# A strange experience



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

This morning, the very light wind went a bit more northerly than I expected so we picked up our anchor, because we had swung a bit close to a French cruiser. The woman was a little overly agitated, but we were gone in minutes and at no time did we endanger their boat, so her agitation seemed unwarranted to me.
We found a nice hole and dropped the pick, ending up a safe distance from a small Canadian cat (not a bareboat), but pretty much directly ahead of them. The wind is generally more easterly here, so we would swing out from in front of them in due time. However, the woman on the cat stood on the bow as we dropped back on our chain and she seemed agitated as well, though she said nothing. I felt she wanted to say something, so I nicely said, "Hello." She responded by saying we were right over their anchor and that they were leaving today. "No sweat," I said, "we'll be on the boat all day." "Just give us a shout and we'll be out of your way in a heartbeat." This is pretty common here and is generally accomplished without any problems by the windward boat powering out of the way of the boat picking up. It all takes but a minute or two. Certainly nothing for either party to get upset about!
20 minutes later we hear her yelling that they are leaving, so we crank up and pull ahead, well clear of their anchor, obstructing them not at all. I don't see how they could have thought we had done anything to inconvenience them even slightly, but apparently this Canadian captain didn't see things the same way. He ranted and raved, *after* his anchor was up about my ignorance, incompetence and that we were "-effing Americans" adding further disparaging remarks as he powered away at flank speed. I just don't understand it. I really don't.
I doubt the boats ever got within 75 feet of each other and I didn't want to reanchor when his leaving would make our spot even better.
It is generally thought that Canadians are the nicest people, but I guess there are exceptions to every rule. And the strangest part is that we will encounter that boat again, probably several times, over the season, so what has this insane outburst accomplished but piss me off? After all, I *am* an "-effing American", right?:devil


----------



## cdy (Nov 10, 2013)

Saw the same play out in No Name harbor -Key Biscayne FL - a woman on a Canadian cat - was on the bow yelling at anyone who dared come close to her boat - No name is very popular and and very confined - if you want plenty of swinging room - anchor outside the harbor - it was a bit of entertainment - she was yelling at new boats coming in - others were yelling at her for being unreasonable ( they were already anchored) - I had no dog in the hunt - was just there after work hiking about a bit , drinking a beer and watching the debate.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Yes, Canada has as many _jerks-per-capita_ as anywhere else in the world. I find most cruisers to be kind, reasonable and generous. But sadly, there are exceptions in any crowd.

Personally, I feel sorry for these kinds of folks (OK, I get annoyed at first, but later I feel sorry). Clearly they're not having fun with the cruising life. They're over-stressed, possibly b/c they don't know what they're doing.

Whatever it is, with that kind of jerky attitude, they won't last long in the cruising life.


----------



## RobGallagher (Aug 22, 2001)

Sometimes you just can't figure ****e out. Powerboats go by my mooring at times and make a big wake because they are not on a plane but pushing it at like 10 knots because it's a "no wake zone". They end up making a bigger wake then if they had been on a plane.

If I'm cooking or working on something it will piss me right the F off and I'll say something. Other times I just laugh it off.

They probably think there is something wrong with me.


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

I have to disagree with Mike on this one. Canada has more than enough jerks but I think our per capita ratio is better than many countries. This is my opinion and I have no facts to back it.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

paulinnanaimo said:


> I have to disagree with Mike on this one. Canada has more than enough jerks but I think our per capita ratio is better than many countries. This is my opinion and I have no facts to back it.


Shhh Paul, I was just trying to be the stereotypical humble Canadian . Of course we are nicer and more polite than everyone else


----------



## eherlihy (Jan 2, 2007)

My Dad (passed away last year) would frequently say that "the ratio of horses asses, to horses, is greater than one." Capta's story proves it.


----------



## kaisersling (Sep 20, 2016)

capta said:


> This morning, the very light wind went a bit more northerly than I expected so we picked up our anchor, because we had swung a bit close to a French cruiser. The woman was a little overly agitated, but we were gone in minutes and at no time did we endanger their boat, so her agitation seemed unwarranted to me.
> We found a nice hole and dropped the pick, ending up a safe distance from a small Canadian cat (not a bareboat), but pretty much directly ahead of them. The wind is generally more easterly here, so we would swing out from in front of them in due time. However, the woman on the cat stood on the bow as we dropped back on our chain and she seemed agitated as well, though she said nothing. I felt she wanted to say something, so I nicely said, "Hello." She responded by saying we were right over their anchor and that they were leaving today. "No sweat," I said, "we'll be on the boat all day." "Just give us a shout and we'll be out of your way in a heartbeat." This is pretty common here and is generally accomplished without any problems by the windward boat powering out of the way of the boat picking up. It all takes but a minute or two. Certainly nothing for either party to get upset about!
> 20 minutes later we hear her yelling that they are leaving, so we crank up and pull ahead, well clear of their anchor, obstructing them not at all. I don't see how they could have thought we had done anything to inconvenience them even slightly, but apparently this Canadian captain didn't see things the same way. He ranted and raved, *after* his anchor was up about my ignorance, incompetence and that we were "-effing Americans" adding further disparaging remarks as he powered away at flank speed. I just don't understand it. I really don't.
> I doubt the boats ever got within 75 feet of each other and I didn't want to reanchor when his leaving would make our spot even better.
> It is generally thought that Canadians are the nicest people, but I guess there are exceptions to every rule. And the strangest part is that we will encounter that boat again, probably several times, over the season, so what has this insane outburst accomplished but piss me off? After all, I *am* an "-effing American", right?:devil


Just out of curiosity... Was there additional room in the anchorage where you could have dropped your hook? I generally get mildly annoyed if there is a large area in which to anchor and someone decides to cozy up to me. Not to the point of ranting and raving mind you. Same goes for a wide open beach and people put their chairs right next to you. Some people like solitude and others like to spoon the boat next to them. However, if this was the only place to get a calm anchorage in a small area, I wouldn't have an issue with what you did.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

Capta, fly a different nation's flag and everyone will be friendly again.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Ajax_MD said:


> Capta, fly a different nation's flag and everyone will be friendly again.


The exact reason I don't fly a flag anymore. But of course, the home port is on the stern.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

kaisersling said:


> Just out of curiosity... Was there additional room in the anchorage where you could have dropped your hook? I generally get mildly annoyed if there is a large area in which to anchor and someone decides to cozy up to me. Not to the point of ranting and raving mind you. Same goes for a wide open beach and people put their chairs right next to you. Some people like solitude and others like to spoon the boat next to them. However, if this was the only place to get a calm anchorage in a small area, I wouldn't have an issue with what you did.


Most probably he could have raised his anchor without our moving, but I'm not that sort. But out of the 180 degrees (east-S to N) possible we could have swung, we would only be directly in front of him a fraction of the time. As a matter of fact it went east an hour or so later.
With the strong winds of the last 3 weeks or so, *all* the good anchorages down here have become rather rolly. Therefor, in most anchorages we locals have crammed ourselves into the northerly corners. So, a large seeming anchorage can become rather congested in one area in times like this.
Yes, there was plenty of room in the rolly areas, but I'm not going to live like that, if I don't have to. We all need to make allowances for odd weather situations.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

Guessing that they had some bad experiences with other boaters in the past....or just didn't understand and hence the fear.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Capta, as a Canadian boater, please accept my humble apologizes for the acts of one of our several dolts d' mer. I have spent my adult life calling asswholes on their behaviour . This characteristic of mine is well known and doubtless appreciated by many ,too polite to call coup. Me ,I'd name the bastards so the folks back home know for the welcoming party.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Capt Len said:


> Capta, as a Canadian boater, please accept my humble apologizes for the acts of one of our several dolts d' mer. I have spent my adult life calling asswholes on their behaviour . This characteristic of mine is well known and doubtless appreciated by many ,too polite to call coup. Me ,I'd name the bastards so the folks back home know for the welcoming party.


It was just so strange. He was *leaving*. Even if I'd anchored a bit too close, which we hadn't, what difference; he was outta there in less than a half hour.
Ah well, perhaps he's a Canadian Trump supporter......


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

capta said:


> ...
> Ah well, perhaps he's a Canadian Trump supporter......


Can't get it out of your head, can you......


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

RegisteredUser said:


> Can't get it out of your head, can you......


The last trump supporter I encountered threatened to ram my boat with his CT-54, if he ever saw me fly an American flag upside down (at anchor only), in protest of this administration. After all, an upside down American flag *is* a signal of distress, isn't it? And there are a good many of us who feel really distressed right now.
So no, I can't.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

capta said:


> And the strangest part is that we will encounter that boat again, probably several times, over the season, so what has this insane outburst accomplished but piss me off?


Guy did that to me. Few days later a squall came through, he dragged, guess who had to rescue the *****? Lol.


----------



## Yorksailor (Oct 11, 2009)

Whem someone anchors too close to us and apologises we put out a fender and explain that if we touch he has to pass us a beer.

However, one Saturday afternoon someone snaggged our anchor and almost dragged us into the Panama Cannal.

Phil


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

capta said:


> It is generally thought that Canadians are the nicest people, but I guess there are exceptions to every rule. And the strangest part is that we will encounter that boat again, probably several times, over the season, so what has this insane outburst accomplished but piss me off? After all, I *am* an "-effing American", right?:devil


I've always wondered where that notion comes from.

In any case, stereotypes are wrong both in the affirmative and the negative. He wasn't a "Nice Canadian" and you aren't an "Effing American" [insert whatever culturally illiterate stereotype]. Similarly, British teeth are perfectly serviceable, the French aren't actually twisty mustache layabouts in stripy shirts, and the Dutch aren't often frolicking in tulip fields in wooden shoes.

Safe to say though...being an American is a particularly heinous crime and simply isn't allowed. Or much tolerated.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Back in te day, anchored in Los Palmas harbour Canaries. Colin Archer with a bowsprit .Boat to windward a baltic trader. much bigger. AS his stern gets closer, guy on the stern yelling at us that we are dragging into him. Quite nasty vocal!!! Go figure.


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

I don't think that most Canadians have ill feelings toward Americans as individuals, I know that I don't. But as a country, we can feel intimidated...the current on-going NAFTA trade negotiations are a prime example. I guess we lash out with derogatory phrases but they are aimed at the 'national attitude', not individuals. At least that is my take on it.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Capt Len said:


> Back in te day, anchored in Los Palmas harbour Canaries. Colin Archer with a bowsprit .Boat to windward a baltic trader. much bigger. AS his stern gets closer, guy on the stern yelling at us that we are dragging into him. Quite nasty vocal!!! Go figure.


I always wonder at those who get mad at others who are dragging upwind! How in the world did they manage to get off the dock, let alone get wherever the incident is happening.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

Perhaps the people on the cat would have been less bothered if you were another cat instead of a monohull. When wind shifts, cats and monos don't always swing in the same direction. Monos almost always swing to wind while cats will often swing to current. After witnessing this cause a collision in a crowded anchorage, I stopped anchoring close to cats.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

boatpoker said:


> Perhaps the people on the cat would have been less bothered if you were another cat instead of a monohull. When wind shifts, cats and monos don't always swing in the same direction. Monos almost always swing to wind while cats will often swing to current. After witnessing this cause a collision in a crowded anchorage, I stopped anchoring close to cats.


Uh, I was 70 odd feet *in front* *(upwind)* of him *and* he was leaving within a half hour! The light breeze (under 10 knots) would have had to do 180 shift for us to even get somewhat close to each other. The wind doesn't do that very often down this way, at least on a cloudless day with little wind and zero current, ever.
And I think you've got it backwards anyway, monos swing to current, multis to wind.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Sebastian#2 said:


> would the stern be that of skipping stone? What would the home port on the stern be?
> 
> Does look like a nice boat.


Indeed. I chose Due West, SC because I thought it would be a fun home port. It is far from the sea, but that's OK.


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

kaisersling said:


> .....I generally get mildly annoyed if there is a large area in which to anchor and someone decides to cozy up to me......


This is about the only time for me too. It famously happens at CuttyHunk, which has an anchorage that could hold 1,000 boats (only a few dozen ever anchor at a time), but they all bunch up close to the inner harbor entrance, just behind the outer mooring field. When we arrive, I intentionally drop the hook well behind the crowd, usually alone, which only means I have a dingy ride that is 10 seconds longer. Inevitably, someone tries to sneak into the space I left between me and the boat to windward, when there is virtually unlimited space around. That does annoy me a bit.

I'm not saying that was the issue with Capta's scenario.

I have had my share of folks whose hull was laying over my anchor, as I wanted to depart. Sometimes they dropped too close ahead, more often they dragged, others swung over. I've never had to ask them to move, to depart. I first back against my rode to be sure it's fully straight, I then take up as much as I can, which in one case put my bow about 10 feet off their transom. I then put the boat in reverse, juiced it a bit and broke the anchor free, due to the short scope. Easy peasy. Admittedly, we don't have a next gen anchor that might make that harder.

Also, as far as dropping my own hook close to another, my primary concern is fouling our anchors/rodes. It's never happened to me, but that would be a nightmare. I do worry in light winds, that I don't know where anchors are actually laying. They could be 90 degrees off their bows. I try to keep my distance then.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

capta said:


> The last trump supporter I encountered threatened to ram my boat with his CT-54, if he ever saw me fly an American flag upside down (at anchor only), in protest of this administration. After all, an upside down American flag *is* a signal of distress, isn't it? And there are a good many of us who feel really distressed right now.
> So no, I can't.


I am enormously disappointed that we threaten each other with physical violence over such trivialities. Forget Trump, how we treat each other is also on display and up for judgement. How mortifying.


----------



## SeaStar58 (Feb 14, 2018)

Once bitten twice shy is how they may have been. 

Pretty lousy when someone hooks your anchor and comes about trying to free it fowling their own rudder and prop and starts dragging you along with them into the rocks. The cat many times won't have the power to pull both boats to safety and faces cutting the line, losing their anchor and letting the other boat hit the rocks or keeping the power going for as long as they can while calling for a rescue by a tow boat.


----------



## Davy J (Mar 25, 2017)

> After all, an upside down American flag is a signal of distress, isn't it? And there are a good many of us who feel really distressed right now.


Had to live through eight distressing years of jugears..............
Never flew my flag upside down............
No wonder why you have people yelling at you..........

You really should keep your BS political comments out of a sailing forum.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Ajax_MD said:


> I am enormously disappointed that we threaten each other with physical violence over such trivialities. Forget Trump, how we treat each other is also on display and up for judgement. How mortifying.


Since the 60's, it has always mystified me at how angry and violent people get when others protest peacefully. After all, wasn't the Boston Tea Party a form of peaceful protest, and what started this country on it's merry jaunt through history?


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

> After all, an upside down American flag is a signal of distress, isn't it? And there are a good many of us who feel really distressed right now.





Davy J said:


> Had to live through eight distressing years of jugears..............
> Never flew my flag upside down............
> No wonder why you have people yelling at you..........
> 
> You really should keep your BS political comments out of a sailing forum.


Yeah. Everyobe knows its not a Mayday signal but hates/pirates or mutineers.

Sure as hell I would have a "chat" to any Aussie that flew our flag like that.

Even though people cruise away from home for years it's important to know what is evolving back home re acceptability.
No sexist jokes, no kneeling during national anthems of ANY country.

Sometimes it's more difficult than we think and suddenly we are an anachronism.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Davy J said:


> Had to live through eight distressing years of jugears..............
> Never flew my flag upside down............
> No wonder why you have people yelling at you..........
> You really should keep your BS political comments out of a sailing forum.


If you really felt we "really should keep your BS political comments out of a sailing forum" perhaps you should have lead by example.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> Yeah. Everyobe knows its not a Mayday signal but hates/pirates or mutineers.
> 
> Sure as hell I would have a "chat" to any Aussie that flew our flag like that.
> 
> ...


I'd never fly my ensign upside down, and there's nothing wrong with a chat, even a passionate debate. Threatening to beat on someone or ram their vessel is a different matter altogether.


----------



## Bleemus (Oct 13, 2015)

Davy J said:


> Had to live through eight distressing years of jugears........... I.
> 
> You really should keep your BS political comments out of a sailing forum.


The definition of irony.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

Minnewaska said:


> When we arrive, I intentionally drop the hook well behind the crowd, usually alone, which only means I have a dingy ride that is 10 seconds longer. Inevitably, someone tries to sneak into the space I left between me and the boat to windward, when there is virtually unlimited space around. That does annoy me a bit.


Believe me or not, there is a deep psychological reason behind that (not your annoyance but their choice). I don't have the time to explain this here but MANY scholarly articles have been written about this behavior in the field of behavioral economics. If you really are interested, google with keywords like 'preference reversal compromise effect'


----------



## Davy J (Mar 25, 2017)

> The definition of irony.


See, you fellas don't like it either...................



> If you really felt we "really should keep your BS political comments out of a sailing forum" perhaps you should have lead by example.


Maybe OP should lead by example.

I come here for sailing related information. Not political BS............


----------



## Minnewaska (Feb 21, 2010)

If flying the flag upside down was acceptable, then the majority of the country would be doing so in every administration. It would become so common, anthropologists in the future would confused as to which end was supposed to be up. 

I don't think doing something in an anchorage that is going to divide it into teams is a good idea.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

Davy J said:


> Had to live through eight distressing years of jugears..............
> Never flew my flag upside down............
> No wonder why you have people yelling at you..........
> 
> You really should keep your BS political comments out of a sailing forum.


As if there's any sort of comparison. Why would you roll in here with a slur about a politician and then complain about political comments? I mean..."jug ears"? I'll try not to think too hard about that.

During those 8 depressing years you saw the biggest economic recovery since the Great Depression ended, unemployment halved, the Dow sailing past 20,000 and two pointless and outrageously expensive wars drawn down to something approaching a close.

I mean...my god. All of that and it's "jug ears"?


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

But yeah. Upside down flag is more properly a signal of _immediate_ distress. If everyone starts doing it in protest then it will be just as much background noise as a car alarm.


----------



## Davy J (Mar 25, 2017)

> I mean...my god. All of that and it's "jug ears"?


Apparently it's OK for the OP to disparage the current president of the United States in almost every thread he starts.
But it's not OK to disparage the last President..................

Got it........... Guess you guys really do want to discuss politics in here.................


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Davy J said:


> in almost every thread he starts.QUOTE]
> Yep, that is why I'm here, after all. No sailing experience or any desire to help others in 5100 posts. You got me.
> There is a function on this site that allows you to not see posts from other members. Please use it for my posts and save yourself all this aggravation, OK?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

So&#8230; I thought the USA First Amendment protected this kind of protest speech&#8230; Ah yes, a few seconds of research reveals:



> "The flag of the United States is sometimes burned in protest of the policies of the American government, both within the country and abroad. The United States Supreme Court in Texas v. Johnson, 491 U.S. 397 (1989), and reaffirmed in U.S. v. Eichman, 496 U.S. 310 (1990), has ruled that due to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, it is unconstitutional for a government (whether federal, state, or municipality) to prohibit the desecration of a flag, due to its status as "symbolic speech."


Flying a flag upside down, outside of it being a distress call, is considered a legal act of desecration, hence specifically covered by these court rulings.

It's easy to stand up for cherished rights when we agree with the outcome. The true test of whether one actually believes in concepts like, _freedom of expression_, or _freedom to protest_, is when they challenge our own personal values.

You may not like someone flying the flag upside down, but it is not illegal or unpatriotic in free countries like the USA and Canada. Nor is "taking the knee."


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

MikeOReilly said:


> So&#8230; I thought the USA First Amendment protected this kind of protest speech&#8230; Ah yes, a few seconds of research reveals:
> 
> Flying a flag upside down, outside of it being a distress call, is considered a legal act of desecration, hence specifically covered by these court rulings.
> 
> ...


Flying the American flag upside down* is protected speech*, judge says....
Flying the American flag upside down is protected speech, judge says
So, doesn't that make the guy who wanted to ram my boat with his because I'm peacefully exercising my 1st amendment right to protected speech rather un-American?


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

capta said:


> Flying the American flag upside down* is protected speech*, judge says....
> Flying the American flag upside down is protected speech, judge says


Exactly.

Others may not like it, but if one truly believe in freedom and liberty, then they should be the first to protect your right to express your opinion. That's the price, _and the challenge,_ of living in a free society.

There are plenty of countries where flag desecration, or "taking the knee," IS illegal. You know - authoritarian countries that we freedom-loving people purport to stand against.


----------



## MarkofSeaLife (Nov 7, 2010)

It's probably quite legal in the USA to go into a bar and tell Dumb Blond jokes.


But you won't make too many friends.

Life gets lonely if you are socially on the nose.


:angel


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> It's probably quite legal in the USA to go into a bar and tell Dumb Blond jokes.
> 
> But you won't make too many friends.
> 
> ...


Not so much, if one is with the majority.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

MarkofSeaLife said:


> It's probably quite legal in the USA to go into a bar and tell Dumb Blond jokes.
> 
> But you won't make too many friends.
> 
> ...


I dunno... you seem pretty impervious to peer pressure and political correctness Mark . Is this a case of, "do what I say, not what I do?" Or are you really lonely and this a cry for help :laugh

Everyone! Mark needs an INTERVENTION :devil


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

Davy J said:


> Apparently it's OK for the OP to disparage the current president of the United States in almost every thread he starts.
> But it's not OK to disparage the last President..................
> 
> Got it........... Guess you guys really do want to discuss politics in here.................


_You _went there. Bad decision.

Disparaging trump is redundant. He does it to himself every time he speaks. Making a mockery of the US, her institutions, the Constitution (the latest fun thing about seizure before due process was great.  ), and core American values is not something any of should even tacitly condone with our silence.

Just saying. Since you brought it up.


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

MikeOReilly said:


> So&#8230; I thought the USA First Amendment protected this kind of protest speech&#8230; Ah yes, a few seconds of research reveals:
> 
> Flying a flag upside down, outside of it being a distress call, is considered a legal act of desecration, hence specifically covered by these court rulings.
> 
> ...


Mike, thanks so much for the civics lesson. As a dumb-a$$ American, I hadn't bothered studying my own history and laws.
No offense, but the Americans in this discussion are keenly aware that flag desecration is protected, hence legal. Sometimes I swear that you make certain statements just to highlight how enlightened you are, and that the rest of us are just slack-jawed, mouth-breathing troglodytes.

What some people here are saying, is that they don't like it. That's all. Nothing more than that. It's OK to obey a law but still be irritated by the act of desecration. Just because something is legal doesn't mean we're legally required to hoot and applaud when someone burns a national symbol or flies it upside down.

By the bye, the court didn't rule that flag desecration was not "unpatriotic" only that it was not illegal. Those who wish to debate whether it is unpatriotic are free to do so. Same with taking a knee. But you don't like *that* kind of free speech, do you? You can call someone unpatriotic all day long, you just can't arrest them for burning a flag or taking a knee, nor can you beat on them or ram your boat into theirs.

I said that I'm sad that people get so upset over it that they threaten to ram another person's vessel. I support capta's right to fly his flag upside down but I wouldn't emulate it. I might like to discuss it with him, but I'd never threaten violence against him for doing it. I haven't seen anyone in this thread recommend that someone be arrested or attacked for flag desecration.

Stay tuned fellow Americans- Next up, Mike will inform us that racial segregation is illegal, settled by the US Supreme Court in the case of _Brown vs. The Board of Education_ just in case you were thinking of blocking certain people from attending the local elementary school.  I am just perched on the edge of my seat waiting to be told in what other areas I, as a US citizen have failed to live up to the world's expectations.

Cheese and rice, I wish spring would hurry up and get here so that I can sail instead of rolling the internet mud with pigs.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Ajax_MD said:


> Mike, thanks so much for the civics lesson. ...


Uhmm, you're welcome &#8230;?

Seriously Ajax, I don't know you. I don't think I've ever referenced or typed directly to you. But if you're having trouble following the logic of this discussion, I'd be glad to hold your "dumb-a$$" hand and walk you through it.

Try and keep your personal insults to yourself. If you've got a rational point to make, please make it without the personal invective. Otherwise, you're just living up to your own rhetorical label.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

capta said:


> Since the 60's, it has always mystified me at how angry and violent people get when others protest peacefully. After all, wasn't the Boston Tea Party a form of peaceful protest, and what started this country on it's merry jaunt through history?


Yes, I have learned that the left thinks destroying the property of others is 'peaceful protest".


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

ianjoub said:


> Yes, I have learned that the left thinks destroying the property of others is 'peaceful protest".


So in your view, that justifies ramming a car into a crowd of counter demonstrators at a white-nationalist rally, killing one and injuring more than a dozen others? 
We obviously live in two different Americas.


----------



## Davy J (Mar 25, 2017)

> Making a mockery of the US, her institutions, the Constitution


That sounds just like eight years of obama&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.

You forgot some of his best accomplishments.

You know, 18 trillion in debt, QE x ?, renewal of Patriot Act, spying, the unaffordable act, poverty up 3.5%, food stamps up 39%, government mandate, did I mention 18 trillion??

Best eight years the country has seen, for sure&#8230;&#8230;.


----------



## willyd (Feb 22, 2008)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Believe me or not, there is a deep psychological reason behind that (not your annoyance but their choice). I don't have the time to explain this here but MANY scholarly articles have been written about this behavior in the field of behavioral economics. If you really are interested, google with keywords like 'preference reversal compromise effect'


I looked this up, and it seems to have something to do with the other boat making or being expected to make too much noise? Makes sense.

_Contextual preference reversals occur when a preference for one option over another is reversed by the addition of further options. It has been argued that the occurrence of preference reversals in human behavior shows that people violate the axioms of rational choice and that people are not, therefore, expected value maximizers. In contrast, we demonstrate that if a person is only able to make noisy calculations of expected value and noisy observations of the ordinal relations among option features, then the expected value maximizing choice is influenced by the addition of new options and does give rise to apparent preference reversals. We explore the implications of expected value maximizing choice, conditioned on noisy observations, for a range of contextual preference reversal types-including attraction, compromise, similarity, and phantom effects. These preference reversal types have played a key role in the development of models of human choice. We conclude that experiments demonstrating contextual preference reversals are not evidence for irrationality. They are, however, a consequence of expected value maximization given noisy observations._ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918408/

By the way, there's WAY too much cabin fever going on in this thread. Spring is right around the corner (unless you're in Australia).


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

MikeOReilly said:


> Uhmm, you're welcome &#8230;?
> 
> Seriously Ajax, I don't know you. I don't think I've ever referenced or typed directly to you. But if you're having trouble following the logic of this discussion, I'd be glad to hold your "dumb-a$$" hand and walk you through it.
> 
> Try and keep your personal insults to yourself. If you've got a rational point to make, please make it without the personal invective. Otherwise, you're just living up to your own rhetorical label.


First, you didn't need to call me by name. Your post was a thinly veiled knock on a large group of people, so I responded because I felt included in that group. You are either feigning ignorance of that very clear point in my post in order to claim insult, or you are somehow unaware of my point. You're quite intelligent, so I suspect the former, rather than the latter.

Second, I don't need you to hold my hand. Your message was quite clear. My taking strong exception to your post does not automatically tick the stereotype box. If you think it does, then you aren't nearly as supportive of free speech as you claim.

Let me try again to make my point with fewer words:

*No one* in this discussion said that flag desecration was illegal. Some people merely expressed distaste for it. Thus, your condescending civics lesson about the legality and patriotism of flag desecration in US law was unwarranted and I considered it a condescending, passive-aggressive jab at those of us who stated a distaste for it.

You are of course, free to make such posts and I am free to offer my thoughts on your posts.

The only difference between your earlier post and my response, is that my insult was overt, whereas you insult entire groups of people in an extremely subtle manner.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

capta said:


> So in your view, that justifies ramming a car into a crowd of counter demonstrators at a white-nationalist rally, killing one and injuring more than a dozen others?
> We obviously live in two different Americas.


I can not begin to understand how you got there from my saying that destroying another's private property is not 'peaceful protest'.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Ajax_MD said:


> First, you didn't need to call me by name. Your post was a thinly veiled knock on a large group of people, so I responded because I felt included in that group. You are either feigning ignorance of that very clear point in my post in order to claim insult, or you are somehow unaware of my point. You're quite intelligent, so I suspect the former, rather than the latter.
> 
> Second, I don't need you to hold my hand. Your message was quite clear. My taking strong exception to your post does not automatically tick the stereotype box. If you think it does, then you aren't nearly as supportive of free speech as you claim.
> 
> ...


Believe what you will, but I did not intend to personally insult anyone, or any group. I was teeing off of the hypocrisy of some to suggest it is somehow unacceptable to fly the flag upside down, or take a knee. And I was especially dismayed at the classless personal insult aimed at your previous president, and the threat of violence over such triviality.

Since laws, and more particularly a constitution, are an expression of what a people espouse to be (or perhaps strive to be), it seemed perfectly reasonable to point out the fact in law, and in tradition. You may disagree, and that's just fine. We could discuss that. But instead, you decided to hurled personal insult at me, which is why I responded directly to you.

I'm happy to discuss things rationally. But if you insist on using personal invective, then I'm done.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

_"Give me just one generation of youth, and I'll transform the whole world."_


----------



## Ajax_MD (Nov 24, 2009)

MikeOReilly said:


> Believe what you will, but I did not intend to personally insult anyone, or any group. I was teeing off of the hypocrisy of some to suggest it is somehow unacceptable to fly the flag upside down, or take a knee. And I was especially dismayed at the classless personal insult aimed at your previous president, and the threat of violence over such triviality.
> 
> Since laws, and more particularly a constitution, are an expression of what a people espouse to be (or perhaps strive to be), it seemed perfectly reasonable to point out the fact in law, and in tradition. You may disagree, and that's just fine. We could discuss that. But instead, you decided to hurled personal insult at me, which is why I responded directly to you.
> 
> I'm happy to discuss things rationally. But if you insist on using personal invective, then I'm done.


I will take you at your word that you didn't intend to cast a wide insult.

As for the rest, I will politely agree to disagree and drop it here.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Ajax_MD said:


> I will take you at your word that you didn't intend to cast a wide insult.
> 
> As for the rest, I will politely agree to disagree and drop it here.


Wonderful. I am sorry for the offence caused Ajax, and will try to be more cognizant of my words.


----------



## Mike_NC (Jan 22, 2016)

I will only offer one observation with respect to this discussion, the First Amendment does not protect individual rights with respect to "Taking a Knee". The owners of football teams would have been well within their rights to fire any player taking a knee. The First Amendment only protects persons from governmental repercussions. If you go around pissing people off, don't be surprised if they get in your face (or refuse to buy the product you are selling).


----------



## ThereYouAre (Sep 21, 2016)

I would never have guessed that anchoring was a more politically inflammatory topic than using cannabis on board. Granted, I'm only 1/2 way through the 'Annapolis Book of Seamanship' so I've got a lot to learn.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

Mike_NC said:


> I will only offer one observation with respect to this discussion, the First Amendment does not protect individual rights with respect to "Taking a Knee". The owners of football teams would have been well within their rights to fire any player taking a knee. The First Amendment only protects persons from governmental repercussions. If you go around pissing people off, don't be surprised if they get in your face (or refuse to buy the product you are selling).


Very true, although in this country (Canada) there are labour and human rights laws which could be invoked to protect employees in these circumstances who are simply engaged in non-violent political protest. Not sure if there is the equivalent in American law.



ThereYouAre said:


> I would never have guessed that anchoring was a more politically inflammatory topic than using cannabis on board. Granted, I'm only 1/2 way through the 'Annapolis Book of Seamanship' so I've got a lot to learn.


Yes, I too am surprised, and kinda dissapointed .


----------



## Mike_NC (Jan 22, 2016)

MikeOReilly said:


> Very true, although in this country (Canada) there are labour and human rights laws which could be invoked to protect employees in these circumstances who are simply engaged in non-violent political protest. Not sure if there is the equivalent in American law.
> 
> Yes, I too am surprised, and kinda dissapointed .


Employment in the US is generally considered "At will". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will_employment


----------



## kaisersling (Sep 20, 2016)

ThereYouAre said:


> I would never have guessed that anchoring was a more politically inflammatory topic than using cannabis on board. Granted, I'm only 1/2 way through the 'Annapolis Book of Seamanship' so I've got a lot to learn.


Some people can turn anything into a political issue. I really don't know how they find joy in anything when they are so consumed. Besides, bad anchoring is one of my favorite things to watch at my local lake (made my share of mistakes)


----------



## Mike_NC (Jan 22, 2016)

kaisersling said:


> Some people can turn anything into a political issue. I really don't know how they find joy in anything when they are so consumed. Besides, bad anchoring is one of my favorite things to watch at my local lake (made my share of mistakes)


Yes, the great majority of people just want to go to football game or enjoy a day sailing without being bombarded with political messages. The actions of a few ruin the experience for everyone.


----------



## ScottUK (Aug 16, 2009)

Having anchored quite a bit around the world I have found I have grown less fussed by people anchoring in close proximity. I think most ***** wingers are just exhibiting their own insecurities with their posturing on deck.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

willyd said:


> I looked this up, and it seems to have something to do with the other boat making or being expected to make too much noise? Makes sense.
> 
> _Contextual preference reversals occur when a preference for one option over another is reversed by the addition of further options. It has been argued that the occurrence of preference reversals in human behavior shows that people violate the axioms of rational choice and that people are not, therefore, expected value maximizers. In contrast, we demonstrate that if a person is only able to make noisy calculations of expected value and noisy observations of the ordinal relations among option features, then the expected value maximizing choice is influenced by the addition of new options and does give rise to apparent preference reversals. We explore the implications of expected value maximizing choice, conditioned on noisy observations, for a range of contextual preference reversal types-including attraction, compromise, similarity, and phantom effects. These preference reversal types have played a key role in the development of models of human choice. We conclude that experiments demonstrating contextual preference reversals are not evidence for irrationality. They are, however, a consequence of expected value maximization given noisy observations._ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918408/
> 
> By the way, there's WAY too much cabin fever going on in this thread. Spring is right around the corner (unless you're in Australia).


Yes, that is pretty much it (this is one of the many papers I mentioned).

I am sure you realize that 'noise' here does not refer to air pressure waves but to variations in data.


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

They have had some success.
Dividing, not thinking as one country, separating/boxing people.

'mericans hating on 'mericans.....if they are in another divide.

You join the divides...or you do not.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

ScottUK said:


> Having anchored quite a bit around the world I have found I have grown less fussed by people anchoring in close proximity. I think most ***** wingers are just exhibiting their own insecurities with their posturing on deck.


Although I don't always agree with how others anchor, my first-stage assumption is that _they_ don't want to cause any problems or harm. And until proven otherwise, I assume _they_ know what they're doing.

If someone is anchoring close by I will usually make myself available in the cockpit, just in case they want to know about my anchoring set up. I usually try and make friendly contact, but I don't foist my opinions on them unless asked. And I try not to be a gawker. Anchoring is often stressful. I don't want to add to their stress by rubber-necking.


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

We usually find dropping the hook pretty straight forward but some of the anchorages that we stay in require a stern tie because there is not enough space for several boats to be swinging around with tide and wind. This becomes the real challenge for boaters with currents, sharp oyster shells, slippery rocks, and other barriers...I have been the centre of entertainment many times, I just remember that those watching could not do any better.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

Davy J said:


> That sounds just like eight years of obama&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.
> 
> You forgot some of his best accomplishments.
> 
> ...


Wait...you think Obama generated 18 trillion in debt? Is that what they tell you guys on the radio, now? And you believed it? Did they also tell you the 2008 crash was "Fake News"?

Honestly...sometimes I just...

Wow. Just wow. Really depressing the sorts of things they've managed to convince this captive audience of


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Many years of 'Darn, there's someone in this bay already. We'll go to the next one.' If I'm there first I may stand on deck with my 12 ' pike pole and glare helpfully .Their reaction determines whether I invite them over later for desert .Some understand completely .some don't. But it's my bar and It's a big desolate coast.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

amwbox said:


> Wait...you think Obama generated 18 trillion in debt? Is that what they tell you guys on the radio, now? And you believed it? Did they also tell you the 2008 crash was "Fake News"?
> (


No, our (see, no that's not my president thing) last president only generated about 8t of the 18t. What a success! He only generated as much debt in 8 years as all his predecessors did in 240 years. I am impressed. 

The 2008 crash wasn't Obamas fault. It was Clinton's. He repealed the Glass Steigel Act.

In their defense, they are all just puppets with no real power.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

Mike: You need to read the Bill of Rights closely, it begins with Congress Shall Make No Law. Individuals and companies can do whatever they wish as long as it is within the limits of the law. Capta has the right to display his opinion, but others also have the right to disagree.

For the proper edification of your mind, watch this:


----------



## contrarian (Sep 14, 2011)

The Slow Blues Backing Track link at the end of the video was pretty good but I'm probably the only one that was directed there.
The algorithms used for determining what sites we are directed to are helping to solidify the ideological divide among us. 
Gotta Go ...... I think I can find a link to Van Morrisons "Bright Side of the Road" on the side bar.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

ianjoub said:


> No, our (see, no that's not my president thing) last president only generated about 8t of the 18t. What a success! He only generated as much debt in 8 years as all his predecessors did in 240 years. I am impressed.
> 
> The 2008 crash wasn't Obamas fault. It was Clinton's. He repealed the Glass Steigel Act.
> 
> In their defense, they are all just puppets with no real power.


Just so long as we're clear about how outrageous the 18T claim was.

I mean, back when Reagan tripled the debt, nobody seemed to cry. And then when Bush II doubled it...again, no tears. But Obama, having to deal out QE and stimulus after the biggest economic crash in a century......oh. There's the bitching. _There_ it is. I mean...debt increased by 6 trillion under Bush, during a boom/bubble. But that was okay. Stimulus was actually justifiable during a collapse, just to keep the economy moving somewhat.

And now we have trump, such as he is, looking to add another 8 trillion to the debt within a single term if he gets his way. Twice as fast as Obama. And with no need to assign economic stimulus, as he inherited a healthy economy.

I mean...have you never looked at the numbers?


----------



## Bleemus (Oct 13, 2015)

I am with Capta. Too many times to recall I remember the same situation in the Caribbean. Not as much in the Pacific. When facts were revealed it usually turned out they were newbies who didn't have enough experience. I think by the time they got to the Western South Pacific they had realized they were just being assholes. Eventually they learn or quit.


----------



## SeaStar58 (Feb 14, 2018)

MikeOReilly said:


> Very true, although in this country (Canada) there are labour and human rights laws which could be invoked to protect employees in these circumstances who are simply engaged in non-violent political protest. Not sure if there is the equivalent in American law.
> 
> Yes, I too am surprised, and kinda dissapointed .


Here any form of behavior that would make another co-worker feel harassed would be grounds for dismissal with loss of benefits in zero tolerance of any form of harassment in the workplace. Discussions of politics, religion and sexual bias or displays on those themes are not allowed in the workplace and you can be terminated for soliciting a particular viewpoint or belief on a matter. The only exceptions would be company sponsored events and still these must be respectful of those with differing beliefs/loyalties and adhere to Code of Conduct policies.

Its about maintaining a neutral workplace environment that does not make those with different loyalties, beliefs or orientations feel intimidated and could be viewed as political correctness taken to the extreme. An employee would be expected to refrain from making personal expressions on politics, religion or orientation on their own time while wearing their corporate id and to refrain from making them using company supplied equipment.

Every employee where I worked had to take ethics, diversity and code of conduct courses on this and then annually review and reaffirm that we understood the code of conduct and would abide by it in the workplace saving our free expression on topics that would violate code of conduct for our personal time while not engaged in representing the company. We have freedom of personal expression but do not have the freedom to use it in the workplace in a way that makes co-workers feel intimidated, uncomfortable or harassed. If an employer allowed this to take place they could be found in violation of labor laws mandating a safe workplace and find themselves heavily fined or even out of business.

It is a balancing act of sorts that some have difficulty finding equilibrium with.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

amwbox said:


> I mean...have you never looked at the numbers?


I have. The numbers are meaningless. Abolish the FED. Have the treasury issue gold backed currency. That is the only fix to the screw job that happened in 1913. Search for "The Creature From Jeckyll Island".


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

SeaStar58 said:


> Here any form of behavior...
> 
> ... finding equilibrium with.


Bla Bla Bla .... BS

I said it in another thread:

GROW A PAIR

You do not have the right to not be offended.

You do have the right to be fired FOR WHATEVER.

Don't piss of your employer. If your views differ from his, keep them to yourself if you want a job. If not, open your own company and compete directly with him!


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

Davy J said:


> That sounds just like eight years of obama&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.
> 
> You forgot some of his best accomplishments.
> 
> ...


Maybe check your figures. The TOTAL national debt is around $18 trillion. Of that only $4.7 was incurred under Obama but W with his pointless tax cuts contributed $4.9. At least Obama had a reason, to dig the country out of the economic hole.

Meanwhile the Trump tax breaks by themselves will add another couple trillion. Then his spending plans will add a few more.


----------



## Davy J (Mar 25, 2017)

> [Maybe check your figures./QUOTE]
> Oops, I did check my figures.............
> Obama took office with 10.7 trillion in debt.
> Trump took office with 19.5 trillion of national debt.
> ...


----------



## ScottUK (Aug 16, 2009)

MikeOReilly said:


> Although I don't always agree with how others anchor, my first-stage assumption is that _they_ don't want to cause any problems or harm. And until proven otherwise, I assume _they_ know what they're doing.
> 
> If someone is anchoring close by I will usually make myself available in the cockpit, just in case they want to know about my anchoring set up. I usually try and make friendly contact, but I don't foist my opinions on them unless asked. And I try not to be a gawker. Anchoring is often stressful. I don't want to add to their stress by rubber-necking.


I have found the cruising community to be quite small so there is a fair chance you will run into the same folks again so why antagonise?


----------



## midwesterner (Dec 14, 2015)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Minnewaska said:
> 
> 
> > When we arrive, I intentionally drop the hook well behind the crowd, usually alone, which only means I have a dingy ride that is 10 seconds longer. Inevitably, someone tries to sneak into the space I left between me and the boat to windward, when there is virtually unlimited space around. That does annoy me a bit.
> ...


I don't see how preference reversal compromise effect applies in this example. What is the reversal of preference in this case? It seems more like human herd thinking. The person arriving to the anchorage says, "Hmmm, most people are anchored in a group closer to shore. They must know some reasons why it is more desirable to be anchored there. There is this one guy anchored out here, farther away from everybody else. He may not know what the other people know. Who knows best, the one guy by himself or the ten people grouped close together? I'm going to trust the judgement of the group rather than the one loner." It's choosing the herd over the maverick.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

Davy J said:


> Oops, I did check my figures.............
> Obama took office with 10.7 trillion in debt.
> Trump took office with 19.5 trillion of national debt.
> 
> ...


Worst ever?

Worse than W who started TWO wars that have now cost thousands of lives of US soldiers and tens of thousands that were seriously wounded and handicapped for life? W who invaded Iraq to get rid of WMDs that did not exist? W who contributed more to the debt than Obama, who turned a budget surplus into a huge debt?

Worse than Trump who has had more staff fired, quit or indicted for crimes than any other president in history. Trump who has been very creditably accused of assaulting multiple women, who lies constantly, who pushed through a tax cut to line his pockets and the pockets of the rich 1% of the US?

I didn't love Obama and strongly disagreed with a lot of his policies and actions but worst ever? Not by a long shot.


----------



## Bleemus (Oct 13, 2015)

midwesterner said:


> I don't see how preference reversal compromise effect applies in this example. What is the reversal of preference in this case? It seems more like human herd thinking. The person arriving to the anchorage says, "Hmmm, most people are anchored in a group closer to shore. They must know some reasons why it is more desirable to be anchored there. There is this one guy anchored out here, farther away from everybody else. He may not know what the other people know. Who knows best, the one guy by himself or the ten people grouped close together? I'm going to trust the judgement of the group rather than the one loner. It's choosing the herd over the maverick.


Works in an anchorage but not at a bank of urinals.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

Mike_NC said:


> I will only offer one observation with respect to this discussion, the First Amendment does not protect individual rights with respect to "Taking a Knee". The owners of football teams would have been well within their rights to fire any player taking a knee. The First Amendment only protects persons from governmental repercussions. If you go around pissing people off, don't be surprised if they get in your face (or refuse to buy the product you are selling).


Had any owner done that, the football season would have been over in a heartbeat and they knew that. Who but the richest will hastily set aside their principles for the almighty dollar?


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

midwesterner said:


> I don't see how preference reversal compromise effect applies in this example. What is the reversal of preference in this case? It seems more like human herd thinking. The person arriving to the anchorage says, "Hmmm, most people are anchored in a group closer to shore. They must know some reasons why it is more desirable to be anchored there. There is this one guy anchored out here, farther away from everybody else. He may not know what the other people know. Who knows best, the one guy by himself or the ten people grouped close together? I'm going to trust the judgement of the group rather than the one loner. It's choosing the herd over the maverick.


And that's why I have some wonderfully uncrowded anchorages down here, for a while. However eventually, the herd does follow when they see we aren't rolling our guts out or dropping a huge amount of chain, because we've found a shallower spot.


----------



## Davy J (Mar 25, 2017)

> Worst ever?


Math, how does that work......

GW Bush took office = 5.7 T
Obama took office = 10.7 T
Trump took office = 19.5 T

Therefore, W added 5 trillion, obummer added 8.8 trillion. As far as the national debt, obama worst ever..........


----------



## albrazzi (Oct 15, 2014)

Davy J said:


> Math, how does that work......
> 
> GW Bush took office = 5.7 T
> Obama took office = 10.7 T
> ...


That's OK we have a tax cut that will take care of all that.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

skipmac said:


> Maybe check your figures. The TOTAL national debt is around $18 trillion. Of that only $4.7 was incurred under Obama but W with his pointless tax cuts contributed $4.9. At least Obama had a reason, to dig the country out of the economic hole.
> 
> Meanwhile the Trump tax breaks by themselves will add another couple trillion. Then his spending plans will add a few more.


Trump is actually on track based on the government's own projections to add 8 trillion _in a single term_. Which is astonishing. DOUBLE Obama's rate, and Obama had once in a century recession to crawl back out of. (How quickly we forget).

I mean, this whole "deficits don't matter" thing was kicked off by Reagan in the 80's. The national debt was tripled. Bush I was a bit more responsible and tried to balance the books a bit...but we crucified him for it...so that's out. Depending on how you add it up, Clinton didn't actually add much to debt, he actually reduced it when you count the surpluses. Then Bush II came along and doubled the debt. Then the economy collapsed, and Obama (much like anyone else who has to deal with a once in a century economic collapse) had to get buried under QE and stimulus...but of course everyone is forced to pretend for obvious reasons that the 2008 crash didn't happen...not ideologically convenient, that. But those of us with some inkling of how economics works can see such obviousness.

And now we have trump, who is on track to out deficit Obama's 8 years in 4...all while inheriting a roaring economy that _needs no stimulus at all._ It's simply the most irresponsible nonsense imaginable.

Not that blaming presidents for this is entirely meaningful, since Congress controls the purse, not the executive.

Honestly, if you guys would just drop the blind partisan hackery and look at the actual pattern it's pretty alarming: Regardless of which party is in office...debt blow up has been rapidly accelerating. I mean...one of those parties still has this bizarre belief that running us into debt to our eyeballs to pay for needless tax cuts in the middle of a strong economy with full employment is a good idea...but I digress.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Stand still ,wee sheep and be shorn.


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

midwesterner said:


> I don't see how preference reversal compromise effect applies in this example. What is the reversal of preference in this case? It seems more like human herd thinking. The person arriving to the anchorage says, "Hmmm, most people are anchored in a group closer to shore. They must know some reasons why it is more desirable to be anchored there. There is this one guy anchored out here, farther away from everybody else. He may not know what the other people know. Who knows best, the one guy by himself or the ten people grouped close together? I'm going to trust the judgement of the group rather than the one loner." It's choosing the herd over the maverick.


First, you are right, the term 'preference reversal' is a technical term used in the literature (that's why I listed it as keyword) but it does not describe exactly the behavior. Just as astronomers call everything a 'metal' that is not either H or He...

What I was referring to in this case were not the people going 'with the herd' (that Minne did not have a problem with) but those that chose to anchor in-between the herd and him. That's the compromise effect.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

We stopped at Mayaguana on route from BVI to George Town. It was our first stop so we were tired. Fortunately there was absolutely no one anchored behind the reef so went halfway in and anchored looking forward to some uninterrupted sleep.
A 50’ cat came in a few hours later. They had huge room to anchor hundreds of yards away from us but chose to anchor near by then put the genset and music on. A beautiful quiet day ruined by a group of Canadians. 
Still my all time favorite was a group of not very attractive middle aged French. Anchored close by in St. Martin. Ugly short obese men in ball bags and women with no tops with heavily veins breasts hanging down to their waists blasting head banging heavy metal first thing in the morning. We left and spent more time drinking our morning coffee eating our beignets and brioche but they were still at it throughout the whole day and into the evening.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

outbound said:


> We stopped at Mayaguana on route from BVI to George Town. It was our first stop so we were tired. Fortunately there was absolutely no one anchored behind the reef so went halfway in and anchored looking forward to some uninterrupted sleep.
> A 50' cat came in a few hours later. They had huge room to anchor hundreds of yards away from us but chose to anchor near by then put the genset and music on. A beautiful quiet day ruined by *a group of Canadians. *
> Still my all time favorite was a group of not very attractive middle aged French. Anchored close by in St. Martin. Ugly short obese men in ball bags and women with no tops with heavily veins breasts hanging down to their waists blasting head banging heavy metal first thing in the morning. We left and spent more time drinking our morning coffee eating our beignets and brioche but they were still at it throughout the whole day and into the evening.


I'm beginning to feel a sense of collective shame  Maybe this is why Canadians are known as such kind, polite people; all our jerks have left to go cruising .

Anchoring unnecessarily close is certainly an annoyance, but subjecting everyone in an anchorage to your noise is simply unacceptable. I don't care if you have to run a generator, just do your best to minimize the noise impact on those around you. And if your music is loud enough that I can hear the words, then your music is TOO LOUD! Turn it down, or better still, put on headphones!

There's a reason I prefer remote, wilderness anchorage; a lot fewer a-holes make it to these places.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

outbound said:


> We stopped at Mayaguana on route from BVI to George Town. It was our first stop so we were tired. Fortunately there was absolutely no one anchored behind the reef so went halfway in and anchored looking forward to some uninterrupted sleep.
> A 50' cat came in a few hours later. They had huge room to anchor hundreds of yards away from us but chose to anchor near by then put the genset and music on. A beautiful quiet day ruined by a group of Canadians.
> Still my all time favorite was a group of not very attractive middle aged French. Anchored close by in St. Martin. Ugly short obese men in ball bags and women with no tops with heavily veins breasts hanging down to their waists blasting head banging heavy metal first thing in the morning. We left and spent more time drinking our morning coffee eating our beignets and brioche but they were still at it throughout the whole day and into the evening.


Don't think I can match your St Martin story but can relate an experience similar to yours at Mayaguana.

A few years ago I was coming down the ICW, through one of the long stretches of narrow canal with nowhere to stop. All day I could see a 35-40 cat a mile or so behind us. About an hour before sunset we finally exited the canal into a wide river. We motored another half mile or so and pulled off the channel towards the windward shoreline and anchored. That shoreline was at least 2-3 miles long and more or less the same depth the entire length. But of course about half an hour later the cat comes up and drops a hook 100 yards away.

My theory, besides the subtle subconscious herd instinct or other psychological forces at play, they saw us anchored there and figured that must be the best place to anchor so they should follow suit.


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

I suspect the Canadian's anxiety was he didn't know how you intended to get your boat from a position over his anchor.

Perhaps he assumed you would simply pull in a boat's length of chain wait for him to raise his anchor and leave... But that is not always so easy especially if he is single or shorted handing. Raising the anchor give forward way to the boat.... so maybe he wanted a lot of sea room forward? If you had not raised your anchor and given him plenty of sea room he could be anxious of hitting you or dealing with a gust and so on. Slow moving boats don't turn that quickly.

If indeed you raised your hook and motored well clear leaving him plenty of room to control his boat in a crowded anchorage.... the way it was before you dropped your anchor... he has no beef.

But to me it's perfectly understand able that seeing someone fall back anchored over your anchor to be concerned. They don't know your intentions... maybe you were completely exhausted and going to crash... Maybe you had to leave in your dink to pick someone up??? How do they know that you know how to set an anchor and could drag don't on their boat? They don't know... so perhaps you need to make your intentions known in advance and ask if they are concerned and try to alay their anxiety.

I see this happen in crowded anchorages such as Newport near Ida Lewis. Frankly boats anchor too close and are left unattended... not to mention there are several moored boats which swing differently.

My approach is to stay far away from other boats for multiple reasons...


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

amwbox said:


> Honestly, if you guys would just drop the blind partisan hackery and look at the actual pattern it's pretty alarming: Regardless of which party is in office...debt blow up has been rapidly accelerating. I mean...one of those parties still has this bizarre belief that running us into debt to our eyeballs to pay for needless tax cuts in the middle of a strong economy with full employment is a good idea...but I digress.


Honestly, if you guys would just drop the blind partisan hackery and look at the actual pattern it's pretty alarming: Regardless of which party is in office...debt blow up has been rapidly accelerating. I mean...one of those parties still has this bizarre belief that stealing money from one group to give it to another group in the middle of a strong economy with full employment is a good idea...but I digress. 

This isn't a strong economy though.

Full employment??? What a joke. Instead of looking at the lie they call the 'unemployment number', look at the workforce participation rate.


----------



## Saltwater Taffy (Aug 31, 2016)

Last summer (or perhaps the summer before – it’s not really relevant unless you need to know who was president at the time) I (a Welsh-born Canadian citizen) anchored in a quite busy spot off Beausoleil Island in Georgian Bay.

When I awoke and climbed into the cockpit to enjoy my morning coffee I saw that a powerboat had come in during the night and was now hanging off her hook swinging to within about half a boat length of my starboard side.

I sipped my coffee (percolated – not French-pressed: you know how the French are!) and kept an eye on the proximity of the stinkpot. When the apparent skipper (probably Canadian, but did look a bit swarthy) of the other boat came on deck I asked him to pass the cream. He looked up surprised as I’m sure it sounded to him as if I were aboard his boat.

Anyway we both said we would keep an eye on how our boats were swinging and make any changes as necessary. As it turned out the wind shifted a bit and, although somewhat close, it did not seem there was any danger of collision. Until later!

After breakfast we loaded the dog into the dinghy and headed ashore for a walk along the great trails on the island.

Upon our return our friends (he is of English and Norman extraction, she is probably of British stock), who were anchored next to us asked if we noticed anything strange about our boat. I could not see anything amiss. My friend said that while we were hiking the boat that had anchored in front of us had raised our anchor with theirs causing our boat to drift back and come very close to hitting the previously described power vessel.

Luckily my friend saw my anchor come up and paddled over, started my engine and re-set my anchor. The boat that snagged my anchor was very apologetic and stayed around to provide help if needed. I didn’t see the crew of this boat but my friend said that the skipper had un-naturally large ears.

Well, you would have thought that was enough excitement for one day. But wait! There’s more.

A boat crewed by Germans (may have been Swiss or Austrian) seemed to be having trouble finding a spot to anchor. I called over to them and told them that we would be leaving shortly so they could anchor closer to us than you would normally. I then took my dog (a Border Collie) ashore for his ablutions.

When I came back I saw that the new boat was about two meters away from my starboard side and all of our fenders were down (none of hers were!). Turns out they took my offer a little too much to heart.

Ah well, we raised our anchor successfully and sailed home. No boats were damaged in the course of events.

I don’t know what any of this has to do with the US GDP, or which party is in power down there, but I think someone mentioned something about the etiquette of anchoring somewhere….


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Awoke one morning to find a 40 ft power boat impalled thru the wheel house window by my bowsprit. Dragged into me by an expected wind. No biggie .not my woodwork getting chewed up. As I was in an expensive marina slip I let the office know .And they sent down some lads. One had rather larger than normal ears .Can't help but wonder if there's a connection here we should consider before the shooting starts.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

ianjoub said:


> Honestly, if you guys would just drop the blind partisan hackery and look at the actual pattern it's pretty alarming: Regardless of which party is in office...debt blow up has been rapidly accelerating. I mean...one of those parties still has this bizarre belief that stealing money from one group to give it to another group in the middle of a strong economy with full employment is a good idea...but I digress.
> 
> This isn't a strong economy though.
> 
> Full employment??? What a joke. Instead of looking at the lie they call the 'unemployment number', look at the workforce participation rate.


Your right. It's all a conspiracy. lol. And who cares about deficits? Right? Who cares about spending the money of people who aren't even born yet? You will whine and cry about deficits...so long as it's the right political creature generating them. Otherwise...no problem! The hypocrisy is just amazing.

Honestly...if you don't want to live in civilization, don't. Go find a cave. I'm betting the tax rates are low.

But just to make sure the point remains clear:

Trump is actually on track based on the government's own projections to add 8 trillion in a single term. Which is astonishing. DOUBLE Obama's rate, and Obama had once in a century recession to crawl back out of. (How quickly we forget).

I mean, this whole "deficits don't matter" thing was kicked off by Reagan in the 80's. The national debt was tripled. Bush I was a bit more responsible and tried to balance the books a bit...but we crucified him for it...so that's out. Depending on how you add it up, Clinton didn't actually add much to debt, he actually reduced it when you count the surpluses. Then Bush II came along and doubled the debt. Then the economy collapsed, and Obama (much like anyone else who has to deal with a once in a century economic collapse) had to get buried under QE and stimulus...but of course everyone is forced to pretend for obvious reasons that the 2008 crash didn't happen...not ideologically convenient, that. But those of us with some inkling of how economics works can see such obviousness.

And now we have trump, who is on track to out deficit Obama's 8 years in 4...all while inheriting a roaring economy that needs no stimulus at all. It's simply the most irresponsible nonsense imaginable.

Not that blaming presidents for this is entirely meaningful, since Congress controls the purse, not the executive.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

You kind of overlooked the world events at the time also, but blind partisans often resort to that tactic. I always get a chuckle when I hear people regurgitating the old saw about President Clinton and his economic prowess. If you were awake during the 90's and especially if you owned a business during that decade you would understand that the tech revolution was the driver of government revenue, no matter what the Clinton's or Newt Gingrich claim. The advances in chip speed, memory capacity, and the accompanying software which was enabled by the hardware advances, caused business to purchase new computers and software every other year. And of course, once you upgraded the base computer and the software the printer would no longer work,,,,, then along came scanners and larger CRT's and you have a continual demand for capitalism to take place. I think I spent more on office technology in the 90's than I have the rest of the time I have been in business, and that boys and girls, is what drove the economy in the 1990's.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

Rocky Mountain Breeze said:


> You kind of overlooked the world events at the time also, but blind partisans often resort to that tactic. I always get a chuckle when I hear people regurgitating the old saw about President Clinton and his economic prowess. If you were awake during the 90's and especially if you owned a business during that decade you would understand that the tech revolution was the driver of government revenue, no matter what the Clinton's or Newt Gingrich claim. The advances in chip speed, memory capacity, and the accompanying software which was enabled by the hardware advances, caused business to purchase new computers and software every other year. And of course, once you upgraded the base computer and the software the printer would no longer work,,,,, then along came scanners and larger CRT's and you have a continual demand for capitalism to take place. I think I spent more on office technology in the 90's than I have the rest of the time I have been in business, and that boys and girls, is what drove the economy in the 1990's.


Wow. You need an econ class or something.

In any case, you missed the point. An economic upswing allowed Clinton to avoid debt. And an economic downswing (about an order of magnitude worse) forced Obama to take it on. Where Trump is being unspeakably idiotic is in setting new records on tacking on debt _despite_ an economic upswing he got to inherit.

Trump is basically "SPEND SPEND SPEND", hell with the debt. Its simply shocking the complete lack of adult supervision to reign in this insanely irresponsible and destructive behavior.

And then he starts a tariff war. Because those always end well. Alienating our closest allies is just icing on the cake. Not sure what Canada did to deserve all of this...but I'm starting to think some Quebecois hockey player nailed his girlfriend in prep school after getting a good look at those hands and declaring fair game.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Breeze (Mar 30, 2015)

I think I understand economics pretty well. I have built a nice net worth above seven figures and provide jobs for 6 other people as well as honest and competent services to probably 500 businesses and institutions. What is your contribution?


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

Rocky Mountain Breeze said:


> I think I understand economics pretty well. I have built a nice net worth above seven figures and provide jobs for 6 other people as well as honest and competent services to probably 500 businesses and institutions. What is your contribution?


My contribution? Oh, I'm an astronaut, but I moonlight as an inventor of high tech snowcone machines. Like everyone on the internet, I am a self made millionaire...but sadly I'm too secure to brag as much as I should. 

No. Seriously. Read a book or something. You are talking some dangerous ignorance up in here. As I said:

In any case, you missed the point. An economic upswing allowed Clinton to avoid debt. And an economic downswing (about an order of magnitude worse) forced Obama to take it on. Where Trump is being unspeakably idiotic is in setting new records on tacking on debt despite an economic upswing he got to inherit.

Trump is basically "SPEND SPEND SPEND", hell with the debt. Its simply shocking the complete lack of adult supervision to reign in this insanely irresponsible and destructive behavior.

And then he starts a tariff war. Because those always end well. Alienating our closest allies is just icing on the cake. Not sure what Canada did to deserve all of this...but I'm starting to think some Quebecois hockey player nailed his girlfriend in prep school after getting a good look at those hands and declaring fair game.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

amwbox said:


> Your right. It's all a conspiracy. lol. And who cares about deficits? Right? Who cares about spending the money of people who aren't even born yet? You will whine and cry about deficits...so long as it's the right political creature generating them. Otherwise...no problem! The hypocrisy is just amazing.
> 
> You are as confused as ever. I care about deficits. I also care about the Constitution. I care about how we got screwed in 1913 by the creation of the FED and fiat currency. If we stuck to gold backed currency, or better yet, gold coins, we would not be in this predicament.
> 
> ...


Tax cuts have historically improved the economics of the country as a whole. When businesses and individuals are allowed to keep their own money, they produce more wealth.

Conversely, when the FED and the government interfere with business, everything goes in the *******. Do you understand the concept of the 'velocity of money'? Research it. Taxes decimate it. Velocity of money is how often money transfers hands (which the government taxes at every change). When you have a dollar change hands once per year, the government taxes it once. If it changes hands 20 times per year, the government taxes it 20 times. If the government ****s off out of peoples lives and they can do business, tax the 5%. The same dollar gets traded 20 times per year so the government ends up with 20 x 5%, 100%. If you tax at 90%, the same dollar only changes hands once per year, you end up with 90%. Which do you think effects a more robust economy?

I would like to hear an honest rebuttal of this, not some personal attack. Explain to me how you understand macro economics and why your ideas are better.

THAT IS A CHALLENGE!


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

1. Look. We're not going back to the gold standard. Nobody is. That is simply a fantasy. Work with real world possibilities.

2. I did not say anything about huge tax burdens. You made an assumption. The US is actually doing quite well on that score. Try being Norwegian or Danish. I mean...your standard of living would be through the roof, but you'd have to pay _real_ taxes.

3. Its ideologically motivated tripe to have allowed the US economy to collapse completely. Nobody wanted that. Even your most mindless and anachronistic pure capitalism dinosaurs who don't understand the global nature of the economy didn't want the financial system to fail. That is simply ideological purity nonsense as opposed to actual pragmatic realism.

Again...you are working from a fantasy of ideological purity. It's not terribly applicable to the actual US economy. I mean...when you start ranting about the gold standard in 2018!!!...you lose all credibility.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

amwbox said:


> 1. Look. We're not going back to the gold standard. Nobody is. That is simply a fantasy. Work with real world possibilities.
> 
> 2. I did not say anything about huge tax burdens. You made an assumption. The US is actually doing quite well on that score. Try being Norwegian or Danish. I mean...your standard of living would be through the roof, but you'd have to pay _real_ taxes.
> 
> ...


The US economy is going to collapse completely. If you don't think so, you are deluding yourself. If it was left alone, it would have adjusted up and down without the need to collapse. It is too late now. Yes, I will put my money where my mouth is and bet on it, will you?

To say that having REAL MONEY that is backed by REAL VALUE is a fantasy of ideological purity indicates to me that you are a brainwashed fool. You will never have a clue. You are indoctrinated in a system that enslaves you, and like all good slaves, you are willing to fight to keep you chains intact.

Until you choose to educate yourself, you are hopeless.

Research what MONEY is vs. currency (and especially FIAT currency).

Read the Constitution and specifically what is says about money creation in this country. You will find that our current money is unconstitutional and illegal, and for very specific reasons.

Decide for yourself if the government taxes to provide services or if the government provides a few services as a pretense to collect taxes.

Ask yourself if you can find any example of the government providing a service in a more efficient way than a private organization (that is not mandated or protected by the government).

Do some real research. Do some soul searching.

Government is simply one thing: A MONOPOLY ON VIOLENCE.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

And all this political crap has what relevance to sailing?

I love to discuss politics , hell I work on Captiol Hill and have a front row seat 

Every thread seems to turn into political bickering of some sort. It will drive true sailors away from this site.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

chef2sail said:


> And all this political crap has what relevance to sailing?
> 
> I love to discuss politics , hell I work on Captiol Hill and have a front row seat
> 
> Every thread seems to turn into political bickering of some sort. It will drive true sailors away from this site.


I think most true sailors have enough intelligence (or they would have sunk and drowned by now) to not read what doesn't interest them.


----------



## MikeOReilly (Apr 12, 2010)

I feel like I've fallen into an episode of Alex Jones _"conspiracies are us"_ Show. :eek


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

ianjoub said:


> The US economy is going to collapse completely. If you don't think so, you are deluding yourself. If it was left alone, it would have adjusted up and down without the need to collapse. It is too late now. Yes, I will put my money where my mouth is and bet on it, will you?
> 
> To say that having REAL MONEY that is backed by REAL VALUE is a fantasy of ideological purity indicates to me that you are a brainwashed fool. You will never have a clue. You are indoctrinated in a system that enslaves you, and like all good slaves, you are willing to fight to keep you chains intact.
> 
> ...


I'm not like you. I have no need to "research" the blindingly obvious. Stop projecting your insecurities. I mean...what next? Going to tell me to "research" the color of the sky? I mean..._damn_. lol.

As I said...what you are going on about won't happen in the real world. It's just pure and undiluted ideology...with zero flexibility to account for said reality.

I mean...the gold standard? That's your suggestion? Something that is 100% NOT going to happen? How convenient...throw out ideas that are dead on arrival and then declare it someone else's fault when it doesn't work.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

amwbox said:


> I'm not like you. I have no need to "research" the blindingly obvious. Stop projecting your insecurities. I mean...what next? Going to tell me to "research" the color of the sky? I mean..._damn_. lol.
> 
> As I said...what you are going on about won't happen in the real world. It's just pure and undiluted ideology...with zero flexibility to account for said reality.
> 
> I mean...the gold standard? That's your suggestion? Something that is 100% NOT going to happen? How convenient...throw out ideas that are dead on arrival and then declare it someone else's fault when it doesn't work.


Once again you are blindingly ignorant. Have you seen how much gold China and Russia have collected in the past 10 years? The Petro Dollar is DEAD. BRICS is coming out with gold backed currency. The IMF and World Bank have far eastern counterparts now. The gauntlet has been thrown down. The US will have to wage global war to try to save 'our' financial system. We can destroy the world or die a slow suffocating death as all of our worthless dollars come back home. Do you not see this? If not, you are blind. I kind of feel sorry for those of you 'not in the know'.


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

So I will ask what I ask of any preacher of doom. Is there a solution? For the West? For me?


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

paulinnanaimo said:


> So I will ask what I ask of any preacher of doom. Is there a solution? For the West? For me?


I do not consider myself a preacher of doom, but here goes:

Vote for people who will try to fix the system from within. Give them one chance. If they don't get it fixed, don't vote for them again.

Be in constant contact, once per week, with YOUR elected officials. The squeeky wheel gets the grease.

Demand an end of the FED. Have the Treasury issue currency again, hopefully backed by a precious metal and not fiat.

With the end of the FED, income tax will become a thing of the past. Its only purpose was to pay the private bankers interest on the money it created when the government could have created the same money interest free.

Return power to the individual states.

Grow some of your own food and have a water source, because this will not likely end well. Look at Venezuela right now, scarcity is ugly.

Look to the Constitution, those old codgers had it right (most like salty old sailors  ).


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

lol everyone knows what the gold standard is. Everyone knows what fiat currencies are. If _you've_ got this basic info, assume everyone else does too. See how that works?

What I'm pointing out is simply that your proposals are ridiculously unrealistic. I mean...gold backed currency. Now. In 2018? You are saying this with a straight face?

Do you not know how this works?

Do you not realize that when the central bank fixes the dollar price of gold, rather than the price of goods we consume, fluctuations in the dollar price of goods replace fluctuations in the market price of gold? Do you not see how that's a problem?

And when prices are tied to the amount of money in the economy, which is linked to the supply of gold, inflation depends on the rate that gold is mined. It creates wild inefficiencies. Do you not get that?

And then, because the economy is globalized...all internetional transactions would also have to be settled in gold...even though the rest of the world isn't stupid enough to do this. Why do business with us against such a ridiculous hurdle?

The gold standard was more of a driver of _greater _volatility. Not less. Do you understand that? We've actually had _fewer_ banking panics since we've let the currency float. There's a reason nearly the whole world does this.

Maybe most importantly, a gold standard screws up the ability of the central bank to act as lender of last resort when the **** hits the fan. Imagine if in 2008 the Fed had been on a strict gold standard...right when Lehman failed. If the Fed had been limited in it's ability to loan money and keep some fluidity in motion...it's very likely we'd have slid into a full blown depression instead of a nasty recession.

And you do understand how deflation works, right? That gold, being a finite store of value, the amount of it available to the central bank will grow more slowly than the economy. Right? Can you say deflation? It would take a while, and there are some arguments about deflation, carefully controlled, being beneficial...but considering our more recent experiences with it...I'm calling BS.

Anyways...perhaps you should "research" this more. I'm just spewing some basic stuff they teach teenagers in your direction. If any of this was actually news to you...well...yeah. You should, ahem, "research" it a bit.

As for all the pure, unfiltered, ideological fantasy play...that is all it is. _This is the 21st century_. Snap out of it.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

amwbox said:


> lol everyone knows what the gold standard is. Everyone knows what fiat currencies are. If _you've_ got this basic info, assume everyone else does too. See how that works?
> 
> Most people have no clue. I am glad you do. It makes this conversation easier on a communication level.
> 
> ...


I have little hope for you and us/US for that matter. We are doomed as a country. The only question is will it be a slow rotting decline over 500 years like the Roman Empire, or will it be a quick death like the USSR in the 80's. I hope for the quick death. Russia has recovered beautifully in 30 years. We should look to them for inspiration on how capitalism should work.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

I will also add AMWBOX, you have all the answers of someone who has an 'education' from accredited colleges in the past 50 years. You have been thought what to think, not how to think. Any rational person who has done independent investigation, read history, and researched current events will wholeheartedly disagree with your opinions.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

ianjoub said:


> I will also add AMWBOX, you have all the answers of someone who has an 'education' from accredited colleges in the past 50 years. You have been thought what to think, not how to think. Any rational person who has done independent investigation, read history, and researched current events will wholeheartedly disagree with your opinions.


*Sigh*

No, actually. The simple fact that the economists of the entire planet have rejected the gold standard for the reasons I wasted time pointing out indicate that I am entirely correct, and for the reasons I wasted time stating. I mean, I'm sure you can find some guy craving attention who thinks it's still a good idea...much like you can find "doctors" who think smoking is healthy and "scientists" who think climate change is a hoax.

You are trying to create some bizarre fusion of your wingnut ideological purity routine with antiquated notions of currency backed by metal ingots. There is a reason the entire world has moved forward, whilst you are muttering crazy talk on an internet forum. I've spent a lot of years working in public finance. Yes, I'm terribly ashamed to admit that I did bother to gain a formal education instead of sitting behind a keyboard spouting simplistic, reductionist, and flatly incorrect nonsense of which I have little understanding. I feel like I missed out. Ignorance could have been bliss. I could have been _you_, ranting about gold in 2018!

It's not up to me. It's not, like, my "opinion", man. (insert Big Lebowski joke). This is simply the economic reality of the world economy and nearly all of humanity. All of them but a few nuts on the internet, anyways.

Anyways, I'm out. I'm kinda feeling bad about bouncing your ignorance off the sidewalk like this. At some point your just kicking a dog, you know? Good luck with your 21 century gold standard, kid. The world must really be your oyster.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

amwbox said:


> *Sigh*
> 
> No, actually. The simple fact that the economists of the entire planet have rejected the gold standard for the reasons I wasted time pointing out indicate that I am entirely correct, and for the reasons I wasted time stating. I mean, I'm sure you can find some guy craving attention who thinks it's still a good idea...much like you can find "doctors" who think smoking is healthy and "scientists" who think climate change is a hoax.
> 
> ...


You are stuck in the fantasy world presented to you by your masters. This whole fiat currency/ control of money thing is a huge mistake and an evil perpetrated on society as a whole.

You perpetuate the system. Are you truly blind to the evils of it vs. a free market economy?

Climate change is a constant. To think we, as humans, have any appreciable effect on it is another of you indoctrinated beliefs. Do you really believe that we as humans will ever conquer 'mother nature'? Who is delusional now?


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

I just had an epiphany:

The blind arrogance that makes you think you can control the economy is the same blind arrogance that makes you think you can control the climate.

Some introspection may be in order.


----------



## chef2sail (Nov 27, 2007)

ianjoub said:


> I just had an epiphany:
> 
> The blind arrogance that makes you think you can control the economy is the same blind arrogance that makes you think you can control the climate.
> 
> Some introspection may be in order.


I had an epifany also,

BTW you ignored my initial question, what does your contribution in your posts have to do with or is relevant to sailing.

This behavior carries itself in most of your threads and posts.

So I wonder why did you pick a sailing site to try and forward your political agenda.


----------



## davidpm (Oct 22, 2007)

The whole flying the flag thing reminded me of the cruiser off the coast of Yeaman who flew the US flag, the star of David and the rainbow flag.

Now THAT is a political statement. (You have to say it in an Australian accent as in. "That's not a knife, this is a knife"


----------



## ScottUK (Aug 16, 2009)

amwbox said:


> "research" the color of the sky?


https://www.popsci.com/green-flash-sunset

Better use of your time rather than following someone down a rabbit hole.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

chef2sail said:


> I had an epifany also,
> 
> BTW you ignored my initial question, what does your contribution in your posts have to do with or is relevant to sailing.
> 
> ...


Ok, I'll ask you the same question. What does your contribution in this post have to do with or is relevant to sailing? Ahhh, I thought so.

This is what is called a discussion. You do not get to choose where others' discussions go. They are usually fluid things.

I am on a sailing forum because I bought a sailboat a few years ago. I wanted to get some information and share some information. One of my first threads was painting the bottom of my boat, pulling the swing keel and painting it, and revarnishing the wood bits. I am on here now because we plan to buy another sailboat in 2020 when we retire. I do a lot of reading about different boat systems, threads about visiting other countries, checking in procedures, weather, communications while out at sea, general best practices while 'out there', etc... I read many threads that I do not post in.

Does this some how affect your ability to use the ignore feature or simply choose to not read my posts past the first few words if they don't qualify as sailing related to you?

I would also add that weather and money are both VERY MUCH sailing related.


----------



## SeaStar58 (Feb 14, 2018)

ianjoub said:


> Bla Bla Bla .... BS
> 
> I said it in another thread:
> 
> ...


That is the law so either you either abide by it or be more likely to get shown the door. Tell someone to grow a "GROW A PAIR" and you may find your head spinning at how fast the companies security people escort you out the door or potentially be turned over to the police on verbal assault charges. The company may otherwise totally agree with your viewpoint however they have to abide by the law or get taken to court for failing to do so. In Florida (well at least in Pinellas County) even Sole Proprietorships have to take and pass training on Workplace Requirements at the Junior College level to get their business license now and take regular refreshers to ensure they are current and up to date.

Some companies are better at maintaining awareness of this while others wait until someone complains hoping it will never happen but it is ultimately the employers responsibility to abide by all aspects of having a safe workplace.

You do not have the right to use free speech to verbally assault folks especially in the work place.

Back on Topic though I still feel that some have had their mooring encroached on so many times with negative outcome that they feel immediately threatened and over react when it looks like it might be about to happen again.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

SeaStar58 said:


> Back on Topic though I still feel that some have had their mooring encroached on so many times with negative outcome that they feel immediately threatened and over react when it looks like it might be about to happen again.


I don't like to be crowded either. I tend to put out more scope than is necessary as a safety net. I also generally don't want to be around people. I think the prior examples in this thread are attributable to herd mentality more than anything.


----------



## Bleemus (Oct 13, 2015)

Look! A squirrel!


----------



## Eder (Sep 21, 2009)

capta said:


> It was just so strange. He was *leaving*. Even if I'd anchored a bit too close, which we hadn't, what difference; he was outta there in less than a half hour.
> Ah well, perhaps he's a Canadian Trump supporter......


I'm a Canadian Trump supporter but I would have invited you to raft up if space is so constricted.


----------



## DougM (Aug 16, 2015)

Comment to the original poster: I'm sorry you had to put up with such disrespectful treatment when it sounds like you were fully accommodating. 

Here's my perspective as a Canadian - my country seems to have gotten into a strange mood in the last decade. People have become extremely righteous about certain things. They feel like they are much better than americans because we have universal medicare and more restrictive gun control (what they don't say is in many areas you can't get a doctor and waiting list for medical proceedures goes into years in many cases ... in other words, lack awareness that we aren't perfect). And Canada has become intensely reverse-racist and sexist, with a vocal minority who hate white males, white people in general, and americans unfortunately. It feels difficult at times, as i'm a white male and my wife is american.

So all i can say is keep this in mind when you meet Canadians, and please don't forget that there are lots of decent people amongst the righteous politically correct anti american assholes.

DougM


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

To all you Americans, Canadian SN members did not elect DougM to be our spokesperson.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

Rocky Mountain Breeze said:


> You kind of overlooked the world events at the time also, but blind partisans often resort to that tactic. I always get a chuckle when I hear people regurgitating the old saw about President Clinton and his economic prowess. If you were awake during the 90's and especially if you owned a business during that decade you would understand that the tech revolution was the driver of government revenue, no matter what the Clinton's or Newt Gingrich claim. The advances in chip speed, memory capacity, and the accompanying software which was enabled by the hardware advances, caused business to purchase new computers and software every other year. And of course, once you upgraded the base computer and the software the printer would no longer work,,,,, then along came scanners and larger CRT's and you have a continual demand for capitalism to take place. I think I spent more on office technology in the 90's than I have the rest of the time I have been in business, and that boys and girls, is what drove the economy in the 1990's.


You are quite right in your points about the economy under Clinton. He happened to be in office at the right time. However, he also didn't cut taxes to the top 1% and dramatically increase spending at the same time to squander the benefits of the economic boom.

Further on the issue of administrations benefiting from economic situations that they didn't create, Trump sure claims a lot of credit for the current, greatly improved economy that Obama spent eight years trying to revive. On the other hand, the global economy is a huge beast and how much did Obama's actions actually help or speed the recovery that at some point would have happened anyway. I'm sure you've heard the old joke, ask 10 economists their opinions on how to manage the economy and you'll get at least 11 recommendations.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

paulinnanaimo said:


> To all you Americans, Canadian SN members did not elect DougM to be our spokesperson.


Oo. A Canadian dispute. What's next, Newfie jokes?

:laugh


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

paulinnanaimo said:


> To all you Americans, Canadian SN members did not elect DougM to be our spokesperson.


So you disagree with his position on the bigotry?

(silently judging you  )


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Talk about a strange experience. Awoke the other night to a strange thumping in the den. Drowsy , I made my way toward the disturbance . Moon light through the window shone on the cause. I'd recognize that head of hair anywhere. First thought 'It's the POTUS !!; Second thought; He's broken into my house and having an epileptic fit under the dinning room table' Third thought was 'Why am I not surprised?. By this time ,thinking more clearly I realized it was Cooper,my golden retriever, chasing squirrels in his sleep. Sometimes explanations are easy.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

I'm sorry you had to go through that, Len. You wanna see a golden retriever running down wind?










(I'm not even making fun. _I just want to know how it works._)


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

What? That?

I don't think he thought it was funny. He wouldn't have been waging a decades long, unnatural war on baldness if that were the case. I mean...most guys lose hair as they age. It's not a big deal. He just needs grow a pair, buy some clippers, and buzz that down and own it. He can't even laugh at skits on SNL, and get's in a pansy ass tissy about it over and over.

The sort of insecurity that would prefer to spend half a lifetime the butt of the world's jokes than to simply lose some hair...that's not a laughing matter. The man has some serious self-esteem and confidence issues. We should be sensitive to that. Clearly a wounded soul of unknown depths.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

No. I'm afraid I didn't tune in to watch CPAC. 

I also didn't drive a drywall screw into my forehead with a can opener. Probably missed out there as well.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

skipmac said:


> Oo. A Canadian dispute. What's next, Newfie jokes?
> 
> :laugh


Aren't they all fundamentalist Muslims these days in Canuckistan? Why wouldn't they hate ******???

:d :d :d


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

amwbox said:


> He just needs grow a pair, buy some clippers, and buzz that down and own it.


Wow, what a sexist you are. Really, grow a pair? Are you implying that women who don't have a pair are lesser people?

Also, why are you attacking people who are strong will challenged, as if you are better than them. Their shortcomings are to be treated with tender hands, not mocked by your callous attempts at humor. You should be ashamed of yourself.


----------



## troy2000 (Apr 7, 2013)

Sebastian#2 said:


> way up here, most women have at least 2 pairs.I am so ashamed.
> in the frozen north where men are men, and so are the women :|


Reminds me of a common saying back when I played WOW online: "Welcome to World of Warcraft - where men are men, women are men too, and children are Alliance."

That probably sailed right over the heads of those who haven't played the game... and yes, I know it's a complete non sequitur. But then again, so are upside down ensigns.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

ianjoub said:


> Wow, what a sexist you are. Really, grow a pair? Are you implying that women who don't have a pair are lesser people?
> 
> Also, why are you attacking people who are strong will challenged, as if you are better than them. Their shortcomings are to be treated with tender hands, not mocked by your callous attempts at humor. You should be ashamed of yourself.


:laugh
No, I'm implying that that _trump_ is a "lesser people". Said nothing at all about women. If I were talking about women, it would be something to do with ovaries, to be sure. You on the other hand..._went there_. Which is in character.

And yes. I am better than trump. So are you. So is _all_ multicellular life. Revel in your role as a keystone species and sneer at the coprophages, I say!


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

Sebastian#2 said:


> well, quit screwing around & see what the man actually says........if u don't .....then how do u really know?


You know when you get about 25 minutes into that movie Dumb and Dumber...and you say to yourself, "Well. I've seen enough."?


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

troy2000 said:


> Reminds me of a common saying back when I played WOW online: "Welcome to World of Warcraft - where men are men, women are men too, and children are Alliance."
> 
> That probably sailed right over the heads of those who haven't played the game... and yes, I know it's a complete non sequitur. But then again, so are upside down ensigns.


kek.


----------



## JaimesBeam (Jul 18, 2009)

Davy J said:


> That sounds just like eight years of obama&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;.
> 
> You forgot some of his best accomplishments.
> 
> ...


Sorry Dude, but the present admin of Donald Tramp cannot be compared to any admin in living memory. COME ON! Over 2000 published LIES in a year, widespread incompetence, nepotism, corruption, conspiracy etc! This is way past mere politics!

If you didn't like Obama, you should be marching in the streets NOW! Your complaints about Obama are debatable, I'm sure some of them are warranted.

BTW, I would call anyone's objection to the peaceful exercise of free speech UNPATRIOTIC! You might debate the content, but please try to stick
With the facts; Leave the Faux News at home!


----------



## JaimesBeam (Jul 18, 2009)

Mike_NC said:


> I will only offer one observation with respect to this discussion, the First Amendment does not protect individual rights with respect to "Taking a Knee". The owners of football teams would have been well within their rights to fire any player taking a knee. The First Amendment only protects persons from governmental repercussions. If you go around pissing people off, don't be surprised if they get in your face (or refuse to buy the product you are selling).


Interestingly, the Team owners and NFL have declined to state that players must not give any sign of protest, nor punish anyone for doing so; except for CK being out of a job. The NFL would be within their rights to do so, and the players would be within their rights to tell them to get bent and quit/not play. It seems none of them wants that.

I think it would be pretty stupid to regulate this, as fast as they outlaw some gesture, another can take it's place.

Of course none of this prevents other yahoos such as DJT from calling for the players to be fired; they have a right to do say so. It's just kind of stupid. Almost as stupid as declaring someone else's protest to be disrespectful of the flag, when the intent is to protest violence, so that you can protest that someone else is protesting.

Of course, free speech does not protect you from people deciding they don't like your speech, and deciding they don't want to be associated with you; as some white supremacists are finding out when they are identified and return home from their nice rally... There was a reason for the white sheet getup, you know.

Oh well, I'm sure way too much philosophizing for most!


----------



## JaimesBeam (Jul 18, 2009)

capta said:


> Had any owner done that, the football season would have been over in a heartbeat and they knew that. Who but the richest will hastily set aside their principles for the almighty dollar?


Papa John found out the hard way. Too much bitching and he pissed off too many of his clientele, whether they agreed with him on some level or not! No he's out of a job, and no doubt some millions poorer. No sweat, though, he's still got a few million left, that should be enough, right?


----------



## JaimesBeam (Jul 18, 2009)

“Russia has recovered beautifully in 30 years. We should look to them for inspiration on how capitalism should work.”

Emulating Russia should be the last thing any sane person would want to do!


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

JaimesBeam said:


> "Russia has recovered beautifully in 30 years. We should look to them for inspiration on how capitalism should work."
> 
> Emulating Russia should be the last thing any sane person would want to do!


Obviously I disagree. Russia has been paying down its national debt and is going back to gold based currency.

https://www.rt.com/business/412546-china-russia-gold-standard-dollar/


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

ianjoub said:


> Obviously I disagree. Russia has been paying down its national debt and is going back to gold based currency.
> 
> https://www.rt.com/business/412546-china-russia-gold-standard-dollar/


As a little background, I have done business with Russian companies. I also have a good friend that owns an international trading company that has been dealing with Russia for 20-30 years and has offices in Russia.

Based on my experiences Russia is NOT a good model. It is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, certainly the most corrupt of the major countries. Crime and the Russian mafia is everywhere. Paying bribes and kickbacks is SOP to get anything accomplished.

One has to be very careful who he/she deals with and how business is conducted to avoid conflict with the criminal elements. Get too big or too successful in certain business areas and you will get a visit from the "competition". I know of companies that were forced to take on "partners" or completely sell their company or else.

While the government may be paying down the debt it is at the expense of the people. Standard of living for the poor is abysmal, many barely ahead of starvation.

Meanwhile the politicians and their buddies are getting rich running crooked operations and ducking taxes that would help keep the government solvent. Oh wait, that sounds like what's going on here.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

An even stranger event should be Canada finally waking up at the table and taking article 1110 off the book of NAFTA. No bilateral BS, No discussion Just grows some cojones and bingo! And while we're at it by the way, the fresh water is ours too .Oh and the price of bitumen just went up because we built a pipe line to better markets Frack you Don.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

skipmac said:


> Paying bribes and kickbacks is SOP to get anything accomplished.
> 
> Meanwhile the politicians and their buddies are getting rich running crooked operations and ducking taxes that would help keep the government solvent. Oh wait, that sounds like what's going on here.


Yes, at least paying bribes is a relatively straight forward experience. Here, our version is a combination of selective taxation and outright harassment and attacks from bureaucracy who are completely unaccountable to the people they are supposed to _serve_.


----------



## Bleemus (Oct 13, 2015)

Capt Len said:


> An even stranger event should be Canada finally waking up at the table and taking article 1110 off the book of NAFTA. No bilateral BS, No discussion Just grows some cojones and bingo! And while we're at it by the way, the fresh water is ours too .Oh and the price of bitumen just went up because we built a pipe line to better markets Frack you Don.


I was just about to buy some bitumen today and was shocked at the price tag!


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Bleemus ,You may joke but some neighbours are getting pissed off. In 2016 41% of your oil imports came from Alberta (at a special to you price)and If it were me in control I'd tell you to stick it and your tariffs where the sun don't shine


----------



## curtis742 (Jan 26, 2016)

And this is exactly why it is so nice to climb aboard the boat, turn off the cell phone and relax.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

skipmac said:


> As a little background, I have done business with Russian companies. I also have a good friend that owns an international trading company that has been dealing with Russia for 20-30 years and has offices in Russia.
> 
> Based on my experiences Russia is NOT a good model. It is one of the most corrupt countries in the world, certainly the most corrupt of the major countries. Crime and the Russian mafia is everywhere. Paying bribes and kickbacks is SOP to get anything accomplished.
> 
> ...


This traitorous celebration of Russia is utterly bizarre. It's a nightmarish hellscape of an oligarchy where a couple dozen people control nearly all the wealth. These people mercilessly pillaged the USSR as is fell, stripping their own countrymen of any sort of social mobility or futures. The place is ruled by an old KGB thug, perhaps the only man on the planet even weaker and skeevier than trump...but who unfortunately for us is about 10 times more intelligent.

It is exactly the _last _example of anything any sort of decent country should strive for. Total power exercised by a strongly centralized government that was built by one party communists that literally _breathes_ corruption.

How anyone can find anything remotely admirable about the place and have any sort of respect for core American values at the same time is completely mysterious.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

Capt Len said:


> An even stranger event should be Canada finally waking up at the table and taking article 1110 off the book of NAFTA. No bilateral BS, No discussion Just grows some cojones and bingo! And while we're at it by the way, the fresh water is ours too .Oh and the price of bitumen just went up because we built a pipe line to better markets Frack you Don.


Please remember: that moron is temporary, unpopular, and in office against the wishes of the American people. After he's gone, the rest of us will still be here. I'm honestly hoping this was simply a blip...the result of a once in a lifetime collision of the two worst political candidates in modern American history.


----------



## troy2000 (Apr 7, 2013)

ianjoub said:


> Obviously I disagree. Russia has been paying down its national debt and is going back to gold based currency.
> 
> https://www.rt.com/business/412546-china-russia-gold-standard-dollar/


Umm... do you not know that rt.com (formerly Russia Today) is a propaganda outlet financed by the Russian government, or do you just not care? Quoting them as a legitimate and reliable source of news is almost a sick joke...


> United Kingdom media regulator, Ofcom, has repeatedly found RT to have breached rules on impartiality and of broadcasting "materially misleading" content. On 13 November 2017, RT America officially registered as a "foreign agent" with the United States Department of Justice under the Foreign Agents Registration Act.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT_(TV_network


Reality check, in the form of a quote from former federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke:


> "The gold standard would not be feasible for both practical reasons and policy reasons. On the practical side there's just not enough gold to meet the needs of a worldwide gold standard. But more fundamentally than that, the world has changed&#8230;In a modern world, the commitment to the gold standard would mean that we are swearing that under no circumstances, no matter how bad unemployment gets, are we going to do anything about it using monetary policy."


There's no way the supply of gold could possibly keep up with modern increases in the production of goods and services (can we say "deflation," boys and girls? I knew you could...) - and those are the true creators and measures of wealth. Going back to a gold standard would strangle the money available for economic growth.

There's also the inconvenient fact that the Ruble is already heavily linked to the price of oil. Linking it to a publically-traded precious metal on top of that is hardly the way to stabilize it...


----------



## troy2000 (Apr 7, 2013)

ianjoub said:


> Yes, at least paying bribes is a relatively straight forward experience. Here, our version is a combination of selective taxation and outright harassment and attacks from bureaucracy who are completely unaccountable to the people they are supposed to _serve_.


So you would prefer a blatantly corrupt government, where nothing gets done without bribing the right people? And where guessing wrong about who you should bribe can totally backfire on you?

Tell you what: here's a rundown on emigrating to Russia. Please don't let us stand between you and the nearest Russian Embassy...

What Are Russia's Immigration Laws? | USA Today


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

amwbox said:


> Please remember: that moron is temporary, unpopular, and in office against the wishes of the American people. After he's gone, the rest of us will still be here. I'm honestly hoping this was simply a blip...the result of a once in a lifetime collision of the two worst political candidates in modern American history.


You may not like him, but he's far from a moron, with an IQ second only to Jimmy Carter among Presidents in recent history. We can debate whether high intelligence is necessarily the most important characteristic for a President, but you can't credibly say he's unintelligent.

All US Presidents are temporary so you're right there.

Recent polls show that his popularity is higher than Obama's was at this stage of his first term so he's not particularly "unpopular" unless you think Obama was as well. He's unpopular on CNN and MSNBC and in the rest of the mainstream media, but among the American people, he's much more popular than you'd prefer to admit, just as he was on election day when all those entities were reporting that Hillary was a shoo-in to win. When will you catch on that they aren't quite telling you the truth about a lot of things?

He was elected by the American people via our well established system of electing political leaders. You can point out that he didn't get more than 50% of Americans votes or even 50% of the votes of those who chose to vote, but neither of those is a requirement to become US President. He got more votes in the right places in the primaries and then in the general election than anyone else so won the electoral college vote and that is how you become the POTUS, despite how you happen to think it should be done. He, and his campaign studied what it would take to win and then set out to accomplish that while his opponent set out to win the popular vote, apparently forgetting that's not the determining factor for who becomes President. If you want to become a chess champion, study the rules of chess, not checkers, and I think it's important that we have a President who's at least intelligent enough to understand that.

I always thought he was an obnoxious, self promoting, New Yorker when he was on his reality show and I never purposely watched it, but like a lot of other Americans, I voted for him because he was easily the least bad option on the ballot and think he's done a very good job at accomplishing a lot of things that needed doing but that the PC mainstream media absolutely hates and middle America loves. I'd prefer that he conduct himself with a little more class, but on the other hand, his "no filter" way of speaking what's on his mind is a refreshing change from the oily smooth, PC, teleprompter readers we have become accustomed to.

Eventually, you'll get your wish and the political pendulum will swing back the other way, and when that happens just as when I was horrified by Obama being President, I won't be cluttering up sailing forums with rants about what a "moron" our President is. Just as when Obama was President, I'll hardly mention him at all.


----------



## outbound (Dec 3, 2012)

US was one of the countries were the rule of law applied. Unfortunately due to the actions of the current administration this no longer is true. Using family members who have obvious conflicts of interest due to their business interests in the administration is in direct violation of the law. Failure to uphold prior directives as imposed by law passed by Congress but rather circumvent them by fiat is another example. 
The problem is both parties have lost all credibility. One by creating a situation were gaming the system is more productive to the individual then being an honest hard working person(Democrats) and the other by having no moral center. Republicans were at one time concerned about the burgeoning national debt now doubled it well beyond what the liberals did. Republicans once stood against the devaluation of honest work and personal responsibility by the left. Now have no problem with the 1%ers gaming the system while allowing the modest controls Warren and her crowd placed on the rip off artists in the banking industry to be lifted.
I was a prior member of SDS during my Columbia days. Now vote libertarian as they seem to be the only ones who follow the Ten Commandments. 
In the past American political parties came and went. Have kids in their thirties. They aren’t stupid. I can only hope instead of becoming disengaged a viable third party movement takes hold.


----------



## RobGallagher (Aug 22, 2001)

jtsailjt said:


> You may not like him, but he's far from a moron, with an IQ second only to Jimmy Carter among Presidents in recent history. We can debate whether high intelligence is necessarily the most important characteristic for a President, but you can't credibly say he's unintelligent.
> 
> All US Presidents are temporary so you're right there.
> 
> ...


Now that there is a rant. If you are going to rant, make it a good one, and be sure to point out that you won't rant. :devil


----------



## curtis742 (Jan 26, 2016)

Outbound, you seem a bit confused, you seem to forget Obama ruled by decree circumventing the rule of law constantly, The Clintons were taking bribes for government favor via the Clinton Foundation, Bill gave the China the computer technology (read treason) that allowed them to become the superpower they are today.
Need I mention fast and furious? Obmama constantly issued executive orders on almost a daily basis to circumvent congress. Oh , and all the bailouts for the big wheels who were "too big to fail". The Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama administration destroyed the middle east. We had troops protecting poppy fields, ISIS is the military branch of the CIA, The CIA and FBI are fronts for drug smuggling.
It would appear the Democratic Socialist Party lost due to underestimating the number of ballot boxes to stuff and the number of voters to buss around voting more than once and out of their precincts. The propaganda networks are doing their lob repeating garbage constantly until the masses accept it as truth. 
In my limited 60 years my observations are, The government (all politicians) is for sale to the highest bidder (lobbyists), They are all corrupt and only act in their own self interest (there is a reason they all come out wealthy), there is only one party ( though they use the two party illusion to distract and divide the population so their criminal activities go unnoticed ), no matter which "party" is elected the course remains the same, the people only get to vote for those the establishment has chosen. The two parties, one communist the other capitalist, is an illusion of smoke and mirrors as they are all criminals looking to stuff their pockets with taxpayer dollars at the same time taking bribes from corporations ( their uber wealthy associates), The one world government movement is merely a scheme to allow the corporations to trade world wide,
free from import taxes and move their wealth freely around the world, and the general population is dumber than a sack of rocks. Government officials steal with impunity because their associates will never allow them to be prosecuted for their crimes, when caught they simply resign their position and keep all they have stolen. No one in DC goes to prison. Criminals will not prosecute other criminals,
its their code, their club, and as George Carlin so cleverly stated "and you ain't in it" People hate presidents because they are told to hate the president and blindly follow the mantra of the day, No one thinks for themselves anymore they simply think what they are manipulated into thinking as a distraction so no one will not notice what is really going on in their government and how the officials who we were duped into electing are robbing us blind. As soon as a significant number began to notice, like magic, we have electronic voting machines ( kiss the value of your vote good bye) making recounts impossible and voter fraud rampant. No proof , no crime, no punishment. With the advent of common core and no child left behind there is little hope for any change or resolution. Repeating my previous statement , the general population is just plain too stupid and ignorant by design to govern themselves.


----------



## Bleemus (Oct 13, 2015)

Well we now know what "news" station he watches.


----------



## RobGallagher (Aug 22, 2001)

This thread has gone far off the rails. Time to shut it down.


----------



## cdy (Nov 10, 2013)

nothing will kill a forum faster than injecting US politics into it - plenty of other places to argue it - hate to see it become normal here -


----------



## MastUndSchotbruch (Nov 26, 2010)

jtsailjt said:


> You may not like him, but he's far from a moron, with an IQ second only to Jimmy Carter among Presidents in recent history.


Ehm, no.

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trumps-intelligence-quotient/


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

MastUndSchotbruch said:


> Ehm, no.
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trumps-intelligence-quotient/


I'd never seen the chart that this article disagrees with, where they have both Clinton and Trump above Carter on the intelligence scale. The thing I had read was that Carters IQ was highest, followed by Trump, then either Clinton or Obama (can't remember which was higher), with both Bushes beneath all of them. We can quibble about which of the 4 were the smartest, depending on which story you want to believe, but the point is that they are all extremely bright people, in the top percent or two of all people, very, very far from being "morons," but that doesn't stop folks who aren't even in the same ballpark of intelligence OR accomplishment from talking about them as if they are MUCH smarter than the President whose views they happen to disagree with. I have to wonder if the people who indulge in this actually think they are smarter than the President they are ranting about or if they really recognize that their own intelligence is probably quite a lot less than the Presidents is and they are just calling him a moron because they hope to cover up the fact that they lack the intelligence to put forth a persuasive argument to refute what the supposed "moron" is doing.


----------



## troy2000 (Apr 7, 2013)

jtsailjt said:


> You may not like him, but he's far from a moron, with an IQ second only to Jimmy Carter among Presidents in recent history. We can debate whether high intelligence is necessarily the most important characteristic for a President, but you can't credibly say he's unintelligent.
> 
> All US Presidents are temporary so you're right there.
> 
> ...


You should vet your sources a little better. The claim that Trump has an IQ of 156 is another of those 'alternative facts' so beloved in the Trumpverse... 

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trumps-intelligence-quotient/


----------



## jtsailjt (Aug 1, 2013)

troy2000 said:


> You should vet your sources a little better. The claim that Trump has an IQ of 156 is another of those 'alternative facts' so beloved in the Trumpverse...
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trumps-intelligence-quotient/


And you should work on your reading comprehension because I didn't claim his IQ was 156 or any other number, just higher than other recent Presidents except for Carter. That's what I read somewhere recently but of course neither you nor I nor Snopes can call them all in to take a test to definitively prove which of them is the smartest one. But it's pretty safe to say that none of the top 4 in recent history, Carter, Trump, Clinton, or Obama are "morons" as was being claimed. My problem is that what passes for political discussion is to dismiss those who you disagree with as a "xxxxxx" rather than actually using our brains to attempt to try to clearly explain why those we disagree with are wrong in their thinking about a particular subject. Agree or disagree with them, but calling someone a "moron" is no more of a persuasive argument than it was back in grade school when nobody expected us to know any better.


----------



## Bleemus (Oct 13, 2015)

jtsailjt said:


> And you should work on your reading comprehension because I didn't claim his IQ was 156 or any other number, just higher than other recent Presidents except for Carter. That's what I read somewhere recently but of course neither you nor I nor Snopes can call them all in to take a test to definitively prove which of them is the smartest one. But it's pretty safe to say that none of the top 4 in recent history, Carter, Trump, Clinton, or Obama are "morons" as was being claimed. My problem is that what passes for political discussion is to dismiss those who you disagree with as a "xxxxxx" rather than actually using our brains to attempt to try to clearly explain why those we disagree with are wrong in their thinking about a particular subject. Agree or disagree with them, but calling someone a "moron" is no more of a persuasive argument than it was back in grade school when nobody expected us to know any better.


Ok, we get it. You think Trump is a genius. Please let it go.


----------



## troy2000 (Apr 7, 2013)

jtsailjt said:


> And you should work on your reading comprehension because I didn't claim his IQ was 156 or any other number, just higher than other recent Presidents except for Carter. That's what I read somewhere recently but of course neither you nor I nor Snopes can call them all in to take a test to definitively prove which of them is the smartest one. But it's pretty safe to say that none of the top 4 in recent history, Carter, Trump, Clinton, or Obama are "morons" as was being claimed. My problem is that what passes for political discussion is to dismiss those who you disagree with as a "xxxxxx" rather than actually using our brains to attempt to try to clearly explain why those we disagree with are wrong in their thinking about a particular subject. Agree or disagree with them, but calling someone a "moron" is no more of a persuasive argument than it was back in grade school when nobody expected us to know any better.


You repeated a specific claim that Trump's IQ isn't just high; it's higher than that of any other president in history besides Jimmy Carter. Every reference I can find that says that also specifically says his IQ is 156, so I think it's safe to assume the source you used did also.

You're the one who brought up his IQ to begin with, not me. I do agree he isn't technically a moron - but I think many of the decisions he's made and actions he's taken are incredibly stupid, myopic and counterproductive. They seem to be based on ignorance, irrational assumptions and petty spitefulness. IQ doesn't stand much of a chance against that trio...


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

outbound said:


> i can only hope instead of becoming disengaged a viable third party movement takes hold.


+1


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

ianjoub said:


> Yes, at least paying bribes is a relatively straight forward experience. Here, our version is a combination of selective taxation and outright harassment and attacks from bureaucracy who are completely unaccountable to the people they are supposed to _serve_.


Obviously you have never had to do business in a country where bribes are part of the culture. Straightforward? No way.

Who to pay and who not? Is this guy the one that makes the decision or just a low level nobody with his hand out who will take my money and get nothing done?

Is this guy dragging his feet because he wants a bribe or some other reason? If I offer him a bribe will it solve the problem or get me arrested?

When to pay? How much to pay? Too little and I may piss the guy off and get booted. Too much and I'm giving money away.

Even if I pay the right guy will I get results or just ripped off.

Sure, simple and straightforward.

As for the rest of your post, no comment.


----------



## AJC506 (Nov 3, 2016)

I'm so old I remember when this thread was about anchoring near (but not too near) to rude people. 

Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

jtsailjt said:


> And you should work on your reading comprehension because I didn't claim his IQ was 156 or any other number, just higher than other recent Presidents except for Carter. That's what I read somewhere recently but of course neither you nor I nor Snopes can call them all in to take a test to definitively prove which of them is the smartest one. But it's pretty safe to say that none of the top 4 in recent history, Carter, Trump, Clinton, or Obama are "morons" as was being claimed. My problem is that what passes for political discussion is to dismiss those who you disagree with as a "xxxxxx" rather than actually using our brains to attempt to try to clearly explain why those we disagree with are wrong in their thinking about a particular subject. Agree or disagree with them, but calling someone a "moron" is no more of a persuasive argument than it was back in grade school when nobody expected us to know any better.


Who has the highest IQ may be debatable and I could imagine Trump might test reasonably high on the Wechsler or Stanford-Binet but doesn't mean he has common sense, good judgement or isn't total narcissist.

As far as the best choice in the election, I was far, far from a fan of Hillary Clinton but between her and Trump, no brainer.

His record speaks for itself.

And comparing Trump's approval rating to Obama's is laughable.


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

amwbox said:


> This traitorous celebration of Russia is utterly bizarre. It's a nightmarish hellscape of an oligarchy where a couple dozen people control nearly all the wealth. These people mercilessly pillaged the USSR as is fell, stripping their own countrymen of any sort of social mobility or futures. The place is ruled by an old KGB thug, perhaps the only man on the planet even weaker and skeevier than trump...but who unfortunately for us is about 10 times more intelligent.
> 
> It is exactly the _last _example of anything any sort of decent country should strive for. Total power exercised by a strongly centralized government that was built by one party communists that literally _breathes_ corruption.
> 
> How anyone can find anything remotely admirable about the place and have any sort of respect for core American values at the same time is completely mysterious.


But, but, but.......... Trump likes them.


----------



## troy2000 (Apr 7, 2013)

curtis742 said:


> It would appear the Democratic Socialist Party lost due to underestimating the number of ballot boxes to stuff and the number of voters to buss around voting more than once and out of their precincts. The propaganda networks are doing their lob repeating garbage constantly until the masses accept it as truth.


One of the country's major problems today is the number of people who have been conditioned to regard this sort of happy horse apples as gospel truth, despite a lack of any supporting evidence.

The flip side of the coin is their blind refusal to believe things we have ample evidence for, from climate change to Russians meddling in our election process.

add: by the way, I don't consider the word socialist a pejorative. There are plenty of countries that are socialist to one degree or another - and most of them seem to be doing just fine, thankyouverymuch. Including Sweden, which Trump seems to be so impressed by.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

It's bell curve. There are as many of limited intellect on the low side of IQ curve as above the 'norm' . Gotta hand it to the herd ,At least they recognize a stable genius.


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

troy2000 said:


> One of the country's major problems today is the number of people who have been conditioned to regard this sort of happy horse apples as gospel truth, despite a lack of any supporting evidence.
> 
> The flip side of the coin is their blind refusal to believe things we have ample evidence for, from climate change to Russians meddling in our election process.
> 
> add: by the way, I don't consider the word socialist a pejorative. There are plenty of countries that are socialist to one degree or another - and most of them seem to be doing just fine, thankyouverymuch. Including Sweden, which Trump seems to be so impressed by.


I'd hardly call Sweden (or any other western country) "socialist". Trouble with that word is that much like "liberalism" it's been twisted around for rhetorical convenience to the point where the people ranting about it couldn't correctly define it to save their lives.

I'll call a country socialist when a majority of its production and distribution winds up publicly owned. USSR was socialist. DRPK is socialist. But China...no longer socialist. They are state-sponsored capitalists. And scary good at it. Sweden? Very much a capitalist country. I'd not even think of them as a proper mixed economy. Even their social services and such have been scaled back quite a bit. Norway is another example, where they nationalized most of their oil industry back in the day...but even that has been re-privatized at this point.

The Nordic model results in some exceptionally well run and prosperous countries, so far, but they are still a corporatist system...just with a lot of protections for labor and government mediation. Those economies are absolutely based in private ownership and free markets. Which is exceptionally easy to pull off somewhere like Norway, where you have a total population equivalent to a single American city who get to profit from an ocean of oil and gas.


----------



## midwesterner (Dec 14, 2015)

I've skimmed the past fewe pages of this discussion looking for comments on anchoring etiquette but couldn'tt find any. This is boring.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

amwbox said:


> I'd hardly call Sweden (or any other western country) "socialist". Trouble with that word is that much like "liberalism" it's been twisted around for rhetorical convenience to the point where the people ranting about it couldn't correctly define it to save their lives.
> 
> I'll call a country socialist when a majority of its production and distribution winds up publicly owned. USSR was socialist. DRPK is socialist. But China...no longer socialist. They are state-sponsored capitalists. And scary good at it. Sweden? Very much a capitalist country. I'd not even think of them as a proper mixed economy. Even their social services and such have been scaled back quite a bit. Norway is another example, where they nationalized most of their oil industry back in the day...but even that has been re-privatized at this point.
> 
> The Nordic model results in some exceptionally well run and prosperous countries, so far, but they are still a corporatist system...just with a lot of protections for labor and government mediation. Those economies are absolutely based in private ownership and free markets. Which is exceptionally easy to pull off somewhere like Norway, where you have a total population equivalent to a single American city who get to profit from an ocean of oil and gas.





> so·cial·ism
> ˈsōSHəˌlizəm/
> noun
> noun: socialism
> ...


Our health care is regulated.
Banking is regulated.
The stock market is regulated.
Transportation is regulated.
Mining is regulated.
The auto industry is regulated.
Drugs and pharmacy is regulated.
Energy production is regu;ated.
Education is regulated.
Food production is regulated.
Alcohol is regulated.

Heck, this list would go on forever. Care to give an example of how we are not predominantly socialist?


----------



## skipmac (Oct 31, 2007)

ianjoub said:


> Our health care is regulated.
> Banking is regulated.
> The stock market is regulated.
> Transportation is regulated.
> ...


Regulated - subject to laws to prevent building unsafe cars, banks from ripping off depositors, food producers from using unsafe chemicals and processing techniques, mines from destroying the countryside and polluting what's left, drugs and pharmacy from selling unsafe, untested, dangerous medications, the stock market to prevent (even more that still occurs) insider trading, pump and dump, and a myriad of other scams that screw the "outsider".

Guess what, a huge majority of these "regulations" are in place because the regulated groups took advantage of their situation to get rich at the expense of the people like you (and me and the rest of us).

Go live in a country with no regulations and see how that works out.


----------



## Davy J (Mar 25, 2017)

> Our health care is regulated.
> Banking is regulated.
> The stock market is regulated.
> Transportation is regulated.
> ...


You forgot government regulating what size soda drink we can buy............

*Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.*


----------



## Davy J (Mar 25, 2017)

> I've skimmed the past few pages of this discussion looking for comments on anchoring etiquette but couldn't find any. This is boring.


That's because the OP, who decided to bash the current administration in every post he starts, hasn't made a new comment in here for over a week.

I've asked him to keep politics out of a sailing forum, but, I guess he's distressed and hiding under his upside down flag and keyboard......


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

Campgrounds can be a bit crowded but you don't usually have to worry about your neighbour's trailer blowing downwind in the middle of the night.


----------



## RobGallagher (Aug 22, 2001)

Holy ****e has this gone fooking trumpet gonzo. Obama was a Muslim isis spy communist but oh don't say a bad word about captain grabembythepussycat who has a man crush on Putin so over the homoblanketyblank line that he probably gave him our nuclear codes as well as his netflix password. Let the 12 year olds operate ferm iquipment and roll back mandatory auto insurance 'n seat belt laws cuz I wanna be thrown clear of the catastrophe.

Someone shut this wasteland down before the rising sea levels that are obviously not caused by the gazillions of tons of pollution we gently deposit into our own backyards force us all to live at anchor next to fcktards. Dang Ice age that has been a commin' for right near 100 yrs is all part of gods plan.

Sorry, back to sailing. Dinosaurs rode on the ark with Noah.

Yes, it's gone off the rails. Shut it down. Please.


----------



## midwesterner (Dec 14, 2015)

Sebastian#2 said:


> midwesterner said:
> 
> 
> > I've skimmed the past fewe pages of this discussion looking for comments on anchoring etiquette but couldn'tt find any. This is boring.
> ...


I'm a tent camper and I remember a while back camping in a state park campground near someone with a camper who ran a rather loud generator all night to power their air conditioning.

Frickin pansey. #That'sNotCamping


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

ianjoub said:


> Our health care is regulated.
> Banking is regulated.
> The stock market is regulated.
> Transportation is regulated.
> ...


So...you ignore the definition and hang your entire belief system on a sentence fragment?

The US is almost entirely capitalist, just like nearly every other western country. Simple fact.

Are you seriously going to declare the Western World socialist because minors can't buy alcohol? Good God, man.

_*Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done*_
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

*noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.*
Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com

Socialism is more or less the opposite number of capitalism. The trouble is that you listen to some _weird_ people that haev been actively seeking for decades to blatantly redefine old terms to suit 21st century political agendas.

Are you seriously positing that you think the Founding Fathers were socialists? That they created a government and constitution designed to empower said government with regulatory powers (because the US is a society, not a loner living in a cave) because...socialism? For crying out loud...socialism as a philosophy didn't even exist when government and regulation were instituted. You're taking something many thousands of years old and trying to apply a bastardized and incorrect misunderstanding of a 19th century philosophy to it.

You know...conservatives used to read. They used to value education and believed in bettering oneself. Wtf _happened_ to you guys? Why does debating you people make me feel like I just punched a guy in a wheelchair?


----------



## SanderO (Jul 12, 2007)

These threads need moderation and OT posts need to be quickly removed. Political discussions for forums not about politics is a sure way to destroy the site and turn off people who participate to discuss SAILING. This site is becoming more like anarchy with sailors posting anything that strikes their fancy.

Very sad actually. The OP which raised "anchoring" etiquette is not too complex an issue. Over 200 posts to say mostly nothing relevant including this post.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

I have yet to encounter a Trump supporter online who can or cares to use their computer to verify any *facts* about Trump or his policies. They all seem to live in a world of *alternative facts* and don't care to hear anything that goes against the con job they were sold.
Come on, how can any intelligent American believe that this president has any competence as a businessman when he failed as a casino operator, even after his daddy illegally dumped vast sums into it, if *nothing* else?
The reason the mainstream media is so against Trump is because he wants to muzzle them, and that goes against *everything* this country was founded upon. They don't need to make up lies, there's plenty of Trump idiocies for them to write about. But of course, no Trump supporter cares about the *real* truth, as their alternative facts suit their needs.
The minute this administration came out with their *alternative facts* scenario, any half way intelligent human being should have tumbled to the reality that they had been sold a bill of goods by a master con man. How else can anyone support this administration?
Anyway, I agree that this thread has wondered far from it's intended point, so I'm outta here. See ya.


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

Capta and SanderO

This thread went off the rails right from the start because Capta pointed out that the other boaters were Canadian, he could have made his point without mentioning that. 
I think that the Canadian participants have been pretty polite, I'm sure that I am not the only one that has a few 'blanket blank American boater' tales but we have not thrown them back.


----------



## aeventyr60 (Jun 29, 2011)

The intellectual discipline of the forum members is a bit of a worry...


----------



## Eder (Sep 21, 2009)

troy2000 said:


> You should vet your sources a little better. The claim that Trump has an IQ of 156 is another of those 'alternative facts' so beloved in the Trumpverse...
> 
> https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trumps-intelligence-quotient/


Lol at using Snopes!!!


----------



## troy2000 (Apr 7, 2013)

Eder said:


> Lol at using Snopes!!!


I'm not sure why you're lol'ing. Maybe because you get your 'facts' from Breightbart and Alex Jones?


----------



## troy2000 (Apr 7, 2013)

paulinnanaimo said:


> Capta and SanderO
> 
> This thread went off the rails right from the start because Capta pointed out that the other boaters were Canadian, he could have made his point without mentioning that.
> I think that the Canadian participants have been pretty polite, I'm sure that I am not the only one that has a few 'blanket blank American boater' tales but we have not thrown them back.


Since they called him an 'effing American,' I'd say their nationality was relevant to his story.


----------



## ScottUK (Aug 16, 2009)

troy2000 said:


> Since they called him an 'effing American,' I'd say their nationality was relevant to his story.


Especially since the OP qualified his statement with Canadians being the "nicest people" and that it was an "exception". Don't understand it but I think someone should eat a Nanaimo bar and let it go.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Nanaimo Bars only come in multiples of three . Fortunately they are low in calories.


----------



## Davy J (Mar 25, 2017)

> Ah well, perhaps he's a Canadian Trump supporter......


Quoted the OP from the second page in this thread. Apparently, the OP hates Trump and Canadians........

Registered User has it right, he can't let it go.........

Oh yeah, at least we don't have hillary.......... or 0bama, or biden............


----------



## troy2000 (Apr 7, 2013)

Capt Len said:


> Nanaimo Bars only come in multiples of three . Fortunately they are low in calories.


Sugar, butter, chocolate, vanilla pudding mix, confectioner's sugar and more butter... are you sure those things are low-cal? I think I gained a couple of pounds just reading the recipes.


----------



## troy2000 (Apr 7, 2013)

Davy J said:


> Quoted the OP from the second page in this thread. Apparently, the OP hates Trump and Canadians........
> 
> Registered User has it right, he can't let it go.........
> 
> Oh yeah, at least we don't have hillary.......... or 0bama, or biden............


I'd take any or all three of them again over Trump.


----------



## Davy J (Mar 25, 2017)

> I'd take any or all three of them again over Trump.


I see you get your talking points from MSNBC, CNN...........


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Troy, trust me. I live in Nanaimo and used to sail a lot . My dog is more dependable than anyone in the white house And I'm not that impressed with some of the politics here in Canada but at least we're not dealing with the NRA and other crazies.. If all the students in America stood up and spit in the same directiion there might be some hope of recovery from a malady that looks like cancer. Eaten from within while the rest of the world development has gone on without you.And the best your leadership can do is ,,, look ,Squirrels


----------



## RegisteredUser (Aug 16, 2010)

We need a 10 yard dumpster brought in to haul out all of the useless/needless political BS in this thread.

And you need to pitch in...to keep the pile/need from growing....


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

paulinnanaimo said:


> Campgrounds can be a bit crowded but you don't usually have to worry about your neighbour's trailer blowing downwind in the middle of the night.


Wow, never been to FL huh?

:lol:

We get T-storms here that will blow all sorts of trailers all over the place.

Point taken though.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

RobGallagher said:


> Holy ****e has this gone fooking trumpet gonzo.
> Yes, it's gone off the rails. Shut it down. Please.


If you don't want to read it, don't read it.

What is problem where you feel the need to control everyone else. "shut it down". Why, because you don't like it? If you don't like it, leave! Why the need to control everyone else? Let me guess, you are 'left leaning'?


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

amwbox said:


> Are you seriously positing that you think the Founding Fathers were socialists? That they created a government and constitution designed to empower said government with regulatory powers (because the US is a society, not a loner living in a cave) because...socialism? For crying out loud...socialism as a philosophy didn't even exist when government and regulation were instituted. You're taking something many thousands of years old and trying to apply a bastardized and incorrect misunderstanding of a 19th century philosophy to it.
> 
> You know...conservatives used to read. They used to value education and believed in bettering oneself. Wtf _happened_ to you guys? Why does debating you people make me feel like I just punched a guy in a wheelchair?


Please no, lets get back to the Constitution as it was written. I am good with that.

As for the definition of socialism: My point was valid. You are trying to bend the definition meet your needs/agenda.


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

capta said:


> I have yet to encounter a Trump supporter online who can or cares to use their computer to verify any *facts* about Trump or his policies. They all seem to live in a world of *alternative facts* and don't care to hear anything that goes against the con job they were sold.
> Come on, how can any intelligent American believe that this president has any competence as a businessman when he failed as a casino operator,
> 
> How did he fail? He is successful. If you are referring to his using the law in his favor, then you have no argument. Change the law! You don't have a problem with a woman murdering a child because it is 15 seconds from being 'born' and that is 'legal'...
> ...


\

Well, less than halfway intelligent and questionably human beings should have tumbled to the reality that they can't even grasp what a 'bill of goods' is. How else could they not support this administration?


----------



## troy2000 (Apr 7, 2013)

Davy J said:


> I see you get your talking points from MSNBC, CNN...........


I'm sorry; that's just lame. 

I don't get 'talking points' from anyone; I gather actual facts and news wherever I find them. You should try it sometime...


----------



## troy2000 (Apr 7, 2013)

ianjoub said:


> ...You don't have a problem with a woman murdering a child because it is 15 seconds from being 'born' and that is 'legal'...
> 
> ...I want to be left alone. You want to tell everyone what to do all the time.


Look! *Two* squirrels...


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

troy2000 said:


> Look! *Two* squirrels...


Are they both burrowing into your ....


----------



## ianjoub (Aug 3, 2014)

> Quote:
> Originally Posted by Capt Len View Post
> Troy, trust me. I live in Nanaimo and used to sail a lot . My dog is more dependable than anyone in the white house at least we're not dealing with the NRA and other crazies.. Eaten from within while the rest of the world development has gone on without you.And the best your leadership can do is ,,, look ,Squirrels


Yes, the rest of the sheep (oh, excuse me, world) has been duped. The Supreme Court has determined that the government has no obligation to protect you. We have determined that we have the God given right to protect ourselves. The Constitution of The United States of America was instituted to protect the God given rights of our citizens.

You may call us NRA crazies. We will watch you die by the guns you only let your executors own.
Last month, cops were all killers. This month, only cops and soldiers should have guns. Really, do you even hear what you say?


----------



## troy2000 (Apr 7, 2013)

ianjoub said:


> Are they both burrowing into your ....


Pillow biters, squirrels burrowing into unmentionable places... Seems your mind likes to wander the paths less traveled by. But hey, who am I to judge?


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

ianjoub said:


> Please no, lets get back to the Constitution as it was written. I am good with that.


Yeah. That's what I'm talking about. You know...you can just read the thing anytime you want to. The Constitution is the legal basis for the government, it's regulatory, legislative, judicial, enforcement, and military authority. And it has been quite literally since day one. We've edited out some of the nastier bits about owning other human beings and treating women and minorities like livestock. Oh, and we tried to get rid of the booze, but that didn't work out very well. It's _government for a civilization of people_. Not some bizarro cave dweller fantasy.



> As for the definition of socialism: My point was valid. You are trying to bend the definition meet your needs/agenda.


No. I simply pasted in the definition of the term exactly as it is. Here, I'll show you again:

_*Definition of socialism
1 : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
2 a : a system of society or group living in which there is no private property
b : a system or condition of society in which the means of production are owned and controlled by the state
3 : a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done*_
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/socialism

*noun
1.
a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.
2.
procedure or practice in accordance with this theory.
3.
(in Marxist theory) the stage following capitalism in the transition of a society to communism, characterized by the imperfect implementation of collectivist principles.*
Socialism | Define Socialism at Dictionary.com

Socialism is more or less the opposite number of capitalism. The trouble is that you listen to some _weird_ people that haev been actively seeking for decades to blatantly redefine old terms to suit 21st century political agendas.

Anything else?

You are literally trying to redefine terms to suit yourself. Try cracking a book instead. Socialism came about as a rejection of capitalism. The entire basis of the philosophy is a reaction to the 19th-century inequalities of wealth brought about during the industrial revolution. You know, basic world history? The Proletariat and the Bourgeoisie? Marx and Engels? The Paris Commune? The fall of the Tzar? Lenin? The October Revolution? The USSR?

Any of that ringing a bell? At all? You seriously still claiming that a hardcore capitalist country like the US is awash in socialism because there's a sped limit on the freeway and factories are no longer allowed to chain children to the machinery?


----------



## amwbox (Aug 22, 2015)

ScottUK said:


> Especially since the OP qualified his statement with Canadians being the "nicest people" and that it was an "exception". Don't understand it but I think someone should eat a Nanaimo bar and let it go.


Stereotypes are seriously bad news. My inlaws are Canadian. They aren't very nice. 

People are just people. All those lines we've drawn on the maps? They aren't real. They're made up. Making assumptions about someone on the basis of those lines is like believing a blue crayon is actually red because someone wrote the word "red" on it.


----------



## Capt Len (Oct 9, 2011)

Capt. Len: with all due respect sir, any body who sezs "trust me" is the last person to be trusted ...trust me I know. If your dog was in the white house, it could talk to Hilary if she were elected ( arf, arf, arf ) but she was not! The NRA may be full of crazies , but they stand between u and the real crazies. I know many of the left that support their right to arm bears. That's why even the leftist don't take any real action. I may be wrong, but I'm starting to belive (from the posts I read here) Many Canadians look at us as a backward nation...I guess that may be cause in your standing in our shadow, you only see our backside! thats the best side we offer to you. If u really are intrested in changing our country, I suggest you stand in line and apply for citizanship...if u are worthy u can vote to change our system.....untill then , take a flying trapeez....we Americans are the nicest people on Earth... trust me..I know Jeess Number two Something is gang aglee in your logic chip. Surley you recognized my tongue in cheekness re 'trust me' I'm beginning to think that maybe if we were in the same room you wouldn't find me very pleasant company either. Wait a sec , you're saying that you need guns blessed by god and the NRA to protect citizens from crazies in the NRA?? How cool is that? The truth might set you free yet I don't recall ever saying I wanted you to change and that I would or could do anything to facilite cleaning up your mess., criticism not withstanding AS for your backside .let's keep it that way


----------



## ScottUK (Aug 16, 2009)

amwbox said:


> Stereotypes are seriously bad news. My inlaws are Canadian. They aren't very nice.


Since my last post was on the therapeutic value of the local fare, I would suggest a bowl of oyster stew from Dan and Louis' considering the season.

Bon Appetit


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

paulinnanaimo said:


> Capta and SanderO
> 
> This thread went off the rails right from the start because Capta pointed out that the other boaters were Canadian, he could have made his point without mentioning that.
> I think that the Canadian participants have been pretty polite, I'm sure that I am not the only one that has a few 'blanket blank American boater' tales but we have not thrown them back.


I guess you completely missed the point of this post. There would have been nothing to post about had the guy not been Canadian! I can't think of any other time I've run across such a *pointlessly* rude Canadian. Americans are known for their "lack of tact', but at the worst, I've encountered humorless Canadians, like the border officer when crossing into Canada on my way to Alaska. She asked why I was coming to Canada and I replied, "Because there is no bridge to Alaska." I thought it was funny, as have many others I've told the story to, but she was not amused. Oh well, her loss.
So please, don't cop an attitude over a post you so obviously missed the point of.


----------



## boatpoker (Jul 21, 2008)

capta said:


> I guess you completely missed the point of this post. There would have been nothing to post about had the guy not been Canadian! I can't think of any other time I've run across such a *pointlessly* rude Canadian. Americans are known for their "lack of tact', but at the worst, I've encountered humorless Canadians, like the border officer when crossing into Canada on my way to Alaska. She asked why I was coming to Canada and I replied, "Because there is no bridge to Alaska." I thought it was funny, as have many others I've told the story to, but she was not amused. Oh well, her loss.
> So please, don't cop an attitude over a post you so obviously missed the point of.


I don't judge Americans by their politicians or their illiterate, power hungry CPB thugs and I hope you don't judge Canadians by ours either.


----------



## capta (Jun 27, 2011)

boatpoker said:


> I don't judge Americans by their politicians or their illiterate, power hungry CPB thugs and I hope you don't judge Canadians by ours either.


I try very hard not to judge anyone. As for the CPB lady, I didn't feel she was representative of any Canadians I'd met. As a matter of fact the Canadian lock tenders on the St. Lawrence Seaway set the whole tone of our visit to Canada. They were most gracious, friendly and helpful, unlike the American lock tenders who were exactly the opposite, leaving us feeling like we were disturbing them by using the locks.
As I said, it was such a strange experience *because* he was Canadian.


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

Capta

And so I will apologize once more. I thought your original post was a rant against other anchored sailors who treated you poorly, I did not realize that their being Canadian was the essence of the story...I guess we Canadians should be proud of the fact that you were so surprized by their behaviour.


----------



## troy2000 (Apr 7, 2013)

paulinnanaimo said:


> Capta
> 
> And so I will apologize once more. I thought your original post was a rant against other anchored sailors who treated you poorly, I did not realize that their being Canadian was the essence of the story... I guess we Canadians should be proud of the fact that you were so surprized by their behaviour.


Is it just me, or does that strike anyone else as a bit of a left-handed apology? 

It seemed to me the fact that the jerks Capta encountered turned out to be Canadians was a bit of an ironic sidebar, rather than being the 'essence' of his story.

We get a lot of Canadian snow birds in the SoCal Inland Empire, and most of them are easy to get along with. Of course, I've never anchored next to one...


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

It was intended as a very straight forward and genuine apology, please just take it as that.


----------



## paulinnanaimo (Dec 3, 2016)

I give up.


----------



## RobGallagher (Aug 22, 2001)

ianjoub said:


> If you don't want to read it, don't read it.
> 
> What is problem where you feel the need to control everyone else. "shut it down". Why, because you don't like it? If you don't like it, leave! Why the need to control everyone else? Let me guess, you are 'left leaning'?


Exactly, don't like what I have to say and can't really defend your shallow talk, don't read it, follow your own advice. Another hypocrite hiding behind the imaginary god's will.

I say shut it down because the inevitable spiral to the sewer of politics and religion in sailing related forums never ends well.

ew ew look at me, I have rights. Start paying the bandwidth here and you have freedom of speech. Better yet, get off the grid. Otherwise bow down to the evil moderators of sailnet.com


----------



## troy2000 (Apr 7, 2013)

paulinnanaimo said:


> It was intended as a very straight forward and genuine apology, please just take it as that.


Good enough; sorry I doubted you.


----------

