The Ports Deal - Why Do you Oppose it?

[bryant69]

Why do you oppose the Ports Deal? Or Do you? Obviously this poll won't contain all possible answers - and some of them might overlap - please select the one that is most important in your mind.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Bucky]

1. man, i hate polls when I have to think about nuances

Can't you do a poll like: Bush sucks...

a) shit
b) dog balls
c) Dennis Hastert's Cheetoh-farts

Now that's my kind of poll. One where we all can be winners.

[peace frog]

2. d) All of the above

;)

[sui generis]

3. c) Dennis Hastert's Cheetoh-farts

that's my final answer.

[sui generis]

4. what I don't like:

1. Another backroom deal; what were they hiding?
2. Might have considered Dubai if they had done some premarketing instead of
"springing" it on us after a top secret backroom deal
3. The president is for it
4. Why can't we contract them to train us to run our own ports and keep that port revenue
intact and American?
5. It's selling America without the consent of Congress or the knowledge of Americans.

I'm sure that Dubai is extraordinarily efficient and a good model to use for port management, all other politics aside, but the U.S. politics and anger is for real.

This was just another shady back room deal done by our administration and that alone is enough to run from it.

[catabryna]

10. This pretty much explains my position...

It's the people involved in the deal and the secrecy that concern me. And, we now have agencies and congressional representatives being strong-armed into flipping. And, of course, my cynicism tells me that this "voluntary middle ground" decision to have a 45 day review period is nothing more than rouse to buy some time and hope that the public's attention span will reach its typical short term collective time-out phase.

[Webster Green]

5. I oppose it because the chimp supports it...

That's all the info I need to make a decision!

[Tyler Durden]

6. I'm with you, sport.

If bush supported Free Lunch for everyone today, I'd make a point of going to the most "Tony" joint in town and laying out $30 for Prime Rib and Drinks.

[genie_weenie]

7. This is an interesting twist...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x2136833

[FSogol]

8. Keep US jobs in the US. n/t

[warrens]

9. Frankly, the ports are a mess no matter what

Less than 1 percent of containers are ever actually searched. There are no radiation detection devices. It's a joke. But no one is going to pay the price it would cost to actually examine a significant number of containers (business would come to a screeching halt) so it goes under the "unavoidable risk" category. But if we can batter Smirkalicious about the head and shoulders with it, fine.

[Ron Mexico]

11. Outsourcing AOL tech support is one thing, but outsourcing port security

to ANYONE - Brit, Arab, whoever - is bullshit.

[Idioteque]

12. I support the deal.

I don't trust George Bush but I do trust John Warner. Also, I think the damage that stopping the deal would have on our country's image in the middle east would be hard to repair.

[peace frog]

13. May I ask, why do you trust John Warner but not Bush?

And more to the point: why do you trust UAE with our ports?

[bryant69]

14. I suppose it would depend on how much power they would have

and how they have used their power in the past.

Bryant

[ProfessorGAC]

15. You Don't Have My Answer In Your Poll, Bryant

First, i do think that this is an area (tranportation and shipping) that needs to be highly regulated and that's easier to do if the controlling and operating firms are incorporated and HQ'd in the U.S.

Secondly, though my reason for opposing it is twofold:
First it's just more unregulated capitalism, and if the last 125 years has shown us anything, regulation is GOOD for the economy, good for profitability, and good for the consumer.

Secondly, since the neocons are in support of the plan, it just HAS TO BE a horrible idea. They've been wrong about everything else. Why would this be any different?
The Professor

[bryant69]

16. Hmmmm

OK a few questions to your first objections - Is this really change from Regulation to Non Regulation? To me it looks like operations are currently handled by a for-profit British company and will (assuming the deal goes through) be handled by a non profite UAE company (albeit one with close ties to the government of UAE). Of course this could tie back to the apparently popular idea that we need to stop allowing foreign operation of our ports.

Secondly how unregulated are they really going to be? Arent' the a whle host of national and international rules they will have to follow?

As to your last point, certainly that implies this is worth studying in detail - but I don't think it means that we just squelch it out of hand.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[ProfessorGAC]

17. Let Me Try To Answer

The entire transportation industry has had increasingly less regulation over the last 40 years. So, this isn't a point of something regulated becoming unregulated, but rather a situation where we have already underregulated system, and this is the result. So, i think the regulations need to be in place to have a more strictly regulated environment for this industry.

Sure, there are regulations in place, but i don't think the fundamental elements of commerce are regulated. Hence, we have this situation where port operations are for sale, and security is seen as an overlay on the operations, instead of part and parcel. So, whatever rules there are, they are probably not comprehensive enough, for my taste.

Hope that helps.
The Professor

[meganmonkey]

18. Because I am a raging racist!

:evilgrin:

:popcorn: