I guess all fishermen are associated with Fox News or something. Or otherwise on the white house's enemies list.
Tell your congressmen you dont want this, unless you hate freedom
CTB Show 497: Edgar Allan Poe Walks Among Us
6 days ago
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I want this. I like wildlife and I don't appreciate rednecks yanking awesome creatures out of their natural habitat for kicks. Fuck you AND your idea of freedom, ODB. I'll see you in the Virginia hills in three weeks, where you'll likely cut my head off with a bowie knife. Fuck you and fuck fishing. Go Barack!
ReplyDeleteYou want the government regulating what private citizens do with their lives? This is recreational sportfishing we are talking about!
ReplyDeleteWhy is the government concerned about me catching a trout? Why do you want the government to be concerned with me catching a trout?
It cant be the environment impact, that would concern commercial fishing, right? Most fisherman I know catch and release and dont use barbed hooks anymore.
It's not a WMD, I promise.
"You want the government regulating what private citizens do with their lives?"
ReplyDeleteYes, podunk private citizens introduced the "Snakehead", do not catch and release, do whatever the fuck they want with natural habitats. Notice YOU said 'regulating', not banning outright. Regulate that shit. Fuckin' mount up!
Do either of you know what they're actually planning on regulating or why? I read the first couple paragraphs of that article and I didn't get it, and I don't really care enough to read more. I'll admit that it does sound suspect to me, but I generally find Obama to be a pretty reasonable fellow, so I tend to believe that (a) they're not planning on doing much that would impact random recreational fishermen like RTB or (b) there's a reasonable rationale for it that I'm not aware of. But I'm willing to be convinced otherwise if anyone wants to fill me in.
ReplyDeleteYou're exactly right. But Limbaugh told Jughead over there to go tell it on the mountain. i.e. ODB's stance on global warming, the cause thereof, healthcare reform...
ReplyDeleteOh right, the liberals answer for everything- Limbaugh told me what to say, so I will say it.
ReplyDeleteSorry, that is what the mass media tells you to do- global warming is real,Al Gore is a genius, government requiring you to pay for healthcare is good and or somehow constitutionally mandated.
Sorry, I unlike you, enjoy my freedom. I don't hate it. I also dont think more government is the answer to every problem.
I don't have a TV and I walk to work, so I don't listen to the radio. I read what science has proven. I could give a shit about Al Gore. I was on the global warming train WAAYYYY before 'An Inconvenient Truth', ask BD2. I love freedom too, but when "enjoying your freedom" starts fucking other people over, it's not YOUR freedom anymore that we're talking about. KFTC.
ReplyDelete"I'm willing to be convinced if anyone wants to fill me in."
ReplyDeleteAnyone want to take me up on this? BMR, why is this not a big deal? RTB, why is it a big deal?
P.S. RTB, I'm still waiting for your explanation as to how a climate change hoax is even remotely plausible. It seems ridiculously absurd to me, but I'm honestly interested in why you would think otherwise. I don't think Al Gore is a genius, but I would if he was the mastermind of an international conspiracy flawlessly executed over three decades by tens of thousands of people.
This is a big deal, Head, because healthcare reform is almost completely jammed down Americans' throats and ODB's "Media" are feasting on any opportunity to get rednecks fired up. I wonder if it's working...
ReplyDeleteHey you want to head over to the government later and get barcoded with me? All the Liberals are doing it.
I got this from Fox News:
ReplyDelete"These draft reports are not map-drawing exercises, they do not contain a zoning plan and they do not establish any restrictions on recreational fishing or on public access, nor make any judgments about whether one ocean activity or use is better than another," Christine Glunz, spokeswoman for the Council on Environmental Quality, said in a statement to FoxNews.com on Wednesday.
Glunz said the task force "sincerely appreciates" the conservation efforts of recreational fishermen and women, and it believes their continued enjoyment of that activity is "critical to the economic, social and cultural fabric" of the United States.
"In fact, one of our main goals is to ensure healthier ocean, coasts and Great Lakes, which will benefit all recreational activities and the communities and economies that rely on them," Glunz wrote.
Obama established the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force in June to address increasing pollution and habitat destruction within the nation's oceans, coastal regions and Great Lakes. Led by Nancy Sutley, the task force released an interim report in September that outlined nine priority objectives of the plan, including the coastal and marine spatial planning.
Three months later, in its interim framework, the task force defined that planning as an "effective process to better manage a range of social, economic, and cultural uses," including commercial and recreational fishing, mining, tourism and traditional hunting, among others.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteGo to fucking asleep, OBD.
ReplyDeletegot a little dyslexic with OBD's acronym in my deleted comment
Head,
ReplyDeleteGlobal Warming is fake. I got 2.5 feet of snow in February. End of story.
Seriously though, how could "climate change" be anything but the cyclical nature of the earth, where there are periods of cooling and warming(periods being 10,000 years or so)?
I don't believe that in 150 years as an Industrialized society we could do anything to harm the earth in a significant (effecting the global temperature) manner.
Does stuff like dumping toxic waste, and pollution harm the environment? I would say yes, and we should work out measures to counteract that, but again, I don't think us humans are controlling the weather, by polluting.
Below is a link that explains my beliefs a bit further-
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/6679082/Climate-change-this-is-the-worst-scientific-scandal-of-our-generation.html
BMR-
ReplyDeleteThe Democrats and Obama ARE ramming healthcare down our throats. Only 36% of Americans approve of how Obama is handling health care and 60% disapprove of how both parties are handling it according to a CBS (liberal media!) poll admitting such.
(http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-6084856-503544.html )
How else do you explain XMas eve votes on the subject, trying to get something passed so the president could say he did SOMETHING before his frst State of the Union Speech?
Here is the latest AP/GfK Poll on healthcare- there is no majority for healthcare
( http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK%20Poll%20March%202010%20HC%20Topline%203.9.10.pdf )
When you are there, look at the first poll displayed there as well. It asks if the country is heading in the right direction. Currently 38% (not the majority of people) think so. 56% think it is heading in the wrong direction (the majority).
http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/
Head, you're my boy, and even all the way over on the left edge of the world, at least you keep an open mind, as I try to do, but BMR,
in your own words- You need to go asleep bitch.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteOl' Dirty Trombone is right. I was way off. If he got 2.5 feet of snow, the only plausible explanation for CLIMATE CHANGE would be that his extra snow was snow that normally falls somewhere else, the Himalayas, for example.
ReplyDeleteSo, you ignore my reasoning, and just attack the joke I made.
ReplyDeleteI obviously wasn't being serious, because below the snow comment, I said, "Seriously" as in the above was a sarcastic joke and after "Seriously" was, serious.
Your "fishing ban" started this whole shit storm. What did you learn from my link? Or did you not read it? I know I didn't read your polls, so it's cool.
ReplyDeleteBitch.
To answer RTB's last post first:
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't care how the majority of Americans feel about Obama's performance at this moment. The majority of Americans voted for Obama in 2008 (alongside a Democratic landslide in Congress), and in doing so they voted for his health care agenda, which was more liberal (public option!) than the one currently being considered by Congress. America elected the Democrats and they're enacting their agenda. That's how democracy works.
And frankly, there's a reason for that: Politicians are elected to do what's best for the country, not what's most popular. And this reform, in my mind, is unquestionably good for the country. The individual insurance market is an abomination, and I think if this plan is enacted, we'll all look back 10 years from now and say "How did we ever put up with that?" in the same way that letting seniors go without the care they need seems absurd now that Medicare is the norm.
Also, I would argue that the opposition is more related to distaste for the process (which has been awful for everyone except maybe Fox News) and misinformation than objections to what's actually in the plan. In fact, people seem to like almost everything in the plan.
Lastly, a correction: Public opposition to the plan is more like 48-43 than the 36-60 disparity you cite (from a single poll conducted two months ago).
Anyway, if it's any comfort, Obama's been more on the side of public opinion than Republicans have been.
oh joy another democrat and republican argument about god knows what. stay in the middle it is much easier to make arguments that aren't boring to listen to.
ReplyDeletenuthin but love.
As for your climate change argument, I find the idea that we can't have a major (i.e. weather-altering) impact on this planet to be a little strange, to be honest. I mean, just look at the planet from space. We humans are very insignificant, but we there are a lot of us and we have harnessed science in such a way that we can clearly have major impacts on the planet.
ReplyDeleteAnd it's not like it takes THAT much to alter the global climate - a volcano spewed enough in a couple days to lower the temperature by two degrees. So we couldn't spew enough to affect the climate in 150 years?
Moreover, which scenario is more likely to you:
(1) Scientists discover that our pollution is endangering the planet. A bunch of companies who make money by spewing this pollution into the atmosphere spend a bunch of money to obscure the science and confuse the public to protect their bottom lines.
(2) A bunch of scientists conspire to conjure up an imaginary danger caused by pollution in our atmosphere.
I know which one sounds (substantially) more plausible to me. One is basically what happens every day on every issue: a problem arises and entrenched interests fight change. The other would require a collaboration unrivaled in its complexity by any other in the history of humanity.
We have been treating this planet as a source and a sink for as long as we've been around. We take as much as we want and expect the earth to replenish it; we dump whatever we have left over and expect the earth to clean it up. That was fine when there were a few hundred million of us.
But it's sort of inevitable that as the population kept growing, we were, at some point, going to exhaust this planet's ability to replenish what we need and clean up what we discard. It turned out to be CO2 from burning fossil fuels that crossed this threshold first, but if it hadn't happened with carbon, it would have happened with something else. (Though it's not surprising that it happened now.)
So we'll switch to more sustainable means of powering our stuff (by using the sun, the same power source as the earth itself) and go back about our business. But sustainability will probably always be something we have to keep in mind if we expect the earth to handle billions and billions of us living on it at once.
I may have more when I finish reading the Telegraph article you linked to.
Okay, finished reading. Well, they certainly flooded that article with very suspicious-sounding claims about climate scientists, and I'm definitely not going to try to debunk all of them. In fact, I would argue that one of the tactics used by climate change deniers is that they throw out as many criticisms and allegations as possible knowing that scientists can't refute them all (which takes a lot of time for each one).
ReplyDeleteBut I happen to have already read a thorough dismantling of the "shocking example" of manipulation of temperature data in Australia that the Telegraph purports. Basically it just isn't true. It's all too easy to watch the scientific process and scream "Ha! I caught you!!" every time a legitimate statistical adjustment happens to bend the temperature curve upward. But that doesn't make it true.
I will also say that I'm pretty unimpressed by the CRU "scandal" from what I've read. RTB, if you've seen damaging emails other than the one Silver mentions in that link, feel free to pass them along.
Head, I think your option 2 sounds more realistic to me, actually. Scientists can and do make up or fudge data to get what they want sometimes (funding, grants, etc.). Sometimes they fudge data to be P.C. and to force a political agenda.
ReplyDeleteCertainly not all scientists agree on this- 31,000 dont here ( http://www.petitionproject.org )
This person of whom I have no relation to makes a good point here-
http://www.journal-news.net/page/content.detail/id/522850.html
Anyways,
Keep buying Hybrid death cars, and supporting taxing our economy out of existence, while also diminishing our personal freedoms,
Me, I think I'll throw a couple of fishing poles in the back of my (pre-Government owned ) American GM truck, along with a few 6 packs of MHL, and catch me a bass or 4. Then put the plastic rings from the MHL's on the fish and release them.
"The majority of Americans voted for Obama in 2008 (alongside a Democratic landslide in Congress), and in doing so they voted for his health care agenda, which was more liberal (public option!) than the one currently being considered by Congress. America elected the Democrats and they're enacting their agenda. That's how democracy works."
ReplyDeleteI forgot to respond to this, Head.
Yes, the majority of people in America voted for him. We are not a democracy however. We are a democratic Republic. There is a difference.
By definition, a republic is a political unit governed by a charter, while a democracy is a government whose prevailing force is always that of the majority.
As a republic, we are governed by a charter (the Constitution) and as such, the governing bodies need to follow it as our guiding document. Not just by popular or unpopular demand of the people.
Ignoring that mandate, by lets say, requiring you to buy something, without amending said charter, is unconstitutional.
When the Dems got voted into office, that did not necessarily mean that voters (the majority of them ignorant to the liberal agenda of the Dems, IMHO) were voting for a public option. It meant they wanted Democrats in there instead of the other option.
Now that people are finding out more about the Grand Plan to save Healthcare, some/most at least have second thoughts about it, and our representatives should be listening to that. By the looks of things, some reps aren't. So if the Democrats agenda is stalled, because of a lack of support, it probably shouldn't go through into law.
But, they keep pushing for the "Nuclear Option" Budget Reconciliation Process that Obama, Clinton, Reid, and the rest were so against in 2003 when Bush and some of the Repubs. tried to do it!
Responding to the health care comment first:
ReplyDeleteDemocracy/republic semantics aside, I'd like you to show me the passage in the Constitution where it says that the Legislative and Executive branches need to conduct polls on each issue and do what the public wants at any given time.
"Ignoring that mandate, by lets say, requiring you to buy something, without amending said charter, is unconstitutional." There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about the individual mandate. Period. No, I'm not going to search through all the things I've read and provide you a bunch of links to this effect. But I'll buy you a beer if it's enacted and then overturned by the Supreme Court (which is saying something given the composition of today's court).
As I said, people voted for Obama, and he made it clear that health care reform was a signature priority of his campaign. There is absolutely nothing wrong with an elected official pursuing the agenda that got him elected. I find it fairly refreshing, personally (compare it to Bush, who made privatization of social security his major priority after the 2004 election when it was not at all a major part of his campaign).
The opposition to the reconciliation process is complete garbage; it's perfectly legal and there is nothing wrong with majority rules as a philosophy of governance (in fact, I'd think a strict Constitutionalist such as yourself would be for it).
Yes, the Dems who protested in 2003 are being hypocritical, but no moreso than the Republicans who are criticizing it now but used it many times in the past (Dems also didn't complain that much back in 2003). But that doesn't make them wrong now.
By the way, if the Dems pass health care reform and it someday becomes favored by a majority of the public, would they then be vindicated in passing it in the first place? I just want to make sure I understand how this "governance by polls" works. For what it's worth, just about any spending cut you might want would be impossible.
ReplyDeleteAre you really going to argue that, because science has been wrong before, it is wrong in this particular instance? That's like arguing that every lottery ticket is a winner because people win the lottery from time to time.
ReplyDelete"Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields."
That's a joke right? We're defining "scientists" in this context to mean people with a bachelor's degree? Thirty-nine of whom specialize in climatology??
So, to summarize the RTB argument:
(1) A massive scientific conspiracy is more likely than a push against needed reform by people with entrenched financial interests.
(2) Science has been wrong at times in the past so it's obviously wrong now. Nevermind everything else it's produced for us (such as the medium on which we're communicating right now).
(3) Orthopedic surgeons and architects know more about climate science than climate scientists.
Pardon me if I'm unpersuaded.
P.S. The guy who is unrelated to you is wrong: Conservatives don't believe in less government.
ReplyDeleteHead, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree, on damn near all points.
ReplyDeleteOn a related note, now that you are back within driving distance, can I get an invite to hang sometime? Still haven't seen little head (not your own- but I haven't seen that either- let the record show)
Holler
Certainly. I haven't been big on invites since we moved because we're in a little apartment. But hopefully we'll have something larger by the end of the summer, in which case visits would be awesome. There's lots of good outdoors stuff to do down here as well.
ReplyDelete