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 shouldn’t 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

How come?

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

  • Originally posted by redrover View Post

    Iraq Something doesn't add up here. Right now I'm listening to Mike Pence blast Clinton for pulling our ground troops out of Iraq despite the fact that Bush negotiated the withdrawal timetable because Iraq wanted us out. So what is she a super hawk or weakling who created ISIS by pulling out our troops?

    She is the hawk that demanded her vote be counted to go into Iraq, a chicken for pulling the troops out before Iraq was stable enough for it, and a liar for blaming it on lack of a SOFA, since Obama just announced he's sending in more troops.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post

      Can't trust them on national security? Then you would not trust our founders either, which is ironic.

      Libertarians are not isolationists, they just do not believe in perpetual war for perpetual peace. A libertarian would have responded as FDR did to Pearl Harbor. But, doubtful one would have taken us to Vietnam, nor the middle east, except for perhaps to ferret out the rats in Afghanistan, but then again, if libertarians had been in charge of foreign policy, 911 would not have happened, and then us going after them would not have happened.

      I do not confuse national security with military actions on behalf of our elites. Read An Economic Hit Man. We are the nation that keeps the pots stirred up, and have done that for a long time, with our military, and CIA. So, is it really national security to take down a latin American ruler, because he will not allow our elite capitalists plunder and remove the wealth from his nation? This is not national security, its thuggery, with an American flag on it. And when the banking cabal cartel interests, are identical to national interests, there is a big problem with that. The interests of America are not really in her interests. It has been for decades, the interests of the ruling elites that dictates foreign policy. A libertarian would put a halt to that. Just as our founders would have.
      The founders lived in a world were "imminent threat" (especially for a nation like ours) was seeing a massive armada of ships carrying your enemy's troops before they even landed on your shores.

      Also, Libertarians seem to generally seem to behave (or at least speak of issues) as though the threats to our national interest are purely reactionary to our own actions, which is simply not true. They remind me of pacifists, who are oblivious to the fact that they are safe in their pacificism because they fall under the umbrella of protection provided by those who are not pacifists.

      They also (and this spills over into domestic policy as well) tend to make the overly simplistic assumption that half-way libertarian is always better than not at all libertarian. An excellent example of this is that as a matter of pure ideology, they support open borders, but oppose redistributionist welfare state policies. Most continue to support virtually unrestricted open borders, despite the fact that we have a huge welfare state. They simply assume that more libertarianism (i.e. open borders with generous welfare state) is better than no libertarianism (no open border and a generous welfare state). As Milton Friedman (a truly thoughtful and pragmatic libertarian-minded thinking) once pointed out, you can either have open borders, or a generous welfare state, but not both, even though his ideal was open borders (with some very limited restrictions) and no welfare state.

      I am actually much more prone to vote for Libertarians for state and local office, than for Federal office, because I am a Constitutional conservative and a Federalist, I believe there is a clear role for a strong (but LIMITED) Federal Government, there are a number of areas of legitimate federal authority that Libertarians object to on their on ideological grounds, acting as though the constitution is a purely libertarian document (which it is not...thought it is more libertarian in spirit than modern liberal interpretation would read it).

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

        The founders lived in a world were "imminent threat" (especially for a nation like ours) was seeing a massive armada of ships carrying your enemy's troops before they even landed on your shores.

        Also, Libertarians seem to generally seem to behave (or at least speak of issues) as though the threats to our national interest are purely reactionary to our own actions, which is simply not true. They remind me of pacifists, who are oblivious to the fact that they are safe in their pacificism because they fall under the umbrella of protection provided by those who are not pacifists.

        They also (and this spills over into domestic policy as well) tend to make the overly simplistic assumption that half-way libertarian is always better than not at all libertarian. An excellent example of this is that as a matter of pure ideology, they support open borders, but oppose redistributionist welfare state policies. Most continue to support virtually unrestricted open borders, despite the fact that we have a huge welfare state. They simply assume that more libertarianism (i.e. open borders with generous welfare state) is better than no libertarianism (no open border and a generous welfare state). As Milton Friedman (a truly thoughtful and pragmatic libertarian-minded thinking) once pointed out, you can either have open borders, or a generous welfare state, but not both, even though his ideal was open borders (with some very limited restrictions) and no welfare state.

        I am actually much more prone to vote for Libertarians for state and local office, than for Federal office, because I am a Constitutional conservative and a Federalist, I believe there is a clear role for a strong (but LIMITED) Federal Government, there are a number of areas of legitimate federal authority that Libertarians object to on their on ideological grounds, acting as though the constitution is a purely libertarian document (which it is not...thought it is more libertarian in spirit than modern liberal interpretation would read it).
        Ah I love it finally a real conservative on this site. wonderful. I bet you were not thrilled by Cheney's position that the president's power should not be subject to checks and balance?

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • Originally posted by redrover View Post

          Ah I love it finally a real conservative on this site. wonderful. I bet you were not thrilled by Cheney's position that the president's power should not be subject to checks and balance?
          Um, can you please cite where and when he said that? Media is full of things which were supposedly said by conservatives, but are really misrepresentation of fairly nuanced broader principles that are pretty unobjectional upon thoughtful analysis.

          A good example of this was the almost neurotic, paranoid fixation on conservatives (particularly judges) who held to the principle of "unitary executive", ascribing to that principle all manner of things that just were not in any way related to it. Someone who believes in the principle of the "unitary executive" is simply one who properly understands and applies the following text:

          "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

          Do you recognize that text? It basically says (and I defy you to find any fault in this grammatical reading) that the executive power is vested in a single person, the ("a" being singular) President of the United States.

          The application of this principle (the "unitary executive" is that the executive power, though legitimately delegated by the President to others in the executive branch, cannot be divested from the Presidency, and that they are at all times, and all instances vested in the office. Congress may not, by statute limit the executive power (though the executive is subject to the "check and balance" of impeachment, or withholding of funding, and any other of purely legislative powers that the executive's power is muted by without co-equal action.

          What does this mean practically? One good example is the Independent Counsel Statute, through which the Congress tried by statute to create an executive branch office, which was independent and outside the full authority of the President of the United States. The prosecutorial power is an executive one, and no part of the President's power may be stripped away and vested independently in another. The appropriate "check and balance" on a President who impedes or fails to pursue investigations into malfeasance by their own underlings (or themselves) is impeachment and removal from office by the legislative branch.

          Another hypothetical case is whether or not a law could be passed giving someone other than the president the power to command the armed forces independent of the president (as opposed to the revocable delegation of authority we refer to as the "chain of command" - which is an organizational matter, not one of vested powers). Absolutely not. It would be unconstitutional on its face. Does this mean that there are no checks or balances on military power by the President? Of course not, Congress can refuse to appropriate funds for military use, they may impeach and remove from office a President for abuse of his power.

          There are some powers possessed by each branch of government that may not be coopted, restricted, or diminished directly by either of the other branches. For example, there is no "check" or balance within the structure or powers of the constitution over malicious impeachment and removal of a President. The courts are not empowered to review the outcome of impeachment, and the President has no power to "check" or "balance" it.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • Originally posted by Marcus1124 View Post

            Um, can you please cite where and when he said that? Media is full of things which were supposedly said by conservatives, but are really misrepresentation of fairly nuanced broader principles that are pretty unobjectional upon thoughtful analysis.

            A good example of this was the almost neurotic, paranoid fixation on conservatives (particularly judges) who held to the principle of "unitary executive", ascribing to that principle all manner of things that just were not in any way related to it. Someone who believes in the principle of the "unitary executive" is simply one who properly understands and applies the following text:

            "The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of America."

            Do you recognize that text? It basically says (and I defy you to find any fault in this grammatical reading) that the executive power is vested in a single person, the ("a" being singular) President of the United States.

            The application of this principle (the "unitary executive" is that the executive power, though legitimately delegated by the President to others in the executive branch, cannot be divested from the Presidency, and that they are at all times, and all instances vested in the office. Congress may not, by statute limit the executive power (though the executive is subject to the "check and balance" of impeachment, or withholding of funding, and any other of purely legislative powers that the executive's power is muted by without co-equal action.

            What does this mean practically? One good example is the Independent Counsel Statute, through which the Congress tried by statute to create an executive branch office, which was independent and outside the full authority of the President of the United States. The prosecutorial power is an executive one, and no part of the President's power may be stripped away and vested independently in another. The appropriate "check and balance" on a President who impedes or fails to pursue investigations into malfeasance by their own underlings (or themselves) is impeachment and removal from office by the legislative branch.

            Another hypothetical case is whether or not a law could be passed giving someone other than the president the power to command the armed forces independent of the president (as opposed to the revocable delegation of authority we refer to as the "chain of command" - which is an organizational matter, not one of vested powers). Absolutely not. It would be unconstitutional on its face. Does this mean that there are no checks or balances on military power by the President? Of course not, Congress can refuse to appropriate funds for military use, they may impeach and remove from office a President for abuse of his power.

            There are some powers possessed by each branch of government that may not be coopted, restricted, or diminished directly by either of the other branches. For example, there is no "check" or balance within the structure or powers of the constitution over malicious impeachment and removal of a President. The courts are not empowered to review the outcome of impeachment, and the President has no power to "check" or "balance" it.
            Back durung the post 9/11 Cheney and his lawyers John Yoo and David Addington held that the president should be restrained in any way. Fortunately some conservative lawyers finally brought the to heel.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • Originally posted by redrover View Post
              Back durung the post 9/11 Cheney and his lawyers John Yoo and David Addington held that the president should be restrained in any way. Fortunately some conservative lawyers finally brought the to heel.
              Is that really exactly what you wanted to write ... what you wrote ?

              "Back durung the post 9/11 Cheney and his lawyers John Yoo and David Addington held that the president should be restrained in any way.

              Fortunately some conservative lawyers finally brought the to heel."

              ... whatever it is you're attempting to explain, might be better explained with a link to an article on the subject maybe ?

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                Is that really exactly what you wanted to write ... what you wrote ?

                "Back durung the post 9/11 Cheney and his lawyers John Yoo and David Addington held that the president should be restrained in any way.

                Fortunately some conservative lawyers finally brought the to heel."

                ... whatever it is you're attempting to explain, might be better explained with a link to an article on the subject maybe ?
                Just something he read in a left wing rag and believed because of his indoctrination.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                  Just something he read in a left wing rag and believed because of his indoctrination.
                  Where their logic skills are obviously as good as their writing skills LOL

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                    Back durung the post 9/11 Cheney and his lawyers John Yoo and David Addington held that the president should be restrained in any way. Fortunately some conservative lawyers finally brought the to heel.
                    Can you provide the exact context, because I suspect that what you read was the idiotic misinterpretation of a specific statement regarding a particular executive power as a general principle of the scope of the executive powers (as is often the case with the constitutionally or legally illiterate members of the media and wider chattering class).

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                      Just something he read in a left wing rag and believed because of his indoctrination.
                      https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Ins.../dp/B001NLKYEC That info comes from a book. You know books they are sort of like TV for smart people. Here is a link.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • Originally posted by redrover View Post

                        https://www.amazon.com/Dark-Side-Ins.../dp/B001NLKYEC That info comes from a book. You know books they are sort of like TV for smart people. Here is a link.
                        If you believe everything you read in a book, read the Bible.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                          If you believe everything you read in a book, read the Bible.
                          What ? That offensive old book of fairy tales ?

                          We know that liberals much prefer a different doctrine;

                          "Man— using his brain —invented all the Gods, doing so because many of our species cannot accept or control their personal egos, feeling compelled to conjure up one or a multiplicity of characters who can act without hindrance or guilt upon whims and desires. All Gods are thus externalized forms, magnified projections of the true nature of their creators, personifying aspects of the universe or personal temperaments which many of their followers find to be troubling. Worshiping any God is thus worshiping by proxy those who invented that God. Since the Satanist understands that all Gods are fiction, instead of bending a knee in worship to—or seeking friendship or unity with—such mythical entities, he places himself at the center of his own subjective universe as his own highest value."

                          http://www.churchofsatan.com/

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                            If you believe everything you read in a book, read the Bible.
                            ve alreaddy read it. I give it one and a half stars, but of course historical fiction is not one of my favorite genres.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • Last edited by OldmanDan; 10-08-2016, 04:08 AM.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X