|
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
Harry Krause wrote:
Blame it on my liberal arts education and catholic reading lists. It's that liberal bias at Yale, eh Krause? |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:44:07 GMT, "NOYB" wrote:
This is the problem with having liberal activist judges on the bench: http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx of course, conservatives have done away with such inconveniences as habeus corpus, and the right to a fair trial... annoyances, you see... |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
On Jun 1, 8:06 am, Chuck Gould wrote:
Most boaters make conscientious environmental choices. The few that persist in dumping holding tanks in inland waters or pumping the bilge after an oil change "accident", deserve to be ostracized by the responsible majority. Our recreational enjoyment depends upon maintaining acceptably clean waterways and a healthy fishery. Environmental activists on the radical fringes of that movement would do well to recognize that the average pleasure boater isn't a serious threat to the eco-system. But there are constantly MORE of these innocent, average boaters, vying for space in finite waters. The U.S. population is projected to exceed 400 million and perhaps 500 million by mid-century. All this talk of "invasive species" is overlooking the most obvious one. Growth- addicts accept the constant crowding of natural places as inevitable progress. Others see it as the mindless suffocation it really is. I don't see evidence of "responsibility" in a good percentage of the boating public, especially the PWC crowd. Whether or not they're into illegal dumping, they lack respect for basic peace & quiet, and are happy to cause wake intrusions. Fast powerboats should be limited to areas far offshore, or "white trash" reservoirs that weren't natural lakes to begin with. Boaters who complain about having discharges controlled may have more to hide than they admit. The mere presence of gasoline or diesel exhaust in or around water is unnatural. I also question the video clip where he claims fees could be over $1,000 if enacted. Is that per year, or lifetime? Of course, Bush's EPA (Environmental Pillaging Agency) isn't eager to enforce anything that inconveniences people, who are infinitely more important than nature, even though nature is keeping them alive. E.A. http://enough_already.tripod.com/ When animals exceed carrying-capacity we call it overpopulation. When humans exceed carrying-capacity we call it "economic growth." |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
On Jun 1, 7:25 am, "NOYB" wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message thlink.net... This is the problem with having liberal activist judges on the bench: http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx The court didn't do this without a kick in the ass from someone else. Who is the owner of the foot? Environmentalist groups. But a court shouldn't be beholden to any special interests. Since "The Environment" allows the human economy to exist, I question your definition of special interests. Due to mindless population growth, nature suffers a death of 1,000 cuts each day. Every "petty" regulation can help offset increasing pressure on waterways. I question the respect for nature of many (power) boaters. They seem much more interested in noise and speed than aesthetic values, so illegal discharges wouldn't be surprising. Par for the course with the motorsports, F-nature crowd. Dumping in the middle of a lake or river is easy to get away with, like going in your swim trunks. I say tough luck if they have to be permitted. It might make them think twice before casually tainting the water. Read about the recent Camp Lejeune, NC toxin revelations if you think everyone takes water quality seriously. This happened for same reason they have to put No Dumping placards on street drains leading to rivers. E.A. http://enough_already.tripod.com/ Everything you have originates in nature. A little respect is in order. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
On Jun 12, 8:28?pm, Enough Already wrote:
But there are constantly MORE of these innocent, average boaters, vying for space in finite waters. The U.S. population is projected to exceed 400 million and perhaps 500 million by mid-century. All this talk of "invasive species" is overlooking the most obvious one. Growth- addicts accept the constant crowding of natural places as inevitable progress. Others see it as the mindless suffocation it really is. I'm part of the group that didn't self-create. Somebody else is responsible for my presence on the planet, I didn't ask or decide to be born but now that I am here I don't plan to commit suicide to reduce my impact on Gaia. I don't see evidence of "responsibility" in a good percentage of the boating public, especially the PWC crowd. Whether or not they're into illegal dumping, they lack respect for basic peace & quiet, and are happy to cause wake intrusions. Fast powerboats should be limited to areas far offshore, or "white trash" reservoirs that weren't natural lakes to begin with. Defining all boaters by what you consider to be the thoughtless actions of some stereotypical PWC'ers is pretty extreme. Boaters who complain about having discharges controlled may have more to hide than they admit. The mere presence of gasoline or diesel exhaust in or around water is unnatural. I also question the video clip where he claims fees could be over $1,000 if enacted. Is that per year, or lifetime? The problem with the regulation is the definition of "discharge". Cooling water picked up from a lake or ocean and passed through the exceptionally clean water jacket of an engine becomes a discharge when it is expelled. Any boat needs to "discharge" bilge water to remain afloat. If you and your zero-population-frowth buddies are out kayaking and one of the kayaks ships some water.....don't you dare bail it out! (That's a "discharge" under the law). Certain discharges, like untreated sewage, garbage, or petroleum products are prohibited by law and should be. The legislation only permits discharges "incidental to the normal operation of a boat." One can certainly boat without pumping sewage directly overboard, but it's pretty tough to stop rainwater from running across a deck and over the side. That rainwater is technically a "discharge", and is probably less polluted than the rainwater that runs off the roof of your house, or my house, etc. Would you recommend we all tear the roofs off of our houses? I'm sure the answer is no. Of course, Bush's EPA (Environmental Pillaging Agency) isn't eager to enforce anything that inconveniences people, who are infinitely more important than nature, even though nature is keeping them alive. E.A. Many of us were raised to be "conservationists". I'd like to think I'm among such a group. A conservationist is one who believes in using natural resources sparingly and responsibly- and in the case of renewable resources using them at a rate that is no faster than they will regenerate. I'm not sure what some of the younger green people are all about. How dare they breathe, excrete waste, wear natural or synthetic fibers, ride in an automobile or (heavens!) own a computer with which to access a group such as this? All of those actions adversely impact the millions of species that were here before people. You undoubtedly are aware of the enormous disposal problems and hazardous wastes associated with computers..... (some of that hazardous waste appears in this NG on a regular basis)... Should you not be allowed to own a computer, even if you are responsibile when you dispose of it, simply because it's possible to point out examples of other computer owners who are not responsible? http://enough_already.tripod.com/ When animals exceed carrying-capacity we call it overpopulation. When humans exceed carrying-capacity we call it "economic growth." |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"Enough Already" wrote in message
s.com... Read about the recent Camp Lejeune, NC toxin revelations if you think everyone takes water quality seriously. This happened for same reason they have to put No Dumping placards on street drains leading to rivers. Nice! "An EPA investigator, Tyler Amon, acknowledged Tuesday that officials had considered accusing some civilian Navy employees of obstruction of justice. Amon, who testified despite objections from the Bush administration, said some employees interviewed during the criminal investigation appeared coached and were not forthcoming with details. Rep. Ed Whitfield of Kentucky, the panel's ranking Republican, said he was puzzled why criminal charges weren't pursued." The administration was uncomfortable with questions. What a surprise. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"Enough Already" wrote in message s.com... Due to mindless population growth, nature suffers a death of 1,000 cuts each day Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Bush. He's working hard to eradicate the world of 1.2 billion Muslims. It's the Democrats who are allowing the overpopulation to continue. And if it were up to me, I'd add kayakers and blow-boaters to that list. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
I just read some of the links on your website. Don't take this the wrong
way, but YOU'RE ****ING NUTS. a.. Couples should voluntarily limit their family-size to two or fewer children, and not just for personal economic reasons. This sort of restraint goes against natural inclinations but "death control" (modern medicine) must be matched with birth control for balance to occur. It's a small price to pay for preserving the future. a.. The government should eliminate tax breaks for children, either altogether or after a family already has two kids. Tax breaks encourage population growth by artificially reducing the cost of having children. a.. Likewise, welfare subsidies that increase with family size should be dropped as soon as possible. A family cap law in New Jersey has shown good results. a.. Pregnant teenagers should be denied all government assistance unless they identify the fathers and are subject to the same standards of parental competency as adoptive parents. a.. Like it or not, abortion prevents millions of unwanted births each year, and is such a widely used (albeit unpleasant) form of birth control that it must be kept legal forever. Well-meaning people who recoil at the thought of a dead fetus would do well to think about the millions of already-born kids who die from hunger each year. The real world does not allow for single-issue panaceas. "Enough Already" wrote in message s.com... On Jun 1, 7:25 am, "NOYB" wrote: "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "NOYB" wrote in message thlink.net... This is the problem with having liberal activist judges on the bench: http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx The court didn't do this without a kick in the ass from someone else. Who is the owner of the foot? Environmentalist groups. But a court shouldn't be beholden to any special interests. Since "The Environment" allows the human economy to exist, I question your definition of special interests. Due to mindless population growth, nature suffers a death of 1,000 cuts each day. Every "petty" regulation can help offset increasing pressure on waterways. I question the respect for nature of many (power) boaters. They seem much more interested in noise and speed than aesthetic values, so illegal discharges wouldn't be surprising. Par for the course with the motorsports, F-nature crowd. Dumping in the middle of a lake or river is easy to get away with, like going in your swim trunks. I say tough luck if they have to be permitted. It might make them think twice before casually tainting the water. Read about the recent Camp Lejeune, NC toxin revelations if you think everyone takes water quality seriously. This happened for same reason they have to put No Dumping placards on street drains leading to rivers. E.A. http://enough_already.tripod.com/ Everything you have originates in nature. A little respect is in order. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message ink.net, NOYB sprach forth the following: Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Bush. You deserve double blame. Careful, or I'll lump you with the kayakers, blow-boaters, and Muslims. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"NOYB" wrote in message k.net... "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message ink.net, NOYB sprach forth the following: Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Bush. You deserve double blame. Careful, or I'll lump you with the ..snip.. *blow-boaters*, snip.... he should be so lucky.................... |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message k.net, NOYB sprach forth the following: "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message ink.net, NOYB sprach forth the following: Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Bush. You deserve double blame. Careful, or I'll lump you with the kayakers, blow-boaters, and Muslims. Better than being lumped in with a Bushie. Lump away. I'm not an apologist. History will show him as one of our best Presidents ever. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
NOYB wrote:
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message k.net, NOYB sprach forth the following: "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message ink.net, NOYB sprach forth the following: Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Bush. You deserve double blame. Careful, or I'll lump you with the kayakers, blow-boaters, and Muslims. Better than being lumped in with a Bushie. Lump away. I'm not an apologist. History will show him as one of our best Presidents ever. Bush? George W. Bush? The worst of the worst. Seriously. In the running for worst president in the history of the United States. He's a simple-minded, dogmatic imbecile. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"HK" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message k.net, NOYB sprach forth the following: "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message ink.net, NOYB sprach forth the following: Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Bush. You deserve double blame. Careful, or I'll lump you with the kayakers, blow-boaters, and Muslims. Better than being lumped in with a Bushie. Lump away. I'm not an apologist. History will show him as one of our best Presidents ever. Bush? George W. Bush? The worst of the worst. Seriously. In the running for worst president in the history of the United States. He's a simple-minded, dogmatic imbecile. Enough about Fred. Let's keep this a friendly discussion. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
NOYB wrote:
"HK" wrote in message ... NOYB wrote: "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message k.net, NOYB sprach forth the following: "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message ink.net, NOYB sprach forth the following: Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Bush. You deserve double blame. Careful, or I'll lump you with the kayakers, blow-boaters, and Muslims. Better than being lumped in with a Bushie. Lump away. I'm not an apologist. History will show him as one of our best Presidents ever. Bush? George W. Bush? The worst of the worst. Seriously. In the running for worst president in the history of the United States. He's a simple-minded, dogmatic imbecile. Enough about Fred. Let's keep this a friendly discussion. Are you referring to Fred Thompson, the shy, coy savior of Christendom, Wall Street, and just about every backwards thought extant? |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message k.net, NOYB sprach forth the following: "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message k.net, NOYB sprach forth the following: "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message ink.net, NOYB sprach forth the following: Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Bush. You deserve double blame. Careful, or I'll lump you with the kayakers, blow-boaters, and Muslims. Better than being lumped in with a Bushie. Lump away. I'm not an apologist. History will show him as one of our best Presidents ever. How'd you ever learn dentistry with W's dick in your mouth? Your mom agreed to do W's dick-sucking for me. Prostitution must run in your family. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message k.net, NOYB sprach forth the following: "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message k.net, NOYB sprach forth the following: "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message ink.net, NOYB sprach forth the following: Hey, don't blame me. I voted for Bush. You deserve double blame. Careful, or I'll lump you with the kayakers, blow-boaters, and Muslims. Better than being lumped in with a Bushie. Lump away. I'm not an apologist. History will show him as one of our best Presidents ever. How'd you ever learn dentistry with W's dick in your mouth? Did you ever figure out if XOM outperformed the General Market since the election? |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
On Jun 1, 10:15 pm, wrote:
On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:44:07 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: This is the problem with having liberal activist judges on the bench: http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx of course, conservatives have done away with such inconveniences as habeus corpus, and the right to a fair trial... annoyances, you see... A fair trial. humph... Guess it depends on how much money you have. Now that more and more are financially fit, the financially fit are being targeted too and you just don' t like the level playing field do you? Your comment is little more than a cliche', Please tell me how your constitutional rights have been infringed on by Bush. Please name anyone who's have by Bush's policy. It's really just a talking point like the years the libs cried about the rules allowing FBI to check into someones library reading. Crying for years when in fact as of last fall, the FBI had asked for exactly zero library records, none, nada. no ones constitutional rights have been slammed. You talk as if this is some across the country sweep. Of course the only time my constitutional rights were stomped on by dirty establisnment was during the Carter adminstration. Your talking points have no basis in fact, they just make you sound silly and uninformed. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
wrote in message
oups.com... On Jun 1, 10:15 pm, wrote: On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:44:07 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: This is the problem with having liberal activist judges on the bench: http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx of course, conservatives have done away with such inconveniences as habeus corpus, and the right to a fair trial... annoyances, you see... A fair trial. humph... Guess it depends on how much money you have. Now that more and more are financially fit, the financially fit are being targeted too and you just don' t like the level playing field do you? Your comment is little more than a cliche', Please tell me how your constitutional rights have been infringed on by Bush. Please name anyone who's have by Bush's policy. It's really just a talking point like the years the libs cried about the rules allowing FBI to check into someones library reading. Crying for years when in fact as of last fall, the FBI had asked for exactly zero library records, none, nada. no ones constitutional rights have been slammed. You talk as if this is some across the country sweep. Of course the only time my constitutional rights were stomped on by dirty establisnment was during the Carter adminstration. Your talking points have no basis in fact, they just make you sound silly and uninformed. Exactly zero library records? You may want to check your facts. You probably won't, though. You may also want to ponder why it's difficult to check these facts. Do you know why? |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
On Jun 14, 7:18�am, wrote:
On Jun 1, 10:15 pm, wrote: On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:44:07 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: This is the problem with having liberal activist judges on the bench: http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx of course, conservatives have done away with such inconveniences as habeus corpus, and the right to a fair trial... annoyances, you see... A fair trial. humph... Guess it depends on how much money you have. Now that more and more are financially fit, the financially fit are being targeted too and you just don' t like the level playing field do you? *Your comment is little more than a cliche', Please tell me how your constitutional rights have been infringed on by Bush. Please name anyone who's have by Bush's policy. http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/4881381.html Story about a legal resident of the US arrested, in the US, for what he *might* do. Authorities claim "he's the type of person Al Qaida likes to use..." He has been held for an extended period of time without due process, and will continue to be held without any charges being filed while the Bush administration appeals this ruling to the entire Supreme Court. Only those who live a life enjoying freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution need to be fearful when powerful leaders begin redefining or interpreting those rights, others have nothing to worry about. This SOB now rots in a military brig in SC waiting for the Supreme Court to decide whether the Executive Branch can label a US Citizen, (like Jose Padilla, yet another case) an enemy of the state and lock her or him up potentially forever. That's a power that is traditionally enjoyed by dictators and kings, and something over which we pressed the issue back in 1776. If these people are badasses, (and I'm prepared to concede that most all of them likely are), we need to charge them with a crime, put them on trial, and then throw them in jail forever (or worse) if that's the legal punishment for that specific crime. In a democracy, we resolve crimes against people, property, or the state with a legal process. The fact that a few of the crooks get off is a small price to pay to avoid imprisoning innocent people- which would be the greatest injustice of all. Given recent events, and moving forward in time a generation or two, how impossible would it seem that someday and at some time some president will decide, "This group of people is a threat! (to my political future and prospects of re-election)"? In some countries without the freedom we enjoy in the US, people are routinely imprisoned and often killed for what they think......or even for merely what the government *suspects* they might be thinking. 99.9% of us have nothing personal or immediate to fear from a program that identifies "potential" terrorists and locks them up forever without a trial. We all have a lot to fear, now that the camel's nose in under the tent, about what will next be considered a "threat" to the US. Could outspoken Republicans wind up ex-communicado in some Gulag in rural Wyoming under a future Democratic presidency? (Or vice versa?) We are a country ruled by laws, and those laws are subject to the Constitution. No person, regardless of professed motive or particular political party, has the right to deprive even one US citizen of his or her constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Saying that "it's OK as long as it doesn't apply to me or anybody I know" is no different than remarking that a gang of thugs beating up old ladies on the corner is OK as far as you're concerned, because you don't personally happen to be an old lady. It's really just a talking point like the years the libs cried about the rules allowing FBI to check into someones library reading. Crying for years when in fact as of last fall, the FBI had asked for exactly zero library records, none, nada. I'm very sorry to say that your statement that the FBI has asked for "zero library records, none, nada" is wishful thinking. It's also untrue, but I suspect you're merely repeating something that you heard on a talk show and didn't bother to verify. Here's a specific instance. Names, dates, librarians involved, names of the books in question, etc. http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion...an-edit_x..htm FWIW, in her position as a bank CFO my wife is frequently approached by the FBI for information about particular account holders. Each time she is approached, she has to sign a statement acknowledging that she can be charged with a crime if she notifies the account holders that the government is snooping through their financial records. Point being, there's a lot more government snooping goin on, for a variety of reasons, than we'll ever know about. Consider the instances that we do hear about (see above) merely the "tip of the iceberg" The originator of this thread titled his subject "Liberal 9th Circuit Court Ruling could kill boating". That's a scary thought. Not that there's a serious threat to boating.....(a law that stupid is unenforceable and will be ignored by eveybody)....but that we have allowed our politicians, talk show hosts, newspaper editors, and others to so shape our opinions that we now see courts and the law as partisan. Will we change to Plege of Allegiance to "with liberty and justice for all..members of the correct political party"? Katy, batten down the hatches and activate the auxiliary pumps- the ship of state is threatening to founder. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
On Jun 14, 10:21 am, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... On Jun 1, 10:15 pm, wrote: On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 12:44:07 GMT, "NOYB" wrote: This is the problem with having liberal activist judges on the bench: http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx of course, conservatives have done away with such inconveniences as habeus corpus, and the right to a fair trial... annoyances, you see... A fair trial. humph... Guess it depends on how much money you have. Now that more and more are financially fit, the financially fit are being targeted too and you just don' t like the level playing field do you? Your comment is little more than a cliche', Please tell me how your constitutional rights have been infringed on by Bush. Please name anyone who's have by Bush's policy. It's really just a talking point like the years the libs cried about the rules allowing FBI to check into someones library reading. Crying for years when in fact as of last fall, the FBI had asked for exactly zero library records, none, nada. no ones constitutional rights have been slammed. You talk as if this is some across the country sweep. Of course the only time my constitutional rights were stomped on by dirty establisnment was during the Carter adminstration. Your talking points have no basis in fact, they just make you sound silly and uninformed. Exactly zero library records? You may want to check your facts. You probably won't, though. You may also want to ponder why it's difficult to check these facts. Do you know why?- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, I guess it is harder to prove a negative, but I will try. I saw a pretty extensive report last fall where pundits on both sides admitted there had been no requests to any judge at that time for any library records of any citizen. That was late last fall, I really don't remember where I saw the report. I challenge you to come up with one legit story of this happening, I trust you can't. And why do you suggest "you probably won't"? I am not lazy, and I don't talk out of my ars, if I said it, I feel it has been substantially proven. My oldest and I go over this stuff all the time and and ***** is a professional researcher (political consultant) for a very liberal research and consulting outfit in Washington working for imigrant and native american rights, and we go over this civil rights stuff all the time. ***** has almost unlimited acess to professional researchers and archive information and can't show me any real evidence either beyond second hand anecdotal clips told by disgrunteled activists of any real institutional violation of civil rights directly related to the Bush Admin. Maybe some extentions of the usual violations the poor across the board have suffered here for generations . Anyway, please, show me how your rights have been violated by the Bush Admin, or anyone else for that matter, like most talking points of ideologues, there is really little evidence other than hearsay. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
On Jun 14, 11:50 am, Gene Kearns
wrote: There real story here might be that this law was smoke and mirrors and if it isn't being used, it isn't really needed. The law requires the FISA court to make the Order... but if the present administration can't bring itself to use the FISA court, anyway, what's the point? -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats Well if you are talking to me, and I think you are, I was commenting on NOY... remarks about the Bush admin taking away civil rights. Still waiting for real examples, that's all. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
wrote in message
oups.com... On Jun 14, 11:50 am, Gene Kearns wrote: There real story here might be that this law was smoke and mirrors and if it isn't being used, it isn't really needed. The law requires the FISA court to make the Order... but if the present administration can't bring itself to use the FISA court, anyway, what's the point? -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats Well if you are talking to me, and I think you are, I was commenting on NOY... remarks about the Bush admin taking away civil rights. Still waiting for real examples, that's all. I see you're posting from google, which may explain the fact that you keep missing messages that already answer your question. Start at the beginning of this discussion and read every single message. The information is there already. Asking people to post it repeatedly is annoying. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
On Jun 14, 1:19 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message oups.com... On Jun 14, 11:50 am, Gene Kearns wrote: There real story here might be that this law was smoke and mirrors and if it isn't being used, it isn't really needed. The law requires the FISA court to make the Order... but if the present administration can't bring itself to use the FISA court, anyway, what's the point? -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats Well if you are talking to me, and I think you are, I was commenting on NOY... remarks about the Bush admin taking away civil rights. Still waiting for real examples, that's all. I see you're posting from google, which may explain the fact that you keep missing messages that already answer your question. Start at the beginning of this discussion and read every single message. The information is there already. Asking people to post it repeatedly is annoying.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, a link would have probably have been quicker and less annoying for you, I will annoy you no longer about this. Have at it guys. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
wrote in message
ups.com... On Jun 14, 1:19 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message oups.com... On Jun 14, 11:50 am, Gene Kearns wrote: There real story here might be that this law was smoke and mirrors and if it isn't being used, it isn't really needed. The law requires the FISA court to make the Order... but if the present administration can't bring itself to use the FISA court, anyway, what's the point? -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats Well if you are talking to me, and I think you are, I was commenting on NOY... remarks about the Bush admin taking away civil rights. Still waiting for real examples, that's all. I see you're posting from google, which may explain the fact that you keep missing messages that already answer your question. Start at the beginning of this discussion and read every single message. The information is there already. Asking people to post it repeatedly is annoying.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, a link would have probably have been quicker and less annoying for you, I will annoy you no longer about this. Have at it guys. There were links provided. You should learn to dance better. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"John H." wrote in message
... Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil rights. NOYB would not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have taken away the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different story. The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all citizens in the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either mentally impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"John H." wrote in message ... Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil rights. NOYB would not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have taken away the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different story. The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all citizens in the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either mentally impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one. Herring and three other "Americans" are still kissing Bush's ass. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:00:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil rights. NOYB would not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have taken away the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different story. The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all citizens in the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either mentally impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one. And which of your civil rights did you lose? You and others love to ask that question. It's the same as this: "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about". That is an affront to the principles on which this country was founded. If you don't understand that, then 100% of what you've said about serving your country in the military is a farce. You have no idea what you were serving for. Thomas Jefferson would rip you a new asshole for your failure to understand. Then, he'd send you to Benjamin Franklin for another dressing-down. He *gave* you the right to spend a lot more of your money as you choose. How about we let that line drop, OK? |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
On Jun 14, 2:03 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message ups.com... On Jun 14, 1:19 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: wrote in message groups.com... On Jun 14, 11:50 am, Gene Kearns wrote: There real story here might be that this law was smoke and mirrors and if it isn't being used, it isn't really needed. The law requires the FISA court to make the Order... but if the present administration can't bring itself to use the FISA court, anyway, what's the point? -- Grady-White Gulfstream, out of Oak Island, NC. Homepagehttp://pamandgene.idleplay.net/ Rec.boats at Lee Yeaton's Bayguidehttp://www.thebayguide.com/rec.boats Well if you are talking to me, and I think you are, I was commenting on NOY... remarks about the Bush admin taking away civil rights. Still waiting for real examples, that's all. I see you're posting from google, which may explain the fact that you keep missing messages that already answer your question. Start at the beginning of this discussion and read every single message. The information is there already. Asking people to post it repeatedly is annoying.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Well, a link would have probably have been quicker and less annoying for you, I will annoy you no longer about this. Have at it guys. There were links provided. You should learn to dance better.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - Ahh, I should care about the dance, but alas, I really don't. I have had my civil rights trampled on in my lifetime and I am a middle class white guy, so it's hard to get sympathy from me for those who don't want to be 'Merkins anyway... My point is, gvt has been trampling the civil rights of certain classes for decades, it has nothing to do with the Bush admin, it has to do with the ruling class, reguardless of political affiliation or positition. Dance away the night if you must, it is just another escape for me so if it's not fun, it's over, i'd rather be fishin'. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:26:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:00:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil rights. NOYB would not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have taken away the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different story. The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all citizens in the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either mentally impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one. And which of your civil rights did you lose? You and others love to ask that question. It's the same as this: "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about". That is an affront to the principles on which this country was founded. If you don't understand that, then 100% of what you've said about serving your country in the military is a farce. You have no idea what you were serving for. Thomas Jefferson would rip you a new asshole for your failure to understand. Then, he'd send you to Benjamin Franklin for another dressing-down. I asked which rights you'd lost, not which you were willing to give up. You implied the Patriot Act cost you civil rights. Well, back up your statement, or else you just sound like Harry, another whiner. Among other things, the Patriot Act (which you have not read from end to end) includes meddling with habeas corpus. If one citizen loses that right, every citizen loses that right. Does this look familiar? "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message
... In message , JoeSpareBedroom sprach forth the following: Does this look familiar? Not to any federal officeholder of the past 40 years not named "Ron Paul". "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" Let's see what, if anything JohnH has to say about that oath. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
|
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"John H." wrote in message
... On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:44:20 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message . .. On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:26:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:00:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message news:4j737357249rflpflh5sl6asgp84flio3d@4ax. com... Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil rights. NOYB would not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have taken away the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different story. The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all citizens in the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either mentally impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one. And which of your civil rights did you lose? You and others love to ask that question. It's the same as this: "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about". That is an affront to the principles on which this country was founded. If you don't understand that, then 100% of what you've said about serving your country in the military is a farce. You have no idea what you were serving for. Thomas Jefferson would rip you a new asshole for your failure to understand. Then, he'd send you to Benjamin Franklin for another dressing-down. I asked which rights you'd lost, not which you were willing to give up. You implied the Patriot Act cost you civil rights. Well, back up your statement, or else you just sound like Harry, another whiner. Among other things, the Patriot Act (which you have not read from end to end) includes meddling with habeas corpus. If one citizen loses that right, every citizen loses that right. Does this look familiar? "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" You, being such an expert on the Patriot Act, should have no trouble whatsoever showing us the sentence which 'meddles with' you right of habeas corpus. Do so, or hush whining. You took that oath, at least according to your stories. How did it feel, promising to defend something you were ignorant about? What did you think you were defending? "The country"? That's just a piece of land, like any other. What about the principles which you so easily dismiss as trash? |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil rights. NOYB would not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have taken away the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different story. The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all citizens in the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either mentally impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one. Choose just one? But what if you're mentally impaired and a traitor? |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:00:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil rights. NOYB would not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have taken away the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different story. The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all citizens in the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either mentally impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one. And which of your civil rights did you lose? He *gave* you the right to spend a lot more of your money as you choose. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 15:09:04 -0400, HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil rights. NOYB would not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have taken away the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different story. The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all citizens in the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either mentally impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one. Herring and three other "Americans" are still kissing Bush's ass. Harry, you're such a cool guy! It's no wonder some folks get all google-eyed when you respond to them. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:00:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil rights. NOYB would not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have taken away the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different story. The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all citizens in the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either mentally impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one. And which of your civil rights did you lose? You and others love to ask that question. It's the same as this: "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about". That is an affront to the principles on which this country was founded. If you don't understand that, then 100% of what you've said about serving your country in the military is a farce. You have no idea what you were serving for. Thomas Jefferson would rip you a new asshole for your failure to understand. Then, he'd send you to Benjamin Franklin for another dressing-down. Blah, blah, blah. So back to the question... Which civil rights did you lose? |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"NOYB" wrote in message
k.net... "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:00:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message m... Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil rights. NOYB would not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have taken away the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different story. The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all citizens in the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either mentally impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one. And which of your civil rights did you lose? You and others love to ask that question. It's the same as this: "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about". That is an affront to the principles on which this country was founded. If you don't understand that, then 100% of what you've said about serving your country in the military is a farce. You have no idea what you were serving for. Thomas Jefferson would rip you a new asshole for your failure to understand. Then, he'd send you to Benjamin Franklin for another dressing-down. Blah, blah, blah. So back to the question... Which civil rights did you lose? I haven't lost any, yet. But, as Fred pointed out....first they came for the Jews. What makes you think anyone in government is perfect? |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message ... "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:26:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:00:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message om... Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil rights. NOYB would not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have taken away the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different story. The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all citizens in the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either mentally impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one. And which of your civil rights did you lose? You and others love to ask that question. It's the same as this: "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about". That is an affront to the principles on which this country was founded. If you don't understand that, then 100% of what you've said about serving your country in the military is a farce. You have no idea what you were serving for. Thomas Jefferson would rip you a new asshole for your failure to understand. Then, he'd send you to Benjamin Franklin for another dressing-down. I asked which rights you'd lost, not which you were willing to give up. You implied the Patriot Act cost you civil rights. Well, back up your statement, or else you just sound like Harry, another whiner. Among other things, the Patriot Act (which you have not read from end to end) includes meddling with habeas corpus. If one citizen loses that right, every citizen loses that right. Does this look familiar? "I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;" Did Abe Lincoln take that same oath before he suspended habeus corpus? And I suspect a lot more people's "rights" were infringed upon by Lincoln. |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:26:13 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote: "John H." wrote in message .. . On Thu, 14 Jun 2007 19:00:40 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote: "John H." wrote in message ... Bush didn't take away any civil rights. He *gave* civil rights. NOYB would not have said Bush took away our civil rights. Now, he may have taken away the civil rights of some terrorists, but that's a different story. The Patriot Act meddles with civil rights established for all citizens in the constitution. To disagree with this means you are either mentally impaired, or a traitor to this country. Choose one. And which of your civil rights did you lose? You and others love to ask that question. It's the same as this: "If you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about". That is an affront to the principles on which this country was founded. If you don't understand that, then 100% of what you've said about serving your country in the military is a farce. You have no idea what you were serving for. Thomas Jefferson would rip you a new asshole for your failure to understand. Then, he'd send you to Benjamin Franklin for another dressing-down. I asked which rights you'd lost, not which you were willing to give up. You implied the Patriot Act cost you civil rights. Well, back up your statement, or else you just sound like Harry, another whiner. He *gave* you the right to spend a lot more of your money as you choose. How about we let that line drop, OK? How about we don't. Spending your money your way is the greatest civil right you've got! |
Liberal 9th Circuit Court ruling could kill boating
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message ... In message , John H. sprach forth the following: Spending your money your way is the greatest civil right you've got! And W's budgets, unfunded mandates, unfunded liabilities and off-budget wars have left you with far LESS money. The war is not "off-budget". Bush's 2008 budget according to the CBO includes $142 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan, and the war on terrorism. But don't let facts get in your way. You're on a roll. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:01 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com