JimH wrote:

You had to turn a good news story into a political one?

If so, how about offering specifics on the bill so we can see why
"uninformed Republicans" opposed it?


How about listing the party affiliations of those voting for and
against it?

*******

Start at the top. Read slowly. I passed along an e-mail, sent to
several hundred people around the state. I did not make the comment
about the political affiliation or the level of information available
to the people who opposed the bill. The author's name is at the bottom
of the page, Dave Kutz. If you have an issue with his choice his
verbiage, please take it up with him. Thanks.

For what it's worth, if the people who were in opposition to the bill
were Republicans and if they were not able to argue on the specifics of
the proposal, they would indeed be Republicans and (on this issue, at
least) uninformed.

wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:

You had to turn a good news story into a political one?

If so, how about offering specifics on the bill so we can see why
"uninformed Republicans" opposed it?


How about listing the party affiliations of those voting for and
against it?

*******

Start at the top. Read slowly. I passed along an e-mail, sent to
several hundred people around the state. I did not make the comment
about the political affiliation or the level of information available
to the people who opposed the bill.

Baloney. You would not have posted the "email" otherwise.

So how about a link and a detailing of who voted for and against it?

JimH,
The problem with making rec.boats a political forum is it diminishes the
value of a legitimate boating related posts. Since I am a proponent of
mandatory education, I wondered why the political comment was not removed by
the person cut and pasting the post.

A non political post would have been more effective in selling the concept.




"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:

You had to turn a good news story into a political one?

If so, how about offering specifics on the bill so we can see why
"uninformed Republicans" opposed it?


How about listing the party affiliations of those voting for and
against it?

*******

Start at the top. Read slowly. I passed along an e-mail, sent to
several hundred people around the state. I did not make the comment
about the political affiliation or the level of information available
to the people who opposed the bill.

Baloney. You would not have posted the "email" otherwise.

So how about a link and a detailing of who voted for and against it?

"Dr. Dr. John Smith" wrote in message
...
JimH,
The problem with making rec.boats a political forum is it diminishes the
value of a legitimate boating related posts. Since I am a proponent of
mandatory education, I wondered why the political comment was not removed
by the person cut and pasting the post.

A non political post would have been more effective in selling the
concept.




"JimH" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
JimH wrote:

You had to turn a good news story into a political one?

If so, how about offering specifics on the bill so we can see why
"uninformed Republicans" opposed it?


How about listing the party affiliations of those voting for and
against it?

*******

Start at the top. Read slowly. I passed along an e-mail, sent to
several hundred people around the state. I did not make the comment
about the political affiliation or the level of information available
to the people who opposed the bill.

Baloney. You would not have posted the "email" otherwise.

So how about a link and a detailing of who voted for and against it?




He also had to throw in an insult (start at the top, read slowly).

4 posts by Chuck, one insult, one personal attack.

Way to go Chuck.

Dr. John John Smith wrote:

Since I am a proponent of
mandatory education, I wondered why the political comment was not
removed by
the person cut and pasting the post.


A non political post would have been more effective in selling the
concept.

**********************

Aren't you among the crowd normally critical of editing cut 'n paste
before posting?

Why do you insist on seeing the remark as a "slam" against Republicans?
Why so defensive?

Dave Kutz wrote a sentence that made two statements.

1) The opposition to the bill seemed to come from some Republicans
2) The opposing Republicans were not well informed about the provisions
of the bill.

How is that a "political" statement?

If you knew Dave Kutz, (a politically moderate to conservative
individual, btw), you would not even think to question the accuracy of
his observation or opinion.

JimH wrote:

Baloney. You would not have posted the "email" otherwise.

So how about a link and a detailing of who voted for and against it?

************

Baloney? I'll see your baloney and raise you "horsesh*t".

I have posted comments about the proposed Washington State bill, in
this forum, several times in the past. None contained any remarks about
any political party. The e-mail announcing the passage was written
*exactly* as posted here.

Is your email address that you use here legit, or bogus? Let me know if
it's legit and I will forward the original e-mail to you.

The funniest aspect of your "outrage" is an apparent inability to
conceive or admit that Republicans are not always fully informed,
(informed, heck.."absolutely right"!) about every issue.
On this issue, some Republicans were uniformed.

On 17 Mar 2005 07:32:06 -0800, wrote:

JimH wrote:

You had to turn a good news story into a political one?

If so, how about offering specifics on the bill so we can see why
"uninformed Republicans" opposed it?


How about listing the party affiliations of those voting for and
against it?

*******

Start at the top. Read slowly. I passed along an e-mail, sent to
several hundred people around the state. I did not make the comment
about the political affiliation or the level of information available
to the people who opposed the bill. The author's name is at the bottom
of the page, Dave Kutz. If you have an issue with his choice his
verbiage, please take it up with him. Thanks.

For what it's worth, if the people who were in opposition to the bill
were Republicans and if they were not able to argue on the specifics of
the proposal, they would indeed be Republicans and (on this issue, at
least) uninformed.

I would think an unbiased independent would post both sides of the issue even if
he was cut'n'pastin'.
--
John H

"All decisions are the result of binary thinking."

Also Sprach JimH :

You had to turn a good news story into a political one?

If so, how about offering specifics on the bill so we can see why
"uninformed Republicans" opposed it?

He didn't call them "uninformed Republicans," the author of the article,
David Kutz, did. Learn to read.

Dan



--
For NASA, space is still a high priority.

-- Dan Quayle

On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:13:45 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
From today's e-mail:

At about 10:20 AM today the Senate passed our Boater Safety Education
Bill. The vote was on final passage was: 30 yea-18 nay.

Speaking in favor: Jacobsen, Swecker, Rockefeller, Haugen, Spanel

Speaking against: Benson, Zarelli, Benton, Hewitt, Schoesler

The opposition seemed to come from uninformed Republicans, but
regardless the Bill passed.


You had to turn a good news story into a political one?

If so, how about offering specifics on the bill so we can see why
"uninformed Republicans" opposed it?

How about listing the party affiliations of those voting for and against it?

Oops - the 800 pound gorilla in the closet - POLITICS!!!

And the thread goes straight into the crapper.

You guys need help - really.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 10:13:45 -0500, "JimH" wrote:


wrote in message
groups.com...
From today's e-mail:

At about 10:20 AM today the Senate passed our Boater Safety Education
Bill. The vote was on final passage was: 30 yea-18 nay.

Speaking in favor: Jacobsen, Swecker, Rockefeller, Haugen, Spanel

Speaking against: Benson, Zarelli, Benton, Hewitt, Schoesler

The opposition seemed to come from uninformed Republicans, but
regardless the Bill passed.


You had to turn a good news story into a political one?

If so, how about offering specifics on the bill so we can see why
"uninformed Republicans" opposed it?

How about listing the party affiliations of those voting for and against
it?

Oops - the 800 pound gorilla in the closet - POLITICS!!!

And the thread goes straight into the crapper.

You guys need help - really.


Direct your criticism to the person starting the partisan politics
thread....and it isn't me.