Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
#1
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
Gene Kearns wrote: No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, this is just nuts! And particularly affects: New York New Jersey Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Baltimore, Maryland Miami, Florida New Orleans, Louisiana http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185479,00.html http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1644106 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/...ity/index.html http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3652381.html If there is any REAL concern with security, why is this being bid to any NON American firm? This is just plain nuts! -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely profitably) involved in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests. GWB's first partner when he entered the oil drilling business was Salim Ben Ladin, Osama's brother. There's probably some private family- business reason for turning port security over to an Arab firm. This is one of those changes that will come about by Executive fiat, should it materialize, as most Democrats in congress oppose it and even many of the Republicans normally delighted to toe the Administration's line are courageously speaking out against this ludicrous proposal. I understand that we can actually consider firing all the TSA employees who work airport security. It will save the country billions of dollars per year, as it is rumored that a group of folks currently living in caves along the Afghanistan/ Pakistan border are willing to do the job for less than minimum wage. Further rumors suggest that a (totally unrelated, of course) lecture tour for the immediately retired President Bush will then be arranged to begin in 2009; $1mm per appearance at a long series of middle eastern universities. Think of the money we could save if we turned the security of our southern borders over to undocumented "guest workers", it would get rid of thousands of border patrol people currently sucking the govt. teat for an acutal living wage. The $billion or so in savings could be used to justify another several billion in tax cuts for the folks in the very highest income brackets. If we really want to save some dough, we could disband most of our armed forces. There are some pretty bold mercenaries available right now, and we could save the taxpayers countless dollars if we simply took some of the 40% (or whatever) unemployed in Iraq and put them in charge of our weapons and defense systems. They would probably work for $1 a day........heck, a lot of them would gladly *pay* for the privilege. The cheapest labor to guard the henhouse will almost always turn out to be.......the fox. (And I don't mean the so-called news network) |
#2
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote:
The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely profitably) involved in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by British based P&O for years. If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port "security". God help us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company |
#3
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote: The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely profitably) involved in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by British based P&O for years. If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port "security". God help us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company P&O was not in charge of Port Security. they leased the port facilities. The Security is still under the CG. May not be good security, but the foreign company is not the security. Do not think it is wise to give a major money making operation to a foreign company to run. Especially one paid for by the USA. Worst one was Port of Long Beach naval yards. Leased to COSCO China Overseas company. An arm of the Chinese military. And the administration in charge at the time leased it for about $245 million over the length of the contract with the provisos that the Government would put $235 million in to upgrades. Nice deal if you can get it. |
#4
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:33:22 GMT, "Calif Bill"
wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote: The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely profitably) involved in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by British based P&O for years. If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port "security". God help us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company P&O was not in charge of Port Security. they leased the port facilities. The Security is still under the CG. May not be good security, but the foreign company is not the security. Do not think it is wise to give a major money making operation to a foreign company to run. Especially one paid for by the USA. Worst one was Port of Long Beach naval yards. Leased to COSCO China Overseas company. An arm of the Chinese military. And the administration in charge at the time leased it for about $245 million over the length of the contract with the provisos that the Government would put $235 million in to upgrades. Nice deal if you can get it. Finally, someone who knows the difference between port security and port operations. Thanks, Bill. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
#5
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
JohnH wrote: On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:33:22 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote: The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely profitably) involved in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by British based P&O for years. If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port "security". God help us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company P&O was not in charge of Port Security. they leased the port facilities. The Security is still under the CG. May not be good security, but the foreign company is not the security. Do not think it is wise to give a major money making operation to a foreign company to run. Especially one paid for by the USA. Worst one was Port of Long Beach naval yards. Leased to COSCO China Overseas company. An arm of the Chinese military. And the administration in charge at the time leased it for about $245 million over the length of the contract with the provisos that the Government would put $235 million in to upgrades. Nice deal if you can get it. Finally, someone who knows the difference between port security and port operations. Thanks, Bill. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** You can't completely separate the two. The vast majority of Muslim people are fine individuals who worship the very same God that most westerners do and are certainly as sincerely devout as the average American Jew or Christian, if not more so. We're in no danger from the vast majority of Muslims. However, if you suddenly have scores of Arab Muslims running around US ports it then becomes much, much easier put those one or two people into place that we really are in danger from because those one or two are extremist, religious, fanatics. Do I believe the Arab Muslims should be barred from employment in port operations or other occupations? Certainly not........but neither does it make a lot of sense to see how many Arab Muslims we can concentrate into a single, security sensitive industry. During WWII, I would like to think that I would have spoken out against dispossessing the Japanese Americans and sending them to internment camps- but I wouldn't have been in favor of putting as many Japanese Americans as possible into the manufacture of armaments, either. |
#6
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
wrote in message oups.com... JohnH wrote: On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:33:22 GMT, "Calif Bill" wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, chuckgould.chuck wrote: The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely profitably) involved in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests While I question Arab ownership of port operations, more importantly, I question *any* foreign ownership of port operations. While Arab ownership is new, the foreign ownership is not. These ports have been run by British based P&O for years. If you need a memory refresher, as I did, P&O was involved with the Herald of Free Enterprise disaster. The resultant coroner's inquest charged P&O with "corporate manslaughter" and the public inquiry stated that P&O possessed a "disease of sloppiness" that permeated the companies hierarchy. That's the company that has been in charge of our port "security". God help us. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peninsu...gation_Company P&O was not in charge of Port Security. they leased the port facilities. The Security is still under the CG. May not be good security, but the foreign company is not the security. Do not think it is wise to give a major money making operation to a foreign company to run. Especially one paid for by the USA. Worst one was Port of Long Beach naval yards. Leased to COSCO China Overseas company. An arm of the Chinese military. And the administration in charge at the time leased it for about $245 million over the length of the contract with the provisos that the Government would put $235 million in to upgrades. Nice deal if you can get it. Finally, someone who knows the difference between port security and port operations. Thanks, Bill. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** You can't completely separate the two. The vast majority of Muslim people are fine individuals who worship the very same God that most westerners do and are certainly as sincerely devout as the average American Jew or Christian, if not more so. We're in no danger from the vast majority of Muslims. However, if you suddenly have scores of Arab Muslims running around US ports it then becomes much, much easier put those one or two people into place that we really are in danger from because those one or two are extremist, religious, fanatics. Do I believe the Arab Muslims should be barred from employment in port operations or other occupations? Certainly not........but neither does it make a lot of sense to see how many Arab Muslims we can concentrate into a single, security sensitive industry. During WWII, I would like to think that I would have spoken out against dispossessing the Japanese Americans and sending them to internment camps- but I wouldn't have been in favor of putting as many Japanese Americans as possible into the manufacture of armaments, either. The majority of the employees will be American. Maybe a few execs will be Arab. I understand that the Dubai company is the largest operator of port operations in the world. Most ports are leased out to companies. Do not understand why. Port of Oakland, which I grew up by and dad did a lot of work on ships there when I was a younger me, is run by the Port of Oakland. A quasi-government operation. Same as Port of San Francisco. Why can not NYC run there own port? |
#8
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking?
On 21 Feb 2006 09:22:59 -0800, wrote:
Gene Kearns wrote: No matter what side of the aisle you sit on, this is just nuts! And particularly affects: New York New Jersey Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Baltimore, Maryland Miami, Florida New Orleans, Louisiana http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,185479,00.html http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory?id=1644106 http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/02/...ity/index.html http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/nation/3652381.html If there is any REAL concern with security, why is this being bid to any NON American firm? This is just plain nuts! -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepage http://myworkshop.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguide http://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats The Bush family has a long history of being extremely, (and extremely profitably) involved in financial dealings with powerful mideastern and Arab interests. GWB's first partner when he entered the oil drilling business was Salim Ben Ladin, Osama's brother. There's probably some private family- business reason for turning port security over to an Arab firm. This is one of those changes that will come about by Executive fiat, should it materialize, as most Democrats in congress oppose it and even many of the Republicans normally delighted to toe the Administration's line are courageously speaking out against this ludicrous proposal. I understand that we can actually consider firing all the TSA employees who work airport security. It will save the country billions of dollars per year, as it is rumored that a group of folks currently living in caves along the Afghanistan/ Pakistan border are willing to do the job for less than minimum wage. Further rumors suggest that a (totally unrelated, of course) lecture tour for the immediately retired President Bush will then be arranged to begin in 2009; $1mm per appearance at a long series of middle eastern universities. Think of the money we could save if we turned the security of our southern borders over to undocumented "guest workers", it would get rid of thousands of border patrol people currently sucking the govt. teat for an acutal living wage. The $billion or so in savings could be used to justify another several billion in tax cuts for the folks in the very highest income brackets. If we really want to save some dough, we could disband most of our armed forces. There are some pretty bold mercenaries available right now, and we could save the taxpayers countless dollars if we simply took some of the 40% (or whatever) unemployed in Iraq and put them in charge of our weapons and defense systems. They would probably work for $1 a day........heck, a lot of them would gladly *pay* for the privilege. The cheapest labor to guard the henhouse will almost always turn out to be.......the fox. (And I don't mean the so-called news network) Not security, port operations. -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Reply |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
On Topic... What the hell is this adminstration thinking? | General | |||
Best Topic of 2005 | General | |||
So where is...................... | General | |||
This newsgroup is at least 71% off topic posts - TAKE IT SOMEPLACE ELSE! | General | |||
Bobspritz Possessed By Demons!!! | ASA |