Reginald Smithers III wrote:
Down,
It is hard, especially when they jiggle the bait just right.


Heck, I've ben falling for about any bait used. Topwater, sinking, live,
cut, you name it. I think a stinkbait even got me once.

Now if i could just get them redfish & snook to cooperate in Thursday,
I'll be mighty thankful...

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 06:58:14 -0600, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 08:30:33 -0500, John H.
wrote:


Harry posted his usual anti-Bush rhetoric and his post got what it
deserved. Where is the 'pro-Bush stuff to which you refer?

You mean like "Laura says he has a cute nose."
Or other stuff?
Anyway, I'm looking forward to him pardoning the turkey.
Shows his heart.

--Vic

I mean like the stuff to which Chuck referred.

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 06:34:23 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Nov 20, 6:00?am, DownTime wrote:
HK wrote:
Obviously, the Republican "base" thinks nothing of sending people off to
die in a political war, but are horrified, just horrified, by the idea
of a blowjob. Or lying about a blowjob.

I am not horrified by it, but you started the 'incompetence' thread.
Clinton is a liar. Show me a politician who doesn't lie and I'll donate
to their campaign.

I hate us being in this war, I'd vote to bring all the troops home NOW
and be done with it.

Now there's a whole list of other issues Clinton mismanaged that are not
exactly shining moments of his administration. Clinton didn't go to war,
but he had the chance to prevent it along time ago. He failed to act &
respond at that time.

Go to an appropriate forum and refresh your memory. Without rebutting
your statement and promoting even more political argument, I will
suggest you start by looking up the response of the congressional
majority when Clinton lobbed some cruise missles at Osama bin Ladin's
training camps. See if you don't find congressional comments decrying
the cost of each missle, and a host of bitchy congressional remarks
about how BC was trying to "distract" the country from the most
pressing issue facing the nation- a blow job in the oval office and a
married man's initial denial when accused of an extra-marital sexual
encounter.

There must be dozens of sites where this subject is appropriate, and
where you could refresh your memory.

If you'll notice, most of the political crap, including the post above,
started after your political post earlier.

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 06:21:17 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould
wrote:

On Nov 20, 5:30?am, John H. wrote:
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:01:00 -0800 (PST), Chuck Gould

wrote:

Political trash snipped.







Every time somebody trots something like this out and into the NG, it
issues free license for all the Bush supporters (or the similarly
inclined) to cut and paste the latest "talking points" from the same
couple of sources and then all hell breaks loose.

Every aspect of life doesn't have to revolve around politics or
political argument, but when you are Jonesing for a political fist
fight there are a bunch of sites set up exactly for that purpose.

This is supposed to be a boating NG. We can and should discuss boats
without giving a schlitz about who voted for whom in 2004, who is
going to vote for whom in 2008. (Heck, if one of the longshots pulls
it out in the home stretch I might even vote Republican for the first
time since in 20 or 30 years....but *NOBODY* cares!! ?At least not in
a boating NG)

When I am talking with a fellow boater across a dock or at a yacht
club meeting, we can discuss a million boating related subjects and
never get into, "Are you a Democrat or a Republican? Who did you vote
for in '04?" In fact, people would think it pretty strange if one
wanted to take the conversation off in that direction.

Rec BOATS, not rec Votes. :-)

I've seen no cut and pastes here from any Bush supporter. Have you?

Harry posted his usual anti-Bush rhetoric and his post got what it
deserved. Where is the 'pro-Bush stuff to which you refer?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I didn't say the pro-bush crowd *had* posted, only that posts like
Harry's "issue free license" to do so. The Bush fans are showing more
maturity and restraint. So far. However, we can be pretty sure that
when the Bush fans (or the similarly inclined) want to trot out a
political screed Harry's anti-bush post will be cited as an excuse for
doing so. That's the way logic works in the NG- no matter how poorly
party A behaves he or she should be excused if party B did something
similar.

If this were the only forum on the web, it would be understandable
that people would discuss a long list of non-boating subjects here,
but it isn't.

Horse****, Chuck.