ICW may be shut down.
 

unbelivably, there is now NO funding for the Atlantic ICW. If this continures
there will soon be no ICW, it shall be impassable.

If you care act now. go to http://www.atlintracoastal.org/index.htm, read the
article, write you congressmen, fight for one of our few remaining freedoms.

Sterling Kennedy

ICW may be shut down.
 

Or, you could go outside?? That's REAL freedom.

IMO, only the commercial interests have any chance of convincing congress to
continue to spend tax dollars on the ICW. Spending a huge amount of money for
recreational use by a very small(relatively) number of perceived fat cat yacht
owners is a very hard sell.

I kinda sorta agree with the congress on this one. CUT SPENDING!!!

Butch

Sterling wrote: unbelivably, there is now NO funding for the Atlantic ICW. If
this continures
there will soon be no ICW, it shall be impassable.

If you care act now. go to http://www.atlintracoastal.org/index.htm, read the
article, write you congressmen, fight for one of our few remaining freedoms.

ICW may be shut down.
 

Florida Keyz wrote:

unbelivably, there is now NO funding for the Atlantic ICW.

Actually, this isn't quite true. A small amount of money (a paltry few
million) was allocated to Florida.

.... If this continures
there will soon be no ICW, it shall be impassable.

Oh, I dunno, it will be there for a long time to come, it just will be
"impassable" to boats over 3' draft.

But the issue is a fairly serious one. The economic impact of the ICW
includes a few billion doallars for commercial traffic, probably ten
times that for recreational boaters. Think of all the marinas and gas
docks and visitors centers along the ICW.

Also, if there is little or no money for maintenance along the ICW,
think what would be allocated for rescue of boaters trying to go outside
around Cape Hattaras.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

ICW may be shut down.
 

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Florida Keyz wrote:

unbelivably, there is now NO funding for the Atlantic ICW.

Actually, this isn't quite true. A small amount of money (a paltry few
million) was allocated to Florida.

.... If this continures
there will soon be no ICW, it shall be impassable.

Oh, I dunno, it will be there for a long time to come, it just will be
"impassable" to boats over 3' draft.

But the issue is a fairly serious one. The economic impact of the ICW
includes a few billion doallars for commercial traffic, probably ten
times that for recreational boaters. Think of all the marinas and gas
docks and visitors centers along the ICW.

Also, if there is little or no money for maintenance along the ICW,
think what would be allocated for rescue of boaters trying to go
outside
around Cape Hattaras.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Maybe we should have tolls or permits or licences to use ICW? Collect
from every boat. $50 for less than 20 feet, $250 for less than 28 feet,
$1000 for 36 feet. Some appropriate price for commercial vessels. Add
daily and weekly options and away you go. Why should the poor folks
money be spent on recreation for the rich? Folks should pay their own
way.

del cecchi

ICW may be shut down.
 

DSK wrote:
Florida Keyz wrote:

unbelivably, there is now NO funding for the Atlantic ICW.

Actually, this isn't quite true. A small amount of money (a paltry few
million) was allocated to Florida.

.... If this continures
there will soon be no ICW, it shall be impassable.

Oh, I dunno, it will be there for a long time to come, it just will be
"impassable" to boats over 3' draft.

But the issue is a fairly serious one. The economic impact of the ICW
includes a few billion doallars for commercial traffic, probably ten
times that for recreational boaters. Think of all the marinas and gas
docks and visitors centers along the ICW.

Also, if there is little or no money for maintenance along the ICW,
think what would be allocated for rescue of boaters trying to go outside
around Cape Hattaras.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King


Major budgetary cutbacks are planned for all infrastructure, and I would
include the ICW, along with bridges, roads, airports, subways, et
cetera. This is all so we can "better sustain" more funds going to the
Department of Defense for Bush's endless, mindless war, a war that will
result in a more dangerous world than we live in now.

Reuters had an interesting article on the problem recently:

Bush Reaches Out to Conservatives to Quell Revolt

Fri Feb 20, 3:45 PM ET

By Adam Entous

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House has been reaching out to
conservative groups to quell a rebellion over government spending and
budget deficits, hoping to shore up President Bush's political base in
an election year.

Conservative leaders who have taken part in *private* White House
meetings in recent weeks said on Friday officials have *promised to all
but freeze non-defense spending,* and assured them Bush will follow
through on his threat to veto major highway legislation if Congress
refuses to scale it back.

The price tag on a six-year highway and transportation bill stalled in
the House of Representatives is $375 billion while a Senate highway bill
calls for spending $318 billion. The White House has proposed a $256
billion measure.

"Bush has been very attentive to the critique from the right," said
Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, a politically powerful
conservative group -- offering tentative praise where once he talked
openly of a brewing rebellion.

But if the White House does not follow through, said Heritage Foundation
vice president for government relations, Michael Franc, "all bets are off."

ICW may be shut down.
 

del cecchi wrote:
Maybe we should have tolls or permits or licences to use ICW? Collect
from every boat. $50 for less than 20 feet, $250 for less than 28 feet,
$1000 for 36 feet. Some appropriate price for commercial vessels. Add
daily and weekly options and away you go. Why should the poor folks
money be spent on recreation for the rich? Folks should pay their own
way.

Well, we already do. If the fiscal burden of paying for the ICW is
levied specifically on users, all other taxes should go down, right?

The problem is that the gov't is already collecting the money and
spending it on something else... now they have to go and collect more money.

Check on the Wallop-Breaux fund, it's sources and disposition.

Personally, I wouldn't mind paying a user fee for the ICW if that meant
1- it would actually be maintained to a consistent and reliable standard
and 2- my fee also entailed a license to plunder anybody using the ICW
who had dodged paying it.

DSK

ICW may be shut down.
 

Subject: ICW may be shut down.
From:

Spending a huge amount of money for
recreational use by a very small(relatively) number of perceived fat cat
yacht
owners is a very hard sell.

Subject: ICW may be shut down.
From: "del cecchi"

Why should the poor folks
money be spent on recreation for the rich? Folks should pay their own
way.

I kinda sorta agree with the congress on this one. CUT SPENDING!!!

You two really should get get a clue.

The the so called "rich" folks who travel the ICW spend a LOT of money with the
"poor" folks as they move up and down the ICW.

In fact a lot of the "poor" folks have become "rich" over the years because of
the ICW.

If either of you had spent any time traveling on the ICW you would see just how
much business is generated and has been created due to the ICW.

My guess is that not funding the ICW would cost more in the taxes lost due to
loss of business and employment then the money "saved" by cutting the money
spent on ICW funding.

Much like what happened with the luxury tax.

Capt. Bill

ICW may be shut down.
 

....If the fiscal burden of paying for the ICW is
levied specifically on users, all other taxes should go down, right?




Gene Kearns wrote:
You could make the same argument for hard surfaced roads. Would you?

Absolutely. Are you suggesting that we should pay for things twice?

FWIW I agree with your other posts stating that the ICW benefits all and
thus a wide based tax support is fair. My post quoted above was a
specific reply and may not have been worded very clearly.

It doesn't change the issue as I see it: the gov't has already levied &
is already collecting tax money intended to support the ICW (and other
infrastructure); the problem is reallocation of these resources.

Maybe if Halliburton picked up the dredging contract, Bush & Cheney
would the ICW a much higher priority ;)

DSK

ICW... Halliburton
 

That was a *joke* Harry. Surely you are familiar with the concept, even
if you don't have an actual sense of humor?

DSK

Harry Krause wrote:


Halliburton is advertising heavily on TV in the DC metro area, trying to
convince everyone it is a patriotic company, only interested in service
our national interests, and hiding the fact it is a war-mongering,
taxpayer cheating tool of the neocon fascists who currently control our
government. Or is the government a tool of Halliburton?

ICW... Halliburton
 

DSK wrote:

That was a *joke* Harry. Surely you are familiar with the concept, even
if you don't have an actual sense of humor?

DSK

Harry Krause wrote:


Halliburton is advertising heavily on TV in the DC metro area, trying to
convince everyone it is a patriotic company, only interested in service
our national interests, and hiding the fact it is a war-mongering,
taxpayer cheating tool of the neocon fascists who currently control our
government. Or is the government a tool of Halliburton?


Of course I got it. But the Halliburton ads running on TV now in my
metro market are an even funnier joke.

ICW may be shut down.
 

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 13:10:44 -0500, "Gene Kearns"
wrote:

On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:31:02 -0500, DSK wrote:

del cecchi wrote:
Maybe we should have tolls or permits or licences to use ICW? Collect
from every boat. $50 for less than 20 feet, $250 for less than 28 feet,
$1000 for 36 feet. Some appropriate price for commercial vessels. Add
daily and weekly options and away you go. Why should the poor folks
money be spent on recreation for the rich? Folks should pay their own
way.

Well, we already do. If the fiscal burden of paying for the ICW is
levied specifically on users, all other taxes should go down, right?


SNIP

DSK

You could make the same argument for hard surfaced roads. Would you?

I can't believe I'm going to jump in here, but I'm bored.

Actually, no - that dog won't hunt so to speak.

Take the Mass Pike for instance. When first envisioned, the Pike was
designated as a toll road only for the time needed to pay for the road
itself. What eventually happened was that the Pike started to eat
it's own money with patronage, incredible amounts of pilferage,
unnecessary road "repairs/improvements" so that essentially, the Pike
became a breakeven operation - it cost as much as it made. With the
advent of the "Big Dig", it became a monster cash cow contributing to
the money pit for the 30 second improvement in traffic flow through
Boston. Add to that the concept of "General Funding" in which all
fees, taxes, fines and other revenue are not designated but allocated
by a budgetary process from a "general revenue pool", obfuscating
fiscal accountability for individual departments and state
organizations and presto - the toll just becomes, in essence, another
tax disguised as a "user fee". To put it another way, because the
revenue is placed into a general budgetary process it's not a
pay-to-pay system at all - the person paying income taxes in Revere is
contributing to the health of the Pike as I do when I drive up to the
Northshore for a weekend of striper fishing.

And it's pretty much the same in other states that have tolls on
interstates

In Connecticut, tolls were actually removed from our three interstate
routes (395/95 and older portions of 84) and have never been replaced.
It was the result of a very bad accident involving a runaway cement
truck and 10/12 cars stopped at a toll booth. The reasoning is that
we can maintain the roads with Federal matching funds, so why add
another tax/user fee which in this state, is an amazing concept. ;)

So essentially, "user fees" will not allow for other "taxes" to go
down because it's all one general revenue pool - the "General Fund"
revenue stream/budgetary process does not allow for reduction of one
source of as a result of increasing another one.

I hope I explained that properly - I'm not an accountant.

Later,

Tom
S. Woodstock, CT
----------

Basic Fishing Program:

10 - Fish
20 - Eat
30 - Sleep
40 - Goto 10

ICW may be shut down.
 

Blah, blah, blah...... just how many boats, not yachts, transit the ICW for
anything more than a short cruise or fishing trip, EXCEPT FOR COMMERCIAL
TRAFFIC?

Reread my original post carefully, if you can read well.

Think you can or could transit the Panama Canal for free? Why not?

Butch

ICW may be shut down.
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 22 Feb 2004 12:31:02 -0500, DSK wrote:

del cecchi wrote:
Maybe we should have tolls or permits or licences to use ICW?
Collect
from every boat. $50 for less than 20 feet, $250 for less than 28
feet,
$1000 for 36 feet. Some appropriate price for commercial vessels.
Add
daily and weekly options and away you go. Why should the poor
folks
money be spent on recreation for the rich? Folks should pay their
own
way.

Well, we already do. If the fiscal burden of paying for the ICW is
levied specifically on users, all other taxes should go down, right?


SNIP

DSK

You could make the same argument for hard surfaced roads. Would you?

--

Sales tax on Cars and Trucks, License plates, gas tax. Maybe not the
whole bill but goes a long way. Sure, so long as I don't have to pay
for other peoples goodies. Rain forests in Iowa, etc.

del cecchi

ICW may be shut down.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
del cecchi wrote:

"DSK" wrote in message
. ..
Florida Keyz wrote:

unbelivably, there is now NO funding for the Atlantic ICW.

Actually, this isn't quite true. A small amount of money (a paltry few
million) was allocated to Florida.

.... If this continures
there will soon be no ICW, it shall be impassable.

Oh, I dunno, it will be there for a long time to come, it just will be
"impassable" to boats over 3' draft.

But the issue is a fairly serious one. The economic impact of the ICW
includes a few billion doallars for commercial traffic, probably ten
times that for recreational boaters. Think of all the marinas and gas
docks and visitors centers along the ICW.

Also, if there is little or no money for maintenance along the ICW,
think what would be allocated for rescue of boaters trying to go
outside
around Cape Hattaras.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

Maybe we should have tolls or permits or licences to use ICW? Collect
from every boat. $50 for less than 20 feet, $250 for less than 28 feet,
$1000 for 36 feet. Some appropriate price for commercial vessels. Add
daily and weekly options and away you go. Why should the poor folks
money be spent on recreation for the rich? Folks should pay their own
way.

del cecchi

Yeah, and how about user fees for everything else, so Bush can continue
to siphon off the taxpayers' money for his insane war?

Want to get on an interstate? $5 each way.
Want your beef inspected? $2 a pound.
Want to watch TV? An additional $1.00 a day tax to access the public
airwaves.



Folks should be willing to pay their own way for everything.


Well, here in the Democratic Republic of the SF Bay area. They do this.
Costs $2 for a 2 axle vehicle to cross any bridge except the Golden Gate. 4
axles gets you $6.25. So car towing tandem trailer boat trailer. $6.25!
There is a measure on the Ballot to raise tolls on the Bridges (except GG,
is not run by the state, is run by local Democrats and they charge more!) an
extra buck to fund mass transit not on the bridge. Seems as if the
Democrats in Control (DOC) have no problem socking the public with more fees
for their pet projects. Same DOC's who ran up a deficit in the last 4 years
of $39 billion in this state. And Speaker Mr. Burton can only come up with
raising taxes to cover the overspending! Raise spending 39% in 4 years when
inflation and population growth accounts for a 9% requirement to stay even.

ICW... Halliburton
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:

That was a *joke* Harry. Surely you are familiar with the concept, even
if you don't have an actual sense of humor?

DSK

Harry Krause wrote:


Halliburton is advertising heavily on TV in the DC metro area, trying
to
convince everyone it is a patriotic company, only interested in service
our national interests, and hiding the fact it is a war-mongering,
taxpayer cheating tool of the neocon fascists who currently control our
government. Or is the government a tool of Halliburton?


Of course I got it. But the Halliburton ads running on TV now in my
metro market are an even funnier joke.

Would you be acceptable if Sea-Land got the contracts? Nice Democrat
controlled business.

ICW... Halliburton
 

Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:

That was a *joke* Harry. Surely you are familiar with the concept, even
if you don't have an actual sense of humor?

DSK

Harry Krause wrote:


Halliburton is advertising heavily on TV in the DC metro area, trying
to
convince everyone it is a patriotic company, only interested in service
our national interests, and hiding the fact it is a war-mongering,
taxpayer cheating tool of the neocon fascists who currently control our
government. Or is the government a tool of Halliburton?


Of course I got it. But the Halliburton ads running on TV now in my
metro market are an even funnier joke.

Would you be acceptable if Sea-Land got the contracts? Nice Democrat
controlled business.



It would be more acceptable if these contracts were not handed out as
the spoils of war to friends of the politicians in charge. We've sort of
Saddamized the process, eh?

ICW may be shut down.
 

Subject: ICW may be shut down.
From:

Reread my original post carefully, if you can read well.

What are you kidding me, it was barely worth the first read.

Capt. Bill

ICW... Halliburton
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Calif Bill wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
DSK wrote:

That was a *joke* Harry. Surely you are familiar with the concept,
even
if you don't have an actual sense of humor?

DSK

Harry Krause wrote:


Halliburton is advertising heavily on TV in the DC metro area,
trying
to
convince everyone it is a patriotic company, only interested in
service
our national interests, and hiding the fact it is a war-mongering,
taxpayer cheating tool of the neocon fascists who currently control
our
government. Or is the government a tool of Halliburton?


Of course I got it. But the Halliburton ads running on TV now in my
metro market are an even funnier joke.

Would you be acceptable if Sea-Land got the contracts? Nice Democrat
controlled business.



It would be more acceptable if these contracts were not handed out as
the spoils of war to friends of the politicians in charge. We've sort of
Saddamized the process, eh?

Maybe learned from your mentors, the Johnson's. Lady Bird owned a bunch of
Sea Land. And in 4 years, LBJ went from near bankrupt to $4mm++.

ICW... Halliburton
 

"Calif Bill" wrote in message news:Eve_b.4401
Maybe learned from your mentors, the Johnson's. Lady Bird owned a bunch of
Sea Land. And in 4 years, LBJ went from near bankrupt to $4mm++.

Please post any and all references which back up your wild allegations
that Harry's "mentors" were the Johnsons.

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

I can't hardly believe you guys.

Your all talk and NO action.

You are Turning this into a political discusioin while you may be loosing the
icw!

http://www.atlintracoastal.org/index.htm

Follow the link I send, contact your congress, your senators, and your
government.

Spend 5 friggin dollars and join the Atlantic Intracoastal orginization.

SH*t or get off the pot! or better said, Sh*t or stay off the ICW.

Take Five miniutes of your valuable time and email them SOBs before its too
late.

And Butch,
Stay off shore. Sail to the horizon if you wanna, but try an NOT use the ICW,
see where you end up.


Sterling

http://floridakeys.homestead.com/Cruisingnotes.html

ICW may be shut down.
 

"Gene Kearns" wrote in message
...
On 22 Feb 2004 14:53:17 GMT, (JDavis1277) wrote:


Good post my friend.

For those of you that remember my post of watching a tug and barge go
aground..

? I missed it.

Lockwood Folly. The depth
at that point was a little over 4 feet... 8 feet too shallow.

Damn, I thought it was me all this time. Almost every time I pass
though there, my eyes almost pop out of my head when I take a
gander at the humminbird.

db

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

Sterling,

ICW in my area is alive and well due to the constant and plentiful COMMERCIAL
traffic. Advising folks to join a group and send e-mails may be personally
satisfying to you but it won't help much.

As I said earlier COMMERCIAL interests are the ones that will or won't keep
your portion of the ICW on the dredging schedule.

When I retired from the Army I worked in the branch that dealt with any and all
dredging issues in our area. Recreational interests did not enter into the
argument then and surely don't now.

The closest thing I know of that could be construed as a recreational boating
lobby is BOAT/US. See if you can sign them up.

Good luck.

Butch

snip And Butch,
Stay off shore. Sail to the horizon if you wanna, but try an NOT use the ICW,
see where you end up.

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

Florida Keyz wrote:
I can't hardly believe you guys.

Your all talk and NO action.

You are Turning this into a political discusioin while you may be loosing the
icw!

http://www.atlintracoastal.org/index.htm



If you had a working brain between your ears, you would realize the
future of the ICW *is* a political question, and therefore perfect game
for a political discussion.

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

(Florida Keyz) wrote in message ...
I can't hardly believe you guys.

Your all talk and NO action.

You are Turning this into a political discusioin while you may be loosing the
icw!

http://www.atlintracoastal.org/index.htm


Sterling

http://floridakeys.homestead.com/Cruisingnotes.html

Sterling-

Your concern seems well-placed. While I boat on inland water at this
point in my life, I dream of someday being able to do the great circle
with my "retirement boat". That's a decade away.

I support your cause, and have sent a few emails based on your
recommendations. Good luck. You and your fellow boaters are lucky;
protect what is yours!

Coff

Post less, contribute more.

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 18:41:08 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

the
future of the ICW *is* a political question, and therefore perfect game
for a political discussion.

===============================

Very true unfortunately. Also unfortunate, the mission of the Corps
of Engineers has been co-opted by organizations like the "Save the
Manatee" club. Someone has to clean house and get priorities
straightened out.

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

(Florida Keyz) wrote in message ...
I can't hardly believe you guys.

Your all talk and NO action.

You are Turning this into a political discusioin while you may be loosing the
icw!

http://www.atlintracoastal.org/index.htm

Follow the link I send, contact your congress, your senators, and your
government.

Spend 5 friggin dollars and join the Atlantic Intracoastal orginization.

SH*t or get off the pot! or better said, Sh*t or stay off the ICW.

Take Five miniutes of your valuable time and email them SOBs before its too
late.

And Butch,
Stay off shore. Sail to the horizon if you wanna, but try an NOT use the ICW,
see where you end up.


Sterling

How do you know who has, or has not written and/or joined?

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

Did you?

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

asskisser

why should you answer this guy's question, when you COULDN'T answer mine.
This simply confirms your ignorance.






"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
(Florida Keyz) wrote in message
...
Did you?

Answer my question, I'll answer yours.

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

" Tuuk" wrote in message ...
asskisser

why should you answer this guy's question, when you COULDN'T answer mine.
This simply confirms your ignorance.


No, it confirms YOUR ignorance. You didn't ask ME a question. You
asked someone else,I made a comment, then all of a sudden you act like
you specifically asked ME something. Give the ass a shake.

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

grow up you guys, stick to the issue.

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

Keep spinning there Asskisser,,,

your only embarrassing yourself,,,

I can see what will happen,, sometime in the near future, asskisser will
simply disappear and someone new will arrive under a different name. But
even though you will return with a different name, you will be the same
moron as you were when you left. You can't fool everyone.




"basskisser" wrote in message
om...
" Tuuk" wrote in message
...
asskisser

why should you answer this guy's question, when you COULDN'T answer
mine.
This simply confirms your ignorance.


No, it confirms YOUR ignorance. You didn't ask ME a question. You
asked someone else,I made a comment, then all of a sudden you act like
you specifically asked ME something. Give the ass a shake.

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

children , children , children.

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

Florida Keyz wrote:

children , children , children.


The problems of the ICW will only be solved through political action,
dipstick, and therefore you are unquallified to participate in any
discussion by virtue of your disdain for politics.

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

My distain for political discusioins are about the same as my distain for
people who

1. hide behind false email names and make posts

2. Call people names because of there lack of intellegence

3.Armchair sailor know it all

IF the shoe fits...........

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

Florida Keyz wrote:

My distain for political discusioins are about the same as my distain for
people who

1. hide behind false email names and make posts

2. Call people names because of there lack of intellegence

3.Armchair sailor know it all

IF the shoe fits...........



Well, dummy, you cannot discuss ways to "save" the ICW without
discussing politics, so I suppose that makes you part of the problem,
and not part of the solution, eh?

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

well peedty,
your like a 3rd rate talk show host, on a cheap am show, with realy imature
attempts at baiting your audience.

your a child.

Nice try , but no cigar.

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

Florida Keyz wrote:

well peedty,
your like a 3rd rate talk show host, on a cheap am show, with realy imature
attempts at baiting your audience.

your a child.

Nice try , but no cigar.


Good grief...are you Australian?

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

I win.

ICW may be shut down. GET OFF YOUR BUTTS!
 

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 21:56:50 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Florida Keyz wrote:

well peedty,
your like a 3rd rate talk show host, on a cheap am show, with realy imature
attempts at baiting your audience.

your a child.

Nice try , but no cigar.


Good grief...are you Australian?

Harry, you are not in an argument with someone who can swat a
mosquito. You may win this one.

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!