• Announcements

    • UnderDawg

      A Few Simple Rules   05/22/2017

      Sailing Anarchy is a very lightly moderated site. This is by design, to afford a more free atmosphere for discussion. There are plenty of sailing forums you can go to where swearing isn't allowed, confrontation is squelched and, and you can have a moderator finger-wag at you for your attitude. SA tries to avoid that and allow for more adult behavior without moderators editing your posts and whacking knuckles with rulers. We don't have a long list of published "thou shalt nots" either, and this is by design. Too many absolute rules paints us into too many corners. So check the Terms of Service - there IS language there about certain types of behavior that is not permitted. We interpret that lightly and permit a lot of latitude, but we DO reserve the right to take action when something is too extreme to tolerate (too racist, graphic, violent, misogynistic, etc.). Yes, that is subjective, but it allows us discretion. Avoiding a laundry list of rules allows for freedom; don't abuse it. However there ARE a few basic rules that will earn you a suspension, and apparently a brief refresher is in order. 1) Allegations of pedophilia - there is no tolerance for this. So if you make allegations, jokes, innuendo or suggestions about child molestation, child pornography, abuse or inappropriate behavior with minors etc. about someone on this board you will get a time out. This is pretty much automatic; this behavior can have real world effect and is not acceptable. Obviously the subject is not banned when discussion of it is apropos, e.g. talking about an item in the news for instance. But allegations or references directed at or about another poster is verboten. 2) Outing people - providing real world identifiable information about users on the forums who prefer to remain anonymous. Yes, some of us post with our real names - not a problem to use them. However many do NOT, and if you find out someone's name keep it to yourself, first or last. This also goes for other identifying information too - employer information etc. You don't need too many pieces of data to figure out who someone really is these days. Depending on severity you might get anything from a scolding to a suspension - so don't do it. I know it can be confusing sometimes for newcomers, as SA has been around almost twenty years and there are some people that throw their real names around and their current Display Name may not match the name they have out in the public. But if in doubt, you don't want to accidentally out some one so use caution, even if it's a personal friend of yours in real life. 3) Posting While Suspended - If you've earned a timeout (these are fairly rare and hard to get), please observe the suspension. If you create a new account (a "Sock Puppet") and return to the forums to post with it before your suspension is up you WILL get more time added to your original suspension and lose your Socks. This behavior may result a permanent ban, since it shows you have zero respect for the few rules we have and the moderating team that is tasked with supporting them. Check the Terms of Service you agreed to; they apply to the individual agreeing, not the account you created, so don't try to Sea Lawyer us if you get caught. Just don't do it. Those are the three that will almost certainly get you into some trouble. IF YOU SEE SOMEONE DO ONE OF THESE THINGS, please do the following: Refrain from quoting the offending text, it makes the thread cleanup a pain in the rear Press the Report button; it is by far the best way to notify Admins as we will get e-mails. Calling out for Admins in the middle of threads, sending us PM's, etc. - there is no guarantee we will get those in a timely fashion. There are multiple Moderators in multiple time zones around the world, and anyone one of us can handle the Report and all of us will be notified about it. But if you PM one Mod directly and he's off line, the problem will get dealt with much more slowly. Other behaviors that you might want to think twice before doing include: Intentionally disrupting threads and discussions repeatedly. Off topic/content free trolling in threads to disrupt dialog Stalking users around the forums with the intent to disrupt content and discussion Repeated posting of overly graphic or scatological porn content. There are plenty web sites for you to get your freak on, don't do it here. And a brief note to Newbies... No, we will not ban people or censor them for dropping F-bombs on you, using foul language, etc. so please don't report it when one of our members gives you a greeting you may find shocking. We do our best not to censor content here and playing swearword police is not in our job descriptions. Sailing Anarchy is more like a bar than a classroom, so handle it like you would meeting someone a little coarse - don't look for the teacher. Thanks.

rb608

Members
  • Content count

    1,629
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About rb608

  • Rank
    Anarchist

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chesapeake Bay
  1. Don't think so. He's not courting the middle by veering to the right margin. I surely can't put myself in Newt's head (thank god); but his love has always been political power and gamesmanship. Speculation? He sees the legion of solid 20%-ers who would vote GOP even if Jesus Christ himself were the Dem nominee. He sees the uncritical thinking of the "keep the government hands off my Medicare" teabaggers, and the sheep who inexpicably worship Goldline Glenn; and he sees a motivated right wing base from which he can start to build toward the apathetic middle. If he can grab and hold that position, it's conceivable he could seize the GOP front-runner position and the publicity and contributions that come with it. If he can hold it all the way to the nomination, he'll take it; but even if not, he'll have a huge bargaining chip for a VP spot or other position in a GOP administration. But courting independents? Nah; not yet, anyway.
  2. That's exactly what he's suggesting. Why reference Kenya otherwise? Barack Hussein Obama was born in the United States. Does Gingrich reference the ancestral homeland of other polticians in his criticisms of them? No; the clear and dishonest implication is that Obama is Kenyan, not American. Newt is pond scum.
  3. Pretty much since the invention of smoke and mirrors. I like to think a few of them proved their competence once in office; but I'm certain we differ in our opinions of which are which.
  4. Back here on the right coast, we have a local high school radio station (that's right, a high school station) with better friggin programming than most stations anywhere. One of the night time slots is "One Particular Harbor", a show dedicated to tropical music. The theme is rooted loosely in Buffet, but the guy play a great variety of beach, natical, & surf tunes. If anyone's near the northern Chesapeake, check out WKHS in Wharton, MD, 90.5 on your FM dial.
  5. These two statements are contradictory, but by admitting that Bush believed there were WMD, you are acknowledging that he was not lying. Not at all. The good ol' US of A was Hussein's WMD supplier back when his particular brand of despotism served our interests. We gave him tons of the stuff; and it's not a stretch to think he might have had a few drums laying about in a warehouse somewhere that Bush could point to and say "Aha!" That is not the same thing, however, as believing Hussein had an active WMD program or viable stockpiles and a delivery system as alleged. Bush knew the history, he was lying about the present. No, manipulating intel to support bad decisions is lying. That accusation falls directly on the top: Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and others who knew. Those not privvy to the full intel and who made decisions on what they were fed are far less culpable.
  6. When I have my best tinfoil hat on, I sometimes think about that little theater piece. Let's see how that developed, shall we. Apparently there's some question about yellowcake being purchased in Niger. The alarm is raised by some documents that are so obviously forged the Niger seal could have been done with crayon; but nonetheless, someone in the Office of the VP, probably Dick himself, thinks we should send someone to look into it. So who do we have available? Why this Joe Wilson guy surely know the area. Not only was he a foreign service officer in Niger for a time, he also served in Baghdad. Hell, if anybody is the right guy to figure this out, Joe Wilson's your guy. Now if I'm Dick Cheney, I already know about Joe Wilson's record. I already know that he's easily the best guy to send, so when I ask for somebody to go, I already know it'll probably be Wilson. And if it isn't, I can make it so. So Joe Wilson goes to Niger, finds diddly squat to support the administration's fearmongering, and when challenged/ignored on that finding, vents in the NYT. So what happens next? In a so-called act of retribution against Joe Wilson, the VP office exposes the identity of a covert agent, Joe's wife. That'll teach him, eh? The juiciness of this little spy drama act of treason is cause clebre for months as absolutley no one is held accountable; and it finally fades from view. What never reaches the press, however, and what IMO is the entire motivation for Wilson's trip is that Valerie Plame's undercover activities are competely derailed. And what were those activities, you ask? Why counter proliferation of nuclear weapons, specifically Iranian nuclear weapons. Remember those aluminum tubes that were centrifuge parts but weren't really? Whose work led to the discrediting of that little scare? Plame's group. So when the Bush/Cheney administration started sabre rattling about Iranian nukes, why wasn't there credible intel to counter that rubbish? Because they'd neutralized Plame and her counter proliferation group; and they'd gotten away with it with that cute Joe Wilson distraction. IMO, Plame was the target all along, not her husband; and the media and the public fell for it. /tinfoil
  7. Exactly the fear-mongering brought to you by the Bush Cheney administration. I mean, holy shit, this little third-rate dictator we used to support just might have weapons that intel says he doesn't, and he might be friends with terrorists when intel says he isn't. So by all means, the obvious solution is to invade and occupy the wrong f*cking Muslim country (you know, the one with all the oil) and hand the mother of all recruiting tools to the bad guys who wanted to hurt us in the first place. (insert mushroom cloud reference here) And while you're at it, spend a trillion dollars on that escapade, but don't bother inspecting the cargo containers coming into the US or spend the money on more sophisticated detection technology. Scare the shit out of the people and tell them to stock up on plastic and duct tape instead, and don't let them take shampoo on airplanes, because that's the real threat. Maybe nobody will notice who's cashing the checks that are bankrupting their Treasury or the thousands of GI's who are coming home limbless, lifeless or mindless. Because maiming or killing 25,000 Americans a dozen at a time gets a lot fewer headlines than a thousand at once. I'm sorry, but what Bush/Cheney have done to this country really pisses me the fuck off.
  8. By "lying", I mean deliberately not telling the truth. Did the Bush admin know that Iraq had WMDs at some time in he past? Hell yes, we sold them to him. Did they know that Hussein's weapons programs were essentially defunct and that he posed absoilutely zero immediate threat to the US? Hell yeah: I believe they did. As to whether or not they even posess hearts is another question. Despite the specifics, nuances, or long-term strategies; it is absolutely clear that what they knew and what they sold the American public were two different things. They lied. I'm not buying that at all. Too many eyes; too many mouths; too many camcorders. I don't question that you witnessed unsecured sites; but there's a long chain of custody for moving that stuff around. Hell, we even found out when the Air Force accidentally flew a live nuke across the US. It isn't that easy to "plant" WMDs when "nobody" is looking. A much simpler explanation is that Bush actually did expect to find some. Even I'm surprised they came up so completely empty that they had to invent more lies about the supposed mobile bioweapons lab. Surely Iraq had a few caches of the old shit we sold them a while back. Their overall post-combat planning notwithstanding, I think the realistic expectation of finding something was reasonable enough that planting more was deemed unnecessary. But that's just my opinion. Perhaps not; but again, the simpler explanation is more believable. Some truckloads of stuff may have been moved; but the possibility of scrubbing an entire nation on short notice seems implausible to me, especially if there were enough weapons & delivery systems to pose a threat to the US. There weren't.
  9. Well, since you brought it up, I don't know why you wasted the "if". There is no "if" Bush was lying. Bush was lying. Either he presided over one of the worst intelligence fuckups in history, or the intel was good and he spun it to the point of incredulity. There were no WMDs. We know that now, and I believe Bush had sufficient intel to know it from the beginning. Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, and yes Powell fucking lied. Powell doesn't get a free pass from me. Fuck him. He's got no business in the Obama administration as far as I'm concerned. The consequences of his UN dog and pony show far outweigh any experience or honor he may have once had.
  10. When all of the checks to Halliburton, KBR, Bechtel, etc. have cleared and the US Treasury is empty. At that point, we declare "Victory!" and whatever happens afterward is the next guy's fault.
  11. Let's ask Michael if he walks around unescorted and without his Kevlar. I'm sure Michele Malkin's favorite GI has his finger on the pulse of our Iraqi policy from his post there in S. Baghdad. I can't wait for Bush to echo this announcement tomorrow followed by immediate troop redeployments. I expect they'll start dismantling the walls to the Green Zone any day now. Gosh, this is great news. OTOH, our real policymakers may take into account the recent suicide bombings Tuesday in western Baghdad that killed two and injured 17, or the synchronized triple bombing in N Baghdad on Monday that killed 29. Or maybe the Sunday attacks that killed 12, or Saturday's that killed 11 in Baghdad and Anbar. But it's not all bad; I mean, there have been only 19 bombings in Baghdad the first 9 days of this month vs. 28 in October and 22 in September. So yeah, I guess "There's nothing going on." So great, now there's absolutely no excuse. Bring our troops home now.