|
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008, Moves Bill to Full House
for Consideration Time running out for America's boaters; NMMA continues call for action Details he http://www.boatblue.org/news.aspx?id=17345 |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"claus" wrote in message . .. House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008, Moves Bill to Full House for Consideration Time running out for America's boaters; NMMA continues call for action Details he http://www.boatblue.org/news.aspx?id=17345 The Clean Boating Act is a good thing because it exempts recreational boats from having to comply with federal clean water standards that are intended for shipping and industry. It is necessary only because some ignorant liberal judge legislated from the bench and said all boats must comply with laws that were never intended for recreational vessels. Wilbur Hubbard |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 May 2008 09:25:56 -0700, "claus" said: House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008, Moves Bill to Full House for Consideration Time running out for America's boaters; NMMA continues call for action I haven't read the case referred to in the article. But if the summary is accurate and the case related only to ballast water from commercial vessels, then this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Anything the court said relating to recreational vessels would be what lawyers call "dicta"--language having no value whatever as precedent. Well, duh, it appears you are in error. Why would the industry go to the trouble of writing and sponsoring legislation to exclude recreational boating from some liberal judge's legislating from the bench if they could just appeal the "dicta" to a higher court, get it overturned and return to normalcy? -- Gregory Hall |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
On Thu, 22 May 08, "claus" said:
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008, Moves Bill to Full House for Consideration Time running out for America's boaters; NMMA continues call for action On 22 May 08, Dave wrote: I haven't read the case referred to in the article. But if the summary is accurate and the case related only to ballast water from commercial vessels, then this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Anything the court said relating to recreational vessels would be what lawyers call "dicta"--language having no value whatever as precedent. My understanding is that the precedent set by the Court has a LOT of value backed up by aurthority. Which is why this act is needed. But there is certainly no cause for alarm here. And for anyone not interested in reading the whole article, here are just some snippets from the first three paragraphs. First paragraph snippet: The National Marine Manufacturers Association (NMMA) today applauded the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee (T&I) for approving commonsense legislation Second paragraph snippet: The Clean Boating Act is a bipartisan, good government solution to a looming administrative and legal crisis for boaters across America, Third paragraph snippet: NMMA also wishes to thank Rep. Gene Taylor of Mississippi, Co-Chair of the House Boating Caucus, who along with Rep. Miller brought us to this important point by introducing and advocating tirelessly for H.R. 2550, the Recreational Boating Act of 2007,” added Gudes. “H.R. 2550, which accumulated nearly 100 bipartisan cosponsors, was absolutely crucial, and Congressman Taylor is to be commended. Gene Taylor is my representative and I voted for the guy based mainly on the fact that he's a life long sailor and recreational boater. Doesn't surprise me that he was on top of this issue. The headlines seem as though there's cause for alarm here but in fact, the reverse is true. Rick |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
wrote in message ... On Thu, 22 May 08, "claus" said: House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008, Moves Bill to Full House for Consideration Now they just need to smack the farming industry around to get them to stop overusing fertilizer and other chemicals. The run-off from that is FAR worse. |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"Bill Kearney" wrote in
t: Now they just need to smack the farming industry around to get them to stop overusing fertilizer and other chemicals. The run-off from that is FAR worse. Monsanto controls farming now. They'd never permit any such shenanigans.... Hell, Monsanto is suing family farmers for storing their own seeds that have become contaminated with Monsanto's patented genes from neighbor's Monsanto-planted fields! The family farmers are being shoved hard to pay for indefensible defense. Once contaminated with Monsanto's genes, they are doomed to buy Monsanto's seeds forever. Some day, Monsanto's genes are going to connect themselves to the weeds Roundup kills, making the weeds ALSO Roundup proof...and every other herbicide proof in the process. We'll all starve from the disaster, but never mind as most live in the city and never consider such things. CBC had a fantastic documentary about the Monsanto suits in Canada. Monsanto owns Canada, too. |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
|
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"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 |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"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 |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"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 |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
In article ,
Dave wrote: On Fri, 23 May 2008 15:08:30 -0400, said: 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? The both of you need to take a deep breath and go find out what this issue is actually about. So far as my exchange with Jon is concerned, the particular case is irrelevant. We are dealing with the hypothetical posed by Larry, in which millions of boaters apply for permits to discharge, overwhelming the permitting agency. My suggestion is that in that hypothetical case the bureaucrats would scream for more money and people, and the enviros would support those demands. I know perfectly well, of course, that it ainagonna happen. It doesn't take much to overwhelm a govt. dept.. I applied for a new Permanent Resident card last May '07... and they keep moving the date backwards - currently the INS are dealing with Feb '07 applications.. -- Molesworth |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"Dave" wrote in message
... On 22 May 2008 16:28:02 -0500, Dave said: I haven't read the case referred to in the article. But if the summary is accurate and the case related only to ballast water from commercial vessels, then this whole thing is a tempest in a teapot. Anything the court said relating to recreational vessels would be what lawyers call "dicta"--language having no value whatever as precedent. I've now read it. The EPA was defending its regulation that had gone unchallenged since 1973 exempting all vessels from having to get a permit for discharges normally incident to the operation of a vessel. The enviros were trying to get it to require commercial shipping lines to get a permit for discharging ballast water. The opinion is rather badly written, and includes language much broader than required for the case before it (dicta). But it's pretty clear that the opinion wouldn't cause the EPA to immediately run out and start requiring recreational boaters to get a permit to wash their boats. They just have to rewrite their regulations. The legislation is clearly a case of grandstanding congress critters passing yet another unnecessary law thinking it will get them votes. Which enviros? Do you have some documentation to support your arguments? -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
On 23 May 08, Dave wrote:
clearly a case of grandstanding congress critters passing yet another unnecessary law thinking it will get them votes. If that's true (and I don't agree that it is) then it dang sure worked to get mine. Rick |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"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 |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"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 |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"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 |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
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 |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"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 |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"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... |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:15:53 -0700, Capt. JG wrote:
Which enviros? Do you have some documentation to support your arguments? has he ever? why waste time with facts when a strongly held opinion will do? |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
On Fri, 23 May 2008 20:47:43 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote:
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. thank god we have corporations like Exxon, GE and shill-boy Steve looking out for us humans!! we wouldn't want anyone interested in the welfare of the environment doing that would we..."anti-human"??? sorry Steve, but that laughing you hear in the back of your mind? that's the smart people talking about twits like you |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"mister b" wrote in message
m... On Fri, 23 May 2008 16:15:53 -0700, Capt. JG wrote: Which enviros? Do you have some documentation to support your arguments? has he ever? why waste time with facts when a strongly held opinion will do? I'm a liberal, so I like to give people the benefit of the doubt! LOL -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"Edgar" wrote in message
... "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... Actually, cows produce a lot of greenhouse gasses. Of course, we eat them, but not fast enough, apparently. -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 20:47:43 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote: 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 Who writes this material for you? The environmentalists (I qualify, but I'm not a member of any "movement" that I'm aware of) I know all stress how important it is to stop screwing up the planet for the benefit of all living creatures. What they don't believe in is raping the planet recklessly to satisfy greed. Without all those plants and animals, we ourselves end up in danger. It's all tightly connected. Just pretend for a moment that it's not so tightly connected. For example, imagine that humans can invent solutions to problems and that if something gets screwed up in the environment, humans can probably create a way to fix it. Now look at how the environmental movement is working to prevent energy development in third world countries like Africa and what this does to negatively impact human beings there. Can you imagine the entirely unnecessary harm being done to humans? Stephen |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
mister b wrote:
On Fri, 23 May 2008 20:47:43 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote: 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. thank god we have corporations like Exxon, GE and shill-boy Steve looking out for us humans!! we wouldn't want anyone interested in the welfare of the environment doing that would we..."anti-human"??? Notice how instead of addressing my argument, you change the subject? Don't you want to even think about how "Earth first" means "humans last?" Of course you don't. You'd have to admit you were wrong. sorry Steve, but that laughing you hear in the back of your mind? that's the smart people talking about twits like you Those who think they are smart but are actually dumb, are the dumbest of all. Stephen |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"Capt. JG" wrote in message ions... "Edgar" wrote in message ... "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... Actually, cows produce a lot of greenhouse gasses. Of course, we eat them, but not fast enough, apparently. I wonder if the number of cows in USA is greater than the number of buffaloes that used to be there before global warming became an issue? |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"Edgar" wrote in message
... "Capt. JG" wrote in message ions... "Edgar" wrote in message ... "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... Actually, cows produce a lot of greenhouse gasses. Of course, we eat them, but not fast enough, apparently. I wonder if the number of cows in USA is greater than the number of buffaloes that used to be there before global warming became an issue? Well, I don't know, but we kill most of them.... -- "j" ganz @@ www.sailnow.com |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
|
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
wrote:
On Sat, 24 May 2008 07:49:56 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote: wrote: On Fri, 23 May 2008 20:47:43 -0700, Stephen Trapani wrote: 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 Who writes this material for you? The environmentalists (I qualify, but I'm not a member of any "movement" that I'm aware of) I know all stress how important it is to stop screwing up the planet for the benefit of all living creatures. What they don't believe in is raping the planet recklessly to satisfy greed. Without all those plants and animals, we ourselves end up in danger. It's all tightly connected. Just pretend for a moment that it's not so tightly connected. Pretending would be the only option for that. For example, imagine that humans can invent solutions to problems and that if something gets screwed up in the environment, humans can probably create a way to fix it. More pretending. There are countless things, minor and major, that humans have been unable to solve. The point is not what we have been unable to solve so far, it's what we have been able to solve. For example do you know how much more food per resources humans are able to produce now than a hundred years ago? In the blink of an eye, earth history wise, we have solved a massive resource problem, the exact sort of solution that negates all the massive fear mongering of the lefty greens. What? We're not running out of resources?? We have virtually infinite capacity _create_ resources????? Not only that, we're still getting better at creating solutions! Yet for some reason the lefty greens assume not one more solution of this sort will be solved and we are soon to run out of resources. As if there can not be any good solutions to produce cleaner energy, or any possible ways to clean up whatever we want to clean up, etc, etc. Now look at how the environmental movement is working to prevent energy development in third world countries like Africa and what this does to negatively impact human beings there. Please put the goal posts back in their original position. Can you imagine the entirely unnecessary harm being done to humans? ??? Please read again what you ignored just above and explain how denying energy technology to third world countries due to environmental concerns is not malevolent. Remember, that is my original and main point, my reason for entering this thread. You know, the point you have been trying to divert from? Stephen |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
On Tue, 27 May 2008 10:25:01 -0500, Dave wrote:
Umm...ever hear of cows? I'm just wondering whether it actually hurts to be this stupid... |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"Dave" wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 May 2008 09:16:58 +0200, "Edgar" said: It is not the plants and animals that are hurting the environment... Umm...ever hear of cows? Yes, I quite like eating them and so do a lot of other people too. So,if there were less people we would not need so many cows to provide food. But there never seemed to be a climate problem arising from buffaloes when N.America was swarming with them so I find it rather hard to believe that cows are changing our climate now most of the buffaloes have been shot.. How many human beings put out CO2 equivalent to one cow? How many car miles does it take to equal the 'greenhouse gases' resulting from one major volcanic eruption? I think global warming (assuming that longer term measurements confirm that it is indeed happening) has provided the politicians with a heaven sent opportunity to raise a whole lot of new taxes and claim to be doing it in the interests of the planet. And soon Al Gore and all his like thinking buddies will fly to somewhere like (for instance) Bali to talk about it. How many cows would it need to equal their gas output? Sorry, but I remain unconvinced. The only thing I am sure about is that the planet has too many human beings on it already.. |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
On Fri, 23 May 08, PhantMan said:
If that's true (and I don't agree that it is) then it dang sure worked to get mine. On 27 May 08, Dave wrote: I assume you are also aware that the sky is falling. Yes, I've heard. But thanks for the heads up anyway :-) |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
"Edgar" wrote in message ... "Dave" wrote in message ... On Sat, 24 May 2008 09:16:58 +0200, "Edgar" said: It is not the plants and animals that are hurting the environment... Umm...ever hear of cows? Yes, I quite like eating them and so do a lot of other people too. So,if there were less people we would not need so many cows to provide food. But there never seemed to be a climate problem arising from buffaloes when N.America was swarming with them so I find it rather hard to believe that cows are changing our climate now most of the buffaloes have been shot.. How many human beings put out CO2 equivalent to one cow? How many car miles does it take to equal the 'greenhouse gases' resulting from one major volcanic eruption? I think global warming (assuming that longer term measurements confirm that it is indeed happening) has provided the politicians with a heaven sent opportunity to raise a whole lot of new taxes and claim to be doing it in the interests of the planet. And soon Al Gore and all his like thinking buddies will fly to somewhere like (for instance) Bali to talk about it. How many cows would it need to equal their gas output? Sorry, but I remain unconvinced. The only thing I am sure about is that the planet has too many human beings on it already.. Good point. Everyone should be made to wear some type of methane gas filter device on their ass...and the worse offenders, at both ends. |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
Dave wrote:
On Tue, 27 May 2008 18:29:43 +0200, "Edgar" said: I think global warming (assuming that longer term measurements confirm that it is indeed happening) has provided the politicians with a heaven sent opportunity to raise a whole lot of new taxes and claim to be doing it in the interests of the planet. And soon Al Gore and all his like thinking buddies will fly to somewhere like (for instance) Bali to talk about it. How many cows would it need to equal their gas output? Sorry, but I remain unconvinced. The only thing I am sure about is that the planet has too many human beings on it already.. Before there was an Al Gore there was a Thomas Malthus. Had he been correct, we would all be extinct. I believe the next meeting is Hawaii. G |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
On Tue, 27 May 2008 18:29:43 +0200, "Edgar"
wrote: How many human beings put out CO2 equivalent to one cow? First, the CO2 was recently removed from the atmosphere. Fossil fuels are the problem, not recently fixed carbon. Second, the greenhouse gas implicated is methane. Casady |
House Committee Passes Clean Boating Act of 2008
On 27 May 2008 13:19:01 -0500, Dave wrote:
Malthus made some very valid observations that have stood the test of time. As did the ancients who said the earth is flat. Gonna join the Flat Earth Society? What do valid observations have to do with false theories? Casady |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:40 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com