Say Anything Blog

Heres a new angle:

We rightfully attacked John Kerry for being an Internationist, how is this any different?

Why is it better that other countries/corporations own our infrastructure than tell us how to run our matters? 

Kerry was attacked for wanting to put the UN in charge of our foreign policy.  In this situation our government is allowing a contract for the management of a fraction of our seaports to a foreign-owned company.

If you can’t see the differences there is something wrong with you. 

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Free: Kerry wanted us to run everything past the UN.  Remember?  He wanted us to be Kofi’s bitch.  This is a business deal.  Get it?

I see a distinction without a difference. 

Why is it that everything is either Government Controlled or Corporate Controlled?

I don’t understand this.  Why are we helping the left shread the Constitution?

What happened to "we the people?"

What happened to "of the people, by the people, and for the people?"

All I see is "of the government, by the corporations, screw the people." 

I have absolutely no idea what you’re trying to get at.

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Free: Kerry said we needed to pass "a global test" before we could act in our own interest.  That is exactly what Chuckey and Hillary want us to do.  I see a big difference.

I can’t help what you see.  I don’t see that at all.  You haven’t demonstrated any harm to "the people" in the ports deal.  We make a profitable business deal, the longshoremen get job security, free enterprise gets to do what it is supposed to do.  The only ones getting "screwed" are the congressmen who want more power.  For them, this is a turf battle with the President.  Congress is screwing the people with their powergrab grandstanding.  Not to mention the lying and disinformation. 

Why is the UN telling us what to do any different than a foreign corporation controlling another aspect of our country?

 When did American’s become 3rd class humans?

Why is the UN telling us what to do any different than a foreign corporation controlling another aspect of our country?

When did giving a company a contract become a situation where that company tells us what to do?

 When did American’s become 3rd class humans?

Are you drunk? 

The war against illegal plunder has been fought since the beginning of the world. But how is… legal plunder to be identified? Quite simply. See if the law takes from some persons what belongs to them, and gives it to other persons to whom it does not belong. See if the law benefits one citizen at the expense of another by doing what the citizen himself cannot do without committing a crime. Then abolish this law without delay … If such a law is not abolished immediately it will spread, multiply and develop into a system.

Frédéric Bastiat, The Law

Rob’s recently listened-to songs:

Are you drunk?

Sadly, no 

Free: I guess you don’t understand that they are paying us for the privilege of working for us.  They are doing the work and getting a share of the financial action.  It’s called working for commission. There is competition for this, and they outbid everyone else.  It’s a business deal, not a loss of property or any of the other lies fed to you by the MSM.

I guess you don’t understand that they are paying us for the privilege of working for us.

Their doing what now? The UAE company is buying a British company, how are "we/us" profiting?

It’s a business deal, not a loss of property or any of the other lies fed to you by the MSM.

I actually haven’t listened or watched any news in the last 2 weeks (been a little busy), other than Rush placating to this deal. 

Free: I can’t believe you don’t know this, but here goes:  We hire a company to run the terminal, from what I have seen, it’s the incoming side of the terminal.  Ships come in, are offloaded, and the containers go to their destinations by truck.  The faster this process takes place, the more business is done, the more money is made, the more work there is for everyone down the line, the usual stuff.  The management company, whoever they are, gets a piece of the action, per container processed.  Rush described the truth about the deal.  The better the company is, the more they make.  It is such a lucrative business, that other businesses pay for the right to do it for us.  The British were doing it for us, now DP World is going to do it for us, unless we wimp out and welch on the deal.

If its so lucrative why aren’t any American companies doing it?

Free: A good question, but not relevant to this discussion.  They weren’t excluded in any way, so I guess they couldn’t beat the competition.  Why aren’t any Uruguayan companies doing it?  Same answer.

FreeRepublicans.com asked, If its so lucrative why aren’t any American companies doing it?

Because they were outbid.

Free: If it’s not lucrative, why would anyone want to do it?  You have to make the job attractive to get people to do it.  Basic econ.