Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 A bill. Without picking to pieces, it appears that this is directed specifically at DPW, and grandfathers the Chinese, Singapore, etc companies. If this isn't racist opportunistic bull sh--, I don't know what is.
RkFast Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 So the scumbag who is sponsoring this bill is going to get it through, stand up before the Nation and claim that hes helping Homeland Security...while the Red Chinese, FIFTY times more UNfriendly to US interests than the UAE, continue to move boxes on and off ships in the background? Un!@#$ingbelievable. Whats worse, hes going to get away with it.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Posted March 14, 2006 Way to crap on your best friend in the hot zone. I wonder if this is sort of the writing on the wall for the next administration, republican or democrat. Walk away from the middle east and let whatever happens happen.
VABills Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 Way to crap on your best friend in the hot zone. I wonder if this is sort of the writing on the wall for the next administration, republican or democrat. Walk away from the middle east and let whatever happens happen. 628370[/snapback] That type of isolation will only haunt us when they decide to sneak a nuke up through Mexico and have it go boom in NYC, taking down more then a couple of buildings next time.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Posted March 14, 2006 That type of isolation will only haunt us when they decide to sneak a nuke up through Mexico and have it go boom in NYC, taking down more then a couple of buildings next time. 628376[/snapback] Doesn't matter if it gets you elected in November. After all, what is of real importance here? I call attention to special rule on page 10.
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 A bill. Without picking to pieces, it appears that this is directed specifically at DPW, and grandfathers the Chinese, Singapore, etc companies. If this isn't racist opportunistic bull sh--, I don't know what is. 628347[/snapback] Yep, this is the bill they voted on in Committee 62-2. You didn't know.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Posted March 14, 2006 Yep, this is the bill they voted on in Committee 62-2. You didn't know. 628448[/snapback] I hadn't actually seen it yet.
VABills Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 Yep, this is the bill they voted on in Committee 62-2. You didn't know. 628448[/snapback] What committe has 64 members in it. I am sure it is one that accomplishes nothing.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Posted March 14, 2006 What committe has 64 members in it. I am sure it is one that accomplishes nothing. 628495[/snapback] Not quite as capable as the 128. I really need to start reading legislation more, if this is a typical product.
KRC Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 What committe has 64 members in it. I am sure it is one that accomplishes nothing. 628495[/snapback] Probably the same committee who didn't know Dubai Ports World was aquiring P&O before the lawsuit in Miami hit the news.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 Yep, this is the bill they voted on in Committee 62-2. You didn't know. 628448[/snapback] I thought that was the Clinton bill. It is different from Hunter's. If anything, it's actually worse...Hunter at least tries to phrase it in terms of overall national security infrastructure. Clinton et. al. (I'm not even sure she's the main sponsor, just the name that sticks in my head for obvious reasons) specifically forbid "ownership" of US ports by companies owned by foreign governments except those that already "own" our ports as of October 2005. It's not even subtle...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Posted March 14, 2006 I thought that was the Clinton bill. It is different from Hunter's. If anything, it's actually worse...Hunter at least tries to phrase it in terms of overall national security infrastructure. Clinton et. al. (I'm not even sure she's the main sponsor, just the name that sticks in my head for obvious reasons) specifically forbid "ownership" of US ports by companies owned by foreign governments except those that already "own" our ports as of October 2005. It's not even subtle... 628506[/snapback] Well, whatever. What's done is done. Tenny thinks it's a great idea, so that should settle it. Anyone look up foreign ownership in nuke plants yet? I have.
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 Well, whatever. What's done is done. Tenny thinks it's a great idea, so that should settle it. Anyone look up foreign ownership in nuke plants yet? I have. 628606[/snapback] Hell, anyone want to take a guess how many foreign companies contract to DoD?
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Posted March 14, 2006 Hell, anyone want to take a guess how many foreign companies contract to DoD? 628639[/snapback] Or the CIA?
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 Or the CIA? 628642[/snapback] Shhhsh, that is a secret.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Posted March 14, 2006 Shhhsh, that is a secret. 629189[/snapback] Sorry. My bad.
Taro T Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 Hell, anyone want to take a guess how many foreign companies contract to DoD? 628639[/snapback] Or does anyone want to take a guess at how many US companies will be required to comply with foreign laws containing provisions similar to those on page 4? (All grandfathered companies "controlling critical infrastructure" have to be US controlled / owned within 5 years.) As an aside, if this bill passes, does that mean that ALL cargo must be inspected? If so, have they figured out what will constitute "inspection" because my understanding is that not all cargo is currently inspected? At least we don't look like racists with this one (excepting (and it's a big exception) the "Special Rule" for "Specified Port Terminals" Why that has to stay in here now that DPW has stated they won't take control of the US ports is beyond me.) (Oh, wait a minute, we do look like racists. ) If that was gone, we'd just look like people that think "free trade" is great for others, but not for the US. Either way, can we possibly appear more hypocritical?
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Posted March 14, 2006 Or does anyone want to take a guess at how many US companies will be required to comply with foreign laws containing provisions similar to those on page 4? (All grandfathered companies "controlling critical infrastructure" have to be US controlled / owned within 5 years.) As an aside, if this bill passes, does that mean that ALL cargo must be inspected? If so, have they figured out what will constitute "inspection" because my understanding is that not all cargo is currently inspected? At least we don't look like racists with this one (excepting (and it's a big exception) the "Special Rule" for "Specified Port Terminals" Why that has to stay in here now that DPW has stated they won't take control of the US ports is beyond me.) (Oh, wait a minute, we do look like racists. ) If that was gone, we'd just look like people that think "free trade" is great for others, but not for the US. Either way, can we possibly appear more hypocritical? 629216[/snapback] You and I need to have a beer sometime.
Campy Posted March 14, 2006 Posted March 14, 2006 Either way, can we possibly appear more hypocritical? 629216[/snapback] Sure. Allowing a government that supports terror groups to manage US infrasctructure would appear more hypocritical.
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Posted March 14, 2006 Sure. Allowing a government that supports terror groups to manage US infrasctructure would appear more hypocritical. 629601[/snapback] Chris, you really want to go there? You are going to come away sounding like Schumer. I really hope you are kidding.
Recommended Posts