I hope ALL you Obama backers are proud of this IDIOT!

[Greg_Cornish]

Thunnus Salmoides will answer you as soon as he get back from his whale hunt.

[Thunnus Salmoides]

Wow, a straw man argument and an ad hominem attack in the same post?

The MLPA is a straw man argument? My guess is that you are a plant from the left. Here to obfuscate and demoralize the freedom loving people.

This discussion was not about the Marine Life Protection Act, you nitwit. But allow me to sum up my position on the MLPA: The road to Hell is paved with good intentions. Are we clear sunshine?

So, are you for it or against it? Please be clear, without the ad hominem attacks since you are not above using them. This discussion is about Government intruding on your right to fish. If Obama, by executive orders, implements the "marine spatial planning" it is the first step by the federal government to restrict your right to fish. It won't be immediate and it won't be noticable at first, but in time, it will grow to be like the MLPA, only on a national scale. If you can't see that, then you are naive.

As an avid angler and shooter, I can tell you I have no love for any politician who sees fit to define my rights, whether it is to expand or restrict them.

If you are an avid angler and shooter, and vote and support someone who is against those rights, then you are a mindless drone.

Incidentally, why did Senator Tim Leslie (R) not vote on the MLPA? Did his cat have diarrhea that day? Better yet, why did Senator Richard Rainey (R) vote for it? Was he a turncoat?

By my count in the Senate, 25 Democrats, 2 Republicans voted yes. 12 Republicans voted no. In the Assembly, 43 Democrats, 3 Republican, 1 Green voted yes. 26 Republican voted no. Not one Democrat voted No. It should be obvious to anyone with an open mind to see which party supports your right to fish and which party want to take it away.

[Hooked A Skate]

So, are you for it or against it? Please be clear, without the ad hominem attacks since you are not above using them. This discussion is about Government intruding on your right to fish. If Obama, by executive orders, implements the "marine spatial planning" it is the first step by the federal government to restrict your right to fish. It won't be immediate and it won't be noticable at first, but in time, it will grow to be like the MLPA, only on a national scale. If you can't see that, then you are naive.

You chose to refer to me as "plant from the left, naive, or a mindless drone". That makes you a nitwit.

This thread is about the Ocean Policy Task Force, and the dubious claims spearheaded by the commercial fishing industry, poorly researched and irresponsibly reported on by ESPN and one of its columnists. While some may interpret recent actions of the OPTF as the "first step" towards restricting recreational fishing, there has been no evidence presented to support this claim.

Be that as it may, this thread was not a discussion of the MLPA or it's merits. Nor was it a general discussion "about Government intruding on your right to fish". I have made my position quite clear on both the MLPA and government intrusion.

If you are an avid angler and shooter, and vote and support someone who is against those rights, then you are a mindless drone.

In general, I would have to agree. Of course, if you had bothered to follow along, you might have noticed that I already said I didn't vote for the current President, nor is it likely that I will vote for him for a second term. I do not support some of this administration's policies, just as I didn't support some of the previous administration's policies.

By my count in the Senate, 25 Democrats, 2 Republicans voted yes. 12 Republicans voted no. In the Assembly, 43 Democrats, 3 Republican, 1 Green voted yes. 26 Republican voted no. Not one Democrat voted No. It should be obvious to anyone with an open mind to see which party supports your right to fish and which party want to take it away.

Thank you for providing the recorded votes for those who did not follow the links you provided. Now, back to my questions. Why did Senator Tim Leslie (R) not vote on the MLPA? Did his cat have diarrhea that day? Better yet, why did Senator Richard Rainey (R) vote for it? Was he a turncoat?

[Vince E]

Hooked, you should stop wasting your time in the bass fishing forum.
You have a brilliant career ahead of you in the political forum

[Hooked A Skate]

Hooked, you should stop wasting your time in the bass fishing forum.
You have a brilliant career ahead of you in the political forum

Politics is a hobby. Bass-fishing is a passion. May they seldom cross.

[Thunnus Salmoides]

This thread is about the Ocean Policy Task Force, and the dubious claims spearheaded by the commercial fishing industry, poorly researched and irresponsibly reported on by ESPN and one of its columnists. While some may interpret recent actions of the OPTF as the "first step" towards restricting recreational fishing, there has been no evidence presented to support this claim.

Are you calling Robert Montgomery, the senior writer for BASSMASTER Magazine, irresponsible? Yet you blindly take the side of a blogger who probably doesn't even fish?

Be that as it may, this thread was not a discussion of the MLPA or it's merits. Nor was it a general discussion "about Government intruding on your right to fish".

The MLPA is not relevant to this discussion? The MLPA IS evidence that liberal Democrats want to take away you right to fish. You just don't want to look at the evidence.

I have made my position quite clear on both the MLPA and government intrusion.

Your position is as clear as mud. Tell me again your position because, being a nitwit, I'm not too smart.

In general, I would have to agree. Of course, if you had bothered to follow along, you might have noticed that I already said I didn't vote for the current President, nor is it likely that I will vote for him for a second term. I do not support some of this administration's policies, just as I didn't support some of the previous administration's policies.

Let me guess. You voted for Ralph Nader or wrote in Hugo Chavez.

Thank you for providing the recorded votes for those who did not follow the links you provided. Now, back to my questions. Why did Senator Tim Leslie (R) not vote on the MLPA? Did his cat have diarrhea that day? Better yet, why did Senator Richard Rainey (R) vote for it? Was he a turncoat?

Are you serious? OK, Yes, and Yes. I take back what I said about you being a "plant from the left". If you are an avid sportsman then I want you to be able to continue to enjoy your sport now, and in the future. I just think that you are a little misguided about which party secures those rights. And I was just kidding about Hugo Chavez.

[Greg_Cornish]

Oh god, I fell for it.

[biteme]

Oh god, I fell for it.

It just never ends. Was someone talking about sheep?

[Hooked A Skate]

Are you calling Robert Montgomery, the senior writer for BASSMASTER Magazine, irresponsible?

Yes.

Yet you blindly take the side of a blogger who probably doesn't even fish?

I don't recall mentioning - let alone blindly taking the side of - a blogger in my replies on this thread.

The MLPA is not relevant to this discussion? The MLPA IS evidence that liberal Democrats want to take away you right to fish. You just don't want to look at the evidence.

The subject of this thread was ESPN's coverage of Montgomery's opinion piece regarding the OPTF. If you want to discuss the merits of the MLPA, or open a dialogue on government encroachment on our individual liberties, by all means, start a new thread and I will be happy to have an exchange with you and other members.

Your position is as clear as mud. Tell me again your position because, being a nitwit, I'm not too smart.

See the text in green above.

Let me guess. You voted for Ralph Nader or wrote in Hugo Chavez.

Incorrect. But keep those guesses coming - you may eventually get it right.

Are you serious?

Oh I am quite serious - I would like to know why Senators Leslie and Rainey did not vote against the MLPA. After all, this should have been a no-brainer for any Republican state senator, right? So, if you can enlighten us, please do so, per the text in green above.

If you are an avid sportsman then I want you to be able to continue to enjoy your sport now, and in the future. I just think that you are a little misguided about which party secures those rights.

I have no illusions when it comes to politicians (of any party) championing my rights and liberties.

[Thunnus Salmoides]

Are you calling Robert Montgomery, the senior writer for BASSMASTER Magazine, irresponsible?

Yes.

Robert Montgomery sent a warning call to all sportsmen and let them know what Obama is all about, based on facts and his opinion of what could happen.

I don't recall mentioning - let alone blindly taking the side of - a blogger in my replies on this thread.

There is nothing quite like reading through two pages-worth of uninformed rantings by armchair-pundits. Once again, for those of you who didn't get the memo....

THIS WAS A PLOY, DEVISED BY THE COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY AND BULLY-PULPITTED BY THE POLITICAL RIGHT, TO GET YOUR POLITCAL PANTIES IN A WAD. IT WAS IRRESPONSIBLY REPORTED ON BY ESPN - WHICH EVEN NOW IS DISTANCING ITSELF FROM THE REPORT - AND OTHER NEWS OUTLETS WHO FAILED TO DO EVEN A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF RESEARCH ON THE ISSUE.

What memo might that be? Please provide your proof, evidence, or any information that will prove your assertion that the commercial fishing industry devised this ploy, lest you be irresponsible. Talk about a straw-man argument! You would have us believe that the commercial fishing industry is working with environmentalists to restrict recreational fishing while walking a tight-rope so that their fishing rights is not restricted. That's a conspiracy theory the size of the 9/11 truthers.

The subject of this thread was ESPN's coverage of Montgomery's opinion piece regarding the OPTF. If you want to discuss the merits of the MLPA, or open a dialogue on government encroachment on our individual liberties, by all means, start a new thread and I will be happy to have an exchange with you and other members.

How convenient. You are the sole arbiter of what can and cannot be discussed on this thread. Hooked A Skate has spoken! How does Health-care and Social Security fit into ESPN's coverage of Montgomery's opinion piece regarding the OPTF?

Your position is as clear as mud. Tell me again your position because, being a nitwit, I'm not too smart.

See the text in green above.

Don't hide behind your "text in green". Tell us.

Let me guess. You voted for Ralph Nader or wrote in Hugo Chavez.

Incorrect. But keep those guesses coming - you may eventually get it right.

My last guess. Since you are into conspiracy theories, Ron Paul.

Oh I am quite serious - I would like to know why Senators Leslie and Rainey did not vote against the MLPA. After all, this should have been a no-brainer for any Republican state senator, right? So, if you can enlighten us, please do so, per the text in green above.

You want me to divine what is in the heart and mind of a politician? Sorry, can't do it. But like the lady on the game show said, "It's votes that count" and 68 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted for it. Draw your conclusions from there.

I have no illusions when it comes to politicians (of any party) championing my rights and liberties.

Yes, you have no illusions, but you have many delusions.

[Hooked A Skate]

Robert Montgomery sent a warning call to all sportsmen and let them know what Obama is all about, based on facts and his opinion of what could happen.

A "warning call" which ESPN itself backpedaled from, going so far as to have one of their own Executive Editors issue a mea culpa, admitting to "several errors in the editing and presentation" of the column in question. A "warning call" with no evidence to support it, bandied about only by right-wing conservative pundits and their flunkies.

What memo might that be? Please provide your proof, evidence, or any information that will prove your assertion that the commercial fishing industry devised this ploy, lest you be irresponsible. Talk about a straw-man argument! You would have us believe that the commercial fishing industry is working with environmentalists to restrict recreational fishing while walking a tight-rope so that their fishing rights is not restricted. That's a conspiracy theory the size of the 9/11 truthers.

Why do you continue to imply that I used Deadspin/blogs/etc. as my sources of information? And how did you come to the preposterous conclusion that I am trying to convince anyone that the commercial fishing industry is in collusion with enviromentalists to ban recreational fishing?

How convenient. You are the sole arbiter of what can and cannot be discussed on this thread. Hooked A Skate has spoken! How does Health-care and Social Security fit into ESPN's coverage of Montgomery's opinion piece regarding the OPTF?

My healthcare and social security comments were part of a tangent "birdi23nls" and I went off on, about the consistency of some conservatives' views. I can assure you I will not respond to any your tangents.

Of course, you may choose to bring up whatever you like on this thread. For example, since someone decided to bring up Sarah Palin in this thread, I could very well bring up her illegitimate grandson, and argue that it is "relevant" to the topic at hand. That doesn't mean you have to entertain that assertion, any more than I have to entertain yours.

Don't hide behind your "text in green". Tell us.

I am not hiding behind anything. Start a new thread, and I will tell you.

My last guess. Since you are into conspiracy theories, Ron Paul.

Ron Paul withdrew his bid for the Republican nomination. Therefore, I could not have voted for him.

You want me to divine what is in the heart and mind of a politician? Sorry, can't do it. But like the lady on the game show said, "It's votes that count" and 68 Democrats and 5 Republicans voted for it. Draw your conclusions from there.

Yes, and we will certainly have to draw our own conclusions as to why these two republican Senators failed to vote against the MLPA.

Yes, you have no illusions, but you have many delusions.

Oh my, how pithy!

[Thunnus Salmoides]

A "warning call" which ESPN itself backpedaled from, going so far as to have one of their own Executive Editors issue a mea culpa, admitting to "several errors in the editing and presentation" of the column in question. A "warning call" with no evidence to support it, bandied about only by right-wing conservative pundits and their flunkies.

"Several errors in the editing and presentation" but not an error on the substance of the article. The "errors" were that they did not label it an opinion piece and commentary. And that they did not properly balanced it and failed to represent contrary points of view.

Why do you continue to imply that I used Deadspin/blogs/etc. as my sources of information?

I said you blindly take the side of a blogger, which you do.

And how did you come to the preposterous conclusion that I am trying to convince anyone that the commercial fishing industry is in collusion with enviromentalists to ban recreational fishing?

I don't know, maybe this?

THIS WAS A PLOY, DEVISED BY THE COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY AND BULLY-PULPITTED BY THE POLITICAL RIGHT, TO GET YOUR POLITCAL PANTIES IN A WAD. IT WAS IRRESPONSIBLY REPORTED ON BY ESPN - WHICH EVEN NOW IS DISTANCING ITSELF FROM THE REPORT - AND OTHER NEWS OUTLETS WHO FAILED TO DO EVEN A MINIMAL AMOUNT OF RESEARCH ON THE ISSUE.
If there is any group you should be focusing your anger towards, it is the commercial fishing industry. It has been their irresponsible fishing practices - which have depleted entire fisheries you and I hold dear to our hearts - that have provided conservation groups the impetus to lobby for more restrictive fishing regulations for our waters. And now they want to trick you into thinking that you should jump on their agenda - because if you don't, all fishing as we know it will come to an end? And not only do you take the bait, but there are some of you who are still chirping, because you can't even admit to yourself that you fell for the oldest trick in the political book?

Again. Please provide your proof, evidence, or any information that will prove your assertion that the commercial fishing industry devised this ploy, lest you be irresponsible.

My healthcare and social security comments were part of a tangent "birdi23nls" and I went off on, about the consistency of some conservatives' views. I can assure you I will not respond to any your tangents.

Oh please. That would be no fun!

Of course, you may choose to bring up whatever you like on this thread. For example, since someone decided to bring up Sarah Palin in this thread, I could very well bring up her illegitimate grandson, and argue that it is "relevant" to the topic at hand.

Which grandson? Whoops. More red meat for the conspiracy theorists.

I am not hiding behind anything. Start a new thread, and I will tell you.

Your refusal to tell is more telling.

Yes, and we will certainly have to draw our own conclusions as to why these two republican Senators failed to vote against the MLPA.

I feel that we have the same goals but differ on the way to achieve them. It is like we are on a sinking boat and I want to patch the leaks and bail water. You want to drill holes in the deck to let the water out.

Oh my, how pithy!

Indeed!

[Hooked A Skate]

"Several errors in the editing and presentation" but not an error on the substance of the article. The "errors" were that they did not label it an opinion piece and commentary. And that they did not properly balanced it and failed to represent contrary points of view.

Editing includes fact-checking. Facts - you know, that whole substance thing.

Traditionally, opinion pieces are reviewed by editors. If they are not, they are considered "Op-Ed" pieces. I can't help but wonder if Mr. Montgomery's article was published without any sort of editorial scrutiny, and if Executive Editor Steve Bowman is falling on his sword in order to deflect criticism away from the ESPN network in general.

I said you blindly take the side of a blogger, which you do.

That my opinion on this subject happens to coincide with those of other individuals, does not mean I am blindly taking the side of anyone.

And how did you come to the preposterous conclusion that I am trying to convince anyone that the commercial fishing industry is in collusion with enviromentalists to ban recreational fishing?

I don't know, maybe this?

(omitted for brevity; see previous post)

Again. Please provide your proof, evidence, or any information that will prove your assertion that the commercial fishing industry devised this ploy, lest you be irresponsible.

I have never stated or implied that the commercial fishing industry is in collusion with enviromentalists to ban recreational fishing. Quote me all you want - any suggestion to the contrary is laughable.

You have offered absolutely nothing in the way of hard evidence to support the claim that the Obama administration (through the OPTF) intends to ban, or unreasonably restrict, recreational fishing. All we have from you at this point is an opinion column from Mr. Montgomery, whose primary source of information is a corporate executive who has made no secret of his disdain for - and has written is own inflammatory articles against - the OPTF and the Obama administration. All under his corporation's banner, I might add. I've reviewed the OPTF's interim report, I've looked for evidence supporting the allegations, and I've weighed the opinions of individuals (gasp!) from both sides of this issue. I would be the first person in line ready to skewer the OPTF if there was one iota of proof to support the allegation that they mean to ban or restrict recreational fishing. There simply is none, and every angler in this country, regardless of their political affiliation, should be outraged at the huge disservice Mr. Montgomery has done to the cause of anglers.

So, I pose to you the challenge you posed to me: Provide your proof, evidence, or any information that will prove (or at least reasonably support) your position on this subject, lest you be irresponsible. Show me yours, and I'll show you mine.

[Thunnus Salmoides]

Editing includes fact-checking. Facts - you know, that whole substance thing.

Tell me what facts he got wrong, as soon as you get done fact checking Palin's book.

That my opinion on this subject happens to coincide with those of other individuals, does not mean I am blindly taking the side of anyone.

But if people agree with the article, then "it is the people who wear their politics on their sleeves that allow the Limbaughs and O'Reillys and Becks of this world to do their thinking for them."

I have never stated or implied that the commercial fishing industry is in collusion with enviromentalists to ban recreational fishing. Quote me all you want - any suggestion to the contrary is laughable.

Here is your quote. "THIS WAS A PLOY, DEVISED BY THE COMMERCIAL FISHING INDUSTRY AND BULLY-PULPITTED BY THE POLITICAL RIGHT, TO GET YOUR POLITCAL PANTIES IN A WAD."
I am not looking for any evidence of collusion, just an answer to this statement. Why don't you use your fact-checker.

You have offered absolutely nothing in the way of hard evidence to support the claim that the Obama administration (through the OPTF) intends to ban, or unreasonably restrict, recreational fishing.

I cannot provide proof for a future act, but I can provide examples of past history, but I doubt it would do any good. If I told you that Democrats want to raise your taxes, increase regulations, and socialize healthcare, you would say "prove it". It is not the Obama administration that wants to restrict fishing, it is the radical environmentalists. Obama is just doing their bidding. He will be long gone before the effects of this takes place. Kevin Shelley is long gone but the MLPA is just getting started. (can I use the MLPA as an example?) And it is not just fishing that they are against. It seems that it is everything that expresses your freedom that they do not like. From jet skiing, surfing, off road vehicles to access to rural roads that they want to limit. And even though I may not participate in any of those activities, I fully support the right of the American people to do so. After all, it is one of our unalienable rights. The pursuit of Happiness.

Show me yours, and I'll show you mine.

You're such a flirt!

[Hooked A Skate]

I cannot provide proof for a future act

Thank you.