Julian vs. Hillary

[Ford]

the islands were uninhabited when Europeans got there.

That's right...I forgot the Manifest Destiny Playbook Page 1: If you don't see any native people on a piece of land, it belongs to Europeans by default.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

the islands were uninhabited when Europeans got there.

That's right...I forgot the Manifest Destiny Playbook Page 1: If you don't see any native people on a piece of land, it belongs to Europeans by default.

You have to plant a flag or put up a plaque first.

 

[Derec]

That's right...I forgot the Manifest Destiny Playbook Page 1: If you don't see any native people on a piece of land, it belongs to Europeans by default.

And I forgot the Progressive Bullshitter Playbook Page 1: If reality does not fit your preconceptions, reject it and substitute your own.

In any case, this question is irrelevant to whether Argentina or UK had proper claim to the islands in 1982. Especially since Argentina is a European settler state.

 

[Ford]

Especially since Argentina is a European settler state.

That's right. I forgot. The entire continent of South America was completely uninhabited until white people showed up.


Much like Africa.

 

[Derec]

That's right. I forgot. The entire continent of South America was completely uninhabited until white people showed up.

South America was inhabited (unlike the Falklands). Nobody is denying that. That doesn't change the fact that Argentina is a (mostly) European settler state. Mestizos and Amerindians are only about 3% of the population. In that regard Argentina is not very different from the US.

Falklands war was not between UK and some pre-Columbian inhabitants of the island, even though I am sure the progressives that reflexively side with Argentina think that.

 

[Ford]

That's right. I forgot. The entire continent of South America was completely uninhabited until white people showed up.

South America was inhabited (unlike the Falklands). Nobody is denying that.

But you're saying that white Europeans deserved to rule South America.

 

[Axulus]

South America was inhabited (unlike the Falklands). Nobody is denying that.

But you're saying that white Europeans deserved to rule South America.

Where did he say that? You pulled that out of nowhere. What does that even mean?

 

[J842P]

South America was inhabited (unlike the Falklands). Nobody is denying that.

But you're saying that white Europeans deserved to rule South America.

Where the hell are you pulling this out of? The issue of contention regards Argentina and the UK's claims to the Falkand Islands. Argentina is the quintessence of white Europeans ruling over South America, for fuck's sake!

 

[Bomb#20]

That Falklands vote is only if you count anchor babies

Why wouldn't you count anchor babies?

 

[Bomb#20]

What is insane is you, of all people, defending an invasion by a military dictator to prop up his military junta amidst political and civil unrest.

I already explained it. Spanish-speaking country >> English-speaking country. Everything else is irrelevant.

So white colonialists > brown people who were subjects.

There were no "brown people" there. The islands were uninhabited before Europeans got there.

Um, are you not following his reasoning? Look, it's very simple. Spanish-speaking country > English-speaking country. Brown people > white colonialists. English-speaking country = white colonialists. Therefore Spanish-speaking country = brown people. What's wrong with you, can't you do elementary algebra?

 

[repoman]

South America was inhabited (unlike the Falklands). Nobody is denying that.

But you're saying that white Europeans deserved to rule South America.

with a smattering of Fujimoris

 

[Bomb#20]

But you're saying that white Europeans deserved to rule South America.

Where did he say that? You pulled that out of nowhere. What does that even mean?

Where the hell are you pulling this out of? The issue of contention regards Argentina and the UK's claims to the Falkand Islands. Argentina is the quintessence of white Europeans ruling over South America...

He didn't pull it out of nowhere. He pulled it out of ideological necessity. As Derec pointed out, Spanish-speaking countries rank higher than English speaking countries on the progressive value scale. It follows that anybody who sides with Britain against Argentina does not hold progressive values. Derec is defending the British claim. Therefore Derec is not a progressive. Therefore Derec is evil. If Derec has a good reason for defending the British claim, this would conflict with the progressive narrative that justice flows only from progressives. Therefore Derec does not have a good reason for defending the British claim. But Derec's stated reason for defending the British claim is the democratic self-determination of the inhabitants of the Falklands. That's a good reason. Therefore the progressive narrative cannot permit it to be Derec's real reason. Therefore Derec must have a different reason, an evil reason, for defending the British claim. Therefore, logic, intellectual honesty, and the actual text of Derec's posts notwithstanding, progressive ideology requires Derec to have been saying that white Europeans deserved to rule South America.

 

[untermensche]

It was a defense of a colonial possession. Half way across the planet.

It was not a legitimate defense. England did not legitimately own it.

And of course peaceful means were available and compensation was available.

But some insane woman trying to prove she was tough wanted war.

What is insane is you, of all people, defending an invasion by a military dictator to prop up his military junta amidst political and civil unrest.

An invasion of what?

Land that was by any reasonable judgement theirs?

This could have been settled peacefully and England could have gotten compensation.

But it was led by a very insane woman at the time.

The US had it's own problems at the time with it's insane president and all the bloodshed he was carrying out in Central America.

 

[dismal]

Where did he say that? You pulled that out of nowhere. What does that even mean?

Where the hell are you pulling this out of? The issue of contention regards Argentina and the UK's claims to the Falkand Islands. Argentina is the quintessence of white Europeans ruling over South America...

He didn't pull it out of nowhere. He pulled it out of ideological necessity. As Derec pointed out, Spanish-speaking countries rank higher than English speaking countries on the progressive value scale. It follows that anybody who sides with Britain against Argentina does not hold progressive values. Derec is defending the British claim. Therefore Derec is not a progressive. Therefore Derec is evil. If Derec has a good reason for defending the British claim, this would conflict with the progressive narrative that justice flows only from progressives. Therefore Derec does not have a good reason for defending the British claim. But Derec's stated reason for defending the British claim is the democratic self-determination of the inhabitants of the Falklands. That's a good reason. Therefore the progressive narrative cannot permit it to be Derec's real reason. Therefore Derec must have a different reason, an evil reason, for defending the British claim. Therefore, logic, intellectual honesty, and the actual text of Derec's posts notwithstanding, progressive ideology requires Derec to have been saying that white Europeans deserved to rule South America.

Wait, progressives don't think Argentinan's are white?

Nobody tell Messi

 

[untermensche]

All we are permitted is opinions on these matters. We have no power to influence them.

But my opinion is that Hillary would be more hawkish than Obama but less hawkish than Bush.

She would try to prove she is tough, but not try to prove she is clueless.

 

[Will Wiley]

Wait, so the crimes of another person being worse suddenly absolve Hillary of her crimes and indiscretions?

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?

 

[J842P]

Land that was by any reasonable judgement theirs?

What reasonable judgement, exactly? The land had been inhabited by white Europeans of French, Spanish and British ancestry/allegiance. For the last 150 years, though, the people happened to be British. Why are you supporting a military dictatorship's claim to land that was inhabited by people who are not their citizens?

 

[Bomb#20]

What is insane is you, of all people, defending an invasion by a military dictator to prop up his military junta amidst political and civil unrest.

An invasion of what?

Land that was by any reasonable judgement theirs?

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

 

[untermensche]

An invasion of what?

Land that was by any reasonable judgement theirs?

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

How is it different from Hong Kong?

 

[Axulus]

An invasion of what?

Land that was by any reasonable judgement theirs?

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

Except even the property rights argument doesn't hold. The property would be considered to belong to the Falkland Island residents, having inhabited it for over 150 years. There are no Argentinians that could be considered to hold legit title to the land.