Good points all. But you're skirting the issue. Running right down the middle; "it's good in some areas, bad on others."
Libertarians need to take a firm stance on this. --- In [email protected], "steven linnabary" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Eric Dondero Rittberg" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > So Paul, should we read then in your comments below that you are > > backing Bush on the Dubai Port deal? > > > > Come clean Paul. Don't evade. Do you or do you not support the > > Dubai Port deal? > > > > It was incredibly stoopid politically. > > But, it is probably a good deal. They think they can run the ports more > efficiently than the British. > > That said, how is this deal any different from the deal Clinton made with a > (Red) Chinese company to run the port of Long Beach? > > But more interesting from a libertarian perspective, is how can a state > owned company (in both the Chinese and the Dubai deals) be more efficient > than a privately owned concern? > > PEACE > Steven R. Linnabary, Treasurer > Franklin County Libertarian Party > (614) 891-8841 > P.O.Box#115; Blacklick, OH 43004-0115 > > "When you make peaceful revolution impossible, you make violent revolution > inevitable" John F. Kennedy > ForumWebSiteAt http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Libertarian/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
