U.S. Ports

A place to talk about anything. Stocks, politics, or your neighbors who won't turn down that music.
Forum rules
NOTICE: Please be sure to check the CFP Message Board Rules and Regulations and the Read Me page before posting.
User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Postby Eric » Sun Feb 26, 2006 3:47 pm

An American blew up a federal building. Does that mean that every American is a terrorist? The KKK murdered as Christians, does that mean every Christian is a racist? Absolutely not. Just because a small percentage of U.A.E. citizens are in support of Osama Bin Laden, doesn't mean that every citizen of the Emeriates is that way. I think the politicians and the people on both sides of this issue are overreacting. I was one of those, stunned when I heard about the commotion. But I realized that it would still go through normal safety procedures. I am not in favor of selling any port management to any other nation other than the U.S., but if we are going to sell them, I don't mind U.A.E. managing them.

As for the libs, what they're saying is going against their political platform. The hypocrisy is amazing. And Bill O'Reily is the only host or analyst to raise this question that I've heard so far. If this question was asked more, I'm sure people would realize they're doing this for political gain.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Sun Feb 26, 2006 6:14 pm

This is a perfect example of hypocrisy. The rally against profiling until it suits their purpose to embrace it. Politics is such a game. There are two parties, but they are two sides of the same coin.

One of these days maybe people could be judge based on who THEY are instead of who their family is, where they are from, or what race they happen to belong.

I haven't heard the facts on how the UAE got the port rights, but if they are qualified and they have the money, they should have the right to run it. If they aren't qualified then they should be denied.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Postby Eric » Sun Feb 26, 2006 8:27 pm

I'm anxiously awaiting Michael Savage's new book. It's called "The Political Zoo." I can't wait to see some of the stuff in there.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

User avatar
openSkies
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 1288
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 4:10 pm
Location: Boston, MA, USA
Contact:

Postby openSkies » Thu Mar 09, 2006 7:50 pm

The company gave up their stakes to the US Ports today.

Well, so much for that.

I can't believe we just bullied a company simply because they're from the UAE.

Talk about racism =[
Image

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Thu Mar 09, 2006 8:06 pm

I can't believe we just bullied a company simply because they're from the UAE.

Talk about racism =[


Exactly, or at the very least bigotry.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
..fanatic
Coordinator
Coordinator
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: Rockledge, FL

Postby ..fanatic » Fri Mar 10, 2006 12:46 am

Did I miss this in all of the coverage of the ports deal? I just found out tonight that a couple west coast ports are managed by a Hong Kong company (San Francisco) and a Chinese company (Long Beach). So what is wrong with a Dubai company managing the dockworkers at other ports? Politicians and newscasters are still trying to call this a security issue when they don't have a single thing to do with security. It's simply about managing the loading and offloading of the ships.

The UAE is a middle eastern country that stepped up to the plate after 9-11 and said "we're with you, not against you" and took major steps to prove it. Now, we've just flipped 'em off. The Bush administration needs to hire some really good public relations people or simply fire Karl Rove and others who manage the flow of information from the White House.

Like many times before, the issue wasn't a lost cause but they got trampled in the PR war.

And the republicans who helped lead the charge to spit in the face of a much-needed ally need to get their tails kicked in the next Republican primary. They're a bunch of Lou Dobbs clones.
"Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:05 am

Did I miss this in all of the coverage of the ports deal? I just found out tonight that a couple west coast ports are managed by a Hong Kong company (San Francisco) and a Chinese company (Long Beach). So what is wrong with a Dubai company managing the dockworkers at other ports? Politicians and newscasters are still trying to call this a security issue when they don't have a single thing to do with security. It's simply about managing the loading and offloading of the ships.


The port that they were trying to run was ran by a company in Great Britain.

What is lost in all this is that US customs officials are the ones in charge of checking everything that comes into the country. If they are doing their jobs then it really doesn't matter who is running the ports. This is just another example of how unfocussed our elected officials can be. This issue can get them a little face time, when most of our real problems aren't as glamorous.

I would really like to see every congressman get voted out in the next election for "the other guy", that would get their attention. Seeing how only a few of us actually vote we could probably get that done. :lol:
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
..fanatic
Coordinator
Coordinator
Posts: 957
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 9:55 pm
Location: Rockledge, FL

Postby ..fanatic » Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:23 am

Spence wrote:The port that they were trying to run was ran by a company in Great Britain.


I knew that. A report I saw tonight unveiled the China and Hong Kong management of west coast ports.
"Better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it."

User avatar
Eric
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 10287
Joined: Thu Dec 29, 2005 1:51 am

Postby Eric » Sat Mar 11, 2006 5:57 pm

The thing here was that the UAE bought some TERMINALS and didn't have anything to do with security. Every politician just simply overlooked that. And Spence, that's what I've been saying all along! The Customs will still inspect what they need to inspect. For heavens sakes, people, get your story right!

I believe I heard somewhere also that the U.S. would be overlooking what they are shipping as well. It was a total overreaction. I was one of those because the information from the media was that Dubai Ports World was controlling port security as well.

Another thing, I do believe that a certain amount of racial profiling is necessary in a time of war, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the security of our nation.
Running bowl/MSU/OSU record '05-present: 11-32

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Sun Mar 12, 2006 12:16 am

I believe I heard somewhere also that the U.S. would be overlooking what they are shipping as well. It was a total overreaction. I was one of those because the information from the media was that Dubai Ports World was controlling port security as well.

Another thing, I do believe that a certain amount of racial profiling is necessary in a time of war, but this has absolutely nothing to do with the security of our nation.


I don't have a problem with racial profiling at all. If the FBI has reason to believe that a male Arab terrorist is trying to hijack an airplane I have no problem with them checking out the Arab males getting on planes. No need to stop blond haired blue eyed women. What would be the point?

As long as they afford people their rights under the constitution I see know problem with it. I you have some police officers abusing it then that should be dealt with, but that is as far as it should go.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Mon Mar 13, 2006 3:58 pm

I have no problem with that either, but most if not all that work there would be American any way. The ports are the property of the United States. That corporation would be only managing the ports.

I didn't know enough about them to make a judgment as to whether they were qualified to operate the port authority. My point was they shouldn't be excluded because of who they were.
Last edited by Spence on Tue Mar 14, 2006 6:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Spence
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 20970
Joined: Wed Dec 28, 2005 11:52 pm
Location: Chillicothe, Ohio (Ohio's First Capital)
Contact:

Postby Spence » Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:00 pm

I do like the idea of taking care of Americans first as far as providing work. Maybe there are no American takers for this job, but I think there probably are. Certainly the world couldn't fault us for providing our people with work before another country's people.


The would fault us, like they do with everything else, but I'm right there with you on the American ownership thing. My problem with the way this was done is that they didn't even check to see if they were qualified. If they would have checked and decided that they were not qualified based on ties to terrorist organizations or something, I wouldn't have a problem with that. What they did was say because they are Arab we can take them. That is wrong.

We locked up Japanese people in WWII for much the same reasons. Our country stands on the principal that people from anywhere can come in, contribute, and build a life as long as you follow the rules. We let the government take to many freedoms away in the name of keeping us safe. It is nearly impossible to keep people completely safe in a free society, but I'll take the risks of freedom instead of walls and barbed wire everytime.
"History doesn't always repeat itself but it often rhymes." - Mark Twain

User avatar
Derek
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6002
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:04 am
Location: Brooks, GA
Contact:

Postby Derek » Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:18 am

..fanatic wrote:Then again, the 8-year-olds sometimes have the most common sense on such topics. Glenn Beck proved this on his radio show last week. Anybody else here ever listen to his show? he's syndicated nationally - usually on the same stations as Rush Limbaugh.

So far as the UAE protecting our ports...

...it definitely shocked me at first. But I wonder if it isn't a smart move in that perhaps the UAE would hear stuff, know stuff, react to stuff when our own people may fear the PC crowd. Arabs monitoring Arabs may not be such a bad idea after all.


I like him...He comes on XM sat. radio....The channel is called Ameright. :D
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.

The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.

See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.

- John Madden

User avatar
Derek
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6002
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:04 am
Location: Brooks, GA
Contact:

Postby Derek » Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:20 am

Spence wrote:The United States doesn't control the port authority right now, the british do. As long as customs does their job it doesn't have to be an American company running the ports. We still control how they do their work.

As for the U.A.E., I haven't decided how I come down on this. It is a fact there are people in the U.A.E that hate the U.S., but there are people living right here that hate the U.S. as well. If the company that put in for this deal checks out, I have no problem with letting them take it over. If that company has any ties with any type of terrorist org. or prove to be sympathetic to terrorist then I am against it.

Arabs and muslims do business in America every day, just as countries all over the world do. This country was founded on the principle that as long as you come here legally and do things that right way we will welcome you. This is what inabled everyone of our ancestor to make it here.



How come no one brings up the fact that China pretty much controls Long Beach Shipyard????

They are a communist government....Would it be OK if Russia did that?? NOPE.
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.

The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.

See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.

- John Madden

User avatar
Derek
Administrator
Administrator
Posts: 6002
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2005 2:04 am
Location: Brooks, GA
Contact:

Postby Derek » Thu Mar 23, 2006 1:23 am

openSkies wrote:The company gave up their stakes to the US Ports today.

Well, so much for that.

I can't believe we just bullied a company simply because they're from the UAE.

Talk about racism =[



Im afraid its worse than "so much for that."

From the article I read...They are pis$ed!! Threatning to pull a lot of investments out. :(
They’re either going to run the ball here or their going to pass it.

The fewer rules a coach has, the fewer rules there are for players to break.

See, well ya see, the thing is, he should have caught that ball. But the ball is bigger than his hands.

- John Madden


Return to “Off-Topic”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 18 guests