View from the Center and Left Message Board

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : View from the Center and Left

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next

To: epicure who wrote (13075)	2/23/2006 7:59:52 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) of 541740

I don't know how well your arguments hold up. No, because it's inadequate security, and has been for some time (and didn't Bush just cut some of our port security funds?). Sure, the security is iffy. But nothing about this contract changes the security. The company with the contract doesn't appropriate funds for homeland security. will, in fact, have a reason to be in and about the ports they own all the time. It's not like they're going to staff the facilities with foreigners. When an American company sets up a sweatshop in South America or a call center in India, it doesn't send Americans there to do the work. It hires locals. And the few foreigners who will be in our ports will be there on work visas, which means they will have background checks. (And probably lots of illegal wiretapping. <g>) It would seem that the risk there is slight.

Report TOU Violation

Share This Post

Public Reply Prvt Reply Mark as Last Read File

Previous 10 Next 10 Previous Next