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

You might be a White Supremacist if ...

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

  • You might be a White Supremacist if ...

    You claimed (with no evidence) that our first black president was not a U.S. citizen.
    You said our first black president couldn't possibly be smart enough to go to Harvard.
    You said a judge could not be fair to you because he was "Mexican."
    You said you only want short guys who wear yarmulkes to count your money.
    You said a judge could treat you unfairly because he was a Muslim.
    The former head of the KKK endorsed you for president and you refused to rebuke it.
    You've settled lawsuits with the DOJ for racial profiling of potential tenants.
    You appoint a man as USAG who was denied a federal judgeship based in part on his racist attitudes.

    I could have provided links to each of these claims, and I think it is important that everyone learn to use Internet search engines.


  • #2
    Originally posted by HawkeyeDJ View Post
    You claimed (with no evidence) that our first black president was not a U.S. citizen.
    You said our first black president couldn't possibly be smart enough to go to Harvard.
    You said a judge could not be fair to you because he was "Mexican."
    You said you only want short guys who wear yarmulkes to count your money.
    You said a judge could treat you unfairly because he was a Muslim.
    The former head of the KKK endorsed you for president and you refused to rebuke it.
    You've settled lawsuits with the DOJ for racial profiling of potential tenants.
    You appoint a man as USAG who was denied a federal judgeship based in part on his racist attitudes.

    I could have provided links to each of these claims, and I think it is important that everyone learn to use Internet search engines.
    What if all of those things he said were actually true? No court ever considered the birther claims because they always dodged the issue with statements that the litigants had no standing. It was a claim stated by the first Hillary campaign. What if Obama got into Harvard claiming he was a foreign student, he never released any of his educational records. What if the Mexican judge was the typical leftist partisan who based his rulings on a political agenda rather than the law as are many judges today. What if you trusted these short Jews to manage your money wisely, is that some sign of white supremacy? As far as I am concerned Islam is a religion of Satan and no Muslim should ever be trusted. So what if the KKK endorsed Trump, he has no control over who endorses him, it's as meaningless as the New York Times endorsing Clinton. Everyone in the big realestat world has settled lawsuits with the DOJ because it is cheaper to settle than to fight a frivolous suit chasing deep pockets. And as far as Sessions having racist attitudes, that was simply a partisan allegation refuted by many Americans of African descent.

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #3
      Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

      What if all of those things he said were actually true? No court ever considered the birther claims because they always dodged the issue with statements that the litigants had no standing. It was a claim stated by the first Hillary campaign. What if Obama got into Harvard claiming he was a foreign student, he never released any of his educational records. What if the Mexican judge was the typical leftist partisan who based his rulings on a political agenda rather than the law as are many judges today. What if you trusted these short Jews to manage your money wisely, is that some sign of white supremacy? As far as I am concerned Islam is a religion of Satan and no Muslim should ever be trusted. So what if the KKK endorsed Trump, he has no control over who endorses him, it's as meaningless as the New York Times endorsing Clinton. Everyone in the big realestat world has settled lawsuits with the DOJ because it is cheaper to settle than to fight a frivolous suit chasing deep pockets. And as far as Sessions having racist attitudes, that was simply a partisan allegation refuted by many Americans of African descent.
      No court ever considered the birther claims because they always dodged the issue with statements that the litigants had no standing.
      Do you know what 'standing' means? It basically means that nutjobs don't get to clog up the courts with frivolous lawsuits. When a court rules that someone 'has no standing' it means they have no basis for their claims and therefore to even entertain the claimant would be a waste of time. Even your boy Trump later came out and refuted the birther claims, saying he had investigated the matter thoroughly. Are you saying that Trump is in cahoots with those courts that refused to allow the baseless lawsuits to go forward?

      As far as I am concerned Islam is a religion of Satan and no Muslim should ever be trusted.
      Based on this, would it upset you if someone were to say you are a religious bigot?

      Has any president ever released their educational records? Has it ever been demanded of any other president? Why is Harvard Law, it's entire faculty and administration, suddenly not to be trusted because a black man became president? Amazing how they were able to forge the entire printing of the 1991 Harvard Law Yearbook, making it look like Obama was there.

      Trump did not say the judge could not be impartial because he was "a leftist partisan." Trump said it was because he was "Mexican." Nice attempt at diversion, though.

      Do you have any evidence whatsoever that "Everyone in the big real estate world has settled lawsuits with the DOJ" or did you just decide to make it up? I've actually searched for that evidence, and I can't find anything that would support your assertion. Not only is your defense of Trump's behavior "everyone does it" weak but I say it is also untrue.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #4
        Originally posted by HawkeyeDJ View Post



        Do you know what 'standing' means? It basically means that nutjobs don't get to clog up the courts with frivolous lawsuits. When a court rules that someone 'has no standing' it means they have no basis for their claims and therefore to even entertain the claimant would be a waste of time. Even your boy Trump later came out and refuted the birther claims, saying he had investigated the matter thoroughly. Are you saying that Trump is in cahoots with those courts that refused to allow the baseless lawsuits to go forward?


        Based on this, would it upset you if someone were to say you are a religious bigot?

        Has any president ever released their educational records? Has it ever been demanded of any other president? Why is Harvard Law, it's entire faculty and administration, suddenly not to be trusted because a black man became president? Amazing how they were able to forge the entire printing of the 1991 Harvard Law Yearbook, making it look like Obama was there.

        Trump did not say the judge could not be impartial because he was "a leftist partisan." Trump said it was because he was "Mexican." Nice attempt at diversion, though.

        Do you have any evidence whatsoever that "Everyone in the big real estate world has settled lawsuits with the DOJ" or did you just decide to make it up? I've actually searched for that evidence, and I can't find anything that would support your assertion. Not only is your defense of Trump's behavior "everyone does it" weak but I say it is also untrue.
        Right now I'm reading The Evolution of God and it may come as a shock for Dan to learn that both Christianity and Islam trace their roots back to Abraham. So I will concede that Islam is the religion of Satan if he will admit Christianity is too. Sounds fair. Donald Trump is clearly the spawn of Satan and Christians like Dan embrace him without reservation.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #5
          Originally posted by HawkeyeDJ View Post



          Do you know what 'standing' means? It basically means that nutjobs don't get to clog up the courts with frivolous lawsuits. When a court rules that someone 'has no standing' it means they have no basis for their claims and therefore to even entertain the claimant would be a waste of time. Even your boy Trump later came out and refuted the birther claims, saying he had investigated the matter thoroughly. Are you saying that Trump is in cahoots with those courts that refused to allow the baseless lawsuits to go forward?


          Based on this, would it upset you if someone were to say you are a religious bigot?

          Has any president ever released their educational records? Has it ever been demanded of any other president? Why is Harvard Law, it's entire faculty and administration, suddenly not to be trusted because a black man became president? Amazing how they were able to forge the entire printing of the 1991 Harvard Law Yearbook, making it look like Obama was there.

          Trump did not say the judge could not be impartial because he was "a leftist partisan." Trump said it was because he was "Mexican." Nice attempt at diversion, though.

          Do you have any evidence whatsoever that "Everyone in the big real estate world has settled lawsuits with the DOJ" or did you just decide to make it up? I've actually searched for that evidence, and I can't find anything that would support your assertion. Not only is your defense of Trump's behavior "everyone does it" weak but I say it is also untrue.
          You obviously don't know what Standing means:

          http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm

          And yes, I am a religious bigot. There is one and only one Savior of the world and that is Jesus Christ. There are only those who worship Christ and those who worship Satan. There is little doubt in my mind who, those who strap bombs to their children and send them out to kill other children, worship.

          I remember Bush's academic records and Kerry's academic records being ridiculed, I assume someone released them.

          http://www.eduinreview.com/blog/2008...how-c-average/

          http://insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html

          http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...biden-in-1987/

          Of course you haven't heard of other real estate tycoons settling lawsuits. You wouldn't have heard about any with Trump if he hadn't been elected President.

          https://therealdeal.com/2014/12/16/r...suits-of-2014/

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #6
            Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

            You obviously don't know what Standing means:

            http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/s064.htm

            And yes, I am a religious bigot. There is one and only one Savior of the world and that is Jesus Christ. There are only those who worship Christ and those who worship Satan. There is little doubt in my mind who, those who strap bombs to their children and send them out to kill other children, worship.

            I remember Bush's academic records and Kerry's academic records being ridiculed, I assume someone released them.

            http://www.eduinreview.com/blog/2008...how-c-average/

            http://insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.html

            http://www.breitbart.com/big-governm...biden-in-1987/

            Of course you haven't heard of other real estate tycoons settling lawsuits. You wouldn't have heard about any with Trump if he hadn't been elected President.

            https://therealdeal.com/2014/12/16/r...suits-of-2014/
            No, I understand precisely what 'standing' means. The link you posted states it quite clearly. Those who brought suit regarding Obama's citizenship could not meet the requirements of standing. Because their claim was "He hasn't proved to our satisfaction that he is a citizen and therefore he might not be eligible to be president." They provided no "concrete" or "particular" evidence to the contrary. Therefore, they were hypothesizing that he was not a citizen. That falls under 1.a and 1.b of the requirements: " (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical ..."

            That is why you can't go forward with a lawsuit that says "That person has not shown me their driver's license and they may cause me harm if they drive a car." The court will throw your suit out on the basis of lack of standing unless you show you have been damaged by the defendant's driving and have evidence that the defendant has no driver's license.

            The difference between Bush, Kerry and Obama was no one was demanding that they prove Kerry or Bush attended a particular university. Yet, here is a Harvard publication detailing his time at Harvard. Still not enough, though. So here is another. Still not enough. More evidence here.

            The whole fucking world could bring forth the evidence, just as I have, and you would suggest 'the jury is still out.' The idea that all someone has to do is demand and that means Obama must prove is bullshit. If someone were to demand you prove you're not transgender, can we assume there is something to the allegation if you don't immediately drop your pants?

            Now that you readily and proudly admit you are a religious bigot, I'm wondering how specific your bigotry is. For instance, you wrote it was Christ or Satan. Can we assume you therefore believe Jews worship Satan? And which brand of Christianitytm is the authentic one? I mean surely you can't believe that Eastern Orthodox Christians worship the same Jesus as the Southern Baptists. Or perhaps you are as narrow-minded as the Westboro Church that claims all other denominations are abominations in the eyes of God.

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #7
              Originally posted by HawkeyeDJ View Post

              No, I understand precisely what 'standing' means. The link you posted states it quite clearly. Those who brought suit regarding Obama's citizenship could not meet the requirements of standing. Because their claim was "He hasn't proved to our satisfaction that he is a citizen and therefore he might not be eligible to be president." They provided no "concrete" or "particular" evidence to the contrary. Therefore, they were hypothesizing that he was not a citizen. That falls under 1.a and 1.b of the requirements: " (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical ..."

              That is why you can't go forward with a lawsuit that says "That person has not shown me their driver's license and they may cause me harm if they drive a car." The court will throw your suit out on the basis of lack of standing unless you show you have been damaged by the defendant's driving and have evidence that the defendant has no driver's license.

              The difference between Bush, Kerry and Obama was no one was demanding that they prove Kerry or Bush attended a particular university. Yet, here is a Harvard publication detailing his time at Harvard. Still not enough, though. So here is another. Still not enough. More evidence here.

              The whole fucking world could bring forth the evidence, just as I have, and you would suggest 'the jury is still out.' The idea that all someone has to do is demand and that means Obama must prove is bullshit. If someone were to demand you prove you're not transgender, can we assume there is something to the allegation if you don't immediately drop your pants?

              Now that you readily and proudly admit you are a religious bigot, I'm wondering how specific your bigotry is. For instance, you wrote it was Christ or Satan. Can we assume you therefore believe Jews worship Satan? And which brand of Christianitytm is the authentic one? I mean surely you can't believe that Eastern Orthodox Christians worship the same Jesus as the Southern Baptists. Or perhaps you are as narrow-minded as the Westboro Church that claims all other denominations are abominations in the eyes of God.
              The question was not whether he attended Harvard or not, the question was under what circumstances was he admitted, what grades did he get, and was he given special admission claiming to be a foreign student.

              And, the "standing" argument was dismissed because the appellants could not claim harm. They were never allowed to provide any evidence because the cases were dismissed based on Standing, not on evidence.
              Standing

              The legally protectible stake or interest that an individual has in a dispute that entitles him to bring the controversy before the court to obtain judicial relief.

              Standing, sometimes referred to as standing to sue, is the name of the federal law doctrine that focuses on whether a prospective plaintiff can show that some personal legal interest has been invaded by the defendant. It is not enough that a person is merely interested as a member of the general public in the resolution of the dispute. The person must have a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy.

              The standing doctrine is derived from the U.S. Constitution's Article III provision that federal courts have the power to hear"cases" arising under federal law and "controversies" involving certain types of parties. In the most fundamental application of the philosophy of judicial restraint, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted this language to forbid the rendering of advisory opinions.

              Once a federal court determines that a real case or controversy exists, it must then ascertain whether the parties to the litigation have standing. The Supreme Court has developed an elaborate body of principles defining the nature and scope of standing. Basically, a plaintiff must have suffered some direct or substantial injury or be likely to suffer such an injury if a particular wrong is not redressed. A defendant must be the party responsible for perpetrating the alleged legal wrong.
              http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Standing



              You also ignored the fact that the Hillary campaign was the first to bring forth these allegations.

              As to my belief in Jesus, there are many people who claim to worship a Jesus that is not the one presented in the Bible. He is the one I believe in, not one created by man. There are a great number of Jews who have accepted Christ as their savior, look up Jews for Jesus.
              Last edited by OldmanDan; 09-17-2017, 07:24 PM.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #8
                Originally posted by redrover View Post
                Right now I'm reading The Evolution of God and it may come as a shock for Dan to learn that both Christianity and Islam trace their roots back to Abraham. So I will concede that Islam is the religion of Satan if he will admit Christianity is too. Sounds fair. Donald Trump is clearly the spawn of Satan and Christians like Dan embrace him without reservation.
                If we are to call genetic lineages "roots" to different religious belief systems.

                Religious belief systems that are as different as night and day and spread apart by around 500 years.

                One teaches you to love & forgive.

                Another teaches you to kill or convert.

                One does sound sort of Satanic.

                Of course if you blindly hate all Religion and belief in God, you'll detect no difference.

                Originally posted by HawkeyeDJ View Post
                No, I understand precisely what 'standing' means. The link you posted states it quite clearly. Those who brought suit regarding Obama's citizenship could not meet the requirements of standing. Because their claim was "He hasn't proved to our satisfaction that he is a citizen and therefore he might not be eligible to be president." They provided no "concrete" or "particular" evidence to the contrary. Therefore, they were hypothesizing that he was not a citizen. That falls under 1.a and 1.b of the requirements: " (1) injury in fact, which means an invasion of a legally protected interest that is (a) concrete and particularized, and (b) actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical ..."

                That is why you can't go forward with a lawsuit that says "That person has not shown me their driver's license and they may cause me harm if they drive a car." The court will throw your suit out on the basis of lack of standing unless you show you have been damaged by the defendant's driving and have evidence that the defendant has no driver's license.

                The difference between Bush, Kerry and Obama was no one was demanding that they prove Kerry or Bush attended a particular university. Yet, here is a Harvard publication detailing his time at Harvard. Still not enough, though. So here is another. Still not enough. More evidence here.

                The whole fucking world could bring forth the evidence, just as I have, and you would suggest 'the jury is still out.' The idea that all someone has to do is demand and that means Obama must prove is bullshit. If someone were to demand you prove you're not transgender, can we assume there is something to the allegation if you don't immediately drop your pants?

                Now that you readily and proudly admit you are a religious bigot, I'm wondering how specific your bigotry is. For instance, you wrote it was Christ or Satan. Can we assume you therefore believe Jews worship Satan? And which brand of Christianitytm is the authentic one? I mean surely you can't believe that Eastern Orthodox Christians worship the same Jesus as the Southern Baptists. Or perhaps you are as narrow-minded as the Westboro Church that claims all other denominations are abominations in the eyes of God.
                You do like to throw the bigot accusation around quite a bit. This is the usual accusation made by the left against the right.

                The left, who enjoys their own brand of bigotry- but deny it- as they accuse others of it.

                It's in the same vein as the game you like to play of cover-up for obama. Dismiss all questions about who the man is and the still hidden information about him.... BUT, were mr obama a white conservative, you'd be singing the exact opposite song.

                But you're not a bigot of course -winks-

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

                  The question was not whether he attended Harvard or not, the question was under what circumstances was he admitted, what grades did he get, and was he given special admission claiming to be a foreign student.

                  And, the "standing" argument was dismissed because the appellants could not claim harm. They were never allowed to provide any evidence because the cases were dismissed based on Standing, not on evidence.


                  http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Standing



                  You also ignored the fact that the Hillary campaign was the first to bring forth these allegations.

                  As to my belief in Jesus, there are many people who claim to worship a Jesus that is not the one presented in the Bible. He is the one I believe in, not one created by man. There are a great number of Jews who have accepted Christ as their savior, look up Jews for Jesus.
                  the question was under what circumstances was he admitted, what grades did he get, and was he given special admission claiming to be a foreign student.
                  On what basis is the question even asked?? Was there any evidence whatsoever that he was a foreign student? Was there any evidence that he was not magna cum laude? Trump said THERE IS NO WAY OBAMA WAS SMART ENOUGH TO GET INTO HARVARD. Why? What is the basis for that assertion? What was Trump implying? That Obama, a magna cum laude, president of the HLR, U.S. senator, sitting president of the U.S., was stupid? Can you or anyone else point to anyone with even half those credentials whom you could label "stupid" or even "Not Smart"?

                  Old Man, many, many people are wanting to know ... When did you stop beating your wife? Just tell us. What are you hiding?

                  I am quite familiar with Messianic Judaism, so I can only conclude that you believe that Orthodox Jews worship Satan, as do many of your fellow self-professing Christians.

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                    You do like to throw the bigot accusation around quite a bit.
                    Actually, read what your buddy Old man wrote. That is the very definition of religious bigotry, and he proudly embraces the label. Anyone who is not his brand of Christianity is a worshiper of Satan. And, he says, that goes for any non-Christians as well. I personally don't throw that accusation around very much, but if the shoe fits ... Old man wants a pair ...9D.

                    Freedom of religion was so important to the Founding Fathers that they enshrined it in the 1st Amendment, even before they protected every idiot's right to own a musket loader in the 2nd.

                    Harvard Law says Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude. That's latin for "You can kiss my ass, bitches!"

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by HawkeyeDJ View Post
                      Actually, read what your buddy Old man wrote. That is the very definition of religious bigotry, and he proudly embraces the label. Anyone who is not his brand of Christianity is a worshiper of Satan. And, he says, that goes for any non-Christians as well. I personally don't throw that accusation around very much, but if the shoe fits ... Old man wants a pair ...9D.

                      Freedom of religion was so important to the Founding Fathers that they enshrined it in the 1st Amendment, even before they protected every idiot's right to own a musket loader in the 2nd.

                      Harvard Law says Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude. That's latin for "You can kiss my ass, bitches!"
                      I disagree.

                      That is what humans do. With EVERY religion. With politics and everything else they're involved with.

                      This isn't "bigotry," it's that people like to make things conform to their own ideas and feelings. Everyone thinks they "know the way." I don't agree that the human condition is bigotry. That's just the latest trendy label to give people we don't necessarily agree with, and it doesn't help people to try to come to more mutual understandings.

                      It only guarantees further division.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by HawkeyeDJ View Post

                        Actually, read what your buddy Old man wrote. That is the very definition of religious bigotry, and he proudly embraces the label. Anyone who is not his brand of Christianity is a worshiper of Satan. And, he says, that goes for any non-Christians as well. I personally don't throw that accusation around very much, but if the shoe fits ... Old man wants a pair ...9D.

                        Freedom of religion was so important to the Founding Fathers that they enshrined it in the 1st Amendment, even before they protected every idiot's right to own a musket loader in the 2nd.

                        Harvard Law says Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude. That's latin for "You can kiss my ass, bitches!"
                        And that doesn't mean much either:

                        http://www.theblaze.com/news/2012/11...es-in-college/

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by HawkeyeDJ View Post
                          You claimed (with no evidence) that our first black president was not a U.S. citizen.
                          You said our first black president couldn't possibly be smart enough to go to Harvard.
                          You said a judge could not be fair to you because he was "Mexican."
                          You said you only want short guys who wear yarmulkes to count your money.
                          You said a judge could treat you unfairly because he was a Muslim.
                          The former head of the KKK endorsed you for president and you refused to rebuke it.
                          You've settled lawsuits with the DOJ for racial profiling of potential tenants.
                          You appoint a man as USAG who was denied a federal judgeship based in part on his racist attitudes.

                          I could have provided links to each of these claims, and I think it is important that everyone learn to use Internet search engines.
                          Glad you used "might" He also might not, right? I would need some hard evidence of his racism, as we saw plenty of in the south where I am from and where I still live. I saw real racism, grew up in it. Nothing in your list above comes close to that. And some of them like the mexican judge has a back story. You know, like, like trump ran against illegal immigration, the wall, etc, which was called racism by perhaps people like you? Then a judge if mexican heritage is over his case? Are judges human beings? Enough said. I tend to look at the big picture, not a snapshot of the micro. I was taught that in public school in the 50s and 60s. Along with Civics. I was taught how to think, and not what to think. Sadly this is no longer the case. And it shows.

                          Having seen real racism, lived in it, it pains me that the bar for racism has dropped down to the level of whale shit. And it does not justice to real racism.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by redrover View Post

                            Right now I'm reading The Evolution of God and it may come as a shock for Dan to learn that both Christianity and Islam trace their roots back to Abraham. So I will concede that Islam is the religion of Satan if he will admit Christianity is too. Sounds fair. Donald Trump is clearly the spawn of Satan and Christians like Dan embrace him without reservation.
                            One could not say this with a straight face if you simply compared the teaching and philosophy of christ to that of mohammed. IMO, mohammed was possessed by the old deceiver, and what better way to corrupt religion, than to create islam? That it contradicts the christianity of christ is the tell. If it had kept the context and teachings of christ instead of contradicting them, Islam would be a different religion today. Since christ was believed to be the son of god, with his teachings directly from god, mohammed could not have went astray from that, unless some other spiritual entity was involved. Mohammed was an opportunist, following the judaic example, from their earlier days, using allah as his justification for what he wanted in worldly terms. He was a copy cat with his new religion serving his desires. And no one should be surprised that through him, we got the LAST WORD. Yet that last word was anti Christ, against what christ taught and lived. He might have been acceptable for the judaic idea of a savior though someone from god to lead an army and smash the enemy. And I am sure he isn't the only man who has done this, perhaps going back to earlier times, as early as shamanism.

                            Christ sprang from the Judaic tradition, but he also had to clean it up, and that clean up was unacceptable by the religious authority, the politicians of the times. And we know what comes forth from political and religious power. It is the POWER that corrupts man, and it always has. It repeats time and time again throughout history and is as predictable as the rising sun.

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by HawkeyeDJ View Post

                              Actually, read what your buddy Old man wrote. That is the very definition of religious bigotry, and he proudly embraces the label. Anyone who is not his brand of Christianity is a worshiper of Satan. And, he says, that goes for any non-Christians as well. I personally don't throw that accusation around very much, but if the shoe fits ... Old man wants a pair ...9D.

                              Freedom of religion was so important to the Founding Fathers that they enshrined it in the 1st Amendment, even before they protected every idiot's right to own a musket loader in the 2nd.

                              Harvard Law says Obama graduated Magna Cum Laude. That's latin for "You can kiss my ass, bitches!"

                              I have no clue what Pres. Obama's grade point average was. His records are sealed. Harvard could say anything they want. And then how could you verify. Trust but verify is such a quaint and lost principle these days. I see no reason in sealing records. Why would it be done? Give me the best reason you can rationalize. I will listen with an open mind.

                              One of the defining things about religion is each one believes they are correct, right, the 100 percent truth. It is what religion does. Otherwise you might have a hard time keeping members. It is reality and is ancient. You see the same attitude when it comes to tribes and civilizations. It looks to me human nature. It has led to wars and still does. But man perhaps will evolve out of that, if our psychology can evolve in such a fashion. I have hope for that since we have not evolved in this area since we were tribal societies and had the ability to think.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?

                              Working...
                              X