Penrod

quote:

---

It's hard to believe that over $400 million in taxpayer funds are going to be spent on this amazing jet, and that it's going to be put in mothballs two years later. We'll see.

---

It’s not being mothballed. It will be owned by the museum, managed by Trump cronies, and benefiting the Trumps. It was a bribe.

quote:

---

you think equating Europeans to conquering North America to Mexico taking a persons house is on point.

---

Well, I assumed you would infer that the Mexicans took his house as part of a conquest, not just some landscapers squatting.

quote:

---

Eh, more like a period of three and a half years before the British reasserted control in 1833.

---

quote:

---

In 1770, Spain seized Port Egmont and expelled the British, citing the agreement with France. The British maintained that that agreement applied only to East Falkland. In 1771, a British naval force retook West Falkland, meeting no opposition. In 1774, faced with more urgent naval matters elsewhere, Britain withdrew from its base, albeit without relinquishing its claims. From 1800 until 1820, the Falklands were abandoned to feral cattle and to seal hunters of several nations. Meanwhile, the Spanish colonies proclaimed their independence. During the long process of consolidation and establishment of boundaries for the newly independent states, a naval officer in the service of Buenos Aires landed at Port Louis in 1820. He claimed the Falklands for his employers and left a garrison there. In 1826, the newly constituted Republic of Argentina granted a charter to Louis Vernet, a German-born immigrant, to found a settlement. By 1831, this settlement was a viable concern, with about one hundred civilian inhabitants cultivating the soil and exploiting wild cattle. Conflicts arose between Vernet and sealers who wantonly slaughtered seals and cattle. To combat this behavior, the Argentine government officially appointed Vernet governor and empowered him to seize offenders. In 1831, after repeatedly warning American sealers to stay away, he seized one of their ships and sent the crew to Buenos Aires for prosecution. America responded predictably. A gunboat under the command of Captain Silas Duncan attacked and sacked Port Soledad, formerly Port Louis. The U.S. government backed his actions, refusing to compensate Vernet. In 1832, the British reviewed the situation in the Falkland Islands and Argentina. The infant Republic of Argentina was engaged in a civil war, as its dictator, Juan Manuel de Rosas, consolidated his power. Thus, though Argentina arguably had a legitimate territorial claim, it lacked the ability to enforce it. Moreover, given the record of aggressive American territorial expansion and the rivalry between Britain and America over whale fisheries and access to markets on the Pacific coast of South America, the British viewed the attack on Port Soledad as a possible prelude to American occupation. They therefore dispatched the warship Clio, which arrived in January of 1833. Finding Port Soledad apparently deserted, the British declared the Falklands to be without effective sovereignty and raised the British flag over the islands. Argentina disputed the claim, as Vernet’s agent was still present, along with some of the settlers and a few troops.

---

From 1774 to 1833 there were no British on the Falklands. From 1820 to 1833 it was ruled by Argentina.
EBSCO Research Paper

There is nothing conclusive about this, except that it shows that “Argentina has zero claim” to be wrong.

quote:

---

You’re being willfully obtuse in the face of obvious facts for reasons known only to yourself.

Just condemn it and admit to yourself that they hate and want to kill people like they tried to kill Trump, the congressional baseball team and Charlie Kirk.

---

I am not being willfully ignorant. In fact, that seems to be what you are doing.

Many of them do hate Trump and would love to see him killed. I said so, and I deplored it. But you seem ignorant of that. Willfully?

Many others don’t want to see him killed, but would love to see him 86ed.

quote:

---

I’m not sure how England justifies their claim on these islands or why they even want to continue holding them.

---

Okay, but Puerto Rico? And at one time Hawaii?

quote:

---

Why are you normalizing political violence? You understand that’s what this is and you defend it.
quote:
spent years saying FJB, It was fun and funny.

Notice the difference? No one was saying to kill him.

---

There have been many cases of notable leftists wishing someone would assassinate Trump. That’s reprehensible. Some who write 86 47 probably intend that. Many don’t. Many intend it as a flippant way to say “Trump has to go.” That is perfectly acceptable political speech.

This is where I disagree with you. You think “86 47” means kill him. It does not. The term “86” has been used for a century to mean “throw away”, “kill”, “remove”, etc.

The left sees that it triggers MAGA, so that is plenty reason for them to gleefully use it. We would do the same. Most of the criticism of this is hypocrisy.

quote:

---

Good grief. That's the whole point. The whole point is that you are assuming a necessary equivalence between voting and power and I'm telling you that doing that is a myopic and largely incorrect assumption

---

Yeah, I realize you are telling me that, and I’m sure that is another example in your mind of you “showing me to be wrong”. But in actual debate your assertions are not proof. Instead I’ll rely on the common sense of anyone reading this: The right to vote radically increases one’s power. You have refuted this, even asserting that the right to vote decreased women’s power. That’s one of the most ridiculous things I’ve read on this board. If you really believe it you should obviously quit voting.

quote:

---

And that is obvious because if that is considered power then women have always had power


They always have

---

There was always a random Abigail Adams, whose husband was generous enough to allow her to flourish, but that was unusual. Women were chattel to their husbands and fathers. Their power wasn’t absolutely zero, but it was inconsequential compared to that of men who ran the show. Men did all the voting, men held almost all the wealth, men owned all the businesses and men held all of the political offices.

But yeah, women had real power according to you. In fact, and according to you, they were more powerful then than they are now.

quote:

---

You are now making the same mistake that the guy made way earlier in the thread by hearing, "When the left gains power, is that all because of women," and turning it into, "If women have political power we will always have the left in power."

---

I don’t believe that, and I didn’t assert it. I’m sure women would put the left in power, but I’d guess they’d rebel when the left invariably screwed up the economy.

quote:

---

Back to my point. Marxism was invented by men, and it was foisted upon Russia almost completely by men. Karl Marx, Friedrich Engels, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, Beria; it is a long list before anyone gets to a woman.


That was not your point, nor was it the argument you made. Being dishonest about this is as natural as breathing to you, apparently.

Your point was that women necessarily could not be responsible for the left attaining power because they couldn't vote "during Marxism's heyday."

---

I’d say both of those describe my point. Nothing dishonest there. But you seem to have a problem with the ad hominem. You often assume dishonesty in your opponent. I don’t think you’re dishonest; I just think you made some insupportable assertions, like women being less powerful now than when they couldn’t vote.

quote:

---

Here's what Google said:

quote:
Women played a massive role in influencing the passage of the 18th Amendment through campaigning for the temperance movement, but they could not directly vote to pass it because most did not have national voting rights yet

---

Okay. I see the problem. You and I are arguing different points. You are arguing about the effect of women on American politics, especially the 19th amendment. I am arguing the proposition as stated in the thread title.

Like a lot of internet disagreements it started with a misunderstanding. :cheers:

quote:

---

What happens when blue states run out of money. Can't pay their welfare programs?

Welfare leeches run for red states in droves

---

Long before that happened the productive citizens would run for the red states, and that’s what would precipitate the crisis.

False. Women had no power when Marxism had its heyday.

quote:

---

it’s only a “tough choice” for the TDS addled and effeminate men

---

Yes, but that's how elections are won, by getting the wafflers to vote for you.