Now, if you want to talk "free market" how about disbanding the NWS all
together and make the for profit companies pay for their own observation
facilities? They would instantly be out of business.

But the government does have responsibility for providing essential services
for the public good and reasonably accurate weather forcasting is one of
those essential services so how about proposing that the commercial services
pay for the data. Say total up the cost of running the NWS and bill it to
the for profit services monthly prorata based on the number of bytes they
download.

Wanna bet on how loud they would howl?

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:47:59 -0400, DSK said:

Guvmint paid weather may have made sense once upon a time. Today I'm not
at
all sure it does. Them as needs it can pay for it.

???

But you are paying for it, and will continue to pay for it. The proposal
is not private funding of the weather services, but to continue to use
tax money for weather services, which will then be given *only* to
for-profit weather advisors, and sold to you... in other words, everyone
will pay for it, those who use it will pay twice, and those who are
smiled on by our benevolent gov't are guaranteed a profit.

Want to re-think your above statement?

Nope. First, the money spent by those purchasing the service from the
guvmint doesn't just go poof and evaporate. (Though what does happen to it
is another story.) Second, nobody's "guaranteed a profit." Like anything
bought and sold, the data may result in a profit, and it may result in a
loss to the purchaser. "Guaranteed a profit" is simply empty-headed
populist
rhetoric.

Since this is rec.boats, you might go out on the water at some time. Do
you ever use the VHF weather to keep up with the weather while sailing?
Well, that would go away,as well as general aviation weather for pilots.
Ever call up the local radar on the internet when storms are about?
Gone unless you want to pay for a subscription service. You probably
don't go cruising, so you wouldn't miss the USCG WEFAX daily reports,
but I will, as will a great many cruisers. This IS NOT a good thing.
krj

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:47:59 -0400, DSK said:


Guvmint paid weather may have made sense once upon a time. Today I'm not at

all sure it does. Them as needs it can pay for it.

???

But you are paying for it, and will continue to pay for it. The proposal
is not private funding of the weather services, but to continue to use
tax money for weather services, which will then be given *only* to
for-profit weather advisors, and sold to you... in other words, everyone
will pay for it, those who use it will pay twice, and those who are
smiled on by our benevolent gov't are guaranteed a profit.

Want to re-think your above statement?


Nope. First, the money spent by those purchasing the service from the
guvmint doesn't just go poof and evaporate. (Though what does happen to it
is another story.) Second, nobody's "guaranteed a profit." Like anything
bought and sold, the data may result in a profit, and it may result in a
loss to the purchaser. "Guaranteed a profit" is simply empty-headed populist
rhetoric.

On Mon, 27 Jun 2005 12:58:49 -0700, Me wrote
(in article ):

In article ,
"Jim Carter" wrote:

"Johnhh" wrote in message
...
Well, they can have my house, but they had better keep their bloody hands
off my boat!
Just hope your city doesn't want to take your house for the newest
Walgreen's.

That is one of the things I was reffering too, but didn't want to
specifically mention in this boating NG.

Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your house
for a private development?" I do know that expropriation can take place
for the good of the city for roads and things like that but for private
development is beyond my comprehension.
Thanks.......
Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield



Because the Supreme Court of the USA says they can..... Now maybe you
Demorat dufus's will listen, when we Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court.......


Me a rightwinger, just left of Nazi........a bit.....

Since Republicans appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices, this decision is an
EXAMPLE OF what happens when "Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court......."

I guess, "facts" don't matter to those who create their own reality.

Want to re-think your above statement?


Dave wrote:
Nope. First, the money spent by those purchasing the service from the
guvmint doesn't just go poof and evaporate. (Though what does happen to it
is another story.)

Ah so, taking your money is OK in this instance, but not in others
(f'r'instance Social Security taxes)? Your sense of fiscally
responsibile gov't is strangely flexible.


... Second, nobody's "guaranteed a profit." Like anything
bought and sold, the data may result in a profit, and it may result in a
loss to the purchaser.

Really? How does one not show a profit when one receives a valuable
service for free, because other people have already paid for it, and
then sells that service to the other people who have already paid for it
but are now restrained by law from receiving it, except from you, at a
price you determine?

... "Guaranteed a profit" is simply empty-headed populist
rhetoric.

Well yeah, of course... except that it accurately describes the
situation. But hey, if a fact is embarassing to certain political
interests, then that fact becomes "liberal spin" and "empty-headed
populist rhetoric" doesn't it?

But y'know what? Water runs downhill.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...

But y'know what? Water runs downhill.

DSK

Not on my sailboat, water is pumped up!

Since Republicans appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices, this decision is an
EXAMPLE OF what happens when "Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court......."


Dave wrote:
On the contrary, it's an example of what happens when an administration is
so eager to appoint someone acceptable to the other side of the aisle that
they pay insufficient attention to a judge's fidelity to the Constitution.

Ah yes, the executive shouldn't be afraid to TRAMPLE the minority... and
also any members of his own party who are insufficiently inflexible,
doctrinaire, and ideology-driven.

The only way America can remain FREE is if we have an executive who rams
his choices down the throats of those who are charged by the
Constitution to review & approve.

And by all means, let's have more politics in *this* newsgroup too. Lots
of name calling, too. We just don't seem to have enough of it elsewhere.

DSK

Ah so, taking your money is OK in this instance, but not in others
(f'r'instance Social Security taxes)? Your sense of fiscally
responsibile gov't is strangely flexible.


Dave wrote:
Nothing strange about thinking my taxes should pay for some things and that
other things should be paid for by the recipient.

I don't have an argument with that, but I fail to see how it's relevant
in this case.

You seem to be unwilling to face the facts of this proposal, instead
wanting to insult others and say that the facts presented others are
"propaganda" and "empty-headed populist rhetoric."

Here's a suggestion: when you indulge in this kind of discussion, do it
on some of the other newsgroups that are already polluted. Let's try and
keep this one on topic, just a little bit.

DSK

Dave wrote:
INVLEXIBLE, DOCTRINAIRE AND IDEOLOGY-DRIVEN= what you call someone who sees
things differently from the way you see them.

No, that's it's called when you cannot accept facts contrary to your
opinions.

Ironically, the President is at this very moment talking about the new
Iraqi gov't respecting the rights of it's minorities.

However, this is the end of it as far as I'm concerned... I'd prefer to
not ruin this newsgroup the way others have been ruined. You can have
the last word.

DSK

On 28 Jun 2005 18:48:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 23:25:04 GMT, WaIIy said:

Frankly I can't get too worked up about it. I don't feel any more entitled
to feed at the public trough than the next guy just because I've got a boat.
Guvmint paid weather may have made sense once upon a time. Today I'm not at
all sure it does. Them as needs it can pay for it.

Huh?

Pray tell, who pays for it?

Wrong question. The question is who _should_ pay for it.

If we take this to the extreme, only people who's house is on fire should pay
for fire services...only people with kids should pay for education..on and on.
Can you assure me that if *all* services were fee-based, my taxes would go
to zero?

Society as a whole, and historically, has decided some essential services
should be "free"...meaning paid for via taxes...meaning we share in providing
for others even if we ourselves don't need a particular service. I, for one, can
live with that.

As to your Business 101 comment, you forgot one essential point...cost to produce
the product versus profit..otherwise known as margin. When you get the raw materials for free,
do a bit of value-added, then resell it, that's like making money out of dirt. In the weather
case, no inventory costs, not much in the way of distribution/transportation costs...heck,
10 people could probably cover the whole operation. Like that business model?

Another point...how would it be paid for? Do I call a 800 number when a storm comes up?
Do I "subscribe" to a service I may or may not use? If I don't have a credit card, am I locked out?
When people get wiped out because they couldn'r afford to pay for hurricane warning, is that
a good thing?

The more I type, the angrier I get at the Dave's of the world.

Norm B

WaIIy wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 08:58:27 -0700, Stephen Trapani
wrote:


Brian Whatcott wrote:


On Sun, 26 Jun 2005 17:23:58 -0400, "Jim Carter"
wrote:



Could someone please explain to me "how the government can take your house
for a private development?" I do know that expropriation can take place
for the good of the city for roads and things like that but for private
development is beyond my comprehension.
Thanks.......
Jim Carter
"The Boat"
Bayfield


In the town of New London, the infrastructure was decaying badly
in this old working class town. Then the navy handed back some real
estate, and an industrial outfit decided to build a research park
style development. The town commissioned a careful plan to
rejuvenate the town, as a worthy public purpose. The Supreme Court
held that this purpose was worthy of applying eminent domain - in the
face of a few property holders, on 1/10 acre plots who had a
sentimental attachment to them - having lived there like their
parents, even grand-parents had, and despite strong financial
incentives to sell.

The Supreme Court also held that this decision was open to misuse
by public authorities, and their manipulation by wealthy developers
They knew this - and warned that each case must be examined on its
merits. In this case, the benefit to the many outweighed the
great discomfort to the few, and their real property rights, they
held.

So that how the government can take your house - the same way
it could before - for a public purpose of sufficient merit.

Glad they weren't endorsing the take-over of my place, all the same.

And don't forget, they have to *pay* for the property, usually more than
it's worth.

Some of you should try living in some other countries so you can learn
how good the one you're in is.

Stephen


Uhhhhhh........ why don't *they* live here for a while and go back and
make theirs better?

Anyway, your statement is absurd. We see more and more government
control and legislation by the bench these days and are highly ****ed.

Dude, what matters is what actually happens, not what is written on some
paper. What's absurd is living in fear of paper. In real life I have had
exactly zero increase in any government control in anything I do or want
to do. They leave me entirely alone. How can it be any better? Where is
the increase in control?

"Amendment X

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor
prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively,
or to the people. "

The Tenth Amendment has been shot to hell along with much more.

It frosts me to my core.


Seems you need to look out your window. Any govment agents? I didn't
think so. Mellow out, no one is after you. You live in the best and most
free country in the world.

--
Stephen

-------

For any proposition there is always some sufficiently narrow
interpretation of its terms, such that it turns out true, and
some sufficiently wide interpretation such that it turns out
false...concept stretching will refute *any* statement, and will
leave no true statement whatsoever.
-- Imre Lakatos

Shame on you Dave for thinking that I initiated it. The topic was already off
of cruising, and I bent it back to something that had to do with cruising
which is the impending loss of the free internet based weather services.

You have the right to your opinion, and you've stated it. Others have
the right to their opinions, and they've stated them. You seem to want
to take things back to where they were before the internet made free
dissemination of government data inexpensive for the government to provide.

Are you being paid to engage in this discussion? Do you have a conflict of
interest that you ethically ought to disclose to the newsgroup?
Are you employed by or do you have a financial interest in one of the for
profit weather services that these new bills would financially help? Are
you employed by one of the congressmen or senators who have introduced these
bills?

Can you explain rationally your objection to the government making tax funded
information that they already collect available over the internet?? The only
additional cost to the governement is for the web sites. Do you really want to
see the US Government provide _less_ services when the services are inexpensive
and arguably save lives of mariners and pilots??

What you seem to be saying is "Lets go back to the good ole days when those with
unlimited pocketbooks had access to all the weather information that they wanted
to pay for. The biz jet and megayacht set never complained about having to pay
for these services. Who cares if Joe Shmoe gets his family killed in his 4-seat
Piper Warrior? Who cares if Bob Smith and his fishing buddies end up missing along
with their 29' bay boat? You know you really shouldn't be out there if you can't
afford to pay the freight for first class weather info. Who cares if Sally Jones
and her family get killed in a tornado when they could have watched it coming in
real time on their DSL connection and known to get out??"

I'm sure that Sally would have signed up for a paid weather subscription if she'd
realized that it was a matter of life or death.

Cmon now... Explain yourself and you'll get a fair hearing. Otherwise shame
on you for insulting the members of this forum and wasting our time with your
blather.

Don W.

Dave wrote:
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:54:56 -0400, DSK said:


Let's try and
keep this one on topic, just a little bit.


Shame on Don W for initiating a political discussion.

"DSK" wrote
But you are paying for it, and will continue to pay for it. The proposal
is not private funding of the weather services, but to continue to use
tax money for weather services, which will then be given *only* to
for-profit weather advisors, and sold to you... in other words, everyone
will pay for it, those who use it will pay twice, and those who are
smiled on by our benevolent gov't are guaranteed a profit.

Don't they do this with maps already?

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 08:27:57 -0400, "Vito" said:

unless there is some prohibition in the Constitution or in
underlying common law then "real Constitutional judges" would have to
rule
as the majority just did.

Wrong premise, Vito. Until this ruling there was no common understanding
that taking one man's property and giving it to another private individual
because you prefer the use he intends to make of it has not been regarded
as
equivalent to "public use."

As I understand it the Constitution grants only certain powers to the
federal government, and forbids others to states. For example, it says that
no private property may be taken without just compensation. As far as I can
find there is no "public use" restriction on what local, state or federal
governments do with the property once they have "justly" compensated the
owners. In fact LBJ's "Urban Renewal" took (bought) private property then
gave it to favored developers. Ergo, "real Constitutional judges" would have
to rule as the majority just did.

If that's not right then we need to pass laws or even amend the Constitution
to forbid it. My only point is that strict interpretation of the
Constitution does not seem to forbid it.

"Dave" wrote

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:18:22 -0400, "Glenn Ashmore"
said:

That is pretty simple. Now what part do you not understand?

You've been reading too many propaganda sheets. Actually, the intent is to
restore the policy the NWS had in effect from 1991 to 2004, under which it
would provide basic information but would not compete with private
industry
in providing detailed analyses being provided by commercial services such
as
Accu-weather. In 2004 the weather service decided to change that policy
and
use our tax dollars to go into competition with the private sector
providers.

I am reading Mr. Santorum's bill period and it clearly robs the public of
the data that it has paid for and gives it free of charge exclusively to the
private companies of his State.

The 1991 NWS policy was just that, a policy. Not a law. In 2002, under the
Shrub's administration, that policy was criticized because it is a violation
of the Paperwork Reduction and Management of Federal Resources Act of 1995.
That LAW requires "all Federal agencies make their information available in
commonly accepted formats and distribute it over publicly accessible means,
such as the internet." In 2004 the NWS did nothing but follow the
recommendations of a non-partisan study commissioned by the Congress. The
primary recommendation of that study was that the NWS should improve access
by the public to the data. The NWS did it and did it well at a minimum
cost.

Now, because a Federal agency did its job to well it gets slapped down and
we loose a valuable resource that we will continue to pay for. If you think
that is the path to good government you deserve what you get.


--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 16:37:02 -0700, Dave wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:42:17 -0700, Paul Revere said:

Since Republicans appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices, this decision is
an
EXAMPLE OF what happens when "Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court......."

On the contrary, it's an example of what happens when an administration is
so eager to appoint someone acceptable to the other side of the aisle that
they pay insufficient attention to a judge's fidelity to the Constitution.
David Souter was a great mistake, and Justice O'Connor doesn't seem to
appreciate the difference between a judge and a legislator.


Right.

The first concern of every administration is what is "acceptable to the other
side of the aisle".

Like I said, facts don't matter to those who create their own reality.

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 17:20:02 -0700, Dave wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:46:38 -0400, DSK said:

On the contrary, it's an example of what happens when an administration is
so eager to appoint someone acceptable to the other side of the aisle that
they pay insufficient attention to a judge's fidelity to the Constitution.

Ah yes, the executive shouldn't be afraid to TRAMPLE the minority... and
also any members of his own party who are insufficiently inflexible,
doctrinaire, and ideology-driven.

TRAMPLE= what you call a majority vote when you're in the minority.
OBSTRUCT= what you call it when you're in the majority and don't get to
vote.
INVLEXIBLE, DOCTRINAIRE AND IDEOLOGY-DRIVEN= what you call someone who sees
things differently from the way you see them.
SPENDING= what you call it when you don't like what money is going for.
INVESTMENT= what you call it when you do like what money is going for

The only way America can remain FREE is if we have an executive who rams
his choices down the throats of those who are charged by the
Constitution to review & approve.

Doug, the words are advise and consent, not review and approve. Big
difference. Judges are appointed by the chief executive, not by 2/5 of the
Senate.

If you would advise me without REVIEWING relevant facts, your advise would be
worthless, mere uninformed opinion.

To "advise" implies "prior review".

Consent:
1 : to give assent or approval

Yeah, "consent" not "approval". BIG difference.

Judges are appointed by the chief executive WITH THE ADVISE AND CONSENT of
the senate, not merely, "by the chief executive".

Big difference.

And by all means, let's have more politics in *this* newsgroup too. Lots
of name calling, too. We just don't seem to have enough of it elsewhere.

???????

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:24:42 -0700, WaIIy wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:42:17 -0700, Paul Revere
wrote:

Since Republicans appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices, this decision is
an
EXAMPLE OF what happens when "Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court......."

I guess, "facts" don't matter to those who create their own reality.

Oh boy, check the records of the SC Justices.

This was clearly a liberal decision.

Call it any name you want, Wally.

To me, "liberal" and "conservative" have become meaningless.

For example, Bush claims to be a "Conservative", who just happens to believe
in a strong central government, weakened state's rights, blundering into
international entanglements, and deficit spending (all "Liberal" positions).

The FACT is that Republicans (whether you consider them "liberal" or
"conservative"), appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices.

THEREFORE, when someone says, "Now maybe you Demorat dufus's will listen,
when we Repub's want to appoint some real Constitutional Judges to the
Supreme Court.......", as if to say "look what happens when Democrats appoint
Judges to the SC", I have to point out that REPUBLICANS appointing Judges to
the Supreme Court is WHAT WE HAVE NOW.

This was my only point. I had no intention to characterize the court's
decision.

Though, in my opinion, the decision was another in a long line of decisions
that increase the power of government at the expense of individuals and the
Constitutional rights the court was SUPPOSED to protect.

"Dave" wrote
I direct your attention to the text of the Fifth Amendment. The public use
restriction of that Amendment has its roots in the Magna Charta, and the
courts have held that a legislative act transferring private property from
one individual to another (as opposed to taking the property for a public
use) are void.


" nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just
compensation. "

So, is fixing up the town by replacing bad parts with good a "public use"?
There is a long history of land grabs for private use going back to
railroads being given sections of land along their tracks and LBJ's "urban
renewal" scheme in which "blighted" private property was condemned then
handed to whatever developer offered the "best" use.

The historic buildings comprising downtown Rockville, Md., were condemned,
purchased using tax money then raised and the land sold to a developer for
pennies on the dollar to build a mall. Dozens of successful, tax paying
family businesses leasing space in the old town went broke waiting for the
mall so when it was finally done it sat empty and paid little or no taxes.
This was 30+ years ago.

I don't say any of it is/was morally right, but it happened and set
precidents and, since the plaintives cannot rely on the court, they need to
lobby their legislatures. I suspect that in the real world where we have the
best government money can buy they're screwed.

"Paul Revere" wrote
Dave wrote
Paul Revere said:

Since Republicans appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices, this decision
is an
EXAMPLE OF what happens when "Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court......."

On the contrary, it's an example of what happens when an administration
is
so eager to appoint someone acceptable to the other side of the aisle
.....

This may or may not have been true "once upon a time" but the people running
the GOP are no longer constitutional conservatives like, say, Barry
Goldwater. They have no desire to appoint "real Constitutional Judges" to
the Supreme Court or any other court. Their only goal is to pack the courts
with judges who believe that their churches trump the Constitution. And,
since the "other side of the aisle" lacks the votes to stop them, they
intend to appoint whoever they please. Won't be long before your kids or
grandkids will be forced to say good Baptist, Catholic or Mormon prayers
(depending where they live) in school daily. It won't hurt them to chant
"Holy Mary, Mother of God, ...." will it?

Dave wrote:

Having spent 35 years dealing with guvmint bureaucrats of various stripes, I
want to have as few tasks performed by them as possible, particularly when
the job can be done by private industry. The contrast with for-profit
enterprises is stark.

I soloed my first airplane in 1973 (age 16), and I've been involved with general
aviation ever since. That is ~32 years of watching developments in weather reporting,
and reading accident reports. Also, a family member was/is an accident investigator
for the FAA. My considered opinion is that governement funded internet weather services
provided by the NWS help make aviation and boating activities more safe, and lead
to less fatal accidents involving airplanes and boats. A secondary opinion is that
these services should be encouraged and expanded, not thrown into the private sector.

BTW, since this is a boating forum, I've also been a boatowner for the last 18 years,
and a sailboat owner for about 7 years.

Let me ask you a second time since you dodged this question in your response:

Can you explain rationally your objection to the government making tax funded
information that they already collect available over the internet?? The only
additional cost to the governement is for the web sites. Do you really want to
see the US Government provide _less_ services when the services are inexpensive
and arguably save lives of mariners and pilots??

your response:

You clearly haven't bothered to learn the facts. After you do, come back and
we can talk about it.

I'll ignore this condescending statement, and ask YOU to explain your background
and your 35 years dealing with the "guvmint". I've had a few years of dealing with
the US "guvmint" myself. So have quite a few others on this forum.

So far you haven't provided much in the way of arguments for your point of view.

Don W.

"Don W" wrote in message
...
You clearly haven't bothered to learn the facts. After you do, come back
and
we can talk about it.

I'll ignore this condescending statement,

Don't ignore it. Act on it. Then we can talk.

Dave,

You present what appears to be a minority (to say the least) opinion
on the pending legislation, and claim to know "facts" that the rest
of us don't know. But you won't present your "facts", or make a cogent
argument that the rest of us lesser mortals can think about.

Discussion of this legislation is topical to rec.boats.cruising because
the loss of the internet based national weather service (NWS) sites will
affect boaters all over the USA, and the world.

I've asked you in two different posts to state your case about why the legislation
in question is good, and should be enacted. You've just dodged the question
and posted quasi-insults and condescending statements without any substance
in reply. Yet you claim to be an adult with many years of experience with
the "guvment".

Okay. Just so you know--that is the same approach taken by the usenet trolls
that most of the people here filter out with their killfiles.

If you think that your opinions are valid, all you have to do is present your
case here. You might even change my mind, although I doubt it.

Waiting...

Don W.



Dave wrote:
"Don W" wrote in message
...

You clearly haven't bothered to learn the facts. After you do, come back

and

we can talk about it.


I'll ignore this condescending statement,


Don't ignore it. Act on it. Then we can talk.

On Thu, 30 Jun 2005 17:59:09 -0700, WaIIy wrote
(in article ):

On Wed, 29 Jun 2005 23:09:53 -0700, Paul Revere
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 19:24:42 -0700, WaIIy wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:42:17 -0700, Paul Revere
wrote:

Since Republicans appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices, this decision is
an
EXAMPLE OF what happens when "Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court......."

I guess, "facts" don't matter to those who create their own reality.

Oh boy, check the records of the SC Justices.

This was clearly a liberal decision.

Call it any name you want, Wally.

To me, "liberal" and "conservative" have become meaningless.

For example, Bush claims to be a "Conservative", who just happens to
believe
in a strong central government, weakened state's rights, blundering into
international entanglements, and deficit spending (all "Liberal" positions).

The FACT is that Republicans (whether you consider them "liberal" or
"conservative"), appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices.

THEREFORE, when someone says, "Now maybe you Demorat dufus's will listen,
when we Repub's want to appoint some real Constitutional Judges to the
Supreme Court.......", as if to say "look what happens when Democrats
appoint
Judges to the SC", I have to point out that REPUBLICANS appointing Judges
to
the Supreme Court is WHAT WE HAVE NOW.

This was my only point. I had no intention to characterize the court's
decision.

Though, in my opinion, the decision was another in a long line of decisions
that increase the power of government at the expense of individuals and the
Constitutional rights the court was SUPPOSED to protect.

Very well said and I must agree with you.

Thank you. I am pleased that we can agree.

I finally got a reply from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson on the letter I
wrote her against that weather legislation by Santorum. She's one of my
senators, and on the committee the bill is with right now. An excerpt:

"While I agree NWS plays a vital role in monitoring weather to protect
citizens and provide information helpful to individuals and businesses,
I also believe increased market competition leads to greater industry
performance. As I continue to monitor this issue, you may be certain I
will keep your views in mind".

OK, so is she for or against the Santorum bill???? ;-)

I am getting the same song and dance from both my senators. As idiotic as
the bill is they don't have the guts to stand up against Santroum and the
Republican leadership.

If you guys don't speak up you will be paying a few hundered bucks a year to
get weather faxes and wind and sea state reports because the commercial
services are not going to service our needs as sailors without making a
profit. A profit on a product that we have already paid for.

--
Glenn Ashmore

I'm building a 45' cutter in strip/composite. Watch my progress (or lack
there of) at: http://www.rutuonline.com
Shameless Commercial Division: http://www.spade-anchor-us.com

"Keith" wrote in message
ups.com...
I finally got a reply from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson on the letter I
wrote her against that weather legislation by Santorum. She's one of my
senators, and on the committee the bill is with right now. An excerpt:

"While I agree NWS plays a vital role in monitoring weather to protect
citizens and provide information helpful to individuals and businesses,
I also believe increased market competition leads to greater industry
performance. As I continue to monitor this issue, you may be certain I
will keep your views in mind".

OK, so is she for or against the Santorum bill???? ;-)

"Keith" wrote in
ups.com:

OK, so is she for or against the Santorum bill???? ;-)



Same as the rest of them....voting for whatever increases revenues for them
to spend to buy votes. It's Natural Selection, just as Darwin proposed.

The FCC has sold off over half the PUBLIC's airwave frequencies...same
idea. Mo money! Mo Money! The PUBLIC be damned....

Have you noticed there isn't any screaming bloody murder about the good
Justices allowing Emminent Domain to take your house for that new WalMart
or your beach house for that new condo or hotel? Why aren't there a
hundred bills flooding the Congress to stop it from happening?.....same
answer as in paragraph 1. If your house doesn't generate as much revenue
as the Holiday Inn they want to put on your property...it's gotta GO!

--
Larry

You know you've had a rough night when you wake up and you're outlined in
chalk.

On Fri, 1 Jul 2005 04:45:42 -0700, Keith wrote
(in article . com):

I finally got a reply from Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchinson on the letter I
wrote her against that weather legislation by Santorum. She's one of my
senators, and on the committee the bill is with right now. An excerpt:

"While I agree NWS plays a vital role in monitoring weather to protect
citizens and provide information helpful to individuals and businesses,
I also believe increased market competition leads to greater industry
performance. As I continue to monitor this issue, you may be certain I
will keep your views in mind".

OK, so is she for or against the Santorum bill???? ;-)


I interpret that response to mean the bidding hasn't ended yet.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2005 12:21:03 GMT, Red Cloud®
wrote:
/// There
has been a huge outpouring of anger from all corners over the court's ruling. A
developer has even filed to seize Justice Souter's house in N.H. to build a
hotel on the property in protest. He says his hotel will generate more taxes and
employment for the area than Souter's home. He's right!

rusty redcloud

What a meritorious means of direct action to bring home the meaning
of Justice! Whatever next: Senators and Congressmen to lose
their free health insurance privilege, in favor of county hospital
charity treatment?

Brian Whatcott Altus OK

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:42:17 -0700, Paul Revere wrote:


Since Republicans appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices, this decision is
an EXAMPLE OF what happens when "Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court......."

In point of fact, 7 of the 9 were appointed by Republicans.

Rehnquist - Nixon - elevated by Reagan
Stevens - Ford
O'Connor - Reagan
Scalia - Reagan
Kennedy - Reagan
Souter - GHW Bush
Thomas - GHW Bush
Ginsburg - Clinton
Breyer - Clinton

On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 13:56:53 -0700, thunder wrote
(in article ):

On Tue, 28 Jun 2005 14:42:17 -0700, Paul Revere wrote:


Since Republicans appointed 5 of the 9 current Justices, this decision is
an EXAMPLE OF what happens when "Repub's want to appoint some real
Constitutional Judges to the Supreme Court......."

In point of fact, 7 of the 9 were appointed by Republicans.

Rehnquist - Nixon - elevated by Reagan
Stevens - Ford
O'Connor - Reagan
Scalia - Reagan
Kennedy - Reagan
Souter - GHW Bush
Thomas - GHW Bush
Ginsburg - Clinton
Breyer - Clinton

Thanks for the correction, which, of course, makes my point even MORE
poignant.