Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RkFast Posted March 14, 2006 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 14, 2006 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 14, 2006 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VABills Posted March 14, 2006 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 14, 2006 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 14, 2006 Share 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... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crap Throwing Monkey Posted March 14, 2006 Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 Hell, anyone want to take a guess how many foreign companies contract to DoD? 628639[/snapback] Or the CIA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted March 14, 2006 Share Posted March 14, 2006 Or the CIA? 628642[/snapback] Shhhsh, that is a secret. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share Posted March 14, 2006 Shhhsh, that is a secret. 629189[/snapback] Sorry. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted March 14, 2006 Share 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? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Campy Posted March 14, 2006 Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of BiB Posted March 14, 2006 Author Share 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts