Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#12
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
"Del Cecchi" wrote in message
... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "Del Cecchi" wrote in message ... "Gene Kearns" wrote in message ... On Wed, 21 Jun 2006 01:50:45 GMT, JoeSpareBedroom penned the following well considered thoughts to the readers of rec.boats: I'm sitting here shaking my head, wondering about "placing religious symbols and messages on park property". This reinforces my belief that if I were president and politicians suggested this sort of thing, I would have a small gang of dubious characters ready to take those idiots out behind the White House dumpsters for a tuneup involving a baseball bat, resulting in a long future in a wheelchair. You and I are, apparently, of similar temperament and conviction...... thus, I pose this rhetorical question: What is your course of action when the president's moral convictions drives the imperative to "place religious symbols and messages on park property?" -- Does that include the National Mall and Memorial Parks? http://www.nps.gov/nama/ And I can't wait for the motor wars to erupt over Voyageur's National Park. The greens are itching to ban them, along with the evil snowmobiles regardless of the promises made to the locals back in the day. del cecchi Who made those promises? National Park Service and the park promoters. "you will be able to fish and hunt and use your boats just like before there was a park" Sounds like one of those promises that fall into the category of "not very likely". Shouldn't be believed, in other words, until it's known who REALLY made the promise. |
#13
![]()
posted to rec.boats
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
wrote in message
oups.com... wrote: The good news is that our political system worked, and the Administration responded to a widespread public concern when formatting the final policy. Although we can't operate motor boats in most of the national parks, we are probably better off as a result. Not wanting to opine the matter, but unless I'm missing something, 45000 people isn't really a great lobby barometer , let alone force that I would say could promote "a widespread public concern" , especially on a federal level. Or is it? 45,000 may have represented the majority of park users in a particular place. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Off topic but not political... | General | |||
Off topic but not political... | General | |||
Off topic but not political... | General | |||
Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist | General | |||
So where is...................... | General |