OGTEleven Posted February 24, 2006 Author Share Posted February 24, 2006 I'd be willing to bet that there are people on both sides who maybe now wished they had kept their mouths shut. Especially those with presidential aspirations. 610419[/snapback] That will NEVER apply to Chuck Schumer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Still, my point is that Clinton and Levin are talking out their azzes, if I understand things correctly. Levin sounded like a total idiot at yesterday's hearing. But, I'm pretty sure that the press has him as really nailing those bad guys down. I think the deal goes through, and goes away. I'll also be very interested, should she run, on how Hill plans on conducting foreign policy since she just committed quite the knee jerk faux pas. What an excellent opportunity to establish a sense of diplomacy on her part - that was just blown. Just because Americans will have forgotten this in 3 weeks doesn't mean the middle east will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Levin sounded like a total idiot at yesterday's hearing. But, I'm pretty sure that the press has him as really nailing those bad guys down. I think the deal goes through, and goes away. I'll also be very interested, should she run, on how Hill plans on conducting foreign policy since she just committed quite the knee jerk faux pas. What an excellent opportunity to establish a sense of diplomacy on her part - that was just blown. Just because Americans will have forgotten this in 3 weeks doesn't mean the middle east will. 610562[/snapback] Good point, not sure though that she has to pay for this in the long run, she probably can easily pass it off as American Politics, and work it from a different angle. Otherwise, her reaction does seem a bit amateurish. Schumer is the mouth, he lets it fly and doesn't opologize, good campaign tactic, bad for diplomacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Levin sounded like a total idiot at yesterday's hearing. But, I'm pretty sure that the press has him as really nailing those bad guys down. I think the deal goes through, and goes away. I'll also be very interested, should she run, on how Hill plans on conducting foreign policy since she just committed quite the knee jerk faux pas. What an excellent opportunity to establish a sense of diplomacy on her part - that was just blown. Just because Americans will have forgotten this in 3 weeks doesn't mean the middle east will. 610562[/snapback] I missed it, and can't find it on the web. What'd Hillary do now? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I missed it, and can't find it on the web. What'd Hillary do now? 610597[/snapback] I was refering to her co-sponshorship of the "block the deal" legislation. Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider that a smooth move on her part. Makes me wonder about her advisors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I was refering to her co-sponshorship of the "block the deal" legislation. Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider that a smooth move on her part. Makes me wonder about her advisors. 610607[/snapback] Oh, I think it is more pandering, she has been accused lately in the leftwing press as being to moderate. Also, the Clinton's are still po'd with Bush and his Carlyle group Arab connections. Not sure about all the reasons, but it sounds more like a Hatfield and McCoy situation, take the opposite side just to be ornery and use it too your advantage politically. I still think this whole issue sells to her advantage even if it doesn't mean a hill of beans or is counter productive in the Middle East. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I was refering to her co-sponshorship of the "block the deal" legislation. Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider that a smooth move on her part. Makes me wonder about her advisors. 610607[/snapback] I just found the statement she made yesterday. Holy sh--. How extraordinarily ignorant can one person be? I think everyone on this board has a better understanding of the issue than she does. She actually invoked the Katrina Commission report to demonstrate how the president a transaction between two foreign entities. And THIS is what passes for leadership in this country? Her statement doesn't even pass for reasonable discourse on this board. BF was banned for being as stupid... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Oh, I think it is more pandering, she has been accused lately in the leftwing press as being to moderate. Also, the Clinton's are still po'd with Bush and his Carlyle group Arab connections. Not sure about all the reasons, but it sounds more like a Hatfield and McCoy situation, take the opposite side just to be ornery and use it too your advantage politically. I still think this whole issue sells to her advantage even if it doesn't mean a hill of beans or is counter productive in the Middle East. 610622[/snapback] Ah...it's about time someone twigged on the Carlyle Group connection. Don't forget to blame the Yakuza and Chinese anti-satellite Antarctic lasers, too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Ah...it's about time someone twigged on the Carlyle Group connection. Don't forget to blame the Yakuza and Chinese anti-satellite Antarctic lasers, too... 610629[/snapback] Oh come on, I just used it as a point of reference for Clinton's reaction, not as a criticism of Bush. I just know the Clinton's hate that group and is often part of her critical rhetoric of Bush, legitimate or not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Oh come on, I just used it as a point of reference for Clinton's reaction, not as a criticism of Bush. I just know the Clinton's hate that group and is often part of her critical rhetoric of Bush, legitimate or not. 610635[/snapback] Clintons hate Carlyle? Is that why Bill Kennard (a Clinton friend & former FCC head under Bill) is a patrner at Carlyle? Is that why Hillary is appearing on a telecom panel later next month with Carlyle representatives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickey Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I don't know jack about ports but you don't really need to in order to predict the reactions on the board do you? Press=bad Bush=good Democrats=bad Hillary=really bad Who could have forseen this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I don't know jack about ports but you don't really need to in order to predict the reactions on the board do you? Press=bad Bush=good Democrats=bad Hillary=really bad Who could have forseen this? 610799[/snapback] Apparantly mostly you. This hasn't got anything really to do with good-bad. It has to do with dissemination of information, and the failures of all concerned to manage that properly. In general, I haven't seen the left-right parts of this board in this much agreement in a long time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 If management control is felt by our tin gods in Congress to be a big security issue, declare it an inherent governemnt function, nationalize the ports and operate them and pay off the injured party. Or let the deal go through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I don't know jack about ports but you don't really need to in order to predict the reactions on the board do you? Press=bad Bush=good Democrats=bad Hillary=really bad Who could have forseen this? 610799[/snapback] It's almost as predictable as your responses on the board. Imagine that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 It's almost as predictable as your responses on the board. Imagine that. 610813[/snapback] Press=good Bush=bad Democrats=good Hillary=really good (and hot) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I was refering to her co-sponshorship of the "block the deal" legislation. Maybe it's just me, but I don't consider that a smooth move on her part. Makes me wonder about her advisors. 610607[/snapback] This was a free one for the taking. A good chance to show that you can be to the right of the president on security regardless of facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 If management control is felt by our tin gods in Congress to be a big security issue, declare it an inherent governemnt function, nationalize the ports and operate them and pay off the injured party. Or let the deal go through. 610810[/snapback] Yeah, there is that... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Yeah, there is that... 610878[/snapback] And somewhere along the line, the original cause of this - whatever it is, is off the radar. Anyone want to Google how this fiasco got started? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 Anyone want to Google how this fiasco got started? 610969[/snapback] I believe it was an editorial cartoon in a Danish newspaper... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted February 24, 2006 Share Posted February 24, 2006 I believe it was an editorial cartoon in a Danish newspaper... 610974[/snapback] I thought it was a girl lost in Aruba. No one is looking at the angle of the Florida law suit started by the American company working sub-contract to P&O, that actually runs the operations there, day to day. Still would run ops. Citing essentially breach of contract over security clauses. Right. Damn, Mickey's the lawyer, and I've yet to hear anything out of him from that perspective. Oh, Bush Bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts