Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.

http://tinyurl.com/zuwn9mn

On 2016-04-30, Janet B > wrote:
>
> Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/zuwn9mn

I love this:

"If you have ongoing, persistent contamination, that can indicate that
you have a sanitation problem,"

Well, duh!

That's why food vendors keep trying to initiate irradiated food
programs. Easier to nuke the salad greens yer gonna eat than actually
eliminate the source of contamination. :|

nb

On 4/30/2016 12:17 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2016-04-30, Janet B > wrote:
>>
>> Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/zuwn9mn
>
> I love this:
>
> "If you have ongoing, persistent contamination, that can indicate that
> you have a sanitation problem,"
>
> Well, duh!
>
> That's why food vendors keep trying to initiate irradiated food
> programs. Easier to nuke the salad greens yer gonna eat than actually
> eliminate the source of contamination. :|
>
> nb
>
+1 also!

On 4/30/2016 8:17 AM, notbob wrote:
> On 2016-04-30, Janet B > wrote:
>>
>> Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/zuwn9mn
>
> I love this:
>
> "If you have ongoing, persistent contamination, that can indicate that
> you have a sanitation problem,"
>
> Well, duh!
>
> That's why food vendors keep trying to initiate irradiated food
> programs. Easier to nuke the salad greens yer gonna eat than actually
> eliminate the source of contamination. :|
>
> nb
>

This would seem to be the best rational for irradiating foods - food safety.

On 4/30/2016 2:57 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 4/30/2016 8:17 AM, notbob wrote:
>> On 2016-04-30, Janet B > wrote:
>>>
>>> Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.
>>>
>>> http://tinyurl.com/zuwn9mn
>>
>> I love this:
>>
>> "If you have ongoing, persistent contamination, that can indicate that
>> you have a sanitation problem,"
>>
>> Well, duh!
>>
>> That's why food vendors keep trying to initiate irradiated food
>> programs. Easier to nuke the salad greens yer gonna eat than actually
>> eliminate the source of contamination. :|
>>
>> nb
>>
>
> This would seem to be the best rational for irradiating foods - food
> safety.

I do prefer more basic cleanliness as it insures clean prep, utensils
and plating.

On 4/30/2016 5:36 PM, Cloudbuster wrote:
> On 4/30/2016 2:57 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 4/30/2016 8:17 AM, notbob wrote:
>>> On 2016-04-30, Janet B > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/zuwn9mn
>>>
>>> I love this:
>>>
>>> "If you have ongoing, persistent contamination, that can indicate that
>>> you have a sanitation problem,"
>>>
>>> Well, duh!
>>>
>>> That's why food vendors keep trying to initiate irradiated food
>>> programs. Easier to nuke the salad greens yer gonna eat than actually
>>> eliminate the source of contamination. :|
>>>
>>> nb
>>>
>>
>> This would seem to be the best rational for irradiating foods - food
>> safety.
>
> I do prefer more basic cleanliness as it insures clean prep, utensils
> and plating.

Right, should be "in addition to" not "in place of" Maybe more
porta-potties would help too.

On 4/30/2016 11:36 AM, Cloudbuster wrote:
> On 4/30/2016 2:57 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 4/30/2016 8:17 AM, notbob wrote:
>>> On 2016-04-30, Janet B > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.
>>>>
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/zuwn9mn
>>>
>>> I love this:
>>>
>>> "If you have ongoing, persistent contamination, that can indicate that
>>> you have a sanitation problem,"
>>>
>>> Well, duh!
>>>
>>> That's why food vendors keep trying to initiate irradiated food
>>> programs. Easier to nuke the salad greens yer gonna eat than actually
>>> eliminate the source of contamination. :|
>>>
>>> nb
>>>
>>
>> This would seem to be the best rational for irradiating foods - food
>> safety.
>
> I do prefer more basic cleanliness as it insures clean prep, utensils
> and plating.

Basically, people ain't that clean. I don't trust 'em myself.

On Sat, 30 Apr 2016 11:54:17 -0600, Janet B >
wrote:

>Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.

Poor Bob, he still doesn't realise he isn't in Kansas any more.

On 4/30/2016 3:49 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 4/30/2016 5:36 PM, Cloudbuster wrote:
>> On 4/30/2016 2:57 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2016 8:17 AM, notbob wrote:
>>>> On 2016-04-30, Janet B > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/zuwn9mn
>>>>
>>>> I love this:
>>>>
>>>> "If you have ongoing, persistent contamination, that can indicate that
>>>> you have a sanitation problem,"
>>>>
>>>> Well, duh!
>>>>
>>>> That's why food vendors keep trying to initiate irradiated food
>>>> programs. Easier to nuke the salad greens yer gonna eat than actually
>>>> eliminate the source of contamination. :|
>>>>
>>>> nb
>>>>
>>>
>>> This would seem to be the best rational for irradiating foods - food
>>> safety.
>>
>> I do prefer more basic cleanliness as it insures clean prep, utensils
>> and plating.
>
> Right, should be "in addition to" not "in place of" Maybe more
> porta-potties would help too.

Sure can't hurt!

T.P. beats radiation any day!

On 4/30/2016 3:56 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 4/30/2016 11:36 AM, Cloudbuster wrote:
>> On 4/30/2016 2:57 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2016 8:17 AM, notbob wrote:
>>>> On 2016-04-30, Janet B > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/zuwn9mn
>>>>
>>>> I love this:
>>>>
>>>> "If you have ongoing, persistent contamination, that can indicate that
>>>> you have a sanitation problem,"
>>>>
>>>> Well, duh!
>>>>
>>>> That's why food vendors keep trying to initiate irradiated food
>>>> programs. Easier to nuke the salad greens yer gonna eat than actually
>>>> eliminate the source of contamination. :|
>>>>
>>>> nb
>>>>
>>>
>>> This would seem to be the best rational for irradiating foods - food
>>> safety.
>>
>> I do prefer more basic cleanliness as it insures clean prep, utensils
>> and plating.
>
> Basically, people ain't that clean. I don't trust 'em myself.

I used to resemble that observation, but I grew up and became more
germ-averse.

On 4/30/2016 12:43 PM, Cloudbuster wrote:
> On 4/30/2016 3:56 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>> On 4/30/2016 11:36 AM, Cloudbuster wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2016 2:57 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2016 8:17 AM, notbob wrote:
>>>>> On 2016-04-30, Janet B > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/zuwn9mn
>>>>>
>>>>> I love this:
>>>>>
>>>>> "If you have ongoing, persistent contamination, that can indicate that
>>>>> you have a sanitation problem,"
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, duh!
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why food vendors keep trying to initiate irradiated food
>>>>> programs. Easier to nuke the salad greens yer gonna eat than actually
>>>>> eliminate the source of contamination. :|
>>>>>
>>>>> nb
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This would seem to be the best rational for irradiating foods - food
>>>> safety.
>>>
>>> I do prefer more basic cleanliness as it insures clean prep, utensils
>>> and plating.
>>
>> Basically, people ain't that clean. I don't trust 'em myself.
>
> I used to resemble that observation, but I grew up and became more
> germ-averse.

That's a very good thing!

On 4/30/2016 4:51 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On 4/30/2016 12:43 PM, Cloudbuster wrote:
>> On 4/30/2016 3:56 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2016 11:36 AM, Cloudbuster wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2016 2:57 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>> On 4/30/2016 8:17 AM, notbob wrote:
>>>>>> On 2016-04-30, Janet B > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/zuwn9mn
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I love this:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "If you have ongoing, persistent contamination, that can indicate
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> you have a sanitation problem,"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, duh!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's why food vendors keep trying to initiate irradiated food
>>>>>> programs. Easier to nuke the salad greens yer gonna eat than
>>>>>> actually
>>>>>> eliminate the source of contamination. :|
>>>>>>
>>>>>> nb
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This would seem to be the best rational for irradiating foods - food
>>>>> safety.
>>>>
>>>> I do prefer more basic cleanliness as it insures clean prep, utensils
>>>> and plating.
>>>
>>> Basically, people ain't that clean. I don't trust 'em myself.
>>
>> I used to resemble that observation, but I grew up and became more
>> germ-averse.
>
> That's a very good thing!
>
>
It makes me and mine happy and safe and enjoyable, and we all like that!

Who wouldn't?

I know - there are legions of grubbies and small children who'll put up
a fight.

:=(

On 5/1/2016 12:12 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
> Get
> your head out of your ass and at least bring up some current food
> paranoia, you Kuthe wannabe.
>
> -sw
> "Why do you even bother posting if that's all you have to say? We've
> heard the same thing at least 2,000 times by now."
>
> -sw
>
> "OK, so it's your planet so I guess you get to define what all teens on
> Planet Bove eat. We'll need to add this to the Planet Bove Wikipedia
> entry: "Teenagers on Planet Bove only eat chicken strips, fries, and
> baby carrots".
>
> -sw
>
> "Incredible. And you STILL don't shut up."
>
> -sw
>
> I thought you were here just to talk about cooking? You've only said
> that at least 25 times, yet 95% of the flack you get is about
> off-topic subjects.
>
> -sw
>
> Way to go, Julie! You beat her down into speechlessness.
>
> -sw
>
>
> "Why do you even bother posting if that's all you have to say? We've
> heard the same thing at least 2,000 times by now."
>
> -sw
>
>
> "Incredible. And you STILL don't shut up."
>
> -sw
>
> I thought you were here just to talk about cooking? You've only said
> that at least 25 times, yet 95% of the flack you get is about
> off-topic subjects.
>
> -sw
>
> Way to go, Julie! You beat her down into speechlessness.
>
> -sw
>
> I didn't think Julie was even capable of using the phone.
>
> -sw
>
> You seem to have a problem remembering things. Maybe you should have
> written down the once you realized you liked it.
>
> -sw
>
> Wow. She catches on quick when her mind isn't clouded by irrational
> spite.
>
> -sw
>
> Congratulations! Your post has been approved by Julie.
>
> [High Five]
>
> -sw
>
> Yeah, I see tuna and cheddar on pizza every time I visit Planet Bove.
>
> -sw
>
> You can't rent this stuff at Red Box.
>
> -sw
>
> You tell him Julie!
>
> <snort>
>
> -sw
>
> That wasn't your original argument. Your argument was that you
> couldn't remember where you got them. Then when somebody tells you
> how to solve that problem, you come up with a different argument to
> explain why the proposed solution won't work.
>
> Same 'ol song and dance.
>
> -sw
>
> <snip rest unread>
>
> -sw
>
> So WTF are you basing your unfounded theories on? Angela was about 3
> years old and you had left grade school decades earlier. What would
> have been your direct experience with the New York public school
> system in the early 2000's?
>
> -sw
>
> What I'm trying to say is that Julie is full of shit again. It's
> amazing how much time Julie spends describing her miserable fantasy
> world.
>
> -sw
>
>
> Again, only in YOUR house.
>
> -sw

On 4/30/2016 10:54 AM, Janet B wrote:
>
> Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/zuwn9mn
>
>
>
Is he still alive?

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 1:10:58 PM UTC-10, Cloudbuster wrote:
> On 4/30/2016 4:51 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> > On 4/30/2016 12:43 PM, Cloudbuster wrote:
> >> On 4/30/2016 3:56 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> >>> On 4/30/2016 11:36 AM, Cloudbuster wrote:
> >>>> On 4/30/2016 2:57 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> >>>>> On 4/30/2016 8:17 AM, notbob wrote:
> >>>>>> On 2016-04-30, Janet B > wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/zuwn9mn
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I love this:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> "If you have ongoing, persistent contamination, that can indicate
> >>>>>> that
> >>>>>> you have a sanitation problem,"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Well, duh!
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That's why food vendors keep trying to initiate irradiated food
> >>>>>> programs. Easier to nuke the salad greens yer gonna eat than
> >>>>>> actually
> >>>>>> eliminate the source of contamination. :|
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> nb
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> This would seem to be the best rational for irradiating foods - food
> >>>>> safety.
> >>>>
> >>>> I do prefer more basic cleanliness as it insures clean prep, utensils
> >>>> and plating.
> >>>
> >>> Basically, people ain't that clean. I don't trust 'em myself.
> >>
> >> I used to resemble that observation, but I grew up and became more
> >> germ-averse.
> >
> > That's a very good thing!
> >
> >
> It makes me and mine happy and safe and enjoyable, and we all like that!
>
> Who wouldn't?
>
> I know - there are legions of grubbies and small children who'll put up
> a fight.
>
> :=(

My boys were dirty birds. My wife was worried but I didn't fret it none. I knew that at about 13 years of age they would start to appreciate the virtues of cleaning up their act. They did.

On 5/1/2016 12:24 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 1:10:58 PM UTC-10, Cloudbuster wrote:
>> On 4/30/2016 4:51 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> On 4/30/2016 12:43 PM, Cloudbuster wrote:
>>>> On 4/30/2016 3:56 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>> On 4/30/2016 11:36 AM, Cloudbuster wrote:
>>>>>> On 4/30/2016 2:57 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 4/30/2016 8:17 AM, notbob wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 2016-04-30, Janet B > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> http://tinyurl.com/zuwn9mn
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I love this:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "If you have ongoing, persistent contamination, that can indicate
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> you have a sanitation problem,"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Well, duh!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's why food vendors keep trying to initiate irradiated food
>>>>>>>> programs. Easier to nuke the salad greens yer gonna eat than
>>>>>>>> actually
>>>>>>>> eliminate the source of contamination. :|
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> nb
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This would seem to be the best rational for irradiating foods - food
>>>>>>> safety.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do prefer more basic cleanliness as it insures clean prep, utensils
>>>>>> and plating.
>>>>>
>>>>> Basically, people ain't that clean. I don't trust 'em myself.
>>>>
>>>> I used to resemble that observation, but I grew up and became more
>>>> germ-averse.
>>>
>>> That's a very good thing!
>>>
>>>
>> It makes me and mine happy and safe and enjoyable, and we all like that!
>>
>> Who wouldn't?
>>
>> I know - there are legions of grubbies and small children who'll put up
>> a fight.
>>
>> :=(
>
> My boys were dirty birds. My wife was worried but I didn't fret it none. I knew that at about 13 years of age they would start to appreciate the virtues of cleaning up their act. They did.
>
Funny how that works, innit?

Lol.

On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 7:54:14 AM UTC-10, Janet B wrote:
> Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/zuwn9mn

Sanford Dole was part of a group of businessmen (Committee of Safety) that overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii. Not cool! He was also Hawaii's first President. You better believe that his company would be involved with such shenanigans!

On 5/1/2016 5:17 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 7:54:14 AM UTC-10, Janet B wrote:
>> Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/zuwn9mn
>
> Sanford Dole was part of a group of businessmen (Committee of Safety) that overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii. Not cool! He was also Hawaii's first President. You better believe that his company would be involved with such shenanigans!
>
I did a paper on that, for a history class in high school. It was a
fascinating period.

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 12:50:59 PM UTC-10, S Viemeister wrote:
> On 5/1/2016 5:17 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Saturday, April 30, 2016 at 7:54:14 AM UTC-10, Janet B wrote:
> >> Apparently this problem has been present over a number of years.
> >>
> >> http://tinyurl.com/zuwn9mn
> >
> > Sanford Dole was part of a group of businessmen (Committee of Safety) that overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii. Not cool! He was also Hawaii's first President. You better believe that his company would be involved with such shenanigans!
> >
> I did a paper on that, for a history class in high school. It was a
> fascinating period.

My father-in-law's mother in Montana would read accounts of Queen Liliuokalani's plight in the newspaper and weep. President McKinley's willingness to turn his back on the naive and trusting Hawaiians seemed to be an un-American thing to do.

On 5/1/2016 7:18 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 12:50:59 PM UTC-10, S Viemeister wrote:
>> On 5/1/2016 5:17 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>> Sanford Dole was part of a group of businessmen (Committee of Safety) that overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii. Not cool! He was also Hawaii's first President. You better believe that his company would be involved with such shenanigans!
>>>
>> I did a paper on that, for a history class in high school. It was a
>> fascinating period.
>
> My father-in-law's mother in Montana would read accounts of Queen Liliuokalani's plight in the newspaper and weep. President McKinley's willingness to turn his back on the naive and trusting Hawaiians seemed to be an un-American thing to do.
>
Not all that un_American...
After the monarchy was overthrown, it didn't take many years for Hawai'i
to become a US territory.

On 2016-05-01, S Viemeister > wrote:

> Not all that un_American...

.....ask any "American" Indian. 8|

nb

On 5/1/2016 7:18 PM, dsi1 wrote:

> My father-in-law's mother in Montana would read accounts of Queen Liliuokalani's plight in the newspaper and weep. President McKinley's willingness to turn his back on the naive and trusting Hawaiians seemed to be an un-American thing to do.
>

A lot of un=American things were done years ago.

On Sun, 1 May 2016 20:11:02 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 5/1/2016 7:18 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> My father-in-law's mother in Montana would read accounts of Queen Liliuokalani's plight in the newspaper and weep. President McKinley's willingness to turn his back on the naive and trusting Hawaiians seemed to be an un-American thing to do.
>>
>
>A lot of un=American things were done years ago.

Thankfully those days are long past.

On 5/1/2016 6:11 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 5/1/2016 7:18 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> My father-in-law's mother in Montana would read accounts of Queen
>> Liliuokalani's plight in the newspaper and weep. President McKinley's
>> willingness to turn his back on the naive and trusting Hawaiians
>> seemed to be an un-American thing to do.
>>
>
> A lot of un=American things were done years ago.

Ditto that.

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 1:31:21 PM UTC-10, S Viemeister wrote:
> On 5/1/2016 7:18 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> > On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 12:50:59 PM UTC-10, S Viemeister wrote:
> >> On 5/1/2016 5:17 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> >>> Sanford Dole was part of a group of businessmen (Committee of Safety) that overthrew the Kingdom of Hawaii. Not cool! He was also Hawaii's first President. You better believe that his company would be involved with such shenanigans!
> >>>
> >> I did a paper on that, for a history class in high school. It was a
> >> fascinating period.
> >
> > My father-in-law's mother in Montana would read accounts of Queen Liliuokalani's plight in the newspaper and weep. President McKinley's willingness to turn his back on the naive and trusting Hawaiians seemed to be an un-American thing to do.
> >
> Not all that un_American...
> After the monarchy was overthrown, it didn't take many years for Hawai'i
> to become a US territory.

Some Americans viewed it as an injustice. Some thought it was a pretty good idea.

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 2:11:03 PM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 5/1/2016 7:18 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>
> > My father-in-law's mother in Montana would read accounts of Queen Liliuokalani's plight in the newspaper and weep. President McKinley's willingness to turn his back on the naive and trusting Hawaiians seemed to be an un-American thing to do.
> >
>
> A lot of un=American things were done years ago.

I'm guessing that America during those days after the Civil War and the opening of the West much have been seen in very optimistic, idealized, terms. I have no doubt that this did not sit well with a lot of Americans.

On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:18:16 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
> On Sun, 1 May 2016 20:11:02 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> >On 5/1/2016 7:18 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> >
> >> My father-in-law's mother in Montana would read accounts of Queen Liliuokalani's plight in the newspaper and weep. President McKinley's willingness to turn his back on the naive and trusting Hawaiians seemed to be an un-American thing to do.
> >>
> >
> >A lot of un=American things were done years ago.
>
> Thankfully those days are long past.

Sarcasm duly noted.

Cindy Hamilton

In article >, lid
says...
>
> On Sun, 1 May 2016 20:11:02 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>
> >On 5/1/2016 7:18 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> >
> >> My father-in-law's mother in Montana would read accounts of Queen Liliuokalani's plight in the newspaper and weep. President McKinley's willingness to turn his back on the naive and trusting Hawaiians seemed to be an un-American thing to do.
> >>
> >
> >A lot of un=American things were done years ago.
>
> Thankfully those days are long past.

LOL. you bad boy

Janet UK

On 2016-05-01 8:11 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 5/1/2016 7:18 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>
>> My father-in-law's mother in Montana would read accounts of Queen
>> Liliuokalani's plight in the newspaper and weep. President McKinley's
>> willingness to turn his back on the naive and trusting Hawaiians
>> seemed to be an un-American thing to do.
>>
>
> A lot of un=American things were done years ago.


Actually, in the eyes of the world, it is very much an American thing to
do. It's not as if other countries have not done similar things, but it
is very much of pattern of US activities for more than 200 years.
American settlers went to Texas, which was part of Mexico and ended up
revolting and establishing their own republic, later joining the US. The
country then tried to buy a huge amount of land from Mexico and when the
Mexicans refused they instigated a war and part of the terms of the
treaty to end the war was to sell the land to the US for that same
amount. They had had their eyes on Cuba since at least the 1850s and
send an envoy to Britain and France to see how they would feel about the
US taking Cuba from the Spanish. Later on, they intervened in the Cuban
rebellion against the Spanish. About the same time, they US took over
the Philippines and a number of other islands.


Less successful methods were used against Canada. The US invaded in 1812
but failed to "liberate" British North America. Later on the government
tacitly approved the Fenian invasions of Canada.


Then there is the issue of the Panama Canal. There had been a deal for
the US to remain neutral in the conflict between Colombia and separatist
Panama. There was also a deal between Colombia and the US to build a
canal, but when Colombian Congress would not pass it, so the US support
the Panamanians in their fight for independence.

On 5/2/2016 4:19 AM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Sunday, May 1, 2016 at 8:18:16 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 May 2016 20:11:02 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:
>>
>>> On 5/1/2016 7:18 PM, dsi1 wrote:
>>>
>>>> My father-in-law's mother in Montana would read accounts of Queen Liliuokalani's plight in the newspaper and weep. President McKinley's willingness to turn his back on the naive and trusting Hawaiians seemed to be an un-American thing to do.
>>>>
>>>
>>> A lot of un=American things were done years ago.
>>
>> Thankfully those days are long past.
>
> Sarcasm duly noted.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>

Cynicism sadly observed.

On 5/2/2016 8:36 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> It's not as if other countries have not done similar things, but it is
> very much of pattern of US activities for more than 200 years.

**** OFF YOU CANUCK SON OF A BITCH WHINER!