Posted on 02/22/2006 5:41:07 PM PST by quidnunc
Look around. It is a global economy and only the largest and most efficient survive. All major corporations are multi-national either in customers or operations. I read this material a day or so ago. Sea2Sea.blogspot.com
Researching DP World shows they don't have the time under their belts that P&O has. They've grown hands over foot by locking up much of the Chinese trade. But what also is a fact with DP World is that they already are the port operations company for terminals in Germany, Romania, Saudi Arabia, South Korea, Australia, China, Morocco, India and Venezula.
Note.. there's alot of other democratic, and or friendly nations in this list with whom we already have with trade agreements. The point? The track record for DP World's performance in a few kindred nations indicates the fears have no grounds. Do you see other countries and their media running around like chickens with their heads cut off in a panic? Post 911, do you see Germany and Australia - already DP World clients - shopping around for another service provider in security fear?
Interesting since the ports are already under a foreign held or controlled company... What is even more interesting is that, despite lacking evidence that suggests DP World's port business increases terrorist threats, Congress is essentially saying "we don't want an Arab country buying this". Since that is the quintessential racial slur, they have to exclude everyone else - an action smacking of isolationism and intolerance.
...
Upon passage of such a bill, where does that leave us? Not unlike Halliburton's services, limited to few companies in the world, just how many competitors are on the par of P&O, and capable of managing the major US shipping ports?
Four crop up, including P&O... PSA Int'l (Singapore), Hutchison Whampoa (Hong Kong), and DP World (Dubai).
Da skinny.... P&O wants to sell.... and the only two bidders were PSA Int'l and DP World. PSA dropped out, so the only purchaser left was DP World... the subject of the current media hysteria. Then again, had PSA won the bid, they would have become the single largest ports operations group in existance. Would it then have become a monopoly battle? Fascinating....
It may be prudent to note that this same merger that has everyone in a tizzy also includes P&O assets, lease contracts, etc in Canada, Australia, Germany, and Spain, among others, as well. Yet none of these countries' are raising a stink about national security risks. Instead, the Brits lick their wounded pride, lamenting the sale of the historic maritime giant to other than UK hands.
But who told you what opinion to have ? You can't have come up with it yourself.
I read fine. Your post reads...
Anyone who wants a guest worker program really wants no border security at all.
The first sentence of Tancredo's Real Guest Act off Tancredo's House.gov site reads...
Establishes the framework for a truly temporary guest worker program that responds to market conditions, rather than setting arbitrary caps...How's your reading?
The problem is any idiot could have predicted that this would be a PR disaster and that the Dims would go and grab the issue and try to lead on it. The other problem is, the GOP's hands off, hyper libertarian faction has been dominating the strategy and here's an example of it. Any idiot could have figured out that no matter what some schmuck at the Mises Institute may write, Main Street would not go for this.
Corporate one worlders are actually liberals. They just like low taxes in certain areas and like good cash flow. Otherwise, they are sqeamish about real war, hate the concept of borders, and are very similar to 1960s peace sign wearing hippies. Sad we've allowed them to infiltrate the party.
However you try to twist it, he is talking limits. Not turning America into Mexico as you would like.
Tancredo has always been about setting limits in the interest of the American people, not cheap labor special interests.
I would like to see him take a major role in leading the resistance to this nonsense. It would give him a great big boost in running the WSJ corporate globalists out to the libertarian party where they belong.
Corporate one worlders are definitely culture war liberals. You are absolutely right. Look at how they have thrown themselves behind the sodomite agenda.
Since all they care about is their own bottom line there really is no place for them in a conservative party.
"Your personal desire for cheap labor is at the direct expense of the American people and American sovereignty."
Oh, but there is a great deal more to it, monsieur, than just a desire to see cheap labor!
There is the desire to see a Catholic majority in America, which will well and truly sweep away the abortion laws. Abortion is illegal in every Latin American country except Cuba. Give me more Catholics! More and more. The longer that border is open, the more the Balance of Faith shifts in America. Now, I personally consider the abortion issue to be the most important issue of all, and I think that, strategically, about the only way to really win on that issue is to get a predominantly Catholic electorate. And that is what the open border with Latin America is giving me.
I would NOT support an open border for Middle Easterners, or, really, anybody else in the world except Canadians and Western Europeans. Latinos are Westerners, and Catholics. The more in the US, the more the political balance shifts on the most important moral issue of our times. In my opinion.
Jails are packed with illegals, of course. Illegals are poor. Poor people commit crimes and have to be incarcerated. That goes with the territory. If native born Americans would be decent and moral folks and vote out abortion, I would not be so happy about the Latino Catholic flood. But they aren't, and so I am.
And oh, by the way, I get my lawn cut cheaper too.
I believe this is called "Doing well by doing good."
"I thought as a conservative, we are suppose to look at unions as bad for the economy."
They probably are bad for the economy, but we're not talking about the economy but national security. Unions are not national security risks. These guys are not going to sell out the country to a bunch of Arab bombers. If the basis for opposing this port deal were economics, or US employment, then the unions would be a negative. But we're talking national security, and for THAT union guys are a positive: a closed, clannish, blue collar bigoted bunch. You think that union guys are going to let terrorist guys work on the docks with them bringing bombs into America. Truck drivers are mostly members of the Teamsters Union. You think that Teamsters are going to be driving bombs around America in their "God, Guts and Guns" trucks with the mirror girl silhouettes on the mudflaps?
Come on.
Union guys are Archie Bunker patriots. They may not be good for the economy, but they are more trustworthy on national security than multinational corporation executives.
There is nothing to worry about here.
You think Mexicans are cultural conservatives ? Then why will sodomite marriage be the law in California if the Democrats (with massive Mexican support) win the Governor's mansion ? The Mexican political establishment has been as secularist as France. During the 20's and 30's there was the Cristero war.
Mexicans are absorbing LA street culture and are adopting ghetto ways.
Some are.
But in general, Latinos are more religious than white. A University of California study showed that 84% of Latinos believe in God; only 78% of whites do. 75% of Latinos pray. 67% of whites do.
It remains my opinion that the Catholic Latino influx improves the overall religiosity of America, and that the impending Catholic majority will be the key to overturning abortion.
Of course, Catholics do tend to be more fiscally liberal than Protestants, so the Latino influx probably equates to moral conservatism/fiscal liberalism. I think that is preferable to the opposite.
No the job calls for being Bush's buddy. Read your Constitution, before you pretend to defend it. The Constitution says the President shall nominate, the Senate shall advise and consent...not Rush Limbaugh and Freepers.
Bush Chooses Miers for Supreme Court
10 of the 34 Justices appointed since 1933, including Rehnquist and the late Justice Byron White, were appointed from positions within the president's administration.
19 Supreme Court justices have never served as judges before getting on the high court
To make your statement one must be ignorant of Justice Rehnquist and Warren.
Don't be dense.
You just keep on digging deeper. I wish you could hear me laughing at you. When you sober up in the morning and the hot flush creeps over your cheeks, please remember I was gentle and gave you an opportunity to slink away with minimal embarrassment.
Your hero worship is ridiculously unattainable when compared to your dogmatic/ideology. Even your heroes can't rise to the level of right fringe purity you fantasize. Good luck escaping from the armed compound that secures you from the real world. Thanks again for playing. Sweet dreams Sham.
Still pushing Miers in classic bushbot fashion ?
The Senate took one look at her and agreed with every criticism of her that was aired on this board. We did not reject her. The Senate GOP flatly told Bush that she would not fly.
Don't be dense.
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.