Recommendations for 6wt fly rod under $200

"Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote in message
...

"jeffc" wrote in message
...

Huh? Doesn't sound like you read my post. In any case, granted I was
thinking in my lifetime. And there is really no escaping the fact that
that label of morality police goes to Republicans, not Democrats. With
respect to hypocrisy, I was trying to make a point about morality
policing, not hypocrisy in general.

I think that Steve was trying to point out the neither the Dems nor the
Repubs are worthy of our votes. I could be wrong about Steve's post, but
that's the way I read it.



In any case, thats a horrible point of view, as it ensures the status quo.

And historically, have Americans ever felt so dispondent about the policial
process? If we lose complete faith (in reality, not just rhetorically) in
the our political system, this could be the start of the end of the 'great
experiment'.

--riverman

"riverman" wrote in message ...

In any case, thats a horrible point of view, as it ensures the status quo.

Sadly, the "horrible point of view," from my point of view, is perpetuating
the strangle-hold status quo that the two major parties have foisted upon
the American electorate. Like Steve said in his reply to you, there will,
eventually, come a time when the Dems and/or Repubs will fade from the
political memory and we will either have a new set of competing parties; or
maybe, we will move to a proportional representation electoral system in
which we will have many competing parties and an entirely different
congressional make-up with the formation of coalitions?

And historically, have Americans ever felt so dispondent about the
policial process?

I would say the answer is, yes. I can imagine the turmoil of the period
just before the start of the Civil War was such a time of despondency.
Though I was too young to grasp the concepts of the Civil Rights movement
and the Viet Nam conflict, as our do nothing Congress was unable to declare
it a war, was also such a time of despondency for the electorate--remember
the turmoil in Chicago at the Dems convention.

If we lose complete faith (in reality, not just rhetorically) in the our
political system, this could be the start of the end of the 'great
experiment'.

We as an electorate have lost faith in our political system many time over
its history, yet we have always rebounded and a somewhat democratic process
has always prevailed. It is very unlikely that we would toss out the baby
with the bath water. We are more likely realize that the water we have been
using was dirty to begin with and seek a new source of water with which to
wash the baby.

Op

--riverman

On Sat, 07 Oct 2006 23:55:20 GMT, "jeffc" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

From a historical perspective, the Dems have no moral high ground on
this type of thing, and corruption naturally occurs more in the party in
power than the minority.

Obviously, but that's not the point. People get real sick of morality
police (which liberals traditionally are definitely not) trying to take our
freedoms away, and then being hypocritical.

Would that including saying things like private citizens have no
business with guns, and then trying to get the votes of the, um, "common
man" by breaking out a high-dollar shotgun and going hunting, and/or
making sure _your_ friends' (private security) bodyguards aren't
prosecuted for all sorts of gun violations? What "people" (meaning in
general and from all parties) get sick of is anything that might
interfere with them doing whatever the hell they want and be allowed to
so not only without consequences, but have someone else pay the bill -
IOW, most people want every "right" they can imagine, but no
responsibility for anything.

There are lots of people in
this country who have no more than a mild preference for one party, because
all rational people believe that all reasonable democratic parties have pros
and cons, and the majority of people would choose some mix of "issues" from
each. The problem though is that we are no longer choosing between
conservative and liberal. We're not currently living under a conservative
Republican administration, we're living under a fascist regime.

Just curious, but have you much experience with "fascist regime"s, other
than the one you're "currently living under?" And are you sure that you
even know what "fascist" means? While I'd not say a fascist system
would be _impossible_ in the US, I'd offer that it would be all but so,
and IAC, the Bush administration _isn't_ fascist.

HTH,
R

riverman wrote:
"Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote in message
...
"jeffc" wrote in message
...

Huh? Doesn't sound like you read my post. In any case, granted I was
thinking in my lifetime. And there is really no escaping the fact that
that label of morality police goes to Republicans, not Democrats. With
respect to hypocrisy, I was trying to make a point about morality
policing, not hypocrisy in general.
I think that Steve was trying to point out the neither the Dems nor the
Repubs are worthy of our votes. I could be wrong about Steve's post, but
that's the way I read it.

In any case, thats a horrible point of view, as it ensures the status quo.

And historically, have Americans ever felt so dispondent about the policial
process? If we lose complete faith (in reality, not just rhetorically) in
the our political system, this could be the start of the end of the 'great
experiment'.

So-called third-party voters are dupes. They'd rather sit on
the sidelines and throw spitwads at the players on the field
than get into the game. Like it or not we have a two-party
system in this country, it's the only game in town and it is
not going to change in the foreseeable future. Several things
would have to happen to change the system we've created: the
Supreme Court overturns Buckley v. Valeo and Moore v. Ogilvie,
the 17th Amendment is repealed and the Constitution is amended
to allow proportional representation. In other words, it ain't
gonna happen.

Meanwhile there's a football game going on and one of the teams
is playing with 9 players because some folks are peeved at
football in general and decide to go sit in a corner and play
tiddly-winks.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sun, 8 Oct 2006 11:51:11 +0800, "riverman" wrote:


"Mr. Opus McDopus" wrote in message
...

"jeffc" wrote in message
...

Huh? Doesn't sound like you read my post. In any case, granted I was
thinking in my lifetime. And there is really no escaping the fact that
that label of morality police goes to Republicans, not Democrats. With
respect to hypocrisy, I was trying to make a point about morality
policing, not hypocrisy in general.

I think that Steve was trying to point out the neither the Dems nor the
Repubs are worthy of our votes. I could be wrong about Steve's post, but
that's the way I read it.



In any case, thats a horrible point of view, as it ensures the status quo.

And historically, have Americans ever felt so dispondent about the policial
process? If we lose complete faith (in reality, not just rhetorically) in
the our political system, this could be the start of the end of the 'great
experiment'.

Damn few really care about the political system, and IAC, even fewer
have any real knowledge of it. And here's the weird part: that's OK, it
really doesn't matter as far things generally lumbering along. If you
choose to think in terms of the "great experiment," the experiment isn't
this year or that, this session or that, this administration or that,
it's the system itself, one that allows, even encourages, some turmoil
and Machiavellian machinations, some chicanery and criminality, and some
ball-busting and back-stabbing, and surviving in spite of such. It's
politics, and there's a large measure of such stuff ingrained in the
nature of the beast. The "experiment" isn't in trying to rid the system
of it (it can't be done), it's surviving, even thriving, as country in
spite of it. If slavery, the, um, War of Northern Aggression," multiple
economic "crashes," the "Great Depression," 2 world wars, etc., etc.,
etc., didn't cave in the house, does anyone really think Iraq and
another pervert will? Please...

Anyone who thinks some, er, orgy of replacing "Republicans" with
"Democrats" will make things all sunshine and honey is just kidding
themselves. OTOH, anyone who thinks that doing so will be the beginning
of end is kidding themselves even more. And allowing either party to
convince you of either is just being to lazy to bother kidding yourself.
Get rid of the worst, and the system will lumber along, generally
successful because too many people, in the US and outside, have way too
much interest in it to let it truly die, and sheer momentum will the
take vast majority along for a generally-comfortable ride.

TC,
R



--riverman

Michael wrote:
Had a great trip with my son and my brother to Yellowstone! However...
I lost the tip of my 30-yo fiberglass pack rod hiking to Grebe Lake
so...

I would like to replace it with a 4-pc 6wt but I can't spend much more
than about $200 dollars. I have been told something about a Temple
professional and a Scott but I don't really know those names and I
can't afford Loomis or Sage that I know of so any and all help is
appreciated.

Michael

Hijacking this thread ... back to its roots (who are these DEMs and
REPs, and who really gives a sh**?) ...

I have a Temple Forks Professional 4wt (9', 4pc) that I just love, and
would not hesitate to suggest the 6wt. Great rod, casts wonderfully (at
least for me and my ham-fisted stroke G). And that comes with (FWIW)
almost 30 years of FFing under the belt. I put my novide brother into a
TFO Signature, 6wt, 2pc and it also is impressive.

I also have a Sage Launch 6wt (9' 4pc, too). This is very much my "go
to" rod for an awful lot of my fishing: my stillwater Trout club, a lot
of my warm water fishing, and so on. It is amazing how much line, in a
nice loop, can be tossed with this stick. I can bring in some pretty
decent fish, but still have fun with the li'l uns.

HTH

Steve wrote:

It will change when a real candidate with a compelling message steps
to the plate.

I don't care about a compelling message. I'll settle for honest,
efficient government.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Steve wrote:
On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 13:28:18 GMT, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

So-called third-party voters are dupes. They'd rather sit on
the sidelines and throw spitwads at the players on the field
than get into the game. Like it or not we have a two-party
system in this country, it's the only game in town and it is
not going to change in the foreseeable future.

C'mon Ken, that demagogue Pirot damn near did it singlehandedly. It is
not going to change through campaign finance or signature drives, nor
be stopped by those things.
It will change when a real candidate with a compelling message steps
to the plate. Half of the voters in this country are disenchanted with
the choices and that number grows each year.

It has nothing to do with spitballs, as your dismissive comment
suggests, it has to do with the candidate. For you to have witnessed
the power of a compelling message just a few short years ago and then
today dismiss it out of hand doesn't make sense.

Perot's candidacy was a cult of personality and even if he had
been elected he would have been powerless to implement any real
change. No one can govern singlehandedly even if they do appeal
to 100% of the disenchanted. The disenchanted don't govern, the
Democrats and the Republicans do.

If you want to see the power of a compelling message from just
a few short years ago, go he http://www.reformparty.org/

I'd say it makes perfectly good sense to dismiss it out of hand.

There's only one game in town in American politics and it's a
two-party, binary, winner-take-all game whether you like it or
not. You can either get in the game and vote for *electable*
candidates who will best represent your interests or you can
waste your valuable franchise with a futile protest vote.

--
Ken Fortenberry

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...

As Kenny Poo never reads what I write anymore, my reply is not addressed to
him.

So-called third-party voters are dupes.

Read... "If your vote does not match my vote, you are voting for the wrong
party!"

My reply, "Thank the U.S. Constitution that my vote is my vote to cast as I
damn well please!"

They'd rather sit on
the sidelines and throw spitwads at the players on the field
than get into the game.

Read, "I'm not happy with people who don't vote as I say they should vote!"

My reply, "Thank Allah, I have a mind of my own!"

Like it or not we have a two-party
system in this country, it's the only game in town and it is
not going to change in the foreseeable future.

Read, "I don't know **** about the U.S. Political System!"

My reply, "The U.S. Political System is a multi-party system. Check out the
next election ballot you come across!"

Several things
would have to happen to change the system we've created: the
Supreme Court overturns Buckley v. Valeo and Moore v. Ogilvie,
the 17th Amendment is repealed and the Constitution is amended
to allow proportional representation. In other words, it ain't
gonna happen.

Read, "As I understand the U.S. Constitution, it has never been amended!"

My reply, "Kenny don't know **** from shinola about the history of
amendments to the U.S. Constitution!"

Meanwhile there's a football game going on and one of the teams
is playing with 9 players because some folks are peeved at
football in general and decide to go sit in a corner and play
tiddly-winks.

Read, "The Republican Party doesn't exist and the civil War never happened!"

My reply, "Thank God I'm not a fatalistic narrow-minded twit like Kenny
Poo!"

Op

--
Ken Fortenberry

"rw" wrote in message
...
Steve wrote:

It will change when a real candidate with a compelling message steps
to the plate.

I don't care about a compelling message. I'll settle for honest, efficient
government.

Then you are ready to rid yourself of the bondage of the Dem and Repubs?

Op