Dubai Ports selling out

[NorthSideSox72]

The are quite a few on the other side that come in here and all they do is Bush bash.  You can take the time to post a substantiative arguement and they'll twist it, change the subject or ignore it.  In fact, the whole Democrat agenda is to Bush bash.  Why is it so hard to understand that when we see that garbage, day in day out, here and in the media, that we get fed up enough to respond to it with disdain?

 

Prime example was with the MSNBC polls posted and discussed here.  I post one that shows a clear majority in favor of capital punishment and a liberal swarm dismiss it as irrelevent.  The BigSquirt finds one that shows a vast majority are against this UAE deal, and all of a sudden it's revelent enough to post.  Squirt's poll sat out there for hours without a hint of relevence questioning.  Where were all those people that dismissed mine.  Same type of poll, same source, yet no objections whatsoever until I mentioned the previous poll.  That's the rules they play by.  If it fits our agenda it's relevent, if not it isn't.  And it happens over and over again around here. 

 

I keep saying to these people that I could swung over to their side and some issues, but not when the main agenda is to bash Bush.  That's all the Democrats have done since 2000 and they still haven't a clue as to why the Repblicans control the executive and legislative branches of government and well on their way to controlling the judicial branch.  The Democratic party and their catering to the extreme left have no one to blame but themselves.

 

You asked.  There's my answer.

And I appreciate your answer. You make some very good points. I agreed with you on those polls. If I didn't post a reply to Sqwert about the death penalty poll, it wasn't because i agreed with it - I just didn't feel it necessary to respond. Its also true that both sides will take an argument and twist it, and manipulate it. And finally, I do think that the Dems have spent a lot of time and energy bashing Bush. And for good or for bad, contrary to what many GOP'ers here seem to think, it has worked. The polls show it. Also, I agree that the Dems seem to not understand how the GOP has gotten such strong control of the government (my answer: combination of excellent marketing and the happenstance of global events).

 

But I disagree on two points. For one, I don't think the Dems are catering to the far left. I think the pendulum is currently well right of center in this country, and the Dems are trying to stay put. That is why it appears this way (Rex pointed this out in the Indie thread). Second, I think it is untrue to say that all the Dems on this board do is Bush bash. I really only see one or two posters who do that. I see quite a few "lefties" disagreeing with Bush, but doing it with well-supported, logical points.

[NorthSideSox72]

YASNY, you raise some great points.  But let me take it one step further.  Let's go back to 1994.  What was the "Contract with America?"  I mean, really, what was it?  It was a response to 1992 when Ross Perot scared the crap out of the 'politics as usual' crowd, and the "Contract with America" was a smoke and mirrors way to say "you don't need those third party people, WE can do it for you".  That allowed for the two parties that exist today to gain a stanglehold on the system and shut out any chance for a really well planned third party candidacy.  I think that has bred some 'hate' from both sides of the political spectrum because there's not as much room for 'centerism'.  Each side must cater to the fringes of their party to get elected.

 

Furthermore, when you look at our government today, it's FULL of POLITICIANS.  America today needs real STATESMEN, you know, the ones that will stand up and solve problems, not politicize every issue so that they get re-elected the next term.  We need true representation, not beurocracy.  Our government has really turned away from this and it's become politicians looking for opportunities on both sides of the aisle.  What happens if the Democrats gain control of Congress this election?  The real answer?  Absolutely NOTHING.  It will be all the same crap.  What happens if the Democrats gain the White House in 2008?  Absolutely NOTHING.  It will be all the same crap.  The issues will be different, but at the end of it all, nothing will change.  And because of the cycle we're on, and the power structure in place, 15 years from now, if people are sick today of the Republicans and sweep them out of power, the Democrats will get swept out of power the same way.

 

It's all a bunch of whiney crap from both sides of the aisle.  At the end of the day, though, it's a government of politicians, not a government for the people.  That's why I'm ashamed of our American government today.  The people have lost the power.

 

Here here! Nice post.

 

So here is my follow-up question to all the regular 'busters here on Sox Talk: are any of you considering running for office at some point? Do any of us feel we could be such a statesman/stateswoman?

 

Note: I do realize that if you are considering it, you may well not want to reveal that fact here, for many reasons. Don't feel obligated. I'm just curious, for those who would want to answer it.

[southsider2k5]

Here here!  Nice post.

 

So here is my follow-up question to all the regular 'busters here on Sox Talk: are any of you considering running for office at some point?  Do any of us feel we could be such a statesman/stateswoman?

 

Note: I do realize that if you are considering it, you may well not want to reveal that fact here, for many reasons.  Don't feel obligated.  I'm just curious, for those who would want to answer it.

 

I was giving serious though to a run for our local school board, before one baby came along. I was really wanting to see if it led to anything further, as I have a very vested interest in reviving the town I was born, raise, educated, and still live in.

[kapkomet]

I was giving serious though to a run for our local school board, before one baby came along.  I was really wanting to see if it led to anything further, as I have a very vested interest in reviving the town I was born, raise, educated, and still live in.

And even though your life's changed, you'd be good at it. Perhaps you could help lead change in the city your child's now in as well.

 

Of course, there's this little thing called $$ that's needed to feed said one child.

[southsider2k5]

And even though your life's changed, you'd be good at it.  Perhaps you could help lead change in the city your child's now in as well. 

 

Of course, there's this little thing called $$ that's needed to feed said one child. 

 

Maybe when she is in school, but right now I don't want to lose anymore time with her than I already do.

[NorthSideSox72]

I was giving serious though to a run for our local school board, before one baby came along.  I was really wanting to see if it led to anything further, as I have a very vested interest in reviving the town I was born, raise, educated, and still live in.

Good on ya. I hope you can do it... later.

[YASNY]

And I appreciate your answer.  You make some very good points.  I agreed with you on those polls.  If I didn't post a reply to Sqwert about the death penalty poll, it wasn't because i agreed with it - I just didn't feel it necessary to respond.  Its also true that both sides will take an argument and twist it, and manipulate it.  And finally, I do think that the Dems have spent a lot of time and energy bashing Bush.  And for good or for bad, contrary to what many GOP'ers here seem to think, it has worked.  The polls show it.  Also, I agree that the Dems seem to not understand how the GOP has gotten such strong control of the government (my answer: combination of excellent marketing and the happenstance of global events).

 

But I disagree on two points.  For one, I don't think the Dems are catering to the far left.  I think the pendulum is currently well right of center in this country, and the Dems are trying to stay put.  That is why it appears this way (Rex pointed this out in the Indie thread).  Second, I think it is untrue to say that all the Dems on this board do is Bush bash.  I really only see one or two posters who do that.  I see quite a few "lefties" disagreeing with Bush, but doing it with well-supported, logical points.

 

On the points with which you disagree, I'll agree the pendulum is well right of center and I agree the Dems are trying to stay put. But, in my opinion, staying put is a continuation of catering to the left. Even the Soxtalk democrats argue that the party has to remain true to their base. Well, their base is and has been the far left. However, that's been a losing proposition for them. So, the only thing they have going for is ... the second point .. Bush bashing. There are some liberals here at Soxtalk that will grudgingly acknowledge agreement with Bush on an occasional issue, but those people and those issues are few and far between. As for the well supported points, they are usually supported with drivel from leftwing websites. As has been proven, they will even go so far as to dismiss something that disagrees with their viewpoint as irrelevent, then use the same source and means of gathering data to further their cause when the results are 'on target' for them.

[YASNY]

YASNY, you raise some great points.  But let me take it one step further.  Let's go back to 1994.  What was the "Contract with America?"  I mean, really, what was it?  It was a response to 1992 when Ross Perot scared the crap out of the 'politics as usual' crowd, and the "Contract with America" was a smoke and mirrors way to say "you don't need those third party people, WE can do it for you".  That allowed for the two parties that exist today to gain a stanglehold on the system and shut out any chance for a really well planned third party candidacy.  I think that has bred some 'hate' from both sides of the political spectrum because there's not as much room for 'centerism'.  Each side must cater to the fringes of their party to get elected.

 

Furthermore, when you look at our government today, it's FULL of POLITICIANS.  America today needs real STATESMEN, you know, the ones that will stand up and solve problems, not politicize every issue so that they get re-elected the next term.  We need true representation, not beurocracy.  Our government has really turned away from this and it's become politicians looking for opportunities on both sides of the aisle.  What happens if the Democrats gain control of Congress this election?  The real answer?  Absolutely NOTHING.  It will be all the same crap.  What happens if the Democrats gain the White House in 2008?  Absolutely NOTHING.  It will be all the same crap.  The issues will be different, but at the end of it all, nothing will change.  And because of the cycle we're on, and the power structure in place, 15 years from now, if people are sick today of the Republicans and sweep them out of power, the Democrats will get swept out of power the same way.

 

It's all a bunch of whiney crap from both sides of the aisle.  At the end of the day, though, it's a government of politicians, not a government for the people.  That's why I'm ashamed of our American government today.  The people have lost the power.

 

I wholeheartedly agree with you.

[Texsox]

As for the well supported points, they are usually supported with drivel from leftwing websites. 

 

You would think as biased as the media is, liberals could just go to any mainstream media site and there it is . . .

[YASNY]

Northside, I wanted to add ... You mentioned in the post of yours that I responded to by awnswering your questions, that you consider yourself a centrist but here in Soxtalk you seem to land on the left side of center more often than not. I agree with that statement, as you do. I'll also point out that your approach to these issues, regardless of where you land, is not based on any agenda other than what in your opinion is for the good of the nation and the world. You are willing to look at and listen to both sides of an issue without party affiliation guiding your opinions and conclusions. You, personally, have done more to pull me back to toward center than Balta, Flaxx, Sqwert and RexK have done combined. In fact, they push me away from center with their methods. I'm not stating this as a dig at any of these guys, but I'm stating it as truth.

[YASNY]

You would think as biased as the media is, liberals could just go to any mainstream media site and there it is . . .

 

As I said, leftwing websites.

[Rex Kickass]

One thing I'm really proud of in the last year is that I think I helped a statesman get elected. For all the politics that surrounds Jon Corzine, he's gonna try to push through a really tough budget to try to get NJ back in fiscal shape. It could seriously derail his chances at future election.

 

Plus he's a White Sox fan.

[Texsox]

As I said, leftwing websites.

[NorthSideSox72]

Northside, I wanted to add ... You mentioned in the post of yours that I responded to by awnswering your questions, that you consider yourself a centrist but here in Soxtalk you seem to land on the left side of center more often than not.  I agree with that statement, as you do.  I'll also point out that your approach to these issues, regardless of where you land, is not based on any agenda other than what in your opinion is for the good of the nation and the world.  You are willing to look at and listen to both sides of an issue without party affiliation guiding your opinions and conclusions.  You, personally, have done more to pull me back to toward center than Balta, Flaxx, Sqwert and RexK have done combined.  In fact, they push me away from center with their methods.  I'm not stating this as a dig at any of these guys, but I'm stating it as truth.

 

Thanks. Biggest compliment I've gotten on this site.

[Balta1701]

One possible compromise reportedly under discussion by congressional Republican leaders and the White House is a 30- to 45-day voluntary cooling-off period to give administration officials more time to ease lawmakers' concerns.

 

-Back on topic...that's basically the best idea I've heard. There's no huge reason to block this deal at all...IF the Administration just follows the procedures to prove that the port deal won't hurt security at all. That's all they really need to do.

[YASNY]

 

 

Thanks.  Biggest compliment I've gotten on this site.

 

I call 'em like I see 'em.

[Balta1701]

For those who are interested, Here's the first real polling I think I've seen on this issue, which pretty much is what you'd expect based on the way this issue has formed up.

 

February 24, 2006--Just 17% of Americans believe Dubai Ports World should be allowed to purchase operating rights to several U.S. ports. A Rasmussen Reports survey found that 64% disagree and believe the sale should not be allowed (see  crosstabs).

 

Just 39% of Americans know that the operating rights are currently owned by a foreign firm. Fifteen percent (15%) believe the operating rights are U.S. owned while 46% are not sure.

 

From a political perspective, President Bush's national security credentials have clearly been tarnished due to the outcry over this issue. For the first time ever, Americans have a slight preference for Democrats in Congress over the President on national security issues. Forty-three percent (43%) say they trust the Democrats more on this issue today while 41% prefer the President.

....

Twenty-seven percent (27%) of Americans do not believe foreign firms should be allowed to buy any companies in the U.S. Fifty-five percent (55%) disagree. However, even among those who believe foreign ownership should be allowed in general, 61% oppose the Dubai Ports transaction.

 

Seventy-two percent (72%) of Americans say they have been following news about the Dubai Ports deal somewhat or very closely.

[YASNY]

If you guys peruse this thread, I've been pretty damn quiet on this issue as I wasn't sure where I stood. I did make an initial post stating that this didn't make any sense to me. But, as time has passed and I've weighed the pros and cons, I'm leaning toward thinking that based on the trends of the recent past with the selling of our infrastructure, the fact that most of our ports are managed by foriegn companies, etc ... I'm beginning to think that is much ado about nothing ... speaking in relative terms.

[Balta1701]

If you guys peruse this thread, I've been pretty damn quiet on this issue as I wasn't sure where I stood.  I did make an initial post stating that this didn't make any sense to me.  But, as time has passed and I've weighed the pros and cons, I'm leaning toward thinking that based on the trends of the recent past with the selling of our infrastructure, the fact that most of our ports are managed by foriegn companies, etc ... I'm beginning to think that is much ado about nothing ... speaking in relative terms.

I think you're almost certainly right that this is going to wind up being much ado about nothing, I just can't figure out why the Administration seemed so unwilling to at least sit down with Congress and explain their reasoning & why they were so staunchly supportive of it.

[NorthSideSox72]

For those who are interested, Here's the first real polling I think I've seen on this issue, which pretty much is what you'd expect based on the way this issue has formed up.

Some interesting things in that poll.

 

One thing that bothers me about the poll itself: the question of whether people support the Dems or Bush - what is that about? That is a completely bogus question in the way it is structured. Loaded question. One party or the Prez??

 

Its kinda scary to me that 27% of the US thinks that no foreign company should ever be allowed to by US companies. That is protectionist in the extreme, and is likely rooted in bigotry.

 

One other thing. How is it that 72% of people have been following the issue somewhat closely, but only 39% of them knew the company was already foreign-owned? Stupid people.

[Rex Kickass]

I'm opposed to this. But it's not because they're Arab, not because its a Bush administration decision, or anything like that. It's because I'm not comfortable with private industry controlling our entry/exit points for cargo and people. I'm definitely not comfortable with firms owned by foreign governments controlling the same.

[YASNY]

I think you're almost certainly right that this is going to wind up being much ado about nothing, I just can't figure out why the Administration seemed so unwilling to at least sit down with Congress and explain their reasoning & why they were so staunchly supportive of it.

 

See, you're beginning to be swayed! You capitalized Administration.

[YASNY]

I'm opposed to this. But it's not because they're Arab, not because its a Bush administration decision, or anything like that. It's because I'm not comfortable with private industry controlling our entry/exit points for cargo and people. I'm definitely not comfortable with firms owned by foreign governments controlling the same.

 

Don't we have ports where China is basically supplying the same services the UAE are supposed to provide? I believe I read that somewhere. If so, do you think the Chinese government has no input on policy? If so, why was there no groundswell of objection to that scenario. In my opinion, that is much more disturbing than the UAE in the same position.

[southsider2k5]

Don't we have ports where China is basically supplying the same services the UAE are supposed to provide?  I believe I read that somewhere.  If so, do you think the Chinese government has no input on policy?  If so, why was there no groundswell of objection to that scenario.  In my opinion, that is much more disturbing than the UAE in the same position.

 

From what I got yesterday while reading, China pretty much runs the port of LA.

[Rex Kickass]

Don't we have ports where China is basically supplying the same services the UAE are supposed to provide?  I believe I read that somewhere.  If so, do you think the Chinese government has no input on policy?  If so, why was there no groundswell of objection to that scenario.  In my opinion, that is much more disturbing than the UAE in the same position.

 

Honestly, I think they ought to get booted out of control. I think the Federal government's role is to keep its borders secure - which would mean Port Administration in my book.