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

SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

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

  • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

    Historic decision today...But what really was decided?

    The ACA is really just another piece of legislation. It is just bigger and more costly than most, bringing us one giant step closer to full on Socialism.

    What really happened today was a opening of the door to more "taxes" or "penalties". I cannot penalize you for not "choosing" to have health insurance, but I can tax you. And by the way, now that I understand that I can tax you for not buying something; I am going to tax you some more. Oh, you didn't by a GM car...give me $10,000.

    Pick up the paper for the past few years and all you have is the play by play of the destruction of the USA.

    ?


    • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

      Well for the first time, a law is upheld that taxes you for simply being alive and a citizen of these united States.

      Does it really matter, hasn't Obama already signed off exemptions for most of the population in one for or another anyways?

      ?


      • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

        Im trying to figure this ruling out.

        So, the court decided there was no infringement on the commerce clause because the penalty for NOT ENGAGING IN COMMERCE can be considered a tax.

        Is that not still compelling people to engage in commerce---or is it my imagination?

        ?


        • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

          I like the Republican plan first you get sick; then you die.

          ?


          • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

            Originally posted by jviehe View Post
            And those few people will by no means offset the increase in cost created by the rest of the ACA. Not to mention the people that drop coverage because the tax is cheaper than buying insurance.

            - - - Updated - - -



            I dont see how thats a problem. Its in my interest for you not to kill me or steal my stuff, which is why libertarians are not anarchists.
            The fact that the ACA provides the motivation to drop healthcare coverage, as an unintended consequence I'm sure, has been long identified.

            Philip Bredesen: ObamaCare's Incentive to Drop Insurance - WSJ.com

            This tells me that, once again, the legislators wrote poor legislation. They should really stick to the KISS principal. It's about all they can manage.

            ?


            • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

              Originally posted by Blue Doggy View Post
              Well yeah, although you and I would disagree on what "living under the gov't" entails. I think average people want living wage jobs and some damn dignity. You think they want free shit and sit on their asses, just "getting by" with no hope for a better future.

              I think the economy has been turned over to special interests and its destroying america, you think more should be turned over. You think the collateral damage of this should not be tempered with social safety nets, while I think the opposite, while never forgetting a living wage JOB is what our working people want instead of a social safety net that keep you poor for the rest of your life.

              But we probably agree on one thing. The longer you replace jobs with social safety nets you start to train the dogs to come to the food bowl. And that is the great danger here.
              Seen thee new food stamp ads/program ?

              ?


              • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                Originally posted by scott1094 View Post
                Pick up the paper for the past few years and all you have is the play by play of the destruction of the USA.
                What do you mean by "the last few years"?

                Because unless you're including things like the militarization of American law enforcement in the name of "War on Drugs" and the shreding of the Constitution that we like to call the "Patriot Act", among a great deal else, I'd be inclined to laugh at you.

                This recent legislation just gave the government a new excuse to tax us.

                All that previous bullshit gave the government permission to spy on you via a sattelite in orbit and then send police on a no-knock 3 am raid of your house using cutting edge military grade weapons all to snatch you up and send you to a secret detention facility somewhere without charges.

                I'd say that a new tax is the lest of our worries.

                ?


                • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                  Originally posted by redrover View Post
                  I like the Republican plan first you get sick; then you die.
                  Do you really think some sick people won't be excluded under Obamacare?

                  Healthcare won't magically become an infinite resource just because the government is involved.

                  ?


                  • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                    The ruling is great!..........[note to Danny] we're going from people who can't afford insurance to people who can't afford insurance and will have to pay penalties..................now that's PROGRESS! A lot of people are in for a rude awakening when they find out that even though they can't afford HC insurance they don't qualify to get it free. Free hardships from your friendly federal government!

                    ?


                    • Re: Individual Mandate / Obamacare Stands as Tax

                      This is a political defeat for conservatives but a huge doctrinal win. They'll be writing about the politics of this one for a century.

                      Roberts could have joined the conservatives in striking down the whole law.But he's the Chief Justice, he was worried about the court's legitimacy. So is it beyond the realm of possibility that he went to the liberal justices and gave them a path to uphold the law, but in return they had to sign on to new limits on federal power?

                      If you look deeper into the decision, the new commerce clause limitations and the new limitations on the use of federal funds to coerce states are huge deals. Roberts basically re-imposed some pre-New Deal era jurisprudence, and he did it with the cooperation of the liberals, who were eager to save ACA. Brilliantly played.

                      ?


                      • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                        I'm late to the party here, but I'll just give my two cents really quick: I'm very happy. It was a defeat for conservatives on the politics, but a huge win on judicial doctrine. The law was upheld strictly as a tax and specifically declared impermissible under the commerce clause. In addition, the Medicaid portion was partially struck down on federalism grounds. These are huge decisions that will limit federal power forever.

                        ?


                        • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                          Originally posted by darth omar View Post
                          Do you really think some sick people won't be excluded under Obamacare?

                          Healthcare won't magically become an infinite resource just because the government is involved.
                          Quite the contrary. With the government involved, and the associated overhead costs of that, it'll get more expensive for less service. Of that I'm certain.

                          Just have to remember. The types of people in the government that we just gave such incredibly intrusive power to are the same people that thought that these things were good ideas.

                          #1 New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has announced that he wants to ban the sale of all large sodas and sugary drinks in order to fight obesity.

                          #2 In North Carolina, authorities are threatening to send a blogger to prison for blogging about his battle against diabetes.

                          #3 In San Francisco, if you do not recycle your trash correctly you can be fined up to $500.

                          #4 The following are just some of the cities that have started using RFID tracking chips to monitor the recycling habits of their citizens.
                          Cleveland, Ohio Charlotte
                          North Carolina
                          Alexandria, Virginia
                          Boise, Idaho
                          Dayton, Ohio
                          Flint, Michigan

                          #5 In Minnetonka, Minnesota you can be fined up to $2,000 for having a muddy vehicle.

                          #6 In Hazelwood, Missouri it is against the law for little girls to sell girl scout cookies in front of their own homes.

                          #7 San Francisco has implemented a ban on Happy Meal toys.

                          #8 Over the past couple of years there have been quite a few instances all over the country where lemonade stands run by children have been shut down by police because the children had not acquired the proper permits.

                          #9 State legislatures all over the country have been passing legislation making it more difficult for parents to opt out of having their children vaccinated.

                          #10 In many U.S. states is it now illegal to collect any rain that falls on to your own property.

                          #11 In San Juan Capistrano, California it is against the law to hold a home Bible study without a conditional use permit.

                          #12 In New York City, it is against the law to smoke at public parks and beaches.

                          #13 In California,food confiscation teams visit the homes of people that have been discovered to have purchased raw milk.

                          #14 In Hilton Head, South Carolina it is illegal to have trash in your car.

                          #15 In major cities all over the United States feeding the homeless has been banned due to health reasons.

                          #16 In Louisiana, one church was ordered to stop passing out water because it did not have the proper permit.

                          #17 At public schools all over the United States, the lunches that little children bring from home are now inspected to make sure that they meet USDA guidelines. One North Carolina girl was told her turkey and cheese sandwich, banana, potato chips and apple juice did not meet USDA guidelines.

                          #18 Today, a vast array of government agencies are constantly monitoring what all of us say and do on the Internet. They claim that this helps makes us all more safe and secure.

                          18 Crazy Examples America is Turning Into A Nanny State - Independent Journal Review
                          You'd think that all this micromanagement would lack some sort of appeal to those creatures that inhabit government at all levels. This list clearly shows that this is not so. Not so at all.

                          I can only see a tidal wave of more and more of the same coming down from on high, as it were.

                          I'm sure that all you pro 'big government' people are just as happy as pigs in shit.

                          ?


                          • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                            Originally posted by adaher View Post
                            I'm late to the party here, but I'll just give my two cents really quick: I'm very happy. It was a defeat for conservatives on the politics, but a huge win on judicial doctrine. The law was upheld strictly as a tax and specifically declared impermissible under the commerce clause. In addition, the Medicaid portion was partially struck down on federalism grounds. These are huge decisions that will limit federal power forever.
                            Maybe you can explain, in years to come, to people who STILL can't afford insurance and will have to pay penalties how great it is and what a "win" it was.

                            ?


                            • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                              The law can still be repealed if Republicans can convince the public to give them the power to do so in 2012. It's not SCOTUS's job to judge the merits of a law. Roberts determined the law was a tax, but he disallowed it under the commerce clause. That's a big win.

                              ?


                              • Re: SCOTUS decision in ACA case - ALL DISCUSSION HERE

                                Originally posted by darth omar View Post
                                Im trying to figure this ruling out.

                                So, the court decided there was no infringement on the commerce clause because the penalty for NOT ENGAGING IN COMMERCE can be considered a tax.

                                Is that not still compelling people to engage in commerce---or is it my imagination?
                                The court ruled two government theories: one being the Commerce Clause and/or Necessary and Proper Clause, and rejecting it ; the other being the right to lay and collect taxes, and upholding it. Even if the only purpose of a tax is to force people to buy health insurance, it's still a tax. They have a few pages where they explain their reasoning in details, and it adds up.
                                Apparently the Constitution wasn't Obama-proof.

                                ?

                                Working...
                                X