9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban - Page 2 - Talk About Marriage
Politics and Religion This is the place to discuss politics, morality, religion, and anything controversial.

User Tag List

 129Likes
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
post #16 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 07:44 AM
Forum Supporter
 
arbitrator's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Location: Central Texas/Brazos Valley
Posts: 11,509
Cool Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

With the Ninth Federal Circuit unanimously striking his ban down, and with an almost insurable rebuke fixing to come against Trump's appeal from the SCOTUS, then perhaps he'll just simply tweet out that he will now appeal it to the World Court in The Hague!


"To love another person is to see the face of God!" - Jean Valjean from Les Miserables

My Story! http://talkaboutmarriage.com/going-t...andonment.html
arbitrator is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 08:08 AM
Member
 
john117's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Midwest USA
Posts: 11,591
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

I know the vetting I had to go through when I got my green card. They actually sent a US embassy staffer to ask questions . For citizenship... Long paper trail, taxes, etc.

For visitors, it's a bit hopeless. How do you go about contacting the Mogadishu Somalia DMV or Iranian Islamic Treasury for clearance?
john117 is online now  
post #18 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 08:12 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,000
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by naiveonedave View Post
I really struggle with how this is unconstitutional.
A) It is a leap of faith that it is a Muslim ban.
B) I didn't think foreigners had our constitutional rights
C) It is not a permanent ban, only 90 days, as I recall.
D) If this is truly unconstitutional, then how can we deny letting in any Chinese person who wants to come here? If we deny, then they would justly cry 'racism', in as far as I know, Chinese are more racially consistent than folks in the travel banned countries are Muslim.

I feel like we have so twisted the constitution, we only use it when it really doesn't apply....
Both sides trample over it to get whatever they want. The reality is that if our government were a truly Constitutional one, there wouldn't be any modern day "liberals" or "conservatives" because both of them are progressives, wanting to use the power of government to impose their worldview on every body else.

At the center of every moMEnt of my life is ME!
Ynot is offline  
 
post #19 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 08:14 AM
Member
 
VladDracul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 946
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot View Post
That is only because the shoe was on the other foot then. You didn't see "all the jumping up and down" because then it was the GOP who was doing all the jumping up and down that Obama "wasn't doing enough". Obama restricted entrance into five airports so that the passengers could be vetted, he didn't outright ban travel from those countries. So again, sort of the same, but very different. In the meantime 1 American died from Ebola, 1.
Simply for the purpose of argument, if these five U.S. airports simply did not have the infrastructure to properly "vett" these travelers, would it have be within Presidential authority to prevent these travelers from entering the U.S. ?

If you don't embody controversy, what you say will become just another part of the media driven culture of stifling thought and debate about issues.
VladDracul is offline  
post #20 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 08:14 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,000
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by john117 View Post
I know the vetting I had to go through when I got my green card. They actually sent a US embassy staffer to ask questions . For citizenship... Long paper trail, taxes, etc.

For visitors, it's a bit hopeless. How do you go about contacting the Mogadishu Somalia DMV or Iranian Islamic Treasury for clearance?
Or get citizenship documentation from the government office bureau that has been drone striked out of functionality in the War on Terror?

At the center of every moMEnt of my life is ME!
Ynot is offline  
post #21 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 08:24 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,000
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by VladDracul View Post
Simply for the purpose of argument, if these five U.S. airports simply did not have the infrastructure to properly "vett" these travelers, would it have be within Presidential authority to prevent these travelers from entering the U.S. ?
Perhaps, because it could actually be proven that these people were infected or possibly infected (given the percentage of the actual populations of the nations involved) as opposed to just assuming that they are on the basis of scant evidence from largely non-existent or unavailable resources as is the case now. A case could also be made (and argued) that Ebola has a fatality rate of 70% is a far greater risk than 0.0004% that might possibly be attributed to the number of immigrants who might engage in nefarious "terrorist related activities". Again sort of the same, but very different.

At the center of every moMEnt of my life is ME!

Last edited by Ynot; 02-10-2017 at 08:32 AM.
Ynot is offline  
post #22 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 09:17 AM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,016
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot View Post
It would only take one person to commit an act of terror and stopping all of the people FLEEING from an arbitrary list of nations would do nothing but placate the irrational fears of non-thinking people. Even if it did stop those few terrorist that would still leave about 520 other terrorists (related activists) free to produce all the carnage. Not to mention the fact that if one were going to come here to specifically target the US with a terrorist act, one would probably be able to circumvent the ban anyways by gaining a fraudulent visa or passport from a non-banned nation (you know the same type of arguments made in regards to gun control - criminals don't follow the law).
The people arrested, tried & convicted were more than activists. They weren't tried, convicted and sent to jail for mere activism. If that were true, most liberal & conservative activists would be in jail by now. Don't marginalize their extremism by labeling them activists.

You justify the halt to the temporary ban by flippantly marginalizing people with valid concerns as being non-thinking irrationals.

Let's state some facts. Maybe you'll accuse me of using "alternative facts" so feel free to fact-check me.
1) ISIS have been in Iraq and Syria. Their numbers have greatly expanded.
2) They have said they will infiltrate the refugee population with their members. source

If 1 & 2 are true, what is your opposition for temporarily banning refugees from coming in from those countries? Do you feel those refugees have a right to be here?

By saying that the ban will do nothing because terrorists are too smart and will just circumvent the ban anyways, you're basically saying let's just throw caution to the wind, and that the president shouldn't do everything he can to stop these ISIS members from coming here. That's like saying why build the wall since they're just going to tunnel across the border. That's saying we shouldn't plug one entry point because they'll just get in via the other entry point. Are you sure the proponents of this halt are the non-thinking people? Did you express the same sentiments when Obama instituted the 6 month ban?

Quote:
BTW, from 2004 to 2013 a total of 36 Americans were killed in terrorist attacks inside the US (the types of attacks supposedly to be prevented by the travel ban). So yeah I would probably ignore it for the most part. It is a non-issue, other than it serves to generate fear which drives the need to continually dump untold amounts of treasure to defend against what is largely indefensible.
I won't defend Obama, other than to say you need to stop listening to talk radio and start doing some investigation yourself. I guess we aren't really doing enough unless there are thousands of American soldiers dying to protect you by taking the fight to them instead of fighting here?
I am all in favor of stringent vetting of all immigrants, regardless of where they are from, but this ban does nothing except placate the irrational fears of the loyal Fox News adherents who imagine there is a bad guy behind every shrub just waiting to steal the gold certificates they bought from the TV ad.
The War on Terror was the biggest hoax foisted on the American people since the War on Drugs. There will always be another "existential threat" to protect you from
I think you're assuming too much about me, as though I can't think for myself and need to get my talking points from Fox News and conservative radio. I don't listen to talk radio. I watch Fox, CNN, and get my news from all sources from left-leaning to right-leaning and everything in between. Why is it that people like you always assume that about those with whom you disagree?

I notice that you selectively limited American deaths by terrorist attacks from 2004 to 2013. Why didn't you count 9/11 until now?

Bottom line for me is: does the Constitution give the POTUS the power to ban people that pose a threat to this country. Yes or no? Leave all the other details like how we're being mean to these refugees aside, and just focus on the constitutional legality of that EO.
becareful2 is offline  
post #23 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 09:48 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,589
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

The attorneys for the DOJ should have had the information that the judge asked for. In fact they should have had information on the number of arrests before they enacted the ban. It would have been easy: "your honor, there were X arrests and Y convictions for the following crimes for people from those countries".

The president has the right to regulate immigration but not to create unnecessary chaos. The negative effects of suddenly blocking immigrants are quite severe - imagine you have just accepted a job in the US, sold your stuff, or shipped it to the US, and then you and your family are suddenly blocked from arriving. It puts you in quite a bad situation. That is separate from the tens of thousands who had visas canceled.

The need for a sudden ban was based on the idea that there was a critical threat, but the DOJ failed to make that case. The rate of terrorist attacks in the US is very small and there was no evidence given that there was going to be a sudden uptick.

The other problem is that while the ban didn't mention religion, there were multiple comments from the president and his advisers both before and after the election about instituting a "Muslim ban" and favoring Christians. Those actions are unconstitutional and courts are allowed to use statements like that to determine the intent of a law.


This all could have been done so much more smoothly. Block the issuing of new visas. Base the countries named on some measurable parameter, not what appears to be arbitrary. Write a clear law that doesn't unintentionally ban permanent residents. Coordinate with DHS so that the roll-out goes smoothly. Basically the administration didn't do their homework.
uhtred is online now  
post #24 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 09:49 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,000
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by becareful2 View Post
The people arrested, tried & convicted were more than activists. They weren't tried, convicted and sent to jail for mere activism. If that were true, most liberal & conservative activists would be in jail by now. Don't marginalize their extremism by labeling them activists.
I didn't "marginalize" anyone, that was already done by Byron York. He is afterall the person who had to expand his definition from acts of terrorism to encompass any terrorist related activites. If you have an issue with this take it up with Byron York. I am merely analyzing what he has already stated
You justify the halt to the temporary ban by flippantly marginalizing people with valid concerns as being non-thinking irrationals.
Again, take it up with Byron York
Let's state some facts. Maybe you'll accuse me of using "alternative facts" so feel free to fact-check me.
1) ISIS have been in Iraq and Syria. Their numbers have greatly expanded.
2) They have said they will infiltrate the refugee population with their members. source

If 1 & 2 are true, what is your opposition for temporarily banning refugees from coming in from those countries? Do you feel those refugees have a right to be here?
My "opposition" is with the ignorant, short sighted argument presented by Byron York. In addition to the fact, that given the small numbers we are talking out, together with the greatly expanded definition in order to arrive at those small number, the whole matter is just a placebo given to assuage irrational fear
By saying that the ban will do nothing because terrorists are too smart and will just circumvent the ban anyways, you're basically saying let's just throw caution to the wind, and that the president shouldn't do everything he can to stop these ISIS members from coming here. That's like saying why build the wall since they're just going to tunnel across the border. That's saying we shouldn't plug one entry point because they'll just get in via the other entry point. Are you sure the proponents of this halt are the non-thinking people? Did you express the same sentiments when Obama instituted the 6 month ban?
So it is either this or nothing? Did I ever say that? You assume so much in your binary thinking. Why didn't Trump just issue an executive order to more stringently vet the incoming rather than ban them outright? I would imagine it is because that wouldn't have been enough for all of those who have succumbed to the fear mongering that passes as news these days.


I think you're assuming too much about me, as though I can't think for myself and need to get my talking points from Fox News and conservative radio. I don't listen to talk radio. I watch Fox, CNN, and get my news from all sources from left-leaning to right-leaning and everything in between. Why is it that people like you always assume that about those with whom you disagree?
I can only make assumption based on the information you provided, which to this point shows no analysis of fact, but rather acceptance of the same without context
I notice that you selectively limited American deaths by terrorist attacks from 2004 to 2013. Why didn't you count 9/11 until now?
Mainly because 9/11 was a once and done, one time attack for which all sorts of new restrictions and protections have already been put in place. The incident isn't relevant to the ban we are discussing, because NOT ONE of the perpetrators was from a country included on the ban list
Bottom line for me is: does the Constitution give the POTUS the power to ban people that pose a threat to this country. Yes or no? Leave all the other details like how we're being mean to these refugees aside, and just focus on the constitutional legality of that EO.
Bottom line for me is that the powers of the President are limited by the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution. A judge and the appeals court are one such check on the powers of the President. Rather than succumbing to the partisan ramblings of Byron York and his under analyzed facts, you should be glad that the system is still functioning despite the abuse of EOs by Presidents, both past and present

At the center of every moMEnt of my life is ME!
Ynot is offline  
post #25 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 09:53 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,000
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by uhtred View Post
The attorneys for the DOJ should have had the information that the judge asked for. In fact they should have had information on the number of arrests before they enacted the ban. It would have been easy: "your honor, there were X arrests and Y convictions for the following crimes for people from those countries".

The president has the right to regulate immigration but not to create unnecessary chaos. The negative effects of suddenly blocking immigrants are quite severe - imagine you have just accepted a job in the US, sold your stuff, or shipped it to the US, and then you and your family are suddenly blocked from arriving. It puts you in quite a bad situation. That is separate from the tens of thousands who had visas canceled.

The need for a sudden ban was based on the idea that there was a critical threat, but the DOJ failed to make that case. The rate of terrorist attacks in the US is very small and there was no evidence given that there was going to be a sudden uptick.

The other problem is that while the ban didn't mention religion, there were multiple comments from the president and his advisers both before and after the election about instituting a "Muslim ban" and favoring Christians. Those actions are unconstitutional and courts are allowed to use statements like that to determine the intent of a law.


This all could have been done so much more smoothly. Block the issuing of new visas. Base the countries named on some measurable parameter, not what appears to be arbitrary. Write a clear law that doesn't unintentionally ban permanent residents. Coordinate with DHS so that the roll-out goes smoothly. Basically the administration didn't do their homework.
Exactly! But instead the courts are blamed for the ineptitude of the administration. Because, you know, this "so-called Judge" made himself a national security expert. It wasn't that Trump, his administration or Byron York failed to make a legitimate argument.


At the center of every moMEnt of my life is ME!
Ynot is offline  
post #26 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 10:39 AM Thread Starter
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2016
Posts: 1,016
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot View Post
I didn't "marginalize" anyone, that was already done by Byron York. He is afterall the person who had to expand his definition from acts of terrorism to encompass any terrorist related activites. If you have an issue with this take it up with Byron York. I am merely analyzing what he has already stated
You justify the halt to the temporary ban by flippantly marginalizing people with valid concerns as being non-thinking irrationals.
Again, take it up with Byron York
I feel this is disingenuous. Byron York didn't expand any definition; he reported on the analysis from the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest. Did you read the article? He wasn't the one who called people who agreed with the temporary ban non-thinking and irrational; you did.

The judge asked how many terrorist attacks & how many arrests involved people from those 7 countries since 9/11. Byron York then reported on the findings from the the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest. He didn't change the definition of anything, and if the judge deemed it necessary to include the date starting from 9/11, why didn't you?

Quote:
So it is either this or nothing? Did I ever say that? You assume so much in your binary thinking. Why didn't Trump just issue an executive order to more stringently vet the incoming rather than ban them outright? I would imagine it is because that wouldn't have been enough for all of those who have succumbed to the fear mongering that passes as news these days.
First of all, the ban is more of a halt to give the US government more time to create a better vetting system than what the UN has now. Secondly, the implication in your argument that terrorists are smart and will just circumvent the temporary ban is clear.

Quote:
I can only make assumption based on the information you provided, which to this point shows no analysis of fact, but rather acceptance of the same without context
The numbers and facts came from the DOJ, who gave it to the the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest. A subsequent breakdown of those numbers was also given with context that proved Judge Robart was wrong. I don't know what you're reading.

Quote:
Mainly because 9/11 was a once and done, one time attack for which all sorts of new restrictions and protections have already been put in place. The incident isn't relevant to the ban we are discussing, because NOT ONE of the perpetrators was from a country included on the ban list
No, you don't get to decide that and move the goal posts. The judge specifically started from 9/11, so I think it's only intellectually honest to start there as well. Aren't most terrorist attacks one and done? That's a silly argument. The part about "all sorts of new restrictions and protections" is also irrelevant, as is the "because not one of the perpetrators was from a country included in the ban."

Quote:
Bottom line for me is that the powers of the President are limited by the checks and balances put in place by the Constitution. A judge and the appeals court are one such check on the powers of the President. Rather than succumbing to the partisan ramblings of Byron York and his under analyzed facts, you should be glad that the system is still functioning despite the abuse of EOs by Presidents, both past and present
I haven't heard much in the way of constitutional legality from Judge Robart, just a ruling based on alternative facts that he put out. Article II of the Constitution is pretty clear:

“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
becareful2 is offline  
post #27 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 10:42 AM
Member
 
Thor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 8,858
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

It matters not whether there have ever been any crimes of any sort committed by any immigrant or refugee.

The Constitution provides Congress with authority to write laws regarding immigration. The Constitution provides the President with authority over foreign policy and national security. Congress wrote a law in the 1950s which gives the President sole authority based on his own judgement to prohibit entry by any person or any class of persons.

Note that each of the previous 6 Presidents used this law to prohibit entry of various groups and nationalities.

The court's authority is limited to determining whether the law itself is Constitutional and whether the President's actions comply with the particular law.

The President has operated within the confines of the federal law, and within the confines of his Constitutional authority in the area of national security and foreign policy. Congress established the law within their Constitutional authority over the border.

The court has no authority to pass judgement on the wisdom of the President's policy. It doesn't matter if the policy is smart or terrible. It doesn't matter if we've had any problems so far with immigrants or refugees.
Thor is offline  
post #28 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 11:03 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Location: Ohio
Posts: 3,000
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

Quote:
Originally Posted by becareful2 View Post
I feel this is disingenuous. Byron York didn't expand any definition; he reported on the analysis from the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest. Did you read the article? He wasn't the one who called people who agreed with the temporary ban non-thinking and irrational; you did.

The judge asked how many terrorist attacks & how many arrests involved people from those 7 countries since 9/11. Byron York then reported on the findings from the the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest. He didn't change the definition of anything, and if the judge deemed it necessary to include the date starting from 9/11, why didn't you?



First of all, the ban is more of a halt to give the US government more time to create a better vetting system than what the UN has now. Secondly, the implication in your argument that terrorists are smart and will just circumvent the temporary ban is clear.



The numbers and facts came from the DOJ, who gave it to the the Senate Judiciary Subcommittee on Immigration and the National Interest. A subsequent breakdown of those numbers was also given with context that proved Judge Robart was wrong. I don't know what you're reading. But it wasn't the Constitution. But you have rejected so many of the facts that you provided in your OP, that I doubt you will understand that either



No, you don't get to decide that and move the goal posts. The judge specifically started from 9/11, so I think it's only intellectually honest to start there as well. Aren't most terrorist attacks one and done? That's a silly argument. The part about "all sorts of new restrictions and protections" is also irrelevant, as is the "because not one of the perpetrators was from a country included in the ban."



I haven't heard much in the way of constitutional legality from Judge Robart, just a ruling based on alternative facts that he put out. Article II of the Constitution is pretty clear:

“Whenever the president finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate.”
You have to excuse me, I didn't realize you were looking to reargue the case. I should have stated that York got his information from the DOJ. In any case the arguments made failed to convince the judge or the Court of Appeals. You can whine that I was disingenuous, but the reality is that the original facts (580 total convictions, 380 from foreign nationals, 60 from the banned countries) came from the same DOJ facts provided by York. You may not like the reality, but Trump, his administration and Byron York do NOT make any compelling argument.
OTOH I could call you out for attributing a Presidential power to the Constitution, when Article II of the Constitution makes no mention of the matter.

At the center of every moMEnt of my life is ME!
Ynot is offline  
post #29 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 12:47 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Posts: 2,589
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

The president's power does not extend to violating the constitution. Base on his own public statements earlier , this was a ban based on religion, even if religion wasn't specifically mentioned. The court decided that there was sufficient evidence that the ban was discriminatory to bock it until there is a full court case.

The courts may decide to uphold the ban. All that was decided was that the temporary stay should remain in place because there was good reason to believe the ban might be overturned.

If the President had not talked about banning Muslims, he might not be in this situation.

If the president's staff had put together clear evidence of an immediate threat, he might not be in this situation.

The president's negative comments about a judge didn't help either. Try insulting the judge next time you have a case in court and see how it works out.

Basically the president and his staff screwed up up big time. A well thought out plan could have gotten all the effects he wanted.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Thor View Post
It matters not whether there have ever been any crimes of any sort committed by any immigrant or refugee.

The Constitution provides Congress with authority to write laws regarding immigration. The Constitution provides the President with authority over foreign policy and national security. Congress wrote a law in the 1950s which gives the President sole authority based on his own judgement to prohibit entry by any person or any class of persons.

Note that each of the previous 6 Presidents used this law to prohibit entry of various groups and nationalities.

The court's authority is limited to determining whether the law itself is Constitutional and whether the President's actions comply with the particular law.

The President has operated within the confines of the federal law, and within the confines of his Constitutional authority in the area of national security and foreign policy. Congress established the law within their Constitutional authority over the border.

The court has no authority to pass judgement on the wisdom of the President's policy. It doesn't matter if the policy is smart or terrible. It doesn't matter if we've had any problems so far with immigrants or refugees.
uhtred is online now  
post #30 of 242 (permalink) Old 02-10-2017, 01:07 PM
Member
 
VladDracul's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2016
Location: Southeast USA
Posts: 946
Re: 9th Court of Appeals uphold halt to temp immigrant ban

I personally believe the judgement morphed into a one based on statistics to be political correct and a gig at Trump rather than one on the Constitutional authority of the President.

Anyway, in being my usual controversial horses rear.




Did ya'll hear this cat that's not even a legitimate President call James Robart a so-called judge.







.

If you don't embody controversy, what you say will become just another part of the media driven culture of stifling thought and debate about issues.
VladDracul is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now



In order to be able to post messages on Talk About Marriage, you must first register. Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.

Important! Your username will be visible to the public next to anything you post and could show up in search engines like Google. If you are concerned about anonymity, PLEASE choose a username that will not be recognizable to anyone you know.

User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Password:


Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.

Email Address:
OR

Log-in









Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search



Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome