Turns out the ATF is evil in many ways

[poikilotrm]

Crooked pieces of s--t. The difference between the mafia and the government is paperwork.

A.T.F. Filled Secret Bank Account With Millions From Shadowy Cigarette Sales
By MATT APUZZO
February 22, 2017
https://mobile.nytimes.com/2017/02/22/u ... count.html

WASHINGTON — Working from an office suite behind a Burger King in southern Virginia, operatives used a web of shadowy cigarette sales to funnel tens of millions of dollars into a secret bank account. They weren’t known smugglers, but rather agents from the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.

The operation, not authorized under Justice Department rules, gave agents an off-the-books way to finance undercover investigations and pay informants without the usual cumbersome paperwork and close oversight, according to court records and people close to the operation.

The secret account is at the heart of a federal racketeering lawsuit brought by a collective of tobacco farmers who say they were swindled out of $24 million. A pair of A.T.F. informants received at least $1 million each from that sum, records show.

The scheme relied on phony shipments of snack food disguised as tobacco. The agents were experts: Their job was to catch cigarette smugglers, so they knew exactly how it was done.

Government records and interviews with people involved reveal an operation that existed on a murky frontier — between investigating smuggling and being complicit in it. After The New York Times began asking about the operation last summer, the Justice Department disclosed it to the department’s inspector general’s office, which is investigating. The inspector general “expressed serious concerns,” court records show.

It is unclear how broadly the A.T.F. adopted this practice, at what level it was approved, and whether it continues. Nearly all references to the A.T.F. have been blacked out of public court records, and most documents are entirely sealed.

The investigation and the looming racketeering trial will bring renewed scrutiny to the A.T.F., which has been buffeted in recent years by the botched gun-tracking operation known as Fast and Furious and its mismanagement of undercover investigations. Representative Jason Chaffetz, whose House oversight committee investigated Fast and Furious, asked the A.T.F. on Wednesday for reams of documents related to the secret tobacco account.

Members of Congress, particularly Republicans, have heaped criticism on the agency for decades, and the National Rifle Association has lobbied to limit the agency’s authority and funding.

While government auditors have previously cited problems with A.T.F.’s tobacco investigations, this operation went beyond what was identified in that audit, released in 2013. The A.T.F. and the Justice Department declined to comment.

Documents in the racketeering lawsuit outline the A.T.F. operation. The tobacco cooperative is suing a former employee and a consultant who, according to court documents, both worked as A.T.F. informants. The informants have denied all wrongdoing.

Part of their defense, records show, is that they acted on behalf of the government. In response, a judge recently added the United States government as a defendant.

Since last summer, The Times has fought to make all the documents public, but the Justice Department has argued successfully in court to keep them secret. Crucial details, however, have been revealed through poor redaction, documents that were filed publicly by mistake and the sheer difficulty of keeping so much a secret for so long.

Buying Into an Operation

In spring 2011, U.S. Tobacco Cooperative was looking to expand its distribution network. The co-op is made up of about 700 tobacco farmers — from Virginia to Florida — who pool their crops and share the profits. Based in Raleigh, N.C., the company is a major exporter to China and produces discount-brand cigarettes including Wildhorse, Traffic and 1839.

“These are really, really good people,” said Stuart D. Thompson, the cooperative’s chief executive. “Every year, they take all their chips. They put them on the table, and they hope they get them all back.”

The company began negotiating to buy a tobacco distributor in Bristol, Va., Big South Wholesale. Big South’s owners, Jason Carpenter and Christopher Small, had a network of customers and owned a warehouse.

They also had an existing secret relationship with the A.T.F., records show.

The two men have filed court documents acknowledging “participation in undercover law enforcement activities.” And a judge’s sealed order, which is publicly available online, revealed that the two men worked “on behalf of various government agencies, primarily the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives.”

The basics of cigarette smuggling are simple. Each state sets its tobacco taxes. Buying cigarettes in low-tax states, like Virginia, and secretly selling them in higher-tax states, like New York, generates large profits. More complicated schemes have shipped cigarettes to Indian reservations, where they are not taxed, then rerouted them for sale on the black market.

A.T.F. agents try to disrupt these networks. Often that means working with informants to buy and sell tobacco on the black market, much the way agents pose as drug dealers to investigate cartels.

Because so much of the case remains sealed, Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Small are prohibited from answering questions about nearly every aspect of the case. “Everything we did that is being attacked now in litigation, we did in good faith,” they said in a statement.

Exactly who at U.S. Tobacco knew about their A.T.F. ties and what they knew are a matter of dispute. But there were signs that Big South was not a simple tobacco distributor. Its assets included more than two dozen vehicles, including expensive S.U.V.s and a fleet of Mercedes, BMW, Audi, Lexus and Jaguar sports cars.

Early 2011 was a time of intense pressure inside the A.T.F. The agency was under fire from Congress over the Fast and Furious operation, in which agents allowed gun traffickers to buy weapons and ship them to Mexico, hoping the shipments could lead them to major weapons dealers. Justice Department auditors began scrutinizing how A.T.F. agents managed their tobacco smuggling investigations.

With that audit continuing, the A.T.F. issued new rules to tightly monitor undercover investigations. Soon after those rules went into effect, U.S. Tobacco completed its purchase of Big South for $5.5 million, a deal that gave Big South the authority to buy and sell cigarettes on behalf of the cooperative. Almost immediately, the farmers say, Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Small began defrauding them.

It worked like this: An export company working with the A.T.F. placed an order for cigarettes to be shipped internationally — thus not subject to American taxes. Big South would instead ship bottled water and potato chips, making it look as if cigarettes had been exported. Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Small would then buy the tobacco at a slight markup through a private bank account. Lastly, they would sell the tobacco to Big South, again at a markup.

Because they had the authority to buy on behalf of the tobacco cooperative, “Carpenter and Small simply sold products to themselves,” the farmers wrote in court documents. All of these transactions occurred on paper. The cigarettes never left the Virginia warehouse.

“It’s what I saw with my own eyes,” said Brandon Moore, the warehouse manager and one of the people who discussed the transactions in the case. Their accounts fit with descriptions in court records.

Mr. Moore said he was aware of the A.T.F. operation but became troubled by it as he learned more. “It shouldn’t be going on, even if it is the A.T.F.,” he said.

In one deal described in the lawsuit, the informants bought tobacco at $15 a carton and sold it to U.S. Tobacco at $17.50. The profit, about $519,000, went into what was known as a “management account.” That account, while controlled by Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Small, helped pay for A.T.F. investigations.

Mr. Moore, the warehouse manager, said agents often told him what to buy on the company’s credit card. For instance, he recalled spending tens of thousands of dollars at Best Buy on iPads, televisions and other gifts to curry favor with potential criminal targets.

Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Small have also acknowledged in court documents receiving more than $1 million each, though it is not clear from public documents whether that was profit or reimbursement for expenses paid on behalf of the government.

How that arrangement began is unclear. Ryan Kaye, an A.T.F. supervisor, testified that the management account was created “as a result of verbal directives from the A.T.F. program office and other headquarters officials.” Mr. Kaye’s full statement is sealed, but excerpts are cited in one publicly available document.

The defendants in the lawsuit contend that U.S. Tobacco got a good deal on the cigarettes, even at the prices they paid. The farmers tell a different story, saying they never would have purchased Big South if they understood that Mr. Carpenter and Mr. Small had a side arrangement that involved selling them tobacco at inflated values.

Thomas Lesnak, a retired A.T.F. agent who was involved in the operation, dismissed suggestions that anything was done improperly. He said he could not discuss Big South because the Justice Department was still conducting investigations based on information developed during operations based at the warehouse.

The arrangement began to break down in late 2012, when Mr. Thompson joined U.S. Tobacco as the chief financial officer. He was curious why his warehouse was placing so many orders for a brand of cigarette that competes against U.S. Tobacco. He could not get a straight answer, the company said in court documents.

In March 2013, Mr. Moore picked up the phone, called Mr. Thompson and explained what was happening. “I did what I did because of the ethics of it,” Mr. Moore said recently. “What was happening there was wrong.”

Once U.S. Tobacco discovered the bookkeeping irregularities, it reported them to the Justice Department, which investigates white-collar crime and government misconduct. Records show that the Justice Department, which includes the A.T.F., investigated some aspects of the case but no charges were filed.

“We voted unanimously to give everything we had to the government,” said Charlie Batten, a U.S. Tobacco board member whose family has worked the same North Carolina soil for generations. “We thought they would take it and run with it. What happened was, they’ve fought us tooth and nail.”

Because of the sealing order, Mr. Thompson, Mr. Batten and others are prohibited from discussing what happened to the money — even with their own farmers.

Three years into its lawsuit, U.S. Tobacco still cannot disentangle itself from the government. The cooperative recently told a judge that it was under investigation by the Treasury Department.

All those secret tobacco sales, it turns out, should have been taxed. And the government wants its money.

[a_canadian]

Doesn't bother me even a little that tobacco farmers get the shitty end of this stick - anyone complicit in the production and distribution and promotion of tobacco use is part of a mass murder scheme, which also happens to cost public health care billions upon billions of dollars, needlessly. As for the BATF being crooks... again, so not surprised. Who was it who said "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."? Oh yeah, this guy:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dalb ... aron_Acton

And that agency has certainly claimed significant power for itself, or been granted that power... hard to see which exactly.

[johndoe3]

Doesn't bother me even a little that tobacco farmers get the shitty end of this stick - anyone complicit in the production and distribution and promotion of tobacco use is part of a mass murder scheme, which also happens to cost public health care billions upon billions of dollars, needlessly.

Isn't that opinion in opposition to your previously claimed political view of being an anarchist capitalist?

It's a distinctly 'ultra-statist' political view to want to use the power of the State to ban...

sugary drinks of 16oz and above
fast food menu items
tobacco products
marijuana
high energy drinks with high caffeine
vitamins and supplements
furs as clothing
meat as food
hunting animals for food or sport

Smoking tobacco is way down from 50 years ago, through freely making known its dangers through education and the media. Likewise the use of trans-fats, many pesticides, and other harmful products have been greatly reduced by educating the public through media and research articles. Freedom is risky, but tyranny through big government statism dictating your every move is worse, since government gets it wrong for decades in many cases.

[a_canadian]

Isn't that opinion in opposition to your previously claimed political view of being an anarchist capitalist?

What the hell is an anarchist capitalist? John, you're smoking the wacky tobaccy.

It's a distinctly 'ultra-statist' political view to want to use the power of the State to ban... (silly list removed for silliness)

Where in my comments above did you find any reference to the state forcibly removing the items on your silly list? Culpable homicide via production, promotion and sales of a toxic product is immoral, plain and simple, and comes down to individual responsibility. Nothing to do with state laws and oppression. What the hell are you talking about?

[johndoe3]

a_canadian, you're right in throwing a penalty flag on my previous post, I made an illegal hit. Your opinion on tobacco did not advocate for a government ban.

I will assess myself a 15-yard penalty.

(an anarchist capitalist is a flavor of libertarian political thought, believing in smaller government and free markets)

[a_canadian]

You are a gentleman and scholar sir, well done, not every day a man can admit a mistake. Struggle with that s--t all the time myself.

As for 'free markets' I've always been uncomfortable with that term. It has a special meaning in capitalist-think. But adding in a conscience changes that meaning substantially. Adding anarchist conscientiousness to the mix makes it just plain difficult, initially, but should eventually work well enough without the rampant rape and murder of unfettered 'free market capitalism' which was a fiction in the first place and has only become more and more a fantasy in practice. Maleficent oligarchy is a more apt descriptor.

[TROOPER]

You can choose not to buy tobacco products. No one is forced into this. Upon buying and using a pack of cigarettes, you can decide not to purchase and use any more.

Tobacco is a method of trading pleasure for life expectancy, which isn't significantly different from a host of other perilous activities. if i want to consume ethanol, or nicotine, or marijuana, or simply shove my hand into a running table-saw, what business is it of anyone else? The warning is printed on the cigarette package, and has been for a very long time. Anyone smoking is CHOOSING to do so, and making that choice from an informed stance.

Anyway, I've gotta' read the rest of that article. I only made it about a quarter of the way through, but so far, it sounds like fiction. I believe it, but it sounds unbelievable.

[fishman]

You can choose not to buy tobacco products. No one is forced into this. Upon buying and using a pack of cigarettes, you can decide not to purchase and use any more.

Tobacco is a method of trading pleasure for life expectancy, which isn't significantly different from a host of other perilous activities. if i want to consume ethanol, or nicotine, or marijuana, or simply shove my hand into a running table-saw, what business is it of anyone else? The warning is printed on the cigarette package, and has been for a very long time. Anyone smoking is CHOOSING to do so, and making that choice from an informed stance.

+1

[a_canadian]

So you're cool with meth and fentanyl dealers I take it, by the same capitalist reasoning? If there's a dollar to be earned and the sheep are lined up for fleecing, who am I to start bringing morality and responsibility into the mix? Brilliant. You must be one of those 'winners' I hear so much about. Farmers and big tobacco are off the hook morally, no blame there at all. Same for the drug gangs of Mexico and beyond, or even guys who rob convenience stores come to think of it. Money to be made, places to get it, so why not? Funny how people draw lines in convenient places.

[T-Rex]

To get a bit back on topic; this article came across my news feed, the other day, and I honestly didn't bat an eye. There was not a single thing in this article that sounded absurd or unbelievable. Our gov't agency was spending our tax dollars to fund its own, secret operation. An operation which, well we don't know wtf it was for. The ATF was the head of a major racketeering and cigarette trafficking organization. Yes, an organization. They were making millions of secret money by dealing in illegal cigarette sales and defrauding the gov't out of millions in tax dollars. Not only from the wasted agency time, but from state cigarette sales.

For those who ain't too good at reed'n

THE ATF WERE CAUGHT ILLEGALLY SELLING CIGARETTES


It's time to strike while the iron is hot!

[a_canadian]

It's time to strike while the iron is hot!

As in? Revolution? Emailing your high commandant to ask him if he'd consider putting some checks in place to prevent further abuses of power by the ATF? He's a bit busy shutting down news media and antagonizing foreign leaders. I doubt there's room on his schedule for actual work.

[TROOPER]

So you're cool with meth and fentanyl dealers I take it, by the same capitalist reasoning?

That's a difficult question, because drug-dealers and violent crime go hand-in-hand. They're also not currently contributing to the tax-burden. Tobacco farmers, on the other hand, don't have a reputation and history for violent crime. This immediately makes me care less about them. Furthermore, the tobacco industry is a significant revenue source for the government, and society directly benefits from this.

If my neighbor was a meth-dealer, and he and his network were completely non-violent, and the entire production and distribution chain filed taxes, and if warning labels were clearly printed on the product, would I feel differently? Certainly. I'd still be wary if only because the end-users of meth can be statistically more violent and unpredictable, and nobody wants that around themselves.... but that's not really a concern with "tobacco-junkies".

It's disingenuous to talk about meth in the same manner as tobacco, because "tobacco junkies" don't seem to be any more or less violent or a burden to society than anyone else. Yes, I fully acknowledge that long-term tobacco users are a fiscal burden on the healthcare system, but my complaint there is that we-the-people are getting the bill. If I had my way on the matter, the warning on tobacco products would read as it does now, but have an additional portion which reads that governmental funding will be not be used for any treatment associated with tobacco use.

Meth-junkies are a little different, because you can rely on them to resort to violent crime and theft in order to get their fix. That's an important difference. However, as you asked about the meth-dealer, I assume you aren't interested in the end-user specifically.

If there's a dollar to be earned and the sheep are lined up for fleecing, who am I to start bringing morality and responsibility into the mix?

That same thinking gave us Prohibition in the US. It was a failure by nearly every metric, to include morality. Whether or not it is immoral to consume ethanol or nicotine is one thing, but asking the government to sort out morality is a terrible idea. In Muslim communities where the population is more Muslim than not, could not city/municipality laws be passed and enforced which deal with 'immoralities' according to that particular belief structure? If so, bacon would be outlawed, because its consumption is immoral. They're no less correct than you are; immoral is immoral.

You're using conflating capitalism and liberty. Just because my support for liberty handily co-exists with capitalism doesn't mean that I'm specifically supporting capitalism, merely that capitalism benefits from my support of liberty.

Brilliant. You must be one of those 'winners' I hear so much about. Farmers and big tobacco are off the hook morally, no blame there at all. Same for the drug gangs of Mexico and beyond, or even guys who rob convenience stores come to think of it. Money to be made, places to get it, so why not? Funny how people draw lines in convenient places.

You're "drawing a line" are you not? Opposed to tobacco but not alcohol. And even if you were opposed to both tobacco and alcohol, you're still fine with bacon, which means that a Muslim would make your own argument against you, and wouldn't be any more or less incorrect than you are. And if you agreed with that, would Hindus argue that beef consumption is immoral? Are they less relevant? What about vegans?

Don't pretend like you yourself aren't 'drawing a line'. And don't pretend like you haven't been harmed by others dictating to you "where-the-line-is-drawn". Behold Canadian laws regarding firearms. Someone else drew the line where you don't want it. It's normal to disagree on line placement, but it's probably immoral to use the government to force that on someone else.

[poikilotrm]

So you're cool with meth and fentanyl dealers I take it, by the same capitalist reasoning? If there's a dollar to be earned and the sheep are lined up for fleecing, who am I to start bringing morality and responsibility into the mix? Brilliant. You must be one of those 'winners' I hear so much about. Farmers and big tobacco are off the hook morally, no blame there at all. Same for the drug gangs of Mexico and beyond, or even guys who rob convenience stores come to think of it. Money to be made, places to get it, so why not? Funny how people draw lines in convenient places.

I am in favor of freedom for everyone. A big part of freedom is the freedom to be just as stupid as you want to be. Drink a beer, smoke tobacco, shoot heroin? All the same to me, morally. People need to be allowed to choose.

[poikilotrm]

That's a difficult question, because drug-dealers and violent crime go hand-in-hand. They're also not currently contributing to the tax-burden. Tobacco farmers, on the other hand, don't have a reputation and history for violent crime. This immediately makes me care less about them. Furthermore, the tobacco industry is a significant revenue source for the government, and society directly benefits from this.

You make a lot of good points, but I will only address this one. Drug dealers are violent because the drugs they move are illegal.

Prior to Prohibition, alcohol dealers were non-violent. During Prohibition, bootleggers were violent and police corruption soared. After Prohibition, alcohol dealers were non-violent and police corruption settled back to baseline.

The Heineken Boys don't go down to the Budweiser Gang's warehouse and machinegun the place. If there is a dispute, lawyers handle it in court. If the cops show up seeking protection money, like mafia goons showing up and saying "You sure have a lot of nice stuff. Be a shame if there was a fire", then the way it is supposed to work is that the cops get nailed.

Tobacco has a greater negative monetary and health impact on society than opiates could ever hope to have. Tobacco is the single greatest preventable driver of disease in the US, yet nothing is done. Why? Because to do so would simply lead to crime, and probably armed revolt. They go after pot, which is far less harmful than many other things, and ignore real problem causing tobacco.

Oh, and there is no net benefit to tobacco.

[a_canadian]

I STILL haven't suggested laws or other government involvement in tobacco distribution and production. Quite the opposite in fact. But you guys have an obsession with the idea that anyone not a 'conservative' must by definition advocate government interference. It's almost like you don't understand what an anarchist is... oh, right, you don't.

As for bacon, no, I don't. Haven't eaten bacon since 1979, nor any other meat. To each their own with the more moderate poisons, I'm not even quibbling with individual rights to use of meth or other hard drugs. Whatever. I merely mentioned my position on moral responsibility, in this case as regards tobacco producers, specifically those in the story above who are harmed financially by the actions of the ATF. Government agency with power will abuse that power, ALWAYS. No surprise there. And I just can't give much of a damn about tobacco farmers. They're going for the bucks, whether it's direct profit from tobacco companies or from state subsidies in hard times. They could grow anything else, but they choose the easy money, which, knowing the consequences in horrible cancers and lung ailments and costs to health care systems is morally irresponsible. But most individuals don't understand nor care about their responsibility to others. Most are shirkers, who prefer to let the police, politicians, lawyers, anyone else really, take responsibility for them. They're moral simpletons. A preacher shouting advice and warnings every Sunday takes care of morality for billions of idiots. What a crock. Religion is a joke in bad taste. Prohibitions are just more of the same. An individual acceptance of responsibility is the only real hope of a better-ordered society.

[TROOPER]

You make a lot of good points, but I will only address this one. Drug dealers are violent because the drugs they move are illegal.

Agreed. Amsterdam further enforces your point.

Prior to Prohibition, alcohol dealers were non-violent. During Prohibition, bootleggers were violent and police corruption soared. After Prohibition, alcohol dealers were non-violent and police corruption settled back to baseline.

The Heineken Boys don't go down to the Budweiser Gang's warehouse and machinegun the place. If there is a dispute, lawyers handle it in court. If the cops show up seeking protection money, like mafia goons showing up and saying "You sure have a lot of nice stuff. Be a shame if there was a fire", then the way it is supposed to work is that the cops get nailed.

Agreed. War-on-Drugs not only exposes LEO corruption, it also fosters it. This only reinforces your point.

Tobacco has a greater negative monetary and health impact on society than opiates could ever hope to have. Tobacco is the single greatest preventable driver of disease in the US, yet nothing is done. Why? Because to do so would simply lead to crime, and probably armed revolt. They go after pot, which is far less harmful than many other things, and ignore real problem causing tobacco.

Oh, and there is no net benefit to tobacco.

Partial agreement, partial disagreement. Yes, tobacco's impact on the health of society is far-and-away above opiates. However - and this is the point of disagreement -- that has more to do with the raw number of users more than some fantastically greater level of toxicity per dose. The problem isn't that tobacco harms people, or generates a bill, it's that hospitals are compelled to treat them. Freedom-of-choice should be coupled with Freedom-of-Consequences.... and it isn't.

Would your opinion of tobacco be changed in any way if a doctor said to a lung-cancer patient, "We're not treating you since your cancer is wholly voluntary.... unless you pay out-of-pocket yourself or if your insurer agrees to pay all bills"... and if a government lawyer was standing beside the doctor nodding his head. Would that change your opinion? It's incredibly harsh, but it costs me more at the hospital because of that guy smoking. How is it different than if that smoker broke into my house and stole $5 from me every time he purchased a pack of cigarettes? Either way, I'm paying a lot for his decisions. Excuse me: his WELL-INFORMED decisions?

My neighbor likes his white Dodge Ram 1500. He washes it every weekend. He's almost obsessed with it. One day, he goes to use bleach on the vehicle in an attempt to make it even whiter. I tell him "Whoa! Hey neighbor, that's going to f*** up your clear-coat and ruin your paint job!" It even says on the Chlorox bottle "do not use on vehicles, it will f*** up the clear-coat and ruin the paint."

He does it anyway... it f***s up his clear-coat and ruins his paint... so he goes and gets it re-painted, and a cop delivers the bill to me!

That's silly. i regret typing that. But it captures the point.

[TROOPER]

I STILL haven't suggested laws or other government involvement in tobacco distribution and production. Quite the opposite in fact. But you guys have an obsession with the idea that anyone not a 'conservative' must by definition advocate government interference. It's almost like you don't understand what an anarchist is... oh, right, you don't.

It's funny that you think you're scoring some kind of a point with this statement, but in reality, all you're doing is bitching without proposing a solution. You don't want anything done about it, you just want to whine and cry. What exactly are you trying to convince us of? That you're a tired, bitter asshole who considers himself intelligent as he drops idiocy and sarcasm from every anti-American, anti-Trump, anti-Conservative post?

... well congratulations! You just convinced me!

[a_canadian]

Gosh, I hurt your feelings. Sorry.

[TROOPER]

Gosh, I hurt your feelings. Sorry.

Quit projecting.

You could probably make that same claim if I was constantly logging into a predominately Canadian forum and whining incessantly about how awful Canada and its people are.... but I don't. That's you. You're so butt-hurt that you literally export it.

So again, quit projecting.

[a_canadian]

That you're a tired, bitter asshole who considers himself intelligent as he drops idiocy and sarcasm from every anti-American, anti-Trump, anti-Conservative post?

It's just so funny (in an admittedly bitter sort of way, considering the influence and thus harm your president is doing to the entire world) sitting on the sidelines and at times commenting on the not-so-slow collapse of your country, the ongoing and frankly hilarious antics of an intellectually challenged billionaire who exemplifies so much of what is wrong with the capitalist American model as he collapses, black hole-like into himself. The next few years are going to be just one round after another of I told you so's. In the words of one of your 'conservative' college campus campaigns... suck it up, buttercup.

[a_canadian]

You could probably make that same claim if I was constantly logging into a predominately Canadian forum and whining incessantly about how awful Canada and its people are.... but I don't. That's you. You're so butt-hurt that you literally export it.

This is especially funny. Consider American foreign policy over the past century. Ever more aggressively interfering with sovereign states, pushing American-style 'democracy' and 'freedom' on people whether they like it or not. More often it's a resounding 'not' and yet like any cult, Americans believe that theirs is the right way, in fact the only way towards a better world. And like one cult in particular, the Catholic church, this mission has cost millions of lives, a modern day crusade as American military and economic might robs the rest of the world of raw materials and labour resources to ever increase its power... all in the name of some religion-infested political fiction. As did the British before them, Americans dictate so much of how this world works.

And you have the temerity to complain to me about my interference in your country? Because I post the odd critical comment in a forum? Wow, talk about butthurt. Look in the mirror, asshole.

[TROOPER]

You could probably make that same claim if I was constantly logging into a predominately Canadian forum and whining incessantly about how awful Canada and its people are.... but I don't. That's you. You're so butt-hurt that you literally export it.

blah,blah, blah, blah...

....And you have the temerity to complain to me about my interference in your country? Because I post the odd critical comment in a forum? Wow, talk about butthurt. Look in the mirror, asshole.

Gosh, I hurt your feelings. Sorry.

[TROOPER]

...Part of their defense, records show, is that they acted on behalf of the government. In response, a judge recently added the United States government as a defendant...

Just read the whole thing. Had to re-read it, because it's convoluted, but that above quote tickled me immensely.

Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms... all three legal items. The ATF has just broken all of its own laws for two of the three items it is meant to regulate.

I'm wondering if that organization has a viable mission for existence any longer. Many of the states have their own state-level alcohol organizations, and the FDA and FBI can pick up whatever slack is left over.

If the HPA passes, what will be the point of the ATF? What is its point now?

[T-Rex]

It's time to strike while the iron is hot!

As in?

I'm wondering if that organization has a viable mission for existence any longer.

The Justice Dept needs to put the hammer down. Between this and Fast & Furious, they're out of control and it seems they're out for no-one, but themselves. Not exactly why the Bureau was formed.

Clicky

[poikilotrm]

Would your opinion of tobacco be changed in any way if a doctor said to a lung-cancer patient, "We're not treating you since your cancer is wholly voluntary.... unless you pay out-of-pocket yourself or if your insurer agrees to pay all bills"... and if a government lawyer was standing beside the doctor nodding his head. Would that change your opinion? It's incredibly harsh, but it costs me more at the hospital because of that guy smoking. How is it different than if that smoker broke into my house and stole $5 from me every time he purchased a pack of cigarettes? Either way, I'm paying a lot for his decisions. Excuse me: his WELL-INFORMED decisions?

Insurance companies charge tobacco users more. It makes sense. In a very real scenario, the insurance company does exactly what your hypothetical doctor does.

And it is wrong in a lot of ways to compel me by violence to pay for other people's health care and terrible choices.

Under a government run healthcare system, everybody gets crappy care, but the government makes it crappier for some over productive others. The reason you have a long wait for a cardiac stent under "free" health care systems is they want you to die and not be a drain.