Not to fear. The Chinese are interested in...
Posted By: Marmann on 2008-12-12
In Reply to: Let's put this in MT terms........ - m
...purchasing these American icons. More selling out of America, right under our noses.
Thank you, Congress. 
Chinese Automakers May Buy GM and Chrysler
By Bertel Schmitt
November 18, 2008 -
Chinese carmakers SAIC and Dongfeng have plans to acquire GM and Chrysler, China's 21st Century Business Herald reports today. [A National Enquirer the paper is not. It is one of China's leading business newspapers, with a daily readership over three million.] The paper cites a senior official of China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology–– the state regulator of China's auto industry–– who dropped the hint that "the auto manufacturing giants in China, such as Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) and Dongfeng Motor Corporation, have the capability and intention to buy some assets of the two crisis-plagued American automakers." These hints are very often followed with quick action in the Middle Kingdom. The hints were dropped just a few days after the same Chinese government gave its auto makers the go-ahead to invest abroad. And why would they do that?
A take-over of a large overseas auto maker would fit perfectly into China's plans. As reported before, China has realized that its export chances are slim without unfettered access to foreign technology. The brand cachet of Chinese cars abroad is, shall we say, challenged. The Chinese could easily export Made-in-China VWs, Toyotas, Buicks. If their joint venture partner would let them. The solution: Buy the joint venture partner. Especially, when he's in deep trouble.
At current market valuations (GM is worth less than Mattel) the Chinese government can afford to buy GM with petty cash. Even a hundred billion $ would barely dent China's more than $2t in currency reserves. For nobody in the world would buying GM and (while they are at it) Chrysler make more sense than for the Chinese. Overlap? What overlap? They would gain instant access to the world's markets with accepted brands, and proven technology.
21st Century Business Herald, obviously with input from higher-up, writes that Chinese industry must change and upgrade. China wants their factories to change from low-value-added manufacturing to technically innovative and financially-sound high-value-add industries. Says the paper: "It would be much easier now for strong Chinese automakers to go global by acquiring some assets of their U.S. counterparts in times of crisis."
Deloitte & Touche sees a trend: "Chinese automakers can start with buying out the OEM projects and Chinese ventures of some global carmakers such as GM and Chrysler."
The Chinese appear to have bigger plans than an accounting firm can imagine. 21st Century Business Herald acts and writes as if its already a done deal, and the beginning of more to come. "In the coming two years China is likely to see a few of its large Chinese automakers and other manufacturing enterprises set a precedent for achieving globalization by acquiring global companies, just like SAIC or Dongfeng's possible acquisition of troubled GM or Chrysler."
Just in case you missed it, the Shanghai Automotive Industry Corporation (SAIC) is China's largest auto manufacturer. In 1984, the company entered a joint venture with Volkswagen. A decade later, SAIC entered a joint venture with General Motors. In 2007, SAIC bought the Nanjing Automobile Corporation, which had acquired British MG Rover in 2005.
Dongfeng Motor Corporation is a public company, although 70 percent of their shares are reported to be in government hands. They also are one of China's Big Three. The company has numerous joint venture partners, such as Nissan, Peugeot-Citroen, Honda, and Kia. Dongfeng (which means "East Wind") was founded at the behest of Mao Zedong himself in 1968.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
The Chinese
It "gets paid back" by increased production and by banks being solvent and active again.
The Chinese have had us at their mercy ever since they started buying up all of our Treasury bills years ago. This is nothing new. However, the Chinese have nothing to gain by trying to collect all at once. They need us as a trading partner for better or worse, and our T bills are a good investment for them.
A worst-case scenario would be if the international money markets determined that the dollar was just too unstable to be the basis for trade and decided to go with Euros instead. So far, the dollar has held up pretty well, mostly because everything's so unstable everywhere that no one wants to rock the boat. Yet.
Fear Mongerer? Obama? McCain and Cheney were fear mongerer
and they STILL ARE !
Chinese cars....
Did anyone see the video of the chinese car crash test? Don't think I will be buying any Chinese made car. The crash test dummy was demolished. the car crumbled like a tin can in a can crusher.
A *fear tactic* . . .What is to fear in a
bother you!
Apparently, the Chinese are upset with us. sm
Post below was correct. Congressman Burton confirms it in statements he made to the House.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikCnEC1IIwk
Chinese buying up south CA
They don't want to buy any more of our debt, as our $ is almost worthless. They've been buying up homes in southern CA big-time. They already know that this most liberal "plan" will make the US self-destruct.
Those who voted for this man and refused to listen to many of us who said h'ed do this, don't cry to me. This is merely the beginning.
Fed approves Chinese Bank CCB to open in US
Am I the only one who finds this scary?
Fed approves Chinese bank CCB to open office in US
Mon Dec 8, 5:15 pm ET
WASHINGTON (AFP) –– The US Federal Reserve said Monday it had authorized China Construction Bank, a leading Chinese state bank, to operate in the United States.
The proposed New York City branch of CCB "would engage in wholesale deposit-taking, lending, trade finance, and other banking services," the Fed said in a statement.
The US central bank recalled that China Construction Bank Corporation (CCB) is 57.0 percent owned by the Chinese state, 19.7 percent by US banking group Bank of America and 5.7 percent by Temasek Holdings, a sovereign wealth fund owned by the government of Singapore. The remainder of the capital is publicly traded.
CCB is the second-largest bank in China, with total assets of approximately 1.1 trillion dollars, it noted.
The Fed said it had determined that CCB had adequate anti-money laundering safeguards and had committed to respect US laws on money laundering.
CCB's own funds exceed the minimum set by the 1998 Basel Capital Accord and "is considered equivalent to capital that would be required of a US banking organization," the US central bank said.
CCB would be the fourth mainland Chinese bank -- excluding banks in Hong Kong -- to open operations in the US, after the Agricultural Bank of China, the Bank of China and the Bank of Communications.
The Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), China's top bank, also has asked the Fed for authorization to open a branch in New York.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20081208/pl_afp/uschinabankregulatebankingcompanyccb
Obama Wimps Out With Chinese Leader
What didn't he mention in his meeting?
1. China's outrageous increase in human rights violations. (Hillary forgot about this also, though.) Umm, I thought this was supposed to be the liberals' big beef with China.
2. China's recent call for a new "world currency" to replace the dollar.
3. China's recent criticism of massive increases in US debt.
4. China's recent military moves, including confrontation with US warships in international waters or massive buildup of forces across from Taiwan, increases in military spending, etc.
No, no. None of that! Just "Let's get together for a kumbaya party, Comrade. I'm having a new Party Worker's suit made out of taxpayer skin that'll knock your eye out!"
What's this business about a Chinese general threatening to use nukes against the US if necessary,sm
over the treaty with Taiwan? This was reported on Fox News this week.
Anyone been following this?
My husband is fascinated with the Japanese and Chinese cultures. sm
He's been wanting to go to Japan for the longest. He watches a lot of Japanese animation and tries explaning it to me. He likes to get the ones with the subtitles, and says he's learning the language a little too.
Chinese to inspect our cargo for nuclear material
Looks like the foxes are now in charge of the henhouses.
http://www.nysun.com/article/29714
March 23, 2006 Edition > Section: National > Printer-Friendly Version
America Hires Chinese Firm To Inspect Cargo For Nuclear Material
BY TED BRIDIS - Associated Press
March 23, 2006
URL: http://www.nysun.com/article/29714
WASHINGTON (AP) - In the aftermath of the Dubai ports dispute, the Bush administration is hiring a Hong Kong conglomerate to help detect nuclear materials inside cargo passing through the Bahamas to the United States and elsewhere.
The administration acknowledges the no-bid contract with Hutchison Whampoa Ltd. represents the first time a foreign company will be involved in running a sophisticated U.S. radiation detector at an overseas port without American customs agents present.
Freeport in the Bahamas is 65 miles from the U.S. coast, where cargo would be likely to be inspected again. The contract is currently being finalized.
The administration is negotiating a second no-bid contract for a Philippine company to install radiation detectors in its home country, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press. At dozens of other overseas ports, foreign governments are primarily responsible for scanning cargo.
While President Bush recently reassured Congress that foreigners would not manage security at U.S. ports, the Hutchison deal in the Bahamas illustrates how the administration is relying on foreign companies at overseas ports to safeguard cargo headed to the United States.
Hutchison Whampoa is the world's largest ports operator and among the industry's most-respected companies. It was an early adopter of U.S. anti-terror measures. But its billionaire chairman, Li Ka-Shing, also has substantial business ties to China's government that have raised U.S. concerns over the years.
Li Ka-Shing is pretty close to a lot of senior leaders of the Chinese government and the Chinese Communist Party, said Larry M. Wortzel, head of a U.S. government commission that studies China security and economic issues. But Wortzel said Hutchison operates independently from Beijing, and he described Li as a very legitimate international businessman.
One can conceive legitimate security concerns and would hope either the Homeland Security Department or the intelligence services of the United States work very hard to satisfy those concerns, Wortzel said.
Three years ago, the Bush administration effectively blocked a Hutchison subsidiary from buying part of a bankrupt U.S. telecommunications company, Global Crossing Ltd., on national security grounds.
And a U.S. military intelligence report, once marked secret, cited Hutchison in 1999 as a potential risk for smuggling arms and other prohibited materials into the United States from the Bahamas.
Hutchison's port operations in the Bahamas and Panama could provide a conduit for illegal shipments of technology or prohibited items from the West to the PRC (People's Republic of China), or facilitate the movement of arms and other prohibited items into the Americas, the now-declassified assessment said.
The CIA currently has no security concerns about Hutchison's port operations, and the administration believes the pending deal with the foreign company would be safe, officials said.
Supervised by Bahamian customs officials, Hutchison employees will drive the towering, truck-like radiation scanner that moves slowly over large cargo containers and scans them for radiation that might be emitted by plutonium or a radiological weapon.
Any positive reading would set off alarms monitored simultaneously by Bahamian customs inspectors at Freeport and by U.S. Customs and Border Protection officials working at an anti-terrorism center 800 miles away in northern Virginia. Any alarm would prompt a closer inspection of the cargo, and there are multiple layers of security to prevent tampering, officials said.
The equipment operates itself, said Bryan Wilkes, a spokesman for the U.S. National Nuclear Security Administration, the agency negotiating the contract. It's not going to be someone standing at the controls pressing buttons and flipping switches.
A lawmaker who helped lead the opposition to the Dubai ports deal isn't so confident. Neither are some security experts. They question whether the U.S. should pay a foreign company with ties to China to keep radioactive material out of the United States.
Giving a no-bid contract to a foreign company to carry out the most sensitive security screening for radioactive materials at ports abroad raises many questions, said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y.
A low-paid employee with access to the screening equipment could frustrate international security by studying how the equipment works and which materials set off its alarms, warned a retired U.S. Customs investigator who specialized in smuggling cases.
Money buys a lot of things, Robert Sheridan said. The fact that foreign workers would have access to how the United States screens various containers for nuclear material and how this technology scrutinizes the containers _ all those things allow someone with a nefarious intention to thwart the screening.
Other experts discounted concerns. They cited Hutchison's reputation as a leading ports company and said the United States inevitably must rely for some security on large commercial operators in the global maritime industry.
We must not allow an unwarranted fear of foreign ownership or involvement in offshore operations to impair our ability to protect against nuclear weapons being smuggled into this country, said Sen. Norm Coleman, R-Minn., a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. We must work with these foreign companies.
A former Coast Guard commander, Stephen Flynn, said foreign companies sometimes prove more trustworthy _ and susceptible to U.S. influence _ than governments.
It's a very fragile system, Flynn said. Foreign companies recognize the U.S. has the capacity and willingness to exercise a kill switch if something goes wrong.
A spokesman for Hutchison's ports subsidiary, Anthony Tam, said the company is a strong supporter in port security initiatives.
In the case of the Bahamas, our local personnel are working alongside with U.S. customs officials to identify and inspect U.S.-bound containers that could be carrying radioactive materials, Tam said.
However, there are no U.S. customs agents checking any cargo containers at the Hutchison port in Freeport. Under the contract, no U.S. officials would be stationed permanently in the Bahamas with the radiation scanner.
The administration is finalizing the contract amid a national debate over maritime security sparked by the furor over now-abandoned plans by Dubai-owned DP World to take over significant operations at major U.S. ports.
Hutchison operates the sprawling Freeport Container Port on Grand Bahama Island. Its subsidiary, Hutchison Port Holdings, has operations in more than 20 countries but none in the United States.
Contract documents, obtained by The Associated Press, indicate Hutchison will be paid roughly $6 million. The contract is for one year with options for three years.
The Energy Department's National Nuclear Security Administration is negotiating the Bahamas contract under a $121 million security program it calls the second line of defense. Wilkes, the NNSA spokesman, said the Bahamian government dictated that the U.S. give the contract to Hutchison.
It's their country, their port. The driver of the mobile carrier is the contractor selected by their government. We had no say or no choice, he said. We are fortunate to have allies who are signing these agreements with us.
Some security experts said that is a weak explanation in the Bahamas, with its close reliance on the United States. The administration could insist that the Bahamas permit U.S. Customs agents to operate at the port, said Albert Santoli, an expert on national security issues in Asia and the Pacific.
Why would they not accept that? said Santoli, a former national security aide to Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, R-Calif. There is an interest in the Bahamas and every other country in the region to make sure the U.S. stays safe and strong. That's how this should be negotiated.
Flynn, the former Coast Guard commander, agreed the Bahamas would readily accept such a proposal but said the U.S. is short of trained customs agents to send overseas.
Contract documents obtained by the AP show at least one other foreign company is involved in the U.S. radiation-detection program.
A separate, no-bid $4 million contract the Bush administration is negotiating would pay a Manila-based company, International Container Terminal Services Inc., to install radiation detectors at the Philippines' largest port.
The U.S. says the Manila company is not being paid to operate the radiation monitors once they are installed. But two International Container executives and a senior official at the government's Philippine Nuclear Research Institute said the company will run the detectors on behalf of the institute and the country's customs bureau. U.S. officials said they will investigate further how the Filipinos plan to use the equipment.
March 23, 2006 Edition > Section: National > Printer-Friendly Version
Geithner assures Chinese audience that US dollar is sound.
http://www.reuters.com/article/marketsNews/idINPEK12423320090601?rpc=44
I am interested in this
What is a little definition? And how is your definition a big definition. Can you provide sources for this categorization?
I am still waiting for the sources of the claim that a liberal poster(s) has stalked a conservative poster(s) at some point. I find this very very intriguing and eagerly await the details!!!
If you are interested, there is more...
on this on the America's Most Wanted website with some more detail. It does not appear to be biased one way or the other...and there is some food for thought there. They seem to be leaning more toward what I said...that the agents should have been reprimanded but the sentence appears pretty harsh. One of the agents has since been beaten up in prison, AMW contends, by other inmates who recognized him from the show (Hispanics yelling kill the border agent) while they beat him up. I did not try to confirm that part of it. At any rate...I do not think, after reading all of this, it would be wrong for the White House to pardon these two men, even if that pardon included removing them as border patrol agents, if that is what it took. Point being...at most border situations, it is going to be the guards and the illegals and no one else...so there does need to be accountability for border patrol agents...and frankly, illegals, I still say, should have NO legal standing in this country and should understand that if they cross illegally. That does not mean that border patrol should have carte blanche to shoot people, that is not what I am saying. THEY need to be accountable to our legal system. However, the illegals should have no standing and should realize that when they come here illegaly. I know that there are many on the liberal side, and perhaps even on the RINO side but I have not heard of any... who disagree with that and think they should have the same rights as US citizens. I disagree with that strongly.
Ok....certainly your right! Was interested...
in what the kinda judgmental poster who was horrified that she was pregnant and saying that the family had no values because of that...if that poster thought abortion would have been better. Frankly, the fact that the girl elected to marry the father and have the child shows me that her family values are in place. To save the child is also a choice, and I think she made the right one.
Thanks for your answer!
For anyone who is interested...
http://www.tysknews.com/Articles/dnc_corruption.htm
I had no idea there was this much stuff out there.
very interested--thank you! nm
x
Thanks, but no thanks. I'm more interested in
x
Since you are so interested, ...(sm)
I actually did do your research for you, just not in this thread. Try looking under the next thread up about credible sources. That was the point -- the fact that you could not say what you meant, you just spouted out some crap you heard on TV, and then got mad because someone called you on it. Grow up.
P.S. Is this something the ACLU would be interested in?
Thanks again.
I have to say, honestly, I am just not interested.
That is my true feeling on the matter. I am absolutely zero vested in conspiracy theories or ascribing blame. Blame will not bring back anyone and at the same time, I feel there was a long long line of failures leading up to 9/11 that started way before President Bush and continued through many presidencies. I hope, no matter what, in the end they can have peace of mind. I am sure it has to be hard for them.
Interested in knowing...sm
Not to rehash the debate but was it Stephen or another poster who supposedly made threats against the president. I missed that.
the nation really isn't interested
It's just a device used by the neocons to keep the attention of the stifled. They know that the repressed loonies in the county slobber over anything pertaining to sex. Just look at O'Reilly. Nearly every night he has some story about prostitutes, strip clubs, girls gone wild -- he is complaining how horrible it is, yet they always have tapes behind him of half-naked coeds grinding away. If it is so horrible, must we see the tapes over and over?
I'm sure you would have missed it since all you are interested in sm
is your own agenda. You can't even listen to anyone else's point of view and all you can respond with is sarcasm.
For those interested.....here is the blog
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/04/obamas-college.html
I am learning too but interested in
even-sided with obama and dodd's names all over the place?
Not really interested in talking to you. nm
x
What it tells me is that you are interested in
naysaying, innuendo, division, polarization and the like. Sam, what matters to most of us savoring this incredible moment in our history is not what happened in the past. In this way, even the shrub gets a get out of jail card. My interest lies in the future and I see nothing suspicious or scary about Obama despite your best efforts after all these months. I also am not interested in preaching to the choir from either side. What I think matters now is that we try our best to get past this election and on with the business of uniting ourselves behind our leadership and start tackling the very difficult challenges we face on so many fronts. The economy is an equal opportunity crisis. Addressing global warming, the environment and alternative energy offers the promise of benefit for us all, and peace on earth is a goal that we share with the peoples of the world. Those matter to me. Not the implied, possible nefarious ties Rahm Emanuel may or may not have with the boogey man.
but she did not say she is not - I am not worried - just interested - nm
x
The world is interested because -
America has always been a leader in the world and looked up to until the last few years. I don't believe there is anything sinister going on because the world is excited. So much of what goes on in the world revolved around the US for so long. Nobody used to care that everyone looked to us for guidance - what is the problem with it now? I for one am glad that people are beginning to look at us as leaders again and not with the contempt and disdain that they have been feeling!
Another one I would be interested in vetting is
Tom Tancredo of Colorado.
Here's something interested we heard
Last night we were watching the movie Demolition Man. Don't know if you've ever seen it. Sylvester Stallone goes in cryostasis and 70 or so years later he's brought out to hunt down a killer (Wesley Snipes). Anyway...here's what's interesting. He's riding in the car with Sandra Bullock and she tells him Schwartenneger was president. He said something about him being foreign born and she made mention that because he was so popular they changed the ammendment.
DH & I looked at each other and said isn't that interesting.
So pretty much you are interested in
throwing out smears that you are not willing to back up with facts, citations or examples and baiting other posters. You also don't seem to care how ignorant you sound, given the fact that it is patently clear you don't have a clue as to the meaning of racism or bigotry. You also seem quite unwilling to engage in any meaningful debate on the so-called pot-shot issues you fire off in your drive-bys. To top it all off, so far you have shown yourself to have a fairly juvenile, shallow, superficial and limited form of thinking.
Should you decide to step up to the plate and actually post something of substance you are willing to exercise some intellect over, I'll be more than happy to accommodate. In the meantime, I'd rather use my time more productively reading up on the latest news.
So pretty much you are interested in
throwing out smears that you are not willing to back up with facts, citations or examples and baiting other posters. You also don't seem to care how ignorant you sound, given the fact that it is patently clear you don't have a clue as to the meaning of racism or bigotry. You also seem quite unwilling to engage in any meaningful debate on the so-called pot-shot issues you fire off in your drive-bys. To top it all off, so far you have shown yourself to have a fairly juvenile, shallow, superficial and limited form of thinking.
Should you decide to step up to the plate and actually post something of substance you are willing to exercise some intellect over, I'll be more than happy to accommodate. In the meantime, I'd rather use my time more productively reading up on the latest news.
I was more interested in the idea that...(sm)
Alaska is getting hit financially because of the drop in the cost of oil, and yet Palin seems to think this is a perfect time to basically give herself a whopping 20% raise. Sounds some CEOs that I've heard of recently.
You are such a child, interested only in
sake. Do you know what leftie means?
No, I was more interested in what our President had to say
And it was refreshing to here an intelligent, thoughtful speech.
No doubt, that's all he would be interested in doing.
x
You might be interested to know this is the country
Honest to gorblimey, you need to try to blow some of those liberal cobwebs out of your cranium.
Fear
Fear is a rational response when based on facts. It has enabled humans to survive throughout history, giving us the sense to run from something that is dangerous and encouraging us to use our wits to make good decisions to ensure our future survival. It was your fellow committed dems below who said their reasoning for not liking Palin is because "she creeped them out" and they don't like her voice. Is that the type of voters we want?
Nothing to fear
abide by the law. Why does that scare you?
I fear you are right.
They will be back under this administration. That, however, doesn't mean they are any good. it just means they will be there. Then we shall see whether they help or harm.
More fear??
 I absolutely agree with you. It seems that the harder Obama works to clean up the mess left by Bush the more ridiculous over-the-top the accusations get from the Repubs and Conservatives. Really, it is okay to not agree with Obama but come on-if you need to b***h, at least make it real. Trying to increase unemployment to wipe out capitalizism?? Puleez!!
Not even interested in the architects of the 9/11 disaster. sm
They either have more lucrative interests in Iraq or are just bent on ridding it of Saddam or all of the above (too much history there), and we all know good and well there were no jihadist extremist there before America invaded that country, so this so-called War on Terror in Iraq was INVENTED.
I am sure the troops in Afghanistan would be interested to know they are not there.
,
I'm really not interested in arguing the point...sm
Of who is worst because you are right they all were wrong. I just don't understand why when someone does something wrong people expect you to not say anything about it because *others* have committed similar crimes in the past and got away with it. And??
I understand being upset about Studd and even Clinton if you feel that strongly about it, but don't expect business as usual when a scandal like this hits the fan. People are going to talk about it. 23 years ago when Studd was having his affair I was in grade school so excuse me for first not knowing what you were talking about (until I researched it) and second not seeing the relevance of it in the case of Foley. I'm sure there was outrage for what Studd did too. Now upon learning about Studd and his (I can't say that here), I even said I do not know how or why the people continued to vote him in and yeah he should have had the decency to step down. Sorry you think I'm being partisan - NO far from it. I am always disgusted with people who prey on children, birth to the day before they turn 18, sexually.
Oh and don't expect me or anyone else to think Foley is some stand up type of guy because he stepped down AFTER GETTING CAUGHT, mind you. Had he not been caught he would still be IM'ing children.
Yeah Clinton was wrong for lying under oath. He should have told the truth and apologized *to his wife*. It's not like it is illegal to have an extramarital affair.
Like you said, they are all morally wrong, but I tend to be more disgusted with child predators. It doesn't matter if you agree with me (there are plenty of people who do). We'll just have to agree to disagree.
One point you didn't bring up was Foley's job responsibility. That makes it a little more eerie. Are people not supposed to be disappointed that this is who we have in charge of protecting our children?
Anyone interested in the candidates houses? SM
On the www.apartmentherapy website, they feature the candidates homes. I love that site. Anway...spoiler alert, if anyone cares.
________________________________
What I found interesting is Mitt Romney lives in a comptemporary home on the water, which is pictured next to Barack Obama's conservative georgian style home.
OK, not of vital interest, I just love looking at homes. 
MasonD, If you are really interested in the truth...
and not bash posting, take a little look at the internet...google Clinton Iraq WMD and see what you get. Clinton thought there were WMD during his administration too. Don't you remember him getting on the TV and telling us all how Iraq had WMD and if they did not comply with the UN and let the inspectors in we might have to use force? I bet I could find that on You Tube or someplace. The CIA director at that time was George Tenet. When Bush was elected, he did not fire Tenet, he kept him on (BAD mistake in hindsight I would say). Tenet told the Congress and everyone else (now this is the head of the CIA mind you, left over from Clinton's Administration) that it was a slam dunk that Iraq had WMD. Soooo...if it is a lie it was one that started during the Clinton administration. So St. Bill believed it too. Even though he seems to have amnesia regarding that fact until a news show confronted him with it. And then it was the stuttering and stammering and "yes I believed it then...but I don't believe it now." Yeah right. Nothing changed between now and then...sheesh. Had that deer in the headlights I did not have sex with that woman MS Lewinsky look.
It really is just amazing to me that you folks cannot see any of the faults in Democrats but EVERY fault in Republicans...lol.
Here are ALL the figures in case anyone is interested...
First---100% of southern Republicans...consisted of ONE senator. When one senator votes against something, yeah, that is 100%. Sheesh. Take a look at ALL the figures.
Martin Luther King, Jr. and Malcolm X at the United States Capitol on March 26, 1964. Both men had come to hear the Senate debate on the bill.Johnson, who wanted the bill passed as soon as possible, ensured that the bill would be quickly considered by the Senate. Normally, the bill would have been referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee, chaired by Senator James O. Eastland, from Mississippi. Under Eastland's care, it seemed impossible that the bill would reach the Senate floor. Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield took a novel approach to prevent the bill from being relegated to Judiciary Committee limbo. Having initially waived a second reading of the bill, which would have led to it being immediately referred to Judiciary, Mansfield gave the bill a second reading on February 26, 1964, and then proposed, in the absence of precedent for instances when a second reading did not immediately follow the first, that the bill bypass the Judiciary Committee and immediately be sent to the Senate floor for debate. Although this parliamentary move led to a brief filibuster, the senators eventually let it pass, preferring to concentrate their resistance on passage of the bill itself. The bill came before the full Senate for debate on March 30, 1964.
Shortly thereafter, the bill passed the Senate by a vote of 73-27, and quickly passed through the House-Senate conference committee, which adopted the Senate version of the bill. The conference bill was passed by both houses of Congress, and was signed into law by President Johnson on July 2, 1964. Legend has it that as he put down his pen Johnson told an aide, We have lost the South for a generation.[2]
[edit] Vote totals
Totals are in "Yes-No" format:
The original House version: 290-130 (69%-31%)
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%-27%)
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%-30%)
[edit] By party
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 153-96 (64%-39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%-20%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-22 (68%-32%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%-18%)
The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%-37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%-20%)
[edit] By party and region
Note: "Southern", as used in this section, refers to members of Congress from the eleven states that made up the Confederate States of America in the American Civil War. "Northern" refers to members from the other 39 states, regardless of the geographic location of those states.
The original House version:
Southern Democrats: 7-87 (7%-93%)
Southern Republicans: 0-10 (0%-100%)
Northern Democrats: 145-9 (94%-6%)
Northern Republicans: 138-24 (85%-15%)
The Senate version:
Southern Democrats: 1-20 (5%-95%) (only Senator Ralph Yarborough of Texas voted in favor)
Southern Republicans: 0-1 (0%-100%) (this was Senator John Tower of Texas)
Northern Democrats: 45-1 (98%-2%) (only Senator Robert Byrd of West Virginia opposed the measure)
Northern Republicans: 27-5 (84%-16%) (Senators Bourke Hickenlooper of Iowa, Barry Goldwater of Arizona, Edwin L. Mechem of New Mexico, Milward L. Simpson of Wyoming, and Norris H. Cotton of New Hampshire opposed the measure)
Yes, I agree that things change. And the Democratic party got interested in African Americans AFTER they got the vote. Coincidence? I think not.
Not interested in taking this off task.
nm
Would be interested in your input to posts below
nm
|
