 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Chrysler Cars / March 2006UAE acquired $1 billion stake in DaimlerChrysler in 2005
With all the talk of the US selling it's eastern seaboard port operations to a company owned by the UAE, I thought the following nugget regarding DCX was interesting. It used to be that OPEC countries would spend their petro dollars to buy US military stuff. Seems they're turning away from those toys and just buying up the USA, one piece at a time. ------------------------ http://www.uaeinteract.com/news/default.asp?cntDisplay=10&ID=12 UAE will buy overseas assets with oil gains posted on 21/11/2005 The UAE plans to increase its investment from surging oil income by buying more overseas assets and boosting infrastructure to attract foreign capital inflows, said Sheikha Lubna Al Qasimi, Minister of Economy and Planning. She said the global economy must stand ready to tackle rising inflation from the high oil prices to sustain growth. The energy sector in the UAE accounts for about a third of the economy, less than for many of its neighbours, but profits soaring from oil prices are pouring into stock and property markets, powering an economic boom and feeding inflation. At the same time, the government is buying international assets, buying Tussauds Group, home to the famous waxwork museums, and acquiring a US$1 billion stake in DaimlerChrysler earlier this year. When asked if the country will continue to look for overseas investment opportunities, she said, "Of course. In the US, sometimes you have great deals because opportunities are there and your money is viable to go for that kind of investment. > With all the talk of the US selling it's eastern seaboard port > operations to a company owned by the UAE, I thought the following [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > buy US military stuff. Seems they're turning away from those toys and > just buying up the USA, one piece at a time. As long as they are buying company stock that's fine with me. Property is a bit dicy, but most overseas investors like that buy high dollar properties like skyscrapers and such, and very few people can afford those anyhow. Stock is nothing more than a rich man's gamble. DCX could have a 10 year period of making cars nobody wants, like Ford is doing, and become worthless. Then what does the UAE end up with - nothing but worthless paper. We want them spending petro dollars here. That is what puts money back into the economy to replace the money we sent to them to buy their oil. Ted > As long as they are buying company stock that's fine with me. > > We want them spending petro dollars here. Buying stock doesn't really help the USA or the company to which the stock belongs (unless it's new stock issue I suppose). Buying US-built vehicles (preferrably from a US-owned company) - now that would help. I suppose that Haliburton gets a good slice of Opec business. > As long as they are buying company stock that's fine with me. They're acquiring a British company's interests in the US ports. A transaction that's not likely to inject (new) money into the US economy. And there's more: http://upi.com/SecurityTerrorism/view.php?StoryID=20060223-051657-4981r UAE terminal takeover extends to 21 ports By PAMELA HESS UPI Pentagon Correspondent WASHINGTON, Feb. 24 (UPI) -- A United Arab Emirates government-owned company is poised to take over port terminal operations in 21 American ports, far more than the six widely reported. The Bush administration has approved the takeover of British-owned Peninsular & Oriental Steam Navigation Co. to DP World, a deal set to go forward March 2 unless Congress intervenes. P&O is the parent company of P&O Ports North America, which leases terminals for the import and export and loading and unloading and security of cargo in 21 ports, 11 on the East Coast, ranging from Portland, Maine to Miami, Florida, and 10 on the Gulf Coast, from Gulfport, Miss., to Corpus Christi, Texas, according to the company's Web site. President George W. Bush on Tuesday threatened to veto any legislation designed to stall the handover. "...the deal was reported on in major newspapers as early as last October. But it did not get critical attention in the press until the Associated Press broke the story Feb. 11 and the Center for Security Policy, a right-leaning organization, wrote about it Feb. 13." ---------- A different slant on this pertains to how a story like that gets traction in the mainstream media. I really think that web sites like Drudge are playing larger and larger roles in driving the stories that get traction these days. Drudge decides what's news-worthy, and the big news players feel compelled to follow along. You want to know that stories will be shown on the network news at 6:30 pm? Just look at drudge's web site earlier in the day. > > As long as they are buying company stock that's fine with me. > > They're acquiring a British company's interests in the US ports. A > transaction that's not likely to inject (new) money into the US > economy. True but it's not going to take any more out of it, either. It's a rather benign transaction. I was referring more to the comment about buying up the US, than this particular transaction. Don't you know that the billionaires of the world all go to the same clubs and sit around playing cards with each other? Ownerships of things like this are passed around like playing cards. This year it's UAE, the next year it will be some Italian firm. It makes little difference to us most of the time. > And there's more: > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > President George W. Bush on Tuesday threatened to veto any legislation > designed to stall the handover. I'm actually glad to read this for a couple reasons. First, I agree with Bush that it's not a security risk and that it's not fair to shitcan the deal. But more than that, I dislike Bush and I want to see him piss away political capital on frittery stuff like this. It would be no skin off Bush's nose to step back and let Congress shitcan this deal. DP World isn't going to fight Congress, and some of the most pissed-off people on this deal are the staunchest Conservatives that supported Bush to begin with. Bush's threatening a veto is one of the stupider moves he's made. All it does is make Bush look like a moderate Republican and thus creates division within the Republican party with the conservatives against the moderates. The ultra conservatives have committed to their constitutes to be as hard as possible on terrorism, and they cannot back down on this without losing support. If Bush wins, the ultraconservatives in the Republican party will be weakened, and they will want revenge against Bush. That's good from my point of view since I think the ultraconservatives are the worst members of the Republican party. If Bush loses, it make him look weaker as a President and that emboldens the Democrats and the moderate Republicans. So, either way this plays out, my side wins. > A different slant on this pertains to how a story like that gets > traction in the mainstream media. I really think that web sites like [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > that stories will be shown on the network news at 6:30 pm? Just look > at drudge's web site earlier in the day. It's not just them. These stories are timed to be released for certain reasons. Remember, this is an election year, and right now is when the candidates are just getting rolling putting together their platforms and such and running around and getting support. This story was tailor made for the conservative candidates to help them. The idea was Bush would have said something like the "sneaky beaureaucrats tried to slide this deal in under my nose" and it would have given all those conservative candidates plenty of fodder to rail on and on against the career beaureaucrats who are running wild, etc. You know, the usual boring old conservative pablum. What I think took everyone by surprise is Bush defending the UAE. It is really an amazingly stupid thing because now all those conservative party supporters are going to be asking their conservative candidates about it, and those candidates are going to be put in the bad position of saying on one hand, Bush is doing the wrong thing, but on the other, hey the Republicans are this wise and wonderful party and you really need to vote Republican. Makes me wonder if old Karl Rove has had a heart attack or something that we don't know about. But then again, Bush has never had much interest in insuring a Republican succeeding him in office, if he did, he would have chose a more electable vice president than Chaney. Ted > True but it's not going to take any more out of it, either. It's a rather > benign transaction. I was referring more to the comment about buying [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > it will be some Italian firm. It makes little difference to us most of the > time. >>President George W. Bush on Tuesday threatened to veto any legislation >>designed to stall the handover. > I'm actually glad to read this for a couple reasons. First, I agree with > Bush > that it's not a security risk... Maybe and maybe not. We'll never *really* know until after the fact. On the down side - remember when Clinton had OBL in our sites, and we didn't pull the trigger becaue their was Arab royalty in the area and we didn't want that potential collateral damage? Guess who the royalty was? Top brass of UAE. We secretly got a message to them what we were trying to do and to get the hell out of the way. They responded by getting the hell out of the way, but not before tipping OBL off, and he escaped. (This is all spelled out in the 9/11 report.) > ...and that it's not fair to shitcan the deal. On the other hand, the UAE is somewhat of an ally in the every-day sense of the word. They buy lots of commerical planes from the U.S., donated many millions of dollars to Katrina relief (truly altruisitc or purely a good overall political and economic decision? - that could of course be an intense debate in itself), and interact in our economy in big ways. But can we trust them when the chips are down in a post-9/11 world? Maybe we can, maybe we can't - we will never truly know 'til after-the-fact. This is one of those situations where you have to make one decision or the other without having a real good feel about it either way. There will be serious economic and political implications *either* way. It is a very tough decision *IF* ones interest is what's in the best interest of the U.S. > But > more than that, I dislike Bush and I want to see him piss away political [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > and that emboldens the Democrats and the moderate Republicans. > So, either way this plays out, my side wins. That's the whole problem with the country right now. People, including many of our politicians and public figures, and apparently you, put blinders on about what's best for the country and primarily do whatever suits their political agenda and who's image and career they want to crush at the moment. I have very mixed feelings on this issue, but my decision criteria are clearly different than yours. Most days I think that we should err on the side of safety and kill the deal - but I also realize that there would be serious political and economic unintended consequences that we may have to absorb. But whichever way we go, we need to have our eyes open about the negative implications of that decision - and there will be some serious ones either way. Bill Putney (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address with the letter 'x') I am not quite clear what is so special about this. The investment funds of the oil states have been investing in western assets for decades (where else could they invest anyway?). The KIO (Kuwait Investment Office) used to (still does?) own a substantial chunk of Daimler-Benz. So? Just means mutual dependence. Not such a bad thing. DAS For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling --- [...] > I have very mixed feelings on this issue, but my decision criteria are > clearly different than yours. Most days I think that we should err on the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address > with the letter 'x') > I am not quite clear what is so special about this. The > investment funds of the oil states have been investing in > western assets for decades ... Some of you that are not exposed to domestic US news coverage may not fully realize the following. US media and news networks have been beating the terrorism drum ever since 9/11. The rhetoric and policies (domestic and int'l) of the Bush admin has been feeding into this drum beat (because it serves them). One aspect of news coverage is the periodic stories of security-related issues at large shipping ports. Every man, women, and child in the US knows by know that only 4% of cargo containers gets inspected, for example. The fact that practically no air-cargo put on commercial airliners by shipping companies is screened is also widely and periodically reported. Bush never fails to remind people at any and all speaking engagements (regardless of the topic or setting) that the US was attacked on 9/11 and is still "at war". The US has developed a collective distrust (if not loathing) of all things arab, muslim, etc. Be it arab people, their religion, their culture, their intentions, their countries, their leaders, etc. So collectively, Americans know that US ports remain vulnerable from a terrorism point of view. The US president continues to say they are at war. To many Americans, they are at war with arabs or muslims. The media has dutifully informed Americans that 2 of the 9-11 hijackers came from UAE, and that the UAE was a mediator of funds transfered to the 9-11 hijackers in the US. The awarding of oversight/control/operations of (many) US ports to an Arab company could not illustrate any better a complete collision between the security and priority perceptions of US citizens vs their political masters. The US news media like a bulldog with a bone on this issue. This could be pay-back for the fact they were shut-out of the initial coverage of the Cheney gun-shot event. But the issue has traction, possibly because of the mid-term congressional and senate elections that are about a year away, and sitting republicans are vulnerable to a growing public backlash against the Bush admin. If the public doesn't like how the Bush admin handles this UAE/port thing (among many things), it is sitting republican congressmen who will lose (at the polls). I'm listening to Lou Dobbs right now, and he's questioning/attacking this UAE thing from every possible angle. You people outside the USA/Canada don't see the same CNN that we see. > > I am not quite clear what is so special about this. The > > investment funds of the oil states have been investing in [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > (regardless of the topic or setting) that the US was attacked on 9/11 > and is still "at war". All that is true. > The US has developed a collective distrust (if > not loathing) of all things arab, muslim, etc. Be it arab people, > their religion, their culture, their intentions, their countries, > their leaders, etc. That is not true. > So collectively, Americans know that US ports remain vulnerable from a > terrorism point of view. The US president continues to say they are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > between the security and priority perceptions of US citizens vs their > political masters. This isn't true either. What it could not illustrate better is a complete collision between what security priorities are of US POLITICIANS that they are telling the US citizens, and what they are actually DOING. Ever since Watergate, US citizens have been very sensitive to political leaders who say one thing and do another. The reason that this is big news here now is that it is an election year and all the politicians up for reelection are being put under a magnifying glass. All of this is a Good Thing, by the way. It may also happen that this is the last straw for the people for some of those politicians, and as a result some people won't be reelected. This is also a Good Thing. > The US news media like a bulldog with a bone on this issue. This > could be pay-back for the fact they were shut-out of the initial > coverage of the Cheney gun-shot event. > > But the issue has traction, possibly because of the mid-term > congressional and senate elections that are about a year away, They are 9 months away, not 12. > and > sitting republicans are vulnerable to a growing public backlash [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > this UAE thing from every possible angle. You people outside the > USA/Canada don't see the same CNN that we see. But you also forget that there's a lot of pent up frustration with the continued practice of outsourcing. There are a lot of lower economic people who lost good jobs due to those jobs going to India. Now you can argue all you want that the US economy is no longer willing to pay a premium for a blue collar telemarketer sitting in a phone bank all day long, and those jobs were going to go away anyhow, but this is lost on these people. All they know is that the job they were doing and getting paid 10%+minimum, is now gone and they either have to go on food stamps, or try to retrain. And besides those people there's a lot of union people that lost jobs and had to take lower paying ones, and a lot of blue collar technology workers in the same boat, etc. I think that people in this boat might be taking some comfort from the fact that while their job went to India, at least the profits from the job are going to an American country. But now they are hearing not only are the jobs going overseas, now the profits are too. And at the back of everyone's mind is the fear that pretty soon, there won't be much of an economy left in the US. Of course, that doesen't stop them from running out and buying the latest Made in China electronic toy. I would bet money that there is not a single piece of American-made electronics in between Lou Dobbs microphone, and the picture tube his pablum is being displayed on to the masses. Ted > > > I am not quite clear what is so special about this. The > > > investment funds of the oil states have been investing in [quoted text clipped - 84 lines] > a lot of union people that lost jobs and had to take lower paying ones, > and a lot of blue collar technology workers in the same boat, etc. If you're going to campaign against outsourcing and put up walls, remember you are also campaigning against insourcing and your walls will stop that as well. The USA "gains" far more from insourcing than it "loses" from outsourcing, so be Very Careful what you wish for. Can't have it both ways. It was hard for India when they lost a huge handmade cloth industry to giant textile mills in England as the Industrial Revolution got underway. Somehow they figured out how to reinvent themselves, and so will others. > "MoPar Man" <MoPar@Man.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > That is not true. ------------------ http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002853363_islampoll09.html Thursday, March 9, 2006 Islam's image fares poorly in U.S. poll By Claudia Deane and Darryl Fears The Washington Post WASHINGTON As the war in Iraq grinds into its fourth year, a growing proportion of Americans are expressing unfavorable views of Islam, and a majority now say that Muslims are disproportionately prone to violence, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The poll found that nearly half of Americans 46 percent have a negative view of Islam, 7 percentage points higher than in the tense months after the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks in New York and Washington, when Muslims were often targeted for violence. The survey comes at a time of increasing tension, as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq show little sign of ending and as members of Congress seek to block an Arab company from managing operations at several American ports. Also, Americans are reading news of deadly protests in the Arab world over Danish cartoon depictions of the Muslim prophet Muhammad. According to the poll, the proportion of Americans who believe that Islam helps to stoke violence against non-Muslims has more than doubled since the attacks, from 14 percent in January 2002 to 33 percent today. The survey also found that 1 in every 3 Americans has heard prejudiced comments about Muslims lately. Forty-three percent reported having heard negative remarks about Arabs. One in every four Americans polled admitted to harboring prejudice toward Muslims, the same proportion that expressed some personal bias against Arabs. Although the two groups often are linked in popular discourse, most of the world's Muslims are not of Arab descent. For example, the country with the world's largest Muslim population is Indonesia. A total of 1,000 randomly selected Americans were interviewed March 2-5 for the Post-ABC News poll. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Americans who said they understood Islam were more likely to see the religion overall as peaceful and respectful. But they were no less likely to say it harbors harmful extremists, and they were also no less likely to have prejudiced feelings against Muslims themselves. James Zogby, president of the Washington-based Arab American Institute, said he is not surprised by the poll results. Politicians, authors and media commentators have demonized the Arab world since 2001, he said. "The intensity has not abated and remains a vein that's very near the surface, ready to be tapped at any moment," Zogby said. "Members of Congress have been exploiting this over the ports issue. Radio commentators have been talking about it nonstop." > I am not quite clear what is so special about this. The investment funds of > the oil states have been investing in western assets for decades (where else > could they invest anyway?). The KIO (Kuwait Investment Office) used to > (still does?) own a substantial chunk of Daimler-Benz. So? > > Just means mutual dependence. Not such a bad thing. It's not a big deal, other than ignorance of the deal ("The US is selling its ports!!") is being used for political gain by numerous interests. Knowledge is the antidote. > Maybe and maybe not. We'll never *really* know until after the fact. > On the down side - remember when Clinton had OBL in our sites, and we [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > getting the hell out of the way, but n+ot before tipping OBL off, and he > escaped. (This is all spelled out in the 9/11 report.) I haven't read that but I don't doubt it. In any case, I would be surprised if OBL didn't have a spy or two in the diplomatic offices of every major Arab state, so I would suspect that even if the top brass at UAE didn't tip off OBL deliberately, that it would have been spied out. > Maybe we can, maybe we can't - we will never truly know 'til > after-the-fact. This is one of those situations where you have to make > one decision or the other without having a real good feel about it > either way. There will be serious economic and political implications > *either* way. It is a very tough decision *IF* ones interest is what's > in the best interest of the U.S. No it's not. If UAE comes in and starts wrecking port security, there will be plenty of watchdogs both within and outside of government that will be pointing it out. They could easily be legislated right out of the country so obviously the risk is minimal for us. In fact, they take a lot more risk since once they have a stake here, if they screw up and are forced out, they will be firesaling those ports and losing money. I would also guess that within 10 years UAE will sell the ports to someone else anyway. You know how investors are, there is always a better investment on the other side of the fence. It's just not in their nature to put their money into a good investment and sit on it the rest of their lives. > That's the whole problem with the country right now. People, including > many of our politicians and public figures, and apparently you, put > blinders on about what's best for the country and primarily do whatever > suits their political agenda and who's image and career they want to > crush at the moment. Bill, that example is set by the very top. What would be best for the country is to put in some moderate Supreme Court justices, not a bunch of political hacks like the President just got finished doing. What would be best for the country was once our objective of catching Saddam in Iraq was met, that we got the hell out and let the factions self-determine their own future. So they seem to want to fight a civil war over it, well both sides want to kill each other, it's not our right to tell them they can't do it, any more than it is their right to tell us we shouldn't be settling our differences nonviolently. We chose civil war ourselves about 150 years ago after all. It was one thing when it was Saddam opressing his own people - well those people aren't opressed anymore, we are done. We need to git. If Bush was really more willing to work with the Democrats in Washington and actually did it, and made a few concessions, then so many of the politicians and public figures wouldn't be out there doing what suits their political agenda and working to crush him at the expense of the best interests of the country. > I have very mixed feelings on this issue, but my decision criteria are > clearly different than yours. My criteria are the same as the Presidents, actually. Observing how Bush works, he has clearly extracted a bunch of secret concessions out of UAE that the general public doesen't know about in exchange for approval on the deal. Since Bush seems to like spying so much, my guess is he got carte-blanche to roam through all the employement and personnel records of every port employee in every port that UAE takes over, without having to get a warrant. What your going to see in the next month is all the high-ups in Congress both the Republican high-ups and a few Democrat high-ups are going to be brought into Bush's little secret war room and told exactly what those concessions are. Then those people will suddenly lose stomach for continuing the argument, and will go try to stomp on the younger members of their parties to shut them up, and the whole thing will end up being slid through under the carpet. In short, this deal was purely a political deal for the President, just as I'm looking at it as a great political deal for the Democrats. Since the general public cannot be told about the secret concessions, the out-of-office Democratic politicians will be free to slap the officholding Republicans around during the next election, and those people will be unable to answer the charges. Now, is it a good thing for the country in the long run to have these kinds of secret deals? Well that depends on what you regard as National Security. My observation over the years is that government officials on both sides of the aisle are very quick to use the excuse of National Security to hide wrongdoing. I simply do not have faith in secret deals like this being policed by the very people involved in the secret. That is why I like to see incumbents tossed out of office on a regular basis. Naturally I would rather see incumbent Democrats be replaced by new up and coming Democrats. Ted > Bill, that example is set by the very top. What would be best for the > country is to put in some moderate Supreme Court justices, not a bunch > of political hacks like the President just got finished doing. Huh? Where are these "hacks" that you are referring to? Justice Roberts? Justice Alito? Have there ever been supreme court candidates with higher qualifications? They both have impressive credentials and extremely successful careers. You make the charge of hack, when have they ever worked for Bush? I know, it's a horrible thing when judges follow the law and then detail exactly what their line of reasoning was. By the treatment they both received from the likes of Messrs Schumer and Kennedy you'd think they were just short of child molesters. If you're concerned with "hacks," than I am curious what you thought of when Bill Clinton nominated a very liberal judge named Ruth Ginsburg, who was also top lawyer of the uber liveral ACLU. Oh yeah, Republicans still overwhelmingly voted for her. Is Ginsburg a "hack" in your eyes too then? Breyer? Why not? > What would > be best for the country was once our objective of catching Saddam in [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > be settling our differences nonviolently. We chose civil war ourselves > about 150 years ago after all. Who is 'we'? I certainly wasn't around 150 years ago. But I wouldn't look at the USA Civil War as a model for anyone to follow. The prospect of civil war in Iraq is greatly overrated, although outside interests, especially Iran are trying hard to make it happen. They don't want a stable government in the neighborhood. For the most part, democracies don't fight each other and sponsor terrorism. > It was one thing when it was > Saddam opressing his own people - well those people aren't opressed > anymore, we are done. We need to git. So should USA have just left Japan right after the Emporer was toppled? Was the Marshall Plan a Huge Mistake in Europe after Hitler's bunker was raided? By following your line of reasoning, the answers to to these questions is, YES! > If Bush was really more willing to work with the Democrats in Washington > and actually did it, and made a few concessions, then so many of the > politicians and public figures wouldn't be out there doing what suits > their political agenda and working to crush him at the expense of the > best interests of the country. Bush has tried to work with Democrats again and again and again, to a fault. He allowed Ted Kennedy to author the education bill that he championed. He invited Democrats to help out with Medicare overhall again and again. Recently Democrats have cheered (Cheered!) the fact that Congress still hasn't taken any action to prevent a massive disaster in the making with social security. Bush even invited certain Democrats to the White House for informal socializing and conversing. All he got was slurs and personal ad hominem attacks, which he never returned. > > I have very mixed feelings on this issue, but my decision criteria are > > clearly different than yours. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > of UAE that the general public doesen't know about in exchange for > approval on the deal. "Clearly extracted a bunch of secret concessions." Of course! :) > I'm actually glad to read this for a couple reasons. First, I agree with > Bush that it's not a security risk and that it's not fair to shitcan the deal. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that supported Bush to begin with. Bush's threatening a veto is one > of the stupider moves he's made. Actually he was asked what would he do if a bill to prevent this was presented before him. He answered the question in a way that I believe was direct and honest, he said he would veto it. It's not the first time he's said he would veto something, even though he hasn't had to go through with that yet. > All it does is make Bush look like > a moderate Republican and thus creates division within the Republican > party with the conservatives against the moderates. Hmm, interesting that the Democrats (e.g. Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Charles Schumer) are in complete agreement with those "ultra conservatives" you disdain so much. > The ultra conservatives have committed to their constitutes to be > as hard as possible on terrorism, and they cannot back down on > this without losing support. "Ultra conservative" today means that you don't think illegal aliens should be given carte-blanche to avoid the law and you believe allowing citizens to keep more of their money in their pockets so they can spend or save it as they feel fit is good for the economy. > If Bush wins, the ultraconservatives > in the Republican party will be weakened, and they will want revenge [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and that emboldens the Democrats and the moderate Republicans. > So, either way this plays out, my side wins. That's swell. So ignorance and/or stupidity is good for "your side." At least you admit it, many others will not. Unfortunately a lot others think like you and like to propagate more ignorance for political gain. The Clintons, for example, aren't even going to stop with that. While Hillary is shouting how terrible UAE is, Bill is cashing the big checks he receives for advising UAE how to do business in USA. > > I'm actually glad to read this for a couple reasons. First, I agree with > > Bush that it's not a security risk and that it's not fair to shitcan the deal. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > before him. He answered the question in a way that I believe was direct and > honest, he said he would veto it. And he's stupid for doing that. A President of all people needs to be circumspect. Bush could have just as easily said "I really can't say right now it would depend on the circumstances" and ignored further questions to pin him down. I have a lot of respect for a President who takes his time to formulate his views and then gets on national TV and elucidates them in a forum and setting that is, well for want of a better word, Presidential. I might disagree with those views but I definitely respect him or her. But I have no respect for a President who seems happy to answer serious foreign policy questions while walking to his golf game or while on the deck of a battle ship dressed in a flight suit that this would be the only time in his life he would put on a military uniform. If said President is on "my side" and pushing the right course of action, I would overlook it, even though I still would have no respect for him. I remember cringing when Clinton got elected and was filmed eating McDonalds fries and all of that, and thinking God I hope he doesen't screw this up. > It's not the first time he's said he would > veto something, even though he hasn't had to go through with that yet. Yeah, well this is going to be the last time that he will be able to use that threat and be believed. > Hmm, interesting that the Democrats (e.g. Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Charles > Schumer) are in complete agreement with those "ultra conservatives" you disdain > so much. They don't believe it's a problem any more than the President does, they just see it as an opportunity to take him down a peg. Duh. > "Ultra conservative" today means that you don't think illegal aliens should be > given carte-blanche to avoid the law and you believe allowing citizens to keep > more of their money in their pockets so they can spend or save it as they feel > fit is good for the economy. It also means inprisoning flag-burners and having a state-sponsored Religion (Christianity, of course) and not allowing people to have any privacy. And it also means running up the national debt into trillions of dollars to pay for your pet projects. As for illegal aliens, some of the staunchest ultra conservatives hail from the great old State of Arizona, which has some of the highest number of illegal aliens paid under the table for work. > > If Bush wins, the ultraconservatives > > in the Republican party will be weakened, and they will want revenge [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > That's swell. So ignorance and/or stupidity is good for "your side." It's about time. The Ultraconservatives have used the American people's ignorance and stupidity to get their agenda passed, it's poetic justice to be able to get some of that agenda torn apart using the same techniques. > At least > you admit it, many others will not. Unfortunately a lot others think like you > and like to propagate more ignorance for political gain. Absolute rubbish. I personally do not propagate ignorance for political gain, why do you think I'm explaining everything? I am happy to outline the real reasons that politically motivate each side to do nasty things because I know that when you boil it all down, there are still 2 sides to the issues and the person has to choose one. Take abortion. I know that the biggest lie of the Republican Party on abortion is that they oppose it because they think it's baby killing. The real reason they oppose it is because the conservative Christians in the US have all decided that abortion is wrong because they have interpreted various biblical passages to say that life begins at conception, and the conservative Christians are the largest donors of money to the Republicans. But it would be a complete violation of the Constitutional principles of freedom to worship for the Republicans to say that they follow the Christian principles on abortion in their party plank, so they lie about it and use some euphasims. And the biggest lie of the Democratic Party is that they are pro choice because the role of government is not to interfere with people's private lives. The real reason they are pro choice is because they get a huge amount of support from people in the New Age movement, and a lot of religions, like Scientology, Wiccan and such, are part of this movement. People don't realize how large this movement is because it has not been around long enough to have a few major religions kill off all the minor ones, like what happened with Islam and Christianity which killed off dozens of smaller offshoots hundreds of years ago, so it kind of falls under "all those other religions" label. For example, just about all religious gay people are part of the New Age movement. So, in summary the Democrats and Republicans will both lie like dogs when arguing over abortion. But, you and I still have to choose a position. The fact that I choose the Pro Choice side because I just happen to believe that strange fantasy that government must not have rights in the bedroom, and not because I am a New Ager (which I am not) is not diminished by the fact that my party officially lies about it, and gets support from a lot of groups I consider threats (such as the Scientologists) I am fully aware that the folks of my side fighting the war in the trenches often will resort to lies to win battles. But, just because they are doing so, does not mean that I do so. I'll be glad to point out the lies in both my and their side, but just because both sides are lying, does not mean that you personally can abrogate your responsibility to make a logically based choice on an issue. You still must choose, even though everything anyone on either side tells you may be a lie. The Clintons, for > example, aren't even going to stop with that. While Hillary is shouting how > terrible UAE is, Bill is cashing the big checks he receives for advising UAE how > to do business in USA. In case you didn't notice Hillary and Bill don't ever seem to have talked all that much about anything of consequence. The simple truth is that the UAE losing the ports is a real non-issue, it only affects a few billionaires, and the billionaires in the UAE will simply spend their billions on some other investment that will be as equally rich as the ports in the US, and so they will suffer nothing. The ports have to be owned by someone, so someone else will buy them and the ports will also suffer nothing. This whole issue is merely nothing more than a bad card dealt at some billionaires card table somewhere. But, the loss of status of Bush is by contrast something that is amazingly important. You don't seem to understand that we have a dictator in the White House right now and until the US Congress shows some spine and starts pushing back on some of what he wants, we will continue to have a dictator. If it takes a few billionaires being inconvenenced at their high stakes card table to teach the US Congress that they do indeed have some powers guarenteed to them by the Constitution and are not simply an apparatus of the Executive branch, then I say absolutey fragging fantastic. No one got hurt, no one even lost any money, yet Congress has come out of this learning an immensely valuable lesson, which is they do in fact have a governing role to play and they need to start doing it and stop playing follow the leader. Ted > With all the talk of the US selling it's eastern seaboard port > operations to a company owned by the UAE, I thought the following [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > buy US military stuff. Seems they're turning away from those toys and > just buying up the USA, one piece at a time. Huh? Need to get you up to speed here. "The US" is not selling anything. A British Company (P&O, formerly Penninsular & Oriental which ran the Princess Cruise line, among many other ventures) is being acquired by a UAE company. This British Company, P&O, happens to have concessions for the operations of several ports that are located in the United States. P&O acquired these concessions in the late 1990s. Some other ports in the US have operating concessions held by other countries, including China. It looks like the UAE company knows a good investment when it sees one. If you're afraid of UAE, (which services the most US Navy ships outside of US ports), consider something far worse, it could be the American company Wal-Mart gaining the concessions! :-) |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.