bravo to that, Duce.
Jim W | Homepage | 05.02.08 - 5:18 pm | #

"We did what Americans do, we tried something new. It might not work and it was a hell of a lot harder than we thought, but at least we tried to spread freedom in the Middle East. And for that, I will always be proud to have supported the GWOT, the war in Iraq and GW Bush."

Excellent point. Very well said.
Sgt_H | Homepage | 05.02.08 - 5:19 pm | #

This is the single largest load of rhetorical claptrap and pandering that I think I have ever read.

Bravo Tracy. Bravo.
Doug | 05.02.08 - 5:51 pm | #

If the liberals hadn't interfered with the war on Islamic terror since day one, most of our soldiers might be out of there by now.
dare2sayit.com | Homepage | 05.02.08 - 6:03 pm | #

This is the single largest load of rhetorical claptrap and pandering that I think I have ever read.
Look up a transcript of an Obama speech if you want to read rhetorical claptrap.
Kermit | Homepage | 05.02.08 - 6:15 pm | #

“My friends, I will have an energy policy which will eliminate our dependence on oil from Middle East that will then prevent us from having ever to send our young men and women into conflict again in the Middle East.”

Finally some honesty. Maybe John McCain isn't so bad after all.

And Tracy keeps insisting we're there to spread freedom...
Doug | 05.02.08 - 7:48 pm | #

Uhhhh... Pork was responsible for the Bridge falling?

Nevermind. I guess he is as bad as I thought.
Doug | 05.02.08 - 7:51 pm | #

You do write well, Tracy, but in the end, you are a lunatic. This is nothing but revisionist bunk. Surprising how you blame liberals -- the neocons were incompetent in the way this war was justified and has been waged. And the anti-stribbers have followed them in every way. It is YOU who should feel guilty, not the liberals. And liberals are not cheering the US to lose -- we are cheering efforts to stop your lunacy and incompetence. Of course, you will revise history yet again to call those efforts losing, same as you did with Vietnam. But that is because you are losers. And the policies you favor have proven it.
A commenter | 05.02.08 - 8:17 pm | #

hey, only gripe I have with the post is you forgot that Saddam had France, Germany and Russia were getting BILLIONS funneled to them thanks to the Oil for Food scandle and the diplomats were themselves getting paid millions to block any US war coalition war effort. Funny how the libs forgot about that. Should have got more press.
Ben | Homepage | 05.02.08 - 8:30 pm | #

...but in the end, you are a lunatic.

He's not a lunatic. He's a tireless builder of strawmen, a fountain of disinformation and three-card monty shill playing with with a stacked deck.

Tracy says, They resent the fact that we attempted to spread freedom

There is SOOOO much wrong with that drivel that's impossible to know where to even begin.

We warned you what would happen. We were dismissed.

We were right. You were wrong.

You broke it. You fix it. That means getting out your fat little wallet and pony up.

If you believe the war in Iraq was right and just, then have the courage to step up and fork out the big bucks instead of sticking my kids and grandkids with the bill.
Doug | 05.02.08 - 8:41 pm | #

They want freedom without sacrifice, cheap gas without sacrifice, maintaining their miserable little lives without sacrifice.

The bill is coming due.
Al Gore | 05.02.08 - 8:53 pm | #

Yikes!
You must've struck a nerve, Il Duce.
You even got 'em making up different names just to spew forth more drivel.
If it wasn't for the humor they provide liberals would be totally worthless. Except for Franken who is most unfunny.
maxx | Homepage | 05.02.08 - 9:22 pm | #

have the courage to step up and fork out the big bucks

This from a guy that paid a whopping $800 in state and federal taxes this year?

Can I just say rounding error and leave it at that?

As for paying for the war, No one on here has supported the massive spending done by Bush, the Republicans and the Democrats past 2003. Big budgets may have been required to avoid a post 911 recession, but after that it was time to put on the brakes.

As for justification, I knew that was the plan before we went, I read the neo-con rags, remember! If you people read something other than the Daily Kos and wacthed someone other than John Stewart, you might have a freaking clue.
Il Duce' | Homepage | 05.02.08 - 9:33 pm | #

This from a guy that paid a whopping $800 in state and federal taxes this year?

What? Are you really this dense?

$800 was the amount still owed after we did our taxes you moron.

I knew that was the plan before we went, I read the neo-con rags, remember!

Again. What? You're bragging that you read the sources that were wrong from day one?

Brilliant.

The purpose was ideological, not strategic nor was it necessary. You've acknowledged that. Now, with McCain's latest admission, we know it was also over Iraq's resources.

If you people read something other than the Daily Kos and wacthed someone other than John Stewart, you might have a freaking clue.

From now on, I'll just refer to these silly rhetorical fallacies as "tracies".
Doug | 05.03.08 - 8:06 am | #

Liberals hate to admit it, but they really wanted us to do nothing. ... They resent the fact that we attempted to spread freedom and the only way they can salve their guilt is for us to lose so that they can say I told you so."

The left would love for the US to abandon its "Super Power" status in the world. Much in the same the socialist would love for there to be equality of outcome for the masses through income distribution, they would like equality on the international venue through disarmament of the US. Let the UN manage those nasty, messy world affairs.

As to Doug's, "You broke it. You fix it. That means getting out your fat little wallet and pony up." Does he have any idea what income group pony's up and pays the bills in this country?

The 1st quintiles of income earners takes more than they pay. The bottom 2 quintiles pay nothing. The bottom half of the country pay less than 3% of what it takes to run this country.

This wealth envy mentality group, supported by the MSM and those in power, who want to redistribute individual wealth, is also predominantly part of the power-guilty group that would love to disarm the US and empower the UN.
tomc | 05.03.08 - 8:38 am | #

Those who criticize the decision to go to war against Saddam seem to ignore what the alternative was. Saddam’s recalcitrance in clearing up the issue of WMD after the 1991 war made for an increasingly untenable status-quo. Saddam never once voluntarily gave up any WMD program. And the aggressive inspections regime headed by Richard Butler, that uncovered much of it, ended with Saddam summarily throwing the UN out of Iraq. The political cat and mouse game that ensued was aimed at terminating the sanctions program entirely. Saddam’s principal partners in this, France and Russia; were looking to lock up lucrative contracts if they could successfully end sanctions. This effort was gaining traction at the U.N. and it became clearer that a fundamental choice was at hand. The choice was not between toppling Saddam or keeping him bottled-up. This choice was forming up to be between regime change and an Iraq with Saddam freed up to do as he chooses. Those most critical about the decision to go to war were also among those previously calling for the unilateral lifting of sanctions. The call to ‘let the sanctions work’ arose only after it became clear the U.S. was going to go to war with or without the UN. Had the Bush Administration given in and continued to support inspections and sanctions; the calls to lift them entirely would have followed once the threat of military force subsided.

The real choice was between two ultimate outcomes for Iraq and the Middle East. One without Saddam; but fraught with the costs and difficulties of rebuilding a torn nation and returning it to the international community. Or one with Saddam still in control and flush with renewed oil revenues to rebuild his military as he pleases. An Iraq once again able to engage in unrestricted trade with the countries that so willingly built up its arsenal in the past. And that arsenal included substantial WMD / NBC programs. Experts have concluded that had Israel not struck the French-built Osiraq reactor in 1981, Saddam would have had nuclear weapons by the time he invaded Kuwait a decade later. Could we as a nation post-911 afford to take such a chance again?
A. J. Cers | 05.03.08 - 9:32 am | #

Does he have any idea what income group pony's up and pays the bills in this country?

Piss poor deflection. The cost for executing the war is being charged. The long term costs of this war are being hidden.

When all is said and done, this is going to be a 3 trillion dollar war paid for primarily by borrowing money from foreign countries - money that we have to pay back with interest.

That's causing the dollar to tank, gas prices to skyrocket and food prices to soar. The economy is a disaster but your President keeps insisting it's doing fine. That's because the Feds keep putting bandaids on the problem and borrowing MORE to make things appear better than things really are.

Why is this so difficult for you guys to understand?

The fiasco in Iraq is costing 12 billion a month. You and your buddies who support and defend this insanity need to get together and either start having some bake sales to pay for your war or bite the proverbial bullet and write a check to the Treasury.
Doug | 05.03.08 - 9:48 am | #

And it would probably gotten even worse. Anyone cognizant of the facts of the UN Oil For Food farce knows that the single largeast recipient of oil vouchers was Putin's United Russia party. Saddam essentially bankrolled Putin's rise to power. When the spigot was turned off Putin had no choice but to nationalize Russia's oil industry to keep a vast amount of patronage cash flowing to his cronies and supporters. If Russia and France's support of Saddam at the UN had resulted in his survival, we would now be facing a renewed Iraq/Russian military alliance with Saddam raking in billions in oil revenues, rebuilding his WMD, and Russia blocking the UN Security Council from doing anything about it.

Nice alternative future, liberals. Maybe it wouldn't have mattered... when one buries one's head in the sand instead of facing down real difficulties.
A. J. Cers | 05.03.08 - 9:53 am | #

Doug, you mihgt have more success with your formation of argument if you learned something about economics.

First, the gas prices are spiking because rising demand from China and India are taxing the supply. This has nothing at all to do with Iraq. The price rises are exacrebated by the refusal over 25 years of Democrats in the U.S. to enable the exploration and development of more domestic oil resources.

Second, the dollar has dropped due to the bursting of the real estate bubble and the expected effect of this on the U.S. economy. Further downward pressure on the dollar is be8ing caused by the Fed's lowering of interest rates to counter the economic effects. Lower interest rates make US bond and currenty investments less attractive to international investors so they get out of US denominated securities.

Food prices are going up globally due to two pressures. One, the cost of fuel to harvest, dry grain, and transport staples. Second, the rush to subsidize biofuels like ethanol which make it more profitable to make ethanol than food crops, making food supplies lower, and prices therefore higher. Simple economics 101.

Fourth, no matter how much the American Left is wishing for and predicting economic catastrophe for our citizens, the facts say things are not anywhere near "disater". In fact the GDP grew last quarter by 0.6%, exceeding estimates.
http://www.bea.gov/newsreleases/ ...newsrelease.htm
A. J. Cers | 05.03.08 - 10:28 am | #

More evidence countering Doug's claim of economic disaster:

The Misery Index, the total of the unemployment rate and the inflation rate is very close to its all time low and has not been lower in the last 50 YEARS except briefly during the "dot-com" boom of the late 90's. Anyone with half a brain knows that that particular economic period was unsustainable.
http://www.miseryindex.us/ indexb...indexbyyear.asp

So where is the evidence of economic disaster? Only in the minds of those like Doug that pine for it.
A. J. Cers | 05.03.08 - 1:01 pm | #

First, the gas prices are spiking because rising demand from China and India are taxing the supply.

That's only one part of a larger issue.

It is the weak dollar combined with speculative investment that's driving the prices higher. The demand in China and India are the result of a growing economy - in China and India and a poorly performing economy here.

It does not have anything to do DIRECTLY with the Iraq war but it does have EVERYTHING to do with the national debt, deficit spending and the trade deficit. The Iraq war is adding to the national debt and the impending costs for the repercussions of our choice to occupy Iraq will have devastating effects on the economy and the quality of life in this country.

Further, OPEC has stated over and over again that supply isn't what is driving prices higher for crude. It's speculation.

The price rises are exacrebated by the refusal over 25 years of Democrats in the U.S. to enable the exploration and development of more domestic oil resources.

Oil is a commodity. It would add to the world supply and be sold at the current rates. Again, OPEC and independent 0il producing nations have all said supply isn't the problem. They would increase production if there were signs that supply was a driving prices higher.

Further, attempts to reserve domestic oil for domestic use has been scuttled by the oil industry and their lobbyists and discussions of nationalizing domestic oil or using windfall profit taxes to control costs for American consumers have been met with wild scream of anti-capitalism and socialism.

The Alaskan oil issue is a red herring. It is about profit for the Oil companies who will be able to sell their - correction - our natioanl resources on the world market at the expense of public lands and the only ones to benefit will be investors and speculators.

The dollar has dropped because of debt. The housing bubble is a small reflection of a larger shift in economic ideology - that you can borrow and spend without adequate income and pay back your debts based solely on speculation.

Ethanol is being produced in large part as a response to high fuel prices, a drive to force energy independence and to curb carbon emissions. If gas were cheaper, cars were more efficient, there wouldn't be a push to convert corn and other ag products into biofuels. Again, oil and energy consumption is at the heart of the problem.

If we had stuck to an intelligent and pro-active energy policy in the 70's, we wouldn't be looking at the issues we're seeing today.
Doug | 05.03.08 - 1:06 pm | #

There's so much irony here it boggles the mind. Where does a person start?

We could ignore his human rights record, his funding of terrorists and even his chemical weapons.

Um, first of all, I wasn't aware that conservatives had any interest in human rights (last I checked there were millions of children without health care in the United States). Not only this, but there are places in the world which MUCH worse human rights issues than Iraq had during Saddam (although maybe not worse than we've made them), but lo and behold, the lack oil. Which conservatives need to power their Hummers.

The funding of terrorists thing has long-since been shown to be false. And it's slick how "nuclear weapons" changed to "chemical weapons".

I really love the "we can do it" attitude all of the sudden. "Well, we might not be sure why we did it, we didn't have any great reason do and nobody else in the world thought it was a good idea, and it's costing us trillions, but hey, we can can do it!" As opposed to, say, a certain environmental issue that has lots of evidence, is agreed upon by the entire rest of the world, and could be fought very effectively with Iraq money. Then, we can't do it, it will destroy the economy, blah blah. Hilarious.
jeff | 05.03.08 - 1:54 pm | #

Jeff, your idiotic comment about conservatives and human rights aside, how many supplemental funding bills for Iraq has the Democrat Congress passed?
You douche bags keep whining about the money, go ahead, cut it off. Grow a pair. But for God's sake quit your damn whining.
Grow up.
Kermit | Homepage | 05.03.08 - 2:09 pm | #

I'm not a Democratic congressperson. I'm jeff. I'm speaking for myself.

Conservative views on human rights, which are always along the lines of "if private citizens want to give than they can". Putting aside why this is naive, even if you accept this viewpoint it's inconsistent with human rights in Iraq in two ways. One, I could say, if private citizens want to liberate Iraq they can go right ahead, but since when is government intervention ok? And two, it ignores the fact that there's much more egregious human rights violations going on elsewhere.
jeff | 05.03.08 - 2:21 pm | #

but since when is government intervention ok?
You really need to take a few basic history courses, Jeff. If you have, you should ask for your money back. You didn't learn anything.
Kermit | Homepage | 05.03.08 - 3:09 pm | #

Sit and snipe all you want, you're adding nothing to the discussion. If you want us to not waste our time here, you're just going to have to tell me why I'm wrong.
jeff | 05.03.08 - 3:11 pm | #

Jeebus Doug... Nice effort though.

Topic A: OPEC claiming speculation is the main driver of the current price rise.

First, if market speculation is driving the current rise in oil process then we are experiencing a temporary massive speculative bubble. A temporary bubble ALWAYS happens if over-exuberant speculation is the primary driver behind a price rise. The fall happens when speculators have trouble finding other speculators to sell to in expectation of even higher prices. This happened with tech stocks in the late 90's, and with real estate in the last few years. In a bubble there eventually comes a time that the fundamental supply/demand of the market cuts through the speculative fever, resulting in a rapid collapse to the actual market value of the commodity in question. Economics 101.

Second, if you were an OPEC oil minister awash in windfall revenues your masters enjoy, what would you say to deflect criticism? Deflect? Oil producing countries are awash in previously unheard of profits. Naturally it would be in your best interest to expand supply and drop your revenues to "help out". Yeah, right… LOL!

Topic B: "The Alaskan oil issue is a red herring. It is about profit for the Oil companies who will be able to sell their - correction - our national resources on the world market"

First, what are those resources worth to the USA if undiscovered and left perpetually in the ground? Oil companies selling OUR resources for THEIR profit? Ever heard of the government revenue produced by the license they need to develop this oil? Never mind that this potential resource was discovered by private industry in the first place.

Second, "...discussions of nationalizing domestic oil or using windfall profit taxes to control costs for American consumers have been met with wild scream of anti-capitalism and socialism."

Energy and oil ARE global commodities. Private industry is proven to be the most effective way of developing these resources. The profit motive is absolutely necessary to incent private industry, whose stock is owned by ordinary Americans as well as international financiers, to make the most efficient decisions in its development. Nationalizing oil production has been proven globally over many years as the best way to collapse oil production and increase costs astronomically. The disaster of Mexico's PEMEX is a prime example of this in our hemisphere. License fees for private production in ANWR and the US offshore Continental Shelf are the best way to secure domestic benefit while increasing the international supply which will have a downward influence on global oil prices overall. Never mind the domestic oil industry jobs created by this activity.

Topic C: "If we had stuck to an intelligent and pro-active energy policy in the 70's, we wouldn't be looking at the issues we're seeing today."

I agree. But it went the other direction politically. Instead of embracing domestic oil exploration and development, it was increasingly blocked in the U.S. ANWR is just one prime example of this. Since the early 1900’s the ANWR region was known for surface seepage of oil. The results of the first subterranean survey in 1980 established a major oil reserve. From the earliest news the exploration of this has been blocked by Democrats.

Following the 70’s not one new refinery has been built due to the efforts of Democrats to block them. Existing refineries have managed to increase their capacity, but we are now in an era where the US is a net importer refined gasoline, when in years past the US was a net exporter. If Democrats could be coerced into adopting practical energy policies in the US… “we wouldn’t be looking at the issues we’re seeing today.”
A. J. Cers | 05.03.08 - 3:31 pm | #

you're just going to have to tell me why I'm wrong.
We've been doing that for months. What do you think the post was about?
But here's something for you to chew on, Jeff. Humans are not peaceful by nature. Quite the contrary. So your halcyon vision of "peace" is only accomplished in a very limited number of ways.
First: complete victory and subjugation
Second: overwhelming assertion of force
Third: the threat of overwhelming force
Fourth: the realization of complimentary objectives
Fifth: the realization of mutually assured destruction

You may have noticed that surrender is not listed. Apathy and surrender get your skyscrapers flattened, and your people killed. Terrible for the environment, dontcha know.
Kermit | Homepage | 05.03.08 - 3:51 pm | #

We've been doing that for months. What do you think the post was about?

No, you always SAY you've been doing that for months but you never actually do it. Here's how discourse works, Kermit: someone makes a blog post. I disagree with it. Then it's up to you to respond. My comments pointed out hypocrisies in the reasoning of the post, so I'll assume I'm correct unless I'm told otherwise.

As for your general musings on war, I don't see how they apply to this situation.
jeff | 05.03.08 - 5:00 pm | #

Kermit -- you seem to have time on your hands. Why dont you enlist in this cause you feel so fervently about?
Al Gore | 05.03.08 - 5:13 pm | #

The old chickenhawk meme.
You need new material buckwheat.
While you're at it get a few more brain cells. The two you have are busy reminding your lungs to breathe and have no time for thoughtful discourse.
As for conservatives and human rights. Who pushed the anti slavery agenda and fought to free the slaves?
The Republicans!
Who really pushed the civil rights bill in the '60s.
Conservatives!
Better yet, who fought it tooth and nail and filibustered the bill?
Uh, that was the liberals, like Sheets Byrd.
Is it conservatives who believe that minorities can't compete and need to be supplemented through affirmative action.
No, it's liberals who think minorities are incapable of making it on their own abilities and must be taken care of thus enabling the new slavery that welfare has become. Look and see who gives more to charity in this country. It's not liberals eventhough they are generally more affluent.

Yes, Saddam funded terrorism and had ties to Al Quaeda. Zarqawi was there before the war started. His WMD programs were ready to be reconstituted immediately upon the easing of sanctions which the Frogs and Germans were more than happy to push for thanks to their ties to the mutt. You liberals don't seem to care one wit for the Kurds who were gassed and persecuted or the woman who were raped and murdered in front of their familys.
You are blinded by your hatred of W and deluded by the garbage coming out of our colleges and MSM. Maybe some day you'll get a clue and learn from history but I doubt it.
maxx | Homepage | 05.03.08 - 5:54 pm | #

I'll start with the last first...

Big corporate refineries have expanded capacity. You've acknowledges as much. Permits for expansions have generally been awarded within 6 months.

Between the early 1990's and 2001, approximately 50 refineries have been closed.

In the mid 90's major oil companies internal documents pointed to excess refining as a factor that drove down profitability. What followed was a series of mergers, acquisitions and closures of smaller independent refineries.

Those closures represent million of gallons of gas.

A little over a year ago, the head of BP said that profit margins have not been high enough to justify building a new refinery. A Mobile official told a congressional panel that the company foresees not need to build a new refinery till at least 2030.
Doug | 05.03.08 - 5:57 pm | #

Why dont you enlist in this cause you feel so fervently about?
Sure. They are really enthused about 50 year old recruits. Why don't you enlist an original thought?
Douche.
Kermit | Homepage | 05.03.08 - 6:42 pm | #

As for your general musings on war, I don't see how they apply to this situation.
That's because you just. Don't. Get it.

No, you always SAY you've been doing that for months but you never actually do it.
Yes, we do. Patiently. But you just. Don't. Get it.
Kermit | Homepage | 05.03.08 - 6:45 pm | #

"Sure. They are really enthused about 50 year old recruits. Why don't you enlist an original thought? " Enlistments being what they are, they are accepting people with pretty significant criminal histories now. Certainly, someone with your passion and gift for gab and big words would impress them enough to make an exception. Maybe take LL with you -- a little discipline might teach her some manners.
Al Gore | 05.03.08 - 6:49 pm | #

Al, you redefine idiot.
Kermit | Homepage | 05.03.08 - 7:04 pm | #

"pretty significant criminal histories"

You're a tool, Al. You couldn't buy a clue.
maxx | Homepage | 05.03.08 - 7:39 pm | #

Well, clearly this discussion's over unless you respond to the points in my substantive comments above. Telling me I just. don't. get. it. is a waste of your time and mine.
jeff | 05.03.08 - 7:40 pm | #

""pretty significant criminal histories"

You're a tool, Al. You couldn't buy a clue."

Just the facts Maxx. It includes felonies as well. Seems the supply of intelligent law abiding folks who wants to go get killed is dwindling.

Kermit would have to get morals before applying for a waiver tho.



http://www.nytimes.com/2007/02/1...r=1& oref=slogin
Al Gore | 05.03.08 - 7:54 pm | #

"pretty significant criminal histories"

You're a tool, Al. You couldn't buy a clue.


Maxwell obviously isn't paying attention.
Doug | 05.03.08 - 7:57 pm | #

I did respond, Jeff. You depreacted whay I said by calling it "general musings on war".
You are sadly lacking in imagination. Y
Kermit | Homepage | 05.03.08 - 8:35 pm | #

You guys make it sound like they are letting anyone who wants in to enlist.
It just isn't so. It is on a case by case basis. Once again you are being dishonest in your arguement.

b. Those with significant criminal records. Section
504 of 10 U.S.C. (reference (a)) states that, "no person...who has
been convicted of a felony, may be enlisted in an Armed Force. However, the Secretary concerned may authorize exceptions in meritorious cases, for the enlistment of...persons convicted of felonies."
(1) Persons convicted of felonies may request a
waiver to permit their enlistment. The waiver procedure is not automatic, and approval is based on each individual case. One of the considerations in determining whether a waiver will be granted
is the individual's ability to adjust successfully to civilian life for a period of time following his or-her release from judicial control.



(2) In processing waiver requests, the Military'
Services shall require information about the "who, what, when, where, and why" of the offense in question; and a number of letters of recommendation attesting to the applicant's character or suitability for enlistment. Such letters must be from responsible community leaders such as school officials, ministers, and law enforcement officials.
maxx | Homepage | 05.04.08 - 8:36 am | #

How about the equally moronic "Why don't you send your kid to Iraq?"
Think about the logic here. I'm supposed to force an adult to enlist? What, do I own this person? Are they my slave?

This is liberal logic: I can't force parental notification when my 15 year-old gets an abortion, but I can force her to join the Army.
Kermit | Homepage | 05.04.08 - 8:48 am | #

You guys make it sound like they are letting anyone who wants in to enlist.

We're not making it sound like anything. Al said,

They are accepting people with pretty significant criminal histories now.

That is a statement of fact. If that is too difficult for you to hear, that's not my problem of Al's problem.

The number of persons with felonies who are seeking enlistment hasn't increased. The number of people accepted with waivers has. In case you don't get the significance, where less desirable were once denied admittance into the military, they are now accepted.

They are also accepting medical waiver for conditions that once excluded applicants.

You can cite all of the codes you'd like. It doesn't change the simple fact that they are accepting people with serious enough convictions that they are deemed felons in the eyes of the judicial system.
Doug | 05.04.08 - 10:12 am | #

I have discussed military service with my girls. The eldest wants to go to college, the youngest wants to join the Marines. I will support whatever decision THEY make when the time comes.
maxx | Homepage | 05.04.08 - 10:13 am | #

I cited facts. You dont like the facts. Get over it.

"How about the equally moronic "Why don't you send your kid to Iraq?"" I only challenged you to enlist. Kids should make up their own minds.
Al Gore | 05.04.08 - 10:20 am | #

"Maybe take LL with you -- a little discipline might teach her some manners." If you were referring to this, I was suggesting taking Lady Logician with you because despite her moniker, she is neither.
Al Gore | 05.04.08 - 10:23 am | #

Ah Jeff, irony is in the eyes of the beholder...

Conservatives don't have any interest in human rights? Just to answer your examples, then we get to the broader picture...

You state that millions of children have no health care. !BUZZ! Wrong. Health insurance, yeah, Health care? Any one can get health care. Just walk into an ER. And these millions could be covered by the vaunted SCHIP plan if their parents would SIGN UP...

Next, So what if there are places in the world with worse HR issues? Does that mean that we don't do anything because there are 'just too many of them'? Every journey begins with one step, Jeff... AND, that wasn't the only reason to go into Iraq, but it was one of them. (Don't forget WMD's, 100,000 dead Kurds, 17 UN sanctions, and ... wait for it... Our National Interest. Yes, the oil supply for our country is one of the reasons for going to Iraq.)

Now, broad picture. Conservatives believe in the Right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. Conservatives are the ones in this country that believe that every person has the right to live their lives, free from the onus of government, the way they see fit. This means that they have the right to succeed or fail on their own. It isn't the government's job to provide for everyone's happiness. Liberals believe in the canard of Equality of Outcome. The only way to accomplish that is through a 'To each according to his needs' mentality. That is anathema to the Conservative.

We (the US) provide education to our young. And more than that, we DEMAND that the young attend school. What is done with that education is up to the individual. (You can lead a horse to water...) Unfortuately, our schools have degenerated into a feel good (it doesn't matter if you get the right answer as long as you like yourself) class in narcissism. Why do the boat people that have come over here done so well in schools? Their parents are pushing the kids to do well. I would suggest that even the 'undocumented workers' kids are doing better that much of our own lower class citizens. The parents know that this country, based on capitalism (and still fairly conservative) will provide for their kids if they are willing to work for it.

So, who is more concerned for Human Rights? The people that give you a fish, or the people that teach you to fish (and start up a fishing company to sell your fish to the rest of the people that just want to buy a fish)?

I leave it to you to answer that question.

That was just your first paragraph... Wanna play some more?
sanders | 05.04.08 - 2:09 pm | #

So Sanders, essentially what you're confirming is that conservatives:

care less about their fellow citizens than those living abroad

generally dont give a crap about the less fortunate because they chose to live that way

think that government does have a role in invading foreign countries at will and imposing democracy there, even though it may not be desirable or ever work

would rather spend billions on those efforts while domestic issues go unattended.

In other words, conservatives are generally the self-centered, arrogant and selfish people we all think they are.

Check. Roger and out
Al Gore | 05.04.08 - 5:03 pm | #

"How about the equally moronic "Why don't you send your kid to Iraq?""

That's classic Kermit strawman. The only time I have ever heard ANY reference that bears any resemblance to this subject is when some liberal says something like, "why don't Bush's daughter go to Iraq?" or "if Romney's sons REALLY want to serve the country, why don't they join the military?".

Kermit turns it into, "Why don't you send your kid to Iraq?"

Obviously, you can't "send" your kid kid to Iraq. Kermit even manages to articulate the strawman further which the ignorant and stupid take at face value.

I'm supposed to force an adult to enlist? What, do I own this person? Are they my slave?

The funny part is that Kermit is completely oblivious to his use of strawmen. He repeats them with such conviction and regularity that he actually believes he is making a valid statement.

No one here calls him on it because they are either just as blatant in their use of strawmen or are so used to hearing them from their peers that they accept them as valid.

When they get called on it they get nasty and try to take personal shots. Case in point;

Yeah...right...you selling Moen at the Depot is REALLY doing a bang up job of supporting the economy...isn't it. What are you making now, 11.50 and hour?

But...it's all good...you look just SMASHING wearing that orange apron with the grape jelly stains.

Brent | 05.02.08 - 2:15 pm | #

If it were me or Al that made a comment like that, Jimmy would be cutting and pasting it across ScaifeNet to alert everyone that we're really elitist snobs. Of course Jim's use of words would be more - shall we say, colorful?
Doug | 05.04.08 - 5:52 pm | #

No Doug. I've had people say those exact words to me. So take your "straw man" and shove it. You are the oblivious one.
Kermit | Homepage | 05.04.08 - 6:36 pm | #

Sure you have kermit. Just like Gore said he invented the internet.

Even if someone were to use the words "send your kids", anyone with an ounce of intelligence would understand that they're not saying to literally send their kids to Iraq any more than they send their kids to college.

What they are saying is if you so strongly support the war in Iraq, encourage your kids to go to Iraq with the same level of commitment and authority you would use to send your kids to college after they graduate from high school.

That should be pretty clear. For anyone but you that is.

Edited By Brent...bold tag ended
Doug | 05.04.08 - 7:26 pm | #

care less about their fellow citizens than those living abroad

Just where did you see that? I was answering Jeff about his remarks about Human Rights abuses around the world. Of course I would talk about the rest of the world in that context. Comprehension skills still need a little work, Al?

generally dont give a crap about the less fortunate because they chose to live that way

I don't give a crap about someone who sits around and collects a check for breathing my air... If someone is truly needy, I provide via my tax dollars and my contributions to the charities of my choice (Red Cross, Salvation Army, United Way, just to name a few). For someone who can't work, I have no problem providing. For someone who WON'T work, well...

think that government does have a role in invading foreign countries at will and imposing democracy there, even though it may not be desirable or ever work

A couple things... 'At will': The UN had already sanctioned Iraq and had 17 resolutions open. Are we the Blue Helmet police force? Maybe, the frogs and krauts sure weren't... They were too busy setting up their retirement accounts with funds from the oil for food fiasco. 'Imposing democracy': Well, since they had the chance to vote for going back to their theocracy, I don't think it was all that undesirable. Do you? You and your ilk rail against a 'theocracy' taking over the US. Do we leave one in place there when the religion is dedicated to the eradication of you and your family, your way of life and your fellow citizens? Show a little compassion there, Al!

would rather spend billions on those efforts while domestic issues go unattended.

If ya gotta fight a war, ya gotta pay for it.

In other words, conservatives are generally the self-centered, arrogant and selfish people we all think they are.

Just a small contradiction since you seem to think that we care about the whole world more than we think about our own citizens. The Liberals seem to me to be more arrogant than the Conservatives, since they seem to think that only they have the right answers, and the poor 'iggerant' black folk can't make it without their help, and the rest of the population can't even figure out what light bulb to buy without the Liberals helping us (and Philips and GE) out...

Ah, Al... Read a little more. It may help you with that whole 'context' thingy that you seem to miss with regularity.
sanders | 05.04.08 - 9:39 pm | #

'If ya gotta fight a war, ya gotta pay for it." Isnt that the point? We're not really paying for it now. We're borrowing for it and our kids and grandkids will actually pay for it. Not paying and making no sacrifices.
Al Gore | 05.04.08 - 9:44 pm | #

51 dead in April, highest since last September. 4 more killed today.

Its too bad callousness and indifference aren't crimes. Hope you all enjoyed the beautiful weather today. 4 more Americans died for nothing.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/ mi..._casualties.htm
Al Gore | 05.04.08 - 9:58 pm | #

Good effort Al but these guys will never grasp the concept. Their idea of paying for it is to put it on their credit card then stick our kids with the bill.

I love how they ruin everything - including the definition of conservative.
Doug | 05.04.08 - 10:07 pm | #

More tragic news again today Al.

What's really sad is when you call the Minneapolis VA now, they've added the message "if you've got mental health concerns, call the national suicide prevention hotline".

One of my guys got a job at one of the Mpls VA clinics as an intake evaluator he is going nuts because they are seeing between 50 and 60 patients a day now. They can't keep up with the number of new patients.
Doug | 05.04.08 - 10:21 pm | #

I will just refer you both, Al and Doug, to the original post.

Liberals always say that we shouldn't settle for what is, but dream of what could be.

Well for once, we tried it their way. It would have been very easy for the USA to go on dealing with Saddam Hussein. We could ignore his human rights record, his funding of terrorists and even his chemical weapons. The European route (ie. the easy one) would have been to make speeches in the UN, pass resolutions but ultimately leave things exactly as they were.

... and...

So there you have it. We did what Americans do, we tried something new. It might not work and it was a hell of a lot harder than we thought, but at least we tried to spread freedom in the Middle East. And for that, I will always be proud to have supported the GWOT, the war in Iraq and GW Bush.

Thank you, sir, for answering the bleating of the sheep before they made a noise.
sanders | 05.04.08 - 11:46 pm | #

Saunders

Lets make this clear. Saddam was never a threat. Ever. Had we done it the liberal way and negotiated a little longer, we would have found out that WMD's were bullshit and probably not invaded. Yes, he would still be in power but 4000+ Americans would probably be alive as would 100,000 Iraqis. The almost 2 million refugees would not be.

So, in order to post one in the win column to offset Vietnam and to insure a stable oil supply, Bushco invaded with not enough troops, equipment or world support.

The majority of Iraqis want us to leave, the majority of the world is not supporting this and more importantly, the majority of American people dont either.

So you keep fiddling while Rome burns and hopefully one day you will realize what a mistake this was.

In the meantime, I will continue to remind you of the losses we will continue to take and the fact that you are all lucky to be able to support something without sacrifice and without actually paying the bill.

And LL, until you enlist, you are making no sacrifice.
Al Gore | 05.05.08 - 8:14 am | #

Liberals always say that we shouldn't settle for what is, but dream of what could be.

Well for once, we tried it their way.

Utter and complete rubbish. I'll refer YOU to what I said earlier, "they are either just as blatant in their use of strawmen or are so used to hearing them from their peers that they accept them as valid.

but at least we tried to spread freedom in the Middle East

What a load of arrogant, self-serving, pontificated crap.

We've spread a military presence.

We've spread the destruction of infrastructure and peoples homes.

We've spread billions in no bid contracts to American corporations to rebuild Iraq using immigrant labor.

We've spread billion of dollars to military contractors and their investors.

We've spread the death of civilians.

We've spread millions of Iraqi citizens to other countries as refugees because we've destroyed their country.

If you guys feel to need to assuage your guilt, remorse and anxiety by repeating the "freedom for Iraq" meme, knock yourselves out but don't try to drag us into your delusions.

We told you what was going to happen and it happened.
Doug | 05.05.08 - 8:21 am | #

If you guys feel to need to assuage your guilt, remorse and anxiety...

Call me a cold hearted bastard if you want, but I have ZERO guilt, ZERO remorse and ZERO anxiety for the invasion of Iraq because we did what needed to be done based on the best information/intel the world had at the time.

PERIOD.

The fact that no WMDs have been found, and the fact that there might never have been any, while unfortunate, doesn't change the fact that going it to stop a madman was the right thing to do...again based on the best information the world had at the time.
Brent | Homepage | 05.05.08 - 8:56 am | #

the majority of the world is not supporting this
Facts child, facts. The Brits just tossed the Labour party out on it's collectivist butt and put the Conservatives back in power. The French elected a conservative, as did mthe Germans.
It's you and your limp liberal comrades that don't support the deposition of dictators and the establishment of democracy.
Kermit | Homepage | 05.05.08 - 9:07 am | #

Saddam was never a threat.

We don't know that. What we did know at that time was that he has used chemical weapons on the Kurds. Iraq also attacked Iran and Kuwait. He tried to build a Nuke facility at Osris only to be stopped by the Israelis. Saddam was not cooperating with UN inspectors. Saddam proudly supported Palestinian terrorists.

Given all of this, how could you be sure he was never going to be a threat? You couldn't. Post 9-11 the US wanted to be pretty sure we knew where are threats were and Saddam sure as hell looked like one.

The left is guilty of revisionist history. When we later found out that the UN had been complicit in the Oil for food corruption, everyone should have admiteed that we really had no control over Saddam before the war. If we had continued to let Saddam cheat with France and Russia, we can be pretty certain that he would have caused more problems in the Middle East and Globally.

I need to mention that we were also 100% sure that Saddam and his sons were gulty of rape, torture and abuse on a grand scale. That alone should have justified his removal, if peope give a shit about that stuff.
Il Duce' | Homepage | 05.05.08 - 10:01 am | #

"The Brits just tossed the Labour party out on it's collectivist butt and put the Conservatives back in power. The French elected a conservative, as did mthe Germans." Sorkozy's term is in serious trouble and may not last long. The Brits change governments like we change socks. The Brits are about the only ally we have left supporting Iraq,

"Call me a cold hearted bastard if you want, but I have ZERO guilt, ZERO remorse and ZERO anxiety for the invasion of Iraq because we did what needed to be done based on the best information/intel the world had at the time." So called. The only consolation is that the majority of Americans are not.

"Saddam and his sons were gulty of rape, torture and abuse on a grand scale." Nice spin. While these crimes are horrendous, they certainly do not warrant invasion of a foreign country. If it did, we would have invaded half the world by now.

Whats sad is that we knew pretty soon after that the invasion was a mistake. We should have stopped when we could but conservatives always treat these things like football games -- we have to score, we have to win, whatever the cost. We have to offset Vietnam.

So, its easy for you to want to continue. You dont want to lose face and hell, its not costing you anything. Taxes have decreased, we have borrowed so future generations can pay for it and life goes on here in the good old USA. You can sit back and root for the team cause none of your family is going to be forced to go. And now that people have wised up to the fact that enlisting in the military could be a one way ticket to enlist, the military has to resort to convicted felons. Nice.

So before you rant about how you sacrificed because your first cousin once removed was in the National Guard and was called up, remember, he volunteered. His service is appreciated but you personally, unless you have served or your husband, wife or child has served, has sacrificed nothing.

Sacrifice is when you personally step up to answer the call. Except for Tim and the Sarge, the rest of you are hypocrites for wanting to stay the course without ponying up anything.

Oh, rumor has it, we lost 2 more today, Thats 6 in two days. Go surge.
Al Gore | 05.05.08 - 10:26 am | #

The Brits change governments like we change socks.
Yeah, Tony Blair was only Prime Minister for what, 12 years?
You don't know as much as you think you do, Al. And much of what you know is wrong.
Kermit | Homepage | 05.05.08 - 10:37 am | #

again based on the best information the world had at the time.

Another lie. The administration cherry picked the information - pushed the information that it found useful and buried and ignored the information that contradicted the administrations claims.

Then the administration blamed the Intelligence community for failures while completely ignoring intelligence agency data that questioned the accuracy of the WMD claims.

From August 2002 - 7 months before launching the invasion of Iraq;

...But the problem is, this war hinges on Iraq's possession or efforts to reacquire weapons of mass destruction.

If you listen to the rhetoric that comes out of Washington DC -- from members of the Bush Administration -- we have been told that "They know Iraq has chemical weapons. They know Iraq has biological weapons. They know Iraq is on the verge of a nuclear weapons program breakthrough-- within two years. Saddam Hussein will have a nuclear weapon that can threaten the United States. They know Saddam Hussein is developing long-range ballistic missiles."

Now I'm just a simple Marine, but I'm here to tell you. When I hear someone say, "I know something" that implies certainty of knowledge that has to be based upon facts. So if they know, share the facts. Let us know too. And they have failed to do so to date.

As of yet, all we have to back up the allegations about Iraq's weapons of mass destruction programs -- their possession of weapons or their efforts to reacquire -- is rhetorically-laced speculation completely void of factual substance.

Ladies and gentlemen, that is not
sufficient to justify a war.

To claim we were simply wrong about WMD's is willfully ignoring what we did know. It's completely dishonest and irresponsible.

We were lied to by an administration that had an ideological agenda and sold their agenda to the American public using half truths, innuendo and subterfuge. Understand Brent? It's very simple. They used fraud and deception as a tool to sell this war.

You bought it. You pay for it.
Doug | 05.05.08 - 10:39 am | #

Kermit -- seriously, shouldn't you be looking for work and not wasting bandwidth here? Some of us are sick of supporting you.

And if you are at work, shouldn't you actually be working? Pulling yourself by the bootstraps, nose to the grindstone -- all that typical conservative bullshit. Or did you choose to go thru life this way?
Al Gore | 05.05.08 - 10:48 am | #

Al -- seriously, shouldn't you look into acquiring a personality? Some of us are getting tired of supporting your deficiency.
Kermit | Homepage | 05.05.08 - 11:08 am | #

Another lie. The administration cherry picked the information - pushed the information that it found useful and buried and ignored the information that contradicted the administrations claims.

Your proof please.

Kermit -- seriously, shouldn't you be looking for work and not wasting bandwidth here? Some of us are sick of supporting you.

And some of us are tired of supporting you and your toy trains that we will never use and social entitlement programs that have no benefit to anyone other than the grow government crowd such as yourself.

You want these programs, you pay for them.

As for Kermit...he has been a VERY active and productive member of society...which is a HELL of a lot more than can been said for "I can't hack it any more" Doug who dropped out of corporate America after only 18 years.


Brent | Homepage | 05.05.08 - 11:11 am | #

Well I could do what Doug did and take a job at a vastly reduced wage, or I can continue doing what I'm doing, which is using this time to find a job in my field at a higher salary so I can pay more for a better Minnesota.

I haven't checked the comment count. Has Al earned his Happy Meal yet?
Kermit | Homepage | 05.05.08 - 11:48 am | #

Liberal Myth:

We should have stopped

There was no stopping after we started. We had a 6 month build-up that gave Saddam plenty of time to comply so when we launched the offensive, there wasnt a re-set button.

Why don't liberals get this. You lost the arguement on whether we should go and now you continue to whine about things that can't be un-done. That is a waste of time. We went into Iraq, we deposed Saddam and we killed his sons. The Iraqi's exected Saddam so just who should we put in charge as we heard out the door?

Once you commit to something like this there is not going back. Only people that have never done anything significant can be this ignorant.
Il Duce' | Homepage | 05.05.08 - 11:54 am | #

Doug-world on display here again. It is impossible to debate someone who has invested themselves in an alternate reality that seeks to undermine. The main problem we have today as a nation is that there are many such people in our midst.

These people cheer Nancy Pelosi as she goes to Damascus to pander to a dicatorship while that same regime is busy building a nuclear reactor for WMD development.

They defend Clinton who had established US policy toward Iraq as regime change. They condemn Bush when he did the same and actually acted on it.

The "Liberal way" would have left us with a resurgent Baath regime in Baghdad with the money and political backers to keep the UN out of a new rush to reconstitute WMD programs whuich was their intention following the lifting of sanctions according to the testimony of their own leaders.

The "Liberal way", if allowed to become US policy, will inevitably result in an Iran with nuclear weapons and the ambition to use them.

The "Liberal way" will economically cripple America with Kyoto-plus carbon taxes based on junk science, while China and other American competitors remain excempt.

The "Liberal way" will jack up taxes in Americans until it becomes fruitless for private investment to create and preserve jobs in America.
A. J. Cers | 05.05.08 - 12:20 pm | #

A.J.,

The LME and I just had a tax discussion this weekend that put off some investment. I may cover it here.

As for the rest, I stand by my original thesis: Liberals are pissed that we actually did something and don't undertand that once action was teken, there was no going back.
Il Duce' | Homepage | 05.05.08 - 12:46 pm | #

I forgot one important item, even though one could cite hundreds at least...

The "Liberal way" was followed during the Clinton Administration... after the Jihadists first declarded war on us. Doing nothing substantial in response for all those years finally gave us 9/11. No more.
A. J. Cers | 05.05.08 - 1:53 pm | #

which is a HELL of a lot more than can been said for "I can't hack it any more" Doug who dropped out of corporate America after only 18 years.

So now you're actually going as far as attributing a quote to me that you yourself fabricated?

You really are pathetic.

Well I could do what Doug did and take a job at a vastly reduced wage, or I can continue doing what I'm doing, which is using this time to find a job in my field at a higher salary

So, what you could do is get a temporary job now, pay taxes and be a contributing member of society or you could do what your doing and collect unemployment insurance while applying for a job that may or may not be there.

Who contributes more to society; Someone who works and pays taxes or someone who collects unemployment while waiting for a higher salary job to come his way...?
Doug | 05.05.08 - 2:27 pm | #

"Liberals are pissed that we actually did something and don't undertand that once action was teken, there was no going back." No, we're pissed that after 4000 lives losT AND half a trillion dollars spent, we still have not caught the guy responsible and al queda grows stronger. How many times do you have to hear it -- we went into THE WRONG COUNTRY FOR THE WRONG REASONS. Bushco had a rare opportunity to do the right thing with almost unanimous domestic and foreign support -- AND BLEW IT. It will certainly be the worst foreign policy disaster in our history.

Keep trying to spin it. The majority of Americans dont buy it and want change.
Al Gore | 05.05.08 - 4:26 pm | #

So, what you could do is get a temporary job now, pay taxes and be a contributing member of society or you could do what your doing and collect unemployment insurance while applying for a job that may or may not be there.
Unemployment insurance is taxable income you frigging twit.

Who contributes more to society; Someone who works and pays taxes or someone who collects unemployment while waiting for a higher salary job to come his way...?
Since we have established that unemployment insurance is taxable the second one, of course. Now go straighten and face some shelves.
Kermit | Homepage | 05.05.08 - 4:33 pm | #

Unemployment insurance is taxable income you frigging twit.

I never said it wasn't you frigging idiot.

You get taxed on Federal only - not State and you don't pay payroll taxes.
Doug | 05.05.08 - 9:39 pm | #

I never said it wasn't you frigging idiot.

You get taxed on Federal only - not State and you don't pay payroll taxes.

I love it. Big, smart Doug must not file a 1040. State taxes are based on that form. You fill in your adjusted gross income from the federal form. So what is it Doug, you file the 1040A or the 1040EZ you smug dumb f@#K?
Kermit | Homepage | 05.05.08 - 10:11 pm | #

Yup, you're right kermit; You pay Federal and State but when you elect to have withholding from your unemployment benefits, it's withheld and applied to your federal taxes. You still don't pay Social Security and you don't pay Medicare.

Since we have established that unemployment insurance is taxable the second one, of course. Now go straighten and face some shelves.

I don't straighten and face shelves and when I did work retail, individual sales of $75,000.00 was an average week.

My work kept installers and contractors employed.

If you'd like to believe you're benefiting the U.S. Economy and the world by sitting home waiting for a phone call from someone in desperate need of a cardboard procurement specialist, then feel free to bathe in your own delusion.
Doug | 05.05.08 - 11:18 pm | #

If the military wont take him, I'm sure there is a contractor willing to take a patriotic guy like Kermit. See the world. Put your money where your mouth is. Give one for the team.
Al Gore | 05.06.08 - 9:11 am | #

Death count is up to 7 this month. Enjoy your cigars at Keegans.
Al Gore | 05.06.08 - 11:46 am | #

Correction: Enjoy your Cuban cigars at Keegans.

Laws are for schmucks apparently.
Doug | 05.06.08 - 1:33 pm | #

Doug...not all Cuban cigars in the US are illegal.

First of all, pre-embargo Cuban cigars are legal. You have no clue if these Cubans are or are not pre-embargo.

Secondly, it IS possible to bring Cuban cigars into the US legally so long as they come from Cuba during a US authorized trip there.

SINCE you have ZERO clue how and/or WHERE these cigars have come from, you might want to be careful about your accusations about law breaking.
Brent | Homepage | 05.06.08 - 2:19 pm | #

"pre-embargo Cuban cigars are legal." Spin meisters. Try that at US Customs and they will confiscate them and say -- prove they are pre-embargo. Apparently, laws pertaining to luxury items preferred by wingnuts are meant to be ignored.

Enjoy them anyway. 7 more Americans will never be able to.
Al Gore | 05.06.08 - 3:02 pm | #

Oh...what's the matter there poor baby? Can't handle the truth?

Have mommy read this to you as a little bed time story.

http://www.legalmatch.com/law-li...ar- lawyers.html

Oh...and in case you aren't aware, we are INNOCENT in this country until proven guilty...so it is up to the US government (read US Customs) to prove that that they are NOT pre-embargo and/or prove that they were procured through illegal means.
Brent | Homepage | 05.06.08 - 3:16 pm | #

Too damn funny...

First of all, pre-embargo Cuban cigars are legal. You have no clue if these Cubans are or are not pre-embargo.

Enjoy your 45 year old cigars.

When is it Legal to Import Cuban Cigars?

According to the U.S. Treasury Department, you can only bring Cuban cigars into the United States if you are returning directly from Cuba and your visit to Cuba was licensed. Examples of those who can be licensed to visit Cuba include the following:

* Politicians
* Cuban Americans
* Journalists
* Legitimate researchers
* Athletes
* Religious groups

Which is Tracy? I'm guessing Religious group?


Are There any Other Restrictions on Importing Cuban Cigars?
Yes. Returning from a licensed visit to Cuba is not the only requirement for importing Cuban cigars. Other requirements are:

* The domestic value of the cigars cannot exceed $100
* The cigars must be for personal use and not for resale

Would accepting money for these constitute resale even for a good cause? Hmmmmmm...

so it is up to the US government (read US Customs) to prove that that they are NOT pre-embargo and/or prove that they were procured through illegal means.

I'm guessing Tracy knows exactly what the origins are of these cigars and had they been legal, he would have stated that. Instead he says, "You have no clue if these Cubans are or are not pre-embargo."

How mysterious...

Fact is, I couldn't give a shit if they are legal or not. If it helps your cause Brent, fine but if you're willing to accept benefit from stuff that you know may not be legal, you really don't have any credibility when discussing issues like Franken's skirting of tax rules.
Doug | 05.06.08 - 4:32 pm | #

Yeah, Brent! I urge you to abandon your campaign for the US Senate, you scofflaw.
Kermit | Homepage | 05.06.08 - 4:38 pm | #

I am donating a Pre-embargo (1962 actually) Cuban cigar to a charity auction. I will get no money for this donation, nor will I write it off on my taxes.

You libs need to read the tax code you love so much a bit more closely. I can donate wine and cigars to charoty auctions even though I don't have a licence to sell wine of cigars.

1958 Cubans aren't that hard to find anymore. The LME gave me three for Christmas a few years ago.

http://money.cnn.com/2006/04/18/...dlife/ index.htm

It so hard for me to imagine, much less remember, how some of you people live. Is there anything else that you think is "hard to find" that I can help you with?
Il Duce' | Homepage | 05.06.08 - 5:04 pm | #

FYI, Journalist!

Duh.
Il Duce' | Homepage | 05.06.08 - 5:08 pm | #

Is there anything else that you think is "hard to find" that I can help you with?
A sensible liberal?
Kermit | Homepage | 05.06.08 - 5:14 pm | #

They don't sell them on CI or JR Cigars.

Im guessing if you did find one, it would be very expensive as they are very, very rare.
Il Duce' | Homepage | 05.06.08 - 5:32 pm | #

I'm guessing Tracy knows exactly what the origins are of these cigars and had they been legal, he would have stated that. Instead he says, "You have no clue if these Cubans are or are not pre-embargo."

Actually...unless my reading skills are as poor as yours, I am the one that made this statement, NOT Tracy.

My only comment to Al was not to pretend that he knows the origins of the cigars because he has ZERO clue where they come from.

And...as I am not going to look a gift horse in the mouth, I'm not going to insult my host by demanding that he produce any proof of their legality.

And...since you have brought up Franken...I would like to point out that I have CLEARLY stated for the recored that we DON'T know if he is evading taxes or not because we only have one side of the story.

Look it up, and get your story stright for once in your life.
Brent | 05.06.08 - 7:08 pm | #

Enjoy your 45 year old cigars.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!!!!!

May...twice in one DAY!!!

Dip shit...cigars are like a fine wine...they get better with age, if aged properly. This is why Cuban companies like Cohiba can charge $25-50 for one of their cigars...the tobacco has been aged for between 25-50 years prior to even being rolled into a cigar.

I find it really sad that not only didn't you know this but that you will probably never experience the joy of smoking one.
Brent | 05.06.08 - 7:22 pm | #

I appreciate you guys making my point in spades. You have completely ignored the 7 additional lives lost in the past few days while you defend the merits of smoking cigars. No sacrifice, no cares.

Enjoy them. And at least toast the American lives you so arrogantly send off to do your fighting,
Al Gore | 05.06.08 - 8:03 pm | #

Al...we are not ignoring the lives lost...we are ignoring your attempt at a thread-jack. But if you want to read something into it, that is not really there, we can't stop you.
Brent | Homepage | 05.07.08 - 7:33 am | #