Reds pledge

[ironsides]

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?

"Reagan stunned his own advisers and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev by suggesting a treaty that would take nuclear arsenals down to "zero." Yet did he get the Nobel Peace Prize as Obama did. NOoo

Reagan like Obama suggested creating a nuclear free world, but since I guess that he was a Republican that did not need a teleprompter the Norwegians gave him a pass.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

"Reagan stunned his own advisers and Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev by suggesting a treaty that would take nuclear arsenals down to "zero." Yet did he get the Nobel Peace Prize as Obama did. NOoo

Reagan like Obama suggested creating a nuclear free world, but since I guess that he was a Republican that did not need a teleprompter the Norwegians gave him a pass.

That is because nobody thought he was serious, ironsides. He always talked of massive arms build up, his strategy was to escalate the arms race so much that USSR cannot compete and as a result will give up (a flawed thinking, as I said before, a dictator can starve his people if need be and continue to spend massive amounts on armament, like North Korea).

So when he talked of getting rid of nuclear arsenal, nobody including his supporters took him seriously.

 

[ironsides]

That is because nobody thought he was serious, ironsides. He always talked of massive arms build up, his strategy was to escalate the arms race so much that USSR cannot compete and as a result will give up (a flawed thinking, as I said before, a dictator can starve his people if need be and continue to spend massive amounts on armament, like North Korea).

So when he talked of getting rid of nuclear arsenal, nobody including his supporters took him seriously.

Actually not flawed thinking as you mentioned, it worked, the USSR was broke and war wouldn't have solved anything at that time


What many did not understand at the time was that Reagan meant what he said. Reagan was prepared to have us take down the "Berlin wall" if Russia didn't. There wouldn't have been a war over it either. He was a great poker player.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Actually not flawed thinking as you mentioned, it worked, the USSR was broke and war wouldn't have solved anything at that time

It did not work, ironsides. Gorbachev decided to dissolve the Soviet Union; I don’t think Reagan had a lot to do with it. If USSR wanted, they could have starved their citizens and increased defense funding. They could have pulled a North Korea. And it probably would have worked, too.

It is to Gorbachev’s credit that he didn’t. And most of the world sees it that way, perhaps with the exception of USA. That is why Gorbachev got the Nobel Prize, Reagan didn’t.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

That is not true bob, if you pay into EI; you are entitled to draw the benefits. Conversely, if you are not eligible, you don’t have to pay into it.

Unfortunately what you say is not quite true, I am ineligible because my income exceeds the maximum allowable by the time March rolls around, so if I get turfed I can collect nothing from it, but I still pay into it regardless.

Both my wife and I are self employed; we don’t pay a penny into the EI (we do have to contribute to CPP, however). I am also on my wife’s payroll, that constitutes a small part of my income. However, even there, nothing is deducted from my salary, since I won’t be eligible to draw upon EI benefits if I am laid off.

You must certainly have a good accountant, that is one of the biggest gripes among small business owners is that they have to pay into EI and cannot collect from it, something the government is trying to rectify as we speak.

 

[bobnoorduyn]

Bob, at least US was astute enough in those days to know which was the more deadly, more dangerous enemy, Communism or Nazism. They made the right decision by aligning with USSR and fighting Hitler.

You're kidding, right? Communism and Nazism are cousins, they are left wing tyrannies. More Russian people died under Soviet rule than all nationalities under Nazism. That wasn't the point, it was just a case of your enemy is also my enemy, and the Soviets, because of geography, were best alligned to fight the invading Germans on that front. Then afterward, the US spent the next 4 decades defending against the Soviets anyway. The allies made a deal with one devil to fight another.

 

[jambo101]

We do get his radio show here in Canada jambo; we get it on American radio stations Unless you live in the North, you probably get his show on some American radio station.

I only get American radio at night if i fiddle around on the AM band,he isnt really worth the effort,however on frequent trips to the USA i occasionally trip over his radio show and listen with amazement at the BS this guy can come up with,i guess its the audio equivalent of watching a train wreck.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Unfortunately what you say is not quite true, I am ineligible because my income exceeds the maximum allowable by the time March rolls around, so if I get turfed I can collect nothing from it, but I still pay into it regardless.

I really don’t have much experience with EI, so I don’t know if there is any upper limit. There is an upper limit to CPP contributions. My wife stops paying CPP contributions after a few months, having reached the maximum limit. Isn’t that the case for EI as well? Or do you keep contributing a certain percentage regardless of your income, 100,000$, 200,000$ etc.? With CPP, once you have contributed a certain maximum amount, you stop. Isn’t that the case with EI?

You must certainly have a good accountant, that is one of the biggest gripes among small business owners is that they have to pay into EI and cannot collect from it, something the government is trying to rectify as we speak.

Now here I am on much surer footing, you don’t need any accountant for that. If you are self employed, there really is no mechanism for you to pay into EI. You have to pay the income tax by installment, you pay CPP contributions at the end of the year, when you file the tax return. That is what I do, since a large part of my income is from self employment. Where do you contribute to EI? You have to pay EI for your employees, but that is a totally different thing.

Not only that, but the T4s for both me and my wife show zero deductions for EI (my wife has formed a corporation, and we are both employed by the corporation). CRA has never challenged that. If there was something wrong with it, they would have challenged it sometime in the past 20 years. There are two boxes on your T4, ‘CPP exempt’ and ‘EI exempt’. I simply click on the ‘EI exempt’ box (well, I handle the payroll for the corporation) and I have never been challenged by CRA.

I remember one year I forgot to tick the box, and I did get a call from CRA as to why EI wasn’t paid. I told him that I forgot to tick the box, and he said he will tick it for me, no problem.

 

[YukonJack]

"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."

Popularity has nothing to do with a person's worth, present or historical. The people who attended Reagan's funeral attended because they held him in high esteem, when he was alive and held him in high esteem after his passing.

The esteem in which a person is held, the respect he earned in his life, the appreciation of his achievements is reflected by the number of people - friends and previous foes, alike, regardless - who attend to pay homage at his funeral.

No one will EVER top Pope John Paul II. Ronald Reagan is a well deserved second.

Only fools would try to deny this. And can only dream that lightweights like Carter and
Clinton will receive such accolade and such acknowledgement of greatness.

 

[ironsides]

It did not work, ironsides. Gorbachev decided to dissolve the Soviet Union; I don’t think Reagan had a lot to do with it. If USSR wanted, they could have starved their citizens and increased defense funding. They could have pulled a North Korea. And it probably would have worked, too.

It is to Gorbachev’s credit that he didn’t. And most of the world sees it that way, perhaps with the exception of USA. That is why Gorbachev got the Nobel Prize, Reagan didn’t.

Gorbachev had no choice, Russia would have had another revolution if they had not given in. The Soviet controlled states were dropping like fly's, he knew it was over.
The old USSR was finished and Ronnie just gave it the last nudge to topple it.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

Gorbachev had no choice, Russia would have had another revolution if they had not given in. The Soviet controlled states were dropping like fly's, he knew it was over.
The old USSR was finished and Ronnie just gave it the last nudge to topple it.

Really? Do you have any evidence for that, did Gorbachev, Yeltsin etc. say that? Who was going to mount the revolution, the army? If you claim that people were going to mount the revolution, what was going to stop the government from repeating the Tiananmen Square?

There was no revolution, USSR could have competed with USA in the arms race if it wanted to (at considerable financial hardship of course, but in a dictatorship, that doesn’t matter). Gorbachev voluntarily decided not to and dissolved the Soviet Union. That is why he got the Nobel Prize and Reagan didn’t’.

 

[ironsides]

Really? Do you have any evidence for that, did Gorbachev, Yeltsin etc. say that? Who was going to mount the revolution, the army? If you claim that people were going to mount the revolution, what was going to stop the government from repeating the Tiananmen Square?

There was no revolution, USSR could have competed with USA in the arms race if it wanted to (at considerable financial hardship of course, but in a dictatorship, that doesn’t matter). Gorbachev voluntarily decided not to and dissolved the Soviet Union. That is why he got the Nobel Prize and Reagan didn’t’.

This is how the USSR officially became no more.
Meeting in the Belovezh forest on December 8, Yeltsin, Ukrainian president Leonid Kravchuk, and Belarusian parliamentary chair Stanislav Shushkevich nullified the 1922 USSR Union Treaty. The remaining republics were caught by surprise, but they quickly signed onto the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) structure formed by the Belovezh Accords. Gorbachev was left out of the discussion and not invited to the first CIS meeting on December 21. Faced with the inevitable, Gorbachev resigned on December 25. Barely 40 of the 173 Council of Republic deputies reported to work on December 26, where they formally voted to dissolve the USSR. The Soviet Union was no more. Revolution was probably adverted by this action. Buy the way, the Army of the USSR had become a real people army.

 

[Colpy]

Really? Do you have any evidence for that, did Gorbachev, Yeltsin etc. say that? Who was going to mount the revolution, the army? If you claim that people were going to mount the revolution, what was going to stop the government from repeating the Tiananmen Square?

There was no revolution, USSR could have competed with USA in the arms race if it wanted to (at considerable financial hardship of course, but in a dictatorship, that doesn’t matter). Gorbachev voluntarily decided not to and dissolved the Soviet Union. That is why he got the Nobel Prize and Reagan didn’t’.

Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong, yet again, and as almost always, wrong.

The USSR could NOT keep up with the USA in any arms race for a number of reasons, but the most important are as follows:

1. A lack of economic capability.........

2. A huge gap between the USA and the USSR in computer technology....and that straight from the mouth of Mr. Gorbachev himself.

3. A complete inability to compete with US technology in the building of any strategic defence shield (see no. 2).....and this terrified the Russians....

The first the USSR might have been able to get around with Stalinist repression.....the second and third were insurmountable.

In addition, did you know that Reagan proposed the USSR and the United States build the Strategic Defence Initiative together.......that they work together, share all the technology, and between them make nuclear weapons obsolete as a threat to peace between the two super-powers???

But Gorby won the Peace Prize, and deserved it.

but what Reagan does NOT deserve is the scorn of the uninformed, the ignorant, and the empty-headedly partisan.

 

[YukonJack]

Colpy, I detect frustration in your post #73.

Believe me I can sympathize. SirJosephPorter is the most obstinate fellow a person could ever have the misfortune with whom to exchange ideas.

He is NEVER wrong - at least he never admits it.
He twists the words of others, puts words they never said in their mouths.

Many times I gave up with him in frustration. Not because I ever felt that I lost an argument to him, but because arguing with him is like throwing peas at a wall: nothing sticks.

Watch for the tell-tale signs, though: When he says: "That is your opinion" you know you've won. When he repeats himself needlessly, you know you've won. When he attacks you personally (his favourite habit of bringing up the fact that English is my second language) you know that you've won.

Back to the topic at hand: He hates Ronald Reagan. Nothing will ever change that, no facts, no arguments, nothing. So, I gave up, let him think he won.

P.S. You should see his uninformed post on the FOXNews thread.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

That doesn’t affect my argument, ironsides. I read the link given by you for Belovezh Accords, and it says:

“the three leaders had no common consensus on the future of the Soviet Union prior to the meeting, but, once they assembled, they decided to shelve plans to preserve some sort of reformed Soviet state, as preferred by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, and instead pressed for its dissolution.”

Where does Reagan come into it? At the beginning of the meeting Yeltsin didn’t even know that he was going to agree to dissolution of Soviet Union. But Yeltsin behaved responsibly, so did Gorbachev. Either of them could have made things very difficult for the states of Soviet Union.

If Yeltsin and Gorbachev had presented a united front and said to the states that they cannot separate and called in the army, they could easily have suppressed any rebellion on the part of Ukraine or whoever. And they would have a historical precedence. They could point to USA, USA did not let the Confederacy separate.

But Yeltsin, Gorbachev and indeed the Politburo behaved responsibly, reasonably. Reagan didn’t have anything to do with it.

 

[Goober]

That doesn’t affect my argument, ironsides. I read the link given by you for Belovezh Accords, and it says:

“the three leaders had no common consensus on the future of the Soviet Union prior to the meeting, but, once they assembled, they decided to shelve plans to preserve some sort of reformed Soviet state, as preferred by Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, and instead pressed for its dissolution.”

Where does Reagan come into it? At the beginning of the meeting Yeltsin didn’t even know that he was going to agree to dissolution of Soviet Union. But Yeltsin behaved responsibly, so did Gorbachev. Either of them could have made things very difficult for the states of Soviet Union.

If Yeltsin and Gorbachev had presented a united front and said to the states that they cannot separate and called in the army, they could easily have suppressed any rebellion on the part of Ukraine or whoever. And they would have a historical precedence. They could point to USA, USA did not let the Confederacy separate.

But Yeltsin, Gorbachev and indeed the Politburo behaved responsibly, reasonably. Reagan didn’t have anything to do with it.

SJP
You are enough with that preconceived attitude to drive people to drink - The USSR was bankrupt - Food lines beyond belief - The Kremlin was always terrified of the people rising - they do and have extensive experience - Regan forced them to devote more and more resources to maintaining the military - it is all there if you ever decided to look - Regan broke the bank with the USSR.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

SJP
You are enough with that preconceived attitude to drive people to drink - The USSR was bankrupt - Food lines beyond belief - The Kremlin was always terrified of the people rising - they do and have extensive experience - Regan forced them to devote more and more resources to maintaining the military - it is all there if you ever decided to look - Regan broke the bank with the USSR.

Sure they were bankrupt, Goober. But my point is that it doesn’t matter in a dictatorship. You are confusing USSR with democracy. Look at North Korea, they are bankrupt, people are starving there. But still they spend massive amounts on armaments; they have developed the nuclear bomb.

So in a dictatorship, the fact that people are starving means nothing. If Yeltsin, Gorbachev etc. wanted, they could have pulled another Tiananmen Square and suppressed any possible rebellion before it gathered steam. It is to their credit that they didn’t. They thought of the well being of their citizens, rather than continue the arms race.

 

[gopher]

''Yeah, he was....if you like perjury. ''


Bush had Powell lie about yellow cake and that's perjury committed under oath. Too bad those sissy Democrats were too cowardly to convict him of perjury.

 

[gopher]

Still, we would all be better off under Clinton rather than under the inept GOP.