wrote in message
...
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 08:23:20 -0500, "Roger Long"
wrote:

wrote

As Roger points out the CG is pushing this as a "Homeland Security"
measure not a boating safety
measure. Test based licensing is a different thing and while I don't
see
any compelling reason for it there is a strong trend towards it in
the states.

Thinking about it more, I don't think this will have a huge impact on the
boating industry. The interest groups that would be harmed by test based
licensing sufficient to raise the average standard of competence enough to
have a measurable impact on accident rates and search and rescue costs are
powerful enough that it just isn't going to happen. That would require a
course of instruction at least as long and expensive as the rather minimal
training standards for aircraft. Even that wouldn't do much. 10 - 15
hour
solo flight trainees actually have lower accident rates than 500 hour
pilots. 10,000 hour pilots do incredibly boneheaded things and die.
State
mandated boater safety courses with some kind of certificate that has to
be
presented to register a boat are coming, however. They will increase the
number of people who know the right of way rules enough to make it a
little
less nerve-wracking to be out on a busy Sunday afternoon and eat into the
fiberglass repair business slightly but won't do much else. The fee that
the states can collect when the certificate is issued probably has as much
to do with these programs as concern about the accident rates.

What is inevitable, I'm sure, is a cereal box top style license like the
VHF
operators license. Nothing scares the people protecting our freedoms more
than the public actually being free. They need everyone to have something
that can be taken away if they wish to deprive a person of the ability to
operate a watercraft legally. This satisfies the governmental instinct
for
control and political need to reassure the general non-boating populous
that
the waterways are are not a wild frontier. The fact that you don't need
to
operate legally to blow something up with a boat is irrelevant. It's all
smoke and mirrors, like the obsession with taking away nail clippers on
airlines just before the last presidential election.

Sigh... As I have pointed out before, this is a non-issue. The USCG
changed it's mind about this, and has said so in writing. They like
the idea of requiring an ID, but they don't want to get involved in
administering a special ID of their own. They just want you to carry
your drivers licence or a state issued photo ID.

How much more do they want? I carry a retired military ID card, and driver's
license both with pictures.
Of course, coming back from down island we would add the passport to the
pile. Homeland Security is
just another boondoggle so full of holes and for us taxpayers to foot the
bill.

Leanne

"Leanne" wrote in :

Homeland Security is
just another boondoggle so full of holes and for us taxpayers to foot
the bill.

Leanne

There is no homeland security. We sailed from hundreds of miles offshore
into Charleston Harbor, in broad daylight. Not a single government
bureaucrat stopped us to ask if we had any WMDs aboard, not one.

When the Russians were the Soviets, I used to work on the ships at
Norfolk Naval Base, right next door to the grain loading docks where
massive Soviet ships loaded up on US grain to feed their masses, making
food in America much more expensive for Americans.

One day, I was drinking a cup of the XO's coffee on the bridge deck of a
heavy cruiser who needed my attention. XO and I were musing over the
harbor and its inhabitants and I said to him, "What's to stop the
Russians on that ship from having a 50 megaton hydrogen weapon in a lead-
lined shielded compartment in the center of the ship, unbeknownst to her
crew hooked to a satellite phone receiver pointed at Moscow? He looked
shocked!

Stupid asses...Why do we let our ENEMIES plant nuclear weapons right next
to the biggest naval base on the Atlantic side of the country? Didn't we
learn ANYTHING at Pearl Harbor in '41? Stupid asses...all the ships come
in to park together....then they all leave together, about the SAME time
as the Soviet grain ships, coincidentally! Well....Duhhh!

Larry
--
Their not concerned with "Homeland Security" when it wasn't "them" but
"US" who blew up 9/11/2001....while the whole US military machine just
took the day off to watch? Well....Duhhhh...

Dave wrote in
:

So far as I'm aware there
is no requirement to carry identification if you're simply walking
along the street.

Think Again.....It just hasn't been IMPLEMENTED...yet.

http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,12...1/article.html
http://www.time.com/time/nation/arti...191857,00.html

http://www.nonationalid.com/
"The Real ID Act, passed by Congress and signed by President Bush on May
11, 2005, mandates that all U.S. citizens will receive a National ID card
by May of 2008."

The Real ID Act of 2005....and YOU thought it was about Tsunami Relief,
like it said on the front!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/REAL_ID_Act

"Legislative history

The Real ID Act started off as H.R. 418, which passed the House[1] and
went stagnant. Representative James Sensenbrenner (R) of Wisconsin, the
author of the original Real ID Act, then attached it as a rider on a
military spending bill (H.R. 1268). The House of Representatives passed
that spending bill with the Real ID rider 368-58[2], and the Senate
passed the joint House-Senate conference report on that bill 100-0.[3].
There was no debate whatsoever on this piece of legislation. President
Bush signed it into law on May 11, 2005[4].

On March 2, 2007, it was announced that enforcement of the Act would be
postponed for two years[5]. The provisions of the bill will be delayed
from going into effect until December 2009."

"Please have your RFID chip ready for scanning, Sheeple."

Larry
--
No Chip?
No Driving
No Banking
No Job
No Money
No entrance to any govt building
No licenses of any kind issued
No credit cards, bank cards, financial access
No buying anything...house, cars, food, even WalMart
a non-person on the run.....like in Blade Runner...open season.
Every movement, every action, all tracked. It's good for you!
It's not just a good idea....IT'S THE LAW, ALREADY! And noone even
mentioned it on TV controlled by "them".

We'll execute Sensenbrenner as the “First Republican to hang”.
It’s a start.....

wrote:
On 20 Dec 2007 12:28:03 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:08:59 GMT, said:

the American Sheeple have
turned into a nation of hand-wringing, Oprahcized, worry warts.
Nothing to do with Oprah, but worry warts? Witnessing the two towers burn
and fall from my office window made a pretty strong impression. And
remember, that was the second attempt on the towers.

Yes worry warts. The response by the United States has strongly
resembled a blindfolded kid, high on amphetamines, wildly swinging at
a pinata.

So you agree that the threat is valid, you just don't think the response
has been very good.

Nice hit on the first swing by the blindfolded kid though, eh?

Stephen

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:56:40 -0800, Stephen Trapani wrote:

Nice hit on the first swing by the blindfolded kid though, eh?

are you referring to WTC Bldg. 7?

wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:56:40 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

wrote:
On 20 Dec 2007 12:28:03 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:08:59 GMT, said:

the American Sheeple have
turned into a nation of hand-wringing, Oprahcized, worry warts.
Nothing to do with Oprah, but worry warts? Witnessing the two towers burn
and fall from my office window made a pretty strong impression. And
remember, that was the second attempt on the towers.
Yes worry warts. The response by the United States has strongly
resembled a blindfolded kid, high on amphetamines, wildly swinging at
a pinata.
So you agree that the threat is valid, you just don't think the response
has been very good.


No. I think we are chasing our collective tails, and have failed to
even identify the threat correctly. The response so far has been a
negative as far as solving the problem.

Swisssssh! You missed! :')

You didn't answer the question for the second time. This is common when
someone can't answer an argument. You used the term 'worrywarts' as
though there was nothing to worry about. When someone mentioned the WTC,
you changed your argument to be about us swinging blindly at the wrong
target. When I pointed out that you changed the argument and asked you
if you thought the threat was valid, you tried to shift it back again to
solving the problem, instead of whether there was a problem to worry about.

This sort of behavior on your part basically acknowledges that there is
a threat, otherwise you would have an answer for the question instead of
trying to change the subject. So you can stop using the term 'worrywart'
since you admit there is a real threat to worry about. Unless you'd
prefer to try again with the fruitless backpedaling?

Nice hit on the first swing by the blindfolded kid though, eh?

Stephen

We removed Afghanistan as a safe haven. Bullseye.

Stephen

wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 12:19:38 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 10:56:40 -0800, Stephen Trapani
wrote:

wrote:
On 20 Dec 2007 12:28:03 -0600, Dave wrote:

On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:08:59 GMT, said:

the American Sheeple have
turned into a nation of hand-wringing, Oprahcized, worry warts.
Nothing to do with Oprah, but worry warts? Witnessing the two towers burn
and fall from my office window made a pretty strong impression. And
remember, that was the second attempt on the towers.
Yes worry warts. The response by the United States has strongly
resembled a blindfolded kid, high on amphetamines, wildly swinging at
a pinata.
So you agree that the threat is valid, you just don't think the response
has been very good.

No. I think we are chasing our collective tails, and have failed to
even identify the threat correctly. The response so far has been a
negative as far as solving the problem.

Swisssssh! You missed! :')
You didn't answer the question for the second time. This is common when
someone can't answer an argument. You used the term 'worrywarts' as
though there was nothing to worry about. When someone mentioned the WTC,
you changed your argument to be about us swinging blindly at the wrong
target. When I pointed out that you changed the argument and asked you
if you thought the threat was valid, you tried to shift it back again to
solving the problem, instead of whether there was a problem to worry about.

This sort of behavior on your part basically acknowledges that there is
a threat, otherwise you would have an answer for the question instead of
trying to change the subject. So you can stop using the term 'worrywart'
since you admit there is a real threat to worry about. Unless you'd
prefer to try again with the fruitless backpedaling?

Nice hit on the first swing by the blindfolded kid though, eh?

Stephen
We removed Afghanistan as a safe haven. Bullseye.

Stephen

Worry warts are people like you who get overwrought over things that
don't matter, and ignore things that DO matter.

No, they worry about everything, including the things that do matter.

There is a threat, but
you are doing everything you can think of to avoid facing it.

What is this threat, then, that I am avoiding facing?

Instead,
you create thousands of fantasy fueled false targets (also known as
strawmen and red herrings) and attack them, as if you are
accomplishing something by doing so.

So you are saying that the targets we are going after, Al Qaida and
those who would help them are the wrong targets. I'm curious as to who
you think the targets should be.

Stephen

Stephen Trapani wrote in news:YtBaj.5461
:

I'm curious as to who
you think the targets should be.


The Freemasons who attacked us....and took the entire US military machine
offline for the day they did it.

Hours and hours and not one goddamned jet shot any airliner down.....except
Flight 93 in PA because the passengers cellphoned home to tell their
families they were about to TAKE BACK THE AIRPLANE and blow the lid off
this puppy!

Larry
--
Hell, many of the “terrorists” on the planes are STILL ALIVE IN THE MIDDLE
EAST!

Larry wrote:
Stephen Trapani wrote in news:YtBaj.5461
:

I'm curious as to who
you think the targets should be.


The Freemasons who attacked us....and took the entire US military machine
offline for the day they did it.

Hours and hours and not one goddamned jet shot any airliner down.....except
Flight 93 in PA because the passengers cellphoned home to tell their
families they were about to TAKE BACK THE AIRPLANE and blow the lid off
this puppy!


Shoot, I was close!

Stephen

On Dec 20, 10:45 pm, Dave wrote:
On Thu, 20 Dec 2007 18:31:23 GMT, said:

I believe they can then take you "downtown" to see about establishing
your identity.

You believe wrong. That would be an arrest. An arrest may not be made
without probable cause to believe you have committed a crime.
You do have to Identifiy yourself if asked, but you don't have to
carry ID.
brown v. texas



At that point, you would be foolish to escalate things
by trying to walk away. If you are a holder of a drivers license, you
are required by law to show it to any LEO upon request. You agreed to
that when you got the license. Be smart, and carry it, Dave.

Only if driving [engaging in commerce].

You may have so agreed. I didn't.

In some localities they could also charge you with vagrancy if you
didn't have some money on you.

Those laws were held unconstitutional over 40 years ago. Believe it or not,
you can't make it a crime to be penniless.
If you have an ID [14th amendment citizenship establishment ID] then
you
don't have to carry money.
Contrarywise, If you have $20 in you pocket [gold OR silver] then
you've
established yourself as a freeman [as opposed to 14th Amend. Citizen/
slave]
and your word is bond [you don't need to carry ID cards].