The Future of Fly Fishing in America ?

On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:08:03 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
wrote:

In article ,
Larry L wrote:

wrote


Um, I, for one, would love to hear the theory under which you and your
brother seem to:
a) feel the taxpayers of the US of A should subsidize you or anyone else
with free or essentially-free public fishing,


Every time I go to Yellowstone I take the time to walk around National Park
Meadow and think about the tremendous leap that mankind made when, for the
first time, it was decided to set aside a great place forever and for
everyone.

I must say I agree with Rdean on this one. I don't understand this
selective communism, which seems to be based on the fact that some
things used to be cheap in the us but aren't any more.

You have to pay for your food, for your healthcare, for your housing,
for your air travel: why should your fly-fishing, or Yellowstone Park
be free? ( I think there are quite a few people who would pay a lot of
money for Yellowstone, and probably manage the franchising much more
efficiently

Why subsidize American farmers, who as far as I can see are totally
uneconomic when food and cotton could be imported much more cheaply?

I don't understand why they still have free high-school education in
the States. If parents want an education for their children, why don't
they pay for it? Am I right in thinking you even have free school
buses?

IF you want socialism in National Parks, fly fishing and school buses,
then why not extend it to other areas? If I was going to fight for
socialist something, I think it would be healthcare before fly-fishing.

Um, well, you may agree with me, but if I understand your position above, I
don't agree with you - not saying that your position is wrong or "bad," just
that it isn't mine. I feel that there is _too much_ "public" land in the USA,
not that there shouldn't be ANY "public" land or that having "public" land is
the equivalent of communism, socialism, etc. What I am against in such cases as
are currently being discussed is the (mis)use of the US Constitution to allow
some of the "public" to get something that the Constitution or its authors never
contemplated - the definition of "navigable" water being disputed not because of
a barrier to commerce on that water, but because a relative few wish to use it
for their own reasons, subsidized by the majority.

Further, I simply don't feel that "the public" is _entitled_ to the amount of
land currently deemed "public," (in the US) not because it is "the public," but
basically because there is no truly legitimate vehicle for as broad a program
(in both amount of land and number of clients) as is currently in effect. IOW,
any given member of the public is no more "entitled" to such amounts of land
than they are to, say, "entitled" to the subsidized use of another member of the
public's property and certainly, members of "the public" in general are somehow
"entitled" to lay claim to these amounts of land. It is not the responsibility
of all to subsidize this broad level recreational activities/availability of a
few. And further, the argument of setting aside land for future generations is
perfectly valid, but such a setting aside doesn't mean that the current
generation is entitled to subsidized usage.

HTH,
R

Lazarus

In article ,
wrote:

What I am against in such cases as
are currently being discussed is the (mis)use of the US Constitution to allow
some of the "public" to get something that the Constitution or its authors
never
contemplated

Does this also apply to gun control?

;-)

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

In article ,
wrote:

What I am against in such cases as
are currently being discussed is the (mis)use of the US Constitution to allow
some of the "public" to get something that the Constitution or its authors
never
contemplated

Does this also apply to gun control?

;-)

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

In article ,
wrote:

What I am against in such cases as
are currently being discussed is the (mis)use of the US Constitution to allow
some of the "public" to get something that the Constitution or its authors
never
contemplated

Does this also apply to gun control?

;-)

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

In article qDNqd.3632$%R1.41@trndny03, Thomas Littleton
wrote:

"Lazarus Cooke" wrote I'm puzzled by the
inconsistency. Socialist systems of education,
school buses, fly-fishing; state subsidized agriculture, but free
market capitalism in healthcare.

Lazarus
....maybe I am all wet(a virtual Reid, if you will), but this would seem to
reveal Lazarus' true argument. It's the inconsistency, not the socialism.
Tom


Exactly

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

In article qDNqd.3632$%R1.41@trndny03, Thomas Littleton
wrote:

"Lazarus Cooke" wrote I'm puzzled by the
inconsistency. Socialist systems of education,
school buses, fly-fishing; state subsidized agriculture, but free
market capitalism in healthcare.

Lazarus
....maybe I am all wet(a virtual Reid, if you will), but this would seem to
reveal Lazarus' true argument. It's the inconsistency, not the socialism.
Tom


Exactly

L

--
Remover the rock from the email address

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 09:26:20 +0000, Lazarus Cooke
wrote:

In article ,
wrote:

What I am against in such cases as
are currently being discussed is the (mis)use of the US Constitution to allow
some of the "public" to get something that the Constitution or its authors
never
contemplated

Does this also apply to gun control?

Yes. And it applies equally to both the pro- and anti-gun loons. As I've said
before, IMO, the US Constitution is clear, just as the pro-gun loons claim, but
those same loons are flat wrong when they claim some extra/super-Constitutional
("God-given," _every_ person) right for "the People" to "keep and bear arms."
If the Constitution were to be amended as it itself allows, no more 2nd and no
more "right to keep and bear arms." It is clear from the contemporary
legislative intent that it was not ever intended for "the public" to have
unrestricted access to whatever it wanted firearms-wise - "the people" then were
not as "the people" are currently defined. Therefore, Congress has _some_ power
to control "the people," but none to control the "arms," ala no one under X age
of majority can purchase _any_ long or hand gun, no rights-restricted felon can
purchase or possess a firearm (another issue pro-gun loons often trip over),
etc. Congress WAS free to prevent non-white male property owners from "bearing
arms," but now, by Constitutional amendment, it isn't - who are "the people" has
been legally (and, again, IMO, properly) redefined.

HTH,
R

;-)

L

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:08:03 +0000, Lazarus Cooke

wrote:

In article
,
Larry L wrote:

wrote


Um, I, for one, would love to hear the theory under which you
and your
brother seem to:
a) feel the taxpayers of the US of A should subsidize you or
anyone else
with free or essentially-free public fishing,


Every time I go to Yellowstone I take the time to walk around
National Park
Meadow and think about the tremendous leap that mankind made
when, for the
first time, it was decided to set aside a great place forever and
for
everyone.

I must say I agree with Rdean on this one. I don't understand this
selective communism, which seems to be based on the fact that some
things used to be cheap in the us but aren't any more.

You have to pay for your food, for your healthcare, for your
housing,
for your air travel: why should your fly-fishing, or Yellowstone
Park
be free? ( I think there are quite a few people who would pay a lot
of
money for Yellowstone, and probably manage the franchising much
more
efficiently

Why subsidize American farmers, who as far as I can see are totally
uneconomic when food and cotton could be imported much more
cheaply?

I don't understand why they still have free high-school education
in
the States. If parents want an education for their children, why
don't
they pay for it? Am I right in thinking you even have free school
buses?

IF you want socialism in National Parks, fly fishing and school
buses,
then why not extend it to other areas? If I was going to fight for
socialist something, I think it would be healthcare before
fly-fishing.

Um, well, you may agree with me, but if I understand your position
above, I
don't agree with you - not saying that your position is wrong or
"bad," just
that it isn't mine. I feel that there is _too much_ "public" land
in the USA,
not that there shouldn't be ANY "public" land or that having
"public" land is
the equivalent of communism, socialism, etc. What I am against in
such cases as
are currently being discussed is the (mis)use of the US Constitution
to allow
some of the "public" to get something that the Constitution or its
authors never
contemplated - the definition of "navigable" water being disputed
not because of
a barrier to commerce on that water, but because a relative few wish
to use it
for their own reasons, subsidized by the majority.

Excellent (and virutally always overlooked) point. Clearly, the
framers of the U.S. constitution never intended that the use of public
lands should be restricted to the use of EVERYBODY when it is easy,
profitable, and much more equitable to open it up to just the wealthy.
Even a cursory glance at the constitution should suffice to make it
obvious that the intention behind the reservation of public lands was
anything but making them available to the minuscule minority that
constitues the unwashed masses when the vast bulk of the wealthiest
elite is in such great need.

Further, I simply don't feel that "the public" is _entitled_ to the
amount of
land currently deemed "public," (in the US) not because it is "the
public," but
basically because there is no truly legitimate vehicle for as broad
a program
(in both amount of land and number of clients) as is currently in
effect.

Well, good God, no! I mean, the very thought that "the public" needs
any more room that what is required for them to stand shoulder to
shoulder......in the absence of legitimate vehicles, for God's
sake!....is to be laughed at. It is merely yet another example of the
"public" citizenry's shocking abuses at the expense of the much
maligned and overburdened poor little rich kids. It is simply
disgusting to contemplate the depth and breadth to which to insane
fiction that the "public" has a right to or need for the lands that
were set aside for the use of the "public" have penetrated into the
"public" consciousness.

IOW,
any given member of the public is no more "entitled" to such amounts
of land
than they are to, say, "entitled" to the subsidized use of another
member of the
public's property

No duh! Obviously! I mean, that would require some sort of
distinction between "public" and "private", ainna? And God only knows
where a trip down THAT path would lead!

and certainly, members of "the public" in general are somehow
"entitled" to lay claim to these amounts of land.

Well, I for one, am certain that you might think that particular piece
of gibberish could mean something.

It is not the responsibility
of all to subsidize this broad level recreational
activities/availability of a
few.

No, that much is certainly true. Once again, why limit the use of
public lands to the 290,000,000 or so members of "the public" when
opening it up to ALL of the Dean family would require nothing more
than abandoning the silly principles on which this corporation was
founded?

And further, the argument of setting aside land for future
generations is
perfectly valid, but such a setting aside doesn't mean that the
current
generation is entitled to subsidized usage.

Ah, and here we come to the real beauty of it all. If, indeed, we set
it aside for future generations while excluding the current generation
of minority users (that is to say, the "public") then it becomes clear
that by simply continuing this process indefinitely we can guarantee
that the rapacious minority (otherwise known as "the public") can be
forever prevented from despoiling "public" land while at the same time
keeping it available for the widespread use of the vast private
majority of wealthy stewards.

HTH,

Immensely.

By the way, we've been wondering.......did you participate in any
organized team athletics while in college.......um.....besides being
anchor man on your frat's Comatose High School Chick Gangbang Team,
that is?

Seriously though.......tell us a little bit about yourself. What do
you do for a living? What's your home phone number? Where do your
children go to school?

Wolfgang

wrote in message
...
On Sun, 28 Nov 2004 17:08:03 +0000, Lazarus Cooke

wrote:

In article
,
Larry L wrote:

wrote


Um, I, for one, would love to hear the theory under which you
and your
brother seem to:
a) feel the taxpayers of the US of A should subsidize you or
anyone else
with free or essentially-free public fishing,


Every time I go to Yellowstone I take the time to walk around
National Park
Meadow and think about the tremendous leap that mankind made
when, for the
first time, it was decided to set aside a great place forever and
for
everyone.

I must say I agree with Rdean on this one. I don't understand this
selective communism, which seems to be based on the fact that some
things used to be cheap in the us but aren't any more.

You have to pay for your food, for your healthcare, for your
housing,
for your air travel: why should your fly-fishing, or Yellowstone
Park
be free? ( I think there are quite a few people who would pay a lot
of
money for Yellowstone, and probably manage the franchising much
more
efficiently

Why subsidize American farmers, who as far as I can see are totally
uneconomic when food and cotton could be imported much more
cheaply?

I don't understand why they still have free high-school education
in
the States. If parents want an education for their children, why
don't
they pay for it? Am I right in thinking you even have free school
buses?

IF you want socialism in National Parks, fly fishing and school
buses,
then why not extend it to other areas? If I was going to fight for
socialist something, I think it would be healthcare before
fly-fishing.

Um, well, you may agree with me, but if I understand your position
above, I
don't agree with you - not saying that your position is wrong or
"bad," just
that it isn't mine. I feel that there is _too much_ "public" land
in the USA,
not that there shouldn't be ANY "public" land or that having
"public" land is
the equivalent of communism, socialism, etc. What I am against in
such cases as
are currently being discussed is the (mis)use of the US Constitution
to allow
some of the "public" to get something that the Constitution or its
authors never
contemplated - the definition of "navigable" water being disputed
not because of
a barrier to commerce on that water, but because a relative few wish
to use it
for their own reasons, subsidized by the majority.

Excellent (and virutally always overlooked) point. Clearly, the
framers of the U.S. constitution never intended that the use of public
lands should be restricted to the use of EVERYBODY when it is easy,
profitable, and much more equitable to open it up to just the wealthy.
Even a cursory glance at the constitution should suffice to make it
obvious that the intention behind the reservation of public lands was
anything but making them available to the minuscule minority that
constitues the unwashed masses when the vast bulk of the wealthiest
elite is in such great need.

Further, I simply don't feel that "the public" is _entitled_ to the
amount of
land currently deemed "public," (in the US) not because it is "the
public," but
basically because there is no truly legitimate vehicle for as broad
a program
(in both amount of land and number of clients) as is currently in
effect.

Well, good God, no! I mean, the very thought that "the public" needs
any more room that what is required for them to stand shoulder to
shoulder......in the absence of legitimate vehicles, for God's
sake!....is to be laughed at. It is merely yet another example of the
"public" citizenry's shocking abuses at the expense of the much
maligned and overburdened poor little rich kids. It is simply
disgusting to contemplate the depth and breadth to which to insane
fiction that the "public" has a right to or need for the lands that
were set aside for the use of the "public" have penetrated into the
"public" consciousness.

IOW,
any given member of the public is no more "entitled" to such amounts
of land
than they are to, say, "entitled" to the subsidized use of another
member of the
public's property

No duh! Obviously! I mean, that would require some sort of
distinction between "public" and "private", ainna? And God only knows
where a trip down THAT path would lead!

and certainly, members of "the public" in general are somehow
"entitled" to lay claim to these amounts of land.

Well, I for one, am certain that you might think that particular piece
of gibberish could mean something.

It is not the responsibility
of all to subsidize this broad level recreational
activities/availability of a
few.

No, that much is certainly true. Once again, why limit the use of
public lands to the 290,000,000 or so members of "the public" when
opening it up to ALL of the Dean family would require nothing more
than abandoning the silly principles on which this corporation was
founded?

And further, the argument of setting aside land for future
generations is
perfectly valid, but such a setting aside doesn't mean that the
current
generation is entitled to subsidized usage.

Ah, and here we come to the real beauty of it all. If, indeed, we set
it aside for future generations while excluding the current generation
of minority users (that is to say, the "public") then it becomes clear
that by simply continuing this process indefinitely we can guarantee
that the rapacious minority (otherwise known as "the public") can be
forever prevented from despoiling "public" land while at the same time
keeping it available for the widespread use of the vast private
majority of wealthy stewards.

HTH,

Immensely.

By the way, we've been wondering.......did you participate in any
organized team athletics while in college.......um.....besides being
anchor man on your frat's Comatose High School Chick Gangbang Team,
that is?

Seriously though.......tell us a little bit about yourself. What do
you do for a living? What's your home phone number? Where do your
children go to school?

Wolfgang

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:31:04 -0600, "Wolfgang" wrote:

Yet even MORE drivel that I'm not inclined to thoughtfully wade through, but...

By the way, we've been wondering.......did you participate in any
organized team athletics while in college.......um.....besides being
anchor man on your frat's Comatose High School Chick Gangbang Team,
that is?

Now, that's just plain inaccurate - they didn't need to be either comatose or in
high school...heck, if they were good-looking enough, we'd even hook up with the
common townie girls...

Seriously though.......tell us a little bit about yourself. What do
you do for a living?

Mainly pickles and sausage, but I occasionally do some contract work for...er,
nevermind...

What's your home phone number?

1-800-IMBETTR

Where do your children go to school?

Geez, the things you riff-raff just don't understand...to the same schools that
we've been going for generations, of course...heck, buy 'em a new building or
something, and it's a 4.0 without even going to class...ah, yes, it's wonderful
to be one of us - so sorry about your situation, old boy...

Dickie