Total change of subject. I'm curious about something, Harry. If you hear the
term "the special relationship", in a political context, what do you think
of first? No googling, please.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Total change of subject. I'm curious about something, Harry. If you hear the
term "the special relationship", in a political context, what do you think
of first? No googling, please.




Well, the first thing I would think of is the relationship between the
United States and the United Kingdom. It is often referred to as *the*
special relationship.

"HK" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Total change of subject. I'm curious about something, Harry. If you hear
the term "the special relationship", in a political context, what do you
think of first? No googling, please.


Well, the first thing I would think of is the relationship between the
United States and the United Kingdom. It is often referred to as *the*
special relationship.

You get a gold star and a Kermit the Frog sticker. I've been wondering if I
read too much, or some cranks in another newgroup were illiterate. Answer:
Illiterate.

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
Total change of subject. I'm curious about something, Harry. If you hear
the term "the special relationship", in a political context, what do you
think of first? No googling, please.

Well, the first thing I would think of is the relationship between the
United States and the United Kingdom. It is often referred to as *the*
special relationship.

You get a gold star and a Kermit the Frog sticker. I've been wondering if I
read too much, or some cranks in another newgroup were illiterate. Answer:
Illiterate.



Blame it on my liberal arts education and catholic reading lists.

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.

On Jun 1, 8:21?am, "Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute"
wrote:
In oglegroups.com, Chuck
Gould sprach forth the following:

Where ya been?

Repost from last March.........

The legislation (HR 2550) was just introduced last week.

The ruling that NOYB cites occured last fall.

It's because of the public outcry generated by several months of
publicity from thousands of industry voices and the NMMA that congress
is considering HR 2550 at all. There's been a very active campaign all
spring.

(When I mentioned this here last March, I seem to recall taking a
ration of crap
from a couple of guys because I was supporting the NMMA position on
this issue. Rec.boats can be a funny place some times)

On Jun 1, 8:24�am, "NOYB" wrote:
"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in . 128...

In oglegroups.com,
Chuck
Gould sprach forth the following:

Where ya been?

Repost from last March.........

The legislation (HR 2550) was just introduced last week.

There's not much you can do about anything while it's in the court system.
And until the court made the silly ruling that it did, there was no need for
the legislative branch to act. *Now there is.

The ruling was made in the fall of 2006.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message

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.

---------------------------------------------------
Care to wager which side of the roll call vote the liberal Democrats will
fall on this bill?

On Fri, 01 Jun 2007 11:28:24 -0400, HK wrote:

JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"NOYB" wrote in message
link.net...
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
"HK" wrote in message
. ..
NOYB wrote:
"HK" wrote in message and who is doing the
on-camera interpretation?

The editor in chief of boattest.com is interviewing the President of
the NMMA.



Thanks. I figured it wasn't anyone who really understood the
legislative or legal systems. It was too Chicken-Little-ish.
Sometimes you have to go a little over the top to get people to act,
because people by nature only react to histrionics.


Just look at the Global Warming hysteria.





None of the sources I consider are hysterical about global warming.
LOL. algore's Hollywood production wasn't hysterical?


Since that's the only source you're familiar with, it stands to reason you
would mention it over and over and over and over......




I haven't seen Gore's film.

You've missed a lot of hysterics.

"Fred Garvin, Male Prostitute" wrote in message
...
In message , Don White sprach
forth the following:

Someone has to keep the sleezy self-serving politicians in check......and
don't say the people will serve justice on the next election.
twiddle dee...twiddle dum.

Which one do you characterize Ron Paul as?

Sorry...don't know him.