The ISIS offensive in Iraq

[gourimoko]

50 Shades of Gour

I am into some freaky shit though.... But a lot tamer now since married....

 

[gourimoko]

Well, like a trial by combat, is @gourimoko allowed to select a champion to face the Mad Marine?

Now we're talking! Champions and trial by combat! LOL!

 

[The Oi]

I am into some freaky shit though.... But a lot tamer now since married....

That's how it goes. Hopefully she's willing to take it up that tight ass of hers every once in a while to tide you over.

Otherwise, hopefully she's got some cute relatives around.

 

[gourimoko]

That's how it goes. Hopefully she's willing to take it up that tight ass of hers every once in a while to tide you over.

Definitely or I wouldn't have married her. That's a fucking prerequisite to a serious relationship..

I always introduce anal early on anyway.. Start with eating that ass out, they run at first, but eventually they get tired and just yield. Then the tongue fucking, etc etc... eventually they just ask "can you please put your dick in..." Sure, no problem.

Otherwise, hopefully she's got some cute relatives around.

Lol... reminds me of when I fucked my best friends niece (19 yrs old btw). Those were the days...

 

[Sebastian]

Now we're talking! Champions and trial by combat! LOL!

If you could pick any two as your champion who would it be? I haven't been around long enough to know who the badasses are around here.

 

[gourimoko]

If you could pick any two as your champion who would it be? I haven't been around long enough to know who the badasses are around here.

Well, they come and go..

From these few threads it'd be you and NastyNate actually.

Some of the oldtimers (like AZ_) are just too cynical to think it's even worth the trouble to argue. Personally, I love logic and debate so I can do it nonstop, but even I get tired sometimes.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

So, it is appropriate to limit and restrict speech when directed towards a candidate; but not a SuperPAC?

No. You can direct whatever speech you want to a candidate. You can contribute as much money as you want to fund speech towards a candidate, or about a candidate (same with SuperPAC's). You simply cannot give unlimited money directly to a candidate's actual campaign..

I'm just trying to wrap my head around the logic that says you can give $2,500 to a candidate in the general election, but you can give $250M to the political action committee that he himself, the candidate, founded; that same committee that is openly and actively supporting his election.

Candidates do not have legal control over SuperPac expenditures. It's one of the few bright lines that exist.

If individual contributions run the risk of corruption, where is the logic with respect to not limiting SuperPAC contributions?

I'm just going to quote exactly what I said to you before:

I do not want to limit the ability of private citizens to pool money to raise issues of political concern to them, and I believe it is impossible to develop a clear, justiciable, enforceable distinction between PAC's that coordinate informally/illegally with campaigns, and those that don't. So rather than chill non-coordinated activity along with the coordinated activity, I'd prefer to chill neither.

I thought that was pretty clear the first time around, actually.

Indeed, neither have I; so is money property or speech? Or is it speech only when we want to fund our favorite candidates?

Money is not speech, but money enables speech to be publicized. Again, someone paid for Thomas Paine to print all those copies of "Common Sense". If you limit expenditures/contributions in support of a campaign or issue, you may be eliminating the ability of someone to disseminate political pamphlets, books, etc..

Did you support the FEC ban on "Hillary - The Movie" that was the subject of Citizens United?

 

[gourimoko]

No. You can direct whatever speech you want to a candidate. You can contribute as much money as you want to fund speech towards a candidate, or about a candidate (same with SuperPAC's). You simply cannot give unlimited money directly to a candidate's actual campaign..



Candidates do not have legal control over SuperPac expenditures. It's one of the few bright lines that exist.



I'm just going to quote exactly what I said to you before:



I thought that was pretty clear the first time around, actually.



Money is not speech, but money enables speech to be publicized. Again, someone paid for Thomas Paine to print all those copies of "Common Sense". If you limit expenditures/contributions in support of a campaign or issue, you may be eliminating the ability of someone to disseminate political pamphlets, books, etc..

Did you support the FEC ban on "Hillary - The Movie" that was the subject of Citizens United?

@King Stannis ,

Go!

 

[Sebastian]

@King Stannis ,

Go!

I was hoping for a real trial by combat; Red Viper/Mountain style. No words! Just blades!

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

gourimoko, no matter how we try, there are going to be negatives to however we choose to regulate campaign finance. All options have downsides. The determining factor is how each of us balances the competing interests of free speech v. the potential for corruption.

But you've really raised two separate concerns. The first is the potential for corruption in the form of handing a politician money -- directly or indirectly -- to buy influence.

But the second concern you raised was focused more on the media itself. And was more one of fairness, and promoting diversity of thought. You supported the idea of requiring diversity of thought within each program, where each individual program must be "fair", with equal time (though the Fairness Doctrine actually didn't require equal time) for different points of view.

I believe that diversity of thought is better enabled by having diversity between sources, not within them. And to me, one huge virtue of doing it that way is that there is no gatekeeper either required or permitted. We don't have to trust any person or group of people with the power to regulate speech. The incredibly low barriers to entry offered by the internet mean that virtually every point of view is already represented. Which is why I believe a lot of these proposed reforms are more about shutting people up than trying to give voice to the voiceless.

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

Wrong; the President retains veto authority over sanctions bills like any other. There is no special law or provision removing such authority other than a Congressional override.

I never said there was. Congress was supposed to be limited only to enumerated powers, and couldn't simply pass laws regarding any subject it wanted. I was simply pointing out that governing trade between nations was one of the specifically enumerated areas in which Congress is empowered to pass laws.

That's important, because it contradicts the argument that Congress is somehow morally bound to defer to the President's lead on the subject of sanctions against Iran. I never said that those laws weren't subject to Presidential veto, and of course, Obama is free to veto any law Congress passes. But the President is actually going further than simply promising to veto such laws, and is actually telling the Congress not to even pass a bill in the first place, even though the issue of passing bills regarding trade with foreign nations is granted specifically to Congress. Hence, the "reminder" that the Constitution expressly gives Congress the power to draft such laws, indicating that the Constitution did not intend for the President to have sole control or voice over such policies.

The question is how does one go about arguing in that debate. What Netanyahu and the GOP are doing is unprecedented. It's disrespectful not just to Obama, but to the Office of the President. It's ridiculous.

Coincidentally, I just read something where Netanyahu essentially said the same thing I did. That is, that this is such a critically important issue that getting it right should trump stupid diplomatic protocol, and I think he's absolutely right. I think the notion that unwritten diplomatic customs should trump efforts to do the right thing on a major issue is ridiculous.

And, I love the payback to Obama. Obama has been boldly proclaiming his intention to use his legal powers to the maximum to advance his agenda -- particularly in the area of immigration -- refusing to enforce laws, etc.. If it's technically legal, he'll toss considerations of respect for the authority of Congress, his obligation to at least attempt enforcement of laws, etc., right out the window.

Well, it's perfectly legal for Boehner to invite Netenyahu to speak, and if it is a thumb in the eye of a President who has shown a lack of respect for Congress and separation of powers, that's just a little bonus.

ETA: Okay, maybe more than just a "little" bonus. And yeah, I know the difference between a law and a bill, and am speaking colloquially.

 

[Sebastian]

Jordan is sending a lot more troops to the Iraqi border. They claim is for preventing infiltration. Considering they already had robust border monitoring, I am of the opinion that they may be preparing for an incursion or active defense role if and when the IA gets its act together. Finally, an Arab nation taking care of business.

The Jordanian Chief-of-Staff said they were going to "Wipe Daesh off the face of the Earth."

http://hotair.com/archives/2015/02/10/breaking-jordan-moves-thousands-of-troops-to-iraq-border/

 

[Simon]

 

[The Human Q-Tip]

On a purely political note, He should have done this long ago, if only to get members of Congress on record about it.

 

[Marcus]

There was probably no other way this was going to end.