So lets get this straight

[Lefty Wilbury]

So lets get this straight:

when the port authority of NYC runs LaGuardia Airport, and the security is run by the tsa, and terminals are sold or rented to forgien companies like egypt air or saudi arabian airlines thats fine even though the highjackers were from those countries BUT when the port authority of NYC runs the ports, the coast guard does the security both here AND overseas, you can't have a forgien company run a terminal. someone explain that to me. because you would think the issue of airline security and the cargo that those companies ship would prevent them from running or owning terminals. the only difference i see is the mode of transportion involved plane vs ship and its and election year.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

So lets get this straight:

when the port authority of NYC runs LaGuardia Airport, and the security is run by the tsa, and terminals are sold or rented to forgien companies like egypt air or saudi arabian airlines thats fine even though the highjackers were from those countries BUT when the port authority of NYC runs the ports, the coast guard does the security both here AND overseas, you can't have a forgien company run a terminal. someone explain that to me. because you would think the issue of airline security and the cargo that those companies ship would prevent them from running or owning terminals. the only difference i see is the mode of transportion involved plane vs ship and its and election year.

Actually they shouldn't be doing airplance security either.

 

[Annie]

Actually they shouldn't be doing airplance security either.

I agree. Funny thing, I was getting ready for a rant on this. Those that have been following should be very familiar with my take on this whole issue. I'm not happy that they tacked this onto a bill, it's just aimed at Dubai, which seems no worse than China, perhaps better than Singapore. The problem is the ability for foreign countries to gain any control at sensitive sites, that's the real issue.

Again, the lobbyists, congress, even the administration realize by now that they need to diffuse interest of the electorate, so here is your bone. Gonna chomp on it, or hold their feet to the fire?

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

but they are and i don't see anyone having a hissy fit over it. all i'm looking for is constiancy here.its either or. allow forgien companies to run certain things or not. no nit picking. i also forgot to say more people have died over egypt air screw ups then have died with shipping ones. for eygpt air: http://www.airsafe.com/flt990.htm

 

[Annie]

but they are and i don't see anyone having a hissy fit over it. all i'm looking for is constiancy here.its either or. allow fogien companies to run certain things or not. no nit picking. i also forgot to say more people have died over egypt air screw ups then have died with shipping ones. for eygpt air: http://www.airsafe.com/flt990.htm

Please read what I wrote. I'm sharing my 'hissy fit' with all my representatives.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

i wrote my respose before yours got posted. i'm refering to everyone in general. liberals,republicans, lou dobbs everyone.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

but they are and i don't see anyone having a hissy fit over it. all i'm looking for is constiancy here.its either or. allow forgien companies to run certain things or not. no nit picking. i also forgot to say more people have died over egypt air screw ups then have died with shipping ones. for eygpt air: http://www.airsafe.com/flt990.htm

Actually it's seems like your making the assinine argument that since we've screwed up with airport security, we must screw up with the ports as well. Do two wrongs make a right?

Consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind.

 

[Annie]

i wrote my respose before yours got posted. i'm refering to everyone in general. liberals,republicans, lou dobbs everyone.

Ok, respond to what I've already posted, please.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

Actually it's seems like your making the assinine argument that since we've screwed up with airport security, we must screw up with the ports as well. Do two wrongs make a right?

Consistency is the hobgoblin of a small mind.

but this goes back to what i said at the begining of all this: the only thing that is going to change with the ports is the name on the letterhead and whos paying the checks. the same dock workers will be loading and unloading the ships, the coast guard is still going to check the manifests here and overseas and they'll also inpect the ships before they enter the harbour. nothing is going to change.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

but this goes back to what i said at the begining of all this: the only thing that is going to change with the ports is the name on the letterhead and whos paying the checks. the same dock workers will be loading and unloading the ships, the coast guard is still going to check the manifests here and overseas and they'll also inpect the ships before they enter the harbour. nothing is going to change.

I don't believe that the owning corporation cannot breach security or cannot give insights on how to breach security if it so desires. Why was there a secret vetting process at all if the owning corporation has zero impact?

 

[Annie]

but this goes back to what i said at the begining of all this: the only thing that is going to change with the ports is the name on the letterhead and whos paying the checks. the same dock workers will be loading and unloading the ships, the coast guard is still going to check the manifests here and overseas and they'll also inpect the ships before they enter the harbour. nothing is going to change.

So you think all is hunky dorey and this will be more of the same? Not what I've heard. This just adds more of a problem to a glaring problem.

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

I agree. Funny thing, I was getting ready for a rant on this. Those that have been following should be very familiar with my take on this whole issue. I'm not happy that they tacked this onto a bill, it's just aimed at Dubai, which seems no worse than China, perhaps better than Singapore. The problem is the ability for foreign countries to gain any control at sensitive sites, that's the real issue.

Again, the lobbyists, congress, even the administration realize by now that they need to diffuse interest of the electorate, so here is your bone. Gonna chomp on it, or hold their feet to the fire?

first off congress didn't and doesn't have a say on who owns the port. the sale between two companies was approved but the right oversight. the same over sight that has been in charge of these things for years. congress only got involved when it seemed there was a political advantage to be had. thats it.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

first off congress didn't and doesn't have a say on who owns the port. the sale between two companies was approved but the right oversight. the same over sight that has been in charge of these things for years. congress only got involved when it seemed there was a political advantage to be had. thats it.

They have a say if they pass a law saying "no port deal for dubai"

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

I don't believe that the owning corporation cannot breach security or cannot give insights on how to breach security if it so desires. Why was there a secret vetting process at all if the owning corporation has zero impact?

they only reason it seems secret is because you didn't know about it. there are reviews about almost every sale of every company in this country. by either the doj,dod,tsa, commerce etc etc. and not just to forgien companies either. almost sale gets a review. if ratheon was to buy a company the dod reviews. same with justice. etc etc. which is why you always hear the following phrase: the dealing is pending and is wiating for the ok from federal regulators

 

[Lefty Wilbury]

They have a say if they pass a law saying "no port deal for dubai"

but was that law passed before this sale was approved?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

they only reason it seems secret is because you didn't know about it. there are reviews about almost every sale of every company in this country. by either the doj,dod,tsa, commerce etc etc. and not just to forgien companies either. almost sale gets a review. if ratheon was to buy a company the dod reviews. same with justice. etc etc.

I believe there was a secret vetting process involved.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

but was that law passed before this sale was approved?

Does that matter?

 

[Annie]

first off congress didn't and doesn't have a say on who owns the port. the sale between two companies was approved but the right oversight. the same over sight that has been in charge of these things for years. congress only got involved when it seemed there was a political advantage to be had. thats it.

I agree, Dubai brought it onto the radar of us regular folk. Congress does have the power to make laws regarding security. Now that it's been recorded, do we stop with Dubai? I hope not.

 

[Mr. P]

So lets get this straight:

when the port authority of NYC runs LaGuardia Airport, and the security is run by the tsa, and terminals are sold or rented to forgien companies like egypt air or saudi arabian airlines thats fine even though the highjackers were from those countries BUT when the port authority of NYC runs the ports, the coast guard does the security both here AND overseas, you can't have a forgien company run a terminal. someone explain that to me. because you would think the issue of airline security and the cargo that those companies ship would prevent them from running or owning terminals. the only difference i see is the mode of transportion involved plane vs ship and its and election year.

I don't understand your question really, but as to the bold part...they don't own, they just lease the terminal space. Same for all US airlines for the most part.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You all straightened out lefty? I've heard many don't mind a slight curvature.