Why, too young? You are not voting, merely expressing your opinion as a citizen! Go for it!
Why, too young? You are not voting, merely expressing your opinion as a citizen! Go for it!P.S. Just saw your edit of my April 18th post, Rick. I think you're right. I reckeoned that not many members would have that MOS, but whenever I have said, "Nobody would be dumb enough to do that," I've generally been proven wrong!
Glad ya understood why I edited it. I am likely going to fire off another letter or make a phone call this week.
You make a valid point, Phil. Yes, I almost always prefer to read over watching video of any news-type events. And I admit, I did blindly trust the article to give me the gist of what had gone on. You got me.
I am very interested in the developments and truth to what is going on with the Bill. But I haven't taken or made the time to investigate the issue thoroughly for myself. Going right now to watch the video.... and thanks for the reality check! :lol: Link you gave doesn't work Phil. I went to the link Peter posted but that doensn't mean I "turned" there or am getting all my info there so let's not assume anything. I have an actual .gov link in my first post. I am the first to admit I am no expert on the workings of government but have read the actual bill and get my info from the legit sources, IE the .gov sites.
Here it is again (choose "watch archive"). http://scienceblogs.com/grrlscientist/2009...has_conclud.php hehe). I hate politics, debates, and boring testimony. It sounds like a poor excuse and a very apathetic stance to take. I do care. I just don't have the time or inclination to listen to hours of testimony at the hearings, or spend hours researching every fact and following every step of the progression of the issue. It may be sad, but it's true... and I admit it. Thanks, Rick and Katt for pointing out the faulty link.The link in your post doesn't work, Phil. The other ones do, however.
I would much rather someone else who has more time and the inclination (a hopefully impartial party who maybe gets paid to do it) do the in-depth and comprehensive study on the issues, and then give me written concise report. I believe I can still do a little bit to support my position, even if I'm not thoroughly steeped in the goings on of every aspect of the progress of the bill. And that's about all I really have to say about that.
Well what we have are people making laws about stuff they know nothing about. Not the first time and won't be the last.Thanks, Rick and Katt for pointing out the faulty link.I know. We are flooded with information, and as a consequence live in an age of Cliff's Notes and three minute sound bites. I am no better. Years ago, I thought that I could talk with Christians better if I had a sound grasp of Covenantism and Dispensationalism. Got it, too! Passed my own post test! Now, I understand, we have Neo Dispensationalism and Reformed Covenantism, so I have given up.
The problem with finding an impartial synopsis is that such synopses are usually written by partial persons, those who have something to gain by one side or the other's winning.
My anger, in my earlier post was at the writer of the article that Peter posted. His premise (in the title) was specious, his value judgments ("hero of the day") were both biased and unsupported, and he gave one gross misstatement of the facts ("black list" versus "white list").
Still, I shall end on a cheerful note that hasn't been dwelt upon by opponents of the bill (like me, remember?) as much, perhaps, as it should be. A number of introduced species that have done considerable harm in the US, such as kudzu, and zebra mussels, were cited, but not one was introduced by the pet trade, and witnesses who mentioned them were at pains to point this out. There were also a few unitentionally funny moments, as when a proponent of the new legislation asked if under current law, it was not possible to keep a tiger in your back yard. Right now, I have Tucker guarding the patio from invasive tigers and other felines.
I think both are. They won't take them away they just won't allow anymore to be brought in or bred.
If the bill passes you won't be able to breed them, ship them or buy more if they die. You'll also need unspecified documentation to prove you bought them prior or face a prison term of up to five years per fish.
Nice! Just very nice!!!
