Chef Jim Posted June 16, 2012 Share Posted June 16, 2012 Every once in a while I will get a sailor or powerboat registered to the West Coast... Not often though... Probably a handful of sailors in the 20+ years here, more powerboats. They all act the same, even in tight areas while under motor... They won't move until the very last second... Usually looping around and around like just being there is a chore... It isn't like a 6 or 7 foot draft is a worry in a 450 foot wide 10' deep channel... They act like douches in that they make it seem like they can't manuever well... Like their 50 foot vessel is some 800' long x 110' wide tow pushing 17,000 tons... I always assumed they were trailed (especially the power boats) here, but the biggies... Who knows? Around the Horn? I highly doubt it, not these idiots... Panama canal? Ah maybe? Or else they just have the name on the back, but registrations usually don't lie. So far the farthest registration (displayed on the smaller craft under 40 or so feet) was from Alaska... Had to do a double take when I seen the "AK" on the vessel... Common to see AR (Arkansas)... But AK, I thought WTF! So your only experience with a west coast sailor is how poorly they maneuver through something they have never maneuvered through in the past? Just in case you didn't know we don't have locks here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted June 16, 2012 Author Share Posted June 16, 2012 So your only experience with a west coast sailor is how poorly they maneuver through something they have never maneuvered through in the past? Just in case you didn't know we don't have locks here. So you're all bald and anybody can just walk in your home? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 17, 2012 Share Posted June 17, 2012 So your only experience with a west coast sailor is how poorly they maneuver through something they have never maneuvered through in the past? Just in case you didn't know we don't have locks here. Not one. Plural: Sailors. True, a handful... Still plural enough to make a sound judgement. Again, they are all the same. And yes, there are locks on the west coast. Seattle is the busiest lock in the nation for recreational craft... And a TON of sailors. There is also the Columbia River system. You did say "West Coast." I should give a call to Chittenden (Seattle)... No doubt, they would say the same thing about sailors... BTW, Seattle is most likely the biking douchbaggary capital of the universe too. Link between biking and sailing? You friggan bet! Spandex wearing Nancy's like water too! Anyway... I digress from the fact that they are all the same chuckleheads... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Interesting report in from Pew. http://news.yahoo.com/asians-eclipsing-latinos-immigration-u-report-040436837.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Every once in a while I will get a sailor or powerboat registered to the West Coast... Not often though... Probably a handful of sailors in the 20+ years here, more powerboats. They all act the same, even in tight areas while under motor... They won't move until the very last second... Usually looping around and around like just being there is a chore... It isn't like a 6 or 7 foot draft is a worry in a 450 foot wide 10' deep channel... They act like douches in that they make it seem like they can't manuever well... Like their 50 foot vessel is some 800' long x 110' wide tow pushing 17,000 tons... I always assumed they were trailed (especially the power boats) here, but the biggies... Who knows? Around the Horn? I highly doubt it, not these idiots... Panama canal? Ah maybe? Or else they just have the name on the back, but registrations usually don't lie. So far the farthest registration (displayed on the smaller craft under 40 or so feet) was from Alaska... Had to do a double take when I seen the "AK" on the vessel... Common to see AR (Arkansas)... But AK, I thought WTF! Three feet under the keel is no big deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 19, 2012 Share Posted June 19, 2012 Obama's Immigration Ploy Is Meant To Help Obama, Not The NationTue, Jun 19 2012 By THOMAS SOWELL President Obama's latest political ploy — granting new "rights" out of thin air, by executive order, to illegal immigrants who claim that they were brought into the country when they were children — is all too typical of his short-run approach to the country's long-run problems. Whatever the merits or demerits of the Obama immigration policy, his executive order is good only as long as he remains president, which may be only a matter of months after this year's election. People cannot plan their lives on the basis of laws that can suddenly appear, and then suddenly disappear, in less than a year. To come forward today and claim the protection of the Obama executive order is to declare publicly and officially that your parents entered the country illegally. How that may be viewed by some later administration is anybody's guess. Employers likewise cannot rely on policies that may be here today and gone tomorrow, whether these are temporary tax rates designed to look good at election time or temporary immigration policies that can backfire later if employers get accused of hiring illegal immigrants. Why hire someone, and invest time and money in training them, if you may be forced to fire them before a year has passed? Kicking the can down the road is one of the favorite exercises in Washington. But neither in the economy nor in their personal lives can people make plans and commitments on the basis of government policies that suddenly appear and suddenly disappear. Like so many other Obama ploys, his immigration ploy is not meant to help the country, but to help Obama. This is all about getting the Hispanic vote this November. The principle involved — keeping children from being hurt by actions over which they had no control — is one already advanced by Sen. Marco Rubio, who may well end up as Gov. Romney's vice-presidential running mate. {snip} How do you check someone's claim that he was brought into the country illegally when he was a child? If Obama gets re-elected, it is very unlikely that illegal immigrants will really have to prove anything. The administration can simply choose not to enforce that provision, as so many other immigration laws are unenforced in the Obama administration. If Obama does not get re-elected, then it may not matter anyway, when his executive order can be gone after he is gone. Ultimately, it does not matter what immigration policy this country has, if it cannot control its own borders. Whoever wants to come, and who has the chutzpah, will come. And the fact that they come across the Mexican border does not mean that they are all Mexicans. They can just as easily be terrorists from the Middle East. Only after the border is controlled can any immigration policy matter be seriously considered, and options weighed through the normal constitutional process of congressional hearings, debate and legislation, rather than by presidential short-cuts. Not only is border control fundamental, what is also fundamental is the principle that immigration policy does not exist to accommodate foreigners but to protect Americans — and the American culture that has made this the world's richest, freest and most powerful nation for more than a century. No nation can absorb unlimited numbers of people from another culture without jeopardizing its own culture. Investors Business Daily . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted June 20, 2012 Share Posted June 20, 2012 Three feet under the keel is no big deal? . Not sure what you mean... 2-3 feet is a mile. 3 feet or 30 feet... Still clears.Sure, no big deal... That is a yardstick. Project depth is guaranteed... Especially 2 to 3 feet isn't gonna just magically disappear without somebody noticing right quick the reason/cause. That is what hydrographic survey (and subsequent spoil removal) authorized under numerous harbors and rivers acts passed by Congress (going on well over a 100 years now) is for. Vessels can still stay in the fed channel... It is when they are cruising around in private waters that grounding most likely may occur. Anway... The towing industry routinely pushes above the (standard inland) 9 foot project depth... They shouldn't, but they do... Tonnage is money. They are literally scraping bottom... True, not exactly a sensitive keel structure. How many pleasure craft strike ground while in the fed channel? Gonna be the bigger commercial craft to do it first... That doesn't go unreported... Project depth is bare minimum for all parts of the channel. Not even remotely close to having trouble with the bottom with 2-3 feet guaranteed. The douches act the same way with vertical bridge clearances too! It is mindboggling hard to get simple vertical elevations drilled into their heads. Everybody wants a mile. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 21, 2012 Share Posted June 21, 2012 (edited) Obama Using Hispanics As PatsiesBy Alicia Colon Isn't President Obama a clever one? He ordered a change in policy via executive edict that could allow as many as 800,000 immigrants who came to the United States illegally not only to remain in the country without fear of being deported, but to work legally. Now why would he do that after boasting that his deportation record of illegals was the strongest ever? Perhaps he fears that Mitt Romney will pick Sen. Marco Rubio as his V.P. and Rubio's modified Dream Act is certain to attract Hispanic voters to the GOP. Obama also knows that the immigration issue is a sure fire divider of the Republicans, many of whom unwisely regard amnesty as a reason to stay home in November. I am a conservative who has argued time and again that the Hispanic community is not a monolithic one and it is insulting to those of us with a Hispanic heritage whenever politicians lump as all into one stewpot. Many of us are native born Americans first and our allegiance is to an America we regard as the greatest country in the world. It is exceptional. It is unique and unlike any other because it is made up of all countries. It is a glaring fact that the president doesn't really care about Hispanics other than to view us as a voting bloc and it is vitally important for those Hispanics who are bona fide citizens and eligible to vote to recognize this con job against us. This executive edict is nothing more than an attempt to steal the November election by flooding the voter rolls with ineligible voters. Doesn't anybody recall what the Clinton/Gore campaign did in 1996 with its "Citizen USA" program which one Clinton aide said was meant to, "produce 1 million new citizens before Election Day" that November? {snip} Making it easier for employers to hire illegals at substandard wages is hardly beneficial to Hispanics struggling in this awful economy but if it gets Obama re-elected than it will be worth it, right? Alicia Colon . Edited June 21, 2012 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 NY Times High Court Rejects Part of Arizona Immigration Law WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has struck down key provisions of Arizona's crackdown on immigrants. But the court said Monday that one much-debated part of the law could go forward — the portion requiring police to check the status of someone they suspect is not in the United States legally. Even there, though, the justices said the provision could be subject to additional legal challenges. The decision upholds the "show me your papers" provision for the moment. But it takes the teeth out of it by prohibiting police officers from arresting people on minor immigration charges. Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion for the court that was unanimous on allowing the status check to go forward. The court was divided on striking down the other portions. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 NY Times . So my question is, if illegal immigration is a federal issue, how does a state make the federal gov't enforce the federal laws? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 So my question is, if illegal immigration is a federal issue, how does a state make the federal gov't enforce the federal laws? By not allocating Electoral Votes to Obama Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 So my question is, if illegal immigration is a federal issue, how does a state make the federal gov't enforce the federal laws? Simple: don't enforce any federal laws themselves. Because it's unconstitutional. What, there's a counterfeiting ring operating in our state? Sorry...federal issue. The state police have state laws to enforce, you're on your own. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Despite the "Obama Won" of much of the media's reaction, I don't think it was that straightforward Ask the man on the street what he thinks the Arizona law is about (whether he’s for it or against it) and he’d say the requirement that police check legal status of people they encounter in lawful stops — and that’s the part that was upheld by the Court. The other three provisions that were challenged were preempted by federal law, according to the Court, but could you even name what those parts are? I can't. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Despite the "Obama Won" of much of the media's reaction, I don't think it was that straightforward Ask the man on the street what he thinks the Arizona law is about (whether he’s for it or against it) and he’d say the requirement that police check legal status of people they encounter in lawful stops — and that’s the part that was upheld by the Court. The other three provisions that were challenged were preempted by federal law, according to the Court, but could you even name what those parts are? I can't. . Which is why I want to check the SC decision, and not trust any media report on the matter. That had to be a rather complex decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LeviF Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 (edited) Which is why I want to check the SC decision, and not trust any media report on the matter. That had to be a rather complex decision. It is, based on my quick perusal of the opinion. Whenever you have Roberts and Breyer agreeing on something in a 5-3 decision there has to be some convoluted **** involved. If my speed-reading/scanning is at all accurate, the upheld provision is the one requiring police to "check the papers" of anyone arrested. The other three provisions are struck down for a few reasons, the most glaring being that citizenship and naturalization fall under federal purview exclusively. Edited June 25, 2012 by LeviF91 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 It is, based on my quick perusal of the opinion. Whenever you have Roberts and Breyer agreeing on something in a 5-3 decision there has to be some convoluted **** involved. If my speed-reading/scanning is at all accurate, the upheld provision is the one requiring police to "check the papers" of anyone arrested. The other three provisions are struck down for a few reasons, the most glaring being that citizenship and naturalization fall under federal purview exclusively. So it seems like Congress needs to pass some new laws or update existing ones to ensure that the federal gov't does it's job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 So it seems like Congress needs to pass some new laws or update existing ones to ensure that the federal gov't does it's job? Why bother when Obama can issue an Executive Order anyway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 So it seems like Congress needs to pass some new laws or update existing ones to ensure that the federal gov't does it's job? I'm not being critical of you Joe, but you see how that sentence reads. "Congress has to pass (or update) a few federal laws, to make sure that the government follows its previous laws" a fools errand........ . Perhaps if the Department of Justice and the Attorney General weren't of the mind that they only have to enforce the laws that the agree with.... . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Give the guy a break. He's just trying to get laid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 I'm not being critical of you Joe, but you see how that sentence reads. "Congress has to pass (or update) a few federal laws, to make sure that the government follows its previous laws" a fools errand........ . Perhaps if the Department of Justice and the Attorney General weren't of the mind that they only have to enforce the laws that the agree with.... . Oh, I'm quite aware of the stupidity it took to write that. But outside of more stupidity from Congress, how do you get the federal gov't to do it's job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts