• Announcements

    • Zapata

      Abbreviated rules   07/28/2017

      Underdawg did an excellent job of explaining the rules.  Here's the simplified version: Don't insinuate Pedo.  Warning and or timeout for a first offense.  PermaFlick for any subsequent offenses Don't out members.  See above for penalties.  Caveat:  if you have ever used your own real name or personal information here on the forums since, like, ever - it doesn't count and you are fair game. If you see spam posts, report it to the mods.  We do not hang out in every thread 24/7 If you see any of the above, report it to the mods by hitting the Report button in the offending post.   We do not take action for foul language, off-subject content, or abusive behavior unless it escalates to persistent stalking.  There may be times that we might warn someone or flick someone for something particularly egregious.  There is no standard, we will know it when we see it.  If you continually report things that do not fall into rules #1 or 2 above, you may very well get a timeout yourself for annoying the Mods with repeated whining.  Use your best judgement. Warnings, timeouts, suspensions and flicks are arbitrary and capricious.  Deal with it.  Welcome to anarchy.   If you are a newbie, there are unwritten rules to adhere to.  They will be explained to you soon enough.  


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Patriot

  • Rank
  • Birthday 06/11/1970

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Location
    Chicago suburbs
  1. More United Dumbphuckery

    They offered $800 incentive and no takers....I believe airline protocol has the next step being the random selection of 4 candidates in this case among the lowest paying passengers for booting. Contract of carriage backs the airline's right to remove a person from the plane in a situation like this....that doesn't mean it was the smartest thing to do from a PR perspective.....video is all over the news. I believe they let the guy back on the plane later and the flight took off......
  2. What longer video are you referring to? The 8+ minute video I saw (I thought that was the long video) starts with the Martin on stbd gybe, heading south, away from the harbor entrance - they gybed only once, heading back towards the harbor on port, without their situation properly sorted, and the rest is history. The longer video is the 8-minute video (i think anyway.) Look at the beginning again. First he's on starboard like you say, then he gybes onto port at which time the jib appears to be wrapped around the forestay. Then at the 1:02-minute mark they start to gybe back to port, presumably to clear the jib off the forestay, but there's a break in the video so you don't actually see them complete that gybe. Next you see them back on starboard with a clear, but luffing, jib. Ah yes you're right - looks like they did 3 gybes and not just 1 in the long video - 1st gybe onto port, then onto stbd but video cuts out and we don't see them complete the gybe.....and the last gybe is back onto port, with the video skipping again, and we only see them completing the gybe......we don't know what happened prior to the video, but from what we can see it looks like best course of action was to stay on stbd to begin with and either sort the problem with the sails if possible or call for a tow.
  3. What longer video are you referring to? The 8+ minute video I saw (I thought that was the long video) starts with the Martin on stbd gybe, heading south, away from the harbor entrance - they gybed only once, heading back towards the harbor on port, without their situation properly sorted, and the rest is history.
  4. They hit the pier to the left of the "F" in "Fisherman's"......
  5. I found this article helpful: http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2017/01/trumps-immigration-order-myths-and-realities.php
  6. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/kass/ct-hillary-clinton-emails-kass-1030-20161028-column.html From the article: FBI director James Comey's announcement about the renewed Clinton email investigation is the bombshell in the presidential campaign. That he announced this so close to Election Day should tell every thinking person that what the FBI is looking at is extremely serious. This can't be about pervert Anthony Weiner and his reported desire for a teenage girl. But it can be about the laptop of Weiner's wife, Clinton aide Huma Abedin, and emails between her and Hillary. It comes after the FBI investigation in which Comey concluded Clinton had lied and been "reckless" with national secrets, but said he could not recommend prosecution. So what should the Democrats do now? If ruling Democrats hold themselves to the high moral standards they impose on the people they govern, they would follow a simple process: They would demand that Mrs. Clinton step down, immediately, and let her vice presidential nominee, Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia, stand in her place. Democrats should say, honestly, that with a new criminal investigation going on into events around her home-brew email server from the time she was secretary of state, having Clinton anywhere near the White House is just not a good idea. Since Oct. 7, WikiLeaks has released 35,000 emails hacked from Clinton campaign boss John Podesta. Now WikiLeaks, no longer a neutral player but an active anti-Clinton agency, plans to release another 15,000 emails. What if she is elected? Think of a nation suffering a bad economy and continuing chaos in the Middle East, and now also facing a criminal investigation of a president. Add to that congressional investigations and a public vision of Clinton as a Nixonian figure wandering the halls, wringing her hands. The best thing would be for Democrats to ask her to step down now. It would be the most responsible thing to do, if the nation were more important to them than power. And the American news media — fairly or not firmly identified in the public mind as Mrs. Clinton's political action committee — should begin demanding it.
  7. It's time for HRC to step aside - she owes it to the American people.
  8. They are mirror images. Bizarre. Yep - mirror images....video flipping......never mind.
  9. It seems there are two different videos of this event - both shot from the same side of the street, yet the SUV approaches from the left in one video and from the right in the other video. How is this possible? http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-11/hillary-clinton-reportedly-suffers-medial-episode-rushed-away-ground-zero-fox-news
  10. Can't make this shit up........here's the response from her handlers on this gaffe: “Her grandparents always spoke about the immigrant experience and, as a result she has always thought of them as immigrants,” a spokesperson says. Are you shitting me? Think it, and it shall be so.......wtf.
  11. Hillary - "Rules Don't Apply To Me"

    "All the attention it has gotten"? Methinks the polls would look a bit different if the media covered this story as much as, say Bridgegate - and covered it in as detailed a manner as Shannen Coffin does. But that's clearly not going to happen.....not yet anyway.
  12. Hillary - "Rules Don't Apply To Me"

    A good write-up that addresses the latest developments on Hillary's e-mail issue, and reinforces, with good clarity, what's already been said on this with respect to how Hillary has already broken the law. http://www.nationalreview.com/article/416184/latest-bombshell-mrs-clintons-lawyer-shannen-w-coffin But whether or not she destroyed records, there is certainly evidence that she willfully concealed the existence of these e-mails during her tenure as secretary of state, because they were never searched in response to either congressional-committee requests or citizen FOIA requests while she was in office. We now know, by virtue of the State Department’s recent release to the Benghazi Select Committee of 850 pages e-mails from Mrs. Clinton’s private server, that she did, in fact, withhold records responsive to a federal inquiry for more than two years from their first request in 2012. Were it not for the State Department’s request that she return any official records on her private e-mails, would she ever have disclosed these records? Putting aside the question of concealment, however, if what David Kendall says is true, we’re left mostly with a debate about Mrs. Clinton’s compliance with federal civil-records laws and regulations designed to protect and preserve a record of the business of the State Department. With regard to this, for reasons I have discussed at some length, there is every reason to conclude that Mrs. Clinton’s conduct was not only bad form but also a pretty blatant violation of the law. Mr. Kendall goes to some length to argue that Mrs. Clinton complied with the State Department’s governing regulations, but he elides the obvious fact that she took everything with her when she left the Department — without giving State Department records officials the opportunity to review and retain official records. This is a privilege otherwise unknown to the rank-and-file employee at the State Department and in obvious conflict with governing rules. All of this raises the ultimate question: Given her wholesale failure to comply with her obligations as the highest ranking official of the State Department, why on earth would anyone be ready to accept Mrs. Clinton’s representations — carefully made through her private legal counsel — that she has fully complied with the law? The admission that Mrs. Clinton has deleted documents while she is subject of several congressional document demands (both by subpoena and less formal letter requests) at least gives rise to a reasonable suspicion that something is amiss. Normally, in those circumstances, a prosecutor would not simply rely on the deleter’s representations that she has acted in good faith. Instead, a reasonable prosecutor would want to verify that she complied with her obligations to turn all of her responsive records to the State Department — which it might be able to do through forensic analysis of her server. So rather than laying to rest the controversy of Mrs. Clinton’s server, Mr. Kendall has only amplified it.
  13. Hillary - "Rules Don't Apply To Me"

    Jeb should be held accountable if he broke the law - as should Hillary.
  14. Hillary - "Rules Don't Apply To Me"

    Actually you can make this up since there is the "reported" account but nothing to back it up. as Eva Dent. edit: I never supported Hillary for POTUS and still don't but the never ending attacks BENGHAZI!!!!! which wind up amounting to zip make you guys look like the boy who cried wolf. Nothing to back it up? Is that the first line of defense now - ignorant and lazy as it may be? You must be reading from the same playbook as Battlecheese - see post #518 in "Obama to bypass Congress using executive orders...." thread. As for back-up, a quick Google search produced this sampling: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2015/03/hillary-clinton-seeks-clean-slate-with-press-204457.html http://time.com/3755497/clinton-jokes-press-emails/ http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/23/hillary-clinton-press_n_6928098.html there's even video footage in the links above - maybe it was faked....... So yes, indeed, you can't make this shit up.
  15. Hillary - "Rules Don't Apply To Me"

    Hillary says we need journalists to "hold us accountable" and proceeds to take no questions - and they fawn over her with a standing ovation.....you can't make this shit up.