I said at the end of my first post on this subject "that's enough from me"
..... but after reading Rodney's assinine responses to my points, I feel
compelled to respond once again, but this time WILL be the last time, no
matter what ridiculous dribble he spews ..... because as someone said
earlier about this thread, and rightly so, this is a recreational bass
fishing newsgroup .....

Lawsuits ..... like the Republicans had to do in 2000 to gain the
Whitehouse ?
Why would sportsmen vote for Bush, anyways ?

He "is" a sportsman

I'm not necessarily a John Kerry fan. There are many things I disagree with
him about, but one is generally left choosing from the lesser of 2 evils in
a presidential election, so lets be fair here ........ John Kerry also hunts
and fishes, so what makes Bush any more of a sportsman than Kerry ?

Bush is anti-environment. Pollute the air, pollute the water, destroy
wildlife refuges drilling for oil.

He is far from anti environment, but it must be balanced so not to loose
jobs,, Democrats raise all kinds of hell about lost manufacturing jobs,
these "ridiculous" pollution laws, is the reason most went over seas

These "ridiculous" pollution laws are why we can still drink water from our
lakes, swim and fish in them, and breathe the air without worry (in most
places - but then look at Los Angeles during a still day). My brother is
sponsoring a 12-year-old girl from Korea on a student exchange trip for one
year. She's year in Vermont staying with his family and going to school for
a year with his daughter, my neice. We took her out on my boat this summer
and she went swimming in a real lake for the first time. We tubed,
water-skied, and we caught some panfish in Lake Bomoseen. She was
absolutely astounded that we could 1) get in the water without fearing for
our health, and 2) catch actual fish from the lake that were clean and could
be eaten. That's because that lake is not ringed with factories spewing
pollution without any type of responsible control and restrictions. She
said the lakes in Korea are destroyed. I agree that health of the
environment needs to be balanced with health of an economy, but Bush has
made steps in completely the opposite direction. Once again, I believe Bush
has no regard for the health of the environment or wild places in this
country.


By the way, Drilling for oil does not destroy wild life refuges, I guess
you don't know much about how they drill for oil "now" ?

Proclaiming that new technology for drilling for oil does not destroy
wildlife refuges completely misses the point. You should look up what a
"refuge" means. Refuges are areas of land and waters setup to protect
wildlife and wildlife habitat from development. You can't drill oil without
getting equipment there, so that means roads. You can't drill oil without
getting that oil out. So that means pipelines. The mere presence of those
things goes against everything wildlife refuges are about, regardless of
whether the actual act of drilling is done in some new technologically
advanced way.

Go to this link for the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge,
http://arctic.fws.gov/ where Bush was proposing to drill for oil, and look
at the picture on the front page. Now imagine an oil rig in the middle of
that picture, roads and pipelines leading to and from it, and heavy
equipment driving around.

If you think for one minute that drilling in this wonderful, wild place
would not destroy the aesthetic beauty and inherent value of keeping that
place wild as it's been for hundreds of thousands of years, you're out of
your mind.

Back out of Kyoto.

The Senate refused to sign onto Kyoto, when Clinton was in office, If you
even had a clue what was/is in that treaty, you would not be defending
it,, It put all the restrictions on the U.S. None on Mexico, Haiti,
China, Russia, None on any South American country, it would have
totally stopped steel making in the US, it would have stopped all
metal refining in the US, and countless other US manufacturing jobs, but
these third world countries could take these jobs and be under "NO"
pollution regulations. I've read the whole treaty, The Union I belonged
to passed copies out.

Maybe you should go back and read it again. It's all about technology and
credits and who "can" and "cannot" substantially decrease pollution outputs.
First world developed countries have the technology and the money to do so,
which is why we are expected to do so in the Accord, and then sell the
unused credits to countries who cannot. And furthermore, it did not take
away any expectations from the other countries to continue developing the
technologies to reduce their pollution emissions in the future.

People focus too much on one issue like a candidates "stand" on gun
ownership

Gun Ownership is why you are still free, it is second only to the freedom
of speech, it is the number one reason to vote for anyone,, because if you
still have your guns, "the people" can always throw out a "tyrannical"
government

Once again, read and comprehend what I write, don't just react. I am a gun
owner. But I don't need fully automatic rifles to enjoy using them for
hunting, which is why I own guns. I don't own guns so one day I can stand
up and fight the government. Maybe you should move to some compound in
Montana and join a cult, if you feel like someday rising up and fighting the
biggest military machine in the world with your little guns. Guns are why
we are still free ?? You're the one starting to sound tyrannical. Maybe
you should have been born 150 years ago when guns WERE needed to be free.


and forget that electing someone who has no regard for wild places will
ultimately do more to destroy our ability to hunt and fish than banning
fully automatic rifles

HAHAHAHAHAHA,, you really don't know much about what's going on,," New "
full automatic rifles being sold to civilians was banned by Ronald
Reagan,, it was not the Assault weapons ban, which was just dangerous
"looking" guns,,, how many drive by bayoneting were going on it protected
us from ?

The above sentence is so poorly contructed I can't even begin to comprehend
just exactly what point you are trying to make.

or restricting clip size to 10 shots and less.
Do you have a clue how quick someone can reload another mag in their
pistol,, that law is ridiculous
I've killed over 25 deer in my life - all with a single shot, as I only
hunt muzzleloader
season. Who needs 10 more shots to kill a deer ?

You do not have a constitutional right to deer hunt, The Second Amendment
has NOTHING IN THE WORLD TO DO WITH HUNTING !!!!!!!!!

Again, this was never about the constitution. Yes, I have the "right to
bear arms" .... but for what ? For hunting, for my purposes anyways.
Again, if you want to go out west and join some compound and cult, go for
it. But we're not living in Cuba and I don't need to fight my government at
that level. If I did, I would lose anyways, regardless of how many
military-style guns I have stashed in the closet.

Sigh ...... I thought I'd get through it, but I just don't have the stomach
to go any further attempting to converse with some tyrannical militant who
thinks his government is coming to get him ......