U.S. RANCHERS BAN ON CA BEEF WINS APPEAL

[flounder]

U.S. ranchers' attempts to block Canadian beef imports will get hearing
By The Canadian Press
Wednesday, June 6, 2007


Email this article
Printer friendly page



WASHINGTON (CP) - A U.S. appeals court will hear arguments on restricting Canadian beef imports.

The case, which has been pursued for years by a protectionist American ranchers' group, will proceed on July 13.

R-CALF, a Montana-based group, was successful in keeping the border closed to Canadian cattle in 2005 after its first mad cow cases.

Since then, trade has resumed in younger cows thought to be at less risk for contracting the deadly disease.

But R-CALF is still fighting for restrictions.

The U.S. government is working on a new rule to begin trade in older cattle and beef products. ..............end



pot calling the kettle black, or even worse, the USA is in full cover-up mode on mad cow diseases. at least Canada has been trying. ...TSS

 

[Sandhusker]

"which has been pursued for years by a protectionist American ranchers' group"

Geeeeeeze, either the author doesn't know the definition of "protectionist", doesn't know what R-CALF really is about, or doesn't care to report accurately. :roll:

 

[Kato]

pro·tec·tion·ism (prə-tĕk'shə-nĭz'əm) n.

The advocacy, system, or theory of protecting domestic producers by impeding or limiting, as by tariffs or quotas, the importation of foreign goods and services.

In fact R-Calf has gone beyond the definition in that they are advocating closed borders over tariffs or quotas.

If the shoe fits ......

 

[Sandhusker]

pro·tec·tion·ism (prə-tĕk'shə-nĭz'əm) n.

The advocacy, system, or theory of protecting domestic producers by impeding or limiting, as by tariffs or quotas, the importation of foreign goods and services.

In fact R-Calf has gone beyond the definition in that they are advocating closed borders over tariffs or quotas.

If the shoe fits ......

When has R-CALF mentioned anything about a quota or a tariff?

 

[Mike]

Wonder how "protectionist" got turned around to be negative.

Isn't protecting oneself and belongings considered a good thing?

If I am a "protectionist" of my family and home, does that make me a bad guy?

 

[TimH]

pro·tec·tion·ism (prə-tĕk'shə-nĭz'əm) n.

The advocacy, system, or theory of protecting domestic producers by impeding or limiting, as by tariffs or quotas, the importation of foreign goods and services.

In fact R-Calf has gone beyond the definition in that they are advocating closed borders over tariffs or quotas.

If the shoe fits ......

When has R-CALF mentioned anything about a quota or a tariff?

www.choicesmagazine.org/2003-3/2003-3-09.htm

:roll:

 

[Sandhusker]

pro·tec·tion·ism (prə-tĕk'shə-nĭz'əm) n.

The advocacy, system, or theory of protecting domestic producers by impeding or limiting, as by tariffs or quotas, the importation of foreign goods and services.

In fact R-Calf has gone beyond the definition in that they are advocating closed borders over tariffs or quotas.

If the shoe fits ......

When has R-CALF mentioned anything about a quota or a tariff?

www.choicesmagazine.org/2003-3/2003-3-09.htm

:roll:

Let me be clearer, SH, the article was concerning your BSE situation and R-CALF's stance concerning said condition relating to trade. You brought up whole different topic that occured even before your BSE was discovered. You think you can make any connection between your BSE problem and R-CALF being protectionist about it (using the definition provided by Kato)?

If you want to paint with that wide a brush, I'll bet I can show you quotas and tariffs imposed by your government. Do you think that makes Canada protectionist?

 

[Kato]

What I'm getting at is that they have gone beyond the ideas of tariffs and quotas, and jumped straight to closed borders.

Of course these closed borders are only for goods coming in, not for goods going out. :roll:

Canada is America's largest trading partner. It's a fact of life.

You don't like seeing Canadian cattle trucks on your roads. Boo Hoo Hoo. :cry2:

We get to see Walmart, UPS, Purolator, and Shell Oil trucks every time we get on the road. Then we can choose between eating at Applebees, Montana's, Burger King, McDonalds, or Wendy's. Then we go to the Safeway store and buy some Heinz ketchup, Kelloggs cornflakes, California grapes, or Florida oranges, while driving in our Ford or Chev vehicles full of Esso gas. On vacation we can stay at the Holiday Inn, or maybe the Comfort Inn for a change. Which we can pay for with our American Express cards, before settling down to watch the Tonight Show and Dateline. All without leaving Canada.

Just imagine living in an America where you cannot drive down the street without seeing the Maple Leaf on every third building. Where most of your media is Canadian controlled. And then to be told that your products are not welcome in Canada, because a small group of vocal people have decided that they feel threatened by you.

There are people in your country that are concerned with the Latinization of America, and how the Spanish speaking culture is changing the society. That is just a tiny taste of our situation. It's as close to walking a mile in our shoes that you will get. The only difference is that we are dealing with your corporations, not your citizens. Other than that, it's not all that different a situation. I think I'd rather deal with immigrants.

You guys have no idea what it's like. It's like being in an occupied country that was never at war, it was just bought out from underneath you.

OT blames us for allowing the corporations in, but I would like to see someone who can keep them out. It hasn't been done yet, anywhere in the world. If Walmart, Conagra, Cargill or McDonalds wants to move into a country, they will do it.

I guess what I'm getting at is that it's very frustrating, after what we've been through in the past few years, to see American goods and services everywhere I look, and then be told that our products are not welcome in America.

 

[Sandhusker]

The idea about closing the border was the USDA's. They claimed the science said that was the thing to do. The science hasn't changed. Were they protectionist?

Have any of those examples that you listed been linked to deadly diseases? Have any of those been responsible for devestating an industry?

R-CALF isn't saying don't trade with Canada. We're saying BSE is some nasty, nasty crap and importing your beef and cattle carries with it a risk of importing it here, and producers are going to be the ones holding the bag. It makes no sense at all to take that risk when there are options that virtually eliminate it.

 

[TimH]

When has R-CALF mentioned anything about a quota or a tariff?

www.choicesmagazine.org/2003-3/2003-3-09.htm

:roll:

Let me be clearer, SH, the article was concerning your BSE situation and R-CALF's stance concerning said condition relating to trade. You brought up whole different topic that occured even before your BSE was discovered. You think you can make any connection between your BSE problem and R-CALF being protectionist about it (using the definition provided by Kato)?

If you want to paint with that wide a brush, I'll bet I can show you quotas and tariffs imposed by your government. Do you think that makes Canada protectionist?

The question you asked was already clear, Econ 101..... "When has R-CALF mentioned anything about a quota or a tariff?"

I posted a link that answered that question. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

[Sandhusker]

R-CALF wasn't after a tariff - they were wanting a certain practice stopped. Producers don't get any proceeds from a tariff, but were losing money from the practice. Linking R-CALF to protectionism via tariffs and quotas is something our politicians would do - run with a flimsy tale while omitting the real story that would paint a different picture.

 

[Anonymous]

June 6, 2007

Oral Argument Slated for July in BSE Litigation

Billings, Mont. – R-CALF USA has been informed that the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals (9th Circuit) will hear oral argument on July 13 in Portland, Ore., in the organization's litigation against the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) regarding the agency's Final Rule on "Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy (BSE); Minimal-Risk Regions and Importation of Commodities," originally issued on Dec. 29, 2004.



"This in another procedural step in the court process," said R-CALF USA CEO President/Region VI Director Max Thornsberry, a Missouri veterinarian who chairs the organization's animal health committee.



"It's an opportunity for R-CALF's attorneys to make an oral presentation to the court and to answer questions that arose as 9th Circuit judges were reviewing the briefs we filed in this case," he said. "R-CALF is hopeful that after oral arguments in July, the 9th Circuit will remand our case back to the District Court of Montana. If so, that will set the stage for a long-sought victory.



"Since 2005, R-CALF members and supporters have stood firm and faithful in their belief that until Canada has its BSE problem under control, imports of Canadian cattle and beef should be halted," Thornsberry continued. "We owe our sincerest gratitude to our members and the U.S. live cattle industry for the overwhelming support and donations that enabled us to continue this fight on their behalf.



"R-CALF stated in 2005 that USDA should not place the health and welfare of both the U.S. cattle herd and U.S. consumers at risk, and we also pointed out that if USDA relaxed our health and safety import standards by reopening the Canadian border, such a move could threaten U.S. beef exports," Thornsberry noted. "USDA's actions have undermined our ability to resume previous levels of beef exports, particularly exports to markets in Asia.


"Litigation has always been our last resort, but we are thankful for the system of checks and balances in this country that will afford us the opportunity to challenge our government when we believe government actions will harm our industry," he commented.



"Our nation's import standards should be based on preventing the introduction of foreign animal diseases instead of the management of such diseases once they're here," Thornsberry emphasized. "Our import standards should not be relaxed simply because USDA wants to create a North American cattle herd instead of placing value on the distinct and unique characteristics of the U.S. cattle herd."


Background: USDA initially planned to reopen the Canadian border to imports of live cattle under 30 months of age and beef products from cattle of all ages, but under pressure from an R-CALF USA lawsuit and public concerns about new BSE cases in Canada, USDA voluntarily limited its plans to include only beef from cattle younger than 30 months of age. Canadian imports were set to resume on March 7, 2005, but on March 2, 2005, the U.S. District Court – District of Montana (District Court) granted R-CALF USA its request for a preliminary injunction that prevented the border from reopening.



After oral argument before a 9th Circuit three-judge panel on July 13, 2005, the preliminary injunction was lifted and the Canadian border reopened to such cattle and beef on July 18, 2005. The District Court concluded that the issues in the case already had been decided in the preliminary injunction proceeding and dismissed R-CALF USA's subsequent motion for summary judgment, requested by the organization on Jan. 6, 2006. In June 2006, R-CALF USA directors voted to appeal this decision. USDA attempted to derail R-CALF USA's appeal using an unconventional Motion for Summary Affirmance. In a Nov. 14, 2006, order, the 9th Circuit authorized R-CALF USA to proceed with its appeal, stating that R-CALF USA's arguments "…are sufficiently substantial to warrant further argument." R-CALF USA filed its final written brief with the 9th Circuit on April 19, 2007.

 

[flounder]

BSE MRR TSS, R-CALF ON CANADA VS USA




Bill Rancher


Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 1418 Location: GWN Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:49 am Post subject:

Texan wrote:


Hey Terry, I'd like to get a little further clarification on something if/when you have time. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly....

flounder wrote:

This is what sank my battleship in regards to testifying for r-calf. they actually appoached me about it, but i told them i would be glad to testify, but i was not stopping at the Canadian border, my testimony was to come south as well if given the opportunity. and that ended that, but i did supply them with a load of data, for whatever that was worth.


I highlighted the parts that confuse me. This almost makes it seem as if R-CALF was asking you to testify for them, but changed their mind when they found out that you were going to tell the WHOLE truth, instead of just the truth as regards Canadian imports.

I thought that R-CALF was only interested in the WHOLE truth - not just the selected parts of the truth that fit their protectionist agenda? After reading your post, it makes a person wonder. Maybe I read it wrong...

Am I reading this correctly, Terry? That can't be right, can it? Thanks.


I was wondering exactly the same thing Texan.


_________________ Canadian Beef....A cut above the rest!






my answer to big muddy from canada ;



*** http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=12




http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=24



http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=36



http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=48


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0701&L=sanet-mg&D=1&F=P&P=8374


TSS

 

[TimH]

R-CALF wasn't after a tariff - they were wanting a certain practice stopped. Producers don't get any proceeds from a tariff, but were losing money from the practice. Linking R-CALF to protectionism via tariffs and quotas is something our politicians would do - run with a flimsy tale while omitting the real story that would paint a different picture.

I copied the following, from the FAQ section of R-Calf's official website........

Why was R-CALF USA founded?

In 1998 the R-CALF USA was founded as a foundation to represent and file three trade cases on behalf of the U.S. cattle industry. Trade laws are different from domestic laws in that it is generally required that the domestic industry monitors them and files the appropriate petitions when a trade violation occurs that is damaging U.S. prices.

R-CALF USA filed a live cattle and anti-dumping (selling below the cost of production) case against Canada and Mexico , and a countervailing (subsidy) case against Canada. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in January dismissed the Mexico case. In the summer of 1999, the Department of Commerce (DOC) found that Canada was subsidizing the production of live cattle, but not at a high enough rate to warrant penalty tariffs. The DOC in July of 1999 also found Canada was dumping cattle into the U.S. at a high enough rate to warrant tariffs equivalent to the violation to be put on. The U.S. cattle market saw an immediate improvement in their markets.
Unfortunately, the ITC ruled in November of 1999, contrary to the DOC findings, that U.S. producers were not "materially injured" by the dumping of Canadian cattle and the ITC lifted the anti-dumping tariffs imposed by the DOC.

R-Calf takes credit for filing the trade action that resulted in a tariff being imposed. They then say it is unfortunate that the tariff was lifted.

 

[Sandhusker]

R-CALF wasn't after a tariff - they were wanting a certain practice stopped. Producers don't get any proceeds from a tariff, but were losing money from the practice. Linking R-CALF to protectionism via tariffs and quotas is something our politicians would do - run with a flimsy tale while omitting the real story that would paint a different picture.

I copied the following, from the FAQ section of R-Calf's official website........

Why was R-CALF USA founded?

In 1998 the R-CALF USA was founded as a foundation to represent and file three trade cases on behalf of the U.S. cattle industry. Trade laws are different from domestic laws in that it is generally required that the domestic industry monitors them and files the appropriate petitions when a trade violation occurs that is damaging U.S. prices.

R-CALF USA filed a live cattle and anti-dumping (selling below the cost of production) case against Canada and Mexico , and a countervailing (subsidy) case against Canada. The U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in January dismissed the Mexico case. In the summer of 1999, the Department of Commerce (DOC) found that Canada was subsidizing the production of live cattle, but not at a high enough rate to warrant penalty tariffs. The DOC in July of 1999 also found Canada was dumping cattle into the U.S. at a high enough rate to warrant tariffs equivalent to the violation to be put on. The U.S. cattle market saw an immediate improvement in their markets.
Unfortunately, the ITC ruled in November of 1999, contrary to the DOC findings, that U.S. producers were not "materially injured" by the dumping of Canadian cattle and the ITC lifted the anti-dumping tariffs imposed by the DOC.

R-Calf takes credit for filing the trade action that resulted in a tariff being imposed. They then say it is unfortunate that the tariff was lifted.

That's because the issue never got solved. Figure it out.

 

[Sandhusker]

BSE MRR TSS, R-CALF ON CANADA VS USA




Bill Rancher


Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 1418 Location: GWN Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:49 am Post subject:

Texan wrote:


Hey Terry, I'd like to get a little further clarification on something if/when you have time. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly....

flounder wrote:

This is what sank my battleship in regards to testifying for r-calf. they actually appoached me about it, but i told them i would be glad to testify, but i was not stopping at the Canadian border, my testimony was to come south as well if given the opportunity. and that ended that, but i did supply them with a load of data, for whatever that was worth.


I highlighted the parts that confuse me. This almost makes it seem as if R-CALF was asking you to testify for them, but changed their mind when they found out that you were going to tell the WHOLE truth, instead of just the truth as regards Canadian imports.

I thought that R-CALF was only interested in the WHOLE truth - not just the selected parts of the truth that fit their protectionist agenda? After reading your post, it makes a person wonder. Maybe I read it wrong...

Am I reading this correctly, Terry? That can't be right, can it? Thanks.


I was wondering exactly the same thing Texan.


_________________ Canadian Beef....A cut above the rest!






my answer to big muddy from canada ;



*** http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=12




http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=24



http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=36



http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=48


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0701&L=sanet-mg&D=1&F=P&P=8374


TSS

Terry thinks USDA is a bunch of idiots, so does R-CALF. Terry thinks we need more testing, so does R-CALF. It wasn't the WHOLE truth that caused R-CALF to shy away from Terry. It was the possibilty of Terry going off on a tangent. The effectiveness of a witness depends on accuracy and credibity. If Terry were to start tangenting off on other topics, his credibilty and effectiveness as a witness would suffer. He would morph from a guy that appeared to know what he was talking about to a guy who seemed to see his seat on the witness stand as an opportunity to present his own agenda.

 

[flounder]

BSE MRR TSS, R-CALF ON CANADA VS USA




Bill Rancher


Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 1418 Location: GWN Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:49 am Post subject:

Texan wrote:


Hey Terry, I'd like to get a little further clarification on something if/when you have time. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly....

flounder wrote:

This is what sank my battleship in regards to testifying for r-calf. they actually appoached me about it, but i told them i would be glad to testify, but i was not stopping at the Canadian border, my testimony was to come south as well if given the opportunity. and that ended that, but i did supply them with a load of data, for whatever that was worth.


I highlighted the parts that confuse me. This almost makes it seem as if R-CALF was asking you to testify for them, but changed their mind when they found out that you were going to tell the WHOLE truth, instead of just the truth as regards Canadian imports.

I thought that R-CALF was only interested in the WHOLE truth - not just the selected parts of the truth that fit their protectionist agenda? After reading your post, it makes a person wonder. Maybe I read it wrong...

Am I reading this correctly, Terry? That can't be right, can it? Thanks.


I was wondering exactly the same thing Texan.


_________________ Canadian Beef....A cut above the rest!






my answer to big muddy from canada ;



*** http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=12




http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=24



http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=36



http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=48


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0701&L=sanet-mg&D=1&F=P&P=8374


TSS

Terry thinks USDA is a bunch of idiots, so does R-CALF. Terry thinks we need more testing, so does R-CALF. It wasn't the WHOLE truth that caused R-CALF to shy away from Terry. It was the possibilty of Terry going off on a tangent. The effectiveness of a witness depends on accuracy and credibity. If Terry were to start tangenting off on other topics, his credibilty and effectiveness as a witness would suffer. He would morph from a guy that appeared to know what he was talking about to a guy who seemed to see his seat on the witness stand as an opportunity to present his own agenda.

no agenda, no tangent, sandhusker, just facts, and fact is, usda, fda, et al have failed us terribly, lied like a dog with no tail, and want to enforce rules and restrictions on Canada that they themselves are guilty of, even worse in my opinion. i stand by my former convictions, that any country with BSE, especially one that has been proven to have failed terribly at eradication, surveillance, and feed ban, that they should be not allowed to export there tainted product. r-calf just wanted to have there cake, and eat it too, except in this instance the cake would be TSE tainted product. r-calf was only worried about the evidence that i would have produced that proved them wrong. i was not stopping at the Canadian border if given the opportunity, the truth was coming south, and that is what they feared. facts speak for themselves. ...tss


see for yourself ;

http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19155


USDA VS CREEKSTONE BSE/BASE/TSE TESTING Civil Action No. 06-0544


http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19026



TSS

 

[Sandhusker]

Terry, you claim, "no agenda, no tangent," and then you go ahead and lay out that agenda that you don't have! :lol:

 

[Maple Leaf Angus]

BSE MRR TSS, R-CALF ON CANADA VS USA




Bill Rancher


Joined: 10 Feb 2005 Posts: 1418 Location: GWN Posted: Fri Jan 05, 2007 9:49 am Post subject:

Texan wrote:


Hey Terry, I'd like to get a little further clarification on something if/when you have time. I'm not sure if I'm reading you correctly....

flounder wrote:

This is what sank my battleship in regards to testifying for r-calf. they actually appoached me about it, but i told them i would be glad to testify, but i was not stopping at the Canadian border, my testimony was to come south as well if given the opportunity. and that ended that, but i did supply them with a load of data, for whatever that was worth.


I highlighted the parts that confuse me. This almost makes it seem as if R-CALF was asking you to testify for them, but changed their mind when they found out that you were going to tell the WHOLE truth, instead of just the truth as regards Canadian imports.

I thought that R-CALF was only interested in the WHOLE truth - not just the selected parts of the truth that fit their protectionist agenda? After reading your post, it makes a person wonder. Maybe I read it wrong...

Am I reading this correctly, Terry? That can't be right, can it? Thanks.


I was wondering exactly the same thing Texan.


_________________ Canadian Beef....A cut above the rest!






my answer to big muddy from canada ;



*** http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=12




http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=24



http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=36



http://ranchers.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15704&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=48


http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0701&L=sanet-mg&D=1&F=P&P=8374


TSS

Terry thinks USDA is a bunch of idiots, so does R-CALF. Terry thinks we need more testing, so does R-CALF. It wasn't the WHOLE truth that caused R-CALF to shy away from Terry. It was the possibilty of Terry going off on a tangent. The effectiveness of a witness depends on accuracy and credibity. If Terry were to start tangenting off on other topics, his credibilty and effectiveness as a witness would suffer. He would morph from a guy that appeared to know what he was talking about to a guy who seemed to see his seat on the witness stand as an opportunity to present his own agenda.

Sandhusker, you and many of your r-calf cronies should feel right at home in the playground with the USDA "bunch of idiots", to use your own descriptors. :dunce: :kid:


Truth? WHOLE truth? You could not recognize the truth if it was laid out in front of you in big, easy-read letters. Here fits the line -"TRUTH? You can't HANDLE the truth!"

You obviously do not recognize the truth or intelligence in a post such as Kato's. Might you even possess a congratulatory attitude toward the imperialistic approach of "successful" American corporations who cannabalize the industries of smaller countries?

Of course you would, you are a banker, right? Corporate profits at any cost!

Oh, wait, that only applies until the corporation gets so much clout that it starts to pinch a few of the old homeland interests a bit too much.

Go on, keep right on spewing your imbecilical crap and show the board how brainy you are.

OR ARE NOT!

As we see our Canadian business interests and natural resources get bought up by much wealthier foreign conglomerates, we recognize that the spirit of capitalism is alive and well(?) in North America, like it or not. Mostly not. We have learned that David does not always defeat Goliath.

Could it be, li'l buddy :kid: , that you are starting to see yourself for what you are - just a bit of grist for the mill of American corporate greed? Get ready for a bit of your own medicine and quit squealing like a girl when it is time to take it. We have been bought out and sold out by American corporate interests and you can be, too, because they don't care about you either.

TRUTH? The truth is that many importing countries recognize that CDN. beef is in all likelihood some of the safest beef in the world because of the efforts our industry has taken to:

1) PROVIDE TRACIBILITY

2) PROVIDE EFFECTIVE COUNTER-MEASURES

3) PROVIDE OPENESS AND ACCOUNTABILITY

While our system is obviously not fail-safe, WE HAVE AT LEAST TAKEN MEASURES TO DISCOVER AND CONTAIN THE BSE PROBLEM IN NORTH AMERICA.

WHAT HAVE YOU DONE OTHER THAN TRY TO COVER YOUR OWN FAT, LAZY ash UNDER THE GUISE OF HEALTH CONCERNS? YOU AND YOUR KIND ARE NOTHING MORE THAN FREAKING HYPOCRITICAL LIARS.

 

[don]

actually if you look at what american interests are doing around the world they have done pretty much all of it at home before they went abroad.