Ronald Wilson Reagan=Scumball

In the 1940's he avoids service in the military and instead makes training films in Hollywood(future running mate George Bush was being shot down over the pacific)also tossed off first wife to wed Nacy(who was 2 months pregnant at the time,so much for family values)
In the 50's he becomes the head piece thanks to his willingness to name names before the House Unamerican Activities Committee of the GE Theater
In the 60's even though ,fellow HUAC member Richard Nixon desperatly wants it,Reagan is elected governor of California
It is during this period Frank Sinatra calls Reagan a,"Crazy John Bircher type"
In the 1970's Reagan gives a speech for Gerald Ford's convention,and then immediatly forms a third party that splits the vote ensuring Jimmy Carters election
During this period he comes to espouse something called "Trickle down economics" a system better described as "rich people hate paying taxes",it is espoused by a lone Economics Professor from the University of Chicago,who also hates paying taxes
Later Reagan would jokingly try to avoid even a minor stink of acadamia by saying that Jack Kemp drew it up on a party napkin
He isnt even President yet,and you wouldnt trust him to handle your car insurance

.....I'd vote for him a million times before I'd ever consider voting for Bill or for that matter Hillary Clinton.....you want to talk scumball then there you have it CLINTON

monkey,

im not sure how old u r, but in my childhood reagon was president and many considered him the MAN!

im not sure if its just as time went on more people had the balls to call things like they really were, especially with the bush pres father and son.

as an adult now its almost shocking to hear the things that many claim reagon is responsible for.

i guess ignorance is bliss when your a snot nose kid huh?

but at the same time u gotta remember ronald was a celebrity in hollywood first then a president. so u know he was probably into all the shady sleazy hollywood things before and after the presidency as well.

i never knew about nancy being knocked up tho bud? wow she seems so wholesome with her say no to drugs campaign especially on different strokes ahahha

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAVIDTUA

monkey,

im not sure how old u r, but in my childhood reagon was president and many considered him the MAN!

im not sure if its just as time went on more people had the balls to call things like they really were, especially with the bush pres father and son.

as an adult now its almost shocking to hear the things that many claim reagon is responsible for.

i guess ignorance is bliss when your a snot nose kid huh?

---

Funny,when I was going through the eighties,most of us thought of him as a backstabbing liar
"Well how many of you remember what you were doing on August 24th two years ago"
Well most of us werent authorizing selling missile parts to former hostage takers to fund South American Terrorists,so I hardly find the relavance.
That by the way was actually what he said to the press to explain his sudden memory lapse about Iran-Contra,preferring to blame the whole thing on Ollie"Revlon Eye Moistener"North
Here's a question Reaganites
Was Reagan guilty of circumventing the US constitution by defying an act of Congress by selling missile parts to the same Iranians we blaimed for bombing the US Marine barracks in Lebanon(while also selling loads of munitions to the Iraqi's)so he could illegaly fund South American terrorists(the Contras)
Or was he so grossly incompetent that his foreign policy was being run strictly by a Colonel,a Lewy no less
Heres a hint,there isnt an option C
So he was either grossly incompetent,and unfit for the job,or he was a coniving dirtball who sold weapons to terrorists,so he could fund other terrorists

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DAVIDTUA

but at the same time u gotta remember ronald was a celebrity in hollywood first then a president. so u know he was probably into all the shady sleazy hollywood things before and after the presidency as well.

i never knew about nancy being knocked up tho bud? wow she seems so wholesome with her say no to drugs campaign especially on different strokes ahahha

---

"Let me tell you about a boy named......"
Yep I remember the episode
The Reaganites applied so much pressure,Trivial Prusuit had to remove it as a question

ahhhh more tastey conspiracy theories mmm yummy:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big_Deuce

ahhhh more tastey conspiracy theories mmm yummy:rolleyes:

---

Conspiracy theory hell,they were threatening to sue
Which is odd,because she was two months pregnant when she hooked up with Ronnie
But it was before the game had really taken off so they probably figured it was alot easier to go with the flow and pull the question
I mean we are talking about a couple of board game designers,not Huey P Newton
Was I the only person awake during the 80's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Conspiracy theory hell,they were threatening to sue
Which is odd,because she was two months pregnant when she hooked up with Ronnie
But it was before the game had really taken off so they probably figured it was alot easier to go with the flow and pull the question
I mean we are talking about a couple of board game designers,not Huey P Newton
Was I the only person awake during the 80's?

---

....you can spout all this hate about Reagan you want to but it won't change the FACT that if Reagan could have run for a 3rd term and if he was healthy enough to the people would have elected him and by LANDSLIDE margins....how many Presidents can you say that about???? I can only think of FDR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

....you can spout all this hate about Reagan you want to but it won't change the FACT that if Reagan could have run for a 3rd term and if he was healthy enough to the people would have elected him and by LANDSLIDE margins....how many Presidents can you say that about???? I can only think of FDR

---

Actually no he wouldnt have
They floated the idea,but Iran-Contra was breaking at the time,he would have been beaten by a retarded golden retriever at the time

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Actually no he wouldnt have
They floated the idea,but Iran-Contra was breaking at the time,he would have been beaten by a retarded golden retriever at the time

---

Reagan's approval rating was still at 44% during the Iran-Contra scandal...which is still really god damn good considering how many people such as yourself seemed to hate him.....and today George W. Bush and the Democratic Congress would do ANYTHING for that kind of approval rating


And the Democrats ran Dukakis in 1988 so I don't really see the difference between him and a retarded golden retriever.


Nice try though

I hate the Republicans even more than I hate the Democrats, so I am by no means a Reagan fan, but even I have to give him credit for his role in bringing down the U.S.S.R.

I'd vote for a dead Reagan before I'd vote for most of these guys out there

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

I hate the Republicans even more than I hate the Democrats, so I am by no means a Reagan fan, but even I have to give him credit for his role in bringing down the U.S.S.R.

---

Give more credit to Elton John Records,and smuggled Levi's
It was more the desire for western freedoms,then anything that Reagan did that brought down the USSR
Not to mention the Berlin Wall actually fell during Bush Sr's Precidency,not Reagans
Even then,how much better off are we?
Between the unsecured nukes,a Russian economy that doesnt have the resources to support capatilism,and the now huge Russian Mob.
At least before Reagan,we knew who had their finger on the button over there,now we dont even know who has the button

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

Reagan's approval rating was still at 44% during the Iran-Contra scandal...which is still really god damn good considering how many people such as yourself seemed to hate him.....and today George W. Bush and the Democratic Congress would do ANYTHING for that kind of approval rating


And the Democrats ran Dukakis in 1988 so I don't really see the difference between him and a retarded golden retriever.


Nice try though

---

Actually it was 34%,and it took dirty tactics so low Lee Atwater had a death bed confession over them(this is very true) to get Bush the elder elected

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Give more credit to Elton John Records,and smuggled Levi's
It was more the desire for western freedoms,then anything that Reagan did that brought down the USSR
Not to mention the Berlin Wall actually fell during Bush Sr's Precidency,not Reagans
Even then,how much better off are we?
Between the unsecured nukes,a Russian economy that doesnt have the resources to support capatilism,and the now huge Russian Mob.
At least before Reagan,we knew who had their finger on the button over there,now we dont even know who has the button

---

It was a calculated program of sustained military expansion that the U.S government knew the U.S.S.R. had no choice but to attempt to keep up with, while knowing that the economic situation of the U.S.S.R. would not allow for it.
The Russian's desire for "western freedoms", while no doubt playing a minor role, could not have toppled the Soviet Union. There was absolutely no history of democracy in Russia, and many would argue that there isn't democracy in Russia now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

It was a calculated program of sustained military expansion that the U.S government knew the U.S.S.R. had no choice but to attempt to keep up with, while knowing that the economic situation of the U.S.S.R. would not allow for it.
The Russian's desire for "western freedoms", while no doubt playing a minor role, could not have toppled the Soviet Union. There was absolutely no history of democracy in Russia, and many would argue that there isn't democracy in Russia now.

---

No it wasnt,but that is the myth
We were actually pulling missiles under SALT
Its a myth,Reagan either couldnt find his ass with both hands and a map,or he blaimed all his failings on everyone else
Sorry,Reagan is a fairytale
If you were actually paying attention in the 80's,Reagan was like Bush but without the Senates rubber stamp,and a better ability to deliver his lines

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

No it wasnt,but that is the myth
We were actually pulling missiles under SALT
Its a myth,Reagan either couldnt find his ass with both hands and a map,or he blaimed all his failings on everyone else
Sorry,Reagan is a fairytale
If you were actually paying attention in the 80's,Reagan was like Bush but without the Senates rubber stamp,and a better ability to deliver his lines

---

In interviews I've seen Gorbachev himself say that was the principle cause of the collapse of the USSR. Most historians agree that it was economics which led to the collapse. How is it a myth?
There's also a lot more to a military than just missiles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

In interviews I've seen Gorbachev himself say that was the principle cause of the collapse of the USSR. Most historians agree that it was economics which led to the collapse. How is it a myth?
There's also a lot more to a military than just missiles.

---

You mean like having no real natural resources except for vast Natural Gas resevoirs they couldnt get a pipeline to?
You mean those sort of economics?
You can only eat so many potatoes
Myth
The Soviet Union had very few natural resources,the graft of the higher end politicians was going to take it down eventually anyway,with or without Reagan
But thanks to the lingering resentment his policies caused in South America,Daniel Ortega is back in power,voted in clean and clear.
And all the money we pumped in to the Afghanistan Mujahadeen helped create Al-Queda
Not to mention the collapse of the Soviet economy within about 5 nanoseconds of "converting to capitalism"
Great job all around,resentful South Americans are turning to communism,Russia is run by mobsters and has no economy to speak of,and we're fighting the former terrorists in the middle east that we trained and armed
Kick ass across the board
I mean come on Ronnie gets all the credit for being President when an economic system that was doomed to collapse actually did
Lets give Ronnie some credit for things he actually did
Like selling missile parts to the Iranians
Or giving all those WMDs we blew up in the first Gulf War to the Iraqi's
Or creating so much resentment in South America two major leader recently elected are communist(so much for the big win,huh?)
Or blocking the UN investigations and sanctions over Sabbra and Shattila allowing Hezbolha to have moral legitimacy
Give the man his due

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

You mean like having no real natural resources except for vast Natural Gas resevoirs they couldnt get a pipeline to?
You mean those sort of economics?
You can only eat so many potatoes
Myth
The Soviet Union had very few natural resources,the graft of the higher end politicians was going to take it down eventually anyway,with or without Reagan
But thanks to the lingering resentment his policies caused in South America,Daniel Ortega is back in power,voted in clean and clear.
And all the money we pumped in to the Afghanistan Mujahadeen helped create Al-Queda
Not to mention the collapse of the Soviet economy within about 5 nanoseconds of "converting to capitalism"
Great job all around,resentful South Americans are turning to communism,Russia is run by mobsters and has no economy to speak of,and we're fighting the former terrorists in the middle east that we trained and armed
Kick ass across the board
I mean come on Ronnie gets all the credit for being President when an economic system that was doomed to collapse actually did
Lets give Ronnie some credit for things he actually did
Like selling missile parts to the Iranians
Or giving all those WMDs we blew up in the first Gulf War to the Iraqi's
Or creating so much resentment in South America two major leader recently elected are communist(so much for the big win,huh?)
Or blocking the UN investigations and sanctions over Sabbra and Shattila allowing Hezbolha to have moral legitimacy
Give the man his due

---

Are you saying the Soviet Union had few natural resources? Am I somehow misunderstand what you are trying to say? Because if you're trying to claim that the USSR was poor in natural resources then that might be one of the fucking dumbest things I have ever heard. They were rich in resources, but that doesn't mean that the infrastructure surrounding the extraction and exploitation of those resources was not crumbling because of a lack of funds. Also, because of their antagonistic relationship with the west, specifically the NATO countries, they were limited in regards to who they could conduct trade with. The pursuit of those resources, among other things, also led to a swift environmental degradation, which further hampered their ablility to produce.
As for the rest of your rant, it has little or nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR, or how the desire for "western freedoms" led to its demise -how did that work again?.
Reagan's policies on South America were in many cases ridiculous, I'll agree with you there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Are you saying the Soviet Union had few natural resources? Am I somehow misunderstand what you are trying to say? Because if you're trying to claim that the USSR was poor in natural resources then that might be one of the fucking dumbest things I have ever heard. They were rich in resources, but that doesn't mean that the infrastructure surrounding the extraction and exploitation of those resources was not crumbling because of a lack of funds. Also, because of their antagonistic relationship with the west, specifically the NATO countries, they were limited in regards to who they could conduct trade with. The pursuit of those resources, among other things, also led to a swift environmental degradation, which further hampered their ablility to produce.
As for the rest of your rant, it has little or nothing to do with the collapse of the USSR, or how the desire for "western freedoms" led to its demise -how did that work again?.
Reagan's policies on South America were in many cases ridiculous, I'll agree with you there.

---

Ummm even Dosteyevsky said Europe is built out of stone,and Russia is built of wood
They couldnt get to their own resources in the form of natural gas,which is about all they really had
Even now theyre having a hard time getting to it,most of it sits in Siberia
And oh do please,it wasnt Western "freedoms",it was western"Products",there was a huge underground trade for Western products,and even domestically produced rock bands behind the curtain like Aquarium,and Lady Pank
Ironic that a set of Levi's is probably less easy to come by in Vladivostok now then before the collapse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Ummm even Dosteyevsky said Europe is built out of stone,and Russia is built of wood
They couldnt get to their own resources in the form of natural gas,which is about all they really had
Even now theyre having a hard time getting to it,most of it sits in Siberia
And oh do please,it wasnt Western "freedoms",it was western"Products",there was a huge underground trade for Western products,and even domestically produced rock bands behind the curtain like Aquarium,and Lady Pank
Ironic that a set of Levi's is probably less easy to come by in Vladivostok now then before the collapse

---

"Western freedoms" was the term you used, not me. The USSR had over-exploited the easily accessable resources around the more populated areas of the country, however, with a half-decent infrastructure, one which was properly funded, those resources could have been extracted and used. The American would have no problem extracting resources from Alaska. This is a ridiculous argument.

Even Don Letts of all people,hinted that the USSR wasnt going to survive the graft at the top levels in his film Rude Boy
Just like we here in the States arent surviving it right now
Well,OK,I am,but Im seeing alot of other people crashing and burning
But theres only so much to go around,and when people get bent enough they will do something about it,there just isnt as much to go around,and the Soviet hierarchy got seriously corrupt
It was bound to collapse

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

"Western freedoms" was the term you used, not me. The USSR had over-exploited the easily accessable resources around the more populated areas of the country, however, with a half-decent infrastructure, one which was properly funded, those resources could have been extracted and used. The American would have no problem extracting resources from Alaska. This is a ridiculous argument.

---

We have five tons of oil up there,and we still have to pay people to even live there
You didnt know that?
The US pays people to live in Alaska
Your right its a ridiulous argument,but your on the wrong side of it

why was nancy so scrawny?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

We have five tons of oil up there,and we still have to pay people to even live there
You didnt know that?
The US pays people to live in Alaska
Your right its a ridiulous argument,but your on the wrong side of it

---

Aside from the obvious labor requirements, what in the fuck does people being payed to live in Alaska have to do with successfully extracting resources from there? Your arguments make no sense, using some facts to back up your assertations might help. Every time I have challenged you on one aspect of your bizarre rants, you switch topics and ignore your previous statements. You obviously have no real knowledge of the subjects which we are debating.
While no doubt corrupt, I seriously doubt the USSR was so corrupt the entire system collapsed, though I will freely admit that is played a role, along with many other factors. And by the way, that corruption would negatively effect the economic situation of the USSR, which was further exasperated by the policies of, guess who, the Reagan administration.
All countries suffer from corruption. Look at China, a nation awash in corruption and graft, I highly doubt they'll collapse any time soon, they're certainlly not showing any signs of it. And if you think the American economy is suffering the way it is in large part because of corruption at the highest levels of US government, which you seemed to imply in your previous post, then I'd be genuinely surprised if you could tie your own shoes or walk down the street without having to wear a helmet.
Does Don Letts have a history degree? What about some experience in economics or international politics? Well, then what makes him a qualified source of information? Because he makes fucking documentaries? I guess Michael Moore should be considered as an unbiased bastion of knowledge then. :rolleyes:
Don Letts is just an old, useless punk-rocker with opinions as biased as yours or mine. Does anyone actually give a flying fuck about what he thinks?
Belligerance does not equal knowledge, try reading a book or two.
Just for the record, I don't mean to personally offend you or anything, you're simply way off base with your arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Aside from the obvious labor requirements, what in the fuck does people being payed to live in Alaska have to do with successfully extracting resources from there? Your arguments make no sense, using some facts to back up your assertations might help. Every time I have challenged you on one aspect of your bizarre rants, you switch topics and ignore your previous statements. You obviously have no real knowledge of the subjects which we are debating.
While no doubt corrupt, I seriously doubt the USSR was so corrupt the entire system collapsed, though I will freely admit that is played a role, along with many other factors. And by the way, that corruption would negatively effect the economic situation of the USSR, which was further exasperated by the policies of, guess who, the Reagan administration.
All countries suffer from corruption. Look at China, a nation awash in corruption and graft, I highly doubt they'll collapse any time soon, they're certainlly not showing any signs of it. And if you think the American economy is suffering the way it is in large part because of corruption at the highest levels of US government, which you seemed to imply in your previous post, then I'd be genuinely surprised if you could tie your own shoes or walk down the street without having to wear a helmet.
Does Don Letts have a history degree? What about some experience in economics or international politics? Well, then what makes him a qualified source of information? Because he makes fucking documentaries? I guess Michael Moore should be considered as an unbiased bastion of knowledge then. :rolleyes:
Don Letts is just an old, useless punk-rocker with opinions as biased as yours or mine. Does anyone actually give a flying fuck about what he thinks?
Belligerance does not equal knowledge, try reading a book or two.
Just for the record, I don't mean to personally offend you or anything, you're simply way off base with your arguments.

---

He swings and he misses again
We put a massive pipeline in there in the 70's during the oil crisis,and expanded it in the 80's
Maybe you should try doing some reading of your own
Oh and Don Letts was never a punk rocker,even though he did films for the Clash
He was a Reggae dude,swing and a miss again
Your right beligerence does not equal knowledge,and if you care to share anything but beligerence any time soon,let us know

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

He swings and he misses again
We put a massive pipeline in there in the 70's during the oil crisis,and expanded it in the 80's
Maybe you should try doing some reading of your own
Oh and Don Letts was never a punk rocker,even though he did films for the Clash
He was a Reggae dude,swing and a miss again
Your right beligerence does not equal knowledge,and if you care to share anything but beligerence any time soon,let us know

---

And why do you guys allways,ALLWAYS go right for Michael Moore when your losing an argument?
I dont care what Michael Moore says about much of anything except for his book drive for our troops overseas
Though I did finally see Sicko a little bit ago,he actually understates his case,sorry the wife worked for a major insurance provider,he actually makes it sound not nearly so bad as it actually is.
Sonny boy,Ive lived through Nixon,Ford,Carter,Reagan,two Bush's and Clinton
If it wasnt for Bush Jr,Reagan would stand out as the worst President,and the biggest back stabbing liar,and total incompetent we've had in the second half of the twentieth century
Bush Jr is kinda hard to beat though
He's special,and by special I of course really mean retarded
Every body who disagrees with you HAS to be a Michael Moore fan,who listens to Air America(is that even still on the air?)
Sorry sahib,life doesnt work that way,not everybody fits in to the box you want them to.
I want political news,I dont kick on Rush Limbloat,or Rhandi Rhodes(if I wanted to be yelled at by a woman with an annoying voice Id call my mother in law up),I check the news wires
To quote an old 3rd Base song,"Ive got a strong mind,it doesnt need to be spoonfed,and I can read it doesnt have to be read"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

He swings and he misses again
We put a massive pipeline in there in the 70's during the oil crisis,and expanded it in the 80's
Maybe you should try doing some reading of your own
Oh and Don Letts was never a punk rocker,even though he did films for the Clash
He was a Reggae dude,swing and a miss again
Your right beligerence does not equal knowledge,and if you care to share anything but beligerence any time soon,let us know

---

The fact that the U.S. was able to build a pipeline to Alaska and was further able to expand it only supports my point that because of proper funding and an established, well maintained infrastructure the US was able to exploit its natural resources, even if they were far away from its population centers. This is something the USSR was not able to do, because all their money went to their military, thanks to the actions of the Reagan administration. I don't know how many times I have made this point already, but you haven't addressed it yet.
I don't know if your punchy, senile, or just plain stupid, you come across as all three, but you still have not addressed any of the points I have brought up in regards to the USSR. First they collapsed because their people wanted freedom, then it was corruption, right dumbass?
In regards to Michael Moore, he is a documentary filmmaker, a very successful one, but he is a pristine example of how biased and just plain wrong filmmakers can be. Not once did I say you were a Michael Moore fan, however he is a completely valid example since you were the one who brought up the views of another documentary filmmaker. Again, a person whose views do not mean jack shit in this discussion. I'm sure an esteemed social historian like yourself would be aware of the close relationship between punk rock and reggae as well, so I don't think I need to address that point. I don't know much about Don Letts, but his OPINION is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Have you ever taken a history course? Ever read any SCHOLARLY publications? Just because you believe something does not make it true. You have yet to bring A SINGLE FUCKING FACT into this discussion, nor have you adequately address any of my points, you ignorant moron. For the record, history is one of the two subjects majoring it at university. You do know what a university is, right? They're those big, shiny buildings you probably stumble past on the way to collect your social security check.
But you're a "boxing trainer" right? So we should bow before the altar of your vast and superior knowledge. :rolleyes:
Don't bother to reply unless you are actually going to respond to one of the many points I have already made, no one needs to have any more of their time wasted by going through another of your old man rants. I'm not even going to address how laughable it is that you chose to quote a song lyrics about someone possessing a strong mind, just because you say it is so does not make it true. I mean, fuck, you check the news wires, that'll provide you with much more knowledge than an actual education.
I feel like I am arguing about the best investment strategies with a homeless person. Remember Monkey, try to respond with documented FACTS, not nonsensical ramblings.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

And why do you guys allways,ALLWAYS go right for Michael Moore when your losing an argument?
I dont care what Michael Moore says about much of anything except for his book drive for our troops overseas
Though I did finally see Sicko a little bit ago,he actually understates his case,sorry the wife worked for a major insurance provider,he actually makes it sound not nearly so bad as it actually is.
Sonny boy,Ive lived through Nixon,Ford,Carter,Reagan,two Bush's and Clinton
If it wasnt for Bush Jr,Reagan would stand out as the worst President,and the biggest back stabbing liar,and total incompetent we've had in the second half of the twentieth century
Bush Jr is kinda hard to beat though
He's special,and by special I of course really mean retarded
Every body who disagrees with you HAS to be a Michael Moore fan,who listens to Air America(is that even still on the air?)
Sorry sahib,life doesnt work that way,not everybody fits in to the box you want them to.
I want political news,I dont kick on Rush Limbloat,or Rhandi Rhodes(if I wanted to be yelled at by a woman with an annoying voice Id call my mother in law up),I check the news wires
To quote an old 3rd Base song,"Ive got a strong mind,it doesnt need to be spoonfed,and I can read it doesnt have to be read"

---

Who are "you guys"? Last time I checked its only me arguing with you. And don't suppose I'm some right-wing pseudo-republican, because I'm not; I live in a socialist country, and I'm about as left-wing as one can get on SOME issues. I guess if by "you guys", you mean us folk who base our opinions on facts and knowledge, then I suppose it's fair.
By the way, it's you're, not your, and always has one L. Genius.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

The fact that the U.S. was able to build a pipeline to Alaska and was further able to expand it only supports my point that because of proper funding and an established, well maintained infrastructure the US was able to exploit its natural resources, even if they were far away from its population centers. This is something the USSR was not able to do, because all their money went to their military, thanks to the actions of the Reagan administration. I don't know how many times I have made this point already, but you haven't addressed it yet.
I don't know if your punchy, senile, or just plain stupid, you come across as all three, but you still have not addressed any of the points I have brought up in regards to the USSR. First they collapsed because their people wanted freedom, then it was corruption, right dumbass?
In regards to Michael Moore, he is a documentary filmmaker, a very successful one, but he is a pristine example of how biased and just plain wrong filmmakers can be. Not once did I say you were a Michael Moore fan, however he is a completely valid example since you were the one who brought up the views of another documentary filmmaker. Again, a person whose views do not mean jack shit in this discussion. I'm sure an esteemed social historian like yourself would be aware of the close relationship between punk rock and reggae as well, so I don't think I need to address that point. I don't know much about Don Letts, but his OPINION is completely irrelevant to this discussion.
Have you ever taken a history course? Ever read any SCHOLARLY publications? Just because you believe something does not make it true. You have yet to bring A SINGLE FUCKING FACT into this discussion, nor have you adequately address any of my points, you ignorant moron. For the record, history is one of the two subjects majoring it at university. You do know what a university is, right? They're those big, shiny buildings you probably stumble past on the way to collect your social security check.
But you're a "boxing trainer" right? So we should bow before the altar of your vast and superior knowledge. :rolleyes:
Don't bother to reply unless you are actually going to respond to one of the many points I have already made, no one needs to have any more of their time wasted by going through another of your old man rants. I'm not even going to address how laughable it is that you chose to quote a song lyrics about someone possessing a strong mind, just because you say it is so does not make it true. I mean, fuck, you check the news wires, that'll provide you with much more knowledge than an actual education.
I feel like I am arguing about the best investment strategies with a homeless person. Remember Monkey, try to respond with documented FACTS, not nonsensical ramblings.

---

We had the capital to build said pipeline
They didnt
We had vast coal and iron and natural gas resources to tap in to
They didnt,unless you count their vast turnip resources
You get more shrill with every post,in other words you havent made a study of history,and you "know things"and Im ripping every single one of them down for you
Keep going please,this is fun
BTW,look it up,I havent said a thing that wasnt factual,actually you probably have,and thats whats making you so pissed off

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

We had the capital to build said pipeline
They didnt
We had vast coal and iron and natural gas resources to tap in to
They didnt,unless you count their vast turnip resources
You get more shrill with every post,in other words you havent made a study of history,and you "know things"and Im ripping every single one of them down for you
Keep going please,this is fun
BTW,look it up,I havent said a thing that wasnt factual,actually you probably have,and thats whats making you so pissed off

---

The bolded part only proves what I have been saying all along. The USSR had VAST amounts of natural resources, much more than turnups, some of it was in far away locations, but they could have accessed it, like the US in Alaska, with the proper infrastructure. Again, you haven't addressed a single point I have brought up, what exactly have you "ripped down"??????
The 8.0 GPA I have would suggest that I have, in fact, done a pretty damn good job of studying history, but I suppose YOU'RE a much better judge of historical knowledge than a professor with a PHD, right fuckwit? The only thing that is pissing me off is your stupidity and ignorance, I honestly cannot believe that people like yourself are allowed to vote. You should have to take a goddamn test. You've yet to prove a damn things, and again, you have brought zero facts into this discussion. You have not brought up any historically relevant information, you jump from point to point like a schizophrenic with ADD. I'm still waiting for you to address the issues I brought up PAGES ago.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

The bolded part only proves what I have been saying all along. The USSR had VAST amounts of natural resources, much more than turnups, some of it was in far away locations, but they could have accessed it, like the US in Alaska, with the proper infrastructure. Again, you haven't addressed a single point I have brought up, what exactly have you "ripped down"??????
The 8.0 GPA I have would suggest that I have, in fact, done a pretty damn good job of studying history, but I suppose YOU'RE a much better judge of historical knowledge than a professor with a PHD, right fuckwit? The only thing that is pissing me off is your stupidity and ignorance, I honestly cannot believe that people like yourself are allowed to vote. You should have to take a goddamn test. You've yet to prove a damn things, and again, you have brought zero facts into this discussion. You have not brought up any historically relevant information, you jump from point to point like a schizophrenic with ADD. I'm still waiting for you to address the issues I brought up PAGES ago.

---

Name one,I mean other then a massive Natural Gas field they couldnt get to,name a single natural resource they had?
They didnt even have enough usuable land that they weren hurt by Carters Grain embargo
No Oil,no Iron,no truly fertile land,no nothing
Not even a truly homogenous people after the Mongols tore north and then West
The Chinese do okay because they have iron and coal,and cheap labor

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Name one

---

One issue you have not adequately addressed? I can name several.
First, you bumbling fucking moron, you claimed that the desire for "western freedoms" led to the collapse of the USSR, which is erroneous.
After I disproved that, you said it was a desire for western products. Wrong again.
Then, you said that it was corruption which brought down the USSR.
You have not addressed that, nor have you ever given any reasons for why what you have claimed is true.
Nor have you addressed any of the points and counter-points I have brought up against you.
Here's a direct quote, from a book written by 2 PHD's, "The collapse of communism in Eastern Europe and even in the Soviet homeland might have been aniticipated... The dominant trends of the 20th century all pointed towards such an eventual collapse. Growing global interdependence meant that the Soviet bloc economies could not be kept isolated. As Stalinist-style economics failed, communism's worn out slogans could no longer rationalize mass mobilization..."
Yeltsin himself said that Russia needed, "economic shock therapy".
Like I have said over and over again, economics was the principle reason for the collapse of the USSR. I know there were some pretty big words in that quote, so I'm pretty sure you still won't understand what the fuck this is all about.
I've got to go out now, but I'll gladly continue to educate your simpleton ass later tonight.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

It was a calculated program of sustained military expansion that the U.S government knew the U.S.S.R. had no choice but to attempt to keep up with, while knowing that the economic situation of the U.S.S.R. would not allow for it.
The Russian's desire for "western freedoms", while no doubt playing a minor role, could not have toppled the Soviet Union. There was absolutely no history of democracy in Russia, and many would argue that there isn't democracy in Russia now.

---

When Reagan started to build up military spending the USSR carried on its merry way. By the time Gorbachov came to power the US was running huge deficits partly as a result of military spending and was actually in a worse position than it had been in 1980. Gorbachov could easily have kept on with the cold war but was the head of a new breed of Soviet leaders who wanted to spend their economic resources contructively. What really got the Soviets to change their mind was the Saudis flooding the world market with oil, bankrupting the Soviets. Capitalism won the cold war, not Reagan. Here's the very capitalist AEI to explain it :

The timeline of the collapse of the Soviet Union can be traced to September 13, 1985. On this date, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the minister of oil of Saudi Arabia, declared that the monarchy had decided to alter its oil policy radically. The Saudis stopped protecting oil prices, and Saudi Arabia quickly regained its share in the world market. During the next six months, oil production in Saudi Arabia increased fourfold, while oil prices collapsed by approximately the same amount in real terms.
As a result, the Soviet Union lost approximately $20 billion per year, money without which the country simply could not survive.
[The Soviet leadership was then faced with three options: start charging hard currency for oil exports, reduce food imports, or cut back military spending. None of them were seriously considered.]
Unable to realize any of the above solutions, the Soviet leadership...started to borrow money from abroad while its international credit rating was still strong. It borrowed heavily from 1985 to 1988, but in 1989 the Soviet economy stalled completely....The Soviet Union then received a final warning from the Deutsche Bank and from its international partners that the funds would never come from commercial sources. Instead, if the Soviet Union urgently needed the money, it would have to start negotiations directly with Western governments about so-called politically motivated credits.
....When the situation in the Soviet Union is examined from financial and hard currency perspectives, Gorbachev's policies at the time are much easier to comprehend (see figure 6). Government-to-government loans were bound to come with a number of rigid conditions. For instance, if the Soviet military crushed Solidarity Party demonstrations in Warsaw, the Soviet Union would not have received the desperately needed $100 billion from the West.
The only option left for the Soviet elites was to begin immediate negotiations about the conditions of surrender. Gorbachev did not have to inform President George H. W. Bush at the Malta Summit in 1989 that the threat of force to support the communist regimes in Eastern Europe would not be employed. This was already evident at the time. Six weeks after the talks, no communist regime in Eastern Europe remained.

AEI - Short Publications

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey

Name one,I mean other then a massive Natural Gas field they couldnt get to,name a single natural resource they had?
They didnt even have enough usuable land that they weren hurt by Carters Grain embargo
No Oil,no Iron,no truly fertile land,no nothing
Not even a truly homogenous people after the Mongols tore north and then West
The Chinese do okay because they have iron and coal,and cheap labor

---

Ever heard of the Ural mountains? There is plenty of resources in the Urals: coal, iron, nickel, silver, gold, platinium, chromite, zircon, topaz, need I go on? Plenty of Russia is "fertile land", how else would they have been able to support a feudal-style peasant ecomonic and social system until 1917 if there was no fertile land?
You're making yourself look like a fool.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CFH

Ever heard of the Ural mountains? There is plenty of resources in the Urals: coal, iron, nickel, silver, gold, platinium, chromite, zircon, topaz, need I go on? Plenty of Russia is "fertile land", how else would they have been able to support a feudal-style peasant ecomonic and social system until 1917 if there was no fertile land?
You're making yourself look like a fool.

---

Actually you are,there wasnt plenty
The whole thing was too stretched out to be supported,just like is happening to us right now
Empire is impossable to sustain
No most of the USSR isnt fertile land,again explain the grain embargo otherwise
Go on this should be funny
And when Im done letting you dangle on the line,Ill take a picture of some of those history books I didnt read,they shouldnt be hard to find,theyre over in my library
And theyre all very well thumbed through
Hint,hint,not only did I live through the period your trying to redefine,Im an avid fan of studying history
"Those who do not learn from the mistakes of the past,are condemned to repeat them"-George Santyana
Wanna see my leather bound copy of "The Genteel Tradition At Bay"?
Never assume sahib

Heres some of the History Books I dont own
http://i76.photobucket.com/albums/j1.../HPIM03803.jpg
Lets see,there isnt The History Of The Goths
Mother Jones The Most Dangerous Woman In America certainly isnt there
The 1925 Geological Survey of Mercer Monroe And Sumner Counties is definitly a figment of the cameras imagination
Want me to dig up some quotes randomly from my non-existant copy of Rosseau's "Discourse On Inequality"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kirkland Laing

When Reagan started to build up military spending the USSR carried on its merry way. By the time Gorbachov came to power the US was running huge deficits partly as a result of military spending and was actually in a worse position than it had been in 1980. Gorbachov could easily have kept on with the cold war but was the head of a new breed of Soviet leaders who wanted to spend their economic resources contructively. What really got the Soviets to change their mind was the Saudis flooding the world market with oil, bankrupting the Soviets. Capitalism won the cold war, not Reagan. Here's the very capitalist AEI to explain it :

The timeline of the collapse of the Soviet Union can be traced to September 13, 1985. On this date, Sheikh Ahmed Zaki Yamani, the minister of oil of Saudi Arabia, declared that the monarchy had decided to alter its oil policy radically. The Saudis stopped protecting oil prices, and Saudi Arabia quickly regained its share in the world market. During the next six months, oil production in Saudi Arabia increased fourfold, while oil prices collapsed by approximately the same amount in real terms.

As a result, the Soviet Union lost approximately $20 billion per year, money without which the country simply could not survive.

[The Soviet leadership was then faced with three options: start charging hard currency for oil exports, reduce food imports, or cut back military spending. None of them were seriously considered.]

Unable to realize any of the above solutions, the Soviet leadership...started to borrow money from abroad while its international credit rating was still strong. It borrowed heavily from 1985 to 1988, but in 1989 the Soviet economy stalled completely....The Soviet Union then received a final warning from the Deutsche Bank and from its international partners that the funds would never come from commercial sources. Instead, if the Soviet Union urgently needed the money, it would have to start negotiations directly with Western governments about so-called politically motivated credits.

....When the situation in the Soviet Union is examined from financial and hard currency perspectives, Gorbachev's policies at the time are much easier to comprehend (see figure 6). Government-to-government loans were bound to come with a number of rigid conditions. For instance, if the Soviet military crushed Solidarity Party demonstrations in Warsaw, the Soviet Union would not have received the desperately needed $100 billion from the West.

The only option left for the Soviet elites was to begin immediate negotiations about the conditions of surrender. Gorbachev did not have to inform President George H. W. Bush at the Malta Summit in 1989 that the threat of force to support the communist regimes in Eastern Europe would not be employed. This was already evident at the time. Six weeks after the talks, no communist regime in Eastern Europe remained.

AEI - Short Publications

---

...the histories as told by Krikland...."America has never done any good for anybody.....oh but I would love to go back there and spread my ideas of a European style socialism and maybe then we could live in peace" :beat:

The Ukraine supplied the majority of the gain to the USSR and socialism/communism failed because it's theoretically flawed to begin with. If you get the people dependent on government then the government has control of the people and not the other way around and the Kremlin controlled the masses by man made famines and bread lines and a basic control of the lives of the people....the people got tired of the games and they became an unproductive nation while they were still trying to keep up with the US and they went belly up....Gorbi wasn't a great democratic leader he was forced to make the decisions he made, so that he didn't #1 Start WW3 and #2 Get sacked by the masses.

Russia has plenty of resources as well it's one of the reasons Japan attacked Manchuria in WWII. As Japan is a nation which lacks natural resources and Manchuria produces a lot of steel

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lyle

...the histories as told by Krikland...."America has never done any good for anybody.....oh but I would love to go back there and spread my ideas of a European style socialism and maybe then we could live in peace" :beat:

The Ukraine supplied the majority of the gain to the USSR and socialism/communism failed because it's theoretically flawed to begin with. If you get the people dependent on government then the government has control of the people and not the other way around and the Kremlin controlled the masses by man made famines and bread lines and a basic control of the lives of the people....the people got tired of the games and they became an unproductive nation while they were still trying to keep up with the US and they went belly up....Gorbi wasn't a great democratic leader he was forced to make the decisions he made, so that he didn't #1 Start WW3 and #2 Get sacked by the masses.

Russia has plenty of resources as well it's one of the reasons Japan attacked Manchuria in WWII. As Japan is a nation which lacks natural resources and Manchuria produces a lot of steel

---

No, history told by Yeltsin's prime minister and internationally respected Russian economist Yegor Gaidar.