Liberals Go To Great Lengths

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
121

[quote]100meters wrote:
hedo wrote:
100meters wrote:
rainjack wrote:
JohnGullick -

Are you on something?
Second - Glastnost was a response to the writing on the wall - Authored by Reagan. I really like your 20/20 hindsight. Where were all these novel ideas about the abject failure of communism in the early 80’s? Great job of trying to use them in an argument 20 years after the fact, though.

authored by Reagan,HA! You are living in the land of make believe! Any serious person could tell you Russia’s economy began to stagnate in 1975. And only you could credit Reagan with the fluke of Breshnev’s successors, Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko each dying within 15 months of gaining power, which caused the early ascension of Gorbachev, who had years before already concluded that the soviet system was in dire need of change. Talk about 20/20 hindsight! The witless Reagan barely knew what to do! 640 dollar toilet seats, and billions in debt to “defeat” the already defeated! Instead of listening to the CIA( The soviet union is collapsing!) or even Nixon (cut defense spending!)The hapless Reagan instead thought the Soviet Union was more powerful than us! Oh Rainjack! Blue jeans and the pope had more to do with glasnost than Reagan!

Witless Reagan!

Too funny. Your now in Al Shades territory.

Grab a history book and start reading. Better yry ask a Russian or an East German who defeated communism. Hint: It wasn’t Glasnost.

No wonder we don’t take Liberals seriously anymore.

Hilarious, as if Liberals have anything to do with Reagan’s ineptness, you can quit with the hero worship already! And yes! Please! Read a history book, read about Gorbachev, read about Alexander Yakovlev, then carefully, oh so carefully check the dates on when their ideology on universal humanism, and changing the soviet union started to come about! Then please, dear Lord, try to remember that after Reagan signed the INF treaty that it wasn’t liberals but conservatives that said Ronnie had sold out America! Remember that? (hint 1987)After you do that feel free to come back and debate any factual matters. Keyword: Factual. How many times can you conservatives trot out this lame horse anyway? I know you’ve got little to hang your hat on, you conservatives, but honestly the foreign policy followed by every president since Truman won the cold war in addition to oh… The Beatles, Coke, etc…

was witless to harsh? I’d forgotten of wit like this:

“They haven’t been there. I have.” Reagan, '85, justifying his policies on Nicaragua. (Ronald Reagan had never visited Nicaragua.)

or

“Jefferson Davis is a hero of mine.” – Reagan, in a speech he gave to a crowd in Atlanta, GA

Hilarious stuff!
[/quote]

122

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters,

“…you can quit with the hero worship already!”

You think Gorbachev, etc. would have their names is any history book had not an American nuclear deterrent bankrupt the Soviet Union’s system and keep their totalitarian advances at bay?

Had Reagan not been an unapologetic foil to the Soviet Empire - constantly keeping the world in equipoise because of fear of MAD and so forth - the Soviets could have ran the table throughout Europe, into the Middle East, and across Asia. Had not Reagan (and Thatcher) decided to break from the intelligentsia of the day - who was sure the Soviets were misunderstood and could peaceably co-exist - the Soviet Union would have had no serious obstacle to their conquest.

Yes, Russian leaders like Gorbachev deserve credit for urging Russia into a new era, but their work would have been impossible had it not been for Reagan’s crippling the Soviet model.

Quite a collection of revisionists these days on the T-Nation political forum. What, did postmodern cultural studies class get out early this semester?[/quote]

T Bolt

Good frickin point. These guys lately seems to be cut from the same mold. Maybe they are all college kids somwhere or the same person. Certainly sounds like it.

123

Joe, what the heck are you talking about?

Are you still peeved because I preferred you and PP not to polute the velocity diet thread? The political threads are great for pollution!

In this thread, I’m trying to deal with the incredible mischaracterizer who’s repeatedly misquoted me and spread untrue information about my opinions either by mistake or intent.

I’m sorry if I come across as overly serious or whatnot, but if I’m not absolutely straight with my message, I know, by experience, what will happen with it.

So, please cut me a bit of slack, as I feel I have no choice. Ok?

124

[quote]vroom wrote:
Joe, what the heck are you talking about?

Are you still peeved because I preferred you and PP not to polute the velocity diet thread? The political threads are great for pollution!

In this thread, I’m trying to deal with the incredible mischaracterizer who’s repeatedly misquoted me and spread untrue information about my opinions either by mistake or intent.

I’m sorry if I come across as overly serious or whatnot, but if I’m not absolutely straight with my message, I know, by experience, what will happen with it.

So, please cut me a bit of slack, as I feel I have no choice. Ok?[/quote]

Yea Joe cut him some slack! He still trying to make up his mind if he is actually a liberal or not (eye roll)

125

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters,

“…you can quit with the hero worship already!”

You think Gorbachev, etc. would have their names is any history book had not an American nuclear deterrent bankrupt the Soviet Union’s system and keep their totalitarian advances at bay?

Had Reagan not been an unapologetic foil to the Soviet Empire - constantly keeping the world in equipoise because of fear of MAD and so forth - the Soviets could have ran the table throughout Europe, into the Middle East, and across Asia. Had not Reagan (and Thatcher) decided to break from the intelligentsia of the day - who was sure the Soviets were misunderstood and could peaceably co-exist - the Soviet Union would have had no serious obstacle to their conquest.

Yes, Russian leaders like Gorbachev deserve credit for urging Russia into a new era, but their work would have been impossible had it not been for Reagan’s crippling the Soviet model.

Quite a collection of revisionists these days on the T-Nation political forum. What, did postmodern cultural studies class get out early this semester?[/quote]

World Domination by the Soviets?? You have been playing too much RISK! They got their asses handed to them in Afghanistan so tell me how were they going to take over the rest of the middle east and then move on to Europe?
And sorry but Reagan was a half-wit just like your new hero GW Bush. The only thing these guys have/had going for them is they surround themselves with very bright advisors that tell them when to wipe their ass and what to say.

126

[quote]Snoop wrote:
World Domination by the Soviets?? You have been playing too much RISK! They got their asses handed to them in Afghanistan so tell me how were they going to take over the rest of the middle east and then move on to Europe?
And sorry but Reagan was a half-wit just like your new hero GW Bush. The only thing these guys have/had going for them is they surround themselves with very bright advisors that tell them when to wipe their ass and what to say. [/quote]

This is what I love about little kids that have only heard about the cold war from their history class.

I don’t understand why revisionist historians are already trying to rewrite such recent history when there are still folks around who really know what happened.

Reagan stood up to the Soviets - unashamedly proud, and steadfast in his resolve against the “Evil Empire”. In the midst of this, only one other nation was at his side - Thatcher’s England. The rest of Europe just wanted to get along, and not make anyone mad Kind of like they are doing now in the “War on Terror”.

Some folks in the U.S. were cut from the same cloth as the French - “we can’t say that to the Russians”. Oddly enough, those are most of the same ABB crowd that are having to go through therapy to deal with the fact that their ideas have lost 6 straight national elections.

Hey Sparky - Ever hear of a little thing called the ‘Domino Theory’?

You shouln’t gain your ‘knowledge’ from a history book, and then attempt to argue about the subject with folks that have lived thru it.

127

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Yea Joe cut him some slack! He still trying to make up his mind if he is actually a liberal or not (eye roll)

[/quote]

oh for cryin’ out loud he’s already said he’s a liberal/libertarian type, and he’s detailed several of his policy positions–most of which I don’t personally agree with but I don’t have to and neither do you–so for God’s sake let it drop already.

128

[quote]Snoop wrote:
And sorry but Reagan was a half-wit just like your new hero GW Bush. The only thing these guys have/had going for them is they surround themselves with very bright advisors that tell them when to wipe their ass and what to say. [/quote]

are you aware that GWB scored higher on his military induction intelligence test than John Kerry?

Are you aware that GWB has an MBA from Harvard Business…and that they’re not in the habit of “carrying” students?
Face it, you guys have nothing to really go at him about, since he’s pretty much destroying the democrat party, so you just go for the obvious playground insults. Its so tiresome.

129

[quote]rainjack wrote:
You shouln’t gain your ‘knowledge’ from a history book, and then attempt to argue about the subject with folks that have lived thru it.
[/quote]

well, I think you can get knowledge from a history book, but you just have to be careful which one or ones you choose. And since most of them are written by whiny lib crybabies…it stands to reason that they’d be biased.
Now…if you wanna learn, search out better books.

130

Holy crap, I’m going to agree with Rainjack.

After WWII the Soviet Empire was in expansion, everything they got their hands on during the war they kept. Many countries were subjugated for decades, with escapee’s only occuring after the wall came down in Germany.

The cold war and the expansionist mindset of the Soviet communists, of that era, was no deluded illusion. Reagan’s policy of forcing the Soviets into competing financially simply destroyed them, whether or not you like any of his other policies.

Reagan ramped this up incredibly with the Star Wars concepts and other projects, real or threatened, that the Soviet’s felt the need to keep up on, due to their own paraniod intentions.

Stuff that in your pipe and smoke it Zeb, you deluded old coot.

131

rainjack,

Don’t let it bother you man, in 20 years if the Middle East goes for democracy, the liberal kids will be claiming that they were heading in that direction anyway. President Bush had nothing to do with it!

I remember (as do you) how the liberals used to blast Reagan for standing up to the Soviet Union. He is a “war Monger” they cried. 20 years later seems they think Reagan had nothing to do with it.

If he had failed in his attempts, then they would have remembered his efforts. Since he succeeded he now had nothing to do with it. Come on that’s funny stuff…

132

[quote]vroom wrote:
Holy crap, I’m going to agree with Rainjack.

.[/quote]

there, that wasn’t so hard, was it?

133

[quote]rainjack wrote:

Some folks in the U.S. were cut from the same cloth as the French - “we can’t say that to the Russians”. Oddly enough, those are most of the same ABB crowd that are having to go through therapy to deal with the fact that their ideas have lost 6 straight national elections.

Hey Sparky - Ever hear of a little thing called the ‘Domino Theory’?

You shouln’t gain your ‘knowledge’ from a history book, and then attempt to argue about the subject with folks that have lived thru it.
[/quote]

First off I am not some anti-war anti-conservative peacenik. I fully support the war in Iraq.

Seriously what has really changed in everyday life since W and all the other republicans have taken office?? Nothing has changed in mine. I still pay taxes that are too high. The education system still sucks. Health care is still too expensive. Gas prices are sky-rocketing. I guess the economy is getting better but ya know what? While the stock market sucked I was able to buy more stocks with less money. My quality of life has pretty much stayed the same.

134

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
100meters,

“…you can quit with the hero worship already!”

You think Gorbachev, etc. would have their names is any history book had not an American nuclear deterrent bankrupt the Soviet Union’s system and keep their totalitarian advances at bay?

Had Reagan not been an unapologetic foil to the Soviet Empire - constantly keeping the world in equipoise because of fear of MAD and so forth - the Soviets could have ran the table throughout Europe, into the Middle East, and across Asia. Had not Reagan (and Thatcher) decided to break from the intelligentsia of the day - who was sure the Soviets were misunderstood and could peaceably co-exist - the Soviet Union would have had no serious obstacle to their conquest.

Yes, Russian leaders like Gorbachev deserve credit for urging Russia into a new era, but their work would have been impossible had it not been for Reagan’s crippling the Soviet model.

Quite a collection of revisionists these days on the T-Nation political forum. What, did postmodern cultural studies class get out early this semester?[/quote]

Thunderbolt, obviously you didn’t follow my advice , and DEAR GOD READ! The Soviet Union couldn’t even keep the Warsaw pact togeather, Not to mention getting their asses handed to them by a crack Afghani fighting force! Run the table! Ha! You’ve got to be kidding! And it wasn’t until Reagan conformed to the intelligentsia(?) that INF treaty came to be! Reagan’s advisors were WITLESS and BAFFLED by Gorbachev. The people who fed misinformation are some of the same people that misled the current president. Remember Team B Thunderbolt? Their intelligence estimates were as DEAD WRONG on Russia as the intelligence on Iraq! Revised CIA estimates indicatated that expenditures on defense remained constant throughout the 1980’s. The military buildup of Carter, and Reagan nor SDI did anything to change the gross spending levels in the USSR. Before you spout out, inform yourself please. There are many, many great books on this stuff!

135

[quote]rainjack wrote:
Snoop wrote:
World Domination by the Soviets?? You have been playing too much RISK! They got their asses handed to them in Afghanistan so tell me how were they going to take over the rest of the middle east and then move on to Europe?
And sorry but Reagan was a half-wit just like your new hero GW Bush. The only thing these guys have/had going for them is they surround themselves with very bright advisors that tell them when to wipe their ass and what to say.

This is what I love about little kids that have only heard about the cold war from their history class.

I don’t understand why revisionist historians are already trying to rewrite such recent history when there are still folks around who really know what happened.

Reagan stood up to the Soviets - unashamedly proud, and steadfast in his resolve against the “Evil Empire”. In the midst of this, only one other nation was at his side - Thatcher’s England. The rest of Europe just wanted to get along, and not make anyone mad Kind of like they are doing now in the “War on Terror”.

Some folks in the U.S. were cut from the same cloth as the French - “we can’t say that to the Russians”. Oddly enough, those are most of the same ABB crowd that are having to go through therapy to deal with the fact that their ideas have lost 6 straight national elections.

Hey Sparky - Ever hear of a little thing called the ‘Domino Theory’?

You shouln’t gain your ‘knowledge’ from a history book, and then attempt to argue about the subject with folks that have lived thru it.
[/quote]

Rainjack your acceptance of conventional wisdom renders your view to near childish levels!

…"Reagan stood up to the Soviets - unashamedly proud, and steadfast in his resolve against the “Evil Empire”. In the midst of this, only one other nation was at his side - Thatcher’s England. The rest of Europe just wanted to get along, and not make anyone mad Kind of like they are doing now in the “War on Terror”.

This is the most laughable statement, can you even be serious, Reagan’s hardline approach reaped ZERO in dividends! By any measure it prolonged the coldwar, and strengthened the resolve of hardliners in the USSR. When maggie finally pulled reagan’s ear into meeting with Gorbachev things got back to normal. Understand? Reagan went to sign away our nuclear deterrent at the wailing and weepin of his hard-line advisors and with little support from conservatives at home. That was real-time, not your revisionist tripe. And again oddly enough the same people that perfected misinforming you then (Team B) and fooled a movie star playing president are the same people that fooled you with Iraq, in the EXACT same way, bad intel(massive soviet buildup = wmd/al-queda in Iraq), bad rhetoric (“evil empire” = “axis of evil”). Please don’t bother debating unless you can do it in a factual matter, leave your conventional wisdom to dittohead club meetings!

136

100meters, as usual you are wrong on so many counts.

I will pick one at random. The Soviets were not having their asses handed to them by the Afghanis until Reagan sent over a ton of aid including Stinger missles and advisors.

This is a fact. You can debate that perhaps helping the mujahadeen was a mistake. This was a debate we did have in the 80’s. You cannot pretend the Afghanis were handling the Soviet Army all by themselves, they were not.

Not only have I read MANY books on this, I also lived through this period in our history that Reagan and Thatcher had the wisdom to stand up for the cause of freedom.

Even though I did not agree with all the principles of Reaganomics I am proud to have voted for Reagan both times!

137

[quote]100meters wrote:
Thunderbolt, obviously you didn’t follow my advice , and DEAR GOD READ! The Soviet Union couldn’t even keep the Warsaw pact togeather, Not to mention getting their asses handed to them by a crack Afghani fighting force! Run the table! Ha! You’ve got to be kidding! And it wasn’t until Reagan conformed to the intelligentsia(?) that INF treaty came to be! Reagan’s advisors were WITLESS and BAFFLED by Gorbachev. The people who fed misinformation are some of the same people that misled the current president. Remember Team B Thunderbolt? Their intelligence estimates were as DEAD WRONG on Russia as the intelligence on Iraq! Revised CIA estimates indicatated that expenditures on defense remained constant throughout the 1980’s. The military buildup of Carter, and Reagan nor SDI did anything to change the gross spending levels in the USSR. Before you spout out, inform yourself please. There are many, many great books on this stuff![/quote]

My God, 100M - you are clueless. I love your 20/20 hindsight.

You read about it - I lived through it. None of this bullshit your are souting now was in the public dialogue 25 years ago.

The left threw hissy-fits over kicking the Reds out of central america. They were scared little bitches whenever they spoke of the USSR.

Maybe the Soviets were crumbling, but they were aided handily by having to keep up in the arms race. Your bitch Kerry voted against defense spending at every turn, as did many of your fellow lefties. You did have some hawkish dems back then - but they would hardly have a home in your party today.

You keep singing about INF - whoopdie-freakin-doo. I got three letters for you that was the real death-nail for the Soviet block - SDI. Jist the thought of it scared the bejeezus out of the Ruskies.

But you keep reading your revisionist history. Read. Read. Read. Many of us lived through it, which pretty much trumps your 20/20 hindsight, which was no doubt copied and pasted from someone else.

138

Military buildup of Carter and Reagan.

Carter?

Tune back into Air America…listen to some unbiased commentary.

139

[quote]100meters wrote:
Rainjack your acceptance of conventional wisdom renders your view to near childish levels!

Please don’t bother debating unless you can do it in a factual matter, leave your conventional wisdom to dittohead club meetings!

[/quote]

Well, now - a lefty resorting to name calling and ad-hominem attacks. Who’d a thunk it?

140

Massive Soviet buildup? When did that supposedly happen?

They were consistently at a high level of forces due to their internal paranoia about external (and internal) threats… to an unsustainable level as it turns out. This was exacerbated by the fact that their economic system was not very efficient.

Nobody knew which way it would turn, though I think most of us were happy when the cookie finally started to crumble. However, you still have high levels of crime and leftover hardliners to the point of poisoning prominent opposing candidates.

It’s not dead yet… it’s still only dying, even if quite weak.

At the same time, yes, in a closer era, about going to war, I wish that one reason would be picked and that it would be stuck with.

This will sound funny, there is nothing wrong with war per se, it is an instrument of force representing the will of the people – but the people must be accurately informed in order to wield that will in a manner they truly wish.

Using fear to corral the masses is a very very sleazy tactic.

P.S. Voting records for spending are a piss poor way of defining political stances. You can do better than that.