| Page 1 of 2 | 1 | 2 |
|
|
Wash State Mandatory Boater Education Bill clears state senate:
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. Next step. Pass this bill in the House. We are not done yet. Today we got thrown a life-ring. More to follow in the next day or so. -David Kutz WAMBE Secretary |
|
|
wrote in message oups.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? |
wrote in message oups.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. Were the Democrats voting against the bill also uniformed, or were they just against the bill for some valid reason? |
I am glad to see more states passing Mandatory Boater Education Bills.
Currently 33 states currently require some kind of Boating Education requirements. As more statistical information is available, hopefully we will see a uniform boating education requirement in all states. "JimH" wrote in message ... wrote in message oups.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? |
"Dr. Dr. John Smith" wrote in message ... I am glad to see more states passing Mandatory Boater Education Bills. Currently 33 states currently require some kind of Boating Education requirements. As more statistical information is available, hopefully we will see a uniform boating education requirement in all states. I agree. I hope those *uninformed Republicans* don't get in the way any more. |
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? |
I haven't heard anything about a mandatory boater education plan. Do
you have any links to more information? ****************** The following letter from the president of NMTA does an excellent job of encapsulating the most important points of the proposal. (If you can prove you passed a USCG Aux or Power Squadron course at any time in the past you will not be required to sit through a class. Boaters can also challenge the exam without sitting through class...and those who flunk belong in class)....... Message from Michael Campbell: Dear NMTA Members, Last Friday I sent an e-mail asking you to contact your State Senator and urge them to support the Mandatory Boater Education Bill. I received a few comments back from members who were not supportive of the proposed legislation, and I wanted to take a minute to outline the important parts of the bill so that NMTA members understand the details of the proposed new law and can share the information with other boaters. I believe that the proposed bill is boater friendly and was thoughtfully written by boaters=85 for boaters. Here are the main ideas of the Mandatory Boater Ed bill: You must be 12 years old to operate a boat of 15 HP or more. The law is phased in over many years depending on the age group. The first age group (20 and under) will not need to obtain a card until 2008. If you were born before 1955 you never need to obtain a card. The card has a one time fee of $10 and can never be revoked =96 it=92s good for life. A course and test can be taken in person from any state accredited organization or on-line as =93open-book.=94 The test can be challenged and no education course is necessary. If a boater has completed a class any time in the past, a copy of the certificate can be sent to the state and a card issued. New boat owners have 60 days from the date of purchase to obtain the education card. Please contact me or Holly Whitemarsh at NMTA is you have any questions or comments. Best Regards, Michael Campbell President |
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? |
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. |
"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. |
JimH wrote:
Were the Democrats voting against the bill also uniformed, or were they just against the bill for some valid reason? *************** This is not a partisan issue. Don't try to make it one. |
wrote in message oups.com... JimH wrote: Were the Democrats voting against the bill also uniformed, or were they just against the bill for some valid reason? *************** This is not a partisan issue. Don't try to make it one. *You* already did. |
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. |
This is not a partisan issue. Don't try to make it one.
*You* already did. *************** How? By passing along an email noting the passage of the bill through one of our two state houses? By failing to doctor the email to delete the author's comment that those opposed seemed to be Republicans who were not well informed about the bill? Do you think the author meant that all Republicans are always "uniformed", on all issues? That would be a ridiculous, borderline paranoid conclusion. |
wrote in message oups.com... 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? You conveniently left out the word *uninformed* in statement #1 and #2 and there was no comment about the democrats voting against the bill being *uninformed*. Don't try to spin this Chuck. Your intention was quite evident. I would have simply stated that the State Senate voted in a bill requiring stricter boater education and posted a link showing the specifics of the bill. You didn't. You made it about partisan politics. |
Gould,
See comments below: wrote in message oups.com... 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? No. Why do you insist on seeing the remark as a "slam" against Republicans? Why so defensive? I do not see it as a slam against Republicans. I said if one wanted to sell the concept and discuss mandatory boater education (and not politics), it would have been more effective to remove the political comment, without altering the message. 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. I am not discussing Dave Kutz politics or yours. I stated the problem with making rec.boats a off topic political forum is it minimizes the value of a very legitimate on topic posts. If you had not made your anti republican sentiments so loudly known in other posts, no one would have ever questioned the reason for your posts. I for one, don't think you were trying to slam republicans, you just cut and pasted a very good email concerning Mandatory Boater Ed. in Washington State. I also made the observation if you had removed the "republican" comment, it might have been better received by those who disagree with your politics. |
Looks like you hope to create a mountain out of a molehill on this
item. Are you aching so badly to find some excuse to begin acting up again? According to David Kutz, Chairman of the Washington Alliance for Mandatory Boater Education and the author of the email, the politicians opposing the bill were members of the Republican party who did not seem to be informed about the bill's specifics. If that creates a personal problem for you, that's regrettable but probably unavoidable. |
wrote in message oups.com... Looks like you hope to create a mountain out of a molehill on this item. Are you aching so badly to find some excuse to begin acting up again? According to David Kutz, Chairman of the Washington Alliance for Mandatory Boater Education and the author of the email, the politicians opposing the bill were members of the Republican party who did not seem to be informed about the bill's specifics. If that creates a personal problem for you, that's regrettable but probably unavoidable. No need for the personal attack (#2 for you today along with one direct insult). I simply stated an opinion. End of discussion for me Chuck. I made my point. |
For what it is worth, the bill was a bipartisan bill, sponsored by
Republicans and Democrats. wrote in message oups.com... Looks like you hope to create a mountain out of a molehill on this item. Are you aching so badly to find some excuse to begin acting up again? According to David Kutz, Chairman of the Washington Alliance for Mandatory Boater Education and the author of the email, the politicians opposing the bill were members of the Republican party who did not seem to be informed about the bill's specifics. If that creates a personal problem for you, that's regrettable but probably unavoidable. |
But I guess the Republicans were *uninformed*.
"Dr. Dr. John Smith" wrote in message ... For what it is worth, the bill was a bipartisan bill, sponsored by Republicans and Democrats. wrote in message oups.com... Looks like you hope to create a mountain out of a molehill on this item. Are you aching so badly to find some excuse to begin acting up again? According to David Kutz, Chairman of the Washington Alliance for Mandatory Boater Education and the author of the email, the politicians opposing the bill were members of the Republican party who did not seem to be informed about the bill's specifics. If that creates a personal problem for you, that's regrettable but probably unavoidable. |
wrote in message oups.com... Looks like you hope to create a mountain out of a molehill on this item. Are you aching so badly to find some excuse to begin acting up again? snip..... If that creates a personal problem for you, that's regrettable but probably unavoidable. Old JimH must be really feeling his oats these days. He's just itching to get even with you. My two cents worth........take no prisoners & show no mercy. It just empowers Jimbo. |
|
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 |
|
"JimH" wrote in message ... "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. In the time it's taken you to whine and type 2 messages, you could've found the web site for the state legislature in question, and checked the details yourself. But, the fact is, you don't really want to. |
Harry,
What have you contributed to this group in the last 4 years? Why do bother to post disrupting posts such as this one? "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "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 glegroups.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. In the time it's taken you to whine and type 2 messages, you could've found the web site for the state legislature in question, and checked the details yourself. But, the fact is, you don't really want to. Neither "Smith" nor Hertvik have any interest in this newsgroup beyond disrupting it and diminishing its value. Both of them log on here in various "identities," and seek only to engage in 7th grade insulting. That's why both of them are permanent members of my bozo bin. |
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:46:55 -0500, "Dr. Dr. John Smith"
wrote: Harry, What have you contributed to this group in the last 4 years? Why do bother to post disrupting posts such as this one? "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "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 oglegroups.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. In the time it's taken you to whine and type 2 messages, you could've found the web site for the state legislature in question, and checked the details yourself. But, the fact is, you don't really want to. Neither "Smith" nor Hertvik have any interest in this newsgroup beyond disrupting it and diminishing its value. Both of them log on here in various "identities," and seek only to engage in 7th grade insulting. That's why both of them are permanent members of my bozo bin. I guess that explains why they get a response from you for every post they make. Do you feel it's necessary to repeat this several times a day? Somehow you just keep showing up with these comments. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
John,
Harry reads ever post, he just pretends he doesn't because he knows he does not have to skills to debate me on any topic. "John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:46:55 -0500, "Dr. Dr. John Smith" wrote: Harry, What have you contributed to this group in the last 4 years? Why do bother to post disrupting posts such as this one? "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "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 ooglegroups.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. In the time it's taken you to whine and type 2 messages, you could've found the web site for the state legislature in question, and checked the details yourself. But, the fact is, you don't really want to. Neither "Smith" nor Hertvik have any interest in this newsgroup beyond disrupting it and diminishing its value. Both of them log on here in various "identities," and seek only to engage in 7th grade insulting. That's why both of them are permanent members of my bozo bin. I guess that explains why they get a response from you for every post they make. Do you feel it's necessary to repeat this several times a day? Somehow you just keep showing up with these comments. -- John H "All decisions are the result of binary thinking." |
"John H" wrote in message ... On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 15:46:55 -0500, "Dr. Dr. John Smith" wrote: Harry, What have you contributed to this group in the last 4 years? Why do bother to post disrupting posts such as this one? "HarryKrause" wrote in message ... Doug Kanter wrote: "JimH" wrote in message ... "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 ooglegroups.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. In the time it's taken you to whine and type 2 messages, you could've found the web site for the state legislature in question, and checked the details yourself. But, the fact is, you don't really want to. Neither "Smith" nor Hertvik have any interest in this newsgroup beyond disrupting it and diminishing its value. Both of them log on here in various "identities," and seek only to engage in 7th grade insulting. That's why both of them are permanent members of my bozo bin. I guess that explains why they get a response from you for every post they make. Do you feel it's necessary to repeat this several times a day? Somehow you just keep showing up with these comments. -- John H Funny thing is that I googled "State of Washington Boater Education Bill Senate Vote" and got *zero* hits pertinent to it. And I have yet to see the text of the bill referred to by Chuck and have yet to see the breakdown of the votes from him as was previously requested. I think that Chuck may be putting his faith in a liberal voice email regarding the bill without having any other facts or information. How telling. How dangerous. |
Funny thing is that I googled "State of Washington Boater Education
Bill Senate Vote" and got *zero* hits pertinent to it. And I have yet to see the text of the bill referred to by Chuck and have yet to see the breakdown of the votes from him as was previously requested. I think that Chuck may be putting his faith in a liberal voice email regarding the bill without having any other facts or information. How telling. How dangerous. ************** Try googling Washington State Alliance for Mandatory Boater Education. I got 647 "hits". I don't feel compelled to do your research for you or provide you with vote totals. The "uniformed Republicans" Dave referred to were the persons he mentioned by name when listing the legislators who spoke against the bill. You are the only person who extended that to mean that all Republicans who voted against the bill were also uniformed. It is easy to determine whether somebody is well informed, underinformed, or uninformed when they attempt to speak to an issue. Some of the Republicans and Democrats who voted against the bill may have been well informed and simply disagreed with the principle. Fair enough. But if an individual gets up to speak against a bill and begins making statements that have no basis at all in fact and do not address the issues actually included in the proposal, it would be fair to say that such a person, Democrat or Republican, was "uninformed". If the uninformed speakers were from both parties, it would be correct to say "uniformed legislators". If they were all Democrats, it would be correct to say "uniformed Democrats".....(and if that had been the case we wouldn't see a line of protest from you- guaranteedily deed). In this case, the four people who spoke against the bill demonstrated that they were not properly informed about the contents and they all happened to be Republicans. What will you call your pile when you're finished? "Mount Molehill?" By the way,the author you dismiss as a "liberal e-mailer" is chairman of the organization. You can check the rest of the info on the Washington State legislature web site. (Hint: dotgov) |
|
On Thu, 17 Mar 2005 00:52:28 -0800, Garth Almgren
wrote: Around 3/16/2005 6:28 PM, wrote: From today's e-mail: At about 10:20 AM today the Senate passed our Boater Safety Education Bill. I haven't heard anything about a mandatory boater education plan. Do you have any links to more information? Good response - one thread in. |
|
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. |
wrote in message oups.com... Funny thing is that I googled "State of Washington Boater Education Bill Senate Vote" and got *zero* hits pertinent to it. And I have yet to see the text of the bill referred to by Chuck and have yet to see the breakdown of the votes from him as was previously requested. I think that Chuck may be putting his faith in a liberal voice email regarding the bill without having any other facts or information. How telling. How dangerous. ************** Try googling Washington State Alliance for Mandatory Boater Education. I got 647 "hits". I don't feel compelled to do your research for you or provide you with vote totals. snip It was your post. If asked to provide specifics based on *your* post it is your responsibility. A failure to do so lessens the credibility of your initial post. So several things remained unanswered by you: Post a link to the bill you are discussing. Post a link of the votes, including democrat and republican votes. I really want to see why the dissenting republican votes were a result of them being *uninformed* but not so with the dissenting democrat votes. big grin That should not be hard to do seeing you got so many hits on your google search. another big grin |
"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. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:14 AM. |
|
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com