Announcement

Collapse

Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)

DISCLAIMER

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

AND

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

AND

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

FORUM RULES, IN ADDITION TO THE DISCLAIMER

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONSEQUENCES

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

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

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

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

PRIVACY POLICY

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

SUBSCRIPTIONS

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

The newest strategy, harass people !

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

  • The newest strategy, harass people !

    This is the newest great idea from liberals ... thanks Maxine !

    Now, publicly harassing people is going to somehow make the world accept and submit to liberal ideas !

    Make people live in fear and be silent ! Don't say anything to make those darn liberals mad, they'll ruin your night out !! . . or anywhere else you may go

    Or ... are people going to see these ridiculous, public attacks by liberals for what they are ?

    Tantrum throwing, mentally unstable people who are still mad about hilary clinton losing the election.

    If this doesn't prove the desperate stupidity of liberals, I don't know what could.

    That someone - Maxine Waters - might imagine that this is the way to sell your ideas to the general public and succeed, is enlightening isn't it ?

    These are the same people that like to call conservatives nazis and fascists !

    Interesting that !


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

    ..a scene weve witnessed with dispiriting frequency in the past few weeks: a conservative figure, accosted as they went about their everyday activities. This time, it was former White House adviser Steve Bannon in a Richmond, Virginia bookstore.

    Nick Cooke, owner of Black Swan Books on West Main Street in the Fan District, said Bannon was in the bookstore Saturday afternoon and that a woman confronted him, calling him a piece of trash, the Richmond Times-Dispatch reported.

    Cooke said he called 911 and that the woman left as he made the call.

    Steve Bannon was simply standing, looking at books, minding his own business. I asked her to leave, and she wouldnt. And I said, Im going to call the police if you dont, and I went to call the police and she left, Cooke told the paper.

    And thats the end of the story.

    Perhaps the most uplifting thing, however, was Cookes defense of what the bookstore stands for.

    We are a bookshop. Bookshops are all about ideas and tolerating different opinions and not about verbally assaulting somebody, which is what was happening, Cooke said.

    This is just the latest public confrontation from liberals that conservatives have faced in recent weeks. Homeland Security Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, White House press secretary Sarah Huckabee Sanders, former EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt and Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao have all been victims of public harassment not to mention teens wearing MAGA caps or reporters for conservative publications that have also been attacked.

    Of course, it doesnt hurt that the Democrats are suborning such attacks.

    Lets make sure we show up, wherever we have to show up, Maxine Waters said during a now-infamous late-June rally in Los Angeles.

    If you see anybody from that cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you cause a crowd, and you push back on them, and you tell them theyre not welcome anymore, anywhere.


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

  • #2
    OMG! People are being rude! For shame! For shame!
    That does it! I'm never gonna vote for anyone who rude and disrespectful. Why can't we be polite like president Trump?

    ?


    • #3
      It is my observation that this "new" behavior goes well beyond "rude," DJ. "Rude" is calling someone a miscreant simply because I disagree with their idea.

      Physical confrontation is taking that to an entirely new level, some even crossing the line into "illegal," though not all (yet). But it is only this higher level of harassment that is "new."

      Liberals have been harassing those with whom they disagree for years: Even here, many times, a liberal will "shout" an unsupported, possibly irrelevant point in hopes to shut down their opponent and we see this behavior almost daily in the news: Liberals, unwilling to consider opposing viewpoints, becoming increasingly strident (and loud) in hopes of shutting down those with whom they disagree.

      In my opinion, the simple truth is, those alt-left adherents cannot sustain a legitimate argument based on ideas and facts and they also cannot bring themselves to concede that their opponent has sustained their argument (or, at minimum, cannot face the fact that they cannot sustain theirs), so their frustration leads them to harass into submission.

      The real negative here, though, is: They don't learn.

      ?


      • #4
        Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
        It is my observation that this "new" behavior goes well beyond "rude," DJ. "Rude" is calling someone a miscreant simply because I disagree with their idea.

        Physical confrontation is taking that to an entirely new level, some even crossing the line into "illegal," though not all (yet). But it is only this higher level of harassment that is "new."

        Liberals have been harassing those with whom they disagree for years: Even here, many times, a liberal will "shout" an unsupported, possibly irrelevant point in hopes to shut down their opponent and we see this behavior almost daily in the news: Liberals, unwilling to consider opposing viewpoints, becoming increasingly strident (and loud) in hopes of shutting down those with whom they disagree.

        In my opinion, the simple truth is, those alt-left adherents cannot sustain a legitimate argument based on ideas and facts and they also cannot bring themselves to concede that their opponent has sustained their argument (or, at minimum, cannot face the fact that they cannot sustain theirs), so their frustration leads them to harass into submission.

        The real negative here, though, is: They don't learn.
        Yes
        miscreant. Don't you just hate it when someone calls you something and you don't know what it means?

        ?


        • #5
          Originally posted by redrover View Post

          Yes
          miscreant. Don't you just hate it when someone calls you something and you don't know what it means?
          Shhhhh,

          the adults are talking.

          ?


          • #6
            Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
            It is my observation that this "new" behavior goes well beyond "rude," DJ. "Rude" is calling someone a miscreant simply because I disagree with their idea.

            Physical confrontation is taking that to an entirely new level, some even crossing the line into "illegal," though not all (yet). But it is only this higher level of harassment that is "new."

            Liberals have been harassing those with whom they disagree for years: Even here, many times, a liberal will "shout" an unsupported, possibly irrelevant point in hopes to shut down their opponent and we see this behavior almost daily in the news: Liberals, unwilling to consider opposing viewpoints, becoming increasingly strident (and loud) in hopes of shutting down those with whom they disagree.

            In my opinion, the simple truth is, those alt-left adherents cannot sustain a legitimate argument based on ideas and facts and they also cannot bring themselves to concede that their opponent has sustained their argument (or, at minimum, cannot face the fact that they cannot sustain theirs), so their frustration leads them to harass into submission.

            The real negative here, though, is: They don't learn.

            The reason I posted this thread was to enable discussion, IF these events continue on, get worse/escalate etc.

            We should hope they don't, if they do, I don't foresee any good outcomes. For ANYBODY.

            Hopefully, this topic will become needless and irrelevant soon. Americans will show themselves to be adults that have matured beyond public, verbal assaults of the temper tantrum variety. People like Maxine Waters will be ignored for the rabble-rousing fools they are.

            But it's difficult to tell at this point. The bizarre behaviours we've witnessed lately are disturbing.

            We should all hope this passes, that these are just a few weird occurrences.

            ?


            • #7
              I have little hope it will mitigate anytime soon.

              We have a body of citizens and non-citizens who actually believe they have something valuable to say, and they are angry that few are taking them seriously. They don't shout and dance and cajole because they believe they will win converts to their cause: They act badly, threaten, assault in hopes of intimidating those who ARE willing to speak to them into silence. This is a standard Alinsky rule that started out with shouting one's opponent down and has, now, escalated to threats, ad hominem and other attacks.

              IF the rational Americans will get up off their butts in the Mid-Term elections and show the mindless drones "we're not buyin' it," ... toss a couple of those of the louder persuasion out on their ears ... it MIGHT dampen the alt-left's enthusiasm, but even if it does, it will be short lived.

              ?


              • #8
                Originally posted by DavidSF View Post

                Shhhhh,

                the adults are talking.
                You adulterers go at it.

                ?


                • #9
                  Originally posted by redrover View Post

                  You adulterers go at it.
                  Gosh how clever ....

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Or try to kill them.

                    Those kind, loving, tolerant liberals.

                    Telling us over and over about diversity being our strength.... except when they don't happen to like or agree with something !

                    Then ....

                    The violence of liberalism

                    Must we all obtain concealed carry permits and arm ourselves to protect ourselves from the violent morons of the left ??

                    More and more, it's looking like the answer to this question is yes.

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

                    After the Southern Poverty Law Center declared the Christian based Family Research Council a hate group intent on harming gay rights, Floyd Lee Corkins walked into the Council's offices with Chick-fil-A sandwiches and a gun intent on murdering the employees and stuffing their mouths with the sandwiches. Also a fan of the Southern Poverty Law Center and its anti-Christian and anti-Republican rhetoric, James Hodgkinson took seriously the Democrat and progressive left rhetoric that Republicans would kill people by repealing the Affordable Care Act. He drove to a baseball field and attempted a mass assassination of Republican members of Congress.

                    ...both were provoked by extreme rhetoric from the left. Progressives once claimed Republicans were racist. Now they claim Republicans are racist killers who need to be stopped. According to Democrats, Republicans attempted to kill people through passing tax cuts, repealing Obama era net neutrality regulations, merely considering the repeal of Obamacare and now by the president nominating Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

                    We are already at a point where progressive protestors are showing up at the homes of Trump administration employees. White House staff, members of Congress, Fox News personalities and other notable conservatives are getting harassed and thrown out of restaurants. A random 16-year-old in San Antonio, TX was assaulted in a restaurant last week for wearing a "Make America Great Again" cap.

                    Democrats have now convinced a good portion of their base that Russia stole the 2016 election and that Russia is trying to steal the 2018 election as well. In fact, some Democratic consultants are already warning that Democrat leaders may be suppressing their vote by saying Russia is going to steal the election.

                    Democrats are increasingly vocal about the idea that they think Republicans in Congress are doing Russia's bidding. They view Donald Trump as an authoritarian figure waiting for just the right moment to suspend elections and impose a dictatorship. Hollywood Director Josh Whedon declared merely considering Kavanaugh's nomination would create the first American dictatorship.

                    On Independence Day, "The First Purge" came out in theaters. The movie posits that the National Rifle Association backed a coup that put a dictatorship in power in the United States. Democrats consider the group a terrorist organization that Republicans show fealty to. They also believe Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a terrorist organization that should be abolished.

                    In the 24 hours after President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared Kavanaugh would be "a destructive tool on a generation of progress for workers, women, LGBTQ people, communities of color [and] families" and that he would "radically reverse the course of American justice [and] democracy." Yale law students declared people would die because of Kavanaugh. NBC News journalists spread, as news, a false rumor that Anthony Kennedy negotiated his retirement contingent on Kavanaugh's appointment.


                    https://www.dailywire.com/news/33065...aign=mattwalsh

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


                    . They're mad as hell about ANY supreme court pick that won't assist them in with inventing new "laws," traditions and norms for us all to be forced to follow.........

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

                    That's exactly why the left is so hysterical about the Supreme Court. They run to the courts to win their most unpopular policy ideas, gift-wrapped and handed to them as "constitutional rights."

                    What liberals call "rights" are legislative proposals that they can't pass through normal democratic processes -- at least outside of the states they've already flipped with immigration, like California.

                    Liberals know they can't stop Kavanaugh's confirmation, so they'd just as soon not hear any news about it at all. Please cheer us up with stories about Paul Manafort's solitary confinement!

                    But there was one very peculiar reaction to the nomination. The nut wing of the Democratic Party instantly denounced Kavanaugh by claiming that his elevation to the high court would threaten all sorts of "rights."

                    Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., tweeted: "Our next justice should be a champion for protecting & advancing rights, not rolling them back -- but Kavanaugh has a long history of demonstrating hostility toward defending the rights of everyday Americans."

                    Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., tweeted: "If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court it will have a profoundly negative effect on workers' rights, women's rights and voting rights for decades to come. We must do everything we can to stop this nomination."

                    If only these guys could get themselves elected to some sort of legislative body, they could pass laws protecting these rights!

                    Wait, I'm sorry. These are elected United States senators. Of all people, why are they carrying on about "rights"? If senators can't protect these alleged "rights," it can only be because most Americans do not agree that they should be "rights."

                    Realizing how widely reviled their ideas are, several decades ago the left figured out a procedural scam to give them whatever they wanted without ever having to pass a law. Hey! You can't review a Supreme Court decision!


                    Instead of persuading a majority of their fellow citizens, they'd need to persuade only five justices to invent any rights they pleased. They didn't have to ask twice. Apparently, justices find it much funner to be all-powerful despots than boring technocrats interpreting written law.

                    Soon the court was creating "rights" promoting all the left's favorite causes -- abortion, criminals, busing, pornography, stamping out religion, forcing military academies to admit girls and so on.

                    There was nothing America could do about it.

                    OK, liberals, you cheated and got all your demented policy ideas declared "constitutional rights." But it's very strange having elected legislators act as if they are helpless serfs, with no capacity to protect "rights."

                    It's stranger still for politicians to pretend that these putative "rights" are supported by a majority of Americans. By definition, the majority does not support them. Otherwise, they'd already be protected by law and not by Ruth Bader Ginsburg's latest newsletter.


                    On MSNBC, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said people storming into the streets and making their voices heard about Kavanaugh is "the remarkable part about a democracy."

                    Actually, that isn't democracy at all. Liberals don't do well at democracy. Why don't politicians run for office promising to ban the death penalty, spring criminals from prison or enshrine late-term abortion? Hmmm ... I wonder why those "I (heart) partial-birth abortion!" T-shirts aren't selling?


                    Unless the Constitution forbids it -- and there are very few things proscribed by the Constitution -- democracy entails persuading a majority of your fellow Americans or state citizens to support something, and then either putting it on the ballot or electing representatives who will write it into law -- perhaps even a constitutional amendment.

                    Otherwise, these "rights" whereof you speak are no more real than the Beastie Boys' assertion of THE RIGHT TO PARTEEEEEEEE!

                    Gay marriage, for example, was foisted on the country not through ballot initiatives, persuasion, public acceptance, lobbying or politicians winning elections by promising to legalize it. No, what happened was, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court suddenly discovered a right to gay marriage lurking in the state's 223-year-old Constitution -- written by the very religious John Adams. (Surprise!)

                    After that, the people rose up and banned gay marriage in state after state, even in liberal bastions like Oregon and California. The year after the Massachusetts court's remarkable discovery, gay marriage lost in all 11 states where it was on the ballot.

                    Everywhere gay marriage was submitted to a popular vote, it lost. (Only one state's voters briefly seemed to approve of gay marriage -- Arizona, in 2006 -- but that was evidently a problem with the wording of the initiative, because two years later, the voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage.)

                    Inasmuch as allowing people to vote resulted in a resounding "NO!" on gay marriage, liberals ran back to the courts. Still, the public rebelled. The year after the Iowa Supreme Court concocted a right to gay marriage, voters recalled three of the court's seven justices.

                    A handful of blue state legislatures passed gay marriage laws, but even in the Soviet Republic of New York, a gay marriage bill failed in 2009.


                    And then the U.S. Supreme Court decided that was quite enough democracy on the question of gay marriage! It turned out that -- just like the Massachusetts Constitution -- a gay marriage clause had been hiding in our Constitution all along!

                    Conservatives could never dream of victories like this from the judiciary. Even nine Antonin Scalias on the Supreme Court are never going to discover a "constitutional right" to a border wall, mass deportations, a flat tax, publicly funded churches and gun ranges, the "right" to smoke or to consume 24-ounce sugary sodas.

                    These are "constitutional rights" every bit as much as the alleged "constitutional rights" to abortion, pornography, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, the exclusionary rule and on and on and on.

                    The only rights conservatives ever seek under the Constitution are the ones that are written in black and white, such as the freedom of speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Mostly, we sit trembling, waiting to see what new nonexistent rights the court will impose on us, contravening everything we believe.

                    So when you hear liberals carrying on about all the "rights" threatened by Kavanaugh, remember that by "rights," they mean "policy ideas so unpopular that we can't pass a law creating such rights."


                    http://www.anncoulter.com/

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
                      Or try to kill them.

                      Those kind, loving, tolerant liberals.

                      Telling us over and over about diversity being our strength.... except when they don't happen to like or agree with something !

                      Then ....

                      The violence of liberalism

                      Must we all obtain concealed carry permits and arm ourselves to protect ourselves from the violent morons of the left ??

                      More and more, it's looking like the answer to this question is yes.

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

                      After the Southern Poverty Law Center declared the Christian based Family Research Council a hate group intent on harming gay rights, Floyd Lee Corkins walked into the Council's offices with Chick-fil-A sandwiches and a gun intent on murdering the employees and stuffing their mouths with the sandwiches. Also a fan of the Southern Poverty Law Center and its anti-Christian and anti-Republican rhetoric, James Hodgkinson took seriously the Democrat and progressive left rhetoric that Republicans would kill people by repealing the Affordable Care Act. He drove to a baseball field and attempted a mass assassination of Republican members of Congress.

                      ...both were provoked by extreme rhetoric from the left. Progressives once claimed Republicans were racist. Now they claim Republicans are racist killers who need to be stopped. According to Democrats, Republicans attempted to kill people through passing tax cuts, repealing Obama era net neutrality regulations, merely considering the repeal of Obamacare and now by the president nominating Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.

                      We are already at a point where progressive protestors are showing up at the homes of Trump administration employees. White House staff, members of Congress, Fox News personalities and other notable conservatives are getting harassed and thrown out of restaurants. A random 16-year-old in San Antonio, TX was assaulted in a restaurant last week for wearing a "Make America Great Again" cap.

                      Democrats have now convinced a good portion of their base that Russia stole the 2016 election and that Russia is trying to steal the 2018 election as well. In fact, some Democratic consultants are already warning that Democrat leaders may be suppressing their vote by saying Russia is going to steal the election.

                      Democrats are increasingly vocal about the idea that they think Republicans in Congress are doing Russia's bidding. They view Donald Trump as an authoritarian figure waiting for just the right moment to suspend elections and impose a dictatorship. Hollywood Director Josh Whedon declared merely considering Kavanaugh's nomination would create the first American dictatorship.

                      On Independence Day, "The First Purge" came out in theaters. The movie posits that the National Rifle Association backed a coup that put a dictatorship in power in the United States. Democrats consider the group a terrorist organization that Republicans show fealty to. They also believe Immigration and Customs Enforcement is a terrorist organization that should be abolished.

                      In the 24 hours after President Trump nominated Brett Kavanaugh for the Supreme Court, former Speaker Nancy Pelosi declared Kavanaugh would be "a destructive tool on a generation of progress for workers, women, LGBTQ people, communities of color [and] families" and that he would "radically reverse the course of American justice [and] democracy." Yale law students declared people would die because of Kavanaugh. NBC News journalists spread, as news, a false rumor that Anthony Kennedy negotiated his retirement contingent on Kavanaugh's appointment.


                      https://www.dailywire.com/news/33065...aign=mattwalsh

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


                      . They're mad as hell about ANY supreme court pick that won't assist them in with inventing new "laws," traditions and norms for us all to be forced to follow.........

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

                      That's exactly why the left is so hysterical about the Supreme Court. They run to the courts to win their most unpopular policy ideas, gift-wrapped and handed to them as "constitutional rights."

                      What liberals call "rights" are legislative proposals that they can't pass through normal democratic processes -- at least outside of the states they've already flipped with immigration, like California.

                      Liberals know they can't stop Kavanaugh's confirmation, so they'd just as soon not hear any news about it at all. Please cheer us up with stories about Paul Manafort's solitary confinement!

                      But there was one very peculiar reaction to the nomination. The nut wing of the Democratic Party instantly denounced Kavanaugh by claiming that his elevation to the high court would threaten all sorts of "rights."

                      Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., tweeted: "Our next justice should be a champion for protecting & advancing rights, not rolling them back -- but Kavanaugh has a long history of demonstrating hostility toward defending the rights of everyday Americans."

                      Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., tweeted: "If Brett Kavanaugh is confirmed to the Supreme Court it will have a profoundly negative effect on workers' rights, women's rights and voting rights for decades to come. We must do everything we can to stop this nomination."

                      If only these guys could get themselves elected to some sort of legislative body, they could pass laws protecting these rights!

                      Wait, I'm sorry. These are elected United States senators. Of all people, why are they carrying on about "rights"? If senators can't protect these alleged "rights," it can only be because most Americans do not agree that they should be "rights."

                      Realizing how widely reviled their ideas are, several decades ago the left figured out a procedural scam to give them whatever they wanted without ever having to pass a law. Hey! You can't review a Supreme Court decision!


                      Instead of persuading a majority of their fellow citizens, they'd need to persuade only five justices to invent any rights they pleased. They didn't have to ask twice. Apparently, justices find it much funner to be all-powerful despots than boring technocrats interpreting written law.

                      Soon the court was creating "rights" promoting all the left's favorite causes -- abortion, criminals, busing, pornography, stamping out religion, forcing military academies to admit girls and so on.

                      There was nothing America could do about it.

                      OK, liberals, you cheated and got all your demented policy ideas declared "constitutional rights." But it's very strange having elected legislators act as if they are helpless serfs, with no capacity to protect "rights."

                      It's stranger still for politicians to pretend that these putative "rights" are supported by a majority of Americans. By definition, the majority does not support them. Otherwise, they'd already be protected by law and not by Ruth Bader Ginsburg's latest newsletter.


                      On MSNBC, Sen. Elizabeth Warren, D-Mass., said people storming into the streets and making their voices heard about Kavanaugh is "the remarkable part about a democracy."

                      Actually, that isn't democracy at all. Liberals don't do well at democracy. Why don't politicians run for office promising to ban the death penalty, spring criminals from prison or enshrine late-term abortion? Hmmm ... I wonder why those "I (heart) partial-birth abortion!" T-shirts aren't selling?


                      Unless the Constitution forbids it -- and there are very few things proscribed by the Constitution -- democracy entails persuading a majority of your fellow Americans or state citizens to support something, and then either putting it on the ballot or electing representatives who will write it into law -- perhaps even a constitutional amendment.

                      Otherwise, these "rights" whereof you speak are no more real than the Beastie Boys' assertion of THE RIGHT TO PARTEEEEEEEE!

                      Gay marriage, for example, was foisted on the country not through ballot initiatives, persuasion, public acceptance, lobbying or politicians winning elections by promising to legalize it. No, what happened was, in 2003, the Massachusetts Supreme Court suddenly discovered a right to gay marriage lurking in the state's 223-year-old Constitution -- written by the very religious John Adams. (Surprise!)

                      After that, the people rose up and banned gay marriage in state after state, even in liberal bastions like Oregon and California. The year after the Massachusetts court's remarkable discovery, gay marriage lost in all 11 states where it was on the ballot.

                      Everywhere gay marriage was submitted to a popular vote, it lost. (Only one state's voters briefly seemed to approve of gay marriage -- Arizona, in 2006 -- but that was evidently a problem with the wording of the initiative, because two years later, the voters overwhelmingly approved a constitutional ban on gay marriage.)

                      Inasmuch as allowing people to vote resulted in a resounding "NO!" on gay marriage, liberals ran back to the courts. Still, the public rebelled. The year after the Iowa Supreme Court concocted a right to gay marriage, voters recalled three of the court's seven justices.

                      A handful of blue state legislatures passed gay marriage laws, but even in the Soviet Republic of New York, a gay marriage bill failed in 2009.


                      And then the U.S. Supreme Court decided that was quite enough democracy on the question of gay marriage! It turned out that -- just like the Massachusetts Constitution -- a gay marriage clause had been hiding in our Constitution all along!

                      Conservatives could never dream of victories like this from the judiciary. Even nine Antonin Scalias on the Supreme Court are never going to discover a "constitutional right" to a border wall, mass deportations, a flat tax, publicly funded churches and gun ranges, the "right" to smoke or to consume 24-ounce sugary sodas.

                      These are "constitutional rights" every bit as much as the alleged "constitutional rights" to abortion, pornography, gay marriage, transgender bathrooms, the exclusionary rule and on and on and on.

                      The only rights conservatives ever seek under the Constitution are the ones that are written in black and white, such as the freedom of speech and the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Mostly, we sit trembling, waiting to see what new nonexistent rights the court will impose on us, contravening everything we believe.

                      So when you hear liberals carrying on about all the "rights" threatened by Kavanaugh, remember that by "rights," they mean "policy ideas so unpopular that we can't pass a law creating such rights."


                      http://www.anncoulter.com/
                      You should go back to stealing from the American thinker. Kavanaugh is anti workers rights. Rights recognized bylaw.https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b048036ea39006

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by redrover View Post

                        You should go back to stealing from the American thinker. Kavanaugh is anti workers rights. Rights recognized bylaw.https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b048036ea39006
                        So he didn't think illegal immigrants should have the "right" to unionize and you think that makes him against all workers rights. Where's the logic in that? Illegal immigrants shouldn't have ANY rights. They aren't supposed to be here.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by redrover View Post

                          You should go back to stealing from the American thinker. Kavanaugh is anti workers rights. Rights recognized bylaw.https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b048036ea39006
                          Huffpo is a tool of the left. They will regurgitate anything Schumer (et al) tells them to.

                          but you havent yet figured out, this is all for show. Schumer wants Kavanaugh, especially over Barrett. Trump gave him this pick, but Schumer still has to march to his hate drumbeat.

                          wait and see if Im Not right. Kavanaugh will be confirmed and Schumer will save face.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by DavidSF View Post
                            Huffpo is a tool of the left. They will regurgitate anything Schumer (et al) tells them to.

                            but you havent yet figured out, this is all for show. Schumer wants Kavanaugh, especially over Barrett. Trump gave him this pick, but Schumer still has to march to his hate drumbeat.

                            wait and see if Im Not right. Kavanaugh will be confirmed and Schumer will save face.
                            Yes he will be confirmed and immediately go to work with Gorsuch the other big business flack put on the court to undercut workers.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by redrover View Post
                              You should go back to stealing from the American thinker. Kavanaugh is anti workers rights. Rights recognized bylaw.https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...b048036ea39006
                              Sorry to disappoint you.

                              The supreme court nominee isn't anti-workers rights.... you're making weird & desperate claims.

                              Like your friend hilary clinton is now doing.

                              She's is gone, right out the window has her mind gone.

                              Hilary clinton is beginning to suffer from the same illness Nancy pelosi suffers from.

                              She believes a supreme court justice has the power to make time travel possible !!

                              Backwards even !!

                              One would think a persons family would help discourage or prevent loved ones from making such public spectacles of themselves.

                              Sad.


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

                              ...

                              I used to worry that they wanted to turn the clock back to the 1950s. Now, I worry they want to turn it back to the 1850s. These will be urgent fights. Stakes could not be higher.

                              ...

                              The reality is leftists like Hillary are fearful the Supreme Court might actually start following the Constitution once again.

                              As opposed to reinterpreting the Bill of Rights to suit whatever their cause may be that week.

                              Which puts a big damper on their plans for total domination. Those checks and balances are a real bitch.


                              ..

                              https://www.louderwithcrowder.com/hi...vanaugh-1850s/

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X