our next president

[Okiedrifter]

ok, not to start a fight, no name calling, but i would like to hear some opinions, from peaple who share some things with me and mine, like fishing and hunting about who will make the better prez... is it bush , or gore ....,,,,, all ive heard on t.v. this last couple of days is libbermans views on religion,, who is the man, that will help protect my rights in the field , and on the water, but also insure that my children will have wild game to harvest. so far i have not a clue as to who will do what or what they have already done. hope this doesnt scare u to bad R.T.

------------------
okiedrifter

Oh wow Ron & Monika! I don't know if this belongs on a fishing forum, but we can try it for a bit; particularly if people in the know can enlighten us about the 2 candidate's records on support for the environment and fishing issues. I won't allow (see Policy post) it to degenerate into derogatory political fighting for which it has all the potential to do. The most recent political thread on a fishing forum was a 100 post argument on the P.P. BB, about Slade Gorton, in which I participated. If Jen or I cut it off, PLEASE NOBODY call foul or censorship. Jen? --- OK, with that said, vote for Gore. (jk - maybe). I am registered as an Independant (so I am not a Demo or Repub). I lean somewhat left of center, especially concerning macro-economics (as another poster on PP put it). From all that I've gathered, from what I consider credible sources, VP Gore has a better record conerning the environment, and likely toward a more balanced solution to the Northwest native salmon and steelhead ESA crisis. By that I think Gore would come down more on the side of the fish and the enviroment, and Gov. Bush definitely would come down on the side of big corporate money interests. That likely would reflect the rest of their real agenda, despite whatever stated political format they espouce during campaign lying. Gore's team will tell us that they are totally responsible for this country's economic upturn since the Demos came back to Presidential office (not totally true). We will read Bush's lips and hear that he will offer the usual vote buying little carrot of tax cuts, which is a very effective political election tool. The big carrots in that scenario will go back to the wealthy though. On the other side of the "coin", I don't like all of the Demos spending plans (I won't get into that hot seat, so don't ask which ones). And while I don't like the idea of government becoming too intrusive in our lives, in many cases it is just nescessary or the advantageous powerful would just eat the rest of us up even more than they already do. I don't know the answers. Maybe I will vote for Ralph Nader. Seriously! - RT

[Steelheadman]

I'll choose Gore-Tex, since I consider myself moderate.

I'll come down in support of Gore also but I'm not real enthusiastic about it. GW's too much of a lightweight for my taste. Had the GOP nominated McCain instead of Bush we would probably be talking about President McCain come January. I sure do miss the late great Oregon governor Tom McCall.In 1974 when the steelhead intiative was on the ballot it was McCall who campaigned vigourously for it and made the difference.
A truly great conservastionist.

[Okiedrifter]

HEY BIGSTEW,,,,i to would of voted mcain, thanks for ur views

------------------
okiedrifter

I think senate and congretional votes are more important to produce environmental results you will feel, but as far as the presidency, Bush has a pretty good record for cleaning up texas' air. I know you hear just the opposite in certain circles, but I have seen some data that says otherwise. No I don't have any of it, so you can take it or leave it. Gore is supposed to be the environmental president, But I saw on a negative campaign ad tonight that he has SOLD some mining rights on the Gore farm. Some environmentaly unfriendly type of mining. Oh well, guess you hear what they want you to hear. Although it is very important, my vote is not strongly environmental.


I liked McCain alot at first, but when the going got tough, McCain lost his composure. (not a good quality)

[This message has been edited by corky (edited 08-09-2000).]

[winterkill]

how about ralph nader? he wants to preserve the enviroment and rivers. I dont know his views on fishing but my guess is he dosent mind that either (he has a indian as vp so i figure shes pro fishing and hunting and he must be too) he wants to stop the poor from getting poorer and the rich from getting ricker...(aka capitolism) he is pro hemp (primarily idustrial).

[Barnyard]

I like the idea of split governing(one party has the white house the other congress)....That way they can't hurt us too bad....I hope

[Gone Fishin]

VOTE ROSS PEROT!
OR BETTER YET SKIP THE ELECTION CRAP AND GO FISHIN'!

[winterkill]

i second that gonefishin!!!!!!!!! Actually ill be elk hunting or deer hunting.

[Grant Scheele]

My vote is for RT!!

[Swami]

Nader gets my vote. And I'm not kidding.

I never said I would have voted for McCain I just think he would have probably won. Actually I think I'll write Jennie's name in.

[Steve]

Remember when the President was doing Monika? Who stood watch at the door? When the President was hugging Sara Brady, who was going Right On! Who invented the internet? Who invented Gore-tex! Are we ready of 4 more years of 2nd Ammendment rights being trampled? 4 more years of federal lands being tied up, and taken away from hunters and fishermen re: Steens Fed. Monument. Only one or the other will win this election. My vote is for the lesser of the 2 evils G.W.B and who cares if big business gets a tax break? who pays the most taxes, Micro Soft or your corner grocery, Uncle aready gets 57% of my income, no wife, kids, property, can't deduct my boat, unless I make it a business...VOTE
Grand Old Party....

You are are republican Steve. So I will try to make this so you are able to understand it. I am a democrat and sometimes I have to work the swing shift. So we aren't alike. Since you pay a higher rate of taxes I'm not suprized your in the Grand Old Farty's. Because of that I'm also not suprised that like most republican's you throw out untruths to help your selfish causes. Such as you pay 57% of your income to taxes. Whatever you actually pay is not very well invested in typical GOP wealthy tax sheltered investments then. Better get a new advisor. Then you imply that Al Gore was standing guard at Clinton's door when he did Monika! lol At least demos get permission before they screw people. And you twist information only to enhance your selfish preferences. Like saying that demos hurt fishing and hunting opportunity by their federal land policies. Certainly not for our grandchildren. But being GOP you only care about yourself. And with improved habitat on federal lands kept away from big GOP money interests the salmon and elk will make a comeback within your lifetime. You ask who cares if big business gets tax breaks? All of us who have to pay more because the wealthy powerful corporations bullied us into having to give them tax breaks or they threaten to take away their jobs and move to where they will be given tax breaks. That's why I can correctly answer your question of who pays more taxes Microsoft or all this countries grocery stores. It's the grocery stores! Most people will pull and vote for the party candidate that will do them personally the most good, like you. Maybe I would too I don;'t know but if I did as you do I would not have as much selfrespect. Gore or Nader. No Bushwhacker.

[Jim]

This is a great thread if we can keep from attacking persons.

I feel stuck on this one and I am sure will be come November, and I must admit that because of the electoral system I do not feel that my vote counts out here on the West coast when most elections lately have been won or lost by the mid-west.

So...as for president...actually don't care. As for Senators on down...that is where it all lands and where impacts can be made.

Jim

[Jim]

This is a great thread if we can keep from attacking persons.

I feel stuck on this one and I am sure will be come November, and I must admit that because of the electoral system I do not feel that my vote counts out here on the West coast when most elections lately have been won or lost by the mid-west.

So...as for president...actually don't care. As for Senators on down...that is where it all lands and where impacts can be made.

Jim

[Osprey]

Hulk Hogan Hey if Jessie Ventura can make it...Why not I hate these threads


------------------
Row quietly and fish a Cataraft !!-------<'))>><

[Slider]

Os,

I agree with you, I too dislike these threads. Nobody is ever right and everyone else is always wrong.

Most people are incredibly disenchanted with politics, why else would voter turn out be so low? Nobody thinks that their vote makes a difference, and when they do vote for a winning canidate, they rarely follow through with their campaign promises. Like the old saying goes........


Slider

[scooby]

I tend to vote (at the federal level) based on monetary and fiscal policy. I do this because this has the most impact on our lives and it is high profile, ie these cannot be set aside or deferred to another to make. Due to my background and work experience I believe that Bush will provide the best results in this area.

Regarding fishing and the environment. This should be considered at the state level as opposed to the federal level. It seems, the federal government defers to states when it comes to these issues. I don't think gore or bush have any idea regarding the netting issues here or for that matter care if we will be able to catch steelhead and salmon five years from now.

I agree with Jim, the true power lies in the house and senate. Look at policy over the last 10- 20 years. For each tenure, it clearly reflects who was in control of the house and senate.

[wildwild]

Steve,
If you are paying 57% of your income in taxes..Call me..
Someone is stealing from you. My wife is a CPA and if you are paying that much..Your accountant or whoever does your taxes does not know what they are doing.

[Katchun Release]

I can understand why republicans who also fish could feel torn. I'm not sure how you can care for the rivers and fish and still vote republican. They have thumbs'ed down on the environment every chance they get. Idaho's Larry Craig has voted against the environment EVERY SINGLE TIME he's voted, and I'm sure Washington's infamous Slade Gorton is trying to match that record.

You may think the presidential race doesn't matter, but if Bush is elected and we continue with our Republican dominated Congress, it's gonna be ugly. Very ugly.

So let's go fishin' and forget the whole thing til election rolls around. Then get out there and vote. (I'd love to vote for Nader too, but I'm afraid a vote for Nader is a vote away from Gore and to Bush. The man's a moron -- a greedy, power-hungry moron, worse yet.)

Cheers...

[Ramstrong]

Religion and Politics? Emu's don't bother themselves with such things, why should we here on this board?

[Scarecrow]

Hey Katchun & Release, betcha my moron can beat your moron! If we continue this thread that's what we'll ultimately end up sounding like. Pull the plug!

[Okiedrifter]

ill tell u somthing, if my thread upsets u peaple so much then by all means, kill it..ur going to wright in this name and that. it bothers u that this isnt a fishing thread, but whine and cry no one takes our side (rec. fishing) into considerations at the state and gov. meetings, geez maybe there is a reason..,all i wanted was some input from my fellow anglers.

------------------
okiedrifter

[PeterMac]

I don't have enough information to really get involved in this discussion, I plan on doing allot of boning up on the choices before November. But it does seem like Gore would like to make decisions about land use in the State of Oregon, rather than those we have elected to represent us (ie the recent National Monument/Steens Mountain stuff, etc). I don't feel that is correct. I think it should be left in the hands of the people such legislation effects. Look how well we defeated Measure 64, the anti-clearcut bill, a couple years ago...

There was an ODFW meeting in Tillimook a year or so ago that took the tone of some of the comments in this thread. Allot of complaining about policies, elected officials, etc. The chairman asked the room of 100 or so attendees, mostly hunters and fishermen like ourselves, how many voted in the last election. Less than 10 people raised their hands.

Regardless of our views, we have to vote to make a difference.

PeterMac

[Ramstrong]

RT-
Actually, the power is in the people, and if you don't vote then my vote has more weight. Why do you think that the campaign is focused on Senior Citizens. A minority does the majority of the voting and if you win them you win the race.

[DanS]

scooby,

You want a monetary and fiscal reason NOT to vote for GW in this particular election. These numbers were sent to me by my stock broker, and the company he works for is quite conservative in its thinking.

This table gives you the percentage gain of stocks traded as part of the Dow Jones Industrial Average (DJIA) depending on the parties in Congress/White House. Numbers reflect the dates March 4, 1901 to July 5, 2000.

Repub Pres/Repub Congress 1.3%
Repub Pres/Dem Congress 6.3%
Dem. Pres/Dem Congress 6.6%
Dem Pres/Repub. Congress 10.1%

We now have a GOP-controlled congress. Want a whopping 1.3% ROI on your stocks? Not me. I'll take the 10.1%, thank you very much. Now you can argue about who's responsible for what, but this is a 100-year average, so no one Pres/Congress can take too much credit or blame.

And using Texas as an example of how things should be is scary to me. Texas ranks 49 out of 50 for children living in poverty (50th in percentage of children) and children without health insurance. 38th out of 50 in teachers' salaries. 48th of 50 in availability of affordable housing. 48th out of 50 in per capita public health spending. 47th out of 50 in delivery of social serices, and 50th (or first, depending on how you look at it) in volume of pollutants released by its factories. 42 out of 50 high school students in Texas drop out before graduating. No wonder the numbers for the ones who DO graduate look good. Not a list to be proud of, to be sure. Is it all GW's fault? Of course not, but he's the Guv and he gets the blame just like Locke does here.

Is Gore a candidate to be proud of voting for? Not really. He's made a career on accepting tobacco money, and now he's going after the tobacco companies. His fundraising tactics are unethical, and his environmental record isn't lilly-white. But politics is a game of alternatives. This is why you Nader supporters are fighting a losing battle. Nader can't win. And a vote for Nader might as well be a vote for GW Bush. Don't blame me for it, the voter who never votes against party lines makes sure it stays that way. Will it change? Maybe, but not in time for this election. So if I was you, I'd say "Thanks for running, Ralph" and then vote for the lesser of the other two evils.

Vote for your guy, but vote. Non-voters get no ******** rights, and they deserve none. It is hard being on the west coast and watching the election being called while our polls are still open for 3 hours, but that's just the way it is. Get over it and vote anyway. By the way, the numbers above are from the GAO and not the typical liberal sources you might expect. If you're really behind Bush, feel free to rebut them with any sources you find.

I'm voting Gore/Lieberman with reservations. But the alternative is Gore/Cheney and that's not what I'm looking for. Just my $.02, hope I didn't bore you.

Fish on.........


[This message has been edited by DanS (edited 08-10-2000).]

So far so..... well better than the Slade Gorton thread. HH, while I do respect your views, the way you presented them with it getting a little too personal, that can lead to this thread becoming something we are now going to try to avoid on this BB. Try to keep your points and counter points >////'>> to the point. Without personel acusation or name calling. For those interested in this important subject (for fishermen too) I will try to keep it on board for you; if kept in proper guidelines. This is an important election year, especially with the ESA cloud hanging over all citizens of the Northwest. For those expressing disinterest in this being on a fishing BB, simply don't click on this thread. This is just one subject among a throng of fishing subjects. Thanks members. - RT

[winterkill]

all you people are wrong the power lies in the PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!!! it even says so in the bill of rights. if so many people cant stand the government then we have the power to change it, that is called a democracy, and thats what our governments about!!!!!!!!
Anyway why waste time voting go deer hunting (its during deer season right?) PEACE OUT

wk - First you say that the power is in the people, then you tell us not to vote?!? How's that work?

[bswim]

The thing that scares me about Gore is the fact that he tends to lean toward the wacko enviro side. He wants to bring the fish back but he'd also love to take your poles away. He has already said that he wants to do away with guns of any kind. Bye Bye hunting, not to mention our right to defend ourselves. Someone earlier in the post mentioned that GW sided with large business. Don't all politicians? After all large business is the only ones with enough $$ to line their pockets with.
What cracked me up was right after Gore was in Detroit telling the Big 3 that they need to do away with the combustion engine and find a cleaner, more enviro friendly one. Guess where he is. Up in our National Park climbing Mt Rainier. What got him there? About 6-7 Chevrolet Suburbans. Those are about the worst things you can drive if you're that concerned about the enviroment.
Needless to say, i don't care for any of them. They love to pass laws to tell us how to live, but they feel they are above them.

[Okiedrifter]

ive spent alot of time today, reviewing the can-idiots goals on such matters as enviroment., gun laws, and state rights...it dosent seem either one has a recored on there past votes that im impressed with..i believe nadder will be a through away vote, and dont want to do that...this will be a close one this year, and every vote will count. it does seem that gore has a tiny margin on bush, on the enviro, but i lean towards bush on gun policy..at this point i suppopt niethern and may not know untill i pull the curtain, wich way i jump..

------------------
okiedrifter

[Steve]

I must have put some burr under Hammerhead's saddle, I told RT that I was out spoken on issues. Whoever said that Texas was 49th in Children Poverty failed to mention that Arkansas is 50th also under G.W.B the latest stats for what they are worth, I think that Colin Powell said...Texas education has improved by a whopping 50% in the last year alone. To recieve such a scorcher from hammer head is actually a compliment, and an indication that the liberal Left is afraid that we will take the Whitehouse and Congress and Senate...then they will take their ball and go home...If he has no interest in owning firearms, or having access to public lands.. or the best one yet...yesterdays Oregonian had a report that one ranch in the Steens is willing to trade 500+ acres of private property for 1500 acres of public land...with a deal like that where do I sign up...Would joust with Hammerhead, dueling G.Loomis's and see if they honor their warrenty...not really HH...if we left politics out of it we might even like each other...Notice I wear dark glasses?

[scooby]

Dan S.

Thanks for the statistic. Although I would like to see the methodology applied in coming up with said average. Being a CPA and all I tend to question averages and percentags especially when a stock broker has produced them. People will calculate to make their point.. statistics allows us to do this. I bet if you put it to a test a person from the GOP could push it the other way. Ratio analysis, is one of the least accurate ways to analize overall numbers due to the ability to manipulate the ratio. That number is especially suspect when you consider the time frame include the great depression... Also, you don't say if that is for the full 99 years or an annual/biannual/or some other type of average.

All that aside, I would have to say that is not a very good measure of a groups monetary and fiscal policy to begin with. The stock market is a game of supply and demand fueled by investor speculation regarding a particular company at any given point in time.
Consider the following to illustrate my point.. The last two years Mr Greenspan has increased interest rates dramatically, at risk of slowing the overall economy to slow down the stock market. The stock market has not really slowed down (if you look at annual increase) but the overall economy has.. another case of ego trying to control the uncontrollable. (like trying to stop the 30 plus lb king who decides to go back to the ocean.. all you do is get burned.) But nevertheless very tight monetary policy in place and the stock market still rolled on... go figure

Monetary and fiscal policy is about the government and their spending and earnings. Where is the money going? How are the getting it? Are we going to increase government spending? are we going to increase government revenue? (#1 revenue source - Taxes) what about interest rates? what about appointees the two candidates will make who in turn make the decisions on these things.? That is what I was referring too... day traders have more infuence on the stock market than the president...

[Katchun Release]

Whoa, Scooby! If you think the market hasn't slowed down in the last five months, you've been doing an ADMIRABLE amount of fishing!!

Katchun

[Pilar]

Alright I'll wade right in! If you think it really matters which of the parties are elected you are kidding yourself! ( that ought to start a fistfight Both are tied to commercial and other special interests by contributions of money and other perks. The same lobbyists swarm through DC regardless of who we elect and their influence is untracked and pervasive. The answer (opinion, sorry) is to flush the toilet and get rid of the lobbyists. You only have to look at really scary special interests like religion, tobacco and oil to see what I mean. Tom Clancy wrote a book called 'Executive Orders' in which the congress is wiped out by a 747 crashed into a joint session. I don't advocate such a thing but it is an interesting concept. The newly elected government being politically 'naive' chose to ignore the lobbyists and carry out the mandate of the People. Pretty far fetched huh? What if we voted for a third party? That would render the pundits, spin masters and pollsters irrelevant. I hate like hell to have some stuffed shirt tell me how I'm going to vote or why. Other choices? Jerry Garcia is dead, alas so is Frank Zappa, Pat Paulsen doesn't run anymore and Nader comes to mind although he will probably be too threatening to the established interests to last long as the Pres. All in all I think every body in the beltway is way too interested in staying on the gravy train of public office and not enough interested in thier employers.... You and me or what we think. The bend is your friend!

Dan S, how's it going? I seem to meet up with you alot this election season. While you were nice enough to admit that George W. wasn't completely responsible for Texas' state, you conveniently forgot to mention that the numbers you threw out were all improved since he took over for the previouse dem. gov. I'm sure i will talk to you again before Nov. Tight Lines Roland

[DanS]

corky,

You may be right, although I haven't really looked to far into the changes that GW has implemented. I do know that when you start near the bottom, there's only one way to go. We may be screwed in either case, but I was not impressed with how the DJIA has reacted in the past to a GOP White House/Congress. And since the numbers came to me from Edward Jones & Co, a very conservative brokerage firm, I can only assume they weren't giving these numbers as part of any liberal agenda. EJ & Co. merely gave the numbers and told their clients to vote with their portfolios in mind. I guess as long as your candidate is going to stop listening to you when elected, you might as well look for a decent return on your investments.

I'm not all that fond of Gore, but I'm less fond of Bush, and really not fond of Cheney. JMHO.......

Fish on......

[dawhunt]

Hi everyone,I just want to throw my 2 cents in,I truly do not like either one of them,I think Bush is a #$%##^&( and Gore is a *&%^%^%$&(,and I just hope someone sneaks in to save us.I'm a democrat,but I would have voted for McCain if he would have made it.I really don't want to vote for either one.I guess Gore is the choice cus Bush hasn't given a straight answer on enviromental items yet if he has I haven't heard them.I don't trust Gore on the gun issue its something we'll have to watch if he gets in.I just don't know.What do you guys and gals thing of R. Nader ?? Besides Bush has that stinky slimey smile on his face to much
its almost like he thinks he's putting something over on us.
Bob D.

------------------
Bob Dawson

[dawhunt]

I know an RT and JEN ticket ,yea thats works !!

------------------
Bob Dawson

[Jennie@ifish]

you mean, President Jen, and vice R.T., right?
He could bait my hook, make sure my coffee was hot, ummmm lets see, R.T., are you a good cook? Could you wipe down my rods every night and make sure they don't have any egg crud on them?
Hold my tackle box while I navigate the rough spots? Hmmmmmmm I like the sounds of this.
Jen

[DanS]

Jen,

I think RT might get the best end of a Jen?RT ticket. I mean, Clinton looks 100 years old now, and Gore hasn't aged much at all. I tell you this, I wouldn't wish either of my sons to become President. It's a thankless job. Get elected when the cycle of the economy is in a trough, and you're a bum (see Jimmy Carter). Get elected when the economy is in an upswing, and even if you're a dirtbag, you get the credit ( see Clinton/Reagan). But in either case, you're liable to leave office looking a hundred years older than when you started. Carter waa a good man and a terrible Pres. I think Reagan was a chump, but the economy liked him. And Clinton doesn't know the meaning of the word "is", and even small-time investors have made big gains in this bull market. Go figure.

I'm a liberal at heart, and I won't apologize to anyone for it. But I believe that the Dems and GOP have mastered dirty pool and dirty politics, I'd just rather get screwed by a liberal than a conservative ( maybe 'cause I like sex, drugs, and rock&roll). But that's just me. Gimme a straight-talking candidate that CAN win, and I'm there, conservative or liberal. McCain was too party-line for me, Bush is too daddy's boy, and Gore is too Clinton's boy to make me happy, so I'm going with the one that I'm least embarassed about voting for, Gore/Lieberman. Don't hold it against me, but I think that's my best option.

Just vote, folks. It's all you CAN do.


Fish on...........

Political "dis"cussions are both annoying and very interesting at the same time. I'm finding this one rather fun. People throw out unsubstantiated stats, some credible others downright funny. No offense Steve, but it is Bubba that came from "50th" place Arkansas, Gore is from Tennesee. So you might have unwittingly given the Hammer some support for his GOP take? (jk - I know that was just an oversight ..... wait a second on that ..... were you the one who said Gore was outside garding Bubba's door while he was "entertaining" Monika?). I guess I shouldn't be concerned what people think of my political leanings because of my role on the BB, I'm still a nice dude with a good tude regardless. So, I will say that I essentially agree with and think much like Dan S does. I would like to see someone like Nader (with some tweaks) in the Presidency. But it is a more than a throw away vote; it is a partial vote for GWB. When will we get to vote on a different basis than picking the lesser of 2 evils? Not anytime soon, so I will just have to vote for Gore. And it's more than just because of GW's "stinky slimey smile", Bob . (LMAO). I also don't think Gore will be able to take my guns and hunting rights away from me, even if he trys to. As far as elections go, they would get "flushed" and be much more fair if the GOP Senators would quit voting down campaign finance reform. And we wouldn't have to endure quite so much bulls&&t prior to elections. And with less millions spent on them, maybe they would be forced to boil it down to the essential issues? I do know that it would leave a little more money for liberals to help out the homeless, and a lot more for the conservatives to buy a couple more fancy cars with . - RT

[Steelheadman]

Gore wants to halt building new roads on federal lands. Building new roads in the forest can create erosion and silt can fill creeks, hurting salmon. Bush blames the current administration for all of the forest fires, this summer, in the West. The undergrowth has grown and is good fuel for the fires. Some environmentalists are planning a protest when Bush arrives in Portland this weekend. Bush has received 1 M in campaign contributions from timber companies. The forest fires are accelerated from the hot dry weather. Is this dry, hot climate attributed to air pollution that is causing global warming?

[happybrew]

I like the Jennie/RT ticket myself. We
could even start a new political party.
Seeing as the Reform Party is
self-destructing, we could form a viable
third party to take its place, the Ifish
party. I would like to propose as its
platform the following:

1. To please those folks who don't like
big business, tax the hell out of the big
brewers, and give subsidies to
microbrewers. Give states funding to
stock beer along the banks of rivers when
they put the fish in.

2. To please those folks who like big
business, give the boat manufacturers tax
breaks if they increase their production,
so that the market gets flooded with
boats, the price drops, and people like
me can afford one.

3. In addition to the Family Medical
Leave Act, we need the Fishing Leave Act.
That way you can't be fired from your
job if you decide to take the day off to
go fishing.

4. Send the military out to shoot bozos
who exhibit poor fishing ettiquete.

5. Relocate the capitol to the Columbia
River, and hold sessions of Congress
while fishing. Instead of voting on the
issues, whoever catches the most fish
wins. It would sure save a lot of hot
air on congressional debates. Of course,
it would increase the amount of hot air
about the "one that got away".

6. For welfare reform, give them all
fishing poles and tell them to catch
their own damned dinner!

7. Of course, if you don't like welfare
reform, in addition, give them a nice
boat, a cabin on the river, and a bit of
spending money as well. Hey, this party
should appeal to everyone!

8. Encourage the addition of fishing
into school curriculum.

9. Make it a federal crime to lose one's
temper while fishing, or around those who
are fishing.

10. Make any nice day a holiday, so
everyone can take the day off and go
fishing!

11. Tax the animal rights activists into
oblivion!

I would be more than happy to offer my
services to the administration as the
head of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco,
and Firearms, so that I can ensure that
everyone has a good beer, a good cigar,
and a gun to shoot the seals with. We
can have our convention sometime around
Labor Day, and maybe we can get ESPN to
cover it.

happybrew,
patriot, brewer, fisherman.

[dawhunt]

I'd vote for that party as long as the as the people running don't have that stinking slimey smile .and if they put diet pepsi or diet barg's on the river bank too.

------------------
Bob Dawson

Hi HB. Gee, sounds like you've been doing a little bass fishin' in the mid-west and miss the Oregon fishing. Glad to see you give us a piece of thread! Thanks. I don't know what Jen would do as president, but if I ran I'd lie and tell people my format agenda would be similar to what you posted. Then when that got me elected I'd do an about face and have everyone work 7 days a week dawn to dusk, so I'd have all the rivers to myself and a few of my top campaign constituents. The sterotypical politician. - RT

[Steve]

RT, saw your last response, and the responses, I was a registered bible thumping Democrat Liberal for 28 years, but after reviewing the things that I supported and fought for....and how they affected others, I was really embarrassed, Houseing Projects to warehouse people, acceptance of illigitimacy, pay people not to work, lost the war on drugs, attack anybody who disagrees with the CAUSE with venom hissing spitting, during my teenage years believed in Sex Booze and Rock and Roll. I am now in my 25th year of working as a Social Services Assistant in a Democratic formed program,
I do not trust GORE if you have ever heard of an Exectutive Order..The president can suspend your gun rights...confiscate....direct the military..to enforce...all in the name of National Security... all that said,,,I am off for B-10 to unwind... I AM SO STRESSED!!!!

Try to lighten up and relax Steve. Many of those ills of our society wouldn't be cured based on what party is in the Whitehouse. They can only help some, but the changes need to be made at local levels; especially at home with non-parenting offspring producers of dysfunctional drags on society! The economy and opportunity are in good shape in this country, yet disfunctioanal families are prevasive. I can understand why some scholars have strongly sugggested mandatory passing of parenting classes before being allowed to reproduce, and mandatory accountablility after. And since overpopulation is the root of much of this world's problems (including America), having a mandatory worldwide limit of 2 offspring per person from now on. I can't disagree with that thinking, but it would be immensely complex to impliment. But that would improve our country and world immensely! I suppose I could have some flack replies from the shortsighted (blinders in fact) "Right To Bear 10 Kids" group members, to read when I get back in town. - RT

[Gone Fishin]

Hey RT,
The next new Blazer dude, Mr. Kemp might have a problem with that, what with 7 kids from 6 women and all...whats up with our team anyway? Kemp for Grant??? I don't get it!

Hi Marty. My wife is tugging at my ear to get out the door, but I can't resist a Blazer post first. I love Brian Grant as a tough warrior of a player and his contributions helping with community projects. Seems he just needs to be the man at power forward, with most of the playing time. 'Sheed has gotten too good for that to happen here. As for Kemp, he needs to lose as much weight as I do. But he's taller to help defend the post against bigger guys than Grant, and he scores better; on and off the court . Could Witsit be about ready to pull off a Stoudamire/O'Neal for Seattle's Gary Payton trade? That would give us all 3 all-stars from the Sonic team that went to the finals against the Bulls about 3 years ago, Payton/Shremp/Kemp, to go along with all-star types Pippen/Smith/Wallace; as well as Sabonis, Wells, and others. Do you think that group could avoid a 10 minute chock away of the cahmpionship to the Lakers or whoever? Could get interesting. Truck is loaded - I'm out. - Steve - Keep the political opinions coming as long as it keeps civil like it reasonably has. Thanks for that people.

[Mr. Fisherman]

!!!!HAPPYBREW FOR PRESIDENT!!!!!
We can tap some of his homebrew for a fund raiser!
Raise a rod and drink to a toast, Happybrew is the host with the most.....


------------------
Live to Fish
Fish to Live

[happybrew]

Thanks Mr. Fisherman, but I'm gonna have
to turn that job down. I'd be happy just
being in charge of the booze, cigars, and
guns in the BATF.

Hey, RT, I hate to break the news to you,
but I am the oldest of ten kids. How
about if you tell the last eight they
shouldn't have been born. I have four
children. How about if you tell them
what a burden they are on the rest of the
world simply because they exist. Now, I
know you wouldn't say that, and I'm
fairly certain you don't even think it,
but that kind of thinking is implicit in
the zero-population growth position. Is
overpopulation a problem? Perhaps, but
the real problems lie not in the numbers
of people, but in the political and
economic, and social systems that fail to
provide for them. If everyone had
sufficient love and compassion for their
fellow man, population would not even be
an issue. If governments would take care
of their people, promoting policies that
create economic growth, while at the same
time taking care to protect the
environment, then people would not be
viewed as a burden. If societies had
values of compassion and love, instead of
pleasure seeking and selfishness, then
they would do what it takes to ensure
that each and every person is provided
for, both physically and spiritually.
Imagine a world, where selfish,
pleasure-seeking sex was not promoted as
a value, but instead sexuality was viewed
in its proper context as a sharing of
self between a husband and wife. Where
parents, or potential parents loved their
children so much that they abstained when
they could not provide for the possible
addition to their family, instead of
selfishly seeking pleasure, no matter
what the cost to others. Where children
were welcomed as the fruit, the physical
embodiment of the love between husband
and wife.

Instead we live in a world where
government is for the benefit of the
powerful, to a greater or lesser extent
depending upon where in the world you
are, where other people are viewed, not
as a source of joy and love, but as
either burdens to be resented or tools
for one's advantage or pleasure. Where
economic systems are structured to reward
the wealthy simply for the fact that they
are wealthy, rather than for the
contributions that they make in the world
of work.(I am not trying to say that no
wealthy person contributes to society.
Many of them do. However, even if a
wealthy person did not contribute to
society, they would be rewarded simply
because they were wealthy.) We live in a
world where few want to shoulder their
responsibilities, but all want to reap
the rewards.

Because we live in this kind of world, it
becomes sensible to want to limit the
number of 'burdens', so that we can
maximize what passes for 'pleasure'. And
so some people want to pass draconian
measures to interfere with the family
lives of others, which they have no
business interfering in.

I'm not buying into that world. I'm
going to contribute to the world around
me. I am going to have as many children
as God sees fit to place under my care.
Those children will also contribute to
the world. They will be givers, not
takers. I am going to love my wife for
as long as I live. I am going to look
after the poor and the powerless. I
don't care what government is in power,
because it has no bearing on the
important things in my life, which are my
values and my family. No law will ever
change my values.

By the way, I am a conservative
independent, former Republican. I will
hold my nose and vote for Bush, simply
because he is the least objectionable of
the two, and if I vote for a third party
candidate who has no chance of winning,
I'm throwing my vote away. That's how we
ended up with Clinton in the White House
the first time.

happybrew

------------------

Patriot, Brewer, Fisherman

[Fly Flinger]

Bush is trainable with the right lobbyists.
Gore's already been bought.

[Steve]

Gee, I thought that I was the Lone Ranger of the Republican Party, I have to agree with RT that no one party can solve the world ills, I am strongly committed to each member of society taking responsibility for their actions and being held accountable, farther back down the thread someone said that we need to teach everyone to fish so they can feed themselves, fundamentally I agree, we have made so many welfare reciepients that we can not afford to take care of them all...the horror story that comes to mind is the one about the illegal alien in the N.E. came to America had 15 children and is collecting $ 1,000,000,00 per year for child support,,,never worked a day....Lots of Labor if you get my drift. Good evening all...Steve

Well said happybrew, I am kind of confused with alot of you out there with so much dis like for G.W.. He has not been out there enough to form such strong opinions. Is there something specific he has done other than being consevative.(And please give me something better than "daddy's boy").

[This message has been edited by corky (edited 08-14-2000).]

[DanS]

A million dollars a year for having 15 kids, huh? Dude, I think you've fallen victim to the "urban myth" story. Nobody collects a million dollars from the government for having kids. Illegal aliens crossing our borders to have children, which are then covered by the US welfare system is a problem, but claiming somebody is collecting a million bucks for it is pure fiction.

And happybrew, you're entitled to have as many kids as you like, but RT is right in that the earth can only support so many people. Just by being alive, you use up resources and produce waste. The greater the earth's population, the greater the strain on the resources. While it's true that 2% of the global military budget would feed, clothe, and house every human currently on earth, I don't recall the republicans EVER proposing that we cut the military budget in favor of social/health programs. The fact is that population growth IS a threat to the planet, and the way conservatives fight the distribution of birth control (yes, happybrew, people DO have sex for pleasure, even married couples) to third-world countries doesn't sit right with me. It seems their concern for children is intense until they are born, and then you're on your own.

GW is a daddy's boy and a conservative dam lover, and that's enough reason for me not to like him and to vote against him. My feelings may not be justifiable, but neither are the dislikes of Gore that people express. If I don't like GWB and choose not to vote for him, that's my business. And yes, being a conservative is one of the reasons I don't care for him. While both parties seem to show love and compassion only for their largest campaign donors, I think the GOP takes it to a whole new level. Face it, neither candidate is a morally or ethically upstanding character. For this reason, I vote for the immoral and unethical liberal, since I'm a liberal-minded guy. Of course, any conservative out there can just go to the polls and cancel out my vote. Then we'll just have to see where the chips fall. I'll be glad once November rolls around and the election is OVER. Then we can talk more about fishing, and less about politics.

Fish on...........

[scooby]

Starting to get into some good discussion. although at this time I am going to defend myself. I stated that the stock market has not really slowed down since Greenspan starting raising interest rates. I believe the first rate increase was at the end of Q1 99. so here are the numbers:



DOW (March 1999) 9,211 (Today)11,174

Nasdag (March 1999)2,337 (today) 3,843

Hey Katchun, Maybe the above will help you out.
That is over 20% for the DOW and 50% for the NASDAQ -
thanks

scooby

[This message has been edited by scooby (edited 08-14-2000).]

[This message has been edited by scooby (edited 08-14-2000).]

[Steve]

So you want 4 more years of the same, GWB a daddy's boy? O.K. READ MY LIPS don't visit the sins of the father on to the son. I am going to open a new can of worms, the issue about dams is going to come back, how did all those Sockeye get back to Redfish lake when the expected run was hoped to be 10? Or the number of fish back to the Hanford Reach? I am beginning to question current thinking, will not deny that dams kill smolt and raise temp.s but the reason that history had such tremendous returns was a large spawning base and nutrient base. Now we fight to the last fish, hatcheries for years thought nothing of keeping the spawned out carcasses for hatchery feed and disrupted the eco-balance of steams. Todays cutting edge science is tomarrows junk...Vote conservative......Steve