i have a question do you think the government should let the port deal go through?
108466
No. First off,this is america and americans need jobs so put some americans to work .Second,there is way too many foreigners taking what precious few jobs we do have.third, dont enough american companys outsource enough of our jobs outside of america? And most importently How can we trust our security to other countries? We Americans,and I do mean all us Americans, I dont care if you are black,white,brown  or green if you were born in the U.S.A then you are American I think we need to gather up and tell our leaders that enough is enough and that we are tired of selling our country to foreigners one piece at a time and that we want america to be owned by Americans once again!
312743
Yes....it needs to settle the economy.\n\nIt won't affect me that much.
401739
Yup , the SS RED ELEPHANT struck some  well charted reefs; Corruption Reef, Iraq War Rock, and drifted over and was holed by Opinion Poll Rock.  Its springing leaks all over and setteling low.  A number of Repubrats are eyeing the life boats, with a mind of what they will be saying at the Inquest Hearing at the Board of Trade.   I imagine some of them may lose their Mates and Master's tickets over this.  It does not seem to be under weigh, nor under command, but the captian refuses to send out distress signals.  Even if the Democrat Salvage Tug M/V BLUE DONKEY\ndid arrive on the scene and offer to assist for the Lloyds Open Form, \nIts doubtful the Repubrats will accept the offer. \nBe interesting to see what might happen. \nMonitoring radio traffic and standing by.  PS Out.
148942
Personally, I think it is a poor decision.  However, whether we agree or not, here is some logic to it.  The company is only getting a contract to manage these ports.  Even the hiring is primarily controlled by the unions and the security is controlled by the United States Government.  This company also has heavy experience in this and has demonstrated friendship with the United States.\n\nAs individuals we may not agree that this is a good decision, but cursing President Bush and defining him with expletives does little to change the situation.  If anyone disagrees, look into it and develop some facts that support your suggestions to change it.    Contact your Congressional Representatives and make your point of view known.  Develop lobbying groups in your community and have them all work together to change this situation.\n\nWithout such an effort the current situation will prevail.
943357
Yes they certainly should, and I don't think it should be a question of being 'allowed' either. They should make the decision themselves for what they feel is best for their country without overbearing 'superpowers' breathing down their necks.
126305
Well, first off, the company is owned by the UAE government, which, while I wouldn't exactly say is a close friend of the U.S., is an ally.  Second, all the company is doing is taking over managing the ports -ownership will still belong to the various port authorities in each city.  The managing of the port will not involve controlling security -again, that responsibility belongs to the port authorities, to the Coast Guard, and to U.S. Customs & Border Protection.\n\nIt should also be noted that the government has been aware of a possible takeover of P&O by Dubai Ports World since last fall.  The only real reason a stink was suddenly raised was after some union members complained to the mayor of Miami.  The White House has said extra security precautions were taken in vetting this deal, but it was still approved.  Some maritime security experts also agree, since DPW will not have any control over security procedures.  What it's really about is politics & shoring up union support for the Democrats (plus to look like they're actually beating the GOP on national security for once), while for some Republicans, it's about either supporting their constituents, or attempting to "claim their independence" from Bush, whatever that means.\n\nFinally, after having perused the Gulf News (a major English-language daily in Dubai), I get the impression that they generally associate this sort of complaint with the GOP or "American rightists", but they are especially angry at the New York Times, since they generally see the Times as a paper which tries to counter cultural hatred or whatever.\n\nSo, it's not really a "takeover", since the ports will still be under U.S. ownership -rather, it's who they hire to handle the day-to-day operations.  The longshoremen's unions are freaked out because they don't want to lose any jobs -something that I doubt would happen, but union guys are particularly paranoid about that in my experience, to the point where they make it more inefficient to get work done.  But, I think were we to stop this deal simply because they're an Arab country, it would send the wrong message to the Middle East & the world in general.  So, yes, I think Bush is actually doing the right thing.
231116
Yes, currently the chinese govt manages a port on the West coast. Apprently its run quite efficiently.
382940
Yes give to the Arcadian kicked out by the Britt's, thank god for king Louie of France.\nTo answer your question yes they should but its impossible to do that because Government would have to comp all of us
955553
I think it bites if the government can take your privately owned property so that some privately owned commercial business can have it.  If it's for roads etc., it might be necessary.
780991
Yes. I would agree.\n\nIt would be nice if both sides would just stick to the real issues instead of all this last minute muck-raking and mud-slinging. \nIt really makes both parties look desperate and foolish.
865956
Hey!!! Are you  ok,,,You could walk to Mexico, not to the others countries. Do you mean that the US government should make their government pay for their transportation. Yes,,, I do agreed with you.. even though the US government had try it and those country have refused. Like China, they don't even accept their own citizen back and the USA get stuck with the illegal Chinese.
1154471
you know,\nthat's also my argument.\ni agree with you.\nthey should be given the option of\nbecoming a state or be treated as a foreign country
143815
Well, we're not handing the ports over to Dubai. What's happening is that the British company that manages the ports is being purchased by a company based in Dubai. So it's very likely that in terms of people "on the ground", i.e. the ones in the port itself, there would be very little change. Basically all that will change is the profits from the port are going to another set of CEOs.\n\nFurthermore, there would be no change in the safety procedures at the port. The procedures are federally mandated, and enforced by the US Coast Guard, so it's not as if the new company could change them, even if they wanted to. \n\nSpeaking of which, it's not clear why people are automatically assuming that this company is somehow connected to terrorism itself. The only reason given is that the company is based in Dubai. What this reason really means is that people are afraid of having an Arab company run the ports, since "Arabs are terrorists" or some similar racist dreck.\n\nBut the company that in question, Dubai Ports World, has never had a security problem before. In an article on CNN.com (see below), an expert on maritime security named Kim Peterson called DPW's security record "exemplary".\n\nSo the sale shouldn't be a problem, although the Bush Administration is arguably making a mistake in this situation. \n\nTheir mistake is not the sale of ports, or more accurately the sale of the port management company, but rather that instead of explaining to people why they're doing what they're doing, the Administration is simply saying that we should trust them and not offering any reason to do so. That arrogance has, for obvious reasons, raised hackles on both sides of the aisle.\n\nIn sum: the sale won't effect security at all, and the only problem is politics.
1086222
Yes, I firmly beleive we should close the borders immediately!!! A couple of years ago the Australians sent a navy frigate to make sure that a boat load of immigrants did not enter, we should be this stringent, and has anyone ever seen how hard it is to emmigrate to a place like new zealand ( you have to show you would be of benefit to the country and if you want to start a business employ two nationals by the end of the first year) I do not accept the 'it helps the econonomy' argument put forward by sympathisers to these people. With unemployment at nearly 2 million nationwide now we should be saying that we will not allow any more in until a large proportion of these people are in work.    If we need better skilled people then do more to train these people instead of giving handout after handout, I do feel that the country is becoming 'ghettoised' for want of a better word and this does not help multiculturalism in the least - it detracts from it and it is no particular factors fault (i.e everyone wants to live with people like them). Of  course I sympathise absoloutley with genuine assylum seekers and the like, however the law states that they should seek refuge in the first safe country they get to, which should make us last in line. In doing what Blair & Co are doing at the momment we are just storing problems for the future - but then a Prime Minister who has already said he does not intend to serve another term in office is hardly going to worry about that now is he!!!
352466
yes they should in my opion ?
1137104
I'm absolutely in favor of it.  There is no reason why a law should be tied together with some totally unrelated pork barrel project.  By the same token congress must be very careful not to pass a bill that they feel requires all elements to be law or none at all.  I can't think of a good example right now but I can foresee the possibility of this happening...where an all or nothing deal is the only acceptable result....possibly  in appropriations where you are voting on spending for some project and if all the elements of the project aren't passed then the money would be wasted.\n\n\nascarta2  wording can't be changed around like that.  contained within bills are item numbers.  a line item veto gives the president the authorization to veto one item and sign the bill into law...he could not change the wording on other items.
337645
I'm amused by how many people think the government should dictate who private enterprise can pay for services, yet you'd get all bent out of shape if they dictated to you where you can buy your groceries.  And yes, absolutely, it's the same thing.\n\nEither you believe in the free market, or you don't.\n\nDo some research on the impact US phone support outsourcing is having in India, there's a whole new generation of rising-lifestyle youth, plus businesses popping up to provide them goods & services they aspire to with their new-found relative wealth.\n\nWhy do you think you deserve the ability to grow and prosper, but that it should stop at the border? If you don't like outsourcing, don't buy products from companies that do it/don't work for companies that do it.