A GREAT AMERICAN DIES! :(Follow

Pride cometh before the fall, and just so you know, you walked into this willingly.

Smasharoo. I can only say to you that you proven beyond the shadow of a doubt what I have always held to be a truth in this life. Great minds speak of the events that shape our world, mediocre minds speak of things in our world, and small minds talk about others. With such a poor etiquette, and with the use of vulgar language, you immediately negate any and all arguments you may pose. Proving that you live up to your very own signature in this forum.

One, I'd have to argue that small minds randomly quote shi[/b]t they barely understand. As you have in the above text. Two, when the day comes that etiquette and vulgar language prohibit someone from being brilliant, or more importnatly just plain right please notify me immediately so that I can blow my head off with a shotgun.

Much as I'm sure you'd like it to be the case that polite people make the best arguments and have the most wit and knowledge, history doesn't agree. Mozart, Henry Miller, Malcom X, Newton, Lenny Bruce...

Foul mouthed Assho[b]le geniuses one and all.


My comments come from the understanding of economics. Of course everyone will understand that mountains are moved and governments toppled through the use of economics. If you do not understand or believe this, see what the markets around the world do every time Mr. Greenspan speaks. The results are often very telling.

During WWII the devastation throughout Russia was vast. A total loss of over 22 million people, along with a complete and utter demolition of the cities and infrastructure of Russia, is what set the stage for the start of the cold war. The work force in Russia was devastated and at a time when the rebuilding of a nation was essential with its ability to compete as an emerging super power.

It was Truman that sat with Churchill and Stalin to divine the Potsdam agreement, essentially dividing the country of Germany. The sections of Germany controlled by the West flourished, while the Eastern sections controlled by Russia struggled, as did the rest of the Soviet Union. The continual loss of the East German work force was ended by the placement of the Berlin Wall in 1961, but the economic struggles that necessitated its building did not change.

That's all facsinating, and about as relevant as saying the sky si blue. It also has nothing to do with Regan.



We see the world evolve up until we elect a president named Reagan. Reagan, I believe, understood completely the mechanics of economics and the ability to use it to shape nations.

Ahhahahahhaha.

Pardon me, that was uncouth. So it's your theory that Reagan was some sort of savant economist? Is that about right?


His skill as negotiator as the president of the screen actor’s guild is evident in the contracts he helped negotiate.

Yeah, that's about the same as being Fed Chairman, I guess. Maybe we'll luck out and get Jack Valenti to step up and take his place. Or perhaps Micheal Ovitz, as clearly, negoiating contracts for actors is tantamount to a PhD from Harvard in macroeconomic theory.



His skill as a governor followed suit, and the state of California did flourish economically during his terms. His ability to act, something by the way Roosevelt revered as one of his own political talents when he told Orson Wells that they were two of Americas greatest actors, was used as a tool to motivate.

One, regardless of what you think of the man, he wasn't a diety. There's no need to phrase things in the manner of "and the state did flourish...and it was good."



In walks a president who has the clear-cut vision to see communism for what it is; an inefficient machine, an economic oddity in its workings, and corrupt from the word go. Reagan out spends and out classes the Soviet leaders at every turn. The Soviets struggle still with issues such as labor, inflation, and a growing distain for the hardships that their people continue to struggle against under Soviet rule.

For the millionth time, GORBACHEV ended the USSR. He had a vision for the future of his country. Regean happened to be hanging around while Gorby was in office. That's not cause and effect, it's dumb luck.


The announcement of SDI is simply put a stroke of genius. How can, after all, the Soviet union compete with something so costly, and something which would render obsolete the use of the weapons the Soviets have amassed to counter the Western threat?

The Soviet leaders of the day had no ability to compete; they had nothing left to compete with. They had been beaten and chose to do the only thing they could to salvage what they could of their nation. It is humorous though that so many chose to give credit to the Soviet leaders for this end. When in fact the honor and credit goes to the man laying in a casket in Simi Valley, California.

So, just so that I understand your complex economic argument here, seeing as you understand it and all...is that SDI caused the end of the Soviet Union because it was really expensive?

Is that it?

Is that really fuc[/b]king it?? Are you sure it wasn't the military build up in Nato countries? Are you sure it wasn't that the moon was in the seventh house?

It's stupefingly frightening that a grown person would actually [b]really believe that the Soviet Union collapsed because the US spent a massive amount of money on developing space "lasers" to shoot missles out of the sky that never worked, were never anywhere near being deployed and that a nine year old could have pointed out were at least twenty years away from being TESTED.

But, no, I'm sure the physicists in the Soviet Union couldn't have figured that out. I imagine it was far to puzzling to them, given that the New York times daily ran articles explaining how it could never work. I think it's probably likely that they were really worried about when the ill tempered Sea Bass were going to be placed in the water of Vlaidvostok. THAT was probably the real fear. They're scary.

To sum up, you haven't made any actual arguments which go beyond "SDI scared the USSR into colapse because it cost lots of money!" so forgive me if my retort seems a little short on factual arguments. Fortunately for me it takes none to refute what you've put forward.

If you want to show some actual evidence that supports your dizzy fantasy, by all means do so and we can argue the facts.

Weak. You and Reagan's corpse deserve each other. Why don't you guys get a tomb?

Eb

Well Smasharoo you may be correct. Those brilliant men may have used profane language. You, however, are no Mozart, Malcolm X or Dennis Miller. You may be an a-hole, however, without knowing you personally I could never make that claim.

By your logic, I imagine you have a fairly high opinion of your own cognitive resources. By your reasoning, using profane language and personal attacks, you have asserted that your brilliance is assured. Those brilliant men used profanity, I use profanity, and therefore I am brilliant. Hardly.

Brilliance would be the ability to use tact in your speech, and do so without the use of profanity or personal attacks. You do know what tact is right? It’s the ability to tell someone to go to hell in such a way that they look forward to the trip. A Reagan attribute I admire to this day.

No I think your self serving use of profane language and personal attacks, while necessary to you in making some very lame points, is indeed the mark of someone less than brilliant.

Now on to your argument:

This post was about honoring a man who deserved to be honored as one of this countries greatest president. I gave the reasoning that he was instrumental in the ending of the cold war. I am not alone in that assessment, as countless book written by some of the most brilliant minds in our nation have drawn the same conclusion.

No I do not believe that the threat of SDI toppled the Soviet Union. But that was not what I was getting at. SDI was just one way in which President Reagan accelerated an arms race that Russia could no longer compete in. The facts you asked for are everywhere, though I doubt you would take the time to follow up and read them, for they are in stark contrast to your doom and gloom philosophy that assumes all apposition to your point of view is incorrect.

Here are a couple of facts though that you can easily find if you so chose. Doing a brief search on any reputable search engine you should be able to verify with ease. The CIA published numerous reports prior to Reagan entering office that gave evidence that the Soviets had stopped the increase in defense spending as early as the late 70’s. Reagan however enters office and increases defense spending each year 8%. Reagan also stopped entitlements and money going from this country to the Soviet Union. Rising inflation, joblessness and a poor economic climate in the Soviet Union was a direct result of a flawed communistic system of economics and policies implemented by this president. The Soviet Union did counter for a few years with increases in defense spending, reaching as high as 4.3 % in one Reagan year, but in the end it was not a trend that could be sustained.

The softening of policies by the Reagan administration towards the Soviets and a possible arms reduction treaty were in work as early as 1984. Before Time Life’s man of the year could make his influence felt.

SDI was a threat the Soviets knew they could not counter. SDI was after all one of the items that Gorbechov insisted be brought to the negotiating table when arms reduction talks were beginning. Something Reagan absolutely refused to do. In the end we see that this hard line stance was well rewarded. Even party members among Republicans thought it would not be so, but the resolve of one man proved to be correct.

If the Soviets were so smart as to believe SDI was not possible, why would they concern themselves with it? Why worry about something you pointed out a media article blasted as being unfeasible? Why do we continue to support such an unfeasible project to this day?

All of these are easily verifiable statements. Nothing new and fresh, and actually so publicized that to not know these simple truths is quite surprising to me.

This will be my last post to this forum. I am sure that there are many here that thrive on hearing their own voice, metaphorically speaking of course, but I don’t have time to argue issues with self proclaimed brilliant a-holes.

Cheers!

Politics is one thing. Everyone has their opinion of that. But that is not what this is about. President Regan has passed away. Now, we pay our respects. This is not your last chance to bash his politics. You can do that for the rest of your life if you want.
Ronald Regan, as a man, not the President, always seemed like a very nice person. This is the kind of person I'd like to see in office again someday.
God bless his family and may he rest in peace.

Put the thesarus down, esse. I never implied that I was a genius on a level with those men. You just assumed that all on your own. Here's a tip. Any time you find yourslef typing "by your reasoning" in regard to something I have posted, stop, and give yourself a brisk slap in the face and then say aloud "I can't possibly begin to comprehend his reasoning, it would be like a monkey trying to understand Joyce."



What the fuc[/b]k does this mean, motherfuc[b]ker? I mean, I'm really struggling to find a point in here. You agree that profanity doesn't impact if someone is brilliant and then you say it is indeed the mark of someone less brilliant.

Paging Dr. Inconsistent for an emrgancy hypocritarectomy!! Hurry, Dr. this man isn't able to contradict himself instantly as he makes an argument!! "Have no fear. Have him read this, Bob."

A few moments later after reading your post...

"Holy ****, now I understand!! You simply make an argument and just pretend each sentace is independant of the other."

"That's right, Jimmy! There need not be any logical connection between them at all! And allways remember, consistancy is for pussies!"


Name ONE. No, you know what, pigfuc[/b]ker, name twelve. Since there are countless "book" written by some of the most "brilliant" (and we can only assume tactfull and polite by extnetion) minds in our nation.

Quote:

No I do not believe that the threat of SDI toppled the Soviet Union.

The announcement of SDI is simply put a stroke of genius. How can, after all, the Soviet union compete with something so costly, and something which would render obsolete the use of the weapons the Soviets have amassed to counter the Western threat?

The Soviet leaders of the day had no ability to compete; they had nothing left to compete with. They had been beaten and chose to do the only thing they could to salvage what they could of their nation. It is humorous though that so many chose to give credit to the Soviet leaders for this end.

Of course not. How could anyone have gotten the impression that you were arguing that? Oh yeah, there was that one minor point that it was you ENTIRE FUC[b]KING argument one post ago. Hurry, Dr.!! We need your help again!!



But that was not what I was getting at.

Phew. It's a good thing you didn't use as the reason the Soviet Empire toppled then. That would have really made you look an uneducated assho[/b]le out for a evening's stroll and cornholing who couldn't quite fit the eggplant all the way in.

[b]
SDI was just one way in which President Reagan accelerated an arms race that Russia could no longer compete in. The facts you asked for are everywhere, though I doubt you would take the time to follow up and read them, for they are in stark contrast to your doom and gloom philosophy that assumes all apposition to your point of view is incorrect.
The facts are everywhere? Like the baby Jesus? If you belive they will come to you! If you clap tinkerbell will live and Ronnie Ray-gun will be the happy American cowboy who defeated the evil Commies by spending a lot of money. Yay!



Here are a couple of facts though that you can easily find if you so chose. Doing a brief search on any reputable search engine you should be able to verify with ease. The CIA published numerous reports prior to Reagan entering office that gave evidence that the Soviets had stopped the increase in defense spending as early as the late 70’s. Reagan however enters office and increases defense spending each year 8%. Reagan also stopped entitlements and money going from this country to the Soviet Union. Rising inflation, joblessness and a poor economic climate in the Soviet Union was a direct result of a flawed communistic system of economics and policies implemented by this president. The Soviet Union did counter for a few years with increases in defense spending, reaching as high as 4.3 % in one Reagan year, but in the end it was not a trend that could be sustained.

I love the argumet you've cut and pasted here. Mainly because it ignores the entire history of the Soviet Union. It's quite litterally a fabrication created after the fact to try to rationalize what happened in the USSR in the 80s. There's no factual basis for any of it. Here's a minor little niggling fact that derails the entire fantasy. The Societ Union's economy sucked in the 70s. It sucked in the 60s. It sucked in the 50s. It sucked in the 40s. It sucked in the 30s. It sucked in the 20s. It sucked before the revolution. That's WHY a revolution was even possible. It sucked when FDR was in office. It sucked when Truman was in office. It sucked when Eisenhower as in office. It sucked when Kennedy was in office. It sucked when LBJ was in office.

Starting to get the picture? The economic conditions were essentially identical to what they were when Regan was in office. What was the diffrence, then? Defense spending? Hmm. Defense spending didn't cause the USSR to collapse when Truman was in office. Or when Kennedy was in office. Or when LBJ was in office..

Oh wait. Gorbachev.


The softening of policies by the Reagan administration towards the Soviets and a possible arms reduction treaty were in work as early as 1984. Before Time Life’s man of the year could make his influence felt.

How would arms reduction figure into your theory? Wouldn't it be counter to your entire argument? Just wondering.


SDI was a threat the Soviets knew they could not counter. SDI was after all one of the items that Gorbechov insisted be brought to the negotiating table when arms reduction talks were beginning. Something Reagan absolutely refused to do. In the end we see that this hard line stance was well rewarded. Even party members among Republicans thought it would not be so, but the resolve of one man proved to be correct.

Let me explain why Gorbachev wanted SDI off the table. I'll try to use small words. He wanted it off the table, because hard line elements in the USSR could use SDI as a valid argument to Oblitterate the world with nuclear weapons before they became obselete. That's why. Gorbachev didn't feel being one of the two men responsible for the end of humankind.


If the Soviets were so smart as to believe SDI was not possible, why would they concern themselves with it? Why worry about something you pointed out a media article blasted as being unfeasible? Why do we continue to support such an unfeasible project to this day?

Do you realy want an answer here? You're not going to like it. We continue to support it because missle defense companies continue to spend billions in campaign contributions. All SDI did was offer the potential to destabilize Gorbachev, the most moderate USSR leader in history in favor of a hard liner. Gorbachev had the vision and the will to possibly quite litterally save the world from destruction by not allowing that to happen. His country had been in economic ruin his entire life. Gorbachev changed the world. Not because of Regean, but in spite of him. Regean LEAVING office was what made this even remotely possible. The hard liners had vastly more influnece with Regean in office than when Bush was in office. It was the softening of the US hard line by Bush Sr. which even allowed to take place. Had Regean served another four years and continued his policies, it's almost impossible it would have happened. Far more likely is that Gorbachev would have been removed in favor of a hard liner.



All of these are easily verifiable statements. Nothing new and fresh, and actually so publicized that to not know these simple truths is quite surprising to me.

What truths? Again you haven't offered a shred of fact here. You're simply stating "I believe this particular fantasy so everyone else should too" How about offering some evidence? Anything?



This will be my last post to this forum. I am sure that there are many here that thrive on hearing their own voice, metaphorically speaking of course, but I don’t have time to argue issues with self proclaimed brilliant a-holes.

NOr, more importnatly, the intelect or knowledge. You're wise to give up now before you reach a point where you'd have to examine your own fatally flawed beliefs in the face of the actual facts. It'd be terrible to have to actaully start with the facts and reach a conclusion from them instead of starting with the conclusion and trying to find facts to support it when there aren't any, wouldn't it.


Cheers!

Have a nice life. Say hi to the other blievers in revisionist history belivers for me at your next Hollocaust deniers meeting or confrence about the faked Appolo moon landings or whatever other whacko historical theories you ascribe to without any factual basis for me.

Indeed. In fact I'm writing a new coloring book for you guys about it where Regan, dressed as Rambo storms into the Kremlin and cleans house with an M-16. Based on the facts, of course.

Coo'.

Just make sure you allow plenty of room for me to use my burnt sienna colored crayon on Gorby's wine stained dappled head, alright? I'd really like to have a picture to color where Ronnie is using Gorby as a human shield as he kicks down the front doors of Lenin's tomb and yells out, "Worship this, you Commie anachronism!", and sprays genuine American made bullets through the sarcophagus.

Totem

Nope, never got to go.
:(

I always wanted to though.
:/

Totem

That Dingle D*ck shark f*cker got on his main and rated himself up and me down. I hate that. They should disable ratings in the Asylum. Normally I don't care, but it would be nice someday if I had the ability to rate. smash when do you sleep man?

Edited, Wed Jun 9 16:35:06 2004 by GrundleBrush

Best reason for not having it is caring about it. You appear to be the type of person who would do it out of spite, so why should anyone give it to you?

/Seinfeld

Yeah, what is the deal with THAT avatar!?!?

Eb

Pure sillyness.

Pickle -
Well the 2nd paragraph that you left out is really my point. The man died. May he rest in peace. Let him be...That's all I'm saying.

Instead, some of you whining ******* find your panties in a bunch.

It's obvious enough what people's agendas and ideals are just looking at the abundance of political threads. This thread was about Ronald Regan passing away.

Ho hum, it got threadjacked and turned into steaming **** as usual. /shocked. /sarcasm.

Edited, Thu Jun 10 11:45:05 2004 by Sneakypants

<looking>

Impressive.