Ronald Wilson Reagan=Scumball

[CFH]

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

In general, I despise Russian literature, so I don't own any of it, my girlfriend loves it and I have not been able to enjoy to books she has lent me.
Just because you own some books (I didn't seriously doubt your ability to read, just your ability to think) doesn't mean you aren't an idiot.

[Trainer Monkey]

In general, I despise Russian literature, so I don't own any of it, my girlfriend loves it and I have not been able to enjoy to books she has lent me.
Just because you own some books (I didn't seriously doubt your ability to read, just your ability to think) doesn't mean you aren't an idiot.

And just because you have the ability to pass a course doesnt mean you arent an idiot either
Rote recitation,does not make up for life experience,Parrots will eventually repeat after you as well,if you take the time
And with russian literature,its usually the translation,not the author.

[Trainer Monkey]

Face it,the desire for Western goods,combined with the crumbling of the Iron Curtain goverments in the form of Tito dying,and the Solidarnosc(Solidarity) movement had more to do with the Soviet Union going under then the Comanche(doesnt work,tends to crash)Helicopter system,or the SDI(also doesnt work)system.
Saying bankrupting America,creating weapon systems that in point of fact didnt work,is what brought down the Soviet empire,is a lack of historical knowledge
Not to mention,the ground work for perestroika was laid under Brezhnev,when the Soviets started partnering with Western Buisnesses

[CFH]

Face it,the desire for Western goods,combined with the crumbling of the Iron Curtain goverments in the form of Tito dying,and the Solidarnosc(Solidarity) movement had more to do with the Soviet Union going under then the Comanche(doesnt work,tends to crash)Helicopter system,or the SDI(also doesnt work)system.
Saying bankrupting America,creating weapon systems that in point of fact didnt work,is what brought down the Soviet empire,is a lack of historical knowledge
Not to mention,the ground work for perestroika was laid under Brezhnev,when the Soviets started partnering with Western Buisnesses

I said that the collapse of the USSR was economic in nature and that the policies of the Reagan administration (I focused on the military policies) played an important role in that collapse. The role of the military expansion of the US was not the sole reason for this, but I assert that it played an important role in the broader economic situation. I also understand that this is a contentious issue, obviously. I may have focused too much on the military aspect in an attempt to take an antagonistic position towards your argument, I will admit that much.
I also, correctly, claim that the USSR, a nation that stretched from Europe to the Pacific Ocean, was rich in natural resources and that the problem in regards to those resources lay in the ability of the Soviets to extract them, due in large part to a crumbling economy (the USSR, at one point in the 80s, was spending 10% of its GDP on military expenditures because of its polarized relationship with the United States) and the depletion of easily accessable resources located near population centers, not the prevailence of those resources. Environment degradation also played a big role.
I will agree that Solidarity played a role in the downfall of the USSR, L. Walesa (sp) was definately an important figure, there is no doubt about that. This is the first time you have mentioned solidarity or the swiftly crumbling puppet-regimes in E. Europe, and the role they played I do not dispute. The desire for western products/freedoms/whatever term you wish to use also played a role, but it was far, far less important than the economic situation. Even with the collapse of those satalites, Russia itself could have continued as a communist/totalitarian state had it been economically viable.
You also have no idea about the type of life experience I have had, I'd wager that in 20 odd years I have experienced as many important moments, some good, many bad, than those twice my age, perhaps including yourself; I can list some of it if you like. However, that is all conjecture because neither one of us knows a goddamn thing about the other except the sides of ourselves we have chosen to show on a boxing message board. Sides that could clearly be fabricated for all either one of us knows.
Maybe like you say the translation of the Russian works is what has turned me off of it, I don't know, I only know that in the very limited amount I have read, I did not find it enjoyable. Most of what I read these days that isn't a text book is historical in nature and very rarely do I read fiction, which oddly, is all I used to read.

[Trainer Monkey]

I said that the collapse of the USSR was economic in nature and that the policies of the Reagan administration (I focused on the military policies) played an important role in that collapse. The role of the military expansion of the US was not the sole reason for this, but I assert that it played an important role in the broader economic situation. I also understand that this is a contentious issue, obviously. I may have focused too much on the military aspect in an attempt to take an antagonistic position towards your argument, I will admit that much.
I also, correctly, claim that the USSR, a nation that stretched from Europe to the Pacific Ocean, was rich in natural resources and that the problem in regards to those resources lay in the ability of the Soviets to extract them, due in large part to a crumbling economy (the USSR, at one point in the 80s, was spending 10% of its GDP on military expenditures because of its polarized relationship with the United States) and the depletion of easily accessable resources located near population centers, not the prevailence of those resources. Environment degradation also played a big role.
I will agree that Solidarity played a role in the downfall of the USSR, L. Walesa (sp) was definately an important figure, there is no doubt about that. This is the first time you have mentioned solidarity or the swiftly crumbling puppet-regimes in E. Europe, and the role they played I do not dispute. The desire for western products/freedoms/whatever term you wish to use also played a role, but it was far, far less important than the economic situation. Even with the collapse of those satalites, Russia itself could have continued as a communist/totalitarian state had it been economically viable.
You also have no idea about the type of life experience I have had, I'd wager that in 20 odd years I have experienced as many important moments, some good, many bad, than those twice my age, perhaps including yourself; I can list some of it if you like. However, that is all conjecture because neither one of us knows a goddamn thing about the other except the sides of ourselves we have chosen to show on a boxing message board. Sides that could clearly be fabricated for all either one of us knows.
Maybe like you say the translation of the Russian works is what has turned me off of it, I don't know, I only know that in the very limited amount I have read, I did not find it enjoyable. Most of what I read these days that isn't a text book is historical in nature and very rarely do I read fiction, which oddly, is all I used to read.

Ok that was at least until the last paragraph a cogent argument
Now to rebut,not only was Russia losing its reliable allies,within the Iron Curtain
It had also grossly overspent on its little Afghanistan adventure,oddly enough it cost them more to get at those Natural Gas reserves then a pipeline to its own would have cost,but leaders of every country can get ridiculously pig headed.
This prompted the US to create the grain embargo,which also hit the USSR hard(this started under Carter btw)
Sorry,all of Reagans major initiatives failed
The major weapons systems he approved(Comanche,SDI)
His tax breaks(he had to pull them after a major recession)
His foreign policy initiatives(Last I checked Daniel Ortega got voted back in,were embroiled in Iraq,and the Iranians still hate us,oh yeah,the very guys we trained in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets,blew up the twin towers on 9/11)
100% snafu
The whole 8 years was a train wreck with a happy smiling conductor

[CFH]

Ok that was at least until the last paragraph a cogent argument
Now to rebut,not only was Russia losing its reliable allies,within the Iron Curtain
It had also grossly overspent on its little Afghanistan adventure,oddly enough it cost them more to get at those Natural Gas reserves then a pipeline to its own would have cost,but leaders of every country can get ridiculously pig headed.
This prompted the US to create the grain embargo,which also hit the USSR hard(this started under Carter btw)
Sorry,all of Reagans major initiatives failed
The major weapons systems he approved(Comanche,SDI)
His tax breaks(he had to pull them after a major recession)
His foreign policy initiatives(Last I checked Daniel Ortega got voted back in,were embroiled in Iraq,and the Iranians still hate us,oh yeah,the very guys we trained in Afghanistan to fight the Soviets,blew up the twin towers on 9/11)
100% snafu
The whole 8 years was a train wreck with a happy smiling conductor

I don't think I'm arguing any of the points you brought up in your rebuttal. I've said nothing about Reagan's tax breaks, and frankly I don't think he was an exceptional president, however, I do not think he was a "scumball" as you put it, certainly not any more so than the average individual in his position. You want to see some scumballs, look at the overtly racist policies of some of the earlier US Presidents, a bit off topic, I know. I don't find many of Reagans actions early in his political career particularily egregious when compared to the actions of many other world leaders, nearly everyone slits some throats on the way to the top. I agreed earlier that Reagan's policies in S. America were mildly retarded at best. I never said the military iniatives were successful in their stated purposes (Star Wars etc.), only that they put pressure on the USSR's military/economy and contributed to its downfall. I do not support the actions of Reagan in regards to pushing the world closer to nuclear war either. Nor did I debate the debacle that was Afghanistan, Canada (where I live) has troops fighting and dying there now because of the actions of the U.S. in the 80s.
If you examine the relationship between the Shah of Iran and the U.S., they have every right to hate you, without even bringing the unblinking support of Israel into the picture. Imperialism is a bitch.

[Trainer Monkey]

I don't think I'm arguing any of the points you brought up in your rebuttal. I've said nothing about Reagan's tax breaks, and frankly I don't think he was an exceptional president, however, I do not think he was a "scumball" as you put it, certainly not any more so than the average individual in his position. You want to see some scumballs, look at the overtly racist policies of some of the earlier US Presidents, a bit off topic, I know. I don't find many of Reagans actions early in his political career particularily egregious when compared to the actions of many other world leaders, nearly everyone slits some throats on the way to the top. I agreed earlier that Reagan's policies in S. America were mildly retarded at best. I never said the military iniatives were successful in their stated purposes (Star Wars etc.), only that they put pressure on the USSR's military/economy and contributed to its downfall. I do not support the actions of Reagan in regards to pushing the world closer to nuclear war either. Nor did I debate the debacle that was Afghanistan, Canada (where I live) has troops fighting and dying there now because of the actions of the U.S. in the 80s.
If you examine the relationship between the Shah of Iran and the U.S., they have every right to hate you, without even bringing the unblinking support of Israel into the picture. Imperialism is a bitch.

If you go back and start with the original point,I was pointing out his life story long before he became President
And there wasnt a back he didnt slap,that didnt end up with a knife in it

[Trainer Monkey]

I said that the collapse of the USSR was economic in nature and that the policies of the Reagan administration (I focused on the military policies) played an important role in that collapse. The role of the military expansion of the US was not the sole reason for this, but I assert that it played an important role in the broader economic situation. I also understand that this is a contentious issue, obviously. I may have focused too much on the military aspect in an attempt to take an antagonistic position towards your argument, I will admit that much.
I also, correctly, claim that the USSR, a nation that stretched from Europe to the Pacific Ocean, was rich in natural resources and that the problem in regards to those resources lay in the ability of the Soviets to extract them, due in large part to a crumbling economy (the USSR, at one point in the 80s, was spending 10% of its GDP on military expenditures because of its polarized relationship with the United States) and the depletion of easily accessable resources located near population centers, not the prevailence of those resources. Environment degradation also played a big role.
I will agree that Solidarity played a role in the downfall of the USSR, L. Walesa (sp) was definately an important figure, there is no doubt about that. This is the first time you have mentioned solidarity or the swiftly crumbling puppet-regimes in E. Europe, and the role they played I do not dispute. The desire for western products/freedoms/whatever term you wish to use also played a role, but it was far, far less important than the economic situation. Even with the collapse of those satalites, Russia itself could have continued as a communist/totalitarian state had it been economically viable.
You also have no idea about the type of life experience I have had, I'd wager that in 20 odd years I have experienced as many important moments, some good, many bad, than those twice my age, perhaps including yourself; I can list some of it if you like. However, that is all conjecture because neither one of us knows a goddamn thing about the other except the sides of ourselves we have chosen to show on a boxing message board. Sides that could clearly be fabricated for all either one of us knows.
Maybe like you say the translation of the Russian works is what has turned me off of it, I don't know, I only know that in the very limited amount I have read, I did not find it enjoyable. Most of what I read these days that isn't a text book is historical in nature and very rarely do I read fiction, which oddly, is all I used to read.

Translations are very important btw
Dosteyevsky translated right give you a feel of the populace while at the same time giving you an incredible story.
Translated wrong,I wouldnt blame you for your attitude,it comes across so dry you start looking on your arms for dust
Translation is SO key,I mean not a little key,ooph key
Ive forced myself through bad translations,not just him,but Tolstoy and Chekov as well
Uggggg
Nietzche if he isnt translated well,will give you a headache
Same with Camus
Most of Sartre's philospohy will give you a headache regardless,its funny,the guy is known for his philosphy,but it comes across twice as well in his plays then it does in his actual philisophical writings