KRC Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Santorum? He switches sides more often the a ping-pong ball and can't be trusted to keep his word. I am sorry you have to live under his idiocy. Specter is probably a little more amneable to your concerns. Besides, Santorum will probably go down, write Casey's campaign office, he is a moderate dem and pro-life to boot. Not sure where he is on this issue however. 623430[/snapback] Casey is no better than Santorum. I am basically screwed on that vote. Santorum sucks. Casey sucks and the Libertarian candidate Ken Krawchuk sucks (I have had personal experience with Krawchuk while working with the Libertarian Party of Pennsylvania. He is not to be trusted.) Maybe that is why a lot of people were trying to convince me to run against Santorum in this election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Too nice, I think. That doesn't even begin to approach the level of pissed-offedness I feel over it. Not even the deal so much...what the !@#$ do I care what Dubai Ports owns? I'm not even remotely involved in the industry. But here I've been, defending my country as standing for equality and opportunity, and it turns around and submarines a foreign business deal for reasons that I've only seen expressed as racist arguments. Worse yet, I've been arguing for several years that the characterization by the likes of bin Laden of American attitudes towards Arabs and Islam is completely inaccurate...and it turns out I'm wrong and he's right????? And this is because of...incumbents trying to win mid-terms? Did you know you can get New Zealand citizenship simply by depositing a quarter-million American dollars into a New Zealand savings account? Only thing really standing in our way is that the wife doesn't want the cats in quarantine for six months... 623439[/snapback] I know it is too nice, but this is only the beginning. You need to slowly ramp up the pressure. If you peak too early, then it loses its impact by November. I want to see their response. It will dictate my future actions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 The Senate site is finally working and I contacted both of my senators. I also sent a letter to the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer. Auto-replies were received from CNN and Rep. Fitzpatrick. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 The Senate site is finally working and I contacted both of my senators. I also sent a letter to the editor of the Philadelphia Inquirer. Auto-replies were received from CNN and Rep. Fitzpatrick. 623548[/snapback] Senate site gets crashed by overloads regularly, they can get as many 14,000 emails in an hour on a hot issue or grassroots lobbying campaign. At least that is what I remember our sys admin saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Here is my letter:Too subtle? Two of the three reps are up for re-election this year. Santorum is in a fight, so he needs every vote he can get. 623407[/snapback] Just about right if you wanted anyone to read it over there. Good letter! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Just about right if you wanted anyone to read it over there. Good letter! 623588[/snapback] That is what I thought, too. If it is too harsh, it will get tossed in the trash can before ever reaching the Rep/Senator. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 That is what I thought, too. If it is too harsh, it will get tossed in the trash can before ever reaching the Rep/Senator. 623605[/snapback] They don't read legislation, why would they read your email. You should have mailed it to Santorum with a $100 bill pinned to it. Then he'd at least open it up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 They don't read legislation, why would they read your email. There's no correlation between legislation and votes. There is between voter correspondence and votes. Don't forget, while their responsibility is ostensibly legislation, their job is to whore for votes. You should have mailed it to Santorum with a $100 bill pinned to it. Then he'd at least open it up. 623621[/snapback] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 That is what I thought, too. If it is too harsh, it will get tossed in the trash can before ever reaching the Rep/Senator. 623605[/snapback] Oh some low level staffer will read it, and give you a form KVIM reply, the Senator will read it briefly and sign it, if it is one response to all queries on this issue, letter will be preapproved and it will receive an autopen. I.E., I will certainly keep you views in mind...as this issue is debated and considered during the 109th Congress... Standard form response that I have written many times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Explain how? 623121[/snapback] Basically by giving people like Bin Laden "proof" that all Americans are xenophobic idiots that do view all Arabs as terrorists. Most people (realizing you weren't among them) didn't seem to have a problem with foreigners managing port terminals when they were run by Brits, Danes, Japanese, Singaporeans, and even the Chinese. The US looks very bad over this one and I am embarrassed about this. CTM and KRC are far more eloquent regarding this issue (see posts 74, 80, and 76 and several others (BiB's as well) in this thread) than I am. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Oh some low level staffer will read it, and give you a form KVIM reply, the Senator will read it briefly and sign it, if it is one response to all queries on this issue, letter will be preapproved and it will receive an autopen. I.E., I will certainly keep you views in mind...as this issue is debated and considered during the 109th Congress... Standard form response that I have written many times. 623625[/snapback] That is what is nice about the state-level Congresscritters. At least they personally respond to your letters/e-mails. I am on very good terms with my state rep. If he and I are at the same event, he always comes over to say, "Hey, Ken." It helps as I am trying to push through the legislation I have written. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Basically by giving people like Bin Laden "proof" that all Americans are xenophobic idiots that do view all Arabs as terrorists. Most people (realizing you weren't among them) didn't seem to have a problem with foreigners managing port terminals when they were run by Brits, Danes, Japanese, Singaporeans, and even the Chinese. The US looks very bad over this one and I am embarrassed about this. CTM and KRC are far more eloquent regarding this issue (see posts 74, 80, and 76 and several others (BiB's as well) in this thread) than I am. 623652[/snapback] The Wall Street Journal ran a huge section on who operates our ports this week. The answer is that it is just about everybody. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 The Wall Street Journal ran a huge section on who operates our ports this week.The answer is that it is just about everybody. 623674[/snapback] But not those filthy sand !@#$s, thank God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 11, 2006 Share Posted March 11, 2006 This is !@#$ing embarrassing for America. 622892[/snapback] Don't let it make you angry. We've had an awful lot more to be embarassed of over the past few years than this whole thing. Allowing our infrastructure to be managed by a state-run company whose government has allied themselves with two organizations the United States has identified as terrorist groups (Hammas and al Qaeda) -- now that would be embarassing. Maybe not Abu Graib embarassing, but embarassing all the same. Especially after invading two countries for doing pretty much the same darn thing (aiding terrorists). Well, Afghanistan for sure, Iraq not so much, but the whole terrorist angle was how it was packaged and sold to the mouth breathers. And if this thread is any indication, my friends to the right of center are wringing their hands over the opinions moderate Muslims have of the US? So let me get this straight: The people that have tried, are still trying, and will continue to try to kill us, may no longer like us because we don't want terrorist group's allies managing our infrastructure? If they're moderate, then fine, they'll continue to be moderate - but I wouldn't think real moderate Muslims would ally themselves with both Hammas and al Qaeda. And the moderates who haven't allied themselves with terrorists could probably find several reasons for disliking the US -- none of which are related to DPW/UAE's control over a vital part of our infrastructure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Here is the response from Santorum to my e-mail: Dear Mr. Crippen: Thank you for contacting me regarding the leasing of certain port terminals to Dubai Ports World. I appreciate hearing from you, and I agree that the decision to approve this transaction was irresponsible. As you may know, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) ruled that it would not object to the sale of the Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Company (P&O), which provided operational services at six major eastern shipping ports including Philadelphia, to Dubai Ports World (DP World). In addition, P&O port services at both Beaumont and Corpus Christi, Texas, may also be transferred to DP World. This company is a shipping firm currently owned by the United Arab Emirates (UAE), which is known to have had connections to radical Islamic extremism. This is an issue that should be of specific concern to Pennsylvanians because the Port of Philadelphia has been designated as a "strategic port" for the movement of military materiel. This port is an integral part of our response to the Global War on Terror. The Port of Philadelphia responds to the needs of our military commanders by rapidly and flexibly processing and shipping critical supplies for military personnel serving in harm's way. To have permitted the performance of port services by an entity with a checkered past in combating terrorism and corruption, without appropriate oversight at the highest level of government, would have been taking a step backward in the Global War on Terrorism. I have been a vocal critic of this transaction since it was brought to my attention. On February 16, 2006, I wrote directly to President Bush to urge him to do all in his power to stop this transaction. In this letter, I urged him to move as quickly as possible to ensure that the security of our nation's ports only grows stronger, rather than weaker as we fight the War on Terror. In addition, on February 27, 2006, I was proud to join Senator Charles Schumer of New York as an original cosponsor of S. 2333, the Foreign Investment Security Improvement Act. S. 2333 would require a 45-day investigation of the acquisition of P&O by DP World and would have allowed Congress to disapprove of the transaction after that review was complete. This bill was referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs, of which I am a member. Since this bill was introduced, DP World announced their decision to transfer the U.S. port terminals acquired from P&O to a U.S. entity. While I am still seeking clarification of exactly what that means, I am hopeful that my concerns have been heard and that the Administration will more thoroughly review this transaction. Be assured that I will continue to be vigilant in protecting our nation's ports. While this decision may have ended this controversy, it has brought the issue of port security and the CFIUS process to the forefront of our nation's homeland security policies. The Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs has jurisdiction over CFIUS. I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Committee to accomplish CFIUS reform and to ensure the safety and economic vitality of our commonwealth and this great nation. Also, I believe we need to remain diligent in securing ports both domestically and abroad. Significant investments at foreign ports are critical. We cannot allow hazardous materials or weapons of mass destruction to enter our ports in the first place, because by then, it is too late. In order to accomplish this, I believe the CFIUS process needs to be thoroughly reviewed and may need to be revamped to reflect a post-9/11 mindset. Thank you again for contacting me. If I can be of further assistance to you in this or any other issue, do not hesitate to call on me. Sincerely, Rick Santorum United States Senate Reading comprehension is obviously not a strong suit of this Congresscritter (or more accurately the aide of the congresscritter who wrote this). Here is my response to Senator Santorum: You obviously misread my e-mail. I am NOT against the deal. I am angry at the people who are against the deal. Thank you for reinforcing my belief that I should not be voting for the incumbent in November. Ken Crippen Registered Voter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Here is the response from Santorum to my e-mail:Reading comprehension is obviously not a strong suit of this Congresscritter (or more accurately the aide of the congresscritter who wrote this). Here is my response to Senator Santorum: 636256[/snapback] Amazing. Give people a book and they just chew on the cover. Thanks for sharing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 God, you guys really know why I'm ready to quit and move overseas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 God, you guys really know why I'm ready to quit and move overseas? 636302[/snapback] Yes, some people are too stupid to be alive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 Yes, some people are too stupid to be alive. 636307[/snapback] Are they that cheap they can't write two canned emails? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Here is the response from Santorum to my e-mail:Reading comprehension is obviously not a strong suit of this Congresscritter (or more accurately the aide of the congresscritter who wrote this). Here is my response to Senator Santorum: 636256[/snapback] Looks like he'd assumed you'd pay as much attention to his note as he did to yours. Kind of makes one want to call for open, armed revolution, doesn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts