http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/t...?storyid=82887

animal05 wrote in
news:4vqdneq8at4uqcPbnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com:

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/t...e.aspx?storyid
=82887

"The head of the U.S. Coast Guard is throwing around a couple of ideas on
how to keep you safe. One would require ... transponders on recreational
boats so authorities can track their location."

What about threats from autos, trucks, RVs, bicycles, skateboards? A much
simpler idea with universal protection would be to surgically implant a
transponder in every human being and keep track of them all. With 300
million people to track in the U.S. alone, think of the government
employment possibilities. That would cure all poverty and remove the root
cause of terrorism, thus solving the problem once and for all!

On Wed, 30 May 2007 22:36:55 -0400, animal05
wrote:

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/t...?storyid=82887

Immediately post 9-11, Homeland Security, in it's infinite wisdom,
decided that there was going to be 500 foot "exclusion" zone for all
bridges in the United States - no exceptions.

Then somebody pointed out to HS that passing under a bridge, oh say in
Newport, RI for example - or any of the rail bridges along the
shoreline in CT, automatically put a boat within the exclusion zone
and that ferry, commercial and recreational traffic would be literally
stopped dead, they changed it to within 150 feet of any support
piling.

Then somebody pointed out that the pylons of the Newport Bridge, not
to mention other bridges are close enough to disallow passage, they
settled on "lingering" under bridges.

Bureaucrats.

Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:
On Wed, 30 May 2007 22:36:55 -0400, animal05
wrote:

http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/t...?storyid=82887

Immediately post 9-11, Homeland Security, in it's infinite wisdom,
decided that there was going to be 500 foot "exclusion" zone for all
bridges in the United States - no exceptions.

Then somebody pointed out to HS that passing under a bridge, oh say in
Newport, RI for example - or any of the rail bridges along the
shoreline in CT, automatically put a boat within the exclusion zone
and that ferry, commercial and recreational traffic would be literally
stopped dead, they changed it to within 150 feet of any support
piling.

Then somebody pointed out that the pylons of the Newport Bridge, not
to mention other bridges are close enough to disallow passage, they
settled on "lingering" under bridges.

Bureaucrats.


It's not just that. It is the total incompetency of the Bush
Administration. There are endless and far more serious examples of how
the Bush Administration has botched the job.

"animal05" wrote in message
news:4vqdneq8at4uqcPbnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@wideopenwest .com...
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/t...?storyid=82887


Who needs boats? Apparently, that guy with tuberculosis managed to slip past
authorities, even though his passport was theoretically flagged. I guess
they didn't use a big enough flag. He got past airport security, as well as
customs at the Champlaine border crossing from Canada.

On Thu, 31 May 2007 15:03:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"animal05" wrote in message
news:4vqdneq8at4uqcPbnZ2dnUVZ_gCdnZ2d@wideopenwes t.com...
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/t...?storyid=82887


Who needs boats? Apparently, that guy with tuberculosis managed to slip past
authorities, even though his passport was theoretically flagged. I guess
they didn't use a big enough flag. He got past airport security, as well as
customs at the Champlaine border crossing from Canada.


That same type of scenario has been used as a plot for terrorist attacks on
the US. Give a martyr a highly contagious disease, put him/her on a plane,
send him/her to America. Or let the martyr cross the border with a bunch of
illegals and go to a shopping center.

On May 30, 7:36?pm, animal05 wrote:
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/t...cle.aspx?story...

For thousands of years, governments have proclaimed "give us more
power, surrender some of your goods and/or liberties, and in return we
promise to protect you from enemies both foreign and domestic"
It's been a theme song for people trying to establish fascist,
oppressive, totalitarianist regimes since Alexander marched on Persia.

One of these days more people will wake up and realize that what we
mostly need protection from *is* the darn government.

They'll put a "tracking chip" in my boat over my dead body.

The argument "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to
fear" just doesn't wash with me. I "fear" a society in which we all
become property of the state. The logical step beyond monitoring where
we come and go and when is then to begin dictating when and where we
*can* come and go. The step beyond that is the creation of records
detailing comings and goings that may *never* have occured-- framing a
political opponent for a crime he or she did not commit isn't exactly
an original idea.

No tracking chip in my boat.....(although they may already have chips
in every boat, home, vehicle, etc in the country)...at least not
knowingly or voluntarily. I'd rather have 100 terrorists loose in the
country (as horrible as that would absolutely be) than give up a
single shred of constitutionally guaranteed freedom in exchange for a
promise to protect us from the bad guys.

On 31 May 2007 15:31:54 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:

On May 30, 7:36?pm, animal05 wrote:
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/t...cle.aspx?story...

For thousands of years, governments have proclaimed "give us more
power, surrender some of your goods and/or liberties, and in return we
promise to protect you from enemies both foreign and domestic"
It's been a theme song for people trying to establish fascist,
oppressive, totalitarianist regimes since Alexander marched on Persia.

One of these days more people will wake up and realize that what we
mostly need protection from *is* the darn government.

They'll put a "tracking chip" in my boat over my dead body.

The argument "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to
fear" just doesn't wash with me. I "fear" a society in which we all
become property of the state. The logical step beyond monitoring where
we come and go and when is then to begin dictating when and where we
*can* come and go. The step beyond that is the creation of records
detailing comings and goings that may *never* have occured-- framing a
political opponent for a crime he or she did not commit isn't exactly
an original idea.

No tracking chip in my boat.....(although they may already have chips
in every boat, home, vehicle, etc in the country)...at least not
knowingly or voluntarily. I'd rather have 100 terrorists loose in the
country (as horrible as that would absolutely be) than give up a
single shred of constitutionally guaranteed freedom in exchange for a
promise to protect us from the bad guys.

Chuck, if chips are put in every boat, thousands of folks will be hired to
monitor them. The size of the government will increase by leaps and bounds.
Taxes will be raised tremendously. I would think any self-respecting
liberal would love the idea!

On May 31, 5:10?pm, John H. wrote:
On 31 May 2007 15:31:54 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:





On May 30, 7:36?pm, animal05 wrote:
http://www.firstcoastnews.com/news/t...cle.aspx?story...

For thousands of years, governments have proclaimed "give us more
power, surrender some of your goods and/or liberties, and in return we
promise to protect you from enemies both foreign and domestic"
It's been a theme song for people trying to establish fascist,
oppressive, totalitarianist regimes since Alexander marched on Persia.

One of these days more people will wake up and realize that what we
mostly need protection from *is* the darn government.

They'll put a "tracking chip" in my boat over my dead body.

The argument "If you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to
fear" just doesn't wash with me. I "fear" a society in which we all
become property of the state. The logical step beyond monitoring where
we come and go and when is then to begin dictating when and where we
*can* come and go. The step beyond that is the creation of records
detailing comings and goings that may *never* have occured-- framing a
political opponent for a crime he or she did not commit isn't exactly
an original idea.

No tracking chip in my boat.....(although they may already have chips
in every boat, home, vehicle, etc in the country)...at least not
knowingly or voluntarily. I'd rather have 100 terrorists loose in the
country (as horrible as that would absolutely be) than give up a
single shred of constitutionally guaranteed freedom in exchange for a
promise to protect us from the bad guys.

Chuck, if chips are put in every boat, thousands of folks will be hired to
monitor them. The size of the government will increase by leaps and bounds.
Taxes will be raised tremendously. I would think any self-respecting
liberal would love the idea!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

With all due respect, John, that's because you use a highly biased
definition of "liberal". Not your fault, you're simply repeating
something you hear all day every day.

From my liberal perspective, there are two primary concepts of a
progressive society.

One is equal opportunity....(every new born baby should have the same
opportunities as any other new born baby to become educated, apply
self discipline and hard work to achieve, and perhaps ultimately
prosper- without respect to race, religion, gender, parents' social
status, etc).

The other is maximized personal freedom. Government has no business
abridging any of the rights outlined in the Constitution, even those
rights (like keeping and bearing arms, or freedom of and/or from
religion) that certain segments of society sort of wish would go away.

I think you'd be surprised at the number of liberals who would like to
see a small government, simply because we don't want to be messed with
and government at all levels and by both parties has proven to be
patently dishonest and entirely unworthy of trust.

Bringing it 'round to my boat: If you're the government, you just
don't want to mess with my boat. Doesn't matter if you're GWB,
Hillary, Barak, Mitt, McCain, or whoever...stay the hell away from my
boat.

One of the reasons that a lot of people gravitate to boating is that
it is an environment in which you get to take greater personal
responsibility for your own welfare. If I neglect inspecting and
maintaining systems aboard my boat- it's me and my family at risk more
than anybody else.
When underway, there's no traffic sign every 50 feet listing all the
"thou shalts and shalt nots", I have to make good decisions based on
what I observe going on around me rather than on what some traffic
sign has to say.

I find the concept of placing a transponder on my boat so that the
government can keep track of where I go and when a gross violation of
privacy as well as an insult. Screw 'em if they try, and regardless of
whichever gang of thieves is in office at that moment. :-)

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...


I find the concept of placing a transponder on my boat so that the
government can keep track of where I go and when a gross violation of
privacy as well as an insult. Screw 'em if they try, and regardless of
whichever gang of thieves is in office at that moment. :-)


Many newer automobiles and trucks have GPS devices that transmit your
location, speed, etc. to whoever is interested and can receive the data.

Freedom and equal opportunity with personal assumption of responsibility are
rights well worth protecting and improving upon. An equal rights welfare
state simply because you exist is not because in the end freedom is lost and
opportunity is determined and controlled by those with power.

Eisboch