LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

San Bernadino

It implies that I have no hope for the salvation and awareness of the Liberal mindset who really cannot reconcile tolerance and diversity with reality, so until they, or their families become the targets and suffer loss...

:eek:

What am I saying? They will still blame guns.

Strong with these ones is the force of compartmentalization!
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
It implies that I have no hope for the salvation and awareness of the Liberal mindset who really cannot reconcile tolerance and diversity with reality, so until they, or their families become the targets and suffer loss...

:eek:

What am I saying? They will still blame guns.

Strong with these ones is the force of compartmentalization!
Click to expand...

Well?

Ishmael
 
Eventually their storm troopers from the universities and inner cities will consume them.

;)

Suddenly they will no longer be pure enough for the movement and will have to be purged, ironically, because, you know, WHITE PRIVILEGE and UNCLE TOM!

:)
 
Ishmael said:
Let's start with the fact that what you quoted has expired, why else would he seek an extension? And a congressional law is NOT a declaration of war.

Stop it counselor. In so many respects you're the problem, not the solution.

Ishmael
Click to expand...

God, you are fucking dumb! The 2001 AUMF has NOT expired!!! Show me the expiration date. When was it repealed? There must be a record of it somewhere if you're telling me it happened. Prove it. Should be a simple task, right?

Obama did NOT seek an extension. I just quoted you the verbatim text of NDAA 2012 wherein QUOTE:

(a) In General- Congress affirms that the authority of the President to use all necessary and appropriate force pursuant to the Authorization for Use of Military Force (Public Law 107-40; 50 U.S.C. 1541 note) includes the authority for the Armed Forces of the United States to detain covered persons (as defined in subsection (b)) pending disposition under the law of war.
Click to expand...

"Includes" means "in addition to" all the other authority for the use of necessary and appropriate force previously granted in 2001 which Congress is herewith SPECIFICALLY REAFFIRMING in 2012. "Under the law of war" means exactly that, and the question a smart guy like you should be wondering is how does Congress grant powers like "indefinite detention" that only exist under the "law of war" if they don't have the authority to grant such powers by legislative act only? Why would they even try?

Let's try this from the opposite direction. If congressional law is not a declaration of war, as you asset, can you tell the class if a declaration of war constitutes congressional law? Is there anything about a Congressional declaration of war that from a sheer "force of law" standpoint distinguishes it from the "force of law" attendant to any other Congressional legislation enacted under Article I, Section 8 authority?

Let me help you out. The answer is "NO"!

Furthermore, that same Article I, Section 8 authority empowers Congress "To make ALL LAWS which shall be NECESSARY AND PROPER for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States... Therefore, the same section of the Constitution that confers the power of Congress to declare war gives it the same authority to enact any and all legislation to put that power into EFFECT whether the specific declaration is made or not, and NOTHING in the Constitution acts to the contrary, nor has any federal case law up to and including every single ruling of the Supreme Court held otherwise.

What Obama did late last year and earlier in 2015 was to seek specific NEW authorization for the use of military force against ISIS. Why?

In part because the 2001 AUMF was specifically targeted against Al Qaeda and associate forces who "aided" the terrorist attacks of 2001 and future terrorist attacks from those same aligned "nations, organizations or persons."

In 2013, there was a major split between Al Qaeda and ISIS. I'm not surprised you didn't get the memo:

Myth #3: ISIS is part of al-Qaeda

The key thing to understand about ISIS and al-Qaeda is that they are competitors, not allies, and certainly not part of the same larger group.

ISIS used to be al-Qaeda in Iraq. The group began splitting off from al-Qaeda in 2013, and was formally kicked out in February 2014. The core problem is that ISIS wouldn't listen to al-Qaeda HQ's commands: al-Qaeda wanted command over Syrian operations, which ISIS resisted, and repeatedly ordered ISIS to curtail its violence against civilians. (That's right: ISIS was too violent for al-Qaeda.)

http://www.vox.com/cards/isis-myths-iraq/al-qaeda-isis
Click to expand...

And this:

When the Syrian conflict broke out in 2011, Zawahiri (among others) urged Iraqi jihadists to take part in the conflict, and Baghdadi—who had taken over leadership of the Iraqi group in 2010—initially sent small numbers of fighters into Syria to build an organization. Syria was in chaos, and the Iraqi jihadists established secure bases of operations there, raising money and winning new recruits to their cause. Their ambitions grew along with their organization, expanding to include Syria as well as Iraq. These Iraqi jihadists, by 2013 calling themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria to reflect their new, broader orientation, also faced less pressure in Iraq with the departure of U.S. forces at the end of 2011. In Syria, the group carved out more and more territory, benefiting as the Syrian regime focused on more moderate groups. At the same time, Iraqi prime minister Nuri al-Maliki put in place a series of disastrous policies to win favor among his Shia base, systematically excluding Iraqi Sunnis from power. Thus Baghdadi’s organization steadily shored up popular support, regained its legitimacy in Iraq, built a base in Syria and replenished its ranks.

ALTHOUGH THE Syrian conflict revived the Iraqi jihadist movement, it also eventually led it to break away from the Al Qaeda leadership. Zawahiri encouraged the Iraqi affiliate to move into Syria, but he also wanted to establish a separate group under separate command, with Syrians in the lead to give it a local face. Zawahiri probably also wanted a separate group because of his past doubts about AQI’s loyalty and wisdom. Jabhat al-Nusra was thus created as the Syrian spin-off. But whereas Zawahiri saw this as a positive development, Baghdadi and other Iraqi leaders feared the group had simply gone native and become too independent, focusing too much on Syria and ignoring Iraq and the original leadership. In an attempt to rein it in—and to reestablish his authority over the group—Baghdadi declared Jabhat al-Nusra part of his organization. Jabhat al-Nusra’s leaders balked, pledging a direct oath to Zawahiri as a way of retaining their independence. Zawahiri found this lack of unity frustrating; in an attempt to settle the matter, he proclaimed Jabhat al-Nusra to be the official Al Qaeda affiliate in Syria and Baghdadi’s group to be the official Al Qaeda affiliate in Iraq, and in late 2013 ordered Baghdadi to accept this decision. Baghdadi refused and once again declared Jabhat al-Nusra subordinate to him, a move that sparked a broader clash in which perhaps four thousand fighters from both groups died. In February 2014, Zawahiri publicly disavowed Baghdadi’s group, formally ending their affiliation.

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/isis-vs-al-qaeda-jihadism%E2%80%99s-global-civil-war-12304?page=2
Click to expand...

When two groups are killing each other it is slightly disingenuous to wage war against them BOTH under the legal premise that they are STILL allies merely because they once were.

Thus, it made sense to seek a new AUMF directed against ISIS. Of course, the President was not about to be deterred simply because he didn't get that authorization. Here's where you can REALLY soil your shorts with some measure of justifiable outrage.

As is his want, the President is going it alone based on his own authority, and Congress won't do a damn thing about it, including withholding funds to the Pentagon or placing any restrictions on defense spending used to fight ISIS.

So if you want to piss into the wind, piss about that.

But the rest of your blathering about the legal deficiency of an AUMF absent a declaration of war and the non-existent "expiration" of that same authorization is absolute total bullshit.

And no one here is the least bit surprised.
 
Last edited:
4est_4est_Gump said:
*chuckle*

Now you're stupid too Bro...

Welcome to Literotica's legal Sandals™ resort.
Click to expand...

Yeah, seems I've been 'schooled.'

The question still stands, why is he seeking an extension?

I can do without the legal parsing. Actions speak so much louder.

Protect the threat, fuck the citizen. A violation of the oath of office.

Idiot Wind

You're the problem, not the solution.

Ishmael
 
4est_4est_Gump said:
Living in the safe cocoon of the law...

~sigh~

Does that protect you from lawlessness?
Click to expand...

As Misses said? Pass a law and all of a sudden, theft is legal. Is it any wonder that the bastards want to disarm us?

Ishmael
 
Ishmael said:
As Misses said? Pass a law and all of a sudden, theft is legal. Is it any wonder that the bastards want to disarm us?

Ishmael
Click to expand...

Such harsh language Bro. All they're asking is for "common sense" gun laws!

This is the problem with right-wingers, they turn our common sense into a bad thing.

Common sense informs us that only cowards need weapons and that without guns, you cannot have shootings.

:devil:

That's just "Common Sense." You trade the Liberty to be a Coward for safety. It's a real no-brainer; We, the Living chose the safety and security that only strict gun control can afford.
 
Last edited:
Ishmael said:
The question still stands, why is he seeking an extension?
Click to expand...

Can you not fucking read?

He is NOT seeking an "extension" of anything.

He sought, and has so far failed to receive, a SEPARATE, BRAND SPANKING NEW authority against ISIS.

The answer to your question "still stands," and it won't change simply because you are illiterate.
 
Colonel Hogan said:
Can you not fucking read?

He is NOT seeking an "extension" of anything.

He sought, and has so far failed to receive, a SEPARATE, BRAND SPANKING NEW authority against ISIS.

The answer to your question "still stands," and it won't change simply because you are illiterate.
Click to expand...

"New" is that a euphemism for extension? (Checks dictionary)

Is your interest in threading the needle or the nation and it's citizens?

Seriously, fuck you counselor"

Kill all the lawyers

Ishmael
.
 
On CNN, Harry Houck imagined “some right-wing group” possibly guilty of the attack and Tom Fuentes speculated on the work of “an anti-government domestic militia group.” Perhaps both talking heads found themselves in that uncomfortable spot when speculation fills the void in the absence of facts. But both men spoke dismissively of Islamic terrorism playing a role. Daily Kos founder Markos Moulitsas tweeted, “Yo GOP, kinda hard to talk about ‘keeping people safe’ when your peeps are shooting up America.”
Click to expand...
Daniel J. Flynn

http://spectator.org/articles/64848/rorschach-test-san-bernardino

#PrayerIsFutile
 
Ishmael said:
"New" is that a euphemism for extension? (Checks dictionary)

Is your interest in threading the needle or the nation and it's citizens?

Seriously, fuck you counselor"

Kill all the lawyers

Ishmael
.
Click to expand...

This is truly what would be fucking hilarious if it/you weren't so pathetic.

This all started when I made a comment about ISIS illegal acts of war despite its lack of national sovereignty. It is a distinction you apparently "agreed" with to some extent and felt moved to "cogitate" upon.

But when I subsequently corrected you about your inaccurate view of the law you jumped to the position of "kill all the lawyers" and noted your disdain for "legal parsing."

If you don't give a shit about the law, then don't argue with people who actually understand it. And if you insist upon doing that then you should damn well expect that you are going to be held accountable to your position and asked to cite the existing law which supports it.

You've flatly disputed my assertion that the 2001 AUMF constitutes the legal equivalent of a declaration of war and confers war power authority to the President. I specifically quoted the Supreme Court's ruling in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld that "We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the “necessary and appropriate force” Congress has authorized the President to use.

Now if Congress does NOT have the authority to confer powers to the President "incident to war" absent a formal declaration of war, all you have to do is cite the case law or specific legislation that clearly denies that authority and countermands the published language of the United States Supreme Court.

That's how it works in a standard debate. You are obligated to demonstrate the accuracy and validity of the FACTS you allege.

All you've done is spit inaccurate opinions about the law and told me to fuck myself. Is that really the best you've got? Is that all folks here deserve?
 
Gun Homicides Have Actually Declined Since The 90s, Thanks In Part To More Police

Screen Shot 2015-12-03 at 9.18.43 PM

But Democrats will shoot off their mouths anyway.

Via Daily Caller:

According to research from Pew Research Center, the FBI, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, gun violence in America is actually on the decline compared to the past 30 years, thanks in part to the increased number and effectiveness of police officers.

These statistics show significant decreases since the 1980s in overall homicides, which includes suicides, murders, police shootings and accidental deaths — and gun use as the cause of those homicides.

According to a Pew analysis of gun deaths based on CDC statistics, there were seven homicides by firearm per 100,000 Americans in 1993 and only 3.6 by 2013, a decrease of almost half. The nation’s overall gun death rate has declined by 30 percent since 1993.
 
Would Obama’s Gun Proposals Have Stopped The San Bernardino Attack? Press Sec Josh Earnest: “Of Course Not”

Screen Shot 2015-12-03 at 9.07.14 PM

But let’s do it anyway to pretend like we’re doing something and to take people’s rights away.
 
MOTIVE UNKNOWN


Obviously No Plan There: Syed Rizwan Farook And Tashfeen Malik Erased Their Digital Presence The Day Before The Attacks

Screen Shot 2015-12-03 at 5.11.30 PM

Entirely inconsistent with lone nutter who wants you to know all his narcissistic fantasies. Fully consistent with the actions of people who are part of a cell or communicating with others involved that they don’t want you to know about.
 
putzpotus said:
MOTIVE UNKNOWN


Obviously No Plan There: Syed Rizwan Farook And Tashfeen Malik Erased Their Digital Presence The Day Before The Attacks

Screen Shot 2015-12-03 at 5.11.30 PM

Entirely inconsistent with lone nutter who wants you to know all his narcissistic fantasies. Fully consistent with the actions of people who are part of a cell or communicating with others involved that they don’t want you to know about.
Click to expand...

Even THIS MO http://www.historyforsale.com/productimages/jpeg/178863.jpgknows teh MOTIVE and he is dead!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

wouldloveto
For the love of redheads...
2
Replies
49
Views
817
PFWilly
P
O
Squirting questions
Replies
24
Views
973
Older_Pervert
Older_Pervert
A
Mistress here looking for a long term sub boy
Replies
1
Views
147
Asmondena10
A
Jw75766
Thoughts on testosterone supplements
2
Replies
38
Views
2K
LMWM321
L
D
Weight Lose
Replies
24
Views
1K
ericalauren
ericalauren
Back
Top