Forum Rules - You must read(Updated!)


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.


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.


You agree to NOT hold Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (makers of the forum software),, sites affiliated with, 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
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.


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.


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.


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.


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

Tell the judiciary to go to Hell

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Tell the judiciary to go to Hell

    Are we yet tired of the judiciary telling us what to do ?


    “This is like a wind-up toy: every four years, Republicans dangle in front of us, ‘Hey, you gotta vote for us, otherwise we’ll lose the courts,'”

    we’ve lost the courts. They’re gone, gone, gone. We do need a Republican Congress and administration, but for the purposes of stripping the courts of that power, giving it back to Congress and the state legislatures.”


    “At some point the states have got to just say ‘No,'


    “We need to return state legislatures to the power they had at the founding, the power they were supposed to have, and it at least starts with getting the unelected branch of the federal government out of our hair,” he said. “It’s time to tell the judiciary to go to hell.”

    In order to do that, we don’t need a constitutional amendment, according to Horowitz. In fact, the idea that conservatives are the ones who need to change the Constitution is completely wrongheaded.

    “Why should we have to amend it?” Horowitz asked. “[The courts] are the ones illegally amending it.”

    Article III, Section 2 to be exact. That section allows Congress to restrict the jurisdiction of the federal courts. So rather than a Republican president or a constitutional amendment, a congressional statute is all that’s necessary to put the brakes on judicial tyranny.


    “We don’t have to sit and take this social transformation anymore. This is our country, this is our Constitution; they have no right to change it, and let’s go back to our first roots, our first principles. Let’s take back our country from the unelected judges.”



    Egotists, narcissists and madmen take advantage of this and use it to persuade the masses to accept madness.

    It has always been like this.

  • #2
    The irony being that many of the judges are conservatives but yet again let's not let facts get in the way of a good old conservative rant against the public sector.


    • #3
      Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post
      The irony being that many of the judges are conservatives but yet again let's not let facts get in the way of a good old conservative rant against the public sector.
      Unfortunately, our courts have become just another unelected arm of the legislature. They now make laws, based on partisan agenda, from the bench. There should never be a 5/4 ruling on the Supreme Court. If the Constitution doesn't directly address an issue, the court just makes something up to come up with a partisan ruling. Sometimes, even when the Constitution does directly address an issue, the court finds some smarmy way to circumvent it. It's sad.


      • #4
        Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post

        Unfortunately, our courts have become just another unelected arm of the legislature. They now make laws, based on partisan agenda, from the bench. There should never be a 5/4 ruling on the Supreme Court. If the Constitution doesn't directly address an issue, the court just makes something up to come up with a partisan ruling. Sometimes, even when the Constitution does directly address an issue, the court finds some smarmy way to circumvent it. It's sad.
        Courts make laws all over the world it's pretty standard practice and unless you want the entire system to grind to a halt (you most likely do) you need the courts to make judgements as they can get things done about a billion times faster than everything being handled by politicians who you think are all thieves and crooks anyway so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

        You want more decisions made by the people you despise just because there might be a possibility that the supreme court may swing towards liberal judges for a time? You claim judges are partisan but this whole topic is built on your partisan fear that conservatives may lose the court.


        • #5
          Originally posted by PeterUK75 View Post

          Courts make laws all over the world it's pretty standard practice and unless you want the entire system to grind to a halt (you most likely do) you need the courts to make judgements as they can get things done about a billion times faster than everything being handled by politicians who you think are all thieves and crooks anyway so I'm not sure where you're going with this.

          You want more decisions made by the people you despise just because there might be a possibility that the supreme court may swing towards liberal judges for a time? You claim judges are partisan but this whole topic is built on your partisan fear that conservatives may lose the court.
          Wishing for a non partisan justice supreme court is folly, but I do wish for it. But we got what we got. I wonder if it is possible to make a constitution so clear, so concise, as to not provide an area where justices can read it but one way? Program a computer to reflect this one way interpretation and then when the court has to decide which involves interpretation, they turn it over to the smart computer to give out the coherent answer. Then it would not matter if the justice was left or right. It would remove that influence

          We are at the place where we could run this show by logic, rationality, reason within the confines of law, and fix a lot of problems created by emotional, partisan, human beings. We could castrate the crooks, who are bought off.


          • #6
            Originally posted by OldmanDan View Post
            Unfortunately, our courts have become just another unelected arm of the legislature. They now make laws, based on partisan agenda, from the bench. There should never be a 5/4 ruling on the Supreme Court. If the Constitution doesn't directly address an issue, the court just makes something up to come up with a partisan ruling. Sometimes, even when the Constitution does directly address an issue, the court finds some smarmy way to circumvent it. It's sad.
            The supreme court doesn't make "law."

            That many of us think they do and accept their opinions as "law" is only illustrative of our own ignorance. This is unfortunately our new 'normal' in America. It is a 'normal' we're paying a very high price for.


            Whenever state laws are overturned by the Supreme Court, such decisions are often cited as repudiation against any sort of argument for their legitimacy. While case law is regularly debated, the court’s constitutional power to make such reversals is rarely questioned. Courtly precedents are usually referenced in support of such actions rather than a constitutional basis.

            But the power to offer opinion does not equal the power to make law. While today, most believe that Supreme Court justices carry an aura of infallibility in doing so, that perception was not always so clairvoyant.

            The Constitution grants very little power to the federal judiciary for a reason.


            Many of the founders espoused the view that the Supreme Court was not the sole arbitrator of all constitutional issues, and could not hold such power to make such irrevocable decisions. Thomas Jefferson famously made a political career of opposing the federal judiciary in rendering opinions as law. Realizing that the Supreme Court did not take up any of the appeals of those convicted under the Sedition Act, he drafted the Kentucky Resolution of 1798. Considering the development of the Marshall Court, he wrote that a general judiciary with the power to make such decisions as law was “dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy.”[3] Jefferson wisely recognized the truth: “The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal” to operate in such a manner.[4]

            The founders and framers delegated most powers of the general government to the legislature. It was done so intentionally, as one house was closely aligned with the interests of the people (The House of Representatives), while the other was representative of the sovereignty of the states (The Senate). When the courts act to create de-facto law rather than by rendering of opinion, they violate the intentional separation of powers doctrine used to diffuse powers not only between separate branches of the general government, but also the paradigm of the general government and the states. When a group of nine judges attempt to make law for a populace of 310 million and settle constitutional questions for all time, they are acting against the interests of the compact of the Constitution. Such a situation is demonstrative of an oligarchy, not a republic.



            • #7
              They do need to be reigned in, that much is clear.


              ....there is still a huge problem with a court effectively declaring that one president, Obama, can make edicts that other presidents can't change.

              This is clearly not a claim by the court that some presidential rulings are infallible, dogmatic, and unchangeable, since we all know that if Bush had produced an executive order that violated the law by limiting legal immigration, the same judge would have ruled that Obama could overrule it.

              Instead, what we're seeing is nothing less than a rebellion by judges who reject the idea that elections have consequences and believe they can impose their beliefs on the people. The judges are declaring that Democracy exists in the U.S. only to the extent that viewpoints that judges consider acceptable can result from an election.

              At the core of the #Resistance movement is the idea that America is more a tyranny than a representative republic. By saying elections are legitimate only so long as leftists approve of them, they are declaring that power flows not from the people, as declared by the Constitution, but from the unelected elites.

              [ they'd better be damn careful thinking this is a good thing !

              These kind of dishonest games can be played by both sides ! ]

              America cannot continue to exist as a free country if the ever changing opinions of leftists carry the same authority as the Constitution and the laws passed by the people's representatives in Congress.

              Like all acts of open rebellion in America, these actions by judges are nothing less than a declaration that some people in America are worth less than others. This rebellion is the opposite of the American Revolution, which was waged to ensure that the people, not the aristocracy, held the reins of power and could have a major say in how their country was managed.

              The reality is that when faced with a direct rejection of the principles upon which America is based, extreme measures are needed to stomp out the rebellion. In this case, judges who issue insane edicts must be impeached. It's time for the people to voice the truth that judges are not some "super" agents who override the authority of the people's representatives.

              Sadly, the actions of these lower-court judges are simply a continuation of what we've seen for decades in the Supreme Court.

              Historically, the idea that the Supreme Court has the right to stop the president and Congress from doing what the Court considers unconstitutional has been viewed with suspicion. It's not in the Constitution, and the people have never voted to endorse it.

              However, as a matter of practicality, there needs to be some way to stop the legislature from violating the Constitution, and the Supreme Court has de facto become the Band-Aid used to cover that gap in the Constitution.

              But historically, we've seen that the Court can be a rather poor source of guidance. From declaring that slavery was okay to saying that forcibly sterilizing the "unfit" is fine, the Court has demonstrated that it is a fallible and untrustworthy guide at best.

              Leftists get away with this because the culture portrays judges as impartial agents who are interested only in ensuring that the laws passed by the Congress and enshrined in the Constitution are followed.

              Yet we know that's not true, because the same leftists tell us so.
              They tell us the Constitution is a "living" document. That is saying in no uncertain terms that judges have the authority to redefine the Constitution based on the judge's biases without following the process the people accepted to modify the Constitution.

              But if five judges, who are rich, mostly white, mostly male lawyers, can arbitrarily redefine the rights of Americans by unilaterally modifying the Constitution, we no longer live in a free society.

              ....It's time for honest Americans who believe in democracy, as witnessed by our acceptance of the legitimate authority that Obama had when he was president, to convince the culture that many judges are not apolitical honest actors.

              It's time for Republicans to impeach judges who obviously overstep their authority. It's time for Congress to pass a law requiring that judges interpret the laws in light of the intent of the people who passed the law.

              Perhaps we need a constitutional amendment to explicitly demand that judges not add their own spin to the laws of the land.

              Whatever mechanism we use, the reality is that if we don't crush the rebellion in the judiciary we will lose all our freedoms and America may be headed toward an armed conflict.

              This modern judicial rebellion seeks to impose its will on everyone. From demanding that Christians support same-sex "weddings" to demanding that Catholic nuns support abortion, the fascist judges are insisting that all bow their knee to our new masters.

              The risk of eventual violence is much worse than it was in the case of the Civil War. In this new rebellion, there is no safe haven for the new "slaves," those whose rights are being stolen by traitors. There is no underground railroad for those who cherish their constitutional rights.

              The chance for real violence becomes greatest when people are backed into a corner and told they must reject their own beliefs.