Off Topic Messages

Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:17 pm

Graceland Gardener wrote:Bush plans to VETO any stop to the deal.

Whatthf*** The USA shouldn't be giving our Port Authorities to foreign countries least of which Arab ones.


So far it was done by (a) British company (companies). So why worry about it being done by another foreign country now?
Isn't Pearl Harbor owned by Japanese companies? 65 years ago they bombed the place, now they own it!

Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:23 pm

ImageImage

The port controversy has opened up the controversy of how we ever began outsourcing such a key thing to a foreign country or company. But to compare our ally (the UK) to an Arab/Muslim state is myopic. But it's true: we should not have outsourced it, period.

As has been said, as we see the American industrial base slowly die off, will the day come when we have to ask China to build us a tank? Smart!

After 9/11, I think Americans are rightfully (as any sovereign nation should) revisiting how we protect our borders and again are out front ahead of their "leaders" in government and the corporate world.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/
Last edited by Gregory Nolan Jr. on Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:13 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Wed Feb 22, 2006 7:38 pm

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:The port controversy has opened up the controversy of how we ever began outsourcing such a key thing to a foreign country or company. But to compare our ally (the UK) to an Arab/Muslim state is myopic. But it's true: we should not have outsourced it, period.

As has been said, as we see the American industrial base slowly die off, will the day come when we have to ask China to build us a tank? Smart!

After 9/11, I think Americans are rightfully (as any sovereign nation should) revisiting how we protect our borders and again are out front ahead of their "leaders" in government and the corporate world.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11494815/


The main problem is that the people in power want to make as much money as possible during their reign. They privatised "public domain" companies, like the electricity suppliers, and private companies can be sold.
If the company that builds tanks has been privatised i.e. their shares are on the public market, Chinese can buy these shares and yes, the U.S.A. will have to ask China to build a tank in case they are at war with... China.
That's capitalism.

Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:40 pm

Luuk wrote: So far it was done by (a) British company (companies). So why worry about it being done by another foreign country now?



Britain isn't really that foreign

They do speak and write English like America.
A sameness of communication and language.

Whatthefuckis Bush thinkin?!?!?!

It's getting to the point that I'll be glad when he and Cheney are finished with this term, and out, and the Next Republican President comes in.

Hoipefully it'll be one who won't suck-up/kiss-ass with Arabs.

Wed Feb 22, 2006 8:43 pm

It is our "mother country" and our oldest ally.

Luuk, we all know that western capitalism is not a pure system with no constraints whatsoever. We've tried that.

The U.S. is perhaps way out front on being big on "libertarian" / "small government is best" (at least in theory) and on national security, this attitude will come to hurt us if we have to come to, say, China, (or Dubai?), with hat in hand.

Pathetic. And people won't stand for it.
Last edited by Gregory Nolan Jr. on Wed Feb 22, 2006 11:31 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Wed Feb 22, 2006 9:00 pm

I really wonder sometimes if GW Bush is a...........
brainwashed Manchurian Candidate for Arabs/Islam.


He mentions "Allah" several times in the post 9/11 Speech in Congress
simply reinforcing that deity (a bogus one, imo) but he speaks so prominently and respectfully of it.

The God that Bush says he serves and gets plans from ...

uh, what god is that, exactly? :shock:

And why so chummy with sheiks, and letting Bin ladens fly out of the US
and why spend soooo much US $$$$ on Middle East interests,
and why give them our PORTS.


- As a conservative, I really miss the Reagan years.
Or even the Eisenhower years.


I don't think we should have any more Presidents
who were in that Skull & Crossbones crap.

Wed Feb 22, 2006 10:22 pm

Greg wrote:
The port controversy has opened up the controversy of how we ever began outsourcing such a key thing to a foreign country or company. But to compare our ally (the UK) to an Arab/Muslim state is myopic. But it's true: we should not have outsourced it, period.


Greg is right on the money. Regardless of whether the country handling these ports is deemed an ally or not, there is no way in Hell that the U.S. should give any outsiders this task. I think many Americans, until now, were unaware that these ports were not under U.S. control.

I know there's a school of thought out there that says the UAE is an Arab ally and provides us with crucial information needed to thwart terrorists. That said, are they going to suddenly stop cooperating with the U.S. if we drop them from this port deal? I would consider their motives for working with us to combat terrorism highly suspect if they did.

We need qualified and vetted Americans in charge of U.S. security measures...period.

Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:24 am

Graceland Gardener wrote:

Britain isn't really that foreign

They do speak and write English like America.
A sameness of communication and language.


You obviously haven't watched The Full Monty GG. I almost turned on the hearing impaired mode so I could understand what the hell they were saying!

Thu Feb 23, 2006 12:44 am

Well, the positive spin that may evolve out of this fiasco is the focus upon the lax and inexcusably myopic policies of this Administration as to our borders.

It's time to get serious about our sieve-like borders or get an Administration elected that will do so.........Party be damned.

Thu Feb 23, 2006 5:20 am

For one of the first times I find myself agreeing with American Eagle on a political issue. The very idea that something like this was shipped out to ANY foreign country is outrageous to me.

The vehemence of the president's support on this is baffling. I would not waste a veto on something like this.

.

Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:14 am

likethebike wrote:The vehemence of the president's support on this is baffling. I would not waste a veto on something like this.


Not so much. What is baffling is the ignorance he is now displaying in having knowledge that this had been approved without his knowing.

Now he is trapped. Because like it or not Saudi is our ally. Should we turn around and say "on second thought we don't trust you" would send a terrible message. I am finding it harder and harder to support our President as the days go on.

Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:23 am

We don't trust them. They've covered up for Al Queda since at least the Clinton administration. Richard Clarke wrote about them chopping the heads off suspected terrorists before American interrogators got to talk them and presumably uncover Bin Laden and co. links.

Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:51 pm

It's a retarded decision.

President doesn't know about the deal before it's made,
yet he insists on supporting it and vetoing opposition.

Stupid.

US Ports should only be controlled/operated by US businesses.

But, if Arabs are going to control them (like Bushie wants)
then those 6 US ports will constantly be in a state of........
ORANGE ALERT or RED ALERT
on the Homeland Security Meter.

stupid situation.

Thu Feb 23, 2006 7:32 pm

ColinB wrote:G G in the white house.

Heaven help us.



Colin,

you've yet to realize the blissful utopian condition achieved when The Garden Party
puts me in the White House and I become Ruler Of The Hemispheres.

My Stormtroopers (cloned from Elvis Presley DNA) will be the most handsome
and seductive police force to occupy the planet. No one would dare oppose an Elvisian Officer!
And squads and squads would set out to keep you in line,
plus round up all undesirables.

Plus US ports will be wholey US controlled.

Plus that Elvis birthday global holiday too :wink:

A truly Machiavellian agenda.

Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:59 pm

Funny, funny... :lol:

It's also a case of the elites (government, corporations and certain politicians of each party) tellling the people "you don't understand." :roll:

When right wing talk show host Bill O'Reilly is agreeing with President Jimmy Carter, the Wall Street Journal and President Bush that it's a good idea to give the Arabs a chance, it's a real strange day, as is seeing Eagle, GG, LTB, Pete, Scatter and I highfiving politically. :lol:

O'Reilly (ever the closet Bush partisan?) even went so far as to make the ludicrous "racist" argument, that it's somehow anti-Arab to not treat them as we treated the UK...

Lame.

The people know this is bogus. And it's opening up people to the reality to which every last part of our country (including national security) is up for grabs to the highest bidder as if we are a banana republic.

Again, between Cheney shooting his friend and now "Port Gate" (incidentally initially chatted up by controversial radio host Michael Savage), I really think we are experiencing a "jump the shark" moment for "The George W. Bush Show."

Fri Feb 24, 2006 12:54 am

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote: I really think we are experiencing a "jump the shark" moment for "The George W. Bush Show."


I agree 100%. I would love for him to come out and say...
"You know we didn't think this thing all the way through, I might have made a mistake in endorsing this. We will go back and revisit this and see if it is really the smart thing to do"

GW would no more admit he made a mistake than there is a man on the moon. Instead he takes the childlike stance that if anybody opposes this measure he will fight back.

GW is on the ramp with ski's fully extended. Unlike the Fonz, I don't think he is going to make it. :lol: