Reds pledge

[Colpy]

You may not buy the idea about a Republican Reagan breaking the USSR, but that is just what happened plain and simple. The Russian people were getting a taste of Western living and wanted what we had (cars, appliances etc.). Russia just couldn't do both have a arms race and keep the people happy. The "iron fist had softened. So we did break the USSR. Of course they could have dragged the "Cold War" on, but at the cost of possibly another revolution. Gorbachev, saw that possibility and surrendered so to speak.

Credit to Gorbachev....but he was pushed, coaxed, cornered, cajoled, encouraged, and basically hurried down the road with carrot and stick by none other than Ronald Reagan.

Reagan had no great intellect, but he BELIEVED........Mitterand said of him that what he did not comprehend through intellect he understood through instinct.

 

[ironsides]

Reagan has been propped up as the hero who ended communism. But it was actually the Republicans who started the communist revolution. Conservative Anthony Sutton proved that a long time ago:

The goals of the Communist Revolution and what communism actually became were two different animals. The revolution actually started out as a democratic revolt, and look where it lead them.

 

[Cliffy]

Ah! The great American ego. Nothing happens on this planet without being initiated by the US. The world changes, people change, countries change but the US is made of stone. We can always count on their egocentric world view of "We are the greatest nation on earth." Time for an enema America.

 

[Colpy]

Ah! The great American ego. Nothing happens on this planet without being initiated by the US. The world changes, people change, countries change but the US is made of stone. We can always count on their egocentric world view of "We are the greatest nation on earth." Time for an enema America.

Not everything....but certainly the collapse of the other great super-power....I suppose you think Carthage being a footnote in history has nothing to do with Rome......:roll:

 

[SirJosephPorter]

You may not buy the idea about a Republican Reagan breaking the USSR, but that is just what happened plain and simple. The Russian people were getting a taste of Western living and wanted what we had (cars, appliances etc.). Russia just couldn't do both have a arms race and keep the people happy. The "iron fist had softened. So we did break the USSR. Of course they could have dragged the "Cold War" on, but at the cost of possibly another revolution. Gorbachev, saw that possibility and surrendered so to speak.

You evidently have no idea what a dictator can get away with. Just look at North Korea or Zimbabwe. The dictators have ruined the economy of those countries, yet there is no visible dissent, any dissent is crushed at the first sign.

Why would USSR have been any different? If the leaders wanted to, sure they could have continued the arms race. It would have meant a bit less food for the people, poorer quality health care etc. But in a dictatorship that doesn’t matter.

If people are so eager to mount a revolution, if revolution is so easy, why haven’t they done so in North Korea or in Zimbabwe?

Dictatorships are usually quite successful in crushing any dissent, let alone revolution. If USSR wanted, they could have turned into another North Korea. It is a credit to Gorbachev that they didn’t, they opted to dissolve USSR instead.

Gorbachev got a thoroughly deserved Nobel Prize for his efforts.

 

[YukonJack]

"I think it is Gorbachev who deserves most of the credit for ending the Soviet regime. Soviet regime was crumbling anyway; Reagan got the credit because he happened to be around."

Wrong again, as usual, SirJosephPorter.

Gorbachev collapsed and took his corrupt Soviet regime with him, not because he was such a great guy, but because he was a much lesser guy than Ronald Reagan.

Remember Reykyavik?

Let history decide who brought down the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Empire.

Let's see whenever Gorbachev dies, how many world leaders will come to his memorial service. Compared to Reagan's, it will be - I daresay - a no contest.

 

[Colpy]

You evidently have no idea what a dictator can get away with. Just look at North Korea or Zimbabwe. The dictators have ruined the economy of those countries, yet there is no visible dissent, any dissent is crushed at the first sign.

Why would USSR have been any different? If the leaders wanted to, sure they could have continued the arms race. It would have meant a bit less food for the people, poorer quality health care etc. But in a dictatorship that doesn’t matter.

If people are so eager to mount a revolution, if revolution is so easy, why haven’t they done so in North Korea or in Zimbabwe?

Dictatorships are usually quite successful in crushing any dissent, let alone revolution. If USSR wanted, they could have turned into another North Korea. It is a credit to Gorbachev that they didn’t, they opted to dissolve USSR instead.

Gorbachev got a thoroughly deserved Nobel Prize for his efforts.

Yes, Gorbachev was not willing to drag the USSR back into the dark days of Stalinism....for that he deserves much credit.......but he was a Communist, and hard-core on Afghanistan, etc....if Reagan had followed the advice of the (thoroughly penetrated by Soviet influence) peace groups, The USSR would still be threatening us and holding hundreds of millions in perpetual slavery to the dictatorship of the proletariat.

Don't kid yourself, Reagan shoved Gorbachev down the road to glory.

Ahh, SJP, you know so little about history, or the world.

That is to be expected of one who will only entertain debate with those that agree with him.

Idiot.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Let history decide who brought down the Berlin Wall and the Soviet Empire.

Let's see whenever Gorbachev dies, how many world leaders will come to his memorial service. Compared to Reagan's, it will be - I daresay - a no contest.

But history did decide, YJ. Gorbachev got the Nobel Prize, Reagan didn't.

 

[Colpy]

But history did decide, YJ. Gorbachev got the Nobel Prize, Reagan didn't.

Oh NOW historical greatness is decided by the Norweigans!

What a MORON!!!!!!

 

[YukonJack]

"But history did decide, YJ. Gorbachev got the Nobel Prize, Reagan didn't."

As usual, once again you are DEAD WRONG, SirJosephPorter. History has NOT decided. A socialist, probably semi-Communist, left-wing committe decided.

To their everlasting shame.

And while I do not wish for a premature demise of the former Chairman, let us see how many world leaders will attend his funeral to pay their respects when his time comes, compared to Reagan's.

THAT will be the verdict of history.

 

[Colpy]

oops...wrong thread...deleted.

 

[Spade]

oops...right thread...added.
YouTube - Red Skelton Interview Part One

 

[#juan]

Let's face it. Reaganomics was a disaster much like Mulroniomics and neither country will recover from their respective economic looters any time soon. The U.S. is just learning just how bad Reagan was and we will be paying off Mulroney's debt for years...Even longer now that Harper has added to it.

 

[YukonJack]

"Let's face it. Reaganomics was a disaster much like Mulroniomics and neither country will recover from their respective economic looters any time soon. The U.S. is just learning just how bad Reagan was and we will be paying off Mulroney's debt for years...Even longer now that Harper has added to it."

#juan, your political observations/opinions are about as good as your so-called recipes.

Nada. Nothing. Worthless.

 

[TenPenny]

I love it when you resort to personal insults. It truly reflects your talents and abilities.

 

[YukonJack]

"I love it when you resort to personal insults. It truly reflects your talents and abilities."

And your talents and abilities are about one tenth of the handle you (ab)use.

 

[#juan]

"Let's face it. Reaganomics was a disaster much like Mulroniomics and neither country will recover from their respective economic looters any time soon. The U.S. is just learning just how bad Reagan was and we will be paying off Mulroney's debt for years...Even longer now that Harper has added to it."

#juan, your political observations/opinions are about as good as your so-called recipes.

Nada. Nothing. Worthless.

You Know, the good thing about these forums is that even an idiot like yourself can write the tripe you do with no knowledge of the subject, very little I.Q., and think you are contributing to the topic. We all make allowances for you. Have a good day.

 

[Colpy]

Ronald Reagan: A Nuclear Abolitionist

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"But history did decide, YJ. Gorbachev got the Nobel Prize, Reagan didn't."

As usual, once again you are DEAD WRONG, SirJosephPorter. History has NOT decided. A socialist, probably semi-Communist, left-wing committe decided.

To their everlasting shame.

And while I do not wish for a premature demise of the former Chairman, let us see how many world leaders will attend his funeral to pay their respects when his time comes, compared to Reagan's.

THAT will be the verdict of history.

That will mean nothing, YJ. If Rush ‘drug addict’ Limbaugh were to die tomorrow I am sure millions will turn up for his funeral, mostly from the Republican base. That doesn’t mean that he is a popular figure, the only poll I remember seeing puts his approval rating at 25 or 30%, which means he is popular only with Republican base, nothing more.

I don’t know where you came up with this criteria, that more people attend a funeral that means more popular is the personality. Nothing of the sort. That is a nonsense criteria.

No, to me, Gorbachev won the Nobel Prize, Reagan didn't, that settles the matter.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"Let's face it. Reaganomics was a disaster much like Mulroniomics and neither country will recover from their respective economic looters any time soon. The U.S. is just learning just how bad Reagan was and we will be paying off Mulroney's debt for years...Even longer now that Harper has added to it."

#juan, your political observations/opinions are about as good as your so-called recipes.

Nada. Nothing. Worthless.

Juan is right YJ, Reaganomics was indeed a disaster. Reagan went on a spending spree with borrowed money. He racked up huge deficits and made conservatism synonymous with borrow and spend. Subsequent conservative politicians (Bush, Bush, Mulroney, Mike Harris) etc. followed Reagan’s lead and also racked up huge debt and huge deficits.

Obama also resorted to borrow and spend, but he had an excuse. Bush had left him an economy which was on life support; the world was staring into the abyss of depression. Obama had to take drastic measures to stave off disaster. What was Reagan’s excuse, other than to get votes?