"claus" wrote in news:J9WdnejLN_
:

http://www.boatblue.org/news.aspx?id=17345

"he Clean Boating Act has the support of the $37 billion recreational
marine industry, the nation’s 59 million adult recreational boaters and
more than 50 organizations involved in outdoor recreation, sportfishing,
hunting and conservation."

Ya know, if just 10% of the 59M boaters would suddenly apply for the
permit...even for the permit application forms...from the bureaucrats, it
would bring the whole place to its knees for months and months, making it
all a big joke.

How about 10% per MONTH apply? That would keep 'em piled in **** for
years! They'd never recover.

This has been done before, but not by a bunch of independent hermits like
boaters.

5.9 million application form requests on the first Wednesday of every
month, followed by 5.9 million filled in application forms arriving on the
3rd Wednesday of every month....a coordinated effort to send a message....

Government isn't a no wake zone...(c;

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 May 2008 02:45:49 +0000, Larry said:

Ya know, if just 10% of the 59M boaters would suddenly apply for the
permit...even for the permit application forms...from the bureaucrats, it
would bring the whole place to its knees for months and months, making it
all a big joke.

You forget the bureaucratic imperative--never ignore an opportunity to
expand your empire. You'd immediately hear the cry from a coalition of
enviros and bureaucrats to hire more people and throw more money at the
agency responsible for issuing the permits.


The alternative being to ignore the environmental issues and continue to
pollute with the tacit approval of the oil companies (I mean the Bush
administration - a group that has expanded gov't more than any in recent
history not reduced it). Vote McCain - four more years!!

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 May 2008 10:36:31 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

The alternative being to ignore the environmental issues and continue to
pollute

So, Jon, I take it you favor requiring boaters to get permits from the EPA
before washing their boats?


Not at all. I'm in favor of responsible laws and enforcement. Your claim
that enviros and bureaucrats are teaming up against boaters was a bit
far-fetched, given the current administration certainly.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 May 2008 11:49:41 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:

Your claim
that enviros and bureaucrats are teaming up against boaters was a bit
far-fetched

So I take it you don't think the enviros would line up in favor of
requiring
permits for all discharges by recreational boaters? And you don't think
that
if there were such a requirement the bureaucrats would ask for more people
and money to process the applications?


Which "enviros" are you talking about?

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 May 2008 14:04:04 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:


Which "enviros" are you talking about?

Take your pick.


Earth First!

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 May 2008 14:04:04 -0700, "Capt. JG"
said:


Which "enviros" are you talking about?

Take your pick.


Earth First in league with Bushco! Even better.

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

"Dave" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said:

Which "enviros" are you talking about?

The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes.

Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g.


They've defined themselves as that, so it isn't pejorative unless it's
self-inflicted.

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

wrote:
On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said:

Which "enviros" are you talking about?
The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes.
Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g.

The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons, who are
malevolent.

Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental
movement is that it places human interest way to low and plant and
animal interest way to high. This is anti-human and therefore malevolent.

Stephen

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said:

Which "enviros" are you talking about?
The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes.
Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g.

The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons, who
are
malevolent.

Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental movement
is that it places human interest way to low and plant and animal interest
way to high. This is anti-human and therefore malevolent.

Stephen



As though one can actually separate the these interests... as opposed to big
oil who actually cares about human welfare...

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

"Stephen Trapani" wrote in message
...
wrote:
On 23 May 2008 18:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote:

On Fri, 23 May 2008 17:10:14 -0400, said:

Which "enviros" are you talking about?
The ones he sees all around him when he closes his eyes.
Hey, it's at least as good a pejorative term as "neocons" g.

The "enviros" as you call them, at least mean well, unlike neocons, who
are
malevolent.

Funny distinction. One of the main problem with the environmental movement
is that it places human interest way to low and plant and animal interest
way to high. This is anti-human and therefore malevolent.

Stephen


It is not the plants and animals that are hurting the environment...