|
begins badly
f you feel like the second quarter began badly, you’d be right. U.S. stocks had their worst April start since 1929, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The S&P 500 index slumped 2.2 percent, a rout exceeded only by its 2.5 percent decline 89 years ago, a prelude to the devastating crash later that year that brought on the Great Depression. (Back then, the index only comprised 90 stocks.) China’s retaliatory trade tariffs combined with President Donald Trump’s criticism of Amazon.com Inc. to send equities into a tailspin Monday. Shares in the online retailer tumbled, encouraging a sell-off in consumer discretionary and technology stocks. The S&P 500 closed below its 200-day moving average -- a key technical support -- and volatility climbed. From Bloomberg News -- Posted with my iPhone 8+. |
begins badly
On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 21:47:02 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote:
f you feel like the second quarter began badly, you’d be right. U.S. stocks had their worst April start since 1929, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The S&P 500 index slumped 2.2 percent, a rout exceeded only by its 2.5 percent decline 89 years ago, a prelude to the devastating crash later that year that brought on the Great Depression. (Back then, the index only comprised 90 stocks.) China’s retaliatory trade tariffs combined with President Donald Trump’s criticism of Amazon.com Inc. to send equities into a tailspin Monday. Shares in the online retailer tumbled, encouraging a sell-off in consumer discretionary and technology stocks. The S&P 500 closed below its 200-day moving average -- a key technical support -- and volatility climbed. From Bloomberg News You really need to watch stocks in the long term but I agree things trump is doing right now is depressing the market. If we do end up working something out with Jina it will pop back up. The market is still overpriced IMHO and I expect a huge correction but what the hell do I know. The reality is where else would all the money go? It is funny that you like to trash the 0.1% and then you are worried about where they are putting their money. I know one thing for sure. The smart day traders made a **** load of money today. |
begins badly
On 4/2/2018 9:47 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
f you feel like the second quarter began badly, you’d be right. U.S. stocks had their worst April start since 1929, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The S&P 500 index slumped 2.2 percent, a rout exceeded only by its 2.5 percent decline 89 years ago, a prelude to the devastating crash later that year that brought on the Great Depression. (Back then, the index only comprised 90 stocks.) China’s retaliatory trade tariffs combined with President Donald Trump’s criticism of Amazon.com Inc. to send equities into a tailspin Monday. Shares in the online retailer tumbled, encouraging a sell-off in consumer discretionary and technology stocks. The S&P 500 closed below its 200-day moving average -- a key technical support -- and volatility climbed. From Bloomberg News Yawn |
begins badly
On 4/3/2018 7:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote: On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 21:47:02 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: f you feel like the second quarter began badly, you’d be right. U.S. stocks had their worst April start since 1929, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The S&P 500 index slumped 2.2 percent, a rout exceeded only by its 2.5 percent decline 89 years ago, a prelude to the devastating crash later that year that brought on the Great Depression. (Back then, the index only comprised 90 stocks.) China’s retaliatory trade tariffs combined with President Donald Trump’s criticism of Amazon.com Inc. to send equities into a tailspin Monday. Shares in the online retailer tumbled, encouraging a sell-off in consumer discretionary and technology stocks. The S&P 500 closed below its 200-day moving average -- a key technical support -- and volatility climbed. From Bloomberg News You really need to watch stocks in the long term but I agree things trump is doing right now is depressing the market. If we do end up working something out with Jina it will pop back up. The market is still overpriced IMHO and I expect a huge correction but what the hell do I know. The reality is where else would all the money go? It is funny that you like to trash the 0.1% and then you are worried about where they are putting their money. I know one thing for sure. The smart day traders made a **** load of money today. It is ironically funny that Trump is the cause of the market “correction.” If it takes a serious drop before the fall elections, Trump will be figuratively tarred and feathered. Following progressive liberal, Trump hating directives, Harry makes sure all his bases are covered with a lot of "ifs". |
begins badly
On 4/3/18 7:18 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 4/3/2018 7:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: wrote: On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 21:47:02 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: f you feel like the second quarter began badly, you’d be right. U.S. stocks had their worst April start since 1929, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The S&P 500 index slumped 2.2 percent, a rout exceeded only by its 2.5 percent decline 89 years ago, a prelude to the devastating crash later that year that brought on the Great Depression. (Back then, the index only comprised 90 stocks.) China’s retaliatory trade tariffs combined with President Donald Trump’s criticism of Amazon.com Inc. to send equities into a tailspin Monday. Shares in the online retailer tumbled, encouraging a sell-off in consumer discretionary and technology stocks. The S&P 500 closed below its 200-day moving average -- a key technical support -- and volatility climbed. *From Bloomberg News You really need to watch stocks in the long term but I agree things trump is doing right now is depressing the market. If we do end up working something out with Jina it will pop back up. The market is still overpriced IMHO and I expect a huge correction but what the hell do I know. The reality is where else would all the money go? It is funny that you like to trash the 0.1% and then you are worried about where they are putting their money. I know one thing for sure. The smart day traders made a **** load of money today. It is ironically funny that Trump is the cause of the market “correction.” If it takes a serious drop before the fall elections, Trump will be figuratively tarred and feathered. Following progressive liberal, Trump hating directives,* Harry makes sure all his bases are covered with a lot of "ifs". I have to give you props for doing such a wonderful job sticking up for the worst POTUS and worst human being to ever occupy the Oval Office. Your boy was in rare form over the Easter holiday, trashing immigrants and blaming the Dems for the failure of progress on DACA, a program he killed, while he was standing next to his immigrant wife*, and using the White House Easter Egg celebration for kids to promote his lunatic political views and plans. * A wife who apparently gamed the system to stay in the USA. |
begins badly
"Mr. Luddite" Wrote in message:
On 4/3/2018 7:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: wrote: On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 21:47:02 -0400, Keyser Sze wrote: f you feel like the second quarter began badly, you?d be right. U.S. stocks had their worst April start since 1929, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The S&P 500 index slumped 2.2 percent, a rout exceeded only by its 2.5 percent decline 89 years ago, a prelude to the devastating crash later that year that brought on the Great Depression. (Back then, the index only comprised 90 stocks.) China?s retaliatory trade tariffs combined with President Donald Trump?s criticism of Amazon.com Inc. to send equities into a tailspin Monday. Shares in the online retailer tumbled, encouraging a sell-off in consumer discretionary and technology stocks. The S&P 500 closed below its 200-day moving average -- a key technical support -- and volatility climbed. From Bloomberg News You really need to watch stocks in the long term but I agree things trump is doing right now is depressing the market. If we do end up working something out with Jina it will pop back up. The market is still overpriced IMHO and I expect a huge correction but what the hell do I know. The reality is where else would all the money go? It is funny that you like to trash the 0.1% and then you are worried about where they are putting their money. I know one thing for sure. The smart day traders made a **** load of money today. It is ironically funny that Trump is the cause of the market ?correction.? If it takes a serious drop before the fall elections, Trump will be figuratively tarred and feathered. Following progressive liberal, Trump hating directives, Harry makes sure all his bases are covered with a lot of "ifs". If only Fat Harry would snap out of his depression he might chanel his energy into scrounging up candidates who could better the DNC position. If only! -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
begins badly
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/3/2018 7:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: wrote: On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 21:47:02 -0400, Keyser Sze wrote: f you feel like the second quarter began badly, you?d be right. U.S. stocks had their worst April start since 1929, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The S&P 500 index slumped 2.2 percent, a rout exceeded only by its 2.5 percent decline 89 years ago, a prelude to the devastating crash later that year that brought on the Great Depression. (Back then, the index only comprised 90 stocks.) China?s retaliatory trade tariffs combined with President Donald Trump?s criticism of Amazon.com Inc. to send equities into a tailspin Monday. Shares in the online retailer tumbled, encouraging a sell-off in consumer discretionary and technology stocks. The S&P 500 closed below its 200-day moving average -- a key technical support -- and volatility climbed. From Bloomberg News You really need to watch stocks in the long term but I agree things trump is doing right now is depressing the market. If we do end up working something out with Jina it will pop back up. The market is still overpriced IMHO and I expect a huge correction but what the hell do I know. The reality is where else would all the money go? It is funny that you like to trash the 0.1% and then you are worried about where they are putting their money. I know one thing for sure. The smart day traders made a **** load of money today. It is ironically funny that Trump is the cause of the market ?correction.? If it takes a serious drop before the fall elections, Trump will be figuratively tarred and feathered. Following progressive liberal, Trump hating directives, Harry makes sure all his bases are covered with a lot of "ifs". ?China?s retaliatory trade tariffs combined with President Donald Trump?s criticism of Amazon.com Inc. to send equities into a tailspin Monday.? Business magazines/outlets aren?t progressively liberal. As I am not a fundamentalist preacher trying to sell predictive bull****, I think the use of the word ?if? is intellectually honest. -- Posted with my iPad Pro IF IF IF IF IF IF . GOTTA LOVE YOUR INTELLECTUAL HONESTY. ( SNICKER SNORT SNERK!) -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
begins badly
Keyser Soze Wrote in message:
On 4/3/18 7:18 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/3/2018 7:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: wrote: On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 21:47:02 -0400, Keyser Sze wrote: f you feel like the second quarter began badly, you?d be right. U.S. stocks had their worst April start since 1929, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The S&P 500 index slumped 2.2 percent, a rout exceeded only by its 2.5 percent decline 89 years ago, a prelude to the devastating crash later that year that brought on the Great Depression. (Back then, the index only comprised 90 stocks.) China?s retaliatory trade tariffs combined with President Donald Trump?s criticism of Amazon.com Inc. to send equities into a tailspin Monday. Shares in the online retailer tumbled, encouraging a sell-off in consumer discretionary and technology stocks. The S&P 500 closed below its 200-day moving average -- a key technical support -- and volatility climbed. From Bloomberg News You really need to watch stocks in the long term but I agree things trump is doing right now is depressing the market. If we do end up working something out with Jina it will pop back up. The market is still overpriced IMHO and I expect a huge correction but what the hell do I know. The reality is where else would all the money go? It is funny that you like to trash the 0.1% and then you are worried about where they are putting their money. I know one thing for sure. The smart day traders made a **** load of money today. It is ironically funny that Trump is the cause of the market ?correction.? If it takes a serious drop before the fall elections, Trump will be figuratively tarred and feathered. Following progressive liberal, Trump hating directives, Harry makes sure all his bases are covered with a lot of "ifs". I have to give you props for doing such a wonderful job sticking up for the worst POTUS and worst human being to ever occupy the Oval Office. Your boy was in rare form over the Easter holiday, trashing immigrants and blaming the Dems for the failure of progress on DACA, a program he killed, while he was standing next to his immigrant wife*, and using the White House Easter Egg celebration for kids to promote his lunatic political views and plans. * A wife who apparently gamed the system to stay in the USA. Gaming the system? Brings to mind the wife of the pecker juice spilling ex president. Or even the most recent ex president. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
begins badly
justan wrote:
Keyser Soze Wrote in message: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 4/3/2018 7:08 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: wrote: On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 21:47:02 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: f you feel like the second quarter began badly, you?d be right. U.S. stocks had their worst April start since 1929, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The S&P 500 index slumped 2.2 percent, a rout exceeded only by its 2.5 percent decline 89 years ago, a prelude to the devastating crash later that year that brought on the Great Depression. (Back then, the index only comprised 90 stocks.) China?s retaliatory trade tariffs combined with President Donald Trump?s criticism of Amazon.com Inc. to send equities into a tailspin Monday. Shares in the online retailer tumbled, encouraging a sell-off in consumer discretionary and technology stocks. The S&P 500 closed below its 200-day moving average -- a key technical support -- and volatility climbed. From Bloomberg News You really need to watch stocks in the long term but I agree things trump is doing right now is depressing the market. If we do end up working something out with Jina it will pop back up. The market is still overpriced IMHO and I expect a huge correction but what the hell do I know. The reality is where else would all the money go? It is funny that you like to trash the 0.1% and then you are worried about where they are putting their money. I know one thing for sure. The smart day traders made a **** load of money today. It is ironically funny that Trump is the cause of the market ?correction.? If it takes a serious drop before the fall elections, Trump will be figuratively tarred and feathered. Following progressive liberal, Trump hating directives, Harry makes sure all his bases are covered with a lot of "ifs". ?China?s retaliatory trade tariffs combined with President Donald Trump?s criticism of Amazon.com Inc. to send equities into a tailspin Monday.? Business magazines/outlets aren?t progressively liberal. As I am not a fundamentalist preacher trying to sell predictive bull****, I think the use of the word ?if? is intellectually honest. -- Posted with my iPad Pro IF IF IF IF IF IF . GOTTA LOVE YOUR INTELLECTUAL HONESTY. ( SNICKER SNORT SNERK!) IF Harry paid his taxes there would not be IRS liens. IF he understood economics Harry would not have two bankruptcy proceedings. IF he paid the bank for his loans to buy a shack in Florida, he would not have lost the house. IF, IF, IF, IF. IF we had elected Hillary we would have had the biggest criminal ever as President. And probably be really close to WW3. |
begins badly
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 13:07:27 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
especially since the number of those dark-skinned Latinos hates crossing the border is way, way down. Most of the reason illegal immigration is dropping is job opportunity is lower. Stricter enforcement of the law has pretty much relegated illegals to standing in front of Home Depot looking for day labor or selling oranges by the side of the road. Regular employers are not going to hire a full time person who will get them in trouble with the IRS. You can still get papers that will get you through E-verify but I hear the price has doubled. If they are paying taxes and working, they can stay as far as I am concerned. |
begins badly
Keyser Soze
- show quoted text - There's a difference between the U.S. military and the National Guard.. ,,,, Really? My great uncle was in the Pennsylvania national guard and fought in Belgium during WW1. I had two cousins in the Illinois national guard called to Vietnam . You amaze me, Harry. Hahahahaha! |
begins badly
Tim Wrote in message:
Keyser Soze - show quoted text - There's a difference between the U.S. military and the National Guard.. ,,,, Really? My great uncle was in the Pennsylvania national guard and fought in Belgium during WW1. I had two cousins in the Illinois national guard called to Vietnam . You amaze me, Harry. Hahahahaha! Fat Harry's ignorance isn't amazing, it's pathetic. Fat Harry doesn't know tbat the National Guard is the oldest US military service. I'd be surprised if any of Fat Harry's ancestors served in the US military. -- x ----Android NewsGroup Reader---- http://usenet.sinaapp.com/ |
begins badly
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:55:59 -0700 (PDT), Tim
wrote: Keyser Soze - show quoted text - There's a difference between the U.S. military and the National Guard.. ,,,, Really? My great uncle was in the Pennsylvania national guard and fought in Belgium during WW1. I had two cousins in the Illinois national guard called to Vietnam . You amaze me, Harry. Hahahahaha! The most significant difference is the National Guard works for the governor of that state not the POTUS, unless that unit gets called up. It is a clever work around to Posse Comitatus. As long as they work for the governor, they can be used for local law enforcement. When Eisenhower nationalized the ANG and sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce the civil rights laws, it was unconstitutional. Fortunately the cause was seen as noble enough that nobody called him on it. These days somebody would be demanding that he be impeached. |
begins badly
3:11 PMjustan Tim Wrote in message: - show quoted text - Fat Harry's ignorance isn't amazing, it's pathetic. Fat Harry doesn't know that the National Guard is the oldest US military service. I'd be surprised if any of Fat Harry's ancestors served in the US military. - show quoted text - ::: Actually We ought to give him the benefit of the doubt, he should know especially with all his service experience etc. |
begins badly
|
begins badly
On 4/3/18 3:55 PM, Tim wrote:
Keyser Soze - show quoted text - There's a difference between the U.S. military and the National Guard.. ,,,, Really? My great uncle was in the Pennsylvania national guard and fought in Belgium during WW1. I had two cousins in the Illinois national guard called to Vietnam . You amaze me, Harry. Hahahahaha! Oh, were those relatives fighting as an ordinary police unit or to pursue ordinary domestic policies within the United States? No? Well, there are restrictions on the U.S. Army or Air Force doing that, but the Guard, which is under the direction of a governor, can engage in such activities in their home or neighboring states. You see, Tim, there *is* a difference between the U.S. military and the national guard. A national guard unit can be activated for border patrol or for other activities along a border, such as fence building, but I think the restrictions in the Insurrection Act prevent the Army from doing that. There were a few years when such was possible, but that authority was taken away. |
begins badly
On 4/3/18 4:20 PM, Tim wrote:
3:11 PMjustan Tim Wrote in message: - show quoted text - Fat Harry's ignorance isn't amazing, it's pathetic. Fat Harry doesn't know that the National Guard is the oldest US military service. I'd be surprised if any of Fat Harry's ancestors served in the US military. - show quoted text - ::: Actually We ought to give him the benefit of the doubt, he should know especially with all his service experience etc. You're not really any brighter than justan. |
begins badly
On 4/3/18 4:11 PM, justan wrote:
Tim Wrote in message: Keyser Soze - show quoted text - There's a difference between the U.S. military and the National Guard.. ,,,, Really? My great uncle was in the Pennsylvania national guard and fought in Belgium during WW1. I had two cousins in the Illinois national guard called to Vietnam . You amaze me, Harry. Hahahahaha! Fat Harry's ignorance isn't amazing, it's pathetic. Fat Harry doesn't know tbat the National Guard is the oldest US military service. I'd be surprised if any of Fat Harry's ancestors served in the US military. That has NOTHING to do with this discussion, ****-for-brains. |
begins badly
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 18:07:06 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/3/18 3:55 PM, Tim wrote: Keyser Soze - show quoted text - There's a difference between the U.S. military and the National Guard.. ,,,, Really? My great uncle was in the Pennsylvania national guard and fought in Belgium during WW1. I had two cousins in the Illinois national guard called to Vietnam . You amaze me, Harry. Hahahahaha! Oh, were those relatives fighting as an ordinary police unit or to pursue ordinary domestic policies within the United States? No? Well, there are restrictions on the U.S. Army or Air Force doing that, but the Guard, which is under the direction of a governor, can engage in such activities in their home or neighboring states. You see, Tim, there *is* a difference between the U.S. military and the national guard. A national guard unit can be activated for border patrol or for other activities along a border, such as fence building, but I think the restrictions in the Insurrection Act prevent the Army from doing that. There were a few years when such was possible, but that authority was taken away. === 'Airree Krauts, born again military expert. How funny. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
begins badly
Keyser Soze wrote:
wrote: On Mon, 2 Apr 2018 21:47:02 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: f you feel like the second quarter began badly, you’d be right. U.S. stocks had their worst April start since 1929, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The S&P 500 index slumped 2.2 percent, a rout exceeded only by its 2.5 percent decline 89 years ago, a prelude to the devastating crash later that year that brought on the Great Depression. (Back then, the index only comprised 90 stocks.) China’s retaliatory trade tariffs combined with President Donald Trump’s criticism of Amazon.com Inc. to send equities into a tailspin Monday. Shares in the online retailer tumbled, encouraging a sell-off in consumer discretionary and technology stocks. The S&P 500 closed below its 200-day moving average -- a key technical support -- and volatility climbed. From Bloomberg News You really need to watch stocks in the long term but I agree things trump is doing right now is depressing the market. If we do end up working something out with Jina it will pop back up. The market is still overpriced IMHO and I expect a huge correction but what the hell do I know. The reality is where else would all the money go? It is funny that you like to trash the 0.1% and then you are worried about where they are putting their money. I know one thing for sure. The smart day traders made a **** load of money today. It is ironically funny that Trump is the cause of the market “correction.” If it takes a serious drop before the fall elections, Trump will be figuratively tarred and feathered. We haven't seen a "correction". This is from your friends at CNN: http://money.cnn.com/2018/02/06/news...ner/index.html |
begins badly
5:08 PMKeyser Soze On 4/3/18 4:20 PM, Tim wrote: 3:11 PMjustan Tim Wrote in message: - show quoted text - Fat Harry's ignorance isn't amazing, it's pathetic. Fat Harry doesn't know that the National Guard is the oldest US military service. I'd be surprised if any of Fat Harry's ancestors served in the US military. - show quoted text - ::: Actually We ought to give him the benefit of the doubt, he should know especially with all his service experience etc. You're not really any brighter than justan ..... Tell us again how you sweated the jungles if SE Asia toting body bags while directly reporting to a US General |
begins badly
On 4/3/18 7:55 PM, Tim wrote:
5:08 PMKeyser Soze On 4/3/18 4:20 PM, Tim wrote: 3:11 PMjustan Tim Wrote in message: - show quoted text - Fat Harry's ignorance isn't amazing, it's pathetic. Fat Harry doesn't know that the National Guard is the oldest US military service. I'd be surprised if any of Fat Harry's ancestors served in the US military. - show quoted text - ::: Actually We ought to give him the benefit of the doubt, he should know especially with all his service experience etc. You're not really any brighter than justan .... Tell us again how you sweated the jungles if SE Asia toting body bags while directly reporting to a US General Since I never said that, there's no reason to tell you again, dummy. |
begins badly
Keyser Soze
On 4/3/18 3:55 PM, Tim wrote: Keyser Soze - show quoted text - There's a difference between the U.S. military and the National Guard.. ,,,, Really? My great uncle was in the Pennsylvania national guard and fought in Belgium during WW1. I had two cousins in the Illinois national guard called to Vietnam . You amaze me, Harry. Hahahahaha! Oh, were those relatives fighting as an ordinary police unit or to pursue ordinary domestic policies within the United States? No? Well, ::: Ever hear of the AEF? why don’t you dig up ol Pershing and ask him what the “Keystones “ were doing ‘over there’ As for Vietnam, you mean get read up on the Illinois national guard in the 126th Quartermaster units. Nah, that won’t happen. |
begins badly
Keyser Soze
- show quoted text - Since I never said that, there's no reason to tell you again, dummy. ..... I’m sure there’s plenty here who would dispute that, foo’ |
begins badly
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/3/18 4:11 PM, justan wrote: Tim Wrote in message: Keyser Soze - show quoted text - There's a difference between the U.S. military and the National Guard.. ,,,, Really? My great uncle was in the Pennsylvania national guard and fought in Belgium during WW1. I had two cousins in the Illinois national guard called to Vietnam . You amaze me, Harry. Hahahahaha! Fat Harry's ignorance isn't amazing, it's pathetic. Fat Harry doesn't know tbat the National Guard is the oldest US military service. I'd be surprised if any of Fat Harry's ancestors served in the US military. That has NOTHING to do with this discussion, ****-for-brains. Well, you bring up **** not related in anyway to a discussion. So I guess it is acceptable. Or do you need advanced writing degrees to enable that function? |
begins badly
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:33:27 -0400, wrote:
they can board and search vessels at sea without a warrant and that extends into just about anywhere they have jurisdiction. You see that in action here when they will put some junior enlisted coastie on the sheriff's boat during those enhanced enforcement weekends so they do not have to deal with niceties if they want to look over your boat. They just send the CG guy on board to look around. The CG does have the power to immediately seize your boat if there are drugs on board, in any quantity. I often wonder if that has ever been tested in court if they are inside the COLREGS line. I know offshore guides are pretty adamant with a "no drugs on my boat" rule. === Small quantities of drugs inside the COLREGS line would probably be referred to local law enforcement similar to how suspected firearms violations are handled. --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
begins badly
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 23:13:24 -0400,
wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:33:27 -0400, wrote: they can board and search vessels at sea without a warrant and that extends into just about anywhere they have jurisdiction. You see that in action here when they will put some junior enlisted coastie on the sheriff's boat during those enhanced enforcement weekends so they do not have to deal with niceties if they want to look over your boat. They just send the CG guy on board to look around. The CG does have the power to immediately seize your boat if there are drugs on board, in any quantity. I often wonder if that has ever been tested in court if they are inside the COLREGS line. I know offshore guides are pretty adamant with a "no drugs on my boat" rule. === Small quantities of drugs inside the COLREGS line would probably be referred to local law enforcement similar to how suspected firearms violations are handled. --- I imagine but they do have the coastie on the sheriff boat now and then. Like I said, I wonder how a court would rule if they caught a guy with a joint in the console in the bay and the coastie turned it up on a warrantless search. That is not exactly the "high seas" even if the operator is high. I know motor vehicle law is well tested on the side of the road but I am not sure how that translates to boats. I have never actually heard about people being "boarded" by LEOs unless they had PC they spotted from their boat or they thought the operator was impaired. I know when they stopped me and gave me the DUI test coming past the shrimp boats the sheriff was in his boat and I was in mine. It was no big deal since I was OK but I was interested in the process. He was stopping pretty much everyone. When the FWC guy stopped me in Mullock Creek, he stayed in his boat too. He just had me show him I had no fish in my cooler. I ended up showing him all of my gear but he did that in a way that I did not feel like I was being jacked up. He was actually a very cool cop. It was like "I really like your boat, do you keep your life jackets in that box" sort of thing. It was just two guys talking about their boats. |
begins badly
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 23:47:32 -0400, wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 23:13:24 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:33:27 -0400, wrote: they can board and search vessels at sea without a warrant and that extends into just about anywhere they have jurisdiction. You see that in action here when they will put some junior enlisted coastie on the sheriff's boat during those enhanced enforcement weekends so they do not have to deal with niceties if they want to look over your boat. They just send the CG guy on board to look around. The CG does have the power to immediately seize your boat if there are drugs on board, in any quantity. I often wonder if that has ever been tested in court if they are inside the COLREGS line. I know offshore guides are pretty adamant with a "no drugs on my boat" rule. === Small quantities of drugs inside the COLREGS line would probably be referred to local law enforcement similar to how suspected firearms violations are handled. --- I imagine but they do have the coastie on the sheriff boat now and then. Like I said, I wonder how a court would rule if they caught a guy with a joint in the console in the bay and the coastie turned it up on a warrantless search. That is not exactly the "high seas" even if the operator is high. I know motor vehicle law is well tested on the side of the road but I am not sure how that translates to boats. I have never actually heard about people being "boarded" by LEOs unless they had PC they spotted from their boat or they thought the operator was impaired. I know when they stopped me and gave me the DUI test coming past the shrimp boats the sheriff was in his boat and I was in mine. It was no big deal since I was OK but I was interested in the process. He was stopping pretty much everyone. When the FWC guy stopped me in Mullock Creek, he stayed in his boat too. He just had me show him I had no fish in my cooler. I ended up showing him all of my gear but he did that in a way that I did not feel like I was being jacked up. He was actually a very cool cop. It was like "I really like your boat, do you keep your life jackets in that box" sort of thing. It was just two guys talking about their boats. === The gave you a breathalyzer test on your boat with no probable cause? What if you say no? --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com |
begins badly
On Wed, 04 Apr 2018 00:13:36 -0400,
wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 23:47:32 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 23:13:24 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:33:27 -0400, wrote: they can board and search vessels at sea without a warrant and that extends into just about anywhere they have jurisdiction. You see that in action here when they will put some junior enlisted coastie on the sheriff's boat during those enhanced enforcement weekends so they do not have to deal with niceties if they want to look over your boat. They just send the CG guy on board to look around. The CG does have the power to immediately seize your boat if there are drugs on board, in any quantity. I often wonder if that has ever been tested in court if they are inside the COLREGS line. I know offshore guides are pretty adamant with a "no drugs on my boat" rule. === Small quantities of drugs inside the COLREGS line would probably be referred to local law enforcement similar to how suspected firearms violations are handled. --- I imagine but they do have the coastie on the sheriff boat now and then. Like I said, I wonder how a court would rule if they caught a guy with a joint in the console in the bay and the coastie turned it up on a warrantless search. That is not exactly the "high seas" even if the operator is high. I know motor vehicle law is well tested on the side of the road but I am not sure how that translates to boats. I have never actually heard about people being "boarded" by LEOs unless they had PC they spotted from their boat or they thought the operator was impaired. I know when they stopped me and gave me the DUI test coming past the shrimp boats the sheriff was in his boat and I was in mine. It was no big deal since I was OK but I was interested in the process. He was stopping pretty much everyone. When the FWC guy stopped me in Mullock Creek, he stayed in his boat too. He just had me show him I had no fish in my cooler. I ended up showing him all of my gear but he did that in a way that I did not feel like I was being jacked up. He was actually a very cool cop. It was like "I really like your boat, do you keep your life jackets in that box" sort of thing. It was just two guys talking about their boats. === The gave you a breathalyzer test on your boat with no probable cause? What if you say no? No he just did the flashlight thing and asked me a few questions. It did not occur to me to say no. I had nothing to hide but I know that is how rights are simply given away. I did question his shining a white light in my eyes when I was going to be navigating at night. He apologized and said he was just doing his job. He got the light out of my face and stalled around long enough looking at my papers for me to recover some night vision. That area is lit up like time square anyway until you get to mid island and cut back into the mangroves. Once I got around the corner from the marina I was seeing OK enough to run the mangroves back to the river. |
begins badly
wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 23:47:32 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 23:13:24 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:33:27 -0400, wrote: they can board and search vessels at sea without a warrant and that extends into just about anywhere they have jurisdiction. You see that in action here when they will put some junior enlisted coastie on the sheriff's boat during those enhanced enforcement weekends so they do not have to deal with niceties if they want to look over your boat. They just send the CG guy on board to look around. The CG does have the power to immediately seize your boat if there are drugs on board, in any quantity. I often wonder if that has ever been tested in court if they are inside the COLREGS line. I know offshore guides are pretty adamant with a "no drugs on my boat" rule. === Small quantities of drugs inside the COLREGS line would probably be referred to local law enforcement similar to how suspected firearms violations are handled. --- I imagine but they do have the coastie on the sheriff boat now and then. Like I said, I wonder how a court would rule if they caught a guy with a joint in the console in the bay and the coastie turned it up on a warrantless search. That is not exactly the "high seas" even if the operator is high. I know motor vehicle law is well tested on the side of the road but I am not sure how that translates to boats. I have never actually heard about people being "boarded" by LEOs unless they had PC they spotted from their boat or they thought the operator was impaired. I know when they stopped me and gave me the DUI test coming past the shrimp boats the sheriff was in his boat and I was in mine. It was no big deal since I was OK but I was interested in the process. He was stopping pretty much everyone. When the FWC guy stopped me in Mullock Creek, he stayed in his boat too. He just had me show him I had no fish in my cooler. I ended up showing him all of my gear but he did that in a way that I did not feel like I was being jacked up. He was actually a very cool cop. It was like "I really like your boat, do you keep your life jackets in that box" sort of thing. It was just two guys talking about their boats. === The gave you a breathalyzer test on your boat with no probable cause? What if you say no? --- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com The breathalyzer would most likely be tossed as illegal. But fish and wildlife seem to have a pass on checking for poaching. The CG can check as they started as the Revenue Service and were checking for smugglers. Still a valid reason for warrantless search. |
begins badly
On 4/3/2018 7:33 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 17:14:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/3/2018 4:19 PM, wrote: On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:55:59 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: Keyser Soze - show quoted text - There's a difference between the U.S. military and the National Guard.. ,,,, Really? My great uncle was in the Pennsylvania national guard and fought in Belgium during WW1. I had two cousins in the Illinois national guard called to Vietnam . You amaze me, Harry. Hahahahaha! The most significant difference is the National Guard works for the governor of that state not the POTUS, unless that unit gets called up. It is a clever work around to Posse Comitatus. As long as they work for the governor, they can be used for local law enforcement. When Eisenhower nationalized the ANG and sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce the civil rights laws, it was unconstitutional. Fortunately the cause was seen as noble enough that nobody called him on it. These days somebody would be demanding that he be impeached. I think the lines are a bit fuzzy here. The National Guard is a reserve unit although not exactly the same as the regular Army reserves. The National Guard *can* be called up and activated by the President for temporary duty domestically or internationally and that includes situations where the normal enforcement of domestic laws are not practical or feasible. Normally, the federal activation of the National Guard by the President, Congress or Secretary of Defense takes place upon the request of the Governor of the State in which the Guard is located however it is not necessary. Unlike other regular reservists, individual Guard members are not called up. Rather, they are activated by unit. And to make things more complex, the patrolling of the border comes under the Department of Homeland Security. The USCG is a regular military branch that also operates under the DHS and regularly conducts patrols on on seas for both illegal immigrants, drug smugglers and others attempting to evade being caught. The NG is the last remnants of the militia. They are still under the purview of the states tho, hence the state name in front of each unit's name. You are right, that is not the same as the reserves which are directly connected to each service. The Coast Guard has always been a different breed of cat. It is and has been a civilian service that can be called up by DoD. They still follow all of the military customs, UCMJ etc but they have always worked for some other civilian agency, not DoD. They make that pretty clear to you when you are there. I was there for the Treasury days and the Transportation days. DHS happened after 9-11. They are really a strange hybrid with pretty much unequaled powers. They have the power to enforce laws without bumping into Posse Comitatus, they can enforce immigration law, they can board and search vessels at sea without a warrant and that extends into just about anywhere they have jurisdiction. You see that in action here when they will put some junior enlisted coastie on the sheriff's boat during those enhanced enforcement weekends so they do not have to deal with niceties if they want to look over your boat. They just send the CG guy on board to look around. The CG does have the power to immediately seize your boat if there are drugs on board, in any quantity. I often wonder if that has ever been tested in court if they are inside the COLREGS line. I know offshore guides are pretty adamant with a "no drugs on my boat" rule. The Coast Guard can also operate under the Navy's jurisdiction and control in certain circumstances. |
begins badly
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 16:55:23 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote:
5:08 PMKeyser Soze On 4/3/18 4:20 PM, Tim wrote: 3:11 PMjustan Tim Wrote in message: - show quoted text - Fat Harry's ignorance isn't amazing, it's pathetic. Fat Harry doesn't know that the National Guard is the oldest US military service. I'd be surprised if any of Fat Harry's ancestors served in the US military. - show quoted text - ::: Actually We ought to give him the benefit of the doubt, he should know especially with all his service experience etc. You're not really any brighter than justan .... Tell us again how you sweated the jungles if SE Asia toting body bags while directly reporting to a US General I believe he said he searched for bodies. But, he won't touch that with a ten foot pole after getting called on it by Luddite. |
begins badly
On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 18:22:10 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 4/3/18 4:11 PM, justan wrote: Tim Wrote in message: Keyser Soze - show quoted text - There's a difference between the U.S. military and the National Guard.. ,,,, Really? My great uncle was in the Pennsylvania national guard and fought in Belgium during WW1. I had two cousins in the Illinois national guard called to Vietnam . You amaze me, Harry. Hahahahaha! Fat Harry's ignorance isn't amazing, it's pathetic. Fat Harry doesn't know tbat the National Guard is the oldest US military service. I'd be surprised if any of Fat Harry's ancestors served in the US military. That has NOTHING to do with this discussion, ****-for-brains. From one who changes the subject any time the questions get hard. You're a joke, Krausee. |
begins badly
On 4/3/2018 11:13 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:33:27 -0400, wrote: they can board and search vessels at sea without a warrant and that extends into just about anywhere they have jurisdiction. You see that in action here when they will put some junior enlisted coastie on the sheriff's boat during those enhanced enforcement weekends so they do not have to deal with niceties if they want to look over your boat. They just send the CG guy on board to look around. The CG does have the power to immediately seize your boat if there are drugs on board, in any quantity. I often wonder if that has ever been tested in court if they are inside the COLREGS line. I know offshore guides are pretty adamant with a "no drugs on my boat" rule. === Small quantities of drugs inside the COLREGS line would probably be referred to local law enforcement similar to how suspected firearms violations are handled. That is exactly how it is handled, even if it's a regular, local CG patrol craft that boards a recreational vessel and finds illegal drugs or weapons. The local police department is called who meets the offending vessel crew at the dock and arrests them. The Massachusetts Environmental Police are the ones everyone watches out for up here. They have broad law enforcement authority, more so than even local or state police departments. They also operate as part of Homeland Security assets. A MEP officer can even stop you for a traffic violation when driving your car down the highway. |
begins badly
On 4/3/2018 11:47 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 23:13:24 -0400, wrote: On Tue, 03 Apr 2018 19:33:27 -0400, wrote: they can board and search vessels at sea without a warrant and that extends into just about anywhere they have jurisdiction. You see that in action here when they will put some junior enlisted coastie on the sheriff's boat during those enhanced enforcement weekends so they do not have to deal with niceties if they want to look over your boat. They just send the CG guy on board to look around. The CG does have the power to immediately seize your boat if there are drugs on board, in any quantity. I often wonder if that has ever been tested in court if they are inside the COLREGS line. I know offshore guides are pretty adamant with a "no drugs on my boat" rule. === Small quantities of drugs inside the COLREGS line would probably be referred to local law enforcement similar to how suspected firearms violations are handled. --- I imagine but they do have the coastie on the sheriff boat now and then. Like I said, I wonder how a court would rule if they caught a guy with a joint in the console in the bay and the coastie turned it up on a warrantless search. That is not exactly the "high seas" even if the operator is high. I know motor vehicle law is well tested on the side of the road but I am not sure how that translates to boats. I have never actually heard about people being "boarded" by LEOs unless they had PC they spotted from their boat or they thought the operator was impaired. I know when they stopped me and gave me the DUI test coming past the shrimp boats the sheriff was in his boat and I was in mine. It was no big deal since I was OK but I was interested in the process. He was stopping pretty much everyone. When the FWC guy stopped me in Mullock Creek, he stayed in his boat too. He just had me show him I had no fish in my cooler. I ended up showing him all of my gear but he did that in a way that I did not feel like I was being jacked up. He was actually a very cool cop. It was like "I really like your boat, do you keep your life jackets in that box" sort of thing. It was just two guys talking about their boats. I've never seen CG personnel on local police, environmental police or state police boats up here. They patrol in their own semi-rigid boats with twin outboards. They are armed and often conduct boarding's and inspections of recreational craft. Any serious violations such as drugs or illegal weapons are reported to the local police department who arrive at the dock and take the violators into custody. |
begins badly
On Wed, 4 Apr 2018 05:21:11 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 4/3/2018 7:33 PM, wrote: On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 17:14:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 4/3/2018 4:19 PM, wrote: On Tue, 3 Apr 2018 12:55:59 -0700 (PDT), Tim wrote: Keyser Soze - show quoted text - There's a difference between the U.S. military and the National Guard.. ,,,, Really? My great uncle was in the Pennsylvania national guard and fought in Belgium during WW1. I had two cousins in the Illinois national guard called to Vietnam . You amaze me, Harry. Hahahahaha! The most significant difference is the National Guard works for the governor of that state not the POTUS, unless that unit gets called up. It is a clever work around to Posse Comitatus. As long as they work for the governor, they can be used for local law enforcement. When Eisenhower nationalized the ANG and sent the 101st Airborne to Little Rock to enforce the civil rights laws, it was unconstitutional. Fortunately the cause was seen as noble enough that nobody called him on it. These days somebody would be demanding that he be impeached. I think the lines are a bit fuzzy here. The National Guard is a reserve unit although not exactly the same as the regular Army reserves. The National Guard *can* be called up and activated by the President for temporary duty domestically or internationally and that includes situations where the normal enforcement of domestic laws are not practical or feasible. Normally, the federal activation of the National Guard by the President, Congress or Secretary of Defense takes place upon the request of the Governor of the State in which the Guard is located however it is not necessary. Unlike other regular reservists, individual Guard members are not called up. Rather, they are activated by unit. And to make things more complex, the patrolling of the border comes under the Department of Homeland Security. The USCG is a regular military branch that also operates under the DHS and regularly conducts patrols on on seas for both illegal immigrants, drug smugglers and others attempting to evade being caught. The NG is the last remnants of the militia. They are still under the purview of the states tho, hence the state name in front of each unit's name. You are right, that is not the same as the reserves which are directly connected to each service. The Coast Guard has always been a different breed of cat. It is and has been a civilian service that can be called up by DoD. They still follow all of the military customs, UCMJ etc but they have always worked for some other civilian agency, not DoD. They make that pretty clear to you when you are there. I was there for the Treasury days and the Transportation days. DHS happened after 9-11. They are really a strange hybrid with pretty much unequaled powers. They have the power to enforce laws without bumping into Posse Comitatus, they can enforce immigration law, they can board and search vessels at sea without a warrant and that extends into just about anywhere they have jurisdiction. You see that in action here when they will put some junior enlisted coastie on the sheriff's boat during those enhanced enforcement weekends so they do not have to deal with niceties if they want to look over your boat. They just send the CG guy on board to look around. The CG does have the power to immediately seize your boat if there are drugs on board, in any quantity. I often wonder if that has ever been tested in court if they are inside the COLREGS line. I know offshore guides are pretty adamant with a "no drugs on my boat" rule. The Coast Guard can also operate under the Navy's jurisdiction and control in certain circumstances. Usually that has to be at the direction of the POTUS. It used to be "in time of war" but that line got blurred during the Truman and LBJ administrations when the president unilaterally declared war. Since then a war is whatever the president says it is. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:50 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com