• 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.  

Bent Sailor

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

177 F'n Saint

About Bent Sailor

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location
    Lake Macquarie
  • Interests
    Software Development
    A Good Yarn with Mates
  1. Next up - McCabe?

    And once again, that punchy wit & razor-sharp intellect on display.
  2. I'm 100% honest. I hate green eggs and ham. The idea turns my stomach. Just imagine!
  3. What is a Libertarian?

    Incorrect. It was a response to an incorrect statement you made in this thread. And it is that kind of misrepresentation and game playing that is behind the limited replies you get on every subject. But you keep pretending it's because they are not gun related. A claim you made in this thread. Once again, libertarianism is (at least partially) about personal responsibility to balance liberty. Dodging personal responsibility for your reputation here (& it's consequences) suggests you're less of a libertarian than your claims suggest.
  4. Drip Drip Drip

  5. What is a Libertarian?

    Actually, it's because no-one really thinks it's worth engaging you on a subject they're actually interested in anymore. Your flame-bait with guns tends to be a little more flammable due to, you know, the amount of dead bodies involved... and even then the vast majority of the threads you get someone to bite turn into you, jocal, and jeffie destroying any chance of reasonable discussion on the subject. Libertarians are about personal responsibility. You should at least try owning your shit occasionally.
  6. Next up - McCabe?

    Everyone who rwds them thinks your posts lack integrity, Dog. It's a little hard not to when you're so flexible with the standards you use to justify what you write. Perhaps you need two accounts - one for writing your criticism of folks you consider "the left" and another for defending folks you consider "the right". That way you won't contradict yourself so often.
  7. Just Another High School Shooting

    Do you accept the Supreme Court to be infallible? If not, that isn't an argument against what is claimed about it's original intent, merely an argument regarding how it is interpreted by the judicial system. If it helps you stop playing games, I 100% concede that is how the judicial system will act regarding the Second Amendment. Just as they interpret the right to privacy as granting the right to an abortion. Just because a decision is reached that one likes, doesn't mean it's based on unimpeachable logic. So back to that Second Amendment, why do you think the law was written without a single reference to personal defence yet expressly uses well regulated militias and the security of a free state as justification?
  8. And yet did not say that particular report was. He could have done so easily. That he didn't is notable.
  9. Would you, could you in a boat Would you, could you with a goat I do not like green eggs and ham I do not like them Sam I Am.
  10. If Hong Kong wishes to declare war, I'm not going to sweat too much. If you want to scare us, you might want to threaten war with a scary country like Nambia.
  11. Black in America

    Christ, TMSAIL, you've got some serious issues. Is it possible for you to consider the fact people can both disagree with you and that disagreement have nothing whatsoever to do with me? You've got the pathetic signature line calling on others to ignore me; why not see if you can follow it yourself for twenty-four hours. Or, you know, continue showing everyone just how obsessed you are about that one Aussie you just can't stop thinking about
  12. Exactly. More importantly, the investigation as handed over to SDNY by Mueller is going of course going to be focused on Cohen and his crimes. If they should uncover evidence implicating Trump in crimes detailed in Cohen's records (and/or testimony he offers in exchange for leniency); at that point they'll pass that information back to Mueller who can then change Trump from a "subject" to a "target" in his investigation. Rosenstein's comment is playing to the cheap seats. Trump and his lawyers are perfectly aware of how little it means. Which is kind of why they're in a bit of a panic right now. The FBI have Cohen's records. The FBI are building a case against Cohen. Cohen's loyalty in the face of life in prison is pretty damned questionable. If Cohen had nothing to offer the FBI on Trump, he wouldn't be in a panic right now.
  13. So excited he had to post it twice. Thing is, as said in the other thread he was peeing himself in excitement having this to add, the investigation as handed over to SDNY to look into is going to be piling up all the crimes Cohen committed around him like firewood whilst lamenting they don't have someone more deserving to burn at the stake... if only Cohen could give them something letting them tie someone else up in the middle of that bonfire. Cohen was a fixer and the FBI are crawling all over his records investigating just how legit they are and how many crimes he committed in enacting them. As named sources have stated, Trump is afraid of what this means because on a scale of 1-100 in terms of loyalty in the face of life in prison - Cohen doesn't even rate a 1. If anyone thinks the assurance from Rosenstein that Trump is currently not a "target" has made old Donnie feel better about everything Cohen knows (and has on record); they really aren't paying attention.
  14. Next up - McCabe?

    Considering that Flynn, someone who also served his country for decades was charged I don’t see how they can decide to not charge McCabe I think I may have spotted why they might not decide to. Which is why reasonable folks are holding off on declaring guilt/innocence.
  15. How does that clear him of of being a Russian connection? Unless/until Cohen states he was working at the president's behest on the illegal actions for which he is being charged, of course Trump isn't the target. To be the target, Cohen would have to make a statement implicating Trump... say, in exchange for leniency. Until then, Cohen is going to be the target as they pile up his crimes like so much firewood around him. Of course, it is always good to see when anonymous sources are considered acceptable to you. Pretty sure we can nail down when you do and don't accept assurances from unnamed sources as reliable now.