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

Despicable Democrats

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

  • Despicable Democrats

    Here's the latest from the No Class Party of the Left.

    Democrats WALK OUT of Hearing With Parents of Benghazi Victims

    Earlier today, an important hearing regarding the attack on Benghazi was being held by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. The parents of the Benghazi heroes who died fighting to protect the US consulate were about to speak.

    Then, in a turn of events thats disgusting even by DC standards, most of the Democrats stood up and walked out. Apparently, they were either protesting or trying to show disrespect either way, if there was any honor in their districts at all, this would end their careers.

    A picture from Rep. Issas Twitter account and a list of the names of the congressmen who left is listed on this page. Disgusting. Spread this far and wide their names should be known and shamed.


    Heres the list of people who walked out:

    Carolyn Maloney, NY
    Danny Davis, IL
    Eleanor Holmes Norton, DC
    Gerald E. Connolly, VA
    Jim Cooper, TN
    John Tierney, MA
    Mark Pocan, WI
    Matt Cartwright, PA
    Michelle Lujan Grisham, NM
    Peter Welch, VT
    Stephen Lynch, MA
    Steven Horsford, NV
    Tammy Duckworth, IL
    Tony Cardenas, CA
    William Lacy Clay, MO

    Democrats WALK OUT of Hearing With Parents of Benghazi Victims

  • #2
    Re: Despicable Democrats

    It takes a real piece of work to walk out on next-of-kin.

    I'm not surprised, mind you, but I am mortified.

    ?


    • #3
      Re: Despicable Democrats

      Originally posted by jpsartre12 View Post
      Here's the latest from the No Class Party of the Left.
      Oh they've got lots of class, it's just all third class.

      ?


      • #4
        Re: Despicable Democrats

        This post could very well be folded into the http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/poli...-liberals.html

        Should be noted that these would be individuals that are clearly driven by party ideology.

        ?


        • #5
          Re: Despicable Democrats

          As usual, you guys should vet your stories before you get outraged.

          Most of the Republicans on the committee where not present at that testimony either.

          Notice how Issa softened the accusation in the second tweetfrom all "Oversight Dems" to all but two. Didn't matterthe story rocketed around conservative media that, as Fox News put it, Democrats were "spitting on the graves" of Benghazi victims by not sitting for the parents' testimonies.

          Just how cheap is this story? Well: There are 24 Republicans and 17 Democrats on the committee. Democrats sit on the left, from the witness's perspective; Republicans sit on the right. Here's a screenshot from the moment Gowdy started speaking to Woods and Smith.

          There don't seem to be 24 Republicans sitting down for this; there seem to be six of 'em. So does Rep. Patrick McHenry not care about Benghazi victims? Does Rep. Thomas Massie not care about Benghazi victims? Does Rep. Doc Hastings not care about Benghazi victims?

          Darrell Issa trolls Democrats for "walking out" on Benghazi testimony.
          And as NPR reports, this hearing was called by Democrats in the first place.

          Usually it's congressional Republicans who push for Benghazi hearings some have predicted that when all the facts come out, if they ever do, the deadly episode could become the Obama administration's Waterloo. But it was in fact Democrats on the oversight panel who called for this particular hearing, four months ago.
          .......
          But there has been one big change since the standing-room-only Benghazi hearings held earlier this year. This time, except for the row behind the witnesses, most of the audience seats were empty. Not even Fox News bothered to carry the hearing live.

          As Government Shutdown Looms, Benghazi Hearings Resume : It's All Politics : NPR
          But Fox News still carried the Issa tweet story, but then recanted with an update when they realized the hypocrisy:

          UPDATE: It turns out there weren't a whole lot of Republicans in the hearing room for Smith and Wood's testimony either.

          Spitting on Their Graves: Democrats Leave Benghazi Hearing Before Testimony from Families of Victims - Fox Nation

          Despicable is right.

          ?


          • #6
            Re: Despicable Democrats

            Despicable that once again, conservative media runs a faux outrage story and all their ditto heads lap it up with out even questioning.

            That's called confirmation bias people.

            Again, the projection of Republicans calling anybody "low information voters" is just amazing.

            ?


            • #7
              Re: Despicable Democrats

              Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
              Despicable that once again, conservative media runs a faux outrage story and all their ditto heads lap it up with out even questioning.

              That's called confirmation bias people.

              Again, the projection of Republicans calling anybody "low information voters" is just amazing.
              Yea, as if that's never a problem with the Democrats, as in the non-existent 'War on Women' for example.

              Problem is, the Democrat's instances of this are amplified by the Biased Lame Stream Media (BLSM), making them all the more believable, when there's not a shred more substance.

              ?


              • #8
                Re: Despicable Democrats

                Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                Yea, as if that's never a problem with the Democrats, as in the non-existent 'War on Women' for example.

                Problem is, the Democrat's instances of this are amplified by the Biased Lame Stream Media (BLSM), making them all the more believable, when there's not a shred more substance.
                I am not sure what kind of response this is other than a...."they started it!" Or was that an "I know you are but what am I?"

                Just admit it, Daniel Issa is a piece of shit.

                He is a grown man resorting to making up lies and posting them on twitter like catty little school girl.

                ?


                • #9
                  Re: Despicable Democrats

                  Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
                  I am not sure what kind of response this is other than a...."they started it!" Or was that an "I know you are but what am I?"

                  Just admit it, Daniel Issa is a piece of shit.

                  He is a grown man resorting to making up lies and posting them on twitter like catty little school girl.
                  Sure. As soon as you admit that Harry Reid is a piece of shit. Or that Obama is a piece of shit. Or that Pelosi or Hillary are pieces of shit.

                  Here. This may help:
                  untitled1.jpg
                  Last edited by eohrnberger; 09-20-2013, 04:13 PM.

                  ?


                  • #10
                    Re: Despicable Democrats

                    Oh well what do we have here....apparently Darrel Issa has an interesting criminal record.

                    I checked them out just to make sure I am not reading despicable Democrat lies. But they seem to hold water.

                    First there is an allegation by a former soldier that Issa stole his car when they were in the Army together. But we can't prove that so let's move on. Issa did get arrested and charged twice for car theft, in two more incidents. While charges were dropped, from the details of the last one it does seem reasonable to conclude that he and his brother were obviously up to no good, but somehow got it dismissed.

                    So 3 allegations of auto theft for Republican Darrel Issa. one we can give him the benefit of the doubt, two is pushing it, but 3?

                    And there's a pesky arson allegation regarding his business and a huge insurance claim that investigators suspected was arson. And his business was...car alarms. Well who knows better about car security than an ex car thief. Just like ex-hackers make great computer security consultants.

                    And this guy is chairman of the House Oversight Committee?

                    ?


                    • #11
                      Re: Despicable Democrats

                      Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
                      As usual, you guys should vet your stories before you get outraged.

                      Most of the Republicans on the committee where not present at that testimony either.



                      And as NPR reports, this hearing was called by Democrats in the first place.



                      But Fox News still carried the Issa tweet story, but then recanted with an update when they realized the hypocrisy:




                      Despicable is right.
                      UPDATE: It turns out there weren't a whole lot of Republicans in the hearing room for Smith and Wood's testimony either.

                      Spitting on Their Graves: Democrats Leave Benghazi Hearing Before Testimony from Families of Victims - Fox Nation
                      You left out this part of the story right after your quote:

                      That being said, here's the difference: Republicans have promised Smith and Woods answers about what happened in Benghazi and their continued efforts to hold hearings, issue subpoenas, etc. prove it. Charles Woods went out of his way during testimony to thank Republican Rep. Jason Chaffetz for his help. Democrats have repeatedly called the attack, and it's cover-up, a 'phony scandal' and a political witch hunt.

                      ?


                      • #12
                        Re: Despicable Democrats

                        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                        You left out this part of the story right after your quote:
                        Go read the OP again, read the part in supersized font and in bold. And then remind yourself that 19 republicans on the committee did the exact same thing, Issa, FoxNews and this thread is whining about the Dems doing.

                        And Daniel Issa knew that because he was sitting right there front and center.


                        But since you brought that excerpt up, let's examine it shall we.

                        Like this part: "Republicans have promised Smith and Woods answers about what happened in Benghazi and their continued efforts to hold hearings, issue subpoenas, etc. prove it."

                        That's interresting because the NPR article states matter of factly that this hearing was called by Democrats.

                        ?


                        • #13
                          Re: Despicable Democrats

                          Originally posted by Jihad4Beer View Post
                          Go read the OP again, read the part in supersized font and in bold. And then remind yourself that 19 republicans on the committee did the exact same thing, Issa, FoxNews and this thread is whining about the Dems doing.

                          And Daniel Issa knew that because he was sitting right there front and center.


                          But since you brought that excerpt up, let's examine it shall we.

                          Like this part: "Republicans have promised Smith and Woods answers about what happened in Benghazi and their continued efforts to hold hearings, issue subpoenas, etc. prove it."

                          That's interresting because the NPR article states matter of factly that this hearing was called by Democrats.
                          The Republicans did not do exactly the same thing. They were not in attendance at the meeting to begin with. They did not just pick up and leave when the family members were to testify.

                          ?


                          • #14
                            Re: Despicable Democrats

                            Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
                            The Republicans did not do exactly the same thing. They were not in attendance at the meeting to begin with. They did not just pick up and leave when the family members were to testify.
                            There's a difference in that.

                            ?


                            • #15
                              Re: Despicable Democrats

                              Originally posted by eohrnberger View Post
                              There's a difference in that.
                              Quite often, Representatives have conflicting hearings and attend one that is more important at the time. Since this hearing was supposedly called by Democrats, I would guess that Republicans didn't deem it all that important, especially since the Democrats simply allege that there is no controversy over what happened in Benghazi.

                              ?

                              Working...
                              X