"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.