Quote:
Originally Posted by spence
I did answer your question, by stating that the threat of activist groups as positioned by yourself was lacking in context to be of much importance.
The article you're commenting on is trying to string you along by sequencing elements in the hope that you'll make the connections by yourself.
A) The Obama Admin closed the window for public comment
+
B) Radical activists will protect animals just because they're cute
must =
C) Obama wants to screw fisherman because that's what liberals do
The author seems to want you to believe that the Administration is out to exact some dubious revenge on the sportsperson, callously striking their input for the record so they can close the doors and work with tree spiking radicals to shut down an entire industry....just like they did in ONTARIO.
This doesn't appear to be true.
-spence
|
Actually, I wasn't trying to position anything. I asked you a question because you commented on corporate fishing, but not the activist groups. I was just curious as to what you thought about the activist groups mentioned in the article. Nothing more, nothing less. But as usual, you tried to use the old end around and not just give a simple answer. Do you ever get tired of thinking up different ways to come off as a blowhard?
Threaded Mode