O-Trap;1498158 wrote:I was referencing this:...

I responded to one such example. You may believe as purely in opposition to my beliefs as I do yours. I completely recognize there is not an independent existence in either position.

O-Trap;1498158 wrote:...How is that different? See the definition of the maxim itself: http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/Might+makes+right

...because I would still have such a belief even if the "might" didn't exist. The ability to force anything on another doesn't in and of itself make it right. It's own merits are what makes it right....or not for that matter.

Con_Alma;1498164 wrote:I responded to one such example. You may believe as purely in opposition to my beliefs as I do yours. I completely recognize there is not an independent existence in either position.

You responded to an example, but it was cited as a demonstration of the norm. You cited that there was no objective problem with it. As such, I suppose I'm curious where you think these objective problems WOULD exist.

Con_Alma;1498164 wrote: ...because I would still have such a belief even if the "might" didn't exist. The ability to force anything on another doesn't in and of itself make it right. It's own merits are what makes it right....or not for that matter.

The axiom doesn't mean that might defines morality (though I daresay I'm having difficulty seeing any room for a belief in an objective moral principle in your view anyway). It means that might (or power) is the sole definer of who makes the rules.

O-Trap;1498181 wrote:You responded to an example, but it was cited as a demonstration of the norm. You cited that there was no objective problem with it. As such, I suppose I'm curious where you think these objective problems WOULD exist....

I don't know nor care where the problems might exist. I do know that I would expect people to act on behalf of what they believe is right...the U.S. and others......inclusive of if they are opposed to each other. I expect them to act.

O-Trap;1498181 wrote:...The axiom doesn't mean that might defines morality (though I daresay I'm having difficulty seeing any room for a belief in an objective moral principle in your view anyway). It means that might (or power) is the sole definer of who makes the rules.

As long as we agree that my interpretation of the word "right" is based on morality then we can agree that might doesn't equal right right.

Nice work Putin and Russia! Obama just got bitch slapped. Putin teaches Obama what foreign policy is about and how to handle it.

I'm guessing we'll get to hear Obama take credit for it tonight when he addresses the nation? Let's count how many I's and me's are spoken.

ptown_trojans_1;1497973 wrote:I actually think he should have struck with cruise missiles, informed Congress a few hours before, then went on TV, and explain, laying out all the evidence for the strike.
Then, the President would have been in control of the situation. Instead, it is a PR and policy mess.
And, yes, President's have done that before, Reagan, Bush, Clinton.

Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, mirite???

BoatShoes;1498333 wrote:Easier to ask for forgiveness than permission, mirite???

I wouldn't see a need to ask for forgiveness.

Con_Alma;1498154 wrote:Might doesn't make anything right.

Might gives you the ability to protect your beliefs and eliminate those you are opposed to.

Might giving me the ability to eliminate beliefs I'm opposed to sounds pretty much the same as might making anything right. Maybe not exactly if you go into the most technical of semantics, but close enough to definitely make the comparison.

TedSheckler;1498330 wrote:Nice work Putin and Russia! Obama just got bitch slapped. Putin teaches Obama what foreign policy is about and how to handle it.

I'm guessing we'll get to hear Obama take credit for it tonight when he addresses the nation? Let's count how many I's and me's are spoken.

If I were to guees, if a Republican were the president you would be saying that our fearless leader's threat to strike cajoled the Syrians into admitting for the first time that they had chemical weapons and that it convinced the Russians who were opposed to a strike to avoid having to be on the other side of a potential U.S. strike by coming up with the deal to get the chemical weapons.

But hey, in Merica today we're more happy to give props to a guy who was a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union than Obummer.:thumbup:

It's a shit storm of fail all around but let's hope this stops any arguments for more intervention.

Heretic;1498338 wrote:Might giving me the ability to eliminate beliefs I'm opposed to sounds pretty much the same as might making anything right. Maybe not exactly if you go into the most technical of semantics, but close enough to definitely make the comparison.

I understand the comparison but the focus is on what one believes is right as opposed to what is in place. Might gives the ability to put something in place. It doesn't make it accurate or correct.

BoatShoes;1498343 wrote:But hey, in Merica today we're more happy to give props to a guy who was a member of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union than Obummer.:thumbup:

I'm sorry....does Obummer deserve props?

Con_Alma;1498337 wrote:I wouldn't see a need to ask for forgiveness.

it's a figure of speech. But of course you wouldn't. Going to the people's elected representatives as opposed unilateral strikes in sovereign nation's based on spurious reasoning and explaining them after the fact is considered dithering, public-relations fail and evidence of small genitalia.

TedSheckler;1498347 wrote:I'm sorry....does Obummer deserve props?

No...just thought it was interesting to see how excited you were to give props to an actual communist. Duly noted.

BoatShoes;1498349 wrote:it's a figure of speech. But of course you wouldn't. Going to the people's elected representatives as opposed unilateral strikes in sovereign nation's based on spurious reasoning and explaining them after the fact is considered dithering, public-relations fail and evidence of small genitalia.

I think it takes much more cajones to do so than to squirm while seeking for approval from all.

Make your decision and stand by it. Our President didn't have the fortitude to do so.

BoatShoes;1498350 wrote:No...just thought it was interesting to see how excited you were to give props to an actual communist. Duly noted.

Just giving props to someone who did something other than golf.

I mean Putin isn't "slapping" anybody around either. He's denying there were chemical weapons and that there was a chemical attack and now he and the foreign minister are looking to get Syria to hand them over?? You think he wants to have the United States go in with a strike that he opposed and have to capitulate? Not a chance. The guy has an even bigger ego than Obummer.

Con_Alma;1498353 wrote:I think it takes much more cajones to do so than to squirm while seeking for approval from all.

Make your decision and stand by it. Our President didn't have the fortitude to do so.

It is ridiculous that we're even talking about this as a matter of "cajones". Patently absurd. Going to congress is "squirming" and "seeking approval from all"

and then you hear on talk radio that a No vote will make America look "Weak" "weaaaaaak" I tell you! Show some fortitude and toe-the-line violate your constitutional authority Mr. President for an irrelevant civil war!

Here's an idea...the President should just relocate some ICBMS right outside Syria as a phallic symbol to show how strong we are! Merica! Fuck Yeah!

The weeds that this debate has gone off into about weakness, fortitude, cajones....absurd.

TedSheckler;1498358 wrote:Just giving props to someone who did something other than golf.

a communist who wanted to save face and admitted on the national stage that he was being deceitful w/ regard to the chemical weapons in question. Such an admission on the part of BHO would draw your ire, scorn and derision but you're willing to "give props" to an actual communist. We get it, you're willing to give more benefit of the doubt to a KGB spy than to that anti-american librul Obummer.

BoatShoes;1498367 wrote:It is ridiculous that we're even talking about this as a matter of "cajones". Patently absurd. Going to congress is "squirming" and "seeking approval from all"

and then you hear on talk radio that a No vote will make America look "Weak" "weaaaaaak" I tell you! Show some fortitude and toe-the-line violate your constitutional authority Mr. President for an irrelevant civil war!

Here's an idea...the President should just relocate some ICBMS right outside Syria as a phallic symbol to show how strong we are! Merica! **** Yeah!

The weeds that this debate has gone off into about weakness, fortitude, cajones....absurd.

I agree that it's ridiculous. I didn't bring it up but merely responded to that person who did.

I know, instead of having Boatswain Mates paint destroyers deck grey...we should have them paint tomahawk cruise missiles to look like Giant Cocks so when they're raining down on random countries they get a sense of how much fortitude we really have.

Con_Alma;1498380 wrote:I agree that it's ridiculous. I didn't bring it up but merely responded to that person who did.

Yeah??? Well your position that it would show more "cajones" to launch a unilateral attack on Syrian military positions rather than go to Congress and the American public is equally dumb.

...and yet not an impacting part of my views of the situation. So much so that I didn't even inject them into the discussion until prompted to do so.

And there it is...

https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/statuses/377257895123230720

If POTUS hadn't threatened credible [but unbelievably small] military response, does anyone believe Russia and Syria would be coming forward now?

That "unbelievably small" military response comment by Kerry was stupid. Its like telling a women you have an unbelievably small penis.

TedSheckler;1498440 wrote:And there it is...

https://twitter.com/davidaxelrod/statuses/377257895123230720

Only way Russia and Syria would react to the potential strikes of the U.S. is if a real, conservative MAN had made them and not some capitulating, wimpy librUl like Obama.

Let's imagine the opposite...suppose Russia was claiming they had evidence that Israel used Sarin gas on the Palestinians and was threatening a strike on Israel...Israel and the U.S. both deny vehemently that they used chemical weapons and that they even exist.....then suddenly John Kerry and Obama acknowledge for the first time that Israel does indeed have chemical weapons and they offer to get Israel to hand them over to the U.N.

^^^Such an event would be viewed as a ridiculous foreign policy failure by Republicans like our buddy Ted here who is giving props to Putin for doing essentially the same thing.

We can also rest easy he'd be playing the same card as David Axelrod if it weren't that fairy Obummer in office but a REAL man like W.

majorspark;1498451 wrote:That "unbelievably small" military response comment by Kerry was stupid. Its like telling a women you have an unbelievably small penis.

But he served in Vietnam.