Julian vs. Hillary

[Axulus]

You heard it here first, folks! Property rights rank higher than democracy on the untermensche value scale!

How is it different from Hong Kong?

Hmmm, maybe the fact that Hong Kong was colonized by the British without consent after a war, and that Hong Kong had inhabitants before becoming a British Colony, not to mention that the UK and Qing China signed a 99 year lease on the territory, which the territory going back to China at the end of the lease, and finally that Hong Kong was not inhabited primarily by British decedents.

 

[untermensche]

How is it different from Hong Kong?

Hmmm, maybe the fact that Hong Kong was colonized by the British without consent after a war, and that Hong Kong had inhabitants before becoming a British Colony, not to mention that the UK and Qing China signed a 99 year lease on the territory, which the territory going back to China at the end of the lease, and finally that Hong Kong was not inhabited primarily by British decedents.

The British threw Argentinians off the islands and would not let them return.

So they can claim it is inhabited by mostly British descendants.

Argentine policy maintains that Falkland Islanders do not have a right to self-determination, claiming that in 1833 the UK expelled Argentine authorities (and settlers) from the Falklands with a threat of "greater force" and, afterwards, barred Argentines from resettling the islands. Argentina posits that it acquired the Falklands from Spain when it achieved independence in 1816, and that the UK illegally occupied them in 1833.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

This is a situation of a colonial power taking possession of something, barring the natural settlement of locals and then maintaining it with force.

It is illegitimate colonial behavior. Might makes right.

 

[blastula]

What drives this massive Hillary Clinton butthurt that seems so pervasive among conservatives, misogynists, and others?

For Republicans, it's that she and Bill win elections against them.

 

[Axulus]

Hmmm, maybe the fact that Hong Kong was colonized by the British without consent after a war, and that Hong Kong had inhabitants before becoming a British Colony, not to mention that the UK and Qing China signed a 99 year lease on the territory, which the territory going back to China at the end of the lease, and finally that Hong Kong was not inhabited primarily by British decedents.

The British threw Argentinians off the islands and would not let them return.

So they can claim it is inhabited by mostly British descendants.

Argentine policy maintains that Falkland Islanders do not have a right to self-determination, claiming that in 1833 the UK expelled Argentine authorities (and settlers) from the Falklands with a threat of "greater force" and, afterwards, barred Argentines from resettling the islands. Argentina posits that it acquired the Falklands from Spain when it achieved independence in 1816, and that the UK illegally occupied them in 1833.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

This is a situation of a colonial power taking possession of something, barring the natural settlement of locals and then maintaining it with force.

It is illegitimate colonial behavior. Might makes right.

So you are saying that questionable policy from a bunch of dead people over 150 years ago means that the current inhabitants who have been there their whole lives and their parents whole lives and had nothing whatsoever to do with said policy should be kicked out or put under rule of an Argentine dictator upon the threat of death, even thought the residents overwhelmingly want to be self governed and remain a territory of UK?

What political philosophy are you using here, and how is that in any way consistent with your idea of democracy > dictatorship?

 

[Arctish]

No. But the author of that article was really stretching things trying to gin up a charge against Hillary Clinton, claiming her decision to store her e-mails on a private server was the same as violating "National Security Act of 1947, the CIA Act of 1949, various laws that govern undercover/clandestine CIA officers and, potentially, the Espionage Act of 1917". I think he's just scaremongering. He's certainly blowing things way out of proportion when he compares Clinton's handling of her e-mails to John Kiriakou handing over classified information on a specific covert operative on a specific covert mission to a reporter.

I'm going to use the outing of Valerie Plame as a benchmark. Let me know when Clinton's alleged failure to properly secure her e-mails nears that level of violation the Espionage Act.

I was responding to this post which was about the U.S. being endangered, not about the Espionage Act.
Hillary Clinton has endangered the lives of C.I.A. agents who are serving their country. She did so deliberately and recklessly.
Apparently the lives of those who works to secure America aren't as important as protecting a self important grandiose corrupt lying politician.

I consider the safety of the lives men and women who serve their country more important than protecting Hillary Clinton from taking responsibility for her deliberate reckless actions.

What is more important, Hillary Clintons ass or the lives of C.I.A. officers?

The reason this is still under investigation is because the laws governing the safekeeping and retention of that sort of official correspondence aren't completely clear. Officials are supposed to keep such documents secure but does that mean it's actually against the law to keep them on a private server? Apparently is wasn't when Colin Powell kept his on a private server. Other Bush Administration officials did the same thing. In fact, using private servers has been an issue ever since Karl Rove used one to hide his activities and supposedly "lost" some documentation he was supposed to preserve. Now that Hillary has been caught keeping her e-mails on a private server everyone is pretending this is the first they've ever heard of such a thing.

If it was illegal, she should be prosecuted. If it wasn't illegal but was unacceptably risky, the laws governing how such documents are handled should be updated to make it illegal.

Also, I think it's important to keep in mind that

1. Julian Assange got the e-mails he is threatening to publish from Chelsea (Bradley) Manning, not off Clinton's private server, so the security breach there happened on the system everyone is insisting she should have used. I can't see how that would have resulted in her e-mails remaining unpublished.

2. The outing of Plame is a prime example of "deliberate reckless actions" taken for the purpose of "protecting a self important grandiose corrupt lying politician" by endangering "the lives men and women who serve their country". The possible revelation of a CIA operative's name from the disclosure of Clinton's e-mails pales in comparison. Neither Clinton nor any member of her staff revealed anything deliberately. So let's keep things in proportion.

Robert Hanson deliberately revealed secrets for money. Jonathan Pollard did it out of loyalty to another country. Bradley Manning did it out of a sense of outrage. Dick Cheney and Scooter Libby did it for political revenge and to blunt a challenge to their lies re: Iraq. Clinton did not reveal anything deliberately. In fact, she appears to have been attempting to achieve even greater degree of privacy by keeping her e-mails out of the federal system. Comparing her to people like John Kiriakou is absurd.

 

[untermensche]

The British threw Argentinians off the islands and would not let them return.

So they can claim it is inhabited by mostly British descendants.

Argentine policy maintains that Falkland Islanders do not have a right to self-determination, claiming that in 1833 the UK expelled Argentine authorities (and settlers) from the Falklands with a threat of "greater force" and, afterwards, barred Argentines from resettling the islands. Argentina posits that it acquired the Falklands from Spain when it achieved independence in 1816, and that the UK illegally occupied them in 1833.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

This is a situation of a colonial power taking possession of something, barring the natural settlement of locals and then maintaining it with force.

It is illegitimate colonial behavior. Might makes right.

So you are saying that questionable policy from a bunch of dead people over 150 years ago means that the current inhabitants who have been there their whole lives and their parents whole lives and had nothing whatsoever to do with said policy should be kicked out or put under rule of an Argentine dictator upon the threat of death, even thought the residents overwhelmingly want to be self governed and remain a territory of UK?

What political philosophy are you using here, and how is that in any way consistent with your idea of democracy > dictatorship?

It's the philosophy that nations shouldn't be forced to have foreign powers in their midst because the foreign power's colonial conduct was so criminal it was successful.

 

[Derec]

It's the philosophy that nations shouldn't be forced to have foreign powers in their midst because the foreign power's colonial conduct was so criminal it was successful.

Argentina is a colonial country itself. And if they had managed to occupy the islands, they would have colonized it themselves.

Just because they are in closer proximity to the islands does not mean it belongs to them.

 

[Arctish]

I can't edit my previous post so I'm putting a needed correction here:

Robert Hanssen was the guy who deliberately revealed secrets for money.

 

[Bomb#20]

You heard it here first, folks! Property rights rank higher than democracy on the untermensche value scale!

How is it different from Hong Kong?

I'm not clear on why you think my opinion about the differences between the Falklands and Hong Kong somehow gets you off the hook of having been caught red-handed in hypocrisy. You think a democratic vote should have been ignored and the voters should have been subjected to a dictator.

But to answer your question, how it's different from Hong Kong is painfully (and that's mostly painful to the people of Hong Kong) obvious: if Britain went to war to protect the people of Hong Kong from the PRC, Britain would lose.

 

[Will Wiley]

delete

 

[untermensche]

It's the philosophy that nations shouldn't be forced to have foreign powers in their midst because the foreign power's colonial conduct was so criminal it was successful.

Argentina is a colonial country itself. And if they had managed to occupy the islands, they would have colonized it themselves.

Just because they are in closer proximity to the islands does not mean it belongs to them.

Argentina is a product of colonization. Not a colonizing nation.

And proximity is a crucial point.

The proximity puts some powerful nation from half way across the planet right in your face.

 

[untermensche]

How is it different from Hong Kong?

I'm not clear on why you think my opinion about the differences between the Falklands and Hong Kong somehow gets you off the hook of having been caught red-handed in hypocrisy. You think a democratic vote should have been ignored and the voters should have been subjected to a dictator.

But to answer your question, how it's different from Hong Kong is painfully (and that's mostly painful to the people of Hong Kong) obvious: if Britain went to war to protect the people of Hong Kong from the PRC, Britain would lose.

Using force to drive people off and then keeping them off is not democracy.

Not in Israel, not in the Falklands.

 

[angelo]

I'm not clear on why you think my opinion about the differences between the Falklands and Hong Kong somehow gets you off the hook of having been caught red-handed in hypocrisy. You think a democratic vote should have been ignored and the voters should have been subjected to a dictator.

But to answer your question, how it's different from Hong Kong is painfully (and that's mostly painful to the people of Hong Kong) obvious: if Britain went to war to protect the people of Hong Kong from the PRC, Britain would lose.

Using force to drive people off and then keeping them off is not democracy.

Not in Israel, not in the Falklands.

I'll ignore the reference to Israel as it's just plain old anti-Semetism, but the vast majority of Falkland Islanders wanted to remain British subjects, not become Argentinians!

 

[untermensche]

Using force to drive people off and then keeping them off is not democracy.

Not in Israel, not in the Falklands.

I'll ignore the reference to Israel as it's just plain old anti-Semetism, but the vast majority of Falkland Islanders wanted to remain British subjects, not become Argentinians!

It is not antisemitism to say Israel kicked 700,000 people out and did not let them back to create an artificial Jewish majority.

That is not democracy.

And when England does the same thing in the Falklands it is not democracy either.

 

[dismal]

Argentina is a colonial country itself. And if they had managed to occupy the islands, they would have colonized it themselves.

Just because they are in closer proximity to the islands does not mean it belongs to them.

Argentina is a product of colonization. Not a colonizing nation.

Well by that standard, so is England. Damn Romans. I mean damn Anglo-Saxons. I mean damn Normans.

And proximity is a crucial point.

Right, this is why we are entitled to Cuba.

 

[angelo]

I'll ignore the reference to Israel as it's just plain old anti-Semetism, but the vast majority of Falkland Islanders wanted to remain British subjects, not become Argentinians!

It is not antisemitism to say Israel kicked 700,000 people out and did not let them back to create an artificial Jewish majority.

That is not democracy.

And when England does the same thing in the Falklands it is not democracy either.

What about the close to a million Jews thrown out of various Arab countries having no right of return, or their property.

 

[Jayjay]

It is not antisemitism to say Israel kicked 700,000 people out and did not let them back to create an artificial Jewish majority.

That is not democracy.

And when England does the same thing in the Falklands it is not democracy either.

What about the close to a million Jews thrown out of various Arab countries having no right of return, or their property.

Minorities vs. majority. (Though I doubt anyone is pretending that the Arab countries at the time were democracies.)

 

[untermensche]

It is not antisemitism to say Israel kicked 700,000 people out and did not let them back to create an artificial Jewish majority.

That is not democracy.

And when England does the same thing in the Falklands it is not democracy either.

What about the close to a million Jews thrown out of various Arab countries having no right of return, or their property.

Bad too.

 

[untermensche]

Argentina is a product of colonization. Not a colonizing nation.

Well by that standard, so is England. Damn Romans. I mean damn Anglo-Saxons. I mean damn Normans.

Where are the Falklands in relation to England?

There might be evidence of colonization here.

And proximity is a crucial point.

Right, this is why we are entitled to Cuba.

That's what the US thought prior to Castro and has acted like ever since.

 

[angelo]

Cuba and it's people would have been much better off had it been part of the US!