's impossible for the parent company to breach security if they really try hard.

 

[musicman]

I don't see how you can honestly say that Bush has been given "carte-blanche".

Probably worded poorly on my part. Here's Kathianne's original thought, which I should have posted to begin with:

"...I disagree about the ports, but not only on the context of UAE, but foreign control/workers at all ports of entry. Considering Bush's record on borders in general, I'm not reassured about the 'due diligence' claim...".

What I mean is, I don't give GW's idea of "due diligence" carte-blanche. His actions on border security tend to make such a phrase ring hollow.

 

[Gunny]

Laws can be very specific.

I don't trust the UAE the same as the brits.

I don't believe it's impossible for the parent company to breach security if they really try hard.

I agree laws can be specific. A preemptory law not allowing foreign Nations to control any of our National assets would be fine with me.

But we are looking at an after-the-fact wakeup call here. I don't see that we have any legal recourse that is Constitutional.

I don't trust ANY corporations, I don't care WHERE they are from. All will sell out to the highest bidder as is exemplified by this issue. I don't see the UAE at the corporate level as any more or less dangerous than the UK. When it comes to global corporate greed, I think religious fanaticism takes a back seat.

What security could they breech? Knowing where the renta-a-cop hides out to take his nap? Unless I am mistaken, actual physical security of the ports is not at play here. I don't see our ports as lucrative targets to Islam-o-idiots anyway.

They go for symbols. The WTC -- symbol of the US's financial power. The Pentagon -- symbol of the US's military power. The White House (allegedly) -- symbol the US's executive power -- arguably the most powerful man on Earth.

When they hit again, they have to trump 9/11 to avoid an anticlimactic reaction. of course we will be offended, but blowing up a dock or a ship isn't going to cut it.

 

[Gunny]

Probably worded poorly on my part. Here's Kathianne's original thought, which I should have posted to begin with:

"...I disagree about the ports, but not only on the context of UAE, but foreign control/workers at all ports of entry. Considering Bush's record on borders in general, I'm not reassured about the 'due diligence' claim...".

What I mean is, I don't give GW's idea of "due diligence" carte-blanche. His actions on border security tend to make such a phrase ring hollow.

Add with few exception every elected official within the US and I agree.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

I agree laws can be specific. A preemptory law not allowing foreign Nations to control any of our National assets would be fine with me.

But we are looking at an after-the-fact wakeup call here. I don't see that we have any legal recourse that is Constitutional.

Sure we do. Haven't we instituted embargos of various kinds in the past? This is not even a complete embargo. It's an embargo from port ownership.

I don't trust ANY corporations, I don't care WHERE they are from. All will sell out to the highest bidder as is exemplified by this issue. I don't see the UAE at the corporate level as any more or less dangerous than the UK. When it comes to global corporate greed, I think religious fanaticism takes a back seat.

If you don't see the difference between UAE and the brits, you're just not looking.

What security could they breech? Knowing where the renta-a-cop hides out to take his nap? Unless I am mistaken, actual physical security of the ports is not at play here. I don't see our ports as lucrative targets to Islam-o-idiots anyway.

They go for symbols. The WTC -- symbol of the US's financial power. The Pentagon -- symbol of the US's military power. The White House (allegedly) -- symbol the US's executive power -- arguably the most powerful man on Earth.

When they hit again, they have to trump 9/11 to avoid an anticlimactic reaction. of course we will be offended, but blowing up a dock or a ship isn't going to cut it.

I believe they will have access to data on procedures that would be useful to terrorists. They will be able to correlate manifests to when searches take place and figure out what line items trigger a search. OR combination of line items. OR combination of line items, and country of origin.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Next!

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Look y'all. Bush is sniffing glue.

 

[Annie]

Add with few exception every elected official within the US and I agree.

Gunny, we usually agree. I do somewhat understand and agree with the purposeful cluelessness of Congress. Yet, the real fault on issues such as illegal immigration lies directly at the feet of the population, for not responding to their representatives. There is now a marriage between illegal immigration and this Dubai fiasco, perhaps wrongly, but out of that possible wrong-people are writing and calling! Guess what is happening...

There is no lobbying firm that is out to get the electorate ennervated to such a degree that they will actually keep paying attention. What we are witnessing is full scale pullback by Washington, on several levels.

 

[Gunny]

Sure we do. Haven't we instituted embargos of various kinds in the past? This is not even a complete embargo. It's an embargo from port ownership.

If you don't see the difference between UAE and the brits, you're just not looking.

There is no difference in regard to this topic. BOTH are foreign Nations with their fingers in OUR pie.

I believe they will have access to data on procedures that would be useful to terrorists. They will be able to correlate manifests to when searches take place and figure out what line items trigger a search. OR combination of line items. OR combination of line items, and country of origin.

I could be mistaken, but I believe it wouldn't be that hard to do any of the above NOW without owning anything. All you'd really have to do is tell someone from ABC Bush was hiding something in a port and everything that ever went in or out of it would be all over Page One.