• 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.

phillysailor

Members
  • Content count

    1,926
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About phillysailor

  • Rank
    Anarchist
  1. Actually, late night TV Democrats have made a killing mocking journalism. Seth, Trevor, Jon and David O are making a killing while slaying all things Drumpf in a way straight journalism can't. When society goes off the edge, only satire can point it out efficiently.
  2. Nicely derailed thread so far but between financial and energy sector deregulation and the health care tax cut for the 1% there ain't no place for the middle class in our new society. Whether bankrupted by almost insurance (won't be required to cover pregnancy or mental health) or hounded into financial oblivion by a banking sector and educational system bent on rent seeking, we are going to have aristocrats and serfs pretty soon. Heard an NPR story yesterday about the "independent contractors" who drive Port of LA/Long Beach containers. They showed up one day, told to "sign here" or lose their job, and suddenly they are indentured servants. They were paying the lease on their trucks, and if they didn't do what the company said, they were immediately in financial peril. Mandated 3x shifts, a week off if they complained, ending the week with a negative paycheck if the company ledger said so. Bye bye working poor. You live at the convenience and pleasure of your masters, especially if you have a preexisting cobdition.
  3. I agree with the OP. Democrats mock FOX News all the time!
  4. Yawn Trump admits he was wrong about cash going to Iran for prisoner swap Trump admits he was wrong about China be solution for N Korea Trump admited that being president is harder than he thought Trump admitted he was wrong about healthcare being easy Trump never admitted he was wrong about where the Carl Vinson was going, but it certainly wasn't where he thought it was He was wrong that the Democrats would be happy he fired J Comey He admitted he was wrong to compare his wife with Ted Cruz's wife He admitted that Obama was, in fact, born in the US. He used to be a Democrat, made statements for Universal health care, staying out of ME wars and supporting a woman's right to choose an abortion. He's a serial philanderer with several marriages who's suddenly found religion. Whats wrong is thinking that his words bear a passing resemblance to the truth or to strongly held beliefs.
  5. Well, the problem has gotten much worse in GOP controlled states recently. Perhaps you should be more concern with abuse of privilege and lack of respect for democratic norms your party has been showing. We need country before party, not this obvious inequity on a national scale. It is destabilizing our political system, and you are unAmerican if you would see the end of our representative democracy just so your party can stay in power. Show some patriotism, not just party loyalty.
  6. Perhaps this makes you feel good, thinking you can blame half the nation for this mayhem, but you'd be much better off restricting domestic abuse perpetrators from purchasing firearms. There is a strong correlation between the two types of criminal activity, much much stronger than political affiliation. Essentially, you are currently wasting your time by ignoring relevant information. But I suppose you think your life is better without rational thought and realistic threat analysis. Please. Go ahead and share your emotions. It's what you are good at! We will be sure to listen carefully, make supportive comments, and appear to be respectful. We understand: your feelings are important to us.
  7. I think what we have is a whole bunch of threads & a lot of motivated thread pullers. I think momentum will develop (obviously that's just my opinion) and the administration will unravel. Rats & sinking ships & such. The thing is, I don't see Trump having allies when this happens. He's worked hard to alienate most everyone except the <0.1% and they view him as at best an employee, at worst an uncouth jerk who is loud and boorish at their posh parties. The Republican establishment is just waiting for the opportunity to dump Drumpf. As soon as it is politically feasible, or advantageous, they will turn on him like rabid dogs. What I find the scariest is if the Russian banks do, indeed, have him & Kushner by the short & curlies. For the life of me, I can't see why die hard Trumpets ignore this possibility.
  8. Dog, you are splitting hairs, just as Bill C did. Call it "a dose of reality" if you want to fool yourself, but much of America thinks that you are defending someone who breaks rules because he thinks they simply don't apply to him. I note that EPA Chief Scott Pruitt met with 45 oil and gas directors and CEOs March 22 at Trump Hotel in Wash, DC. This is in addition to the President's own use of the hotel and the meeting spaces attracting many new clients not attending other sites, including foreign governments with business before our administration. There are now three different lawsuits accusing the President of receiving unfair business advantage as a result of his stake in this hotel on government property; one from the State of Maryland which finds itself in direct competition with the president, and has something of equal standing with him, one is on behalf of some 200 Democratic representatives, and the last was filed by ethics watchdogs and business competitors back in January. All three are attempting to gain access to more of Trump's financial information, which would enable private investigators and accountants to embark on a merry chase of Trump's financial dealings, an eventuality which would likely bring about Trump's resignation faster than any political dustup. Also, Trump has weighed in on the Qatar/Saudi Arabia/UAE imbroglio in a way not coherent with State Department or Defense Department goals, but commensurate with his personal real estate ties and investments with the countries. He had several copyright patents renewed by Russia Nov 8, 2016 as well as those sudden granting of hard-to-get Chinese patents in January. Remember, the Emoluments clause says "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State. It is in the context of these scandals that the interpretation of Trump's firing of Comey after a request for personal loyalty and attempts to weigh in on the Russian investigation must be considered. The man is an ethical nightmare, and Ryan is not his buddy. Ted Cruz and chickenhead Mitch McD are not his respectful colleagues. Trump will rapidly find these and other long-time Republicans abandoning him in favor of a fellow Congressional representative from the wonderful state of Indiana whom they can trust to be a loyal party man. The writing is on the wall, Dog, and you are defending a man with vulnerable flanks and only his family to back him up. (Unless Russian banks are still willing.) He is facing a united and enraged enemy, namely, the enmity of the Democratic Party and much of the rest of the world. He's existing on borrowed time, which is why Steve Bannon is in so much of a hurry to undo every piece of Obama's legacy he can.
  9. Paul Ryan : "He's new at this" Mitch McConnell in reaction to Trump firing Comey: “Today we’ll no doubt hear calls for a new investigation,” Mr. McConnell said on the Senate floor as most Senate Democrats looked on, “which can only serve to impede the current work being done.”
  10. Meanwhile, "The Department of Homeland Security will be closing its city-based National Urban Security Technology Laboratory which services the NYPD and the FDNY radiation-detection equipment used to detect an improvised nuclear device or a so-called dirty bomb, THE CHIEF-LEADER has learned. In addition to providing technical support to the city’s first-responders, the lab, under the post-9/11 Securing the Cities program, provides similar assistance to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey as well as local departments across the region." Because NYC is an unlikely site for a terrorist to strike, right? And the NYFD rarely has to deal with large scale disasters, nor is a valuable for training and educating our nation's First Responders on rare but significant threats. Trump's tax cut for the 1% is more important than our nation's domestic security. Go U$A!
  11. Guys, chill out. Dog is playing the role of Bill Clinton, debating the meaning of "is." Let him... it's all he has, ok? He cannot defend the idiot in chief, and he really doesn't want the job. Impeachment is the legal process by which an administration rids itself of a hated, ineffectual or law-breaking chief. Any of those individual reasons, or more likely a combination of all three, will lead to a successful impeachment and expulsion of the Gropenführer, but we aren't there yet. Right now, Dog is saying that there is insufficient legal grounds to convict, "beyond a reasonable doubt," President Trump of the charge of Obstruction of Justice. He's right. There is a case that can be made, and there may well be more evidence out there regarding motive to which we don't yet have access that can help bolster all three reasons supporting impeachment. This is a process that is gonna drag out awhile. Our nation is settling in for a siege, and the twists and turns are gonna be interesting. But absent some rapid, spectacular defections from the cause, the administration can batten down the hatches, lawyer up, and delay for a year & a half at least. The midterms may ultimately decide Trump's future, but it would be a lost opportunity for the GOP to decisively deal with their corruptor in chief.
  12. Some of this was interesting, and should be thought-provoking to Democrats, such as the extensive quote of Trump's speech about how bureaucracy paralyzes construction initiatives. Camile also point out how liberalism has ossified into knee-jerk reactions and filing people in "victim groups" and then setting up a bureaucracy to defend that group against the predations of the masses. Good stuff here. But by equal parts Camile is just as vision-blind as those she tries to criticize, dismissing climate change as "a sentimental myth unsupported by evidence" and willing to say that liberals' refusal to use certain terms, such as Islamic Jihadism, means that they show a "reluctance to candidly confront jihadism." She then goes on to say this is because most practitioners of Islam are non-white, and therefore deserve the pity of liberals. This is an opinion that is unsupported by the wars and incursions into Pakistan and other countries by SFs and drones, missiles and bombs that occurred under Obama's liberal watch. Her confusing stance on bisexuality (including her own) and how it should inform public policy muddles the message of the overall political discussion, with talk of men breast feeding and such. I find that having settled on her own path to happiness, "I was donning flamboyant male costumes from early childhood on," she now feels free to set the terms by which others make the same decision in this land of the free. Sober, ok, because she stays away from too much invective. But a bit confusing as well. Not much clarity outside of the initial analysis of why and how Trump beat out the Republican field, and Hillary was a poor choice. But I find most discussions of Bernie's viability as a candidate viewed through starry-eyed and rose colored retrospectoscopes at best. He's been a far left socialist for much of his life, and might have alienated the working class seen as crucial during this election just as soundly as Trump attracted them.
  13. I'm not trying to make the point that liberals are morally superior, just that hateful speech that could incite violence appeals to some fringe alt-right types, and that some successful commercial entities gain notoriety and a broad audience catering to this groups needs. I wouldn't claim that all right wing types enjoy this speech, but that it does not create such a harsh backlash as Kathy G's ham handed efforts, nor the more erudite theatre version. Shall we consider, as further examples of this catering to the violent right, some Trump quotes? Where he joked about it being ok to rough up protestors, he'd pay the legal bills? When he pined for the good old days when they'd have to be carried out on a stretcher, or that he'd "Like to punch him in the face!" He's even been sued on this issue. Or at his rallies, where he did nothing to stop the cries of "Lock Her UP" that morphed into isolated shouting of "kill her, kill her". He also didn't immediately separate himself from the KKK, which was a bit weird. Certainly, civilians are not as reluctant to ascribe their anger to his rise to power... we've seen an uptick in the number of white jerks berating ethnic citizens claiming they were inspired by our President, and that the rules were changing in Trump's America. In any case, Trump realized that appealing to these violent tendencies got a crowd worked up, and he used it to his advantage. Remember, in stark contrast, how Obama handled a crowd that was booing and getting restive towards an elderly protestor. He urged respect... and to go out and vote. What a great scene!
  14. My three points were: #1. There is money to be made peddling violent speech to the radical right #2. There doesn't seem to be an equivalent profit to be made on the left #3. There seems to be a stronger bipartisan reaction to left wing hate speech A_Guy -- I had posted my thought process/substantiation before you asked for it.
  15. Just interesting that #1. There is money to be made peddling violent speech to the radical right #2. There doesn't seem to be an equivalent profit to be made on the left #3. There seems to be a stronger bipartisan reaction to left wing hate speech