Jump to content

Cancel Culture, I feel bad for young kids these days.


Recommended Posts

9 hours ago, roundthebuoys said:
10 hours ago, Burning Man said:

And yet again, "well regulated" does not mean "well controlled orwell restricted" in 1789.  

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

Can we please just put that BS to bed finally??  

No

Why not?  Are you disputing the definition of "well regulated" in 1789 is different than it is today?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 260
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

This is the first time - ever - I have heard the term 'blackfishing'.  And yet, Eminem said it best years and years ago.  Though I'm not the first king of controversy I am the worst thing since

Ozzy and Judas Priest proved that speed metal could both sound good and be profitable .  People like Rhodes catalyzed the genre.  He was a fantastic musician and performer.

My experience is that there is really not much of a "leftist" media in the USA. What there is of it, is not very far left by anybody's standards outside Kentucky, and does not have a very large audien

Posted Images

5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Not a stretch at all, it's quite close to what you (and several others) have said here. You claimed (not long ago) that an Air Force recruiter told you that there were fewer spots for white pilots because they had to put in blacks.

- DSK

Navy, not AF.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, SloopJonB said:

Once again The Merc fails basic literacy;

reg·u·late
/ˈreɡyəˌlāt/
verb
past tense: regulated; past participle: regulated
  1. control or supervise (something, especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.

JFC.  Yes, that's what the term means now, ya fucking cunt.  Go back and re-read my post about what it meant in 1789.  It's the same as the word "gay".  It doesn't mean the same thing now as it did 75 years.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Why not?  Are you disputing the definition of "well regulated" in 1789 is different than it is today?  

Considering well regulated in regards to weapons and militias has zero meaning whatsoever today, no I don't dispute it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roundthebuoys said:
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

Why not?  Are you disputing the definition of "well regulated" in 1789 is different than it is today?  

Considering well regulated in regards to weapons and militias has zero meaning whatsoever today, no I don't dispute it.

Uh, ok.  I guess.  Then why do you say we can't put to bed the argument that a well regulated militia DOES NOT mean well-controlled or well restricted??  The central argument that gun grabbers use to justify their agenda is their interpretation of the 'well regulated militia" part.  It's been thoroughly debunked.  I am not in anyway saying that ownership of guns themselves are not subject to regulation or restrictions.  Just that one does not need to be in a proper militia troop that drills one weekend a month in order to own a rifle or a handgun.

That's the part I'm trying to put to bed.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

Uh, ok.  I guess.  Then why do you say we can't put to bed the argument that a well regulated militia DOES NOT mean well-controlled or well restricted??  The central argument that gun grabbers use to justify their agenda is their interpretation of the 'well regulated militia" part.  It's been thoroughly debunked.  I am not in anyway saying that ownership of guns themselves are not subject to regulation or restrictions.  Just that one does not need to be in a proper militia troop that drills one weekend a month in order to own a rifle or a handgun.

That's the part I'm trying to put to bed.  

I don't know if it's been "debunked" but it certainly has been made completely irrelevant by the Supreme Court.

Oddly enough, the right to keep and bear arms -IS- infringed by a web of state and local laws as well as a whole Federal agency that the Founding Fathers would be dumbfounded by.

OTOH the FF's would be not only dumbfounded but disgusted and outraged by the stupidity and irresponsibility (and the boorish manners) of most USAnians these days.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Uh, ok.  I guess.  Then why do you say we can't put to bed the argument that a well regulated militia DOES NOT mean well-controlled or well restricted??  The central argument that gun grabbers use to justify their agenda is their interpretation of the 'well regulated militia" part.  It's been thoroughly debunked.  I am not in anyway saying that ownership of guns themselves are not subject to regulation or restrictions.  Just that one does not need to be in a proper militia troop that drills one weekend a month in order to own a rifle or a handgun.

That's the part I'm trying to put to bed.  

I'll take it a step further.  In 2021 and beyond, anyone who is or says they are in a militia and does have meetings, online postings, shows up in person with patches, whatever, should be denied the right to own a gun.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, roundthebuoys said:

I'll take it a step further.  In 2021 and beyond, anyone who is or says they are in a militia and does have meetings, online postings, shows up in person with patches, whatever, should be denied the right to own a gun.

You mean like these guys??  I'm a paid member btw....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Burning Man said:

You mean like these guys??  I'm a paid member btw....

Do they say they are a militia?  I didn't see that.  Do they storm federal or state buildings?  A gun club is fine, I have about 7 within 10 miles of me. 

Someone on PA regularly says, you'll know it when you see it.  Just sayin'.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, roundthebuoys said:

Do they say they are a militia?  I didn't see that.  Do they storm federal or state buildings?  A gun club is fine, I have about 7 within 10 miles of me. 

Someone on PA regularly says, you'll know it when you see it.  Just sayin'.

That's my point.  Gun club, militia, potato, potatoe.  We are all part of the militia.  No patches required.  The nut jobs you speak of may call themselves "a militia", but they are not THE militia the FF's are talking about.  The only militia that counts is the one called THE PEOPLE.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, roundthebuoys said:
22 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

Most would probably know that it's "free rein" and might also know about exceptions for dangerous and unusual weapons. You know, like stun guns.

I agree that the 2nd is subject to interpretation. It's meant to protect the ability of the People to arm ourselves, but with what? Well, weapons suitable for militia use would be the most sensible answer. So which weapons are those?

I think M-16's and "the like" (meaning battlefield .22's) are most suitable, though I guess Dick Heller's 9 round .22 revolver would work in a pinch. Or a nincomcoup.

So which weapons do you think deserve the most protection?

What difference does the rest of your post make?  I made a spelling mistake so you win PA.  May as well shut it all down now.

Sorry, I see that one all the time and it grates on me, so I thought I'd help out in case you didn't know the word you were attempting to use.

The rest of my post was the more on-topic part. I can see why you edited it out and don't wish to answer that last question. It's kind of obvious what the answer is, and kind of narrative-wrecking for grabbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, roundthebuoys said:
12 hours ago, Burning Man said:

You mean like these guys??  I'm a paid member btw....

Do they say they are a militia?  I didn't see that.  Do they storm federal or state buildings?  A gun club is fine, I have about 7 within 10 miles of me. 

Someone on PA regularly says, you'll know it when you see it.  Just sayin'.

:lol: The Merc belonging to any sort of club puts the lie to them claiming to be liberals.

A right wing 5th column is more like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Burning Man said:

That's my point.  Gun club, militia, potato, potatoe.  We are all part of the militia.  No patches required.  The nut jobs you speak of may call themselves "a militia", but they are not THE militia the FF's are talking about.  The only militia that counts is the one called THE PEOPLE.

The FF wore wigs and it took them 5 minutes to load a shot into their musket.  We are way post-FF's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, roundthebuoys said:

The FF wore wigs and it took them 5 minutes to load a shot into their musket.  We are way post-FF's.

And used the teeth of slaves in their dentures.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, roundthebuoys said:

I'll take it a step further.  In 2021 and beyond, anyone who is or says they are in a militia and does have meetings, online postings, shows up in person with patches, whatever, should be denied the right to own a gun.

Would you like to consider "shall not be infringed"?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, roundthebuoys said:

The FF wore wigs and it took them 5 minutes to load a shot into their musket.  We are way post-FF's.

I'm sure the FF's would be befuddled by email, GPS tracking devices, the NSA and the internet, just to name a few things that have changed post-FF.  Yet the concept of a 4th Am Right to privacy in papers, persons and things seems to cover electronic communication well.  Why is that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I'm sure the FF's would be befuddled by email, GPS tracking devices, the NSA and the internet, just to name a few things that have changed post-FF.  Yet the concept of a 4th Am Right to privacy in papers, persons and things seems to cover electronic communication well.  Why is that?

Communications? Boring.

The 4th is the source of abortion rights, something almost as important as gungrabbiness in the TeamD heirarchy.

If TeamR authoritarians went the way that TeamD did in the Caetano case, the argument would be, "the 4th was written in the 18th century so you can only use 18th century medical tech to get one." Hey, it worked on the Massachusetts Supremes.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/25/2021 at 2:35 AM, Burning Man said:

Even back then, cannons were not considered personal arms, they were kept in armories.  Nor were warships arms.

Cannons were not considered things the government should grab from the People. There were fights about this at Lexington and Concord.

Warships were the most powerful and advanced weapons systems of the day. President Madison is among those who wrote Letters of Marque bringing private warships into govt service.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/24/2021 at 11:28 PM, Burning Man said:
Quote

What did it mean to be well regulated? One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge. "Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty

Expand  

Can we please just put that BS to bed finally??  

Two of the three red bits are fluffy. Today's "militias" are a fail, since they are only well armed.

They are not well organized, or well disciplined. Dude, these jackasses, from McVeigh and his bankrobber militia pals, to the Kyle Rittenhouse Proud Boy types, to Tom "Dogballs" Ray, are not what the author, Rakove, requires...in your (great) article. @Excoded Tom

(Rakove:) It (meaning "well regulated") means the militia was in an effective shape to fight."

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

Cannons were not considered things the government should grab from the People. There were fights about this at Lexington and Concord.

Warships were the most powerful and advanced weapons systems of the day. President Madison is among those who wrote Letters of Marque bringing private warships into govt service.

you really are full of shit.

Letters of marque were issued to privateers, not warships. They captured enemy shipping for profit, not to prosecute a war.

Instead of trying so hard to advance your false narrative, how about looking at facts and trying to understand what really is happening?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Letters of marque were issued to privateers, not warships. They captured enemy shipping for profit, not to prosecute a war.

If you capture an enemy warship during a war, what is that called by people like yourself who are not full of shit?

Pretty sure the enemy in question would consider it part of the war. I guess it was also profitable. Does that mean it wasn't part of prosecuting the war?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jocal505 said:

They are not well organized, or well disciplined.

Militias never have been those things. In 1812-15 they were just as likely to loot their own side as the "enemy". And they frequently refused to fight. 

Too bad in a way because if the militia system had worked even half way we might not have wound up with an ginormous standing military. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Excoded Tom said:

Facts, dude. Go for facts, and see where they lead you.

Privateers were just that. "Private." Intended to capture enemy ships for profit, which meant avoiding expensive damage to themselves by fighting warships.

How many privateers captured enemy warships? How many fled encounters with enemy warships?

The answers to those questions would lead you in a different direction, so of course you think "full of shit."

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

 how about looking at facts and trying to understand what really is happening?

- DSK

I'm afraid that is a bridge two too to far

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

you really are full of shit.

Letters of marque were issued to privateers, not warships. They captured enemy shipping for profit, not to prosecute a war.

Instead of trying so hard to advance your false narrative, how about looking at facts and trying to understand what really is happening?

- DSK

Privateers with letters of marque were nothing more than licensed pirates.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

(to the Dogballs) you really are full of shit.

 

 For the great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie -- deliberate, contrived, and dishonest -- but the myth -- persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we hold fast to the cliches of our forebears. We subject all facts to a prefabricated set of interpretations. We enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought. -John F. Kennedy

Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, SloopJonB said:

Privateers with letters of marque were nothing more than licensed pirates.

Well, they were SUPPOSED to only go after ships of the declared enemy country. In practice, what happens at sea often stayed at sea.

But they certainly were not warships. When, for example, did privateers form a blockade? When did they carry out shore bombardment? I could name a dozen naval operations routinely expected of warships that privateers never engaged in... the difference between trying to make a profit and trying to subdue an enemy

Normally I don't bother to dispel Tom's RWNJ bullshit

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:
10 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

Facts, dude. Go for facts, and see where they lead you.

Privateers were just that. "Private." Intended to capture enemy ships for profit, which meant avoiding expensive damage to themselves by fighting warships.

How many privateers captured enemy warships? How many fled encounters with enemy warships?

The answers to those questions would lead you in a different direction, so of course you think "full of shit."

Can't even quote the question, let alone answer it, huh?

Quote

Letter of Marque issued by President James Madison and Secretary of State James Monroe authorizing the Brig Holkar of New York to act as privateer. Brig Holkar was active during the War of 1812 and captured the British Brig Emu.

Yes, they mostly captured or destroyed commercial ships, much like U-boats in WWII, and that's an act of a warship too. They also engaged warships, as my example showed. Just because you don't like that fact doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

Can't even quote the question, let alone answer it, huh?

Yes, they mostly captured or destroyed commercial ships, much like U-boats in WWII, and that's an act of a warship too. They also engaged warships, as my example showed. Just because you don't like that fact doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Calling an aardvark an elephant doesn't mean it belongs in the circus, either.

President Madison would laugh out loud if told that he was issuing letters of marque to "warships"

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Calling an aardvark an elephant doesn't mean it belongs in the circus, either.

Research by Tom Ray. 

Quote

President Madison would laugh out loud if told that he was issuing letters of marque to "warships"

- DSK

Um, President Madison would laugh out loud at Publius Johnson, period. 

Madison found himself in a slave state, Virginia, fabricating a bill of rights which, not long before, he had resisted. He badly needed Virginia's vote as the ninth and final vote to succeed in  ratification. Slavery came with the Virginia deal (and with the package deal of the southern states, period.)

Madison structured the Second Amendment, and other amendments, around the Virginia state constitution. The conscious manipulations of the developing document involved Quakers, and concessions for the control of slavery. 

Yo, if audio survived, Publius Johnson would be heard race-baiting, in the background. @Excoded Tom

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

How many privateers captured enemy warships?

More than the one example I gave, but one example is enough. Madison brought private warships into govt service.

Did you even read his Letter? He said he was authorizing a "private armed Brig" to "subdue, seize and take any armed or unarmed British vessel, public or private..." and so on. The authorization extended into British waters and taking the ships and crew back to a US port was authorized.

5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

President Madison would laugh out loud if told that he was issuing letters of marque to "warships"

OK, so don't call them warships. Maybe we should call them armed vessels that attack enemy armed vessels as part of a war? Or what do you want to call them?

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

But they certainly were not warships. When, for example, did privateers form a blockade? When did they carry out shore bombardment? I could name a dozen naval operations routinely expected of warships that privateers never engaged in... the difference between trying to make a profit and trying to subdue an enemy

The Holker seems to have been an interesting boat.

Helped the South Carolina ship Fair American to capture two British warships, HMS Rodney and HMS Richard, in two naval engagements.

Also seized a ship coming from London to New York whose

Quote

cargo included eighty iron cannon, sixty swivel guns, sixteen cohorns and light carronades, hundreds of round and bar shot, 155 “half barrels” of powder, other naval stores, and “about 55 packages … with a great variety of merchandize.” Geddes later may have presented GW with a pair of pistols taken from Diana’s cargo

But taking enemy warships and ships laden with munitions is really all about profit and has nothing to do with subduing an enemy. Much like U-boats were not doing anything to subdue England by sinking commercial ships.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

Pigs don't fly

I'm-Always-Right Tom: "A pig flew once!"

Pigs don't fly.

- DSK

Up to a few examples now of privateers engaging enemy warships, not just one. I can come up with more, but before I do, how about a name? You haven't come up with one, so I'll go first:

I suggest "peaceships" is a good name for armed vessels that engage armed enemy vessels as part of a war, since warships is apparently objectionable.

Or, we could admit this is just pointless jerking around, since ships with cannons are deadly.

 

On 3/20/2018 at 11:13 PM, Steam Flyer said:

If a .22 is in fact a deadly weapon, then quibbling about whether it's a "weapon of war" or an "assault rifle" (stupid term IMHO) is kind of pointless jerking around.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Pigs don't fly

I'm-Always-Right Tom: "A pig flew once!"

Pigs don't fly.

- DSK

I advise you to drop it, Doug. He's right, you're wrong. You're just digging a deeper hole.

A privateer is basically a private for-profit warship. Targeting commerce is a long proven and accepted thing to do.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I advise you to drop it, Doug. He's right, you're wrong. You're just digging a deeper hole.

A privateer is basically a private for-profit warship. Targeting commerce is a long proven and accepted thing to do.

FKT

Too bad we've spent so much money on what some of us laughingly call "the real Navy." Cancel that sub order, you can just issue letters of marque to somebody to build some for-profit subs.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Steam Flyer said:

Too bad we've spent so much money on what some of us laughingly call "the real Navy." Cancel that sub order, you can just issue letters of marque to somebody to build some for-profit subs.

- DSK

Moving the goalposts, Doug. Blatantly obviously, too.

I'd agree that in the current circumstances, privateers with letters of marque & reprisal and/or disguised armed merchant shipping as commerce raiders isn't really a thing. That's not the point.

It most certainly WAS back when your constitution was being written. An armed ship was about the most powerful weapon available and many of them were in private hands. IIRC there was an international agreement at some later date to prohibit arming privately owned ships but that was considerably later and a response to piracy.

Which reminds me of an anecdote back when I used to work with the Taiwanese fishing fleet in Oz waters after the declaration of the 200nm EEZ. One ship we boarded had a line of obvious bullet holes across the wheel house. Apparently they didn't stop fast enough for the Indonesian Navy. The fishing master's comment was 'Indonesian Navy. One day Navy, next day pirates'.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

An armed ship was about the most powerful weapon available and many of them were in private hands.

More accurate would be "the most powerful" and "most" were in private hands. And yes, they attacked British Navy peaceships. Or maybe those were warships, I'm not sure.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Excoded Tom said:

More accurate would be "the most powerful" and "most" were in private hands. And yes, they attacked British Navy peaceships. Or maybe those were warships, I'm not sure.

STFU. One cannon on any vessel faster than a shipping freighter would be a yuge problem, sans any real warship activity. Here you introduce the jackass navy.

 

Cannons were a dime a dozen by the early 1800's. In the distant interior if the Pacific NW in 1818, Fort Nez Pierce would be founded, near Kennewick, WA., with double- palisaded fort walls, filled by earth between...and six cannons. Voila, the Gibralter on the Columbia. Raw American force, by land and sea.

 

In the mid 1800's, the "sloop of war" that saved Seattle from a co-ordinated attack by native tribes carried sixteen cannon. (Marines rolled many of them off the ship, into defensive positions, on land.)

The ship was called the Decatur...after the guy who got one of Jefferson's few, real warships stuck in Tripoli Harbor~1803. Who saved him? A guy named Bainbridge. ;). Off another shore, Bainbridge would later save Decatur again, for Jefferson, in two (of Jefferson's three) real warships...which he had obtained after great difficulty.

Let's sum this up. It was not a game for privateers for Jefferson, by 1803. Why? Because unlike the international maritime community, the new republic did not accept bribery or hijacking to gain passage and commerce into and out of the Mediterranean.

 

 

The Decatur. saved Seattle 1856.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thomas Jefferson On Privateering
July 4, 1812
“What is war?  It is simply a contest between nations of trying which can do the other the most harm.  Who carries on the war?  Armies are formed and navies manned by individuals.  How is a battle gained?  By the death of individuals.  What produces peace?  The distress of individuals.  What difference to the sufferer is it that his property is taken by a national or private armed vessel?  Did our merchants, who have lost nine hundred and seventeen vessels by British captures, feel any gratification that the most of them were taken by his Majesty’s men-of-war?  Were the spoils less rigidly exacted by a seventy-four-gun ship than by a privateer of four guns?  And were not all equally condemned?


War, whether on land or sea, is constituted of acts of violence on the persons and property of individuals; and excess of violence is the grand cause that brings about a peace.  One man fights for wages paid him by the Government, or a patriotic zeal for the defense of his country; another, duly authorized, and giving the proper pledges for good conduct, undertakes to pay himself at the expense of the foe, and serve his country as effectually as the former, and Government, drawing all its supplies from the people, is in reality as much affected by the losses of the one as the other, the efficacy of its measures depending upon the energies and resources of the whole.


In the United States, every possible encouragement should be given to privateering in time of war with a commercial nation.  We have tens of thousands of seamen that without it would be destitute of the means of support, and useless to their country.  Our national ships are too few to give employment to a twentieth part of them, or retaliate the acts of the enemy.  But by licensing private armed vessels, the whole naval force of the nation is truly brought to bear on the foe; and while the contest lasts, that it may have the speedier termination, let every individual contribute his mite, in the best way he can, to distress and harass the enemy and compel him to peace.”


The truth is, privateering is the most merciful part of war; for it damages the enemy by capturing property rather than by destroying life, and in so doing it throws the immediate burden upon the commercial community behind the armies, who have to a large extent the power of making war and peace without personal risk to themselves, and often exhibit a willingness to sacrifice the lives of soldiers with the greatest freedom, so long as their own property is secure.  Show them that their property is not secure in war, and you give them a strong motive for making peace.  In modern times, the men who are to risk their lives if war arises generally have little to say on the question whether there shall be a war; while those who are to risk their ships and cargoes, often have a determining voice.  The greater that risk, the less the probability of war.


When the great powers of Europe drew up and signed the Treaty of Paris in 1856, they abolished privateering, so far as they were concerned.  The lesser powers of Europe, and some of those on this continent, accepted the general invitation to join in the treaty.  The United States Government replied that it would join in it, provided a clause were inserted to the effect that private property on the high seas, if not contraband of war, should be exempt from seizure not only by privateers but by the public armed vessels of an enemy.  The great powers that originally made the treaty refused to insert any such clause; thereby confessing that their object was not to exempt private property from the burdens and derangements of war, but merely to control the mode of its seizure, and to secure for themselves with their large navies an advantage over nations that in time of peace have small navies or none at all.  So the United States retains to this day her right to send out privateers if she becomes involved in war with any maritime people.


One at least of the London journals, the Statesman, foresaw the danger from privateers in 1812. When war was threatened, it said: “America cannot certainly pretend to wage a maritime war with us.  She has no navy to do it with.  But America has nearly a hundred thousand as good seamen as any in the world, all of whom would be actively employed against our trade on every part of the ocean, in their fast-sailing ships of war, many of which will be able to cope with our small cruisers; and they will be found to be sweeping the West India seas, and even carrying desolation into the chops of the Channel.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/17/2021 at 3:24 PM, Meat Wad said:

I feel bad for young kids these days, they may never know what free expression means.

OR

Has the Human Race become a bunch of Pussies?

 

Do white celebrities not get that Blackfishing is offensive? Or just not care?

When singer Jesy Nelson, originally a member of popular British girl group Little Mix, released her debut solo single “Boyz” last week, she did it with help from American star Nicki Minaj, who provides a guest rap verse for the song. Now Minaj is also aiding her defense against accusations that the music video shows Nelson engaging in Blackfishing.

Blackfishing — when non-Black individuals alter their appearance to try to appear more Black for profit, with that profit often coming from regurgitating stereotypes about Black people.

 

 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/thehill.com/other-political-figures/579214-bullpen-is-offensive-to-cows-and-should-be-renamed-arm-barn-peta%3famp

C70B0F75-90A5-4172-BE7B-D23433B53DC2.png

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Fah Kiew Tu said:

Moving the goalposts, Doug. Blatantly obviously, too.

I'd agree that in the current circumstances, privateers with letters of marque & reprisal and/or disguised armed merchant shipping as commerce raiders isn't really a thing. That's not the point.

It most certainly WAS back when your constitution was being written. An armed ship was about the most powerful weapon available and many of them were in private hands. IIRC there was an international agreement at some later date to prohibit arming privately owned ships but that was considerably later and a response to piracy.

Which reminds me of an anecdote back when I used to work with the Taiwanese fishing fleet in Oz waters after the declaration of the 200nm EEZ. One ship we boarded had a line of obvious bullet holes across the wheel house. Apparently they didn't stop fast enough for the Indonesian Navy. The fishing master's comment was 'Indonesian Navy. One day Navy, next day pirates'.

FKT

Question: is a "privateer" the same thing as a "warship"? And of course, the 2ndary question, did President Madison consider them "warships"? IMHO the answer is no and no. Madison is one of the Virginians that actually changed his tune about needing national armed forces and particularly a Navy.

Privateers and warships are both certainly armed ships. Pumpkins and cactuses are both plants.

Not intentionally moving the goalposts, here.

- DSK

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

Remind me one more time about how that Both Sidesism, Everybody Does It stuff works. 

It would be fun to see you explain the big differences to the Cavasos family.

Or any of the landlords afflicted by Trump's unconstitutional eviction ban, who might have been given some hope when the Biden administration told everyone it was unconstitutional. You know, right before he adopted it.

They're not identical, but on issues where they're the same, guess what they are?

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Excoded Tom said:

They're not identical, but on issues where they're the same, guess what they are?

Did anyone write that the two parties differed on everything ?? 

No. Don't be dumb. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Did anyone scream BOTHSIDESISM every time someone points out blessed bipartisan unity like on the above issues? Yeah, you do.

Since you seem unable to answer my question above, it's really so simple even a poli sci prof can get it: On issues where they're the same, they're the same.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/29/2021 at 2:28 PM, Fah Kiew Tu said:

I advise you to drop it, Doug. He's right, you're wrong. You're just digging a deeper hole.

A privateer is basically a private for-profit warship. Targeting commerce is a long proven and accepted thing to do.

FKT

Doug never let's it go.  He has to be right and will dig until he pops out in Whuhan.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2021 at 4:46 AM, Steam Flyer said:

Question: is a "privateer" the same thing as a "warship"? And of course, the 2ndary question, did President Madison consider them "warships"? IMHO the answer is no and no. Madison is one of the Virginians that actually changed his tune about needing national armed forces and particularly a Navy.

Privateers and warships are both certainly armed ships. Pumpkins and cactuses are both plants.

Not intentionally moving the goalposts, here.

- DSK

See FKT, I told ya...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements


×
×
  • Create New...