|
Chavez Offers Cheap Gas to Poor Americans
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... This piece really tickles my fancy: Chavez offers cheap gas to poor in U.S. HAVANA, Cuba (Reuters) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, popular with the poor at home, offered on Tuesday to help needy Americans with cheap supplies of gasoline. "We want to sell gasoline and heating fuel directly to poor communities in the United States," the populist leader told reporters at the end of a visit to Communist-run Cuba. Chavez did not say how Venezuela would go about providing gasoline to poor communities. Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA owns Citgo, which has 14,000 gas stations in the United States. The offer may sound attractive to Americans feeling pinched by soaring prices at the pump but not to the U.S. government, which sees Chavez as a left-wing troublemaker in Latin America. Gasoline is cheaper than mineral water in oil-producing Venezuela, where consumers can fill their tanks for less than $2. Average gas prices have risen to $2.61 a gallon in the United States, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. ***Chavez said Venezuela could supply gasoline to Americans at half the price they now pay if intermediaries who "speculated ... and exploited consumers" were cut out.*** Venezuela supplies Cuba with generously financed oil and plans to help Caribbean nations foot their oil bills. Chavez, in Cuba to attend the graduation of Cuban-trained doctors from 28 countries, was seen off at the airport by Cuban President Fidel Castro. Washington has accused the two leaders of being a destabilizing influence in South America. Chavez and Castro offered to give poor Americans free health care and train doctors free of charge. - - - - Cheap gas from Venezuela. cheap prescriptions from Canada, free health care from Cuba... Yeah, we're sure doing well under the Bush misAdministraiton. You never heard of the economic concept of "comparative advantages"? For some time now (and long before Bush took office), health care has been cheaper in Cuba, prescriptions have been cheaper in Canada, and gas has been cheaper in Venezuela. You decepetively imply that this is a "new" thing that has only occurred in the last 5 years. Nice try. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message Bush should resign. LOL. Yeah, whatever. |
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:45:25 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:
Bush should resign. Geez, Harry, do you think Cheney would be any better? We're stuck for three more years. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message Bush should resign. LOL. Yeah, whatever. Yeah, we'll be in terrific shape when Bush's term ends. We should wait until then for the Bush cancer to remove itself from our body politic. Harry, There's a lot of interesting stuff that's about to be released in the next several weeks that will turn the entire 9/11 Commission Report completely on its ear. This "Able Danger" story is growing legs, and even the news media is starting to ask questions again as to why so many important items were left out the 9/11 report. When you tie in the "Able Danger" story with the Sandy Berger sentencing, and the just-released-to-Congress report from Goss on CIA intel failures, the airwaves will be flooded with news about an enormous coverup headed by the likes of Berger, ben Veniste, and Jamie Gorelick. Nobody will care about Chavez, or Plamegate, or Bush's poll numbers, or... |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... I can hardly imagine the disasters the next POTUS will face in cleaning up after Bush. Don't worry. I'm sure his brother is up to the task. |
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 09:15:53 -0400, Harry Krause wrote:
We're stuck, indeed. Too bad we don't have the "prime minister" form of government in which failed leaders can be replace before their terms expire. Or a democracy such as Venezuela where the President could be recalled. ;-) |
Harry,
Thanks for the info. Wish I'd known about CITGO before so I could have avoided spending any $$ there. But now I know and I will never buy there again. Not that I can remember the last time I bought anything there. Butch "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... This piece really tickles my fancy: Chavez offers cheap gas to poor in U.S. HAVANA, Cuba (Reuters) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, popular with the poor at home, offered on Tuesday to help needy Americans with cheap supplies of gasoline. "We want to sell gasoline and heating fuel directly to poor communities in the United States," the populist leader told reporters at the end of a visit to Communist-run Cuba. Chavez did not say how Venezuela would go about providing gasoline to poor communities. Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA owns Citgo, which has 14,000 gas stations in the United States. The offer may sound attractive to Americans feeling pinched by soaring prices at the pump but not to the U.S. government, which sees Chavez as a left-wing troublemaker in Latin America. Gasoline is cheaper than mineral water in oil-producing Venezuela, where consumers can fill their tanks for less than $2. Average gas prices have risen to $2.61 a gallon in the United States, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. ***Chavez said Venezuela could supply gasoline to Americans at half the price they now pay if intermediaries who "speculated ... and exploited consumers" were cut out.*** Venezuela supplies Cuba with generously financed oil and plans to help Caribbean nations foot their oil bills. Chavez, in Cuba to attend the graduation of Cuban-trained doctors from 28 countries, was seen off at the airport by Cuban President Fidel Castro. Washington has accused the two leaders of being a destabilizing influence in South America. Chavez and Castro offered to give poor Americans free health care and train doctors free of charge. - - - - Cheap gas from Venezuela. cheap prescriptions from Canada, free health care from Cuba... Yeah, we're sure doing well under the Bush misAdministraiton. |
Harry,
Did you predict that there was no way Bush would get reelected? "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... I can hardly imagine the disasters the next POTUS will face in cleaning up after Bush. Don't worry. I'm sure his brother is up to the task. This country is sick of the Bush family. Jebbie ain't going anywhere. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:45:25 -0400, Harry Krause wrote: Bush should resign. Geez, Harry, do you think Cheney would be any better? We're stuck for three more years. At least Cheney could remember (and pronounce) the name of the country for the head of state standing next to him for a photo op. That's worth something. If would be nice if this country were represented in the media by someone other than a complete fool. |
Why would you choose not to buy from Citgo?
"Butch Davis" wrote in message nk.net... Harry, Thanks for the info. Wish I'd known about CITGO before so I could have avoided spending any $$ there. But now I know and I will never buy there again. Not that I can remember the last time I bought anything there. Butch "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... This piece really tickles my fancy: Chavez offers cheap gas to poor in U.S. HAVANA, Cuba (Reuters) -- Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, popular with the poor at home, offered on Tuesday to help needy Americans with cheap supplies of gasoline. "We want to sell gasoline and heating fuel directly to poor communities in the United States," the populist leader told reporters at the end of a visit to Communist-run Cuba. Chavez did not say how Venezuela would go about providing gasoline to poor communities. Venezuelan state oil company PDVSA owns Citgo, which has 14,000 gas stations in the United States. The offer may sound attractive to Americans feeling pinched by soaring prices at the pump but not to the U.S. government, which sees Chavez as a left-wing troublemaker in Latin America. Gasoline is cheaper than mineral water in oil-producing Venezuela, where consumers can fill their tanks for less than $2. Average gas prices have risen to $2.61 a gallon in the United States, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. ***Chavez said Venezuela could supply gasoline to Americans at half the price they now pay if intermediaries who "speculated ... and exploited consumers" were cut out.*** Venezuela supplies Cuba with generously financed oil and plans to help Caribbean nations foot their oil bills. Chavez, in Cuba to attend the graduation of Cuban-trained doctors from 28 countries, was seen off at the airport by Cuban President Fidel Castro. Washington has accused the two leaders of being a destabilizing influence in South America. Chavez and Castro offered to give poor Americans free health care and train doctors free of charge. - - - - Cheap gas from Venezuela. cheap prescriptions from Canada, free health care from Cuba... Yeah, we're sure doing well under the Bush misAdministraiton. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message Bush should resign. LOL. Yeah, whatever. Yeah, we'll be in terrific shape when Bush's term ends. We should wait until then for the Bush cancer to remove itself from our body politic. Harry, There's a lot of interesting stuff that's about to be released in the next several weeks that will turn the entire 9/11 Commission Report completely on its ear. This "Able Danger" story is growing legs, and even the news media is starting to ask questions again as to why so many important items were left out the 9/11 report. When you tie in the "Able Danger" story with the Sandy Berger sentencing, and the just-released-to-Congress report from Goss on CIA intel failures, the airwaves will be flooded with news about an enormous coverup headed by the likes of Berger, ben Veniste, and Jamie Gorelick. Nobody will care about Chavez, or Plamegate, or Bush's poll numbers, or... Yout boy Bush is an utter failure as a president. Trying to shift the blame to the Clinton Administration is beyond old. Shifting the blame isn't the intent of rehashing the issue. "It's not the crime. It's the coverup" I'm willing to let the cards fall as they may. If Bush administration officials were involved in covering up intelligence failures, then they should burn. If Clinton officials and Dems like ben Veniste and Gorelick were involved, then they should burn. Do you realize that German intelligence arrested two Iraqis in Germany about 6 months years prior to 9/11? Iraqi Spies Reportedly Arrested in Germany 16 March 2001 Al-Watan al-Arabi (Paris) reports that two Iraqis were arrested in Germany, charged with spying for Baghdad. The arrests came in the wake of reports that Iraq was reorganizing the external branches of its intelligence service and that it had drawn up a plan to strike at US interests around the world through a network of alliances with extremist fundamentalist parties. The most serious report contained information that Iraq and Osama bin Ladin were working together. German authorities were surprised by the arrest of the two Iraqi agents and the discovery of Iraqi intelligence activities in several German cities. German authorities, acting on CIA recommendations, had been focused on monitoring the activities of Islamic groups linked to bin Ladin. They discovered the two Iraqi agents by chance and uncovered what they considered to be serious indications of cooperation between Iraq and bin Ladin. The matter was considered so important that a special team of CIA and FBI agents was sent to Germany to interrogate the two Iraqi spies. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Did you catch that part? "(Iraq) had drawn up a plan to strike at US interests around the world through a network of alliances with extremist fundamentalist parties." If intel was suppressed by anyone within the CIA or FBI in order to conceal the fact that Iraq played a role in 9/11, don't you believe that it's important to find out who quashed the info...and why? |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... I can hardly imagine the disasters the next POTUS will face in cleaning up after Bush. Don't worry. I'm sure his brother is up to the task. This country is sick of the Bush family. Jebbie ain't going anywhere. 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. |
About 12 yrs ago, I spent some time hitchhiking and taking busses all
over Venezuela so I got a good look at the country and the people. Gas was very cheap then simply because they have lots of oil and they refine it themselves. Chavez could easily sell cheap gas to the US poor just as Mini-marts sell milk as a loss leader. This does not make Chavez a good guy. Chavez has indeed done some good things for the poor of his country and it would be difficult to do worse than his predecessors. Taking a single look at the slums above Caracas made me realize something was radically wrong with such a situation in such a rich country. Once again, doing some good for the poor does not make Chavez a good guy. Human Rights Watch has condemned Chavez many times for his abuse of power to suppress freedom of speech. Lefties always seem to do this, they start out well but then cannot handle criticism. Castro looked good at first but then came the arrests and firing squads. I wonder when Chavez will start the firing squads. Maybe Venezuela will be lucky and he wont be a Castro style megalomaniac. Chavez has the opportunity to do some real good if he suppresses his dumb-ass rhetoric and resists his paranoid tendencies. Health care in Cuba is no good deal. Get a look at the care facilities there and you'd think yourself lucky to be in the US. People dont tie inner tubes together and cross stormy waters to get out of a nice place in spite of what Harry Krause thinks. |
About 12 yrs ago, I spent some time hitchhiking and taking busses all
over Venezuela so I got a good look at the country and the people. Gas was very cheap then simply because they have lots of oil and they refine it themselves. Chavez could easily sell cheap gas to the US poor just as Mini-marts sell milk as a loss leader. This does not make Chavez a good guy. Chavez has indeed done some good things for the poor of his country and it would be difficult to do worse than his predecessors. Taking a single look at the slums above Caracas made me realize something was radically wrong with such a situation in such a rich country. Once again, doing some good for the poor does not make Chavez a good guy. Human Rights Watch has condemned Chavez many times for his abuse of power to suppress freedom of speech. Lefties always seem to do this, they start out well but then cannot handle criticism. Castro looked good at first but then came the arrests and firing squads. I wonder when Chavez will start the firing squads. Maybe Venezuela will be lucky and he wont be a Castro style megalomaniac. Chavez has the opportunity to do some real good if he suppresses his dumb-ass rhetoric and resists his paranoid tendencies. Health care in Cuba is no good deal. Get a look at the care facilities there and you'd think yourself lucky to be in the US. People dont tie inner tubes together and cross stormy waters to get out of a nice place in spite of what Harry Krause thinks. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message Bush should resign. LOL. Yeah, whatever. Yeah, we'll be in terrific shape when Bush's term ends. We should wait until then for the Bush cancer to remove itself from our body politic. Harry, There's a lot of interesting stuff that's about to be released in the next several weeks that will turn the entire 9/11 Commission Report completely on its ear. This "Able Danger" story is growing legs, and even the news media is starting to ask questions again as to why so many important items were left out the 9/11 report. When you tie in the "Able Danger" story with the Sandy Berger sentencing, and the just-released-to-Congress report from Goss on CIA intel failures, the airwaves will be flooded with news about an enormous coverup headed by the likes of Berger, ben Veniste, and Jamie Gorelick. Nobody will care about Chavez, or Plamegate, or Bush's poll numbers, or... Yout boy Bush is an utter failure as a president. Trying to shift the blame to the Clinton Administration is beyond old. Shifting the blame isn't the intent of rehashing the issue. "It's not the crime. It's the coverup" I'm willing to let the cards fall as they may. If Bush administration officials were involved in covering up intelligence failures, then they should burn. If Clinton officials and Dems like ben Veniste and Gorelick were involved, then they should burn. The Bush Administration has been involved in one disaster after another, and to date about all you have done is rationalize those failures and attempt to pin them on the previous administration. Clinton officials spent 7 years in office trying to make it appear as if terrorist attacks within our borders were not state-sponsored. There were coverups after the '93 WTC bombing, the '95 OKC bombing, the '96 downing of TWA800, and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. FOI Act lawsuits surrounding those events are running into continuous stone-walling from the FBI, DoD, NTSB, CIA, and State Departments. Goss is purging the dead wood from the intel agencies, and the new folks won't be so eager to cover the rear ends of their predecessors. Lt. Shaffer is the first example of the new atmosphere emerging among the intel community. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message Bush should resign. LOL. Yeah, whatever. Yeah, we'll be in terrific shape when Bush's term ends. We should wait until then for the Bush cancer to remove itself from our body politic. Harry, There's a lot of interesting stuff that's about to be released in the next several weeks that will turn the entire 9/11 Commission Report completely on its ear. This "Able Danger" story is growing legs, and even the news media is starting to ask questions again as to why so many important items were left out the 9/11 report. When you tie in the "Able Danger" story with the Sandy Berger sentencing, and the just-released-to-Congress report from Goss on CIA intel failures, the airwaves will be flooded with news about an enormous coverup headed by the likes of Berger, ben Veniste, and Jamie Gorelick. Nobody will care about Chavez, or Plamegate, or Bush's poll numbers, or... Yout boy Bush is an utter failure as a president. Trying to shift the blame to the Clinton Administration is beyond old. Shifting the blame isn't the intent of rehashing the issue. "It's not the crime. It's the coverup" I'm willing to let the cards fall as they may. If Bush administration officials were involved in covering up intelligence failures, then they should burn. If Clinton officials and Dems like ben Veniste and Gorelick were involved, then they should burn. The Bush Administration has been involved in one disaster after another, and to date about all you have done is rationalize those failures and attempt to pin them on the previous administration. Clinton officials spent 7 years in office trying to make it appear as if terrorist attacks within our borders were not state-sponsored. There were coverups after the '93 WTC bombing, the '95 OKC bombing, the '96 downing of TWA800, and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. FOI Act lawsuits surrounding those events are running into continuous stone-walling from the FBI, DoD, NTSB, CIA, and State Departments. Goss is purging the dead wood from the intel agencies, and the new folks won't be so eager to cover the rear ends of their predecessors. Lt. Shaffer is the first example of the new atmosphere emerging among the intel community. You're just proving my point. Again. The point is that as the *accurate* and *truthful* intel comes forward, the argument for invading Iraq will just be made stronger. But most importantly we'll have learned that trying to fight terrorism as a law enforcement issue is an ill-conceived idea and should never be tried again by future Presidential administrations. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... Clinton officials spent 7 years in office trying to make it appear as if terrorist attacks within our borders were not state-sponsored. If this is the case, why has it taken so long to figure it out, and release the information? It seems suspiciously "timely". FOI Act lawsuits surrounding those events are running into continuous stone-walling from the FBI, DoD, NTSB, CIA, and State Departments. You mean a potential defendant's agents and organizations moving to block a lawsuit that could be damaging to their parent agency? Wow. That's just unheard of. Goss is purging the dead wood from the intel agencies, and the new folks won't be so eager to cover the rear ends of their predecessors. I have never seen anyone with the loyalty to cover the incompetent or directly criminal intentions of previous employees, especially when there's no need. It's not in their best interest, should that person's job become up for grabs. I find it unlikely that Bush was not knowledgeable of any or all of these events, and as you've stated in effect, coverups can be as important as the crimes themselves. So why shouldn't Bush resign? He's either incompetent, with an incompetent or misleading staff, and should be removed, or he's a deliberately criminal man, who has assisted the coverup already in effect. Either way, his approval rating is low, his ethics are sad and fully questionable, and he has lost any touch he may have ever had with the common citizen. He is not for the people, of the people, and by the people. Personally, I think any President, or candidate, that even mentions something to the effect of "vote for me, or there will be an attack on the country" (which he did during his last campaign for re-election) should be tried, and executed for treason. He's a liar, and a traitor. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message Bush should resign. LOL. Yeah, whatever. Yeah, we'll be in terrific shape when Bush's term ends. We should wait until then for the Bush cancer to remove itself from our body politic. Harry, There's a lot of interesting stuff that's about to be released in the next several weeks that will turn the entire 9/11 Commission Report completely on its ear. This "Able Danger" story is growing legs, and even the news media is starting to ask questions again as to why so many important items were left out the 9/11 report. When you tie in the "Able Danger" story with the Sandy Berger sentencing, and the just-released-to-Congress report from Goss on CIA intel failures, the airwaves will be flooded with news about an enormous coverup headed by the likes of Berger, ben Veniste, and Jamie Gorelick. Nobody will care about Chavez, or Plamegate, or Bush's poll numbers, or... Yout boy Bush is an utter failure as a president. Trying to shift the blame to the Clinton Administration is beyond old. Shifting the blame isn't the intent of rehashing the issue. "It's not the crime. It's the coverup" I'm willing to let the cards fall as they may. If Bush administration officials were involved in covering up intelligence failures, then they should burn. If Clinton officials and Dems like ben Veniste and Gorelick were involved, then they should burn. The Bush Administration has been involved in one disaster after another, and to date about all you have done is rationalize those failures and attempt to pin them on the previous administration. Clinton officials spent 7 years in office trying to make it appear as if terrorist attacks within our borders were not state-sponsored. There were coverups after the '93 WTC bombing, the '95 OKC bombing, the '96 downing of TWA800, and the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole. FOI Act lawsuits surrounding those events are running into continuous stone-walling from the FBI, DoD, NTSB, CIA, and State Departments. Goss is purging the dead wood from the intel agencies, and the new folks won't be so eager to cover the rear ends of their predecessors. Lt. Shaffer is the first example of the new atmosphere emerging among the intel community. You're just proving my point. Again. The point is that as the *accurate* and *truthful* intel comes forward, the argument for invading Iraq will just be made stronger. I don't know what drugs you offer in your office, but you are taking too many of them. WHERE are the WMDs? Wait for the intel. |
"Chris" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... Clinton officials spent 7 years in office trying to make it appear as if terrorist attacks within our borders were not state-sponsored. If this is the case, why has it taken so long to figure it out, and release the information? Because Goss just took the reigns a couple of months ago. |
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 08:40:09 -0700, dbohara wrote:
Human Rights Watch has condemned Chavez many times for his abuse of power to suppress freedom of speech. Lefties always seem to do this, they start out well but then cannot handle criticism. Venezuela is not without problems, and Chavez is far from a sweetheart. He was, after all, involved in a 1992 coup attempt, and jailed for it. However, it is interesting that you focus on freedom of speech. Here is what Human Rights Watch says about Venezuela's freedom of the press (speech): "Venezuela has a vigorous and uninhibited media. Indeed, as part of the often heated and acrimonious debate between supporters of the government and its opponents, members of the media have been able to express strong views without restriction. Private television companies have often adopted blatantly partisan positions, airing news and debate programs extremely hostile to the Chávez government." Clearly, the press remains free. Although, you are correct in that their have been attempts to curb it's freedoms. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/venezu9843.htm Tough bunch, that Human Rights Watch. You may find it interesting what they say about this country. http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/01/13/usdom9853.htm It seems the right wing Bush administration doesn't fair very well, either. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Chris" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... Clinton officials spent 7 years in office trying to make it appear as if terrorist attacks within our borders were not state-sponsored. If this is the case, why has it taken so long to figure it out, and release the information? Because Goss just took the reigns a couple of months ago. And who has been the President up until, as well as beyond that time? |
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net... I don't know what drugs you offer in your office, but you are taking too many of them. WHERE are the WMDs? Wait for the intel. While we wait, will we be counting in days, months, years, or just dead soldiers? |
I never implied that Harry said anything about Chavez. Harry does seem
to be an apologist for Castro. Basically, his argument is that Castro is better than Batista. Is that it Harry, pretty lame. My dog could rule Cuba better than Batista. Of course this is a false argument presented as if it was a choice between Batista and Castro. Why not have a Cuba with a modern economy and freedom? Castro is nothing more than a Stalinist dinosaur. He's a Caribbean Kim Jong Il. My dog could also run the Venezulean economy better than it was run before Chavez but htis does not mean Chavez is good. I'll withhold judgement on Chavez for a year or two since any reasonable person should have a healthy skepticism about lefty regimes considering the number of deaths they have caused. Chavez might accomplish a few positive things but will not produce fundamental change. From what I saw there, the problems lie in the culture where there is no cultural room for a middle class. The upper class looks down on the lower class as if they were less than dirt and social mobility is assumed to be impossible. The only way a lower class person can do well there is to leave and then come back successful. Unfortunately, Chavez does not seem to be wise enough to really do well. A wise man would sweet talk the 800 lb gorilla next door while selling him bananas, not making the gorilla wish he could squash him....Chavez's heart might be in the right place, but hes an idiot. |
"Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... I don't know what drugs you offer in your office, but you are taking too many of them. WHERE are the WMDs? Wait for the intel. While we wait, will we be counting in days, months, years, or just dead soldiers? You can count by number of countries with tyrannical leaders overthrown. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Doug Kanter" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... I don't know what drugs you offer in your office, but you are taking too many of them. WHERE are the WMDs? Wait for the intel. While we wait, will we be counting in days, months, years, or just dead soldiers? You can count by number of countries with tyrannical leaders overthrown. Ding ding ding! Wrong answer! The contestant from Florida goes home with a case of Mrs Paul's fish sticks.....sorry, contestant. Not our job to overthrow dictators. Other countries can do exactly what we did 229 years ago. If you want something done right, do it yourself. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: I never implied that Harry said anything about Chavez. Harry does seem to be an apologist for Castro. Basically, his argument is that Castro is better than Batista. Is that it Harry, pretty lame. My dog could rule Cuba better than Batista. Of course this is a false argument presented as if it was a choice between Batista and Castro. Why not have a Cuba with a modern economy and freedom? Castro is nothing more than a Stalinist dinosaur. He's a Caribbean Kim Jong Il. My dog could also run the Venezulean economy better than it was run before Chavez but htis does not mean Chavez is good. Castro has done more to improve the lives of ordinary people in Cuba than Batista, the dictator the US supported, ever did or would do. Then why the huge efflux of Cuban refuges under Castro? In recent years, because of the lack of economic opportunity in Cuba, the same reason why we get so many immigrants from Mexico, Salvador, et cetera. Cuba has never been a wealthy country. Prior to Castro, Cuba did make significant amounts of money for its leaders, and for US gangsters and corporations, but that is because they were sucking up the profits and doing next to nothing for the workers. Then why didn't the workers hop on a boat and flee the country under Batista? I suspect that growing up in New Jersey (my mom was from Hudson County), and living so close now to Little Havana, that I have a lot more Cuban friends than you. None of them share your view of Castro vs. Batista. |
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:55:39 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote:
Not our job to overthrow dictators. Other countries can do exactly what we did 229 years ago. If you want something done right, do it yourself. Interesting to note, we have shed more American blood (casualties, not deaths), overthrowing Saddam than we shed ridding ourselves of King George. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: I never implied that Harry said anything about Chavez. Harry does seem to be an apologist for Castro. Basically, his argument is that Castro is better than Batista. Is that it Harry, pretty lame. My dog could rule Cuba better than Batista. Of course this is a false argument presented as if it was a choice between Batista and Castro. Why not have a Cuba with a modern economy and freedom? Castro is nothing more than a Stalinist dinosaur. He's a Caribbean Kim Jong Il. My dog could also run the Venezulean economy better than it was run before Chavez but htis does not mean Chavez is good. Castro has done more to improve the lives of ordinary people in Cuba than Batista, the dictator the US supported, ever did or would do. Then why the huge efflux of Cuban refuges under Castro? In recent years, because of the lack of economic opportunity in Cuba, the same reason why we get so many immigrants from Mexico, Salvador, et cetera. Cuba has never been a wealthy country. Prior to Castro, Cuba did make significant amounts of money for its leaders, and for US gangsters and corporations, but that is because they were sucking up the profits and doing next to nothing for the workers. Then why didn't the workers hop on a boat and flee the country under Batista? I suspect that growing up in New Jersey (my mom was from Hudson County), and living so close now to Little Havana, that I have a lot more Cuban friends than you. None of them share your view of Castro vs. Batista. Your knowledge of history is defective, as is your understanding of the motivation of many of the Cubans who came here in years past. The motivation of many of the folks who I know that moved here is that Castro came in and took their homes, took their businesses, and put their family members in jail. There's nothing "defective" about those first-hand accounts. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:55:39 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: Not our job to overthrow dictators. Other countries can do exactly what we did 229 years ago. If you want something done right, do it yourself. Interesting to note, we have shed more American blood (casualties, not deaths), overthrowing Saddam than we shed ridding ourselves of King George. Other "interesting" notes: On average, more Americans died in a 2 week period of WWII than the entire time period of both Gulf Wars combined. On average, 526 Americans died each month in Vietnam vs. just under 65/mo in the second Gulf War. More Americans died on 9/11 than in both Gulf Wars combined. |
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:01:05 +0000, NOYB wrote:
Then why the huge efflux of Cuban refuges under Castro? Like Elian's father? Not all Cubans are unhappy with life under Castro, all Cuban refugees are. Not to defend Castro, the Cuban people have an unacceptable limit to their freedoms, but why are Cubans automatically political refugees, when Haitians, Mexicans, and other Latinos aren't? |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:55:39 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: Not our job to overthrow dictators. Other countries can do exactly what we did 229 years ago. If you want something done right, do it yourself. Interesting to note, we have shed more American blood (casualties, not deaths), overthrowing Saddam than we shed ridding ourselves of King George. Other "interesting" notes: On average, more Americans died in a 2 week period of WWII than the entire time period of both Gulf Wars combined. On average, 526 Americans died each month in Vietnam vs. just under 65/mo in the second Gulf War. More Americans died on 9/11 than in both Gulf Wars combined. So? Does this mean it's OK to waste a few lives because more were lost elsewhere in the past? You must love the "acceptable loss" formulae used by airlines. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: This "Able Danger" story is growing legs, and even the news media is starting to ask questions again as to why so many important items were left out the 9/11 report. From the Washington Times: Review finds no pre-9/11 Atta file By Rowan Scarborough THE WASHINGTON TIMES August 23, 2005 A Pentagon investigation has found no evidence that Able Danger, a secret military intelligence operation, identified September 11 hijacker Mohamed Atta as a terror cell member more than a year before the attacks. Larry Di Rita, chief Pentagon spokesman, said investigators have failed to find a chart that Able Danger supposedly created before the winter of 2000 that listed Atta as a member of an al Qaeda cell in Brooklyn, N.Y. Army Reserve Lt. Col. Anthony Shaffer has told reporters and cable news shows that Able Danger had created such a chart and that Pentagon attorneys in 2000 had blocked moves to provide the information to the FBI. Rep. Curt Weldon, Pennsylvania Republican and vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, has backed Col. Shaffer's assertion. But Mr. Di Rita said investigators have not found any evidence that such a chart existed. "We have been very aggressive," Mr. Di Rita told The Washington Times. "We haven't been able to find anything that would corroborate the kind of detail Lt. Col. Shaffer and Congressman Weldon seem to recall." Mark Zaid, Col. Shaffer's attorney, said yesterday that his client stands by his assertion. He also said: "There are at least two other Able Danger team members who are coming forward and are specifically confirming what Mr. Shaffer has been saying in that they had identified several of the hijackers, including Atta, prior to September 11," Mr. Zaid said. "The Pentagon is either looking in the wrong places or not talking to the right people to confirm this same information." The national commission that investigated the September 11 attacks first learned of Able Danger in 2003 and requested information from the Pentagon before releasing its report last year. Commission staff met with Col. Shaffer in Afghanistan but say he never mentioned Atta's name. Mr. Di Rita said the Pentagon's review, spearheaded by Stephen Cambone, undersecretary of defense for intelligence, confirmed that relevant data on Able Danger was turned over to the commission in 2003 and 2004. "We, to the best of our understanding now, developed the information that was available at that time for the commission, and the commission factored it in as it felt appropriate," Mr. Di Rita said. Former Commission Chairman Thomas H. Kean and Vice Chairman Lee H. Hamilton said Aug. 12 that information on Able Danger was not significant enough to include in the panel's lengthy report. Able Danger was essentially a data-mining operation aimed at obtaining more information on terror mastermind Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda and Islamic terrorist cells. Mr. Di Rita said Able Danger compiled some information on suspected cells in this country, but that investigators have found no evidence that the operation identified Atta or other September 11 hijackers. Col. Shaffer has said that he was told about the Atta chart by Able Danger team members. He has said it identified Atta as being in the U.S. in early 2000. But the September 11 commission said Atta did not enter the country until late 2000 and was not identified by the U.S. as a terror suspect. "We have to wonder whether [the chart] did exist," Mr. Di Rita said. "It's a bit of a phantom search here." He said investigators debriefed Col. Shaffer, who acknowledged that he does not have a copy of the chart and had based his statements on what others told him. Mr. Di Rita said the probe is continuing, but will end "soon" unless new evidence materializes. "We have not been able to determine the information Lt. Col. Shaffer and Congressman Weldon described actually existed," Mr. Di Rita said. Mr. Zaid said Col. Shaffer was on active duty when working as a liaison between the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency and the Able Danger team. He then became a civilian analyst at DIA. He was suspended in March 2004. The DIA is in the process of revoking Col. Shaffer's security clearance, Mr. Zaid said, for what he called "trivial matters." They include reimbursements for mileage and telephone charges, and whether he properly received an award for his Able Danger work. Mr. Zaid said the Army promoted Col. Shaffer from the rank of major during the time of his paid suspension. |
"NOYB" wrote in message ink.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: I never implied that Harry said anything about Chavez. Harry does seem to be an apologist for Castro. Basically, his argument is that Castro is better than Batista. Is that it Harry, pretty lame. My dog could rule Cuba better than Batista. Of course this is a false argument presented as if it was a choice between Batista and Castro. Why not have a Cuba with a modern economy and freedom? Castro is nothing more than a Stalinist dinosaur. He's a Caribbean Kim Jong Il. My dog could also run the Venezulean economy better than it was run before Chavez but htis does not mean Chavez is good. Castro has done more to improve the lives of ordinary people in Cuba than Batista, the dictator the US supported, ever did or would do. Then why the huge efflux of Cuban refuges under Castro? With that post, harry is in serious contention for the title of "King of the NG idiots" |
Damn, I could not believe that this was true, but it is. Shows that we have
much better weapons today, than the old muskat. "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:55:39 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: Not our job to overthrow dictators. Other countries can do exactly what we did 229 years ago. If you want something done right, do it yourself. Interesting to note, we have shed more American blood (casualties, not deaths), overthrowing Saddam than we shed ridding ourselves of King George. |
"NOYB" wrote in message nk.net... "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: I never implied that Harry said anything about Chavez. Harry does seem to be an apologist for Castro. Basically, his argument is that Castro is better than Batista. Is that it Harry, pretty lame. My dog could rule Cuba better than Batista. Of course this is a false argument presented as if it was a choice between Batista and Castro. Why not have a Cuba with a modern economy and freedom? Castro is nothing more than a Stalinist dinosaur. He's a Caribbean Kim Jong Il. My dog could also run the Venezulean economy better than it was run before Chavez but htis does not mean Chavez is good. Castro has done more to improve the lives of ordinary people in Cuba than Batista, the dictator the US supported, ever did or would do. Then why the huge efflux of Cuban refuges under Castro? In recent years, because of the lack of economic opportunity in Cuba, the same reason why we get so many immigrants from Mexico, Salvador, et cetera. Cuba has never been a wealthy country. Prior to Castro, Cuba did make significant amounts of money for its leaders, and for US gangsters and corporations, but that is because they were sucking up the profits and doing next to nothing for the workers. Then why didn't the workers hop on a boat and flee the country under Batista? I suspect that growing up in New Jersey (my mom was from Hudson County), and living so close now to Little Havana, that I have a lot more Cuban friends than you. None of them share your view of Castro vs. Batista. Your knowledge of history is defective, as is your understanding of the motivation of many of the Cubans who came here in years past. The motivation of many of the folks who I know that moved here is that Castro came in and took their homes, took their businesses, and put their family members in jail. There's nothing "defective" about those first-hand accounts. I dated a girl that was born in Cuba......that is exactly what happened to her family.......lost everything they had. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Harry Krause" wrote in message ... wrote: I never implied that Harry said anything about Chavez. Harry does seem to be an apologist for Castro. Basically, his argument is that Castro is better than Batista. Is that it Harry, pretty lame. My dog could rule Cuba better than Batista. Of course this is a false argument presented as if it was a choice between Batista and Castro. Why not have a Cuba with a modern economy and freedom? Castro is nothing more than a Stalinist dinosaur. He's a Caribbean Kim Jong Il. My dog could also run the Venezulean economy better than it was run before Chavez but htis does not mean Chavez is good. Castro has done more to improve the lives of ordinary people in Cuba than Batista, the dictator the US supported, ever did or would do. Then why the huge efflux of Cuban refuges under Castro? In recent years, because of the lack of economic opportunity in Cuba, the same reason why we get so many immigrants from Mexico, Salvador, et cetera. Cuba has never been a wealthy country. Prior to Castro, Cuba did make significant amounts of money for its leaders, and for US gangsters and corporations, but that is because they were sucking up the profits and doing next to nothing for the workers. Then why didn't the workers hop on a boat and flee the country under Batista? I suspect that growing up in New Jersey (my mom was from Hudson County), and living so close now to Little Havana, that I have a lot more Cuban friends than you. None of them share your view of Castro vs. Batista. Your knowledge of history is defective, as is your understanding of the motivation of many of the Cubans who came here in years past. The motivation of many of the folks who I know that moved here is that Castro came in and took their homes, took their businesses, and put their family members in jail. There's nothing "defective" about those first-hand accounts. Yes, well, I was talking about the more recent immigrants. I know about the first few waves. Unlike you, I was alive in those days, and we had new kids enroll in our schools whose families fled from Castro. In those days, the reasons you cite were the ones often stated. Nowadays, most of the refugees come here because of better economic conditions, but that may not be an attraction for long, eh? For the Cuban immigrants, it will continue to be true for quite some time. The Cubans that I know are hard working folks with good attention to detail...which makes them perfect workers for the south Florida construction boom. |
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:55:39 +0000, Doug Kanter wrote: Not our job to overthrow dictators. Other countries can do exactly what we did 229 years ago. If you want something done right, do it yourself. Interesting to note, we have shed more American blood (casualties, not deaths), overthrowing Saddam than we shed ridding ourselves of King George. Other "interesting" notes: On average, more Americans died in a 2 week period of WWII than the entire time period of both Gulf Wars combined. On average, 526 Americans died each month in Vietnam vs. just under 65/mo in the second Gulf War. More Americans died on 9/11 than in both Gulf Wars combined. Should one conclude, then, that your point is the 1800+ Americans who have died so far fighting Bush's war do not add up to a number of any consequence? I wouldn't say that. Afterall, the 6000 or so Americans who died during the American Revolution (a number that pales in comparison to the number who died in any of our other major wars) certainly played a very important role in the future of our country. |
"thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:01:05 +0000, NOYB wrote: Then why the huge efflux of Cuban refuges under Castro? Like Elian's father? Not all Cubans are unhappy with life under Castro, all Cuban refugees are. Maybe Elian's dad figured life under Castro was better than life with Elian's mom. Not to defend Castro, the Cuban people have an unacceptable limit to their freedoms, but why are Cubans automatically political refugees, when Haitians, Mexicans, and other Latinos aren't? I dunno. Ask President Carter. |
"NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "thunder" wrote in message ... On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:01:05 +0000, NOYB wrote: Then why the huge efflux of Cuban refuges under Castro? Like Elian's father? Not all Cubans are unhappy with life under Castro, all Cuban refugees are. Maybe Elian's dad figured life under Castro was better than life with Elian's mom. Not to defend Castro, the Cuban people have an unacceptable limit to their freedoms, but why are Cubans automatically political refugees, when Haitians, Mexicans, and other Latinos aren't? I dunno. Ask President Carter. What percentage of mexicans, haitiand, dominicans etc are thrown in prison when returned for entering this country illegally? And cubans? |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com