namelesstavern.net

Tikker wrote:hang on

Reagan brought down communism?

word on the street is that the Chinese disagree with you

Despite my narrowmindedness, I will rephrase. He brought down the Soviet Union, which by the way, was by and large the biggest badass communist state ever in existance. I was serving in the U.S. Navy during the 1980s. I remember exactly what transpired. I remember Gorbachev coming to Washington and New York almost a Rock Star. I remember Reagan in Berlin, shouting to a supportive crowd, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" I remember the Soviet hardliner coups. I remember the days of Soviet revolution. And I remember the wall coming down.

You can dispute many things, but one thing you cannot dispute is that Ronald Reagan was the key instrument in the disolution of the Soviet Communist State. The Defacto communist power and our biggest global threat.

There are still communist states. There always will be. And thank you Tikker for being so pedantic. I stand corrected.

Ronald Reagan will still be remembered as a great president.

-Duck

Huh... I thought Communism itself was what brought the USSR down.

Reagan wrestled some bears and made them all his bitches. That's what they taught us in Canada, anyway.

You can dispute many things, but one thing you cannot dispute is that Ronald Reagan was the key instrument in the disolution of the Soviet Communist State

Actually, you can dispute that quite resoundingly. Hell, I have quoted here before statements from high party officials in the USSR stating that Reagan hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union by oh, maybe an hour or so, tops.

The Soviet Union was done in because their economy couldn't keep up with the rest of the world. They were spending a higher and higher percentage of their GDP on military spending, and ultimately it was unsupportable. Gorbachev was merely the first Soviet Premier to admit the fact, and look for a way out of it.

Reagan was a complete asshat, and was suffering from severe alzheimers by his 2nd term anyway. Nancy and the cabinet ran the country, they just trotted him out for occasional speeches which were always well-rehearsed. He's DAMN lucky he didn't end up getting impeached for Iran/Contra, and both of his terms were filled with stories about people in his administration getting nailed for shady dealings or other malfeasance. He was known at the time as the teflon president, because no matter how much shit people in his administration got caught doing, none of it stuck to him.

So, no, I do not in any way regard Reagan as a "great president" in the least. I see him as also being responsible for the changing of the Republican party from what it was before to what it is now, especially with the growing hand-holding with the religious right, which first started tis rise to prominence under his administration.

-Arlos

How do you get anyone with alzheimers to rehearse anything? It'd be like potty training a 2 week old, not worth the effort.

It doesn't change the fact that arlos is right

Americans always write the history books to make Americans look good, instead of printing what actually happened

Durck wrote:
You can dispute many things, but one thing you cannot dispute is that Ronald Reagan was the key instrument in the disolution of the Soviet Communist State. The Defacto communist power and our biggest global threat. ...
Ronald Reagan will still be remembered as a great president.

I think it would be much easier to argue that Gorbachev played a much larger role in the attempted reformation of the USSR than Reagan did


The thing that Reagan did better than maybe any president in the last 50 years is make it cool to be outwardly patriotic again

It shows intelligent does not mean smart.

Tikker wrote:The thing that Reagan did better than maybe any president in the last 50 years is make it cool to be outwardly patriotic again

I'd give anything to feel that good about the country again. Maybe it was because I was 7 when he got into office and 15 when he left, but shit just seemed so much better.

Yeah he ran up huge deficits, etc etc, but it was a good time for patriotism. Not to mention how sweet it was completely destroying liberal suck ass bleeding heart minority loving democrats in the Presidential elections.

This country is so fucked over anymore it cannot be fixed. It's a runaway monster. If you democrats out there think Gore, or Kerry, or Hilary would do a better job you're fuckin nuts. They are all in the same boat and will never be able to help you. Sure, the pansy ass tree-hugging democrats might avoid a war while the world shits on us, tax us into oblivion and then wave the surplus we create in our faces like it's supposed to be a good thing that we got ass raped to create it, run scandalous shit all over D.C (then conveniently forget that it happened 4 years later), but it still isn't going to change a damn thing about how corporations are the real government.

Only nice thing is every two years they let us think that we have a say in it.

I wish we could just go back to when people ran because they were leaders. Like Abe Lincoln. Before he even ran for president he spoke out against slavery, it wasn't something he picked up once he got in the big chair. Politicians don't give a shit about anything anymore.

I mean, our forefathers pretty much founded this country as the first democracy. They hadn't done it before...they figured, "we'll try it." What might have been a great idea then, with good intentions, could very well be nothing like it was meant to be NOW. I just don't think this is what they had in mind, and the evolution of our lives over the last 200 years has been drastic.

Things are just getting out of hand. We have a shitload of people in this country, we have set ourselves with high standards. Our politicians will never be like they were in the old days, they lived in different times, with different respect for different things.

Our unresolved issues list is pretty fucking long. History repeats itself, and we're in a war. Shit has to go down before it comes back up. Someone made a comment about what they put in the history books being only positive achievements of the US. Just makes me wonder what all this will go down as...

Ashly wrote:I wish we could just go back to when people ran because they were leaders. Like Abe Lincoln. Before he even ran for president he spoke out against slavery, it wasn't something he picked up once he got in the big chair. Politicians don't give a shit about anything anymore.

His support for the Corwin Amendment somewhat belies his overt distaste for slavery. That would have protected slavery in states where it was established. Although Lincoln as the catalyst to the end of slavery cannot be argued, he was a lightning rod in his time.. Amazingly just like W now.

Things are just getting out of hand. We have a shitload of people in this country, we have set ourselves with high standards. Our politicians will never be like they were in the old days, they lived in different times, with different respect for different things.

Unfortunately our politicians are pretty much the same as they have always been, dating back to Rome (great show, btw). The issues are new, but the system and the men of power syndrome remains the same.

Our unresolved issues list is pretty fucking long. History repeats itself, and we're in a war. Shit has to go down before it comes back up. Someone made a comment about what they put in the history books being only positive achievements of the US. Just makes me wonder what all this will go down as.

Compared to other times in our country, we're in a golden era. The problem is the inundation of media airing the smallest amount of dirty laundry and the lack of real balance in government.

Back on Subject:

Tikker wrote:It doesn't change the fact that arlos is right

Americans always write the history books to make Americans look good, instead of printing what actually happened

So, did Bush lie? Search for yourself. Although Moonbats won't see the truth over their own screaming angst.

http://www.google.com/search?q=clinton+iraq+1998

Iraq wasn't a war, it was King Kong beating the shit out of a crippled 90 year old woman. now why the fuck did we do that to Iraq and not do a damn thing but issue disaproving gazes at Sudan?

Tikker wrote:It doesn't change the fact that arlos is right

Americans always write the history books to make Americans look good, instead of printing what actually happened

This is true.


Black people really did make good slaves and most of us really aren't sorry. History books are full of shit.

it's ok Lyion, keep on eating the propaganda

Go watch the video and get owned with the rest of the liberals.

You can dispute many things, but one thing you cannot dispute is that Ronald Reagan was the key instrument in the disolution of the Soviet Communist State

arlos wrote:Actually, you can dispute that quite resoundingly. Hell, I have quoted here before statements from high party officials in the USSR stating that Reagan hastened the collapse of the Soviet Union by oh, maybe an hour or so, tops.

I’m sorry but I don’t really consider communist political leaders or former communist political leaders as a bulletproof source. Just because they said it does not make it true. I will however entertain this for a moment. There are in fact a plethora of reasons for them not to attribute the fall of the USSR to actions taken by President Reagan. Patriotism - It's hard to admit that someone who you looked upon as an enemy for so long did in fact contribute to your demise. They were also looking at the situation after the fact and trying to reform government. If they were to admit that Regan and US foreign policy did have a huge impact on the fall of communism, or that any other source outside of the government its self was responsible to a measurable degree, this would lend credibility to the idea that the previous form of government wasn't innately doomed to fail, but that it failed because the leadership was out foxed by the wily Americans. People, even those that are under a repressive state are reluctant to change, especially when the change brings so much turmoil, and all they have ever known was the oppressive but stable government. Anything that lent credibility to the idea that the former government didn't fail because of poor design, but due to errors made by the leadership would have hampered efforts to make change, and also would have created a back lash toward those that were in power.

arlos wrote:The Soviet Union was done in because their economy couldn't keep up with the rest of the world. They were spending a higher and higher percentage of their GDP on military spending, and ultimately it was unsupportable. Gorbachev was merely the first Soviet Premier to admit the fact, and look for a way out of it.

Honestly as an argument that Reagan’s actions and US foreign policy at the time did not affect the USSR in a detrimental way, and that the government failed all on it's own is very short sighted. Why is it that you think the USSR was spending so much on their military? Remember the "arms race"? For a specific example look at the "star wars" program. For those of you to young to remember, the idea behind it was to use satellite weapons systems to destroy incoming nuclear missiles before they could reach their targets. There was a lot of question as to the validity of the technology here at home. Huge sums of money were being dumped into the star wars project, with very little return in the way of proven success. The Democrats at the time by enlarge were opposed to the program, it was considered by many a joke, and a waste of money. Reagan was dubbed nothing short of a buffoon for supporting it. Whether the technology it's self was viable or even plausible didn't matter though. What did matter is that the Soviets saw it as possible, and as a threat. This was a primary contention for Gorbachev, and Regan would not back down, he would not dismantle the star wars program despite the fact that Gorbachev was very adamant that he must do so for nearly every concession the Soviets made. It was in short a very big bargaining chip and one Regan was never forced to use. So why was it that the Soviets feared this particular program so much? If it at some point did become successful, if we did get it up and running, the number of warheads that the USSR would have to have to "keep up" with our stock pile would have had to have been multiplied drastically compared to our own. Either that or they would be put into a situation where if a nuclear exchange did occur it would be possible that they would be dealing with nearly every one of our warheads hitting targets, with few if any of theirs hitting their targets. It didn't matter if the program its self actually worked, it mattered that the Soviets thought that it would work. US foreign policy, armament build up, and Regan's negotiations in weapons reductions summits played a huge roll in forcing the USSR to keep increasing their weapons spending. That the Soviet government failed due to this is true, the short sightedness comes in if you don't realize or refuse to admit that the US played a major roll in bringing this to pass.

arlos wrote:Reagan was a complete asshat, and was suffering from severe alzheimers by his 2nd term anyway. Nancy and the cabinet ran the country, they just trotted him out for occasional speeches which were always well-rehearsed. He's DAMN lucky he didn't end up getting impeached for Iran/Contra, and both of his terms were filled with stories about people in his administration getting nailed for shady dealings or other malfeasance. He was known at the time as the teflon president, because no matter how much shit people in his administration got caught doing, none of it stuck to him.

Ever notice that anyone liberals don't agree with is an "asshat", "idiot", "moron" or mentally deficient in some way? I loved the way Regan carried himself, it drove his opponents crazy, did you ever consider that perhaps the reason "none of it stuck to him" was that he was innocent of the majority if not all of the charges brought against him? Did you ever consider that maybe the reason he wasn't impeached was because impeachment wasn't warranted? I’m guessing you haven’t, and I can understand why you have so much resentment toward a conservative who you feel should have been impeached and wasn’t when in recent years have seen a Democrat that should have been impeached actually impeached.

arlos wrote:So, no, I do not in any way regard Reagan as a "great president" in the least. I see him as also being responsible for the changing of the Republican party from what it was before to what it is now, especially with the growing hand-holding with the religious right, which first started tis rise to prominence under his administration.

Well I guess you and I would disagree there, of course we probably disagree on how "great" the Clinton presidency was also. But I'll tell you this Arlos I absolutely wish that one party or the other would produce a candidate of Reagan's caliber again. Like OuchyFish I'll have to admit that I was young at the time, to young to fully understand everything in politics. What I do remember is what he inspired, he was the only President in my life time that I could look at and say that's my President, that’s the guy I want to stand behind, not because I think he's the better of two evils, but because I think he'll actually do great things for our great nation. Conservative or Liberal, Democrat or Republican would matter little to me if I had someone I wanted to vote FOR instead of voting to vote against someone.




Cliff notes for Zanchief :P

Reagan and US foreign policy did have a profound effect toward the fall of the Soviet government.

The arms race, and the way it was played out through summit negotiations between Reagan and Gorbachev, and US foreign policy was a catalyst to the ever increasing spending by the Soviet government in its military which directly resulted in the failure of that government.

Reagan WAS a great president. I wish we more presidents like him.

I’m sorry but I don’t really consider communist political leaders or former communist political leaders as a bulletproof source. Just because they said it does not make it true

and yet you swallow your own government's propaganda like water~

Did you vote for Martin and the liberals in the last election, Tikker?

fuck Reagan.

tho it pains me when I say that I wish he was in office rather than Bush

http://www.slate.com/id/2130293/nav/tap2/

More overtness to be ignored by those with partisan tunnel vision or who live in Pravda Medialand.

Lyion wrote:Did you vote for Martin and the liberals in the last election, Tikker?

Stick to being ignorant about one countries politics, Lyion.

It's sad that you are not only blind and ignorant about a foreign country which is to be understood with your state sponsored biased media, but you also seem to be clueless about your own.

How about those corrupt liberals, Zan? I'm sure it doesn't matter to a person like you. What a pity.

OTTAWA (CP) - New Democratic Party Leader Jack Layton has moved a motion in the Commons calling on the Liberal minority government to set Feb. 13 as election day or face defeat by the Opposition.

The move is a formality as the concept has already been rejected by Prime Minister Paul Martin as "non-confidence lite," and he's said only a straightforward non-confidence motion can defeat a government.

Layton says he's moving the motion to get it on the record that Liberals could compromise and allow Parliament to sit until Jan. 2 to pass important legislation before beginning an election campaign.

Layton says nothing prevents a prime minister from setting an election date on the advice of Parliament and Martin's refusal is odd given his stated objective of bringing more democracy to the parliamentary process.

The three opposition parties now plan a non-confidence motion in a week with the defeat of the government likely Nov. 28.

The Liberals have said they cannot win the vote, meaning a general election would be held in mid-January.

No I voted for this guy.

<img src="http://www.namelesstavern.org/phpBB2/album_pic.php?pic_id=1009">

I never claimed to have a firm grasp on American politics, just an opinion, but wow you might want to return you Canadian History for dummies book.

You've been trying to get us to jump into an argument about Canadian politics for days Lyion. Stop acting like a fag and just make a thread so people can ignore you there.

I'm gonna do you a favor though, because I'm tired of hearing the same boring argument from you every single week. I don't watch any Canadian news coverage that isn't sports related. I'll repeat, I don't watch ANY news from ANY Canadian channels. I'm sure there all evil liberal government run atrocities. I really don't care.

Understand now? I doubt it but I can hope.

So, you are completely vapid and clueless about your own country, let alone ours?

Good job!

As usual, your contribution to any Current Events thread is just being a Finawin clone.
Feel free to read more of my posts. You might learn something.

Tikker wrote:

I’m sorry but I don’t really consider communist political leaders or former communist political leaders as a bulletproof source. Just because they said it does not make it true

and yet you swallow your own government's propaganda like water~

Mind being a little more specific about what government propaganda you think I'm swallowing?