A lot of semantics in there.

Post #322,670 by beepster 3/11/10 10:03:18 AM Reply	A lot of semantics in there. I can certainly see "better manage and limit human impact for preservation yadda yadda" work into a ban in specific locations deemed "preservation land". Was the first article a bit reactionary..absolutely...does your mediamatters page actually debunk the first in its entirety?...Not a chance. I will choose a path that's clear. I will choose freewill.
Post #322,672 by Another Scott 3/11/10 10:27:25 AM Reply	The editor certainly walked it back, after the fact. http://sports.espn.g..._steve&id=4982359 Oh, and the comment period kerfluffle? The taskforce was created last June. Comments ended in February. They got at least 1844 of them ( http://www.whitehous...s/oceans/comments ). A 38 page interim report was issued in September and people could comment on that (at least 1935 comments are there - http://www.whitehous...imreport/comments ). People can still write BHO and their congress people to make their views known. It's hard to imagine that the issues haven't been raised already. I don't see how any of this somehow shows that Obama isn't going to let people fish any more or isn't listening to their views. YMMV. Cheers, Scott.
Post #322,733 by mhuber 3/11/10 10:41:18 PM Reply	Bill Clinton Lives! If that BS is "semantics" then the definition if "is" is a wide open question. But there is a bigger conspiracy against the fishing community. It started with the notorious Democrat Franklin Pierce. Since he installed it, no Democratic president has ever allowed fishing in the White House bathtub.

Welcome to IWETHEY!