Putin The Guilty

[pcosmar]

It's culturally significant to the ten-times-a-day gay sex that I have.

 

[CCTelander]

Coolidge was going to be my pick.

Compared to any we've had in the last couple of decades, living under Coolidge might seem like absolute freedom. It wouldn't be, of course, but the difference would still be staggering.

 

[69360]

Putin is always demonized as being ex-KGB. Wasn't Bush head of CIA? Wasn't the USSR equivalent to CIA the KGB?

Logic does not apply. Russia=evil.

 

[TheCount]

You're arguing against your own position.

We disagree.

It works if some of those sentiments are supposed, and some are not.

Pick your favorite propaganda, I suppose. Literally no one on this forum would be sucking America's toes this hard if it was the US conducting an invasion and annexation.

In any case, I just don't see myself traveling halfway around the world and tackling a nuclear power over my suppositions. I'm not that arrogant. Nor am I interested in doing that over your suppositions, nor George Takei's, nor those of the New York Times.

Well, great. Turns out that I'm not suggesting that, George Takei isn't suggesting that, not even the New York Times is suggesting that, so we can put that strawman back out in the field where it belongs.

 

[TheTexan]

But if those demonizing Putin DON'T hold Bush in high regard, there is no hypocrisy. And like I said, you'd be hard pressed to find anyone here who holds Bush in high regard.

How many uses of the word "dictator" do these people use to describe Putin vs Bush.

 

[69360]

Literally no one on this forum would be sucking America's toes this hard if it was the US conducting an invasion and annexation.

I don't consider it an invasion yet.

What if part of Canada wanted to join the US, the population voted to do it and the Canadians were shelling that part of the country for 8 years?

 

[ClaytonB]

 

[TheTexan]

 

[Sammy]

I disagree. An unfree country has no right to exist. It is a sliding scale. It doesn't mean if Japan is less free than the United States it wouldn't make it legitimate to overthrow the government. But certainly Cuba, Russia, North Korea Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela are illegitimate states. The only question that matters is if it is in the rational self interest of a free country to overthrow those governments.

Of course you support attacking every that opposes your Globalist Agenda.
Thanks for proving me right again Zio Shill.

 

[Krugminator2]

Of course you support attacking every that opposes your Globalist Agenda.
Thanks for proving me right again Zio Shill.

Of course you wouldn't understand. You are a theocratic socialist who fundamentally hates freedom. You literally have nothing in common with libertarianism or Ron Paul. Shouldn't you be at DavidDukeForums or PatBuchananaForums.com?

 

[Sammy]

Of course you wouldn't understand. You are a theocratic socialist who fundamentally hates freedom. You literally have nothing in common with libertarianism or Ron Paul. Shouldn't you be at DavidDukeForums or PatBuchananaForums.com?

I'm anti Socialist you liar.
You never supported Ron Paul & you are not a Libertarian.
You are just a Godless Objectivist Neocon Zionist.

 

[Krugminator2]

I'm anti Socialist you liar.
You never supported Ron Paul & you are not a Libertarian.
You are just a Godless Objectivist Neocon Zionist.

You support tariffs, immigration restrictions, rant about gays and Jews and want to limit free association with tech companies, constantly post Jimmy Dore shit, support Marjorie Taylor, Nick Fuentes. You literally support Putin right now. You are AOC but a nationalist.

And it isn't neocon to think Communist countries (and all the other countries I listed) are illegitimate governments. It is the only libertarian view. Terrorizing people and starving them is incompatible with libertarianism. The reason you you don't understand is because you are a national socialist. All you do is rant about Jews and support authoritarianism.

And of course, you capitalize the "l" in libertarianism.

 

[TheCount]

I don't consider it an invasion yet.

What if part of Canada wanted to join the US, the population voted to do it and the Canadians were shelling that part of the country for 8 years?

It sure does sound a lot better when you remove all of the context.


What if, 8 years ago, Canada voted in an anti-US government and, in response, the US invaded and conquered British Columbia because it's "ethnically American" and also the US really needed the port city of Vancouver. Then the US started funding and equipping separatist groups in 2 other provinces of Canada. Oh, and also every time those separatist groups got into combat with Canadian forces, the US directly used its forces to help.

Continue for 8 years.

Then the US President who ordered the previous invasion and incursions gives a speech about how Canada is a fake country that doesn't really exist and allowing it to be separate from the US was the largest mistake ever made on the North American continent. And the US invades again on behalf of the "ethnically American" separatist groups that it's been funding and arming for 8 years, and recognizes those two areas where the US military has been actively fighting as independent.


Oh, and also the US did this exact same thing, successfully, to Mexico 6 years before it started doing it to Canada.

 

[pcosmar]

It sure does sound a lot better when you remove all of the context.

I had been watching for 8 years.
The Ukrainian Civil War,,

Also observing this action..
He has secured Nuclear Facilities that the Azov Battalion had Threatened to use. And is securing Bio Weapon Labs,,to keep them from being used.

and the Azov punks have a real Army to fight, rather than terrorizing Ukrainians.

I don't think they are doing well.

 

[TheTexan]

I don't think they are doing well.

If they were , we'd hear about it

Otherwise , not so much

 

[osan]

Donbass' independence is positively "validated" precisely to the extent to which they are willing and able to assert it. No more. No less.

This implies no principle beyond might making right - Lord Of The Flies world. If this be true, then there is no point is anything and human existence is just that, existence, all references to life being delusional. Is this what you really believe? I don't.

 

[Occam's Banana]

This implies no principle beyond might making right - Lord Of The Flies world. If this be true, then there is no point is anything and human existence is just that, existence, all references to life being delusional. Is this what you really believe? I don't.

*shrug* You explicitly requested positive criteria that did not involve normative considerations:

And what is Donbass' valid basis for independence, and here I ask in the context of positive reality rather than normative ideals?

I gave you one - and I (superfluously) used the adverb "positively" (and even put "validated" in quotes) just to emphasize that fact:

Donbass' independence is positively "validated" precisely to the extent to which they are willing and able to assert it. No more. No less.

There is no positive, non-normative reply to your question that could not in some way be criticized as being nihilistic or implying that "might makes right".

So if that's not what you wanted, why did you ask for it?

 

[TheTexan]

"might makes right".

This is the way the world works. Always has, always will. Every set of rules, ethics, and morality, is mere veneer over this indisputable fact.

 

[BSWPaulsen]

This is the way the world works. Always has, always will. Every set of rules, ethics, and morality is mere veneer over this indisputable fact.

Agreed. No amount of ideation is going to be changing the nature of the species. Everyone can aspire to a better future, but the ability to reify any kind of vision is limited to the extent of one's ability to effectively wield power.

One can both accept the nature of the species and strive to create a system in which the positive characteristics of humanity are maximized. However, understanding that nature also means accepting the inherent the capacity for both good and evil in every person. Once accepted, the ideal would be a wise leader that is able to use their darker attributes against their foes while protecting their allies in their light.

 

[Occam's Banana]

This is the way the world works. Always has, always will. Every set of rules, ethics, and morality, is mere veneer over this indisputable fact.

If by "might makes right" one merely means (positively) that "might ends up getting its way", then (like the operation of gravity) it is certainly true that that is "the way the world works". But by itself, that is just a trite truism - and a circular, question-begging one at that (since, if one fails to get one's way for whatever reasons, one can, ipso facto, simply be deemed to have been insufficiently "mighty").

But if by "might makes right" one means (normatively) that "might" is justified in whatever it does merely because it was "mighty" enough to get its way, then that, too, is just a "mere veneer" of a "set of rules, ethics, and morality", with nothing more to recommend it than any other.

Indeed, it has even less to recommend it than any other. As true as it may be in a positive sense (and as necessary as it is for any set of rules, ethics, and morality to recognize and adequately account for that truth), it is by itself of no use as a guide to one's actions (or to one's responses to the actions of others). Like all species of "pure" utilitarianism, it can address only questions of means, but not of the ends to which those means are applied. Outside of any "set of rules, ethics, and morality" that accounts for it (but does not merely reduce to it), "might makes right" is just an expression of sterile and pointless nihilism.

ETA / IOW / TL;DR: "rightness" has to be "mighty", but "mightiness" does not make "rightness" (i.e., might does not make right).