Posted on 02/21/2006 12:32:20 PM PST by Brian Mosely
Thanks for the ping.
It's not clear to what extent the states have authority over this. There's obviously lots of federal money involved in the construction and operation of U.S. ports. Since it involves international shipping, there may be serious limits to what restrictions states can put on it. For example, I don't think any state has legal authority to block airlines operated by certain foreign governments from using our international airports.
"Lots of pseudo conservatives do that around here all the time."
Well, don't let me stop you from waltzing down the primrose path with Jimmuh Carter, which apparently has become "authentic" conservative in some sort of bizzarro-world of very, very recent vintage. Have fun!
If you think I'm weak enough to be cowed by some stupid Jimmy Carter comment, you vastly underestimate my mettle, sonny.
I make decisions on what is right, and what is good for the country, but more importantly, what is in line with God's laws.
You jumped in here and started mocking me with an empty head. Fill it up with some information about what this port deal is actually about, and get back to me when you have something intelligent to say.
As of now, you are nothing but an annoyance, and not worth bothering with.
"If you think I'm weak enough to be cowed by some stupid Jimmy Carter comment, you vastly underestimate my mettle, sonny."
Your "mettle" consists of rabid support for whatever our president says or does, without exception. There are some admirable aspects of such loyalty, but there are pitfalls as well. And, you're just too darned blinkered to ever even notice. So, enjoy your sojourn with Jimmuh, auntie.
Considering the fact that the word veto had not yet wafted past his lips prior to this it is absolutely stupid.
The states have the ability to block this and if they aren't given sufficient reason not to some of them will.
The feds don't hold absolute control over the ports.
You are completely ignorant, but don't let that stop you from making a total fool of yourself.
As for Jimmy Carter, he is an irrelevant old coot, and no one with any sense cares one whit about what he says. And you clearly have no sense.
btw, I disagree with the President on this port deal and on immigration. But don't let those pesky old facts interfere with your empty headed insults.
The more you say, the dumber you look. Keep it up, child.........keep it up.
"btw, I disagree with the President on this port deal and on immigration. But don't let those pesky old facts interfere with your empty headed insults."
Your own posting history, on this thread alone, puts the lie to your assertion that you disagree with the president. So, continue to hurl invective for whatever reason it is that you are doing so. You did the same during the Miers nomination fiasco. Par for the course.
That is kind of obvious, but I posted the idea first...lol. All the other UAE staging area supporters are just copycats.
Prove it.
You did the same during the Miers nomination fiasco. Par for the course.
I did no such thing.
You think that you can just make accusations and not be able to back them up? You think people on this forum are really that stupid?
I realize that you haven't been around very long, but you should have picked up by now that you have to back up your allegations with facts.
But you can't do that, because there ARE no facts to back you up.
You lose. Period. End of conversation.
Find someone else to lie about.
I stand up for the President's CHARACTER........not every decision he makes.
When you actually GET some character, you may understand what that means......
Until then, no more lies.
"I did no such thing."
I'm quite certain you did, as I was on the receiving end of your accusations of lying then, just as I am now. Anyone who is curious can certainly go back and find it, OhioWfan.
Have a nice day, and if you need the last word, it's all yours.
(But if you look the rest of your life, you aren't going to find those posts, because they don't exist. Nice try, but abject failure.......again).
There. Last word. I feel better now. :)
If you keep repeating this long enough perhaps you can actually get someone to believe it.
only this time the monkey will be dressed in a silk dress
If the customs agencies aren't doing enough to maintain port security, then that would have to mean that they're implicitly delegating to the people operating the port to do the rest, would it not? Even if they're not explicitly delegating this power, it still could only mean that they're relying on the operators.
Let's take a worst-case scenario, and say that the operations company was owned by a government that truly is hostile towards us and wants to hurt us. Even though none of that country's citizens or agents would be anywhere near the facilities, and the longshoremen would all be unionized Archie Bunker-types, and everyone else who worked there had to go through the proper security screening, would it still put us at a disadvantage in any way?
First off, Coolidge served two terms and left office with sky high approval ratings, and along with Reagan was one of the most conservative Presidents of the 20th century.
Hoover and Ike vetoed a number of bad bills, along with some good bills. Their vetos had nothing to do with their party controlling Congress. As I just noted, plenty of Dem presidents vetoed their own party's legislation and they were handily re-elected, along with Congress.
Do you really think the President is supposed to be a rubber stamp for Congress and pass WHATEVER they think is a good idea if he's in the same party? I think you're the one who doesn't get "seperation of powers". If an "R" President is supposed to agree with whatever an "R" Congress wants, we might as well put a moritorium on the Presidency when one party controls all branches of government.
ALL Presidents in ALL parties have used their veto stamp REGULARLY when they felt Congress' legislation was not in the best interests of the people. It doesn't matter whether their party controls the legislative branch or not. The last President to have a scorecard of ZERO vetos during his term was James A. Garfield in 1880. Garfield had a much better excuse that Bush -- he was killed 6 monthes into his term.
That was more because of the things he did pass (such as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act), not the things he vetoed.
Interestingly enough, the Democratic Party platform of 1932, which candidate Roosevelt endorsed, called for a 25% reduction in taxes and spending. That (at least in part) is how Hoover got defeated.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.