Log In

Your email is not your username

Register

If you were a member of the old Bodybuilding.com forums and would like to reuse your previous username, you can request it below. We use your email only for registration and do not store it. For more information, please see our Privacy Policy.

Confirm your email

A registration code was sent to your email. Enter it here.

Welcome

You have successfully setup your account.

Sign in

Quick Navigation Bottom Misc
Forum » More General Categories » Religion and Politics » Judge orders WH to temporarily reinstate Acosta's pass
  1. Results 61 to 90 of 265
  2. Page 3 of 9
  3. First
  5. 1
  6. 2
  7. 3
  8. 4
  9. 5
  11. Last

Thread: Judge orders WH to temporarily reinstate Acosta's pass

post 1566388981 11-16-2018, 10:06 AM
-
#61
  1. tk217
  2. Methodological Naturalism
  1. tk217
  2. Methodological Naturalism
  3. Join Date: Jan 2010
  4. Posts: 55,496
  5. Rep Power: 57514
Originally Posted By otisthebat⏩
So being a constant disruption and preventing other reporters from exercising their first amendment rights isn't a good enough reason?

Again, I guess a reporter can just yell at the top of his lungs the entire time and disrupt every press conference and the only entity with authority to remove said reporter is the network he/she reports for?
It maybe - I am not sure. The higher courts will need to review this.

I don't think "decorum" is always the arbiter of a decision. I personally find it that if you're so disruptive in any engagement that the table either has to leave themselves or you need to leave the table for anything potentially efficient can be done; then that is a reason to lose the pass.

The adage of -- your rights stop at the end of my nose -- comes to mind.

At what point are you infringing on another's right to first amendment activities?

When are you allowed to shout down my question to my president?

When are you squashing my voice because of your zeal?

Kaitlan Collins is an example of this. She was kicked out for shouting at Putin and Michael Cohen during a photo op - deemed inappropriate questions.

Personally I believe you should be allowed to ask any question of a standing President. That's part of the job. I do think there needs to be order in order to have a civilized discussion.

The President is not compelled to call on Press members. That is the answer ultimately.

Jim can yell and be annoying - Trump doesn't have to listen or respond to him.
post 1566389141 11-16-2018, 10:07 AM
-
#62
  1. zinkhan99
  2. u wot
  1. zinkhan99
  2. u wot
  3. Join Date: Apr 2010
  4. Location: New York, New York, United States
  5. Age: 35
  6. Posts: 10,574
  7. Rep Power: 27439
Originally Posted By Reflexez⏩
Or it re-confirms that even the POTUS isn't bigger than the constitution.

People keep banging on about how "everyone" has the right to be there if Acosta is, it was never about Acosta's initial right to be allowed access it was about the removal of said access. Imagine if press were asking Bill Clinton about Monica Lewinsky:

- Mr. President are you lying about what happened?
- Next question.
- But Mr. President, the people have a right to know your version.
- Sit down, I'm not talking to you.
- But Sir...
- I said next, you're an awful person.
*Press pass revoked for making a scene, Misc cheers about how the guy should stfu*
Next press meeting:
- Mr. President can I ask you about Monic...
- Next question!
- Sir please...
*Press pass revoked*
etc.

The above is a long winded way of saying that when someone is granted a press pass the judge believes that it can't just be revoked at Trumps whim without any due process, reasoning as to why and with harm caused to the press, because to do so is suppressing freedom of the press as you could go down the road of just revoking every pass from people you dislike until you get someone who won't challenge you (clearly this isn't what Trump would do, but the checks are in place to stop that slippery slope from even starting).
Constitution gives everyone a right to attend WH press conferences on WH grounds ?

Otherwise, arguing that due process is needed to revoke a pass that isn't even your constitutional right is nonsense.
post 1566389151 11-16-2018, 10:07 AM
-
#63
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2006
  4. Location: South Carolina, United States
  5. Age: 47
  6. Posts: 19,701
  7. Rep Power: 161302
Originally Posted By miscinbro⏩
Correct, a TRO was issued, apparently, based on first and fifth amendment grounds.
The 1st amendment wasn't addressed at all.
Originally Posted By deepfat⏩
The part I'm confused on is the claim of due process. I mean, what is the due process of revoking a hard pass from the WH grounds? Do you have to give the guy written warnings first, establish a paper trail, then revoke? Seems so vague.

Moreover, can I claim my 1st amendment rights have been violated because I don't have a hard pass?
First, realize that the judge did not address the merits of the case. The judge ruled the same way the judge back in the 1970s ruled. If you are going to revoke a press pass...what is your procedure for doing so? The whitehouse does not have established guidelines for revoking a press pass. Once those have been written, going by this judgement alone, the whitehouse would then be able to revoke press passes when those guidelines have been violated. That's all this ruling says, have a process and guidelines in place.

Now, it will be interesting to see what the next step is. Once the WH writes down rules and guidelines and uses them to revoke a pass, they will have satisfied this judgement. That's when whomever gets their pass revoked will sue, claiming that the guidelines are unfair or shouldn't apply. I think that's when you might finally get a real ruling on the subject as to how much of a "right" the press has to have those passes. But right now all the judge said was very, very fair...have a process and procedure in place before revoking passes. The fact that they have nothing, makes it tough on the judge to side with them.
ALL I ASK IS ALL YOU GOT FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES
post 1566389251 11-16-2018, 10:09 AM
-
#64
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2016
  4. Age: 43
  5. Posts: 22,420
  6. Rep Power: 46435
Originally Posted By otisthebat⏩
So being a constant disruption and preventing other reporters from exercising their first amendment rights isn't a good enough reason?

Again, I guess a reporter can just yell at the top of his lungs the entire time and disrupt every press conference and the only entity with authority to remove said reporter is the network he/she reports for?
That’s missing the point. Apparently there is supposed to be some process involved here. You could have a guy 100% guilty of a crime, on tape, confessions, hundredths of witnesses, etc., and there would still have to be a trail to convict him. It might be the shortest most boring trial ever, but the process he is due must still be maintained.
post 1566389271 11-16-2018, 10:09 AM
-
#65
  1. Trapstar4.4
  2. I am Bomani Jr.
  1. Trapstar4.4
  2. I am Bomani Jr.
  3. Join Date: May 2008
  4. Location: Woodbury, Georgia, United States
  5. Posts: 36,999
  6. Rep Power: 331330
Originally Posted By fleeceitout⏩
Cringe.
You gotta eat that sht MFer
***Gender Non-Committed***
(She/Him/They/His/Theirs/Her/Them)


Falcons - Hawks - Braves
I make typos.
post 1566389351 11-16-2018, 10:10 AM
-
#66
  1. beowulf10
  2. Registered User
  1. beowulf10
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2014
  4. Posts: 7,405
  5. Rep Power: 14836
Originally Posted By OptimistPrime11⏩
I am as German as German can be with some Irish mixed in. And you know how I feel?

American. Full blooded American. I don't cry and whine about my heritage and how America isn't German enough. Unlike people from a certain country south of the border who do.

Not all do that mind you....but enough. Enough to where we have stores here in CA that speak and write things in Spanish and not English. And I am talking in Pasadena, OC, Burbank. Not cholo ville USA.
This is your heritage:

http://constitutionus.com/
Doc had but three redeeming traits. One was his courage; he was afraid of nothing on Earth. The second was the one commendable principal in his code of life, sterling loyalty to friends. The third was his affection for Wyatt Earp.
post 1566389491 11-16-2018, 10:12 AM
-
#67
  1. fleeceitout
  2. Triggering the alt-left
  1. fleeceitout
  2. Triggering the alt-left
  3. Join Date: Aug 2015
  4. Posts: 10,281
  5. Rep Power: 28014
Originally Posted By Trapstar4.4⏩
You gotta eat that sht MFer
I don’t “gotta eat” anything you fruity little dork. Calm down.
Your favorite miscer’s favorite miscer.
post 1566389601 11-16-2018, 10:13 AM
-
#68
  1. TaeBoNinja
  2. Vagina Whisperer
  1. TaeBoNinja
  2. Vagina Whisperer
  3. Join Date: Sep 2009
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 46,748
  6. Rep Power: 174067
Acosta is the media version of Avenatti. Don't know why anyone defends this clown. He only serves to feed into the media is biased argument.
6'3 Master Race
GOATCal Crew
No Pillow Crew
Pureblood Crew
post 1566389631 11-16-2018, 10:13 AM
-
#69
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2016
  4. Age: 43
  5. Posts: 22,420
  6. Rep Power: 46435
Originally Posted By wesleysh21⏩
The 1st amendment wasn't addressed at all.
According to the article in the OP it certainly was.

"The big picture: Judge Kelly said it is likely that Acosta’s first and fifth amendment rights were violated when the White House suspended his press pass, saying he believes CNN and Acosta are likely to prevail in the case."
post 1566389711 11-16-2018, 10:14 AM
-
#70
  1. NameOfPeace
  2. Registered User
  1. NameOfPeace
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Sep 2016
  4. Age: 34
  5. Posts: 577
  6. Rep Power: 4119
regardless of political affiliation his repeated actions would warrant removal or firing in most professional positions. you cant just stand there and hold up the progress and work of everyone around you then yell over people. that people would side with him and say he did nothing wrong is mind boggling
post 1566389831 11-16-2018, 10:16 AM
-
#71
  1. deepfat
  2. A Great American
  1. deepfat
  2. A Great American
  3. Join Date: Apr 2006
  4. Location: California, United States
  5. Posts: 12,755
  6. Rep Power: 73593
the claim that his 1st amendment right was violated is a precarious one. So, can any alt-media type on youtube that doesn't have a press pass claim that their 1st amendment rights are being violated?
*SillieBazzillie isn't that bad of a guy Crew*
*STEM Master Race*
*Fly Navy Crew*
*Always Pick 5 Crew*
*STL Cardinals/Blues/MIZ-ZOU Crew*
post 1566389931 11-16-2018, 10:17 AM
-
#72
  1. tk217
  2. Methodological Naturalism
  1. tk217
  2. Methodological Naturalism
  3. Join Date: Jan 2010
  4. Posts: 55,496
  5. Rep Power: 57514
Originally Posted By NameOfPeace⏩
regardless of political affiliation his repeated actions would warrant removal or firing in most professional positions. you cant just stand there and hold up the progress and work of everyone around you then yell over people. that people would side with him and say he did nothing wrong is mind boggling
Well... that's the problem with "working with the public" position.

People act like children. If Jim is asked to leave and keeps shouting - he will violate a security parameter. That is ultimately what Trump needs to do as a tactic.
post 1566389951 11-16-2018, 10:17 AM
-
#73
  1. beowulf10
  2. Registered User
  1. beowulf10
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2014
  4. Posts: 7,405
  5. Rep Power: 14836
Originally Posted By wesleysh21⏩
The 1st amendment wasn't addressed at all.
That's not quite true.

It is true that the Judge did not rule on whether or not it was a first amendment violation, but the reason why the 5th amendment was brought up is because of possible violations of the First Amendment.

The bottom line is the First Amendment is an inherent feature of our Republic. It's important. And it has to be balanced against things like security concerns (the main reason why reporters have press passes).

And thugs and bullies like Trump cannot do whatever they want even if they're the President.
Doc had but three redeeming traits. One was his courage; he was afraid of nothing on Earth. The second was the one commendable principal in his code of life, sterling loyalty to friends. The third was his affection for Wyatt Earp.
post 1566390021 11-16-2018, 10:18 AM
-
#74
  1. tk217
  2. Methodological Naturalism
  1. tk217
  2. Methodological Naturalism
  3. Join Date: Jan 2010
  4. Posts: 55,496
  5. Rep Power: 57514
Originally Posted By deepfat⏩
the claim that his 1st amendment right was violated is a precarious one. So, can any alt-media type on youtube that doesn't have a press pass claim that their 1st amendment rights are being violated?
Once you're invited in - you can't remove them haphazardly.

Were these you tubers already invited or implicitly invited? No.
post 1566390121 11-16-2018, 10:19 AM
-
#75
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2006
  4. Location: South Carolina, United States
  5. Age: 47
  6. Posts: 19,701
  7. Rep Power: 161302
Originally Posted By zinkhan99⏩
Constitution gives everyone a right to attend WH press conferences on WH grounds ?

Otherwise, arguing that due process is needed to revoke a pass that isn't even your constitutional right is nonsense.
All this ruling says is that the WH needs to come up with a process and guidelines. Once they do that, they can kick people out.
ALL I ASK IS ALL YOU GOT FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES
post 1566390151 11-16-2018, 10:19 AM
-
#76
  1. deepfat
  2. A Great American
  1. deepfat
  2. A Great American
  3. Join Date: Apr 2006
  4. Location: California, United States
  5. Posts: 12,755
  6. Rep Power: 73593
Originally Posted By tk217⏩
Once you're invited in - you can't remove them haphazardly.

Were these you tubers already invited or implicitly invited? No.
So basically these reporters can just run amok with no repercussions then. That's the precedent that has been set.
*SillieBazzillie isn't that bad of a guy Crew*
*STEM Master Race*
*Fly Navy Crew*
*Always Pick 5 Crew*
*STL Cardinals/Blues/MIZ-ZOU Crew*
post 1566390171 11-16-2018, 10:19 AM
-
#77
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2006
  4. Location: South Carolina, United States
  5. Age: 47
  6. Posts: 19,701
  7. Rep Power: 161302
Originally Posted By beowulf10⏩
That's not quite true.

It is true that the Judge did not rule on whether or not it was a first amendment violation, but the reason why the 5th amendment was brought up is because of possible violations of the First Amendment.

The bottom line is the First Amendment is an inherent feature of our Republic. It's important. And it has to be balanced against things like security concerns (the main reason why reporters have press passes).

And thugs and bullies like Trump cannot do whatever they want even if they're the President.
The 1st amendment was not addressed...at all. Even CNN said that. Once the new rules are put into effect and someone gets their press pass revoked, THEN you will have a 1st amendment case.
ALL I ASK IS ALL YOU GOT FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES
post 1566390191 11-16-2018, 10:20 AM
-
#78
  1. TaeBoNinja
  2. Vagina Whisperer
  1. TaeBoNinja
  2. Vagina Whisperer
  3. Join Date: Sep 2009
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 46,748
  6. Rep Power: 174067
Originally Posted By tk217⏩
Once you're invited in - you can't remove them haphazardly.
Why not? Nothing in the Constitution protects a press pass.
6'3 Master Race
GOATCal Crew
No Pillow Crew
Pureblood Crew
post 1566390321 11-16-2018, 10:20 AM
-
#79
  1. tk217
  2. Methodological Naturalism
  1. tk217
  2. Methodological Naturalism
  3. Join Date: Jan 2010
  4. Posts: 55,496
  5. Rep Power: 57514
Originally Posted By deepfat⏩
So basically these reporters can just run amok with no repercussions then. That's the precedent that has been set.
Constitutional right, bro. Not "just a piece of paper." Serious **** happens when you try to remove rights. Don't be that guy.
post 1566390361 11-16-2018, 10:21 AM
-
#80
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  1. wesleysh21
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Dec 2006
  4. Location: South Carolina, United States
  5. Age: 47
  6. Posts: 19,701
  7. Rep Power: 161302
Originally Posted By deepfat⏩
So basically these reporters can just run amok with no repercussions then. That's the precedent that has been set.
Until the WH puts some guidelines in place, yes. Once they do that, they will satisfy this judgement and can start kicking people out.
ALL I ASK IS ALL YOU GOT FOR AS LONG AS IT TAKES
post 1566390431 11-16-2018, 10:21 AM
-
#81
  1. tk217
  2. Methodological Naturalism
  1. tk217
  2. Methodological Naturalism
  3. Join Date: Jan 2010
  4. Posts: 55,496
  5. Rep Power: 57514
Originally Posted By TaeBoNinja⏩
Why not? Nothing in the Constitution protects a press pass.
5th Amendment. Due Process. Don't tread on my rights, bro, you're barking up the wrong tree if you think this is a good place to start a fight.
post 1566390561 11-16-2018, 10:22 AM
-
#82
  1. Reflexez
  2. bad_Liberal_Man
  1. Reflexez
  2. bad_Liberal_Man
  3. Join Date: Dec 2011
  4. Location: United Kingdom (Great Britain)
  5. Posts: 5,292
  6. Rep Power: 28445
Originally Posted By OptimistPrime11⏩
Ok....but you are talking one incident that was of great national interest and that EVERY press person was asking in reference to Clinton.

Whereas Acosta has been a bore and a pest, purposely trying to make these press conferences about himself....for 2 years now.

Big difference.
Are you saying that the constitution has provisos in place where it depends on how many people are interested in a topic? Is the WH able to revoke based on how many people are interested and then who makes that decision? The rest is your opinion of him, which doesn't hold any legal relevance.
Originally Posted By zinkhan99⏩
Constitution gives everyone a right to attend WH press conferences on WH grounds ?

Otherwise, arguing that due process is needed to revoke a pass that isn't even your constitutional right is nonsense.
No it doesn't, it does however offer protections to the press.

You don't seem to understand how law works based on that comment alone, so there's really not point in armchair law discussions, maybe read the judges reasoning based on law and then come back to argue a counterpoint to his decision, rather than making up how you think the law works and arguing a point off the back of it.
Current ShareBlue earnings: $103,587.99

Certified deb00nker & corrector of the record.
post 1566390751 11-16-2018, 10:24 AM
-
#83
  1. deepfat
  2. A Great American
  1. deepfat
  2. A Great American
  3. Join Date: Apr 2006
  4. Location: California, United States
  5. Posts: 12,755
  6. Rep Power: 73593
Originally Posted By tk217⏩
5th Amendment. Due Process. Don't tread on my rights, bro, you're barking up the wrong tree if you think this is a good place to start a fight.
Where does due process come into having a wh press pass? How does the 5th amendment apply to something as small as this?
*SillieBazzillie isn't that bad of a guy Crew*
*STEM Master Race*
*Fly Navy Crew*
*Always Pick 5 Crew*
*STL Cardinals/Blues/MIZ-ZOU Crew*
post 1566390811 11-16-2018, 10:25 AM
-
#84
  1. beowulf10
  2. Registered User
  1. beowulf10
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jan 2014
  4. Posts: 7,405
  5. Rep Power: 14836
Originally Posted By zinkhan99⏩
Constitution gives everyone a right to attend WH press conferences on WH grounds ?

Otherwise, arguing that due process is needed to revoke a pass that isn't even your constitutional right is nonsense.
Jonathan Peters, a media law professor at the University of Georgia, told CNN. "Relevant precedent says that a journalist has a First Amendment right of access to places closed to the public but open generally to the press. That includes press rooms and news conferences. In those places, if access is generally inclusive of the press, then access can't be denied arbitrarily or absent compelling reasons. And the reasons that the White House gave were wholly unconvincing and uncompelling."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/13/media...ump/index.html
Doc had but three redeeming traits. One was his courage; he was afraid of nothing on Earth. The second was the one commendable principal in his code of life, sterling loyalty to friends. The third was his affection for Wyatt Earp.
post 1566390971 11-16-2018, 10:26 AM
-
#85
  1. tk217
  2. Methodological Naturalism
  1. tk217
  2. Methodological Naturalism
  3. Join Date: Jan 2010
  4. Posts: 55,496
  5. Rep Power: 57514
Originally Posted By deepfat⏩
Where does due process come into having a wh press pass? How does the 5th amendment apply to something as small as this?
Oh you don't follow. So, when the government gives me access (which is what a hard pass is) they have to determine a method of revoking that access just like they had a method of granting me access. They don't have a method written up saying "revoke because of..." as a policy. That is the due process part. Even then whatever policy is written if I find out it infringes on my other rights (1st/2nd/whatever) I can sue you and say the policy you designed is illegal and the courts will have to determine that.
post 1566391101 11-16-2018, 10:27 AM
-
#86
  1. 7rmr
  2. Registered User
  1. 7rmr
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2009
  4. Location: Ontario, Canada
  5. Age: 37
  6. Posts: 13,373
  7. Rep Power: 40537
Originally Posted By zinkhan99⏩
Link:https://www.axios.com/white-house-or...9571c4abb.html

Interesting. Not a verdict by any means, but if it continues that path it either sets precedent that hard pass to access WH grounds is every reporters right, or it will go to Supreme Court.
Lol, no it doesn't. It just says the White House cannot arbitrarily revoke a reporter's pass simply because they don't like the reporter's questions.
Make Misc Great Again

dhawkeye1980, March 3rd, 2017 at 12:44pm: Um not really most of ACA members are part of the medicaid expansion, i would imagine very little are on obamacare.
post 1566391141 11-16-2018, 10:28 AM
-
#87
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  1. miscinbro
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Mar 2016
  4. Age: 43
  5. Posts: 22,420
  6. Rep Power: 46435
Originally Posted By tk217⏩
Oh you don't follow. So, when the government gives me access (which is what a hard pass is) they have to determine a method of revoking that access just like they had a method of granting me access. They don't have a method written up saying "revoke because of..." as a policy. That is the due process part. Even then whatever policy is written if I find out it infringes on my other rights (1st/2nd/whatever) I can sue you and say the policy you designed is illegal and the courts will have to determine that.
This really shouldn’t be that hard to understand
post 1566391181 11-16-2018, 10:29 AM
-
#88
  1. OptimistPrime11
  2. Banned
  1. OptimistPrime11
  2. Banned
  3. Join Date: Sep 2018
  4. Age: 56
  5. Posts: 8,834
  6. Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted By wesleysh21⏩
Until the WH puts some guidelines in place, yes. Once they do that, they will satisfy this judgement and can start kicking people out.
I think this goes to show just how far Acosta has gone off the rails with his behavior when this appears to be the first instance where a reporter EVEN NEEDED to be removed so that guidelines need to be created. In the 200 year history of the white house (not sure how long press conferences have been going on) this has never come up. And there have been interactions between the press and past POTUS's that were contentious....but Acosta went so far as to warrant something like this happen.

Sad!
post 1566391211 11-16-2018, 10:29 AM
-
#89
  1. TaeBoNinja
  2. Vagina Whisperer
  1. TaeBoNinja
  2. Vagina Whisperer
  3. Join Date: Sep 2009
  4. Location: United States
  5. Posts: 46,748
  6. Rep Power: 174067
Originally Posted By beowulf10⏩
Jonathan Peters, a media law professor at the University of Georgia, told CNN. "Relevant precedentsays that a journalist has a First Amendment right of access to places closed to the public but open generally to the press. That includes press rooms and news conferences. In those places, if access is generally inclusive of the press, then access can't be denied arbitrarily or absent compelling reasons. And the reasons that the White House gave were wholly unconvincing and uncompelling."

https://www.cnn.com/2018/11/13/media...ump/index.html
By this logic, no "journalist" should ever be denied.
6'3 Master Race
GOATCal Crew
No Pillow Crew
Pureblood Crew
post 1566391271 11-16-2018, 10:29 AM
-
#90
  1. 7rmr
  2. Registered User
  1. 7rmr
  2. Registered User
  3. Join Date: Jun 2009
  4. Location: Ontario, Canada
  5. Age: 37
  6. Posts: 13,373
  7. Rep Power: 40537
Originally Posted By wesleysh21⏩
Until the WH puts some guidelines in place, yes. Once they do that, they will satisfy this judgement and can start kicking people out.
Unless the process otherwise infrgines on a constitutional protection.

Brb Democratic President makes a policy that any reporter who owns a firearm is not allowed access to the White House.

Do you see the issue there.
Make Misc Great Again

dhawkeye1980, March 3rd, 2017 at 12:44pm: Um not really most of ACA members are part of the medicaid expansion, i would imagine very little are on obamacare.
Quick Navigation Top Misc
« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Bookmarks
Digg.com
Digg
del.icio.us
del.icio.us
Stumbleupon.com
StumbleUpon
Google.com
Google
Facebook.com
Facebook
Posting Permissions
  1. You may not post new threads
  2. You may not post replies
  3. You may not post attachments
  4. You may not edit your posts