On Jun 1, 8:22�am, "NOYB" wrote:
"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

ups.com...
On Jun 1, 7:31?am, "NOYB" wrote:





"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in
. 128...

In messagenews:36a0631mkhsn8np0js1un0nvk75bad2n6c@4ax .com, Gene Kearns
sprach forth the following:

On 01 Jun 2007 13:42:33 GMT, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:

In as.earthlink.net,
NOYB sprach forth the following:

This is the problem with having liberal activist judges on the bench:
http://www.boattest.com/nmma.aspx

Encourage your elected representatives to support HR 2550, the
Recreational Boating Act of 2007.

Here is the Act:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/.../~c110qDJssC::

Now, isn't this a confusion! Do you really want to support a bill
sponsored by one of them "liebral democrats?"

GovTrack puts his ideology right-of-center. This took me TWO SECONDS to
find, dumbass.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/person.xpd?id=400399

And the co-sponsor is a Republican from Michigan.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Are you saying you wouldn't support a bill that's good for boating if
it were only sponsored by a Democrat (possibly not judged by some
rating service to be right of center) and not co-sponsored by a
Republican?

If so, that's pretty dogmatic.

No. *I'm saying that a LIBERAL Democrat would never put forth a bill that
protects boater's rights over the wishes of a wacko environmentalist group.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nonsense.

I'm far more liberal than most Democrats, and if I were in Congress
I'd be proud to introduce or support this bill.

It's about equity. It's perfectly OK to have a law that says foreign
ships can't dump ballast water in US ports, but it's bad law as well
as nuts to
apply that same standard to some guy in a 28-foot Trophy who wants to
flush his bait tank. It's absurd to apply it to engine cooling water,
etc.
Taken to the next step, we'd be required to collect any rain that fell
on deck to be sure it didn't become "contaminated" as it drained off
into the water below.

And, for the record, the "environmental wackos" absolutely did not set
out (at least in this case) to destroy recreational boating. Their
issue was the ballast water. The judge stated hat he couldn't find
anything in the law that permitted the EPA to exempt discharges from
private vessels, and that's really all Congress needs to do: pass
legislation that specfically permits the EPA to exempt private
discharges and get GWB to sign it.

Do you favor the dumping of ballast water from commercial vessels?
It's possible that there are people who would, based on the practice
making it more difficult or expensive to be in the shipping business
and the subsequent decrease in dividends to shareholders.