Al Agnew Posted February 21, 2016 Share Posted February 21, 2016 The Republicans happen to be the party in power, but both parties like to have the fox guarding the henhouse when it comes to committees where they are mostly against the stuff the committee is supposed to be overseeing...hence this doofus being on the conservation and natural resources committee. Brian Jones and Foghorn 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bkbying89 Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Since this discourse is political, I feel that many of our representatives have concluded that they no longer need to respond to their constituents. Vote them out and make a statement that we the people are in charge. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
awhuber Posted February 24, 2016 Share Posted February 24, 2016 Hey guys Ross has an opponent this election. You can put your money where your mouth is. This dude has a 0.001% chance of winning but your generous contribution could put him over the top. Bobby Johnston, Jr. PO BOX 529 HOUSTON MO 65483 SpoonDog 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottK Posted February 25, 2016 Share Posted February 25, 2016 Talked to my rep. today (Mike Kelley), he seemed very receptive to my concerns and assured that he would address it when it comes up for a hearing. Told me to call him anytime, I was pretty impressed with his interest in this and for listening to my issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Jones Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Google "Missouri house bill 2610" and see what else he has sponsored this session. This clown is en fuego........................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottK Posted February 26, 2016 Share Posted February 26, 2016 Here's his "explanation" of that: He just wants to play games and act like a moron. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigredbirdfan Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 http://openstates.org/mo/bills/2016/HB2405/#votes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bigredbirdfan Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 http://www.house.mo.gov/BillActions.aspx?bill=HB2405&year=2016&code=R Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottK Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 At least they added an amendment to it. Reads like it might be helpful depending on how they determine if "such a right exists on a watercourse.". AMEND House Bill No. 2405, Page 2, Section 60.700, Line 25, by inserting after all of said section and line the following: "60.701. Nothing in sections 60.700 to 60.708 shall be construed to limit or expand any public easement for navigational or recreational purposes if such a right exists on a watercourse."; and Further amend said bill by amending the title, enacting clause, and intersectional references accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScottK Posted April 5, 2016 Share Posted April 5, 2016 Ross provided an "explanation" on this post just a bit ago. All is well, nothing to worry about folks<sarcasm> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now