Prev: SMD Code E6G
Next: MAKE UPTO $5000 PER MONTH! $2000 IN FIRST 30 DAYS!
From: Jim Thompson on 18 Jun 2010 18:28
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 14:54:23 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<greegor47(a)gmail.com> wrote:

[snip]
>
>And, there are still 30 more months of this sort of thing to put up
>with. What more horrors lay in store for the United States?

A "kill-switch" on the Internet is the current bill being proposed by
"Independent" Lieberman.

Ain't that nice... the ultimate in censorship :-(

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, CTO | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona 85048 Skype: Contacts Only | |
| Voice:(480)460-2350 Fax: Available upon request | Brass Rat |
| E-mail Icon at http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

The only thing bipartisan in this country is hypocrisy
From: Joel Koltner on 18 Jun 2010 18:59
"flipper" <flipper(a)fish.net> wrote in message
news:e1hn16592saf51p5h6775lvpc4099vh7p5(a)4ax.com...
> On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 11:21:58 -0700, "Joel Koltner"
>>I doubt Obama personally had anything to do with it.
> That isn't the point. The point is 'no one is in charge', and that
> Obama does have something to do with.

I'll buy that, although I don't see any indication that it's particularly
worse in Obama's administration than in Bush's or Clinton's.

> Whatever your opinion about the effectiveness of sand berms might be
> it illustrates the 'no one in charge' problem and how government
> agencies are stepping all over each other simultaneously 'approving'
> and 'disapproving' things while little gets done.

Kinda sounds like the definition of a bureaucracy, all right. :-)

> Who said a "huge difference?"

Anyone who's featuring it prominently in papers, blogs, talk shows, etc.

> It's just one more illustration in a
> continuing stream of problems due in no small part to every agency
> having veto power with 'no one in charge', the reverse of what you
> need in a crisis.

I agree with you there.

> The bigger problem is that Obama has zero experience in business,
> management, or anything else useful, and has populated upper
> government, and surrounded himself, with people just as ideological
> and clueless as he is.

Just wait, any day now Obama *will* start sporting a halo, walk on the water
right out to the breach, dive down and turn it off himself.

Chuck Norris will assist, if need be.

> No offense intended but being a
> 'Nobel Prize winner' might mean you can unravel the mysteries of
> quantum tunneling but it doesn't necessarily mean you can repair a
> toaster... or cap a well.

I don't think I'd hire Al Gore to cut my lawn. :-)

> (One might suggest that FEMA is already there to do this sort of thing
> but FEMA seems to be mysteriously MIA this go around).

I believe they were largely emasculated if not outright made into eunuchs
after Katrina?

OK, I'm making light of what you've posted here, and since this is a serious
issue I shouldn't. I think you make a lot of good points and have good ideas;
hopefully some good will come of all this in the end.

---Joel

From: Copacetic on 18 Jun 2010 19:03
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:41:45 -0500, legg <legg(a)nospam.magma.ca> wrote:

>It's the responsibility of the operators and owners, not the coast
>guard.


You obviously know nothing about the rules and laws regarding waterways
and bodies of water and watercraft in the US and its coastal regions.

They have EVERY right to board your vessel, and they have every right
to require safety gear, AND check to insure that it is there.

The problem was with the choice to do that NOW, as opposed to 'while
underway' or 'while on scene' or at some other time.
From: Joel Koltner on 18 Jun 2010 21:30
"Stephan Goldstein" <sgoldHAM(a)alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:146o165n58f60jinj4v3a0jmaq4v3llm7t(a)4ax.com...
> Come on, Jim, Usenet is not your personal soapbox. This
> is getting tiresome.

He just forgot to stick an "OT:" in front of it. :-)

From: legg on 18 Jun 2010 22:49
On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 16:03:44 -0700, Copacetic
<Copacetic(a)iseverythingalright.org> wrote:

>On Fri, 18 Jun 2010 18:41:45 -0500, legg <legg(a)nospam.magma.ca> wrote:
>
>>It's the responsibility of the operators and owners, not the coast
>>guard.
>
>
> You obviously know nothing about the rules and laws regarding waterways
>and bodies of water and watercraft in the US and its coastal regions.
>
> They have EVERY right to board your vessel, and they have every right
>to require safety gear, AND check to insure that it is there.
>
> The problem was with the choice to do that NOW, as opposed to 'while
>underway' or 'while on scene' or at some other time.

The owners and operators are responsible before any inspection might
take place.

If this had been seen to, there'd be no need now. Whoever failed in
this respect, is obviously not suffering.

RL
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4
Prev: SMD Code E6G
Next: MAKE UPTO $5000 PER MONTH! $2000 IN FIRST 30 DAYS!