wrote in message
...
On 14 Sep 2007 18:15:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 18:38:32 -0400, "Wilbur Hubbard"
said:

"Sounds like we'd better hope this passes. Permits would be state run
under
federal mandate. This might not be a problem in places like Maine where
boating is recognized as essential to the tourist economy but some
states
might see the revenue generated by such a permit system as a quick
soak-the-rich fiscal fix."

Now, here's why he's still confused. The first paragraph is correct. The
second is wrong. Permits would not be run by states under federal
mandate - not for recreational boats at least, as this legislation
exempts recreational boats. In other words nothing would change for
recreational boats. It would be status quo. In other words that federal
judge who legislated from the bench would have his hand slapped by
congress. And, that's the way it SHOULD be.

At least I now see your reading comprehension problem. Those of us with a
facility with the language would immediately realize that in Roger's
second
sentence he was referring to the state of affairs that would exist if the
bill does not pass and the court's decision stands. You of course don't
fall
within the group with a facility with the language.


Willie-boy has a small problem. He confuses his fantasies with facts
and firmly believes that his crack-pot ideas of vital interest.

As someone once wrote:

He who speaks, confusing opinions and wishes with facts seems little
likely to have either the power or the habit of thoughtful
discrimination, which would protect him from mistaking his wishes and
opinions, and even his pretenses, for facts.

I believe attributed to Poor Richard's Almanac 1733-1758
.




Bruce in Bangkok
(brucepaigeATgmailDOTcom)


Neal has more than one small problem, apparently.

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com