Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

You agree to NOT use this site or its affiliated sites, services you may have access to as a result of being a member here (subscriber or otherwise), to post items (images, textual material, etc.) that are pornographic in nature, illegal in the United States and/or the country you reside in, support or encourage illegal activities (e.g., terrorism), advertise for your own personal profit, or send unsolicited messages (i.e. SPAM) to members or non-members.

AND

You agree that if any clause or component of this document is found to not be legally binding in a court of law of proper jurisdiction then the remainder of this document shall remain fully binding and in full force.

AND

You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software), uspoliticsonline.com, sites affiliated with uspoliticsonline.com, its administrators, its moderators, others associated with its operation, and its owners liable for any and all of the following (in whole or in part):
Personal insults/attacks by other members.
The content posted by other members, whether directed at you personally or a label/classification you associate with. This includes remarks you consider to be libelous or slanderous in any way.
Any financial or time loss due to your participation here or as a result of something you read at this site, including posts/PMs by other members and feature(s)/software available at the domain uspoliticsonline.com.
The dissemination of any personal information about you as a result of either your negligence (e.g. staying logged into a computer that others have access to) or willingness to post such information on a public and or private forum, private message or chat box. This includes using your real name or other details that could allow other members and/or the general public to determine your true identity. You are prohibited from using your real name on these forums, either as your username or in posts / PMs you write.

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

1. These rules apply to all sections of USPOL, including public and private forums, blogs, and visitor messages.

2. You cannot attack and/or personally insult someone. You cannot bait other forum members; this includes referring to posters by derogatory terms. Please, remain courteous and respectful to all forum members at all times. You agree to take responsibility for reporting such posts when you come across them. Please, use the ignore feature if need be. Any member who intentionally and continually posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response, or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion, may be regarded as a troll by staff, and have their account suspended or banned.

3. You cannot harass (sexually or otherwise) other members. This includes malicious, slanderous, or defamatory comments. If you are not sure if something you write is inappropriate or not then don't say it. Err on the side of caution.

4. Copying and Pasting Articles, and Starting New Threads. You cannot simply cut and paste in posts or when starting threads. You MUST provide the identifying information (source, author, date, and URL). You must also offer some original thoughts along with the cut and paste. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts from the article. Excerpts really shouldnt be more then a paragraph or two. Furthermore, if you use images or other copyrighted material in your posts or signature you must have permission of the copyright holder unless you know for a fact that the image is in the public domain. In addition:
a. It must include the identifying information; e.g., where available, the author, the publication, the date, the URL.
b. The member must offer some context, including: How did you hear of this article? What is your opinion? Why is it important to you? Why should it be important to forum readers? The more context you provide, the more you assist others in gauging the excerpted information's significance.
c. You may copy and paste an excerpt or series of excerpts, not the whole thing or even the majority of the whole thing to encourage people to read the entire article.

A violation of any of the above will result in the deletion or closing of the post or thread and could earn you a warning or suspension. If you have any questions concering any of the above please PM a moderator and we will be happy to clarify.

5. You cannot post the same thing in multiple forums. You must not open similar threads about the same or a similar topic. You cannot spam the board or send unsolicited messages to members via PM, email or any other means.

6. Do not post off-topic. You cannot derail a thread with off topic posts.

7. You cannot shout in posts. This includes posting in all CAPS, bold, lIkE tHiS, and extra large font. Posts should also be one color, although you may use an additional color for highlighting ideas you wish to address.

8. You may not alter quotes in a way that misrepresents what was originally said.

9. Multiple accounts are not allowed. If you are found to have more than one account all accounts will be permanently terminated.

10. You cannot have a user name, avatar, signature, or post images that are deliberately offensive. That includes the display of overly explicit or graphic images that may not be suitable for minors.

11. Signatures can not have more than three lines of text, with a font size no larger than "4", and no more than two font colors. Images in signatures cannot be any larger than 800 pixels wide x 200 pixels tall. Animated images are not allowed.

12. You are prohibited from taking any action to disturb the use of the services by others, distribute material that contains viruses, spyware or any other malicious code or harmful programs. This includes interfering with the working of the network, attempts to gain unauthorized access to a service or other computer systems that are part of the site or any other site, by use of the available services.

13. Discussion of moderation actions in public and/or private forums is not permitted. Moderation actions include warnings, suspensions and the editing or deletion of posts. If a member has a concern about a moderation action, he or she is invited to address it with the board staff via Private Message. This rule exists to protect the privacy of all posters with regards to disciplinary action. The moderator team will never publicly discuss the warnings/suspensions of any posters, and we ask that you return the favor, whether about yourself or another poster. Posting about moderation actions in the public forums constitutes a violation. You are free to discuss a moderation action via Private Message with the moderator involved, but you may not harass or abuse the moderators (as already specified in the forum rules). In practical terms, this means that once a moderator tells you his or her decision is final, no further PMs about that moderation action are permitted. If you have a concern about a moderation action, you are free to appeal to a Forum Administrator via Private Message. You may only discuss moderator activities or discussion of moderation with staff member if you chose to private message and are not under any circumstances allowed to use the PM function to forward or promote moderator discussion in regards to specific forum action, amongst other regular members. Administrators do reserve the right to read said PMs and may do so ; if that results in discovery of messaging between posters of such moderator discussion then it will lead to the same violation being received for discussing said moderator actions on the forum. If you receive a message to the effect of having been given moderator information, please report it to a member of staff. Engaging back in that discussion with the original violator will earn you just as stiff a sanction.

14. Do not ignore moderators or administrators. Do not repost something a moderator or administrator has deleted. You cannot have moderators or administrators on your ignore list.

15. Only post in English. Short passages in foreign languages may be acceptable if its use seems helpful for the ongoing discussion and when there is no indication of a potential violation of the forum rules. Always provide a translation into English in such cases. In case of doubt, the incident will be regarded as a violation, no matter of the actual meaning of the foreign language text.

16. The use of words/comments etc. written by other posters, without approval of the poster in your personal signature is not allowed nor are references, by name, to other posters allowed.

17. Please pay attention to announcements by Forum staff that will be found in the "Welcome! / News & Announcements" forum from time to time.

18. Use of "liar", "lies", "lying", etc. Accusing someone of being a "liar" or similar accusations towards other posters will generally be regarded as implying an insult and therewith as a violation of the forum rules. "I question the validity of your statement because...", "That's not the truth" or "you are wrong about that" are sufficient for any decent discussion if you want to disagree with somebody's assertions.

19. Thread opening restriction for new members. In order to control SPAM, new members must have moderator approval to start their own threads.

20. Thread titles must relate to the discussion within. Do not make misleading titles, or titles such as "Guess what..." or "You'll never believe this...". Members need to be able to identify the general gist of the thread via the title. Profanity in thread titles is not permitted.

21. Forum members are instructed to use forum tools and abilities for their intended purposes and no other. If members identify a forum glitch or weakness of any kind that allows you to see or do something you know you shouldn't, please report it. Being aware of any unintended access to the Forum and failing to take appropriate steps to notify staff of said access issues, will create a presumption of seeking to take advantage of the issue, will result in either account suspension, or banishment.

22. Any link to a site that contains graphic content, must contain a warning describing what a person might reasonably expect to view if they click on said link. No graphic pictures are to be posted on the Forum.

23. Threats or advocations of violence toward a public figure, or member of the Forum, will not be tolerated. Conversation about revolution or the like is not prohibited by this rule; directly calling for violence is, eg It's time to kill every <redacted> that voted for the bill, is not permitted.

24. Accounts with no posts will be deleted after 30 days. Inactive accounts with low post histories may be deleted after one year.

25. Private forums are something offered to members that decide to contribute directly to this site via donations. These donations help immensely in keeping this site up and running. Private forums are designed to allow the contributing member discuss whatever he/she wants to and to have the power to direct that discussion in whatever way he/she chose. They were not designed nor are they intended for simply talking trash about members that don't have access to the forum. While the targeted members cannot see the forum or the comments, it creates a negative atmosphere that really isn't necessary. If you want to totally rip apart ideas, ideologies, political parties, etc. that is fine. We simply ask that you don't use the private forums as a means to attack other members that aren't privy to such comments. It is difficult enough to have a political discussion forum because the discussion of politics is inherently heated as people are so passionate about their beliefs...the ones that take the time to come to such a site in the first place at least. The idea of private forums is so people of similar political persuasions can discuss whatever they want without fear of being attacked. Nonetheless, we hope that a certain level of maturity would foster itself within such an arena and not simply lend itself to a bashing forum.

Private Forums are governed by all of the above Forum rules. In addition:
  • Private forums that essentially become abandoned homes will be subject to deletion, donation or reorganization. Just like elsewhere in life, clubs sometimes lose their vitality and purpose for a myriad of reasons. If it becomes clear that a private forum has clearly lost its vitality and nobody is going to really use it anymore, owners are advised to consider whether to reuse the forum for something new and productive rather than let them linger or notify the Administration that the forum should be rearranged for other purposes, closed, merged with other compatible private forums, donated to others for new purposes, etc. Do not be concerned that your forum must be a membership and post count race with others to avoid falling under this policy; the question is whether your forum has actual vitality instead of being 'brain dead.'
  • Additionally, private forums may only be owned by subscribed members in the Platinum or Diamond categories.
  • Should the owner of a private forum be banned, quit USPOL or otherwise abandon the forum the PF will be transferred to another owner or closed.
  • Propriety of private forums. Administration staff will determine the desirability of a proposed private forum and enact any conditions upon it to ensure its purpose is productive.
  • Any and all instances of sharing accounts by allowing someone else to log in under their own account so they can see into private forums for which they are otherwise not permitted to access, will be deemed violation of the double account rule and all caught doing so will be permanently banned.
  • Relaying private forum posts and information to other posters who are not members of the particular private forum for any negative or destructive purpose (eg mean-spirited gossip, fueling interpersonal disputes, etc), is not permitted, and will constitute a violation of the Forum rules.
  • For purposes of monitoring USPOL Terms of Service Administrative staff (not Moderators) will have access to Private Forums.
  • All Private Forums must have at least one active Administrator as a member for purposes of handling issues which cannot be addressed through moderation permissions.
  • Discussion of moderation activities is prohibited on the open site and is likewise prohibited in Private Forums.

26. The administrators and moderators reserve the right to edit and/or delete a post,and/or close a thread, and/or delete a thread at any time if of the opinion that the post is too obscene, inappropriate, or the discussion has run its course.

27. 'Back seat moderating' is not allowed. If you take issue with another poster's contribution to the forum, you're welcome to report any posts you think are out of line, but you should not bring it up publicly within the forum.

28. Images in posts (whether embedded or hot linked) must be reasonable in size. 800x800 should be considered a good rule of thumb. Excessively large images make it difficult for users on mobile devices to load pages. If necessary please simply link to very large images using the URL tags. In addition, the following images are not permitted (including, but not limited to pages with images or videos containing):
  • Strategically covered nudity
  • Sheer or see-through clothing
  • Lewd or provocative poses
  • Close-ups of breasts, buttocks, or crotches

29. Any solicitation or communication involving sports betting / gambling / online casinos / bookies and or internet based card or slot machine systems or sites will lead to all said content being physically removed from the site and server, and will lead to any and or all parties involved being permanently removed and banned from the site to the farthest extent possible. This includes any links to any form of bookmaker, casino, any type of game or match or event where money transfers on the outcome or link of any sort to wire act violations and or anything in violation of either the Internet Gambling Regulation, Consumer Protection, and Enforcement Act, Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, or the Federal wire Act. This applies not only to the open forum but all and or any chat rooms, articles, private messages and or private forums. All content that violates this rule will be deleted, without notice.

CONSEQUENCES

Failure to comply with any of the forum rules may result in your posts being edited or deleted and/or your account being temporarily or permanently banned from the forums. U.S. Politics Online uses a warning system that generates an automated Private Message to members when they are in violation of Forum rules. The decision to issue a warning is left to the discretion of the moderator or administrator handling the violation. If a member does not agree with an action taken by a moderator, they can appeal to an administrator after seeking clarification from the moderator who issued the warning/infraction and appealing to them in the first instance. Members MAY NOT harass a moderator or administrator by sending excessive PMs when they are discussing an appeal.

Violations are assigned a point value. Points are valid for 30 days. When a members earns 10 points, their account will be automatically suspended: five (5) days for a first suspension; ten (10) days for a second suspension; and twenty (20) days for a third suspension. If a member incurs an additional 10 points after having served three periods of suspension, then they will be permanently banned from the Forum.

Point values are as follows:
Zero (0) points Warning
Two (2) points - Minor infraction / Non post infraction (minor) / Off topic posts / spamming
Four (4) points - Academic dishonesty / Baiting / Discussing moderator or administrator actions / Implying an insult / Minor insults / Moderate infraction / Non-post infraction (moderate) / Thread dumping
Six (6) points - Direct insult at another member / major infraction / Non-post infraction (major)
Ten (10) points - Act of criminality, or advocating thereof

The administrators and moderators also bear the right to issue warnings, temporarily suspend or ban posters for continued trolling or other serious misconduct (eg. professional spamming) even if the poster has not yet reached the maximum warning points or suspensions level. Other options if the above consequences do not seem adequate include placing the member in a moderation queue, which means all posts will have to be approved before they are posted to the board.

PRIVACY POLICY

All information obtained by the end user via the registration process is for internal purposes only and will not be sold to or shared with any third parties. However, if the end user participates in illegal activities and a court of proper jurisdiction orders U.S. Politics Online to release certain information about said user then we will act according to the law. Furthermore, no information will be released on threat of a lawsuit, attempted or actual intimidation, or due to any other reason except as notated in the first sentence of this paragraph. Nonetheless, keep in mind that the information we do have is very limited and generally only consists of the IP address a member uses.

SUBSCRIPTIONS

U.S. Politics Online offers several subscription plans to help cover the operational costs of the site. As a thank you for your donation, you will receive special added benefits meant to enhance your U.S. Politics Online experience. Plans vary in price, starting at only $0.05/day, and benefits vary with the price. Benefits include ability to go straight to new posts, to search the forum, larger avatar, private forums, invisible mode, photo gallery, email, web hosting, and no advertisement banners. Please, click here for more details.
See more
See less

Another school shooting

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by redrover View Post

    I am really surprised we haven't seen more of this since declared it open season on the media the enemy of the people.
    Or Maxine waters rabble rousing rants LOL

    ?


    • Originally posted by redrover View Post

      I am really surprised we haven't seen more of this since declared it open season on the media the enemy of the people.
      The three most hated professions: lawyers, politicians, and journalists, and that was before there was such a thing as conservative media like Fox, and long before Trump.

      ?


      • More details on the latest shooting

        ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

        At Least Five People Shot and Killed at Newspaper Office in Maryland


        A gunman opened fire at a newspaper office in Annapolis on Thursday, killing five people and gravely wounding a number of others before being taken into custody in what appeared to be one of the deadliest attacks on journalists in U.S. history, police and witnesses said.

        The suspect, who is in custody, is "a white male, adult male, and the gun that was used is described as a long gun," meaning a rifle or a shotgun, Lieutenant Ryan Frashure told journalists.

        The suspect is refusing to identify himself. The suspect damaged his fingertips in an effort to avoid identification, a law enforcement source told CBS News.

        Police gave no other details on the gunman or the motive for the attack at The Capital Gazette and said he was being interrogated. Authorities said they also found what they believed to be an explosive device.



        ...

        https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/sh.../28/id/868993/

        ?


        • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
          More details on the latest shooting

          ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

          At Least Five People Shot and Killed at Newspaper Office in Maryland


          A gunman opened fire at a newspaper office in Annapolis on Thursday, killing five people and gravely wounding a number of others before being taken into custody in what appeared to be one of the deadliest attacks on journalists in U.S. history, police and witnesses said.

          The suspect, who is in custody, is "a white male, adult male, and the gun that was used is described as a long gun," meaning a rifle or a shotgun, Lieutenant Ryan Frashure told journalists.

          The suspect is refusing to identify himself. The suspect damaged his fingertips in an effort to avoid identification, a law enforcement source told CBS News.

          Police gave no other details on the gunman or the motive for the attack at The Capital Gazette and said he was being interrogated. Authorities said they also found what they believed to be an explosive device.



          ...

          https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/sh.../28/id/868993/
          OnMSNBC they were saying it was a shotgun. Why would anyone want to shoot up a newspaper? Let me think who hates the press that much? I don't want to rush to judgement but.

          ?


          • Originally posted by redrover View Post
            OnMSNBC they were saying it was a shotgun. Why would anyone want to shoot up a newspaper? Let me think who hates the press that much? I don't want to rush to judgement but.
            It will be interesting to learn all the details in the coming weeks.

            ?


            • Originally posted by redrover View Post

              I am really surprised we haven't seen more of this since declared it open season on the media the enemy of the people.
              Ah, so it wasn't the shooter at fault here ... it was Trump.

              How predictable ... if not idiotic.

              ?


              • This incident was not politically motivated.

                This person had a problem with the paper - see below stories for details.

                The man was an obvious frootloop, facebook stalking people ? How does one even do that ?? LOL

                ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                Police took a suspect into custody soon after the shootings. He was identified as Jarrod W. Ramos, a 38-year-old Laurel man with a long-standing grudge against the paper.

                Ramos dispute with the Capital Gazette began in July 2011 when a columnist wrote about a criminal harassment case against him. He brought a defamation suit against the columnist and the organizations editor and publisher. A court ruled in the Capital Gazettes favor, and an appeals court upheld the ruling.

                Neither the columnist, Eric Hartley, nor the editor and publisher, Thomas Marquardt, are still employed by the Capital Gazette. They were not present during the shootings.


                ....

                http://www.capitalgazette.com/news/a...628-story.html

                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                the suspect was identified as Jarrod Ramos, 38, of Laurel, the Capital Gazette and Baltimore Sun reported citing law enforcement.

                In 2012, Ramos brought a defamation lawsuit against Eric Hartley, formerly a staff writer and columnist with The Capital, and Thomas Marquardt, then editor and publisher of The Capital, according to a court filing.

                In 2015, Marylands second-highest court upheld a ruling in favor of the Capital Gazette and a former reporter who were accused by Ramos of defamation, the Baltimore Sun reported.

                The shooting which came amid months of verbal and online attacks on the "fake news media" from politicians and others from President Donald Trump on down prompted New York City police to immediately tighten security at news organizations in the nation's media capital.


                ....

                https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/sh.../28/id/868993/


                ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



                Pictured: Bitter gunman, 38, who shot five dead in the Capital Gazette newsroom, after he sued the paper and harassed staff over 2011 article that exposed him for Facebook stalking a woman

                The gunman who shot dead five people and injured two others in Maryland's Capital Gazette newsroom had a long-running grudge against the newspaper after they exposed him for Facebook stalking a woman.

                Ramos had unsuccessfully sued the newspaper and one of its former reporters in 2013 for defamation. A Twitter profile under his name includes frequent tweets about the newspaper and its staff.

                Ramos was the subject of a 2011 article - titled 'Jarrod wants to be your friend' - after he pleaded guilty to criminal harassment. The article described him as having threatened and harassed a former high school classmate on Facebook. He sent the woman numerous emails spanning several months calling her vulgar names and telling her to kill herself.

                In the years that followed, Ramos sued the newspaper, the reporter who initially wrote about the case, a judge and the woman who testified against him. His defamation suit was thrown out on appeal in 2015 because Ramos failed to prove that what the newspaper had printed was untrue.

                Ramos routinely harassed journalists from the newspaper on Twitter in scores of profanity laced tweets. One of those tweets targeted one of the journalists killed on Thursday, Rob Hiaasen. In another tweet, he discussed how he'd enjoy seeing the paper stop publishing, but 'it would be nicer' to see two journalists 'cease breathing'.

                Other tweets from his account referenced previous journalist shootings, including the 2015 terror attack on the Charlie Hebdo offices in Paris

                The woman who was harassed by Ramos told WBAL TV that she warned an ex-police officer years ago that he would 'be young next mass shooter'. Adding that he's a 'f***ing nut job', the woman said Ramos because fixated with her for no apparent reason.


                [ she was correct ]

                Tom Marquardt, retired publisher and top editor at the paper, told The Capital Gazette on Thursday that he had long been concerned about Ramos' history of escalating social media attacks against the newspaper and its journalists. He called police about Ramos in 2013 and considered filing a restraining order against him.

                'I was seriously concerned he would threaten us with physical violence,' Marquardt said. 'I even told my wife, 'We have to be concerned. This guy could really hurt us.' '

                Police confirmed that the newspaper had received 'general threats' sent over social media on Thursday that indicated violence.


                http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-building.html

                ?


                • This fellow was obviously off kilter

                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                  Jarrod W. Ramos, who the authorities say used a shotgun to blast his way into the Capital Gazette newsroom on Thursday, killing five people and wounding two others, had a long-running dispute with the news organization.

                  He had previously made general threats against the community newspaper company over social media, including some as recent Thursday, said William Krampf, Anne Arundel Countys acting police chief. The threats indicated violence, Chief Krampf said.

                  As recently as 2012, Mr. Ramos worked for the federal Bureau of Labor Statistics. He has a degree in computer engineering.

                  His feud with The Capital, the chains daily newspaper, apparently began with a column in 2011 that detailed his harassment of a high school classmate.

                  After Mr. Ramos reconnected with the classmate in 2009, his emails to her soon turned venomous.

                  He seems to think theres some sort of relationship here that does not exist, the woman told a judge, according to court documents in a harassment case she brought against Mr. Ramos. I tried to back away from it, and he just started getting angry and vulgar to the point I had to tell him to stop.

                  After she told him not to contact her again, Mr. Ramos wrote in a 2010 email that the woman should go hang yourself.

                  Weeks later, the woman was put on probation at the bank where she worked. A supervisor told her it was because Mr. Ramos had sent an email and had also called the bank telling managers that the bank should fire her.

                  A judge gave Mr. Ramos a 90-day sentence, but suspended the jail time. Instead, Mr. Ramos was granted probation before judgment. He was ordered not to contact the woman and to continue getting therapy.

                  Not long afterward, The Capital published the column that apparently fueled his anger.

                  Mr. Ramos filed a lawsuit against the owners of The Capital in 2012, claiming that it had defamed him in reporting that Mr. Ramos had pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor criminal harassment charge. Months later, he filed a fuller complaint alleging invasion of privacy, but the lawsuit was dismissed by a judge the next year because Mr. Ramos was unable to describe how he had been harmed by the newspaper article.

                  Mr. Ramos, who represented himself in the case, appealed the decision. But in 2015 an appellate court affirmed the lower courts dismissal of the lawsuit, stating that Mr. Ramos showed little knowledge of defamation law and seemed not to have learned his lesson.

                  Tom Marquardt, a former executive editor and publisher at the newspaper, said Thursday night that he had long feared Mr. Ramos might resort to a violent act against the newspaper.

                  I said at one time to my attorneys that this was a guy that was going to come and shoot us, Mr. Marquardt said. I was concerned on my behalf and on behalf of my staff that he was going to take more than legal action.

                  In November 2011, Mr. Ramos began tweeting under an account he called @EricHartleyFrnd, in which he mocked the column about him, by the reporter Eric Hartley, in The Capital, posted screenshots of court documents relating to a defamation case he had filed against the newspaper, and railed against newspaper employees. His tweets were laced with profanity, and often addressed Capital employees directly, as though he were having an ongoing conversation with them.

                  See Tom, both choices were wrong, he wrote on Nov. 12, 2012, apparently referring to Mr. Marquardt. You already chose that long ago. But to print it was far more wrong. That was true to your form as well.


                  ...

                  https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/an...id=mailsignout

                  ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                  According to court documents, five days after Ramos pleaded guilty to criminal harassment, the newspaper published a story describing allegations by a woman who claimed Ramos harassed her online for months.

                  The article said Ramos had contacted the woman on Facebook and thanked her "for being the only person ever to say, 'Hello,' or be nice to him in school."

                  The woman told the newspaper that Ramos appeared to be having some problems, so she wrote back and tried to help, suggesting a counseling center. She said that set off months of emails in which Ramos sometimes asked for help, but other times called her vulgar names and told her to kill herself. She told The Capital that she told him to stop, but the emails continued. She said she called police and the emails stopped for months, but then started up again "nastier than ever," the article said.

                  In the article, Ramos was described as a tall, thin man with long hair worn in a ponytail. His lawyer told the newspaper that Ramos has a degree in computer engineering and had worked for the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics for six years. His lawyer also said Ramos had no previous criminal record.

                  Online court records in Maryland show that three peace orders were taken out against Ramos one each in 2011, 2012 and 2013. A judge can issue such protection, ordering someone to stay away from someone else and to avoid contacting them. In at least two instances, Ramos appealed the orders. It wasn't clear whom the cases involved or what the ultimate outcomes were.

                  Then, in 2013, Ramos sued Anne Arundel County District Judge John McKenna. Online court records did not indicate the nature or result of that suit.

                  Ramos filed another lawsuit in 2014 against three defendants. A judge in Prince George's dismissed that case two years later when Ramos failed to show up for court.

                  ...


                  https://www.newsmax.com/headline/mar.../29/id/869075/

                  ?


                  • Remember the "Bush did it !" days ?

                    Now it's the "Trump did it !" days.

                    Same ^&*% different day.

                    These people are still dangerously stupid.

                    Anyone intelligent can see the posts above with links to what this is really about.

                    Anyone can easily find this information - see the links at post #'s 347 & 348 directly above here. These links are to well known news sources - MSN, Daily Mail (UK), Newsmax, etc..

                    But this dude wants to say the president caused this ?

                    There may be an open room in a state run facility for this fellow, we'll have to see what he says and does next I guess.

                    ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                    WH Reporter (Still) Blames Trump for Madmans Maryland Shooting Rampage

                    So, whos responsible for this? According to at least one White House correspondent, a Reuters editor and countless other liberal opinion journalists, the president.

                    Andrew Feinberg a White House correspondent and managing editor for Breakfast Media and former reporter for Russian-funded propaganda site Sputnik Media decided that it was time to blame the president for the shooting.


                    ...

                    https://www.westernjournal.com/ct/wh...ign=manualpost

                    ?


                    • Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                      1. If you've got a business you didnt build that. Somebody else made that happen.
                      2. I do think at a certain point youve made enough money.
                      3. Ive got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I dont want them punished with a baby.
                      4. Its very rare that I come to an event where Im like the fifth- or sixth-most interesting person.
                      5. I had learned not to care. I blew a few smoke rings, remembering those years. Pot had helped, and booze; maybe a little blow when you could afford it. Not smack, though.
                      6. In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died an entire town destroyed. (this was about a Kansas tornado that killed, ahem, 12 people)
                      And his cabinet/administration also got into the act with:[list]....

                      This man and those around him were constantly pitting one group against another.
                      First, Obama's quotes that pit the rich against the poor, which is different than left wing politicians in our past. Just kidding. I'd like it better if lefties noted the few conflicts of interest, when comparing the wealthy vs. the poor. If gummint is going to advocate when that conflict requires law 'n order., who does gov't. bias favor? When Dems are in power, the working class/poor tend to benefit. When the GOP is in power, the wealthy tend to benefit. It would be nice if politicians figured out a way for everyone to benefit all the time, but we have a "quick and dirty" operating policy. Been that way a lonnnng time, way before Obama became prez.
                      On to Obama's drug theme and women's right to chose. One pits people who don't use drugs against drug users, if one has a good imagination. I never heard Obama criticize teetotalers, (or sing high praise for drug users) but maybe I missed that. He doesn't want women to go full term with a pregnancy if they can't stand the pressure, which pits him against those who believe the pressure always favors the fetus. That's been a political issue since Roe v. Wade, but ethnic or other type of"in" vs "out" group strategy doesn't apply . His observation that he's rarely down on the list as "most interesting person" in the room might be out of context (if Obama were engaging in self-deprecating humor -shoulda been further down than 6th most interesting). If he was puffing himself up, that statement sounds like a beer commercial, not tribalism. Obama made a math mistake (did another one with the number of US states). That doesn't show tribalism, just shows a bad memory for some statistics. Been a few presidents who were likewise math impaired, too.

                      If you want to include family and administration members of the WH, tribal insults might be claimed in every administration. Broad brush.

                      ?


                      • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                        Remember the "Bush did it !" days ?

                        Now it's the "Trump did it !" days.

                        Same ^&*% different day.

                        These people are still dangerously stupid.

                        Anyone intelligent can see the posts above with links to what this is really about.

                        Anyone can easily find this information - see the links at post #'s 347 & 348 directly above here. These links are to well known news sources - MSN, Daily Mail (UK), Newsmax, etc..

                        But this dude wants to say the president caused this ?

                        There may be an open room in a state run facility for this fellow, we'll have to see what he says and does next I guess.

                        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

                        [I]WH Reporter (Still) Blames Trump for Madmans Maryland Shooting Rampage

                        So, whos responsible for this? According to at least one White House correspondent, a Reuters editor and countless other liberal opinion journalists, the president.

                        ....
                        Don't forget the "Obama did it" days. Just kidding, go ahead and forget it, I couldn't stop you.

                        I certainly don't blame the current prez for the most recent shooting. I blame the shooter first. I blame only him, if he were otherwise qualified to possess a firearm. If he weren't qualified to possess a firearm, then others must share blame, not just whatsisface the shooter.

                        Now for your test questions, CT:
                        If others must share the blame, discuss those circumstances. Follow up question, discuss some solutions to minimize the possibility of an unqualified person using one of the most highly efficient types of weapon, to kill others.

                        ?


                        • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                          First, Obama's quotes that pit the rich against the poor, which is different than left wing politicians in our past. Just kidding. I'd like it better if lefties noted the few conflicts of interest, when comparing the wealthy vs. the poor. If gummint is going to advocate when that conflict requires law 'n order., who does gov't. bias favor? When Dems are in power, the working class/poor tend to benefit. When the GOP is in power, the wealthy tend to benefit. It would be nice if politicians figured out a way for everyone to benefit all the time, but we have a "quick and dirty" operating policy. Been that way a lonnnng time, way before Obama became prez.
                          On to Obama's drug theme and women's right to chose. One pits people who don't use drugs against drug users, if one has a good imagination. I never heard Obama criticize teetotalers, (or sing high praise for drug users) but maybe I missed that. He doesn't want women to go full term with a pregnancy if they can't stand the pressure, which pits him against those who believe the pressure always favors the fetus. That's been a political issue since Roe v. Wade, but ethnic or other type of"in" vs "out" group strategy doesn't apply . His observation that he's rarely down on the list as "most interesting person" in the room might be out of context (if Obama were engaging in self-deprecating humor -shoulda been further down than 6th most interesting). If he was puffing himself up, that statement sounds like a beer commercial, not tribalism. Obama made a math mistake (did another one with the number of US states). That doesn't show tribalism, just shows a bad memory for some statistics. Been a few presidents who were likewise math impaired, too.

                          If you want to include family and administration members of the WH, tribal insults might be claimed in every administration. Broad brush.
                          I used to say not every republican is a racist but every racist I know is a republican Since Trump came on the scene I've come to believe that close to 100% of Trump supporters are racists.

                          ?


                          • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                            Don't forget the "Obama did it" days. Just kidding, go ahead and forget it, I couldn't stop you.

                            I certainly don't blame the current prez for the most recent shooting. I blame the shooter first. I blame only him, if he were otherwise qualified to possess a firearm. If he weren't qualified to possess a firearm, then others must share blame, not just whatsisface the shooter.

                            Now for your test questions, CT:
                            If others must share the blame, discuss those circumstances. Follow up question, discuss some solutions to minimize the possibility of an unqualified person using one of the most highly efficient types of weapon, to kill others.
                            I don't recall much "obama did it" going on when he was president. I'm sure there was some.

                            As it says at one of the sources I cited above, the man had no prior criminal history before the weird online stalking and harassing deal, so I think he legally obtained the weapons.

                            Sure, he was a nut who harassed, but I don't think he had his second amendment rights taken.

                            ?


                            • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                              I don't recall much "obama did it" going on when he was president. I'm sure there was some.

                              As it says at one of the sources I cited above, the man had no prior criminal history before the weird online stalking and harassing deal, so I think he legally obtained the weapons.

                              Sure, he was a nut who harassed, but I don't think he had his second amendment rights taken.
                              A restraining order would be one condition that could have helped, especially feasible if the order noted threats of violence. The more victims, the more severe the threats, the more blame there is to go around.

                              You don't recall much blaming of Obama when he was president? Oftentimes, people don't listen to what comes out of other people's mouths. Sometimes, they don't even listen to what comes out of their own mouths. Or, maybe they listen, but soon forget what was stated.

                              ?


                              • Originally posted by radcentr View Post
                                A restraining order would be one condition that could have helped, especially feasible if the order noted threats of violence. The more victims, the more severe the threats, the more blame there is to go around.

                                You don't recall much blaming of Obama when he was president? Oftentimes, people don't listen to what comes out of other people's mouths. Sometimes, they don't even listen to what comes out of their own mouths. Or, maybe they listen, but soon forget what was stated.
                                Or are so glad it's over they don't want to remember or think about it LOL

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X