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

Media Bias and the Information Revolution

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

  • #46
    Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
    Geez. dude. There's no "OPENLY mocking America with their demand to wear their head coverings IN CONGRESS !".

    It's called religious observance, and that's fine. It's the same as Christians wearing a cross, or an orthodox Jew wearing a Yamaka, or anything else similar.
    What's not fine is the rank antisemitism of Omar's public statements, nor the rest of the congressional Democrats giving such statements cover and protection.

    I mean, let's call a spade a spade.
    I respectfully disagree. In todays cultural context, this is openly mocking America.

    Very much so.

    First; "There had been a 181-year ban on headwear of any type in the chamber."

    Second; "Rules were changed to allow Omar, a Muslim sworn in on the Quran" !!

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...gress-headwear

    She took her oath of office on THE Quran !!

    In our idiotic fetish for "diversity" we allowed this ??!!

    We allowed it and thought is was awesome !

    Another Muslim women elected to Congress, Rashida Tlaib also took the oath on a Quran.

    We are being openly mocked & made fools of and many of us celebrate this.

    We're being laughed at.

    Islam and Islamists are NOT friends of America.

    I doubt the need to point out what they do, it's very public information.


    Muslims all over the world are laughing at us.

    Just as they would laugh at us if we went to one of their countries and attempted to become part of their government by swearing in our allegiance to it on the Holy Bible !

    Just as they would laugh at us if we went to one of their countries and demanded that they allow us to wear Christian symbols and promote Christian belief systems.

    "But we're free here !" You might say, and this is true.

    We also have to use our good sense, or we will destroy ourselves. Others will be happy to laugh along and help us with our new age ideas of tolerance and diversity..

    .. that REALLY only tolerate a few and actually discourages diversity.

    That wants to concentrate powers in the hands of a few, now America hating people !

    Like Omar and Tlaib. As if we need THEM to help our OWN hateful people.

    People like Shoomer, Pelosi, Waters, Murray, Cantwell, so many more.

    ?


    • #47
      Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

      I respectfully disagree. In todays cultural context, this is openly mocking America.

      Very much so.

      First; "There had been a 181-year ban on headwear of any type in the chamber."
      Time are a changing, and this is not worth the fight from my perspective, and the details on that will be below.
      [quote]
      Second; "Rules were changed to allow Omar, a Muslim sworn in on the Quran" !!

      https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...gress-headwear/quote]
      Time are a changing, and this is not worth the fight from my perspective, and the details on that will be below.
      [quote]

      She took her oath of office on THE Quran !!/quote]
      Still not seeing the significance here, as long as the solemnity and seriousness of the oath is observed.
      [quote]

      In our idiotic fetish for "diversity" we allowed this ??!!/quote]
      No, but then it was rather old fashioned to believe that it would always be a bible, and always be Christian.
      [quote]

      We allowed it and thought is was awesome !

      Another Muslim women elected to Congress, Rashida Tlaib also took the oath on a Quran./quote]
      Time are a changing, and this is not worth the fight from my perspective, and the details on that will be below.

      We are being openly mocked & made fools of and many of us celebrate this.
      [quote]We're being laughed at. /quote]
      No, we aren't.
      [quote]

      Islam and Islamists are NOT friends of America./quote]
      Islamists most certainly are not, Islam, perhaps, perhaps not..
      [quote]

      I doubt the need to point out what they do, it's very public information.


      Muslims all over the world are laughing at us.

      Just as they would laugh at us if we went to one of their countries and attempted to become part of their government by swearing in our allegiance to it on the Holy Bible !

      Just as they would laugh at us if we went to one of their countries and demanded that they allow us to wear Christian symbols and promote Christian belief systems./quote]
      By mandating or expecting their oath to be sworn on a bible, is that any different?.
      [quote]

      "But we're free here !" You might say, and this is true.

      We also have to use our good sense, or we will destroy ourselves. Others will be happy to laugh along and help us with our new age ideas of tolerance and diversity..

      .. that REALLY only tolerate a few and actually discourages diversity.

      That wants to concentrate powers in the hands of a few, now America hating people !/quote]
      How is this any different than the political elite which hold such power already now, thankfully slipping and hopefully continuing to slip.

      Like Omar and Tlaib. As if we need THEM to help our OWN hateful people.

      People like Shoomer, Pelosi, Waters, Murray, Cantwell, so many more.
      That which binds a society together, the societal fabric isn't a particular religion, it's a set of shared values.

      I have no problem at all on the basis on shared values. Values at odds, say the demand that Sharia Law, antithetical to Western jurisprudence and legal statue, that then becomes legitimate bones of contention, and since this is our country, there is no such accommodation necessary, the only accommodation necessary are those that have recently arrived or want to alter the status quo.

      ?


      • #48
        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
        Time are a changing, and this is not worth the fight from my perspective, and the details on that will be below.
        Second; "Rules were changed to allow Omar, a Muslim sworn in on the Quran" !!

        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
        https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...gress-headwear/quote]
        Time are a changing, and this is not worth the fight from my perspective, and the details on that will be below.
        She took her oath of office on THE Quran !!
        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
        Still not seeing the significance here, as long as the solemnity and seriousness of the oath is observed.
        In our idiotic fetish for "diversity" we allowed this ??!!

        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
        No, but then it was rather old fashioned to believe that it would always be a bible, and always be Christian.
        We allowed it and thought is was awesome !

        Another Muslim women elected to Congress, Rashida Tlaib also took the oath on a Quran./quote]
        Time are a changing, and this is not worth the fight from my perspective, and the details on that will be below.


        We're being laughed at.

        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
        No, we aren't.
        Islam and Islamists are NOT friends of America.

        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
        Islamists most certainly are not, Islam, perhaps, perhaps not..
        I doubt the need to point out what they do, it's very public information.

        Muslims all over the world are laughing at us.

        Just as they would laugh at us if we went to one of their countries and attempted to become part of their government by swearing in our allegiance to it on the Holy Bible !

        Just as they would laugh at us if we went to one of their countries and demanded that they allow us to wear Christian symbols and promote Christian belief systems.

        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
        By mandating or expecting their oath to be sworn on a bible, is that any different?.
        "But we're free here !" You might say, and this is true.

        We also have to use our good sense, or we will destroy ourselves. Others will be happy to laugh along and help us with our new age ideas of tolerance and diversity..

        .. that REALLY only tolerate a few and actually discourages diversity.

        That wants to concentrate powers in the hands of a few, now America hating people !


        Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
        How is this any different than the political elite which hold such power already now, thankfully slipping and hopefully continuing to slip.


        That which binds a society together, the societal fabric isn't a particular religion, it's a set of shared values.

        I have no problem at all on the basis on shared values. Values at odds, say the demand that Sharia Law, antithetical to Western jurisprudence and legal statue, that then becomes legitimate bones of contention, and since this is our country, there is no such accommodation necessary, the only accommodation necessary are those that have recently arrived or want to alter the status quo.
        We are being laughed at.

        We're being laughed at for our apathy & weakness.

        You say; "Times are a changing, and this is not worth the fight..."

        And this is very common now.

        Many Americans think this way. "It's not worth the fight."

        When things get so nasty that we think it IS "worth the fight," it will be over. We won't be able to fight, only leave, submit or die.

        You say;

        "I have no problem at all on the basis on shared values. Values at odds, say the demand that Sharia Law, antithetical to Western jurisprudence and legal statue, that then becomes legitimate bones of contention, and since this is our country, there is no such accommodation necessary, the only accommodation necessary are those that have recently arrived or want to alter the status quo."

        "..since this is our country, there is no such acc.... " ??

        Those saying this will be of the Islamic faith and will be more than happy to impose it on those of us who saw no need to resist it when we had the strength to.

        Islam means submission. On the historic scale of time, 9-11 was yesterday, and we are submitting.

        You don't think we're being laughed at as weak and silly ? I do.

        These people, they think very long term. We don't.

        This will end us, end America as we know it.

        ?


        • #49
          Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
          Second; "Rules were changed to allow Omar, a Muslim sworn in on the Quran" !!



          She took her oath of office on THE Quran !!


          In our idiotic fetish for "diversity" we allowed this ??!!



          We allowed it and thought is was awesome !

          Another Muslim women elected to Congress, Rashida Tlaib also took the oath on a Quran./quote]
          Time are a changing, and this is not worth the fight from my perspective, and the details on that will be below.


          We're being laughed at.



          Islam and Islamists are NOT friends of America.



          I doubt the need to point out what they do, it's very public information.

          Muslims all over the world are laughing at us.

          Just as they would laugh at us if we went to one of their countries and attempted to become part of their government by swearing in our allegiance to it on the Holy Bible !

          Just as they would laugh at us if we went to one of their countries and demanded that they allow us to wear Christian symbols and promote Christian belief systems.



          "But we're free here !" You might say, and this is true.

          We also have to use our good sense, or we will destroy ourselves. Others will be happy to laugh along and help us with our new age ideas of tolerance and diversity..

          .. that REALLY only tolerate a few and actually discourages diversity.

          That wants to concentrate powers in the hands of a few, now America hating people !




          We are being laughed at.

          We're being laughed at for our apathy & weakness.

          You say; "Times are a changing, and this is not worth the fight..."

          And this is very common now.

          Many Americans think this way. "It's not worth the fight."

          When things get so nasty that we think it IS "worth the fight," it will be over. We won't be able to fight, only leave, submit or die.

          You say;

          "I have no problem at all on the basis on shared values. Values at odds, say the demand that Sharia Law, antithetical to Western jurisprudence and legal statue, that then becomes legitimate bones of contention, and since this is our country, there is no such accommodation necessary, the only accommodation necessary are those that have recently arrived or want to alter the status quo."

          "..since this is our country, there is no such acc.... " ??

          Those saying this will be of the Islamic faith and will be more than happy to impose it on those of us who saw no need to resist it when we had the strength to.

          Islam means submission. On the historic scale of time, 9-11 was yesterday, and we are submitting.

          You don't think we're being laughed at as weak and silly ? I do.

          These people, they think very long term. We don't.

          This will end us, end America as we know it.
          There's a difference between radical Islam and peaceful Islam and the Muslims who practice it.
          Radical Islam demands submission. Peaceful Islam does not.

          A US citizen, regardless of whether they are Muslim or not, has the right to be elected to office, and to serve in that office they are elected to. That's the principal, and we'd be less of a principled nation if we didn't adhere to it.

          ?


          • #50

            Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
            There's a difference between radical Islam and peaceful Islam and the Muslims who practice it.
            Radical Islam demands submission. Peaceful Islam does not.

            A US citizen, regardless of whether they are Muslim or not, has the right to be elected to office, and to serve in that office they are elected to. That's the principal, and we'd be less of a principled nation if we didn't adhere to it.
            There is the problem of actually knowing who the radicals and peaceful ones are.... this is always going to be a problem.

            The religion of Islam is simply not compatible with western civilization and it never will be.

            In general principle I agree with you. But if we don't pay attention, our enemy will be stabbing us in the back and destroying us because of it.

            In another area of this topic .......

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

            Here we have that double standard I'm talking about.

            We have some nut in New Zealand go into an Islamic church and kill a bunch of Muslims.

            "The bizarre aspect of the coverage was not, in fact, the attention paid to a heinous crime committed in New Zealand, but the absolute silence surrounding the simultaneous massacre of scores of Christians by Muslim militants in Africa."

            This is sickness. This is wrong.

            "Fulani jihadists racked up a death toll of over 120 Christians over the past three weeks in central Nigeria, employing machetes and gunfire to slaughter men, women, and children, burning down over 140 houses, destroying property, and spreading terror."

            All WE hear about is a "terrorist attack" on Muslims in New Zealand.

            "Since, in point of fact, Muslim radicals kill Christians around the world with alarming frequency, it is probable that one more slaughter did not seem particularly newsworthy to the decision-makers at major news outlets. Muslims being killed, on the other hand, may strike many as newsworthy precisely because it is so rare."

            So we report one and not the other because one happens every day ?

            This is sickness. This is wrong.

            This whole situation has exposed how very weak & sick American culture & media are.


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

            Political leaders and public figures were falling over themselves this weekend to condemn the mosque attacks in New Zealand, while dozens of Christians were slaughtered by Muslims in Nigeria to the sound of crickets.

            The bizarre aspect of the coverage was not, in fact, the attention paid to a heinous crime committed in New Zealand, but the absolute silence surrounding the simultaneous massacre of scores of Christians by Muslim militants in Africa.

            Fulani jihadists racked up a death toll of over 120 Christians over the past three weeks in central Nigeria, employing machetes and gunfire to slaughter men, women, and children, burning down over 140 houses, destroying property, and spreading terror.

            The New York Times did not place this story on the front page; in fact, they did not cover it at all.

            Apparently, when assessing all the news thats fit to print, the massacre of African Christians did not measure up. The same can be said for the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Detroit Free Press, the LA Times, and every other major paper in the United States.

            The news shows from the three major television channels did not mention the story, and nor did CNN or MSNBC.

            There are several possible explanations for this remarkable silence, and none of them is good.

            Since, in point of fact, Muslim radicals kill Christians around the world with alarming frequency, it is probable that one more slaughter did not seem particularly newsworthy to the decision-makers at major news outlets. Muslims being killed, on the other hand, may strike many as newsworthy precisely because it is so rare.

            A second motive for the media silence around the massacre of Christians in Nigeria may be geo-political and racial. New Zealand is a first-world country where such things are not supposed to happen, whereas many people still consider Africa to be a backwards place where brutal killings are par for the course.


            [ Do I hear the word RACISM from our liberal friends here ?? No ?? WHY ???? ]

            Moreover, the slaughter of black Christians in Africa may not enkindle rage among westerners the way that the murder of white and brown Muslims in New Zealand would.

            Finally, the story simply does not play to the political agenda that many mainstream media would like to advance.

            How much mileage can be gained from Muslims murdering Christians, when Christians in America are often seen as an obstacle to the progress desired by liberals? The left sees Christians in the United States as part of the problem and seeks to undermine their credibility and influence at every turn rather than emboldening them.

            Anti-Christian bias has been rightly called the last acceptable prejudice, one that few bother condemning.

            No one much cares about offending Christians, wrote the coalition of African-American pastors in an essay last Tuesday. In fact, mocking, belittling, and blaspheming Christianity is becoming a bit of a trend in our culture. Anti-Christian bigotry truly is the last acceptable prejudice.


            [ No condemnations of THIS bigotry from our liberal friends though. WHY ???? Is it because they're bigots ?? Of course they are, in their own way !! ]

            https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...of-christians/

            ?


            • #51
              Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post
              Here we have that double standard I'm talking about.

              We have some nut in New Zealand go into an Islamic church and kill a bunch of Muslims.

              "The bizarre aspect of the coverage was not, in fact, the attention paid to a heinous crime committed in New Zealand, but the absolute silence surrounding the simultaneous massacre of scores of Christians by Muslim militants in Africa."

              This is sickness. This is wrong.

              "Fulani jihadists racked up a death toll of over 120 Christians over the past three weeks in central Nigeria, employing machetes and gunfire to slaughter men, women, and children, burning down over 140 houses, destroying property, and spreading terror."

              All WE hear about is a "terrorist attack" on Muslims in New Zealand.

              "Since, in point of fact, Muslim radicals kill Christians around the world with alarming frequency, it is probable that one more slaughter did not seem particularly newsworthy to the decision-makers at major news outlets. Muslims being killed, on the other hand, may strike many as newsworthy precisely because it is so rare."

              So we report one and not the other because one happens every day ?

              This is sickness. This is wrong.

              This whole situation has exposed how very weak & sick American culture & media are.
              No argument from me that the media is biased so much so to be political propagandists, and it is a sickness of theirs. That doesn't change the principal the country is founded on.

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

              Political leaders and public figures were falling over themselves this weekend to condemn the mosque attacks in New Zealand, while dozens of Christians were slaughtered by Muslims in Nigeria to the sound of crickets.

              The bizarre aspect of the coverage was not, in fact, the attention paid to a heinous crime committed in New Zealand, but the absolute silence surrounding the simultaneous massacre of scores of Christians by Muslim militants in Africa.

              Fulani jihadists racked up a death toll of over 120 Christians over the past three weeks in central Nigeria, employing machetes and gunfire to slaughter men, women, and children, burning down over 140 houses, destroying property, and spreading terror.

              The New York Times did not place this story on the front page; in fact, they did not cover it at all.

              Apparently, when assessing all the news thats fit to print, the massacre of African Christians did not measure up. The same can be said for the Washington Post, the Chicago Tribune, the Detroit Free Press, the LA Times, and every other major paper in the United States.

              The news shows from the three major television channels did not mention the story, and nor did CNN or MSNBC.

              There are several possible explanations for this remarkable silence, and none of them is good.

              Since, in point of fact, Muslim radicals kill Christians around the world with alarming frequency, it is probable that one more slaughter did not seem particularly newsworthy to the decision-makers at major news outlets. Muslims being killed, on the other hand, may strike many as newsworthy precisely because it is so rare.

              A second motive for the media silence around the massacre of Christians in Nigeria may be geo-political and racial. New Zealand is a first-world country where such things are not supposed to happen, whereas many people still consider Africa to be a backwards place where brutal killings are par for the course.


              [ Do I hear the word RACISM from our liberal friends here ?? No ?? WHY ???? ]

              Moreover, the slaughter of black Christians in Africa may not enkindle rage among westerners the way that the murder of white and brown Muslims in New Zealand would.

              Finally, the story simply does not play to the political agenda that many mainstream media would like to advance.

              How much mileage can be gained from Muslims murdering Christians, when Christians in America are often seen as an obstacle to the progress desired by liberals? The left sees Christians in the United States as part of the problem and seeks to undermine their credibility and influence at every turn rather than emboldening them.

              Anti-Christian bias has been rightly called the last acceptable prejudice, one that few bother condemning.

              No one much cares about offending Christians, wrote the coalition of African-American pastors in an essay last Tuesday. In fact, mocking, belittling, and blaspheming Christianity is becoming a bit of a trend in our culture. Anti-Christian bigotry truly is the last acceptable prejudice.


              [ No condemnations of THIS bigotry from our liberal friends though. WHY ???? Is it because they're bigots ?? Of course they are, in their own way !! ]

              https://www.breitbart.com/the-media/...of-christians/

              ?


              • #52
                Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                No argument from me that the media is biased so much so to be political propagandists, and it is a sickness of theirs. That doesn't change the principal the country is founded on.
                Like I said above;

                The religion of Islam is simply not compatible with western civilization and it never will be.

                We will learn this the hard way and be destroyed, or the easy way, and stop submitting to followers of Islam.

                It's that simple.

                Do I have faith we will save ourselves ?

                No, we are weak and are ignoring what is right in front of our own eyes.

                ?


                • #53
                  Originally posted by Captain Trips View Post

                  Like I said above;

                  The religion of Islam is simply not compatible with western civilization and it never will be.
                  I don't support or believe this. While, yes, western civilization is not compatible with fundamental Islamic beliefs, as those beliefs also include vanquishing so called 'non believers', it is far from the only Islamic sect withing Islam.

                  We will learn this the hard way and be destroyed, or the easy way, and stop submitting to followers of Islam.

                  It's that simple.
                  Actually, no, we already have an example in history that all three major religions can peacefully co-exist.
                  Under the millet system, non-Muslim people were considered subjects of the Empire, but were not subject to the Muslim faith or Muslim law. The Orthodox millet, for instance, was still officially legally subject to Justinian's Code, which had been in effect in the Byzantine Empire for 900 years. Also, as the largest group of non-Muslim subjects (or dhimmi) of the Islamic Ottoman state, the Orthodox millet was granted a number of special privileges in the fields of politics and commerce, and had to pay higher taxes than Muslim subjects.[189][190]
                  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottoma...ty_and_Judaism
                  Granted, this was in the Middle East, where Islam was more prevalent, but the same could be in the Wester where Christianity is more prevalent (well, more of less).

                  As having already been demonstrated historically, there's no reason that it is impossible to achieve again, all three major religions living in peace under a single rule (or government), and the Western Democratic Republic model would seem to be the most likely to be able to achieve this, and achieving this would be a good thing. Already now, Muslims in Western nations are treated far better than they are in the Middle East in Islam dominated nations (hint: there's still a sectarian war between the Islamic factions - Sunni and Shia).

                  Do I have faith we will save ourselves ?

                  No, we are weak and are ignoring what is right in front of our own eyes.
                  I have faith in people, and I, probably foolishly, still believe that there's majority good in people. All they really want is to be left alone, to do what makes them happy, and to work to provide for themselves and their families - Well, at least that's what I'm looking for, just a fair shake.

                  ?


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                    I don't support or believe this. While, yes, western civilization is not compatible with fundamental Islamic beliefs, as those beliefs also include vanquishing so called 'non believers', it is far from the only Islamic sect withing Islam.

                    Actually, no, we already have an example in history that all three major religions can peacefully co-exist.

                    Granted, this was in the Middle East, where Islam was more prevalent, but the same could be in the Wester where Christianity is more prevalent (well, more of less).

                    As having already been demonstrated historically, there's no reason that it is impossible to achieve again, all three major religions living in peace under a single rule (or government), and the Western Democratic Republic model would seem to be the most likely to be able to achieve this, and achieving this would be a good thing. Already now, Muslims in Western nations are treated far better than they are in the Middle East in Islam dominated nations (hint: there's still a sectarian war between the Islamic factions - Sunni and Shia).

                    I have faith in people, and I, probably foolishly, still believe that there's majority good in people. All they really want is to be left alone, to do what makes them happy, and to work to provide for themselves and their families - Well, at least that's what I'm looking for, just a fair shake.
                    That's where our main differences are.

                    My faith in people, I base on what history looks like - maybe that's not the best way, but it's not looking through rose colored glasses either.

                    People like power, they like wealth and they're easy to incite to violence and even war against each other.

                    Sure, there are good people. I've found it safer to award trust VERY sparingly and after a long time period.

                    People are masters at manipulating and lies & use these to attain power of some form all the time ..

                    .... see the newest MOB in Washington D.C.,see the newest snake oil salesmen & women in todays "media."

                    Ignoring the consistently present evil in humans, is tempting but dangerous.

                    Example - The media creeps take ANY opportunity to attack this president.

                    Because of their irrational hate.

                    This is one example of that evil I'm talking about.


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


                    President Trump condemned the evil killings.

                    The president also took to Twitter to extend his condolences:

                    My warmest sympathy and best wishes goes out to the people of New Zealand after the horrible massacre in the mosques. 49 innocent people have so senselessly died, with so many more seriously injured. The U.S. stands by New Zealand for anything we can do. God bless all!

                    But the presidents words werent enough to satisfy the corrupt liberal media and Democrat sycophants who desperately want to tie Trump to this evil act.

                    Immediately after the shooting, the liberal media, led by CNN, got their talking points and started blaming Trump for the massacre. It was an orchestrated media frenzy to scapegoat Trump instead of the actual perpetrators of this heinous crime, just as they falsely accused him of defending white nationalists at the Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville.


                    In a manifesto posted online, the New Zealand shooter reportedly expressed support for Trump as a symbol of renewed white identity, but he strongly disapproved of Trump as a policy maker and leader. Yet the liberal media picked the one line that mentions Trump and are using it to push a false narrative, while omitting extensive quotes which show that the shooter is not a conservative, not a Trump supporter, not a Christian, and not a capitalist.

                    F*** that pathological liar/criminal, declared Say Anything star John Cusack in response to the presidents words. The actor also tweeted, The only way democracy survives him [Trump] is if he rots in prison. Lets get on with it.

                    Sen. Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn., who lied about serving in Vietnam blamed the presidents tough words against illegal immigration for the shootings.

                    As reported by Paul Sperry, America averaged one serious Islamic terrorist attack a year on Obamas watch. Yet, liberals didnt blame Obama for the terror attacks committed by Muslims on his watch: In 2016, Omar Mateen killed 49 people and wounded 53 others in a mass shooting inside Pulse, a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida. In 2015, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik, a Pakistani couple, stormed a San Bernardino County government building and killed 14 after pledging loyalty to ISIS. In 2009, Army Maj. Nidal Hasan a devout Muslim opened fire on fellow soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13.

                    Christians were attacked on a regular basis during Obamas presidency and the media didnt blame him, even though Obama did very little to defend Christians.

                    The liberal media and Democrats dont want the president to be tough on illegal immigration. They recoil when he refers to himself as a nationalist who puts America first. I too am a nationalist. I love my country and I want the big beautiful border wall, and I want these illegal aliens to be shipped back to their country.

                    If you are white especially a conservative Christian straight male leftists will call you everything but a child of God to silence you. There is no such thing as racism, sexism, islamophobia-ism, or deadbeatdad-ism. These are labels created by the children of the lie to intimidate and control.


                    https://www.wnd.com/2019/03/why-the-...land-shooting/

                    ?


                    • #55


                      As I pointed out above; "The media creeps take ANY opportunity to attack this president.

                      Because of their irrational hate."


                      That and that we're ignoring human nature, TRYING to remake it !

                      This will ALWAYS fail.


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

                      ...predictably, within 48 hours, the president of the United States was being publicly indicted as a moral accomplice.

                      ..does the vision of America as a country where white racism is rampant and an unleashed white nationalism is a scourge that is running amok correspond with reality?

                      America's elites are familiar with the Acela Express, the train that runs from D.C.'s Union Station to Penn Station in New York.

                      In which of the five Eastern Seaboard cities at which the Acela stops to take on and discharge passengers Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York are white nationalists responsible for a significant share of the assaults, robberies, rapes and shootings?

                      Chicago may lead the nation in total gun deaths. But the murder rate was highest in 2018 in St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans and Kansas City. In how many of these cities are Klansmen and neo-Nazis regularly hauled in for violent crimes?

                      As for the mass murders of our new century, the racist right has perpetrated its share. Dylann Roof's killing of the black women and men at the Charleston church qualifies, as does the massacre of Jews at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh.

                      Yet a Muslim major, Nidal Hasan, fatally shot 13 soldiers at Fort Hood. In the 2015 San Bernardino massacre, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik carried out that attack that left 14 dead and 22 wounded.

                      According to Forbes, of the 18,814 deaths caused by terrorists around the world in 2017, well over half were due to the actions of four groups: Islamic State, the Taliban, Al-Shabab and Boko Haram.

                      All are Sunni Muslim; none are alt-right.

                      Undeniably, atrocities that exceed in blood shed the St. Valentine's Day Massacre by Al Capone's gang, where seven men were stood against a wall in a Chicago garage and executed, have become all too common.

                      But the atrocities seized upon by the left as most representative are those that conform to vision, a narrative, a pre-existing script. This preconceived idea is that America is a hotbed of white nationalism where the worst crimes are committed by white racists. And this is a myth.

                      America's doors were thrown open to peoples of every religion, race, culture and creed, to create a different nation that mirrored all mankind in its diversity, in Ben Wattenberg's phrase, a universal nation.

                      The problem: A universal nation is a contradiction in terms.

                      A nation of all races, religions and tribes had never before existed.

                      The liberal democracies that embraced this ideology, this idea, are at war with human nature, and are losing this war to tribalism and authoritarianism.

                      As for Christchurch, unfortunately, such horrors appear to have become the new normal. But Brenton Tarrant alone is responsible for what he did. And it was not Trump but the New World Order globalists who fertilized the soil that spawned him.


                      https://www.newsmax.com/patrickbucha.../19/id/907672/

                      ?


                      • #56
                        You may not tell the truth !

                        Certain people don't like to hear the truth.

                        They want to be lied to. They want to hear happy talk & lies.

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

                        For being candid about identifying Rep. Ilhad Omars (D-Minn.) Islamic headdress as a symbol of her faithfulness to Shariah law above American law, Judge Jeanine Pirros Fox News show was cancelled temporarily but one expert asserts that her assessment of the Muslim lawmaker was spot on.

                        Lying or dissimulation taqiyah is not only condoned, but recommended to Muslims in the Quran, Haynes pointed out. A Muslim can and will lie without compunction if it is necessary to protect or further Islam.

                        Pirro was not her original blunt self, but she remained unapologetic about her insinuation.

                        Ive seen a lot of comments about my opening statement from Saturday nights show, and I did not call Rep. Omar un-American, Pirro expressed in her statement over the issue Fox News Channel and her audience. My intention was to ask a question and start a debate, but of course, because one is Muslim does not mean you dont support the Constitution.

                        Nevertheless, Pirros deduction in her opening statement regarding Omars unwavering submission to Shariah law due to her wearing of the hijab was assessed as accurate.

                        Adherence to Islamic law can be visibly seen both in a Muslims dress and prayers (how they pray), as well as their comments and actions in life, Haynes informed. Pirro was only stating a truth that Muslim women are required to wear hijabs because Shariah requires it. Pirro also correctly indicated that Omars adherence to Shariah means that she cannot uphold the Constitution. Shariah is deemed divine law and does not permit Muslims to live under any other legal system including the U.S. Constitution which Muslims deem man-made law.


                        https://onenewsnow.com/media/2019/03...ssment-of-omar

                        ?

                        Working...
                        X