Ronald Wilson Reagan=Scumball

[Trainer Monkey]

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.
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

[CFH]

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.

[Trainer Monkey]

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

[CFH]

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.

[Kirkland Laing]

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

[CFH]

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.

[Trainer Monkey]

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

[Trainer Monkey]

Heres some of the History Books I dont own

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"?

[El Kabong]

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"

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

[Kirkland Laing]

...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"

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.

[El Kabong]

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

The free market whipped their asses is what happened and it's bound to change China as well

[Kirkland Laing]

The free market whipped their asses is what happened and it's bound to change China as well

So you finally concede and agree with me. Well done.

China is already free market.

[Trainer Monkey]

The free market whipped their asses is what happened and it's bound to change China as well

There ya go Lyle
It wasnt the great and maighty RAY-GUN
It was the great and mighty EL-TON

[CFH]

Heres some of the History Books I dont own

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"?

Wow, seven books, none of which are related to the subject at hand. Seriously though, why don't we just drop this, there's no sense in continuing. Neither of us is going to convince the other of anything. I was just having some fun with you and got a bit carried away.

[Trainer Monkey]

Wow, seven books, none of which are related to the subject at hand. Seriously though, why don't we just drop this, there's no sense in continuing. Neither of us is going to convince the other of anything. I was just having some fun with you and got a bit carried away.

Awwww cmon,I could have tossed up Laughing Through The Eighties,or Bushisms(the elder not the younger)or Jim Hightower,or Molly Ivins,or The Devils Horsemen,and yes I think "The History Of Western Civilization" is indeed relevant,but I only had so much chair to work with,and so much camera range to work with,I totally missed the title of that one with the camera angle.
Care to see my collection of Russian literature,Im betting it beats 7 kinds of hell out of yours.
He swings,he misses again
You made alot of assumptions,and now you have to deal with the ass part
And yes Dissenter In A Great Society is totally relevant to the discussion
Actually now that I think about it so is the Geological survey,it shows our vastly superior wealth,oddly enough,that isnt a book,of course you wouldnt know that,its a collection of geological maps that give an overlay of the composition of the area