Ghost of BiB Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I haven't read the ammendment yet, but doesn't it call for any critical infrastructure to be owned and operated (or whatever) by an "American" Company? I ask this somewhat tongue in cheek, as I don't think many have a clue as to what critical infrastructure is. Also, that there won't be any wholesale ransacking. And, if there were, has anyone thought about the resulting chaos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I haven't read the ammendment yet, but doesn't it call for any critical infrastructure to be owned and operated (or whatever) by an "American" Company? 623321[/snapback] My first question would be, what the hell is an American Company? Does that mean a company that is incorporated in America, or majority owned by American stockholders? Is Daimler-Chrysler, for example, still an American company? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 10, 2006 Author Share Posted March 10, 2006 My first question would be, what the hell is an American Company? Does that mean a company that is incorporated in America, or majority owned by American stockholders? Is Daimler-Chrysler, for example, still an American company? 623339[/snapback] Lots of wickets here, ain't there? Gee. Wonder if any Congresscritters have any of these places in their own districts? Oh, wait! Yeah, yeah they do. Talk about a potential for massive conflict of interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Lots of wickets here, ain't there? Gee. Wonder if any Congresscritters have any of these places in their own districts? Oh, wait! Yeah, yeah they do. Talk about a potential for massive conflict of interest. 623341[/snapback] But, they are only concerned for what is best for the American people, not themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 10, 2006 Author Share Posted March 10, 2006 A little fact sheet... China Ocean Shipping Company ("Cosco") is a state -owned enterprise of the People's Republic of China ("China"). Hmmm. What's ole Chucky Schumer have to say on this? Buehler? No, no foreign governments should have "control" over our ports. Seriously, how are they going to dodge this one? I love it... On March 18, 1996, agents of the United States Customs Serviceand Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms seized 2000 AK-47 type fully automatic 7.62mm machine guns. These are military assault weapons commonly used by the military around the world. The weapons, which had both Chinese (Norinco) and Korean markings, had been smuggled into the United States in a container on board the COSCO ship, Empress Phoenix. Included with the weapons were approximately 4000 30-40 round ammunition magazines. It is estimated that the weapons had a street value of more than four million dollars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Seriously, how are they going to dodge this one? 623495[/snapback] Easy. No one's going to ask them about it. Who's going to ask? Chris Matthews? Jack Cafferty? Greta Van Sustern? Seriously, the story is old news in about 2 hours and we can finally get back to the missing girl in Aruba. It'd be great to have reporters to ask intelligent questions, but we don't. All that matters is we got a few headlines reading "Bush lets Arabs control America". By the time the truth about this thing reaches most people (if it ever does), it's ancient history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 A little fact sheet...Hmmm. What's ole Chucky Schumer have to say on this? Buehler? No, no foreign governments should have "control" over our ports. Seriously, how are they going to dodge this one? 623495[/snapback] Oh I think he would agree that we need to get Cosco out of the West Coast. P.S. Lou Dobbs is on CNN now stating that this issue has expose the vulnerability of nation to problems of free trade. Simplistic message, but it sells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 10, 2006 Author Share Posted March 10, 2006 Like I said in my edit - I love it. OK America...just who are we going to trade with from now on? Canada and Mexico? Sure glad I don't work for Boeing. Hey, Dubai controls 1/3 of Dailmer-Chrysler. Hope they aren't building bombs into the cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 CNN is asking for email response to the Ports Deal...Ken, Monkey, BIB have at it! Would be fun if anything gets on air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 CNN is asking for email response to the Ports Deal...Ken, Monkey, BIB have at it! Would be fun if anything gets on air. 623512[/snapback] Just sent them the e-mail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Fallout has started, the London Stock exchange has just announced it rejected a takeover bid by NASDAQ. Don't know details, so what, the announcement timing is a shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Hmmm. What's ole Chucky Schumer have to say on this? 623495[/snapback] It was my understanding that the House told Bush there was no way this deal was getting done. It's also my understanding that the Senate told him that it probably wouldn't go through. It is also my understanding that both chambers are under GOP control. That's a hell of a lot of influence Senator Schumer has, being in the minority party with no control of any committees. I'm impressed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 10, 2006 Author Share Posted March 10, 2006 Fallout has started, the London Stock exchange has just announced it rejected a takeover bid by NASDAQ. Don't know details, so what, the announcement timing is a shot. 623525[/snapback] A lot of P & O shareholders are probably pretty pissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 10, 2006 Author Share Posted March 10, 2006 It was my understanding that the House told Bush there was no way this deal was getting done. It's also my understanding that the Senate told him that it probably wouldn't go through. It is also my understanding that both chambers are under GOP control. That's a hell of a lot of influence Senator Schumer has, being in the minority party with no control of any committees. I'm impressed. 623550[/snapback] Have at it. Who is/was/are the lead cheerleaders on this? I don't have any respect for any of them at this point - screw all of them, but I can see who the main rabble rousers are. OK, let me pick on Hillary, then. Statement Talk about a hypochrite. Who's administration had lots of ties to China? Notice it says "Foreign Government", not "Arab". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 Have at it. Who is/was/are the lead cheerleaders on this? I don't have any respect for any of them at this point - screw all of them, but I can see who the main rabble rousers are. 623560[/snapback] I find it hard to believe that Hillary and Chuck are the sole reason the GOP wouldn't back Bush on this deal. I wasn't aware they had that kind of pull on the other side of the aisle in both the Senate and the House. You don't like the way it went down. Cool. You're entitled to your opinion. But lets stick to the facts. All the vocal opposition from the Dems in the world usually falls on the deaf ears of the majority party. The GOP sank this deal (almost unanimously) to save their asses in November. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 10, 2006 Author Share Posted March 10, 2006 I find it hard to believe that Hillary and Chuck are the sole reason the GOP wouldn't back Bush on this deal. I wasn't aware they had that kind of pull on the other side of the aisle in both the Senate and the House. You don't like the way it went down. Cool. You're entitled to your opinion. But lets stick to the facts. All the vocal opposition from the Dems in the world usually falls on the deaf ears of the majority party. The GOP sank this deal (almost unanimously) to save their asses in November. 623565[/snapback] And I agree. Sorry I took it down that road. They just seem to be two of the larger hypochritical party hacks in most anything and I just don't like either one. But, NY can't get enough of them. Plenty of Republicans fit the bill as well. I'm diverting from the real issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 I find it hard to believe that Hillary and Chuck are the sole reason the GOP wouldn't back Bush on this deal. I wasn't aware they had that kind of pull on the other side of the aisle in both the Senate and the House. You don't like the way it went down. Cool. You're entitled to your opinion. But lets stick to the facts. All the vocal opposition from the Dems in the world usually falls on the deaf ears of the majority party. The GOP sank this deal (almost unanimously) to save their asses in November. 623565[/snapback] And even when the Majority does listen, they take it over and grab credit as much as they can, often reintroducing the same bill under a Republican Congresscritter to pass, simpleton stuff really. Lobbying bill is an example. Yeh Schumer is a cheerleader, but this doesn't go anywhere without "spineless" Republicans. Man spineless and Republicans in the same sentence, that was cathartic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 And I agree. Sorry I took it down that road. They just seem to be two of the larger hypochritical party hacks in most anything and I just don't like either one. But, NY can't get enough of them. Plenty of Republicans fit the bill as well. I'm diverting from the real issue. 623569[/snapback] I know that you like to focus in on them, but the ones involved in decision making are folks like Santorum, Frist, McCain and Hatch. If and when they get back in charge, then I can appreciate the comment, until then, direct your venom appropriately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 10, 2006 Share Posted March 10, 2006 And I agree. Sorry I took it down that road. They just seem to be two of the larger hypochritical party hacks in most anything and I just don't like either one. But, NY can't get enough of them. Plenty of Republicans fit the bill as well. I'm diverting from the real issue. 623569[/snapback] I think you bring up a good point. There will be a certain segment of politicos, after realizing exactly what they have done, that will be looking to lay the blame on someone. It stands to reason that they will erroneously stick it with Schumer and Hillary because they are easy, visible targets. Were they vocal? Absolutely, but no more so than any of the GOP'ers who were stepping over themselves trying to regain their "Party of National Security" standing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 10, 2006 Author Share Posted March 10, 2006 OK guys, consider me scolded. I try to stick to issues, for the most part. I just can't stand them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts