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 shouldn’t 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

On "politicizin' the slaughter 'o children"

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

  • #16
    Re: On &quot;politicizin' the slaughter 'o children&quot;

    Originally posted by Sluggo View Post
    It would have been better if he waited a few days for the politics and gone with a message that started and ended with healing and support. Be a President instead of a politican, even if just for a day or so.

    And since you went there any realist would consider everything before trying something that did not work very well before, you just lost all credibility with your position that gun control alone solves the problem. These kids died because of a coward with a mental health issue, not because of the gun in his hand.
    1st Para
    Cause we love politicians who totally ignore big huge elephants in the room... By the way the shooting was a few days ago and Christmas is next week... Time is now! set the ball rolling... The only criticizm Obama got is that he didn't tackle this issue sooner... Well thats changing...

    2nd Para
    And just gave the two solutions:
    1. Cure all the Mental Issues in America forcefully(cause not every one who is mentally ill will agree to treatement)
    OR
    2. Reduce access to Guns...

    Want to go for option one you better know that 1 in 10 Americans suffer from Depression... How is that for credibility....

    Where's your solution with some credibility...

    Any the way we are still asking for the pro guns imperical evidence that more guns in society make it safer....

    מה מכילות החדשות?


    • #17
      Re: On &quot;politicizin' the slaughter 'o children&quot;

      Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
      hemm...
      Bush, 911 and Iraq...
      Bush, 911 and Patriot Act...
      Bush, 911 and Torture

      This is embarassing...
      Wow.

      You know, I love it when people respond to my post with more partisan garbage thinking I am your run of the mill Republican who supports Bush and all other Republicans. Let's see here. During the entire 2011 Republican primary season I was the MOST VOCAL Ron Paul supporter on this site. As such, I spent most of the entire year arguing with Republicans and professed "conservatives" on this board, very rarely the liberals on here. I had some pretty heated discussions with pretty much every prominent Republican on this board about civil liberties, the infringement of the Constitution with regard to the "War on Terror" and "Drug War". I vigorouslly opposed Bush and like-minded Republicans like Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, etc. Bush was a dictator, no doubt. He did use 9/11 to push an agenda, I certainly never said he didn't. Anyone with a brain cell knows he did.

      Not everyone on this site is a Republican or a Democrat. Why in the hell would I be embarrassed by what you've posted? I'm as against Bush, Romney, Boehner, most Congressional Republicans as much as I am Obama and most Democrats. I am not a partisan, Fox News watching Republican. Thanks for the assumption though. Actually pay attention to my posts on here and you will see that is evident.

      Having said that, you are ignoring the content of my post by distracting with this crap about Bush. I'll almost guarantee Danny was on here during the Bush years bitching about him using 9/11 to push his agenda in Iraq (and rightfully so - I've complained of the same thing in the past). But it's Obama, so it's all good.

      Both Obama and Bush are piece of shit dictators and globalist scum who flaunt the Constitution, shit on our civil liberties, intervene overseas instead of leaving well enough alone, are war mongers, and neither give a shit about you or me.

      מה מכילות החדשות?


      • #18
        Re: On &quot;politicizin' the slaughter 'o children&quot;

        Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
        hemm...
        Bush, 911 and Iraq...
        Bush, 911 and Patriot Act...
        Bush, 911 and Torture

        This is embarassing...
        Indeed it is... embarrassing. Bush has been out of office 4 years, and he is the only thing you can talk about.

        מה מכילות החדשות?


        • #19
          Re: On &quot;politicizin' the slaughter 'o children&quot;

          Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
          Wow.

          You know, I love it when people respond to my post with more partisan garbage thinking I am your run of the mill Republican who supports Bush and all other Republicans. Let's see here. During the entire 2011 Republican primary season I was the MOST VOCAL Ron Paul supporter on this site. As such, I spent most of the entire year arguing with Republicans and professed "conservatives" on this board, very rarely the liberals on here. I had some pretty heated discussions with pretty much every prominent Republican on this board about civil liberties, the infringement of the Constitution with regard to the "War on Terror" and "Drug War". I vigorouslly opposed Bush and like-minded Republicans like Santorum, Gingrich, Perry, etc. Bush was a dictator, no doubt. He did use 9/11 to push an agenda, I certainly never said he didn't. Anyone with a brain cell knows he did.

          Not everyone on this site is a Republican or a Democrat. Why in the hell would I be embarrassed by what you've posted? I'm as against Bush, Romney, Boehner, most Congressional Republicans as much as I am Obama and most Democrats. I am not a partisan, Fox News watching Republican. Thanks for the assumption though. Actually pay attention to my posts on here and you will see that is evident.

          Having said that, you are ignoring the content of my post by distracting with this crap about Bush. I'll almost guarantee Danny was on here during the Bush years bitching about him using 9/11 to push his agenda in Iraq (and rightfully so - I've complained of the same thing in the past). But it's Obama, so it's all good.

          Both Obama and Bush are piece of shit dictators and globalist scum who flaunt the Constitution, shit on our civil liberties, intervene overseas instead of leaving well enough alone, are war mongers, and neither give a shit about you or me.
          What I find quite amazing is that had a Republican president used such a tragedy to push an agenda, you'd be condemning with a thread of your own.
          This was the Quote I was picking up on.... I was just stating that Bush did alot worse in politizing tradegies than Obama. This is the fourth type (at least) on Obama's watch. To do nothing now is to be "piece of shit dictator"...

          So I ask you what is your solution to the problem. I have pointed out that more guns is not a solution and if the US wants to take the Mental health area on they can but be ready for an explostion in Government Healthcare costs.

          מה מכילות החדשות?


          • #20
            Re: On &quot;politicizin' the slaughter 'o children&quot;

            Originally posted by tsquare View Post
            Indeed it is... embarrassing. Bush has been out of office 4 years, and he is the only thing you can talk about.
            I was answering this:
            What I find quite amazing is that had a Republican president used such a tragedy to push an agenda, you'd be condemning with a thread of your own.
            So embarrassing yes... When was the last GOP President....

            מה מכילות החדשות?


            • #21
              Re: On &quot;politicizin' the slaughter 'o children&quot;

              Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
              This was the Quote I was picking up on.... I was just stating that Bush did alot worse in politizing tradegies than Obama. This is the fourth type (at least) on Obama's watch. To do nothing now is to be "piece of shit dictator"...

              So I ask you what is your solution to the problem. I have pointed out that more guns is not a solution and if the US wants to take the Mental health area on they can but be ready for an explostion in Government Healthcare costs.
              Look I've debated the gun issue endlessly in the past few days and I'm not doing it again in this thread. In fact my original comment had nothing to with it. The topic of this thread is not the solutions to gun violence in the US; the topic was simply the President (in this case Obama - not Bush) using a tragedy to further an agenda. Again, I've discussed what solutions I think would work, I've posted data and evidence in several threads for days about this. I'm more than willing to debate this in a thread concerning that topic, but not here. My point I suppose is that I'm sick of this partisan bullshit. Every single thread is either a Republican dogging on anything and everything Democratic while defending to the last breath every Republican, regardless of what they do, or it's a Democrat dogging on anything and everything GOP while defending to the last breath every Democrat, regardless of record or actions.

              Obama is just as bad as Bush, regardless if the Left decides to ignore that fact; just as Romney was just as bad as Obama no matter how much the Right chooses to ignore Romneycare and Romney's liberal record.

              I just don't get it. I mean Obama has literally continued every single Bush policy with very few exceptions and actually doubled up on the worse ones (like drone bombing other countries, complete with "collateral damage", abuses of the Constitution, continuing the Patriot Act, making indefinite detention for ANY American US law, pursuing the Drug War with even more vigor than Bush - despite his promises to the contrary - and the list goes on). Why the hell do Leftists on here defend this shit when they attacked Bush relentlessly (rightfully so) and why do those on the Right constantly defend Republicans like Romney or Gingrich or even Bush, who have done the very same things Obama does now (individual mandate proposals for instance). Seriously? The only answer I can come up with is that everyone is just locked into black and white, my team is better than yours, partisanship.

              מה מכילות החדשות?


              • #22
                Re: On &quot;politicizin' the slaughter 'o children&quot;

                I, for one, welcome our new soul-less partisan overlords.

                מה מכילות החדשות?


                • #23
                  Re: On &quot;politicizin' the slaughter 'o children&quot;

                  Originally posted by soot View Post
                  I, for one, welcome our new soul-less partisan overlords.
                  Are they going to be more fun than our old soul-less partisan overlords?

                  מה מכילות החדשות?


                  • #24
                    Re: On &quot;politicizin' the slaughter 'o children&quot;

                    Originally posted by hermanboo View Post
                    Are they going to be more fun than our old soul-less partisan overlords?
                    No they'll suck ass just as much.

                    מה מכילות החדשות?


                    • #25
                      Re: On &quot;politicizin' the slaughter 'o children&quot;

                      Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                      ahoy Soot,

                      *battens down the hatches*

                      from yer own perspective, matey, imma unclear what ye would find so objectionable to Mr. Obama....'specially since ye work in financial services.

                      i know it be fashionable to bellow against Dodd Frank, but to be honest in the wake 'o 2008-2009, 'tis unrealstic that thar would be no financial reform at all. i mean, even the S&L crises 'o yer youth durin' the height 'o Mr. Reagan's power resulted in the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989.

                      thar has been no cap'n trade.
                      thar has been no tightenin' 'o gun regulations.
                      thar has been no abatin' in Mr. Obama's rather ruthless use 'o our military in squashin' (assassinatin', really) our foes.
                      thar has been nothin' but really, really low taxes.

                      he's governed as a conservative, so he's really not that partisan (how partisan can one be if they adopt the Heritage Foundation's blueprint fer healthcare reform?).

                      i understand that ye might not like the POTUS because yer Soot (which means yer ornery), but really, what is thar to really dislike with such fervor?

                      - MeadHallPirate
                      1. Financial reform would have been to start phasing out the Federal Reserve and have some competing currency, while stopping the unabated printing of currency and artificially keeping the interest rate at damn near 0%. All Dodd did was protect the banks with "regulation" that was more than likely written by the banks (their representatives, allies in Congress) themselves - all to ensure their profits and risky business practices. As long as there is a lender of last resort and artificially low interest rates, no amount of "reform" is going to help.

                      2. I don't know about Cap and Trade, but I can almost guarantee you stricter gun laws are coming. Look at the media narrative and look at the administration's latest push. It is coming and I'd say rather soon. I could be wrong of course, but I doubt it.

                      3. He should quit smashing our foes overseas since most of these foes aren't really foes. It's just empire building...and we're killing far more children on a monthly basis in drone strikes than occur in school shootings over a decade.

                      4. Again our definition of conservative is just completely different I guess. But even if we keep your definition (I'm assuming you mean how modern conservatism often defines itself), I can guaratee you that this "conservative governance" will not be lasting much longer. Again, I could be wrong and without a completely Democratic Congress it will be harder for him to go fully to the Left, but I'd expect some attempts to do so. Given that Boehner is pretty much a liberal Republican himself, he'll probably just buckle every step of the way.

                      5. I dislike him with such fervor because he is a dictator, just like the rest of them.

                      מה מכילות החדשות?


                      • #26
                        Re: On &quot;politicizin' the slaughter 'o children&quot;

                        Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                        ahoy oh firey Ericams,



                        i don't disagree with alot 'o what ye wrote...i just can't make any distinctions between what President Obama did regardin' Dodd Frank and what a President McCain or a President Romney woulda done. good grief, even in the final debate, Mr. Romney was reduced to hemmin' and hawin', offerin' that he would "keep the good parts of Dodd Frank", whatever that means.

                        i think Dodd Frank was written in an attempt to protect banks from themselves.



                        thar be nothin' to know about Cap 'n Trade matey, there is none, lol. and aye, maybe stricter gun laws are comin', but i tell ye what matey;

                        a) the Bushwhacker, or whatever 'tis called, is not an assault rifle....at least not in the manner that gun afficianados would recognize. thar be no real differences between a Bushwhacker and a Browning semi automatic deer rifle in .308.
                        imma sure yer aware that large capacity magazines fer Brownings, though a bit harder to find (mouse clickin' be hard, rawr!), are obtainable.

                        b) Lee Harvey Oswald did fine without full a full auto rifle, which again "assault weapons" like the Bushwhacker are not, he got off 3 rounds in 5 seconds or so.

                        so ye lose yer "it looks like an assault weapon but we both know its not an assault weapon" Bushwhackers.

                        so what?



                        personally, i agree - absolutely...but conservatives would differ with ye, and imma certain Republicans would too. he's not Ron Paul, and amongst the GOP thar be no Ron Pauls either, 'cept fer Ron Paul.



                        me own definition 'o conservatism comes from forty years 'o observin' politicans in DC who call themselves conservatives, and then matchin' thar action to thar words. with the greatest 'o respect, Ericams, i'd say that yer definition comes from a book.



                        i can see whar ye comin' from, matey. to me, he's just a guy who ended up President 'o the United States, just like the rest 'o them, and be confronted by the realities 'o governance.

                        - MeadHallPirate
                        1. Cool. I agree for the most part.

                        2. I don't think it really matters what guns are going to be banned, assault rifles or not. You said that Obama was conservative with regard to gun control and thus far you are correct. I was just pointing out that stricter gun control laws are more than likely coming - a point a made before the election in your thread regarding that very topic. Doesn't matter to me what guns I won't have anymore, the point is there will be more gun control, therefore nullifying the up to now correct statement that Obama has up to this point, not been a gun grabber.

                        3. The conservatives who disagree with me on foreign policy aren't necessarily conservatives. As I've pointed out before - and as a study of history shows - the foreign policy of interventionism and "Democracy building" - otherwise known as Imperialism, has historically been a Progressive foreign policy and primarily one of the Democratic Party (with the exception of the Progressive wing of the Republican Party). Look at Wilson's administration for a demostration of that. He had Bush's foreign policy before it was popular (so to speak). The Hawks in the GOP are nothing more than Statists wanting to expand the power of the state and build an empire - hardly an actual conservative (sorry - Classic Liberal) tenet. The best proof of that is that the Neo-Conservatives themselves started in the Democratic Party and broke off from the New Left in the 1970's before finally breaking into and co-opting the GOP during the Reagan Revolution.

                        4. Perhaps. My definition may very well be from a book - a history book. I'd submit that the definition of liberal in the modern sense is the exact same. Modern liberals act no more like actual liberals than modern conservatives do conservative.

                        מה מכילות החדשות?


                        • #27
                          Re: On &quot;politicizin' the slaughter 'o children&quot;

                          Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                          ahoy Ericams,



                          aye!



                          if Mr. Obama was really much a gun grabber, the Giffords shootin' woulda provided'm ample cover to show his true colors. he wasn't and he isn't, me bucko. ye have to understand, the tide 'o public sentiment is fer some kinda signs 'o life from DC on this matter - things like this are goin' to happen when the gun lobby and 2nd amendment activists have thar agenda disrupted be a school full 'o 60 lb corpses.

                          i'd take solace in this, me bucko - the next big prize fer gun folks is still the nationwide recognition 'o state issued C&C permits....thats the brass ring, and trust me the drive to achieve this "right" is goin' to continue. thats the main front at the moment, not whether folks can or can not have faux automatic Bushwacker rifles.

                          i respect ye, matey, but ye gotta fight the fights that're worth fightin'. the "right" to have a faux assault rifle is really small potatoes, 'tis not worth yer time and passion.



                          aye, i understand yer point, imma just sayin' that actual congressmen who serve in congress and claim to be conservatives would disagree with ye.



                          i was goin' to add that in meself, but it was too onerous an edit.

                          aye though, aye. a history book - but the problem be that the world didn't stop spinnin' when President Taft called it a day and left the bridge. conservatives evolved, as did liberals.

                          if the last half century be any indication, conservative =

                          1) low low taxes
                          2) aggressive deregulation
                          3) bailout "to-big-to-fail", ie - the Savings and Loan Bailout to the Tarp Bailout
                          4) Ferrari-like acceleration in Federal Spendin'
                          5) rapid and unprecedented expansion in the powers 'o the executive branch (W. Bush)

                          - MeadHallPirate
                          One thing I'd like to point out about Giffords is this: he still had re-election to worry about, now he doesn't. And I know full well that the gun bans coming will not stop with faux assault weapons, it will be gradualism/incrementalism like everything else. Eventually they will come for ALL guns. They just will. 'Tis the way o' government me bucko! Every. Single. Time.

                          מה מכילות החדשות?


                          • #28
                            Re: On &quot;politicizin' the slaughter 'o children&quot;

                            Originally posted by ericams2786 View Post
                            One thing I'd like to point out about Giffords is this: he still had re-election to worry about, now he doesn't. And I know full well that the gun bans coming will not stop with faux assault weapons, it will be gradualism/incrementalism like everything else. Eventually they will come for ALL guns. They just will. 'Tis the way o' government me bucko! Every. Single. Time.
                            Can you point out evidence of the government taking away one thing and then going for the rest... Slippery Sloop arguement has been used plenty of times with absolutely no justification...

                            About time US got a constitution that the people decide on like normal countries...

                            מה מכילות החדשות?


                            • #29
                              Re: On &quot;politicizin' the slaughter 'o children&quot;

                              Originally posted by MeadHallPirate
                              ahoy Ericams,

                              when ye pound yer drum 'bout our erodin' freedoms, imma right thar with ye matey. we see eye to eye on much...but not really on this issue.

                              i feel yer right to have a gun will indeed slide a wee bit back 'n forth, incrementalism, aye - but they key thing be the back and forth part. dependin' on who holds the reigns 'o power, the paradigm is goin' to shift a bit one way or the other (though oddly, not fer the last four years), but its goin' to continue sorta inchin' one way or the other when all be said and done.

                              o'er the last decade or so its been goin' in a way that gun enthusiasts would favor, and thats how i see it goin' into the future, too. the NRA won, me friend. sure, there's goin' to be a bump in the road now and then (a massacre 'o young toddlers would qualify as a bump, i'd say), but they'll be momentary setbacks. i mean, ye have to give the American political consciousness a few weeks or so, at least....these were adorable white children, tiny kids from Conneticut, thats a hard pill to swallow fer many.

                              yer not goin' to win on any issue 100% 'o the time, but the pro-gun folks will see a winnin' percentage imma sure.

                              be happy, matey.

                              the most aggressive outbreak 'o gun legislation came only after a bullet was put into the beloved Gipper. the main thing ye have to hope fer is the POTUS isn't gunned down, thats probably the only thing that'll really move the dial, aye.

                              - MeadHallPirate
                              Well me Pirate friend as usual I agree with a healthy amount of your post. I just think at this juncture (and this has nothing to do with Obama specifically), we are coming to a point where the government (well really the global elites running the show in most of the world) are playing their final number. I know that sounds crazy - but when you connect enough dots (and there are lots to connect), it just seems we are moving closer to that point where a serious push for global governance and a global currency will actually happen. When the dollar goes into its final death throws, there will be a push for a global currency. Combined with the UN effort to disarm the world (through this latest UN treaty), combined with the number of mass shootings sensationalized by the media, with a simultaneous push for gun control, I think it leads to one thing (in the long run): disarmament eventually, eroding of what sovereignty we have left, a more obvious global governing structure, a true global central bank, and a global currency. Now many would say "so what, sounds good". Not really. In the case of a world wide, well basically corporate fascism (I'd imagine that's what it would be basically, looking at how it is now, especially here), there is no where to turn. With a disarmed populace, well it gets worse.

                              Granted, all of that sounds really crazy. I can hear it now me matey "get the tinfoil hat on deck lads, the black helecopters a be comin' for ye". Perhaps. Perhaps not. Again, connect enough dots...and given the goals of some of the puppet masters, goals in print in their very own memoirs often times, and I'd much rather have some way of protecting myself. Is it futile in the end against a global structure like I'm talking? Sure, well from the perspective of one man. You take 80 million (or more) armed people, a good percentage of whom refuse to lay down and fall under foot...well there's a chance. Not much of one, but there is one. Again, only 13% of the American colonists actively fought in the American Revolution. The other 87% either didn't care, sat at home, or were loyal to the crown. Yet what happened....

                              I know this latest push for guns is the beginning of full disarmament. I can't tell you how I know and I can't prove it me friend, but I know it is. Simply put: it's time. Regardless of who is in power. There really is only one power in "power". And that power is ready to get the show on the road.

                              Lastly, did you ever happen to look up Spongebob? I know we were discussing this a while back and you said you'd never heard of it. I'm just asking because my kids watch it everyday and I swear every time I read one of your posts I hear Mr. Krabs in my head. It's funny. Every time Spongebob comes on, I literally think of you.

                              מה מכילות החדשות?


                              • #30
                                Re: On &quot;politicizin' the slaughter 'o children&quot;

                                Originally posted by CowboyTed View Post
                                Can you point out evidence of the government taking away one thing and then going for the rest... Slippery Sloop arguement has been used plenty of times with absolutely no justification...

                                About time US got a constitution that the people decide on like normal countries...
                                That's pretty much been the history of the United States. To ignore that fact is pretty hard to do I'd think. Sure nothing has disappeared completely, but then again our history isn't over. They continue everyday to take more and more and have for decades, if not longer. If you actually look at a history of constitutional abuses, you will see what I'm talking about. It's sort of hard to lay out all of it right here in a post, but I can give you one pertinent modern example: the Patriot Act. Many liberals complained (rightfully so) that the Patriot Act was the beginning of the end for many amendments of the Constitution, and I can agree with that. The Patriot Act established the beachhead the government needed to violate due process and your civil rights. Now last year we had the NDAA which had an amendment in it to allow for indefinite detention of not just terrorists (as the Patriot Act claims), but the right to do that to ANY American at ANY time without trial or jury. So we started actually in the Cold War with the many wiretapping and spying abuses of the CIA which helped set a precedent for much of the modern War on Terror, including the Patriot Act. The Patriot Act then lead to an expansion of those powers in the NDAA. Just 10 months ago or so, HR 347 was passed, which erodes the 1st Amendment by making it illegal to protest any elected official within a certain range (a certain number of feet), including in front of the White House. Can you seriously not see how this incrementalism works. There are many more examples of this at work and it's been going on for a long time.

                                מה מכילות החדשות?

                                Working...
                                X