• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

'Death to Obama' sign holder in Md. detained

Moderator's Warning:
Let's get this thread back on topic, shall we? We've had more than enough childish insults for one day.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
No, I am the fit, trim and rich guy who rolls people like cigarettes. do keep up... ';)






Simple. he set the wheels in motion. His later days alzhiemerz is irrellevant. He GM'd the soviets like the unions. ;)


A little to high brow for you? :cool:
Click to expand...

But your original quote was he ended the cold war. Meaning it ended when he was in office. It did not. So now you're saying he set the wheels in motion. How is that exactly? From the way it looks the Cold War ended in spite of Reagan not because of him.

As I stated originally the CIA knew back in the Ford Administration that the Rooskies were on the collapsing under their own weight. It was Cheney and Rummy who marginalized the administration during the "halloween massacre". George H. W. was installed at the CIA. From then Team B was formed to run counter-intelligence against the CIA. Team B was claiming that the russians had secret weapons even though we couldn't find them they must have been there. Sound familiar? They ginned up the fear. Which then continued when the republicans got back in office. The russians were overexerted from their previous revolution, internal conflicts, overstretched borders. This is all pretty much history you know
 
Back to the sign holder and the increased problems occuring at the town halls.
 
PogueMoran said:
Back to the sign holder and the increased problems occuring at the town halls.
Click to expand...




Can you show a statistical increase in "problems" at these town hall meetings and can you define "problems", so we can all start from the same basepoint?


Thanks
 
PogueMoran said:
But your original quote was he ended the cold war. Meaning it ended when he was in office. It did not. So now you're saying he set the wheels in motion. How is that exactly? From the way it looks the Cold War ended in spite of Reagan not because of him.

As I stated originally the CIA knew back in the Ford Administration that the Rooskies were on the collapsing under their own weight. It was Cheney and Rummy who marginalized the administration during the "halloween massacre". George H. W. was installed at the CIA. From then Team B was formed to run counter-intelligence against the CIA. Team B was claiming that the russians had secret weapons even though we couldn't find them they must have been there. Sound familiar? They ginned up the fear. Which then continued when the republicans got back in office. The russians were overexerted from their previous revolution, internal conflicts, overstretched borders. This is all pretty much history you know
Click to expand...





I'll take "what is a death blow, for $500 Jack"...... :lol:
 
PogueMoran said:
Yeah because having one's butt kicked would actually mean the other person actually made a point not a personal attack. He attacked the moment I said the cold war ended in 91 after Reagan was out of office. So Erod where was the willie horton ad against Bush?
Click to expand...

Whether the Soviet Union collapsed in 91 or 87 is meaningless, as the events transpiring in the Soviet Union had little to do with the West. This was a slow progression that began the final slide under Brezhnev in the mid 1970s when the Politburo began to slowly recognize the endemic corruption throughout the entire system, especially in agriculture.

As always in a state such as these totalitarian it is the secret police who have the most accurate knowledge of the conditions of the state. Even the highest ranking of CP members were not ever told true economic data and the conditions of corruption and productivity. The KGB on the other hand were aware. In 1982 the Politburo recognized this, although they did not know specifically or exactly what was wrong, but they were aware serious problems existed. Hence Yuri Andropov's selection, he who previously held the Director of the KGB post would be most aware of the current state of the Union. Upon his death, his chosen successor was to be Mikhael Gorbachev, but instead reactionary forces selected Chernenko. This was the first sign of a growing rift within the Soviet Union between factions that would ultimately tear apart the Soviet Union. Upon Chernenko's death the reform minded CP members were able to act upon Andropov's wishes and selected Gorbachev, while also elevating a number of younger reform minded party members. It is most often misunderstood that the two factions that struggled during this time right up until August 1991 were simply in disagreement on how to save the Soviet Union, there never was any real attempt at changing the Soviet model, only enhancement and reform. But Gorbachev's reforms were not only not successful, they brought into more light the systematic problems with the system that were born with Stalin.

Starting back in the early 1970s in Poland, there was the same forces that saw that the system itself needed reforming, so there was a opening in control that we in the West would see as pro-democracy or pro-freedom movements. This was not the intention per se of the reformers, they merely wanted to end the systematic corruption and low productivity in the economy. The classic example of this opening was shown to Polish viewers, and people around the world the movie Man of Marble. The significance of this movie was it not only showed to Polish viewers aspects of the system they where previously not allowed to see, but an acknowledgment of the continuing cycle of openness and repression that occurred throughout all of Eastern Europe since 1945. It is interesting to note that in this film, the journey of the protagonist ends in a certain Gdansk shipyards, otherwise known as the Lenin Shipyards, to be made famous years later by the Solidarity movement. Essentially we see in this film, made in 1976, the roots of the Solidarity movement 5 years before it took shape. The very fact this film was not only made, but also released was quite significant. It should be understood in the context of history that this occured at a time when the CP of Poland sought the best model to release them from systematic ills was to open up society more, to which the cycle was to soon close again in 1981. Most in the West saw Poland in 1981 as a dramatic and strange occurrence that sprung from nowhere, without understanding these where trends throughout all of the Eastern bloc since 1945.

So in essence, whether Ronald Reagan was in office or not, made very little difference at all. The Soviet Union cared little about Ronald Reagan, as he had truly very little impact at all with the growing problems within the Soviet Union. The argument that ultimately is used, that Reagan outspent the Soviets, is rather moot to say the least. The infection that ultimately caved the system began in the early 1970s, some argue as far back as Khrushchev. Whether the Soviet Union had to spend more or less on tanks had no bearing what so ever as it still would not have addressed the issue anyways whether the Soviets could move from Heavy to Light industry, and the most important of all whether they could reform the agriculture industry that was yearly loosing production. It also would have had no effect on the systematic corruption that under Brezhnev was allowed to flourish (his own son in-law was involved in one of the most famous corruption scandals).

So people can claim as much as they want that "Reagan won the cold war", unfortunately reality says differently.
 
sam_w said:
Whether the Soviet Union collapsed in 91 or 87 is meaningless, as the events transpiring in the Soviet Union had little to do with the West. This was a slow progression that began the final slide under Brezhnev in the mid 1970s when the Politburo began to slowly recognize the endemic corruption throughout the entire system, especially in agriculture.

As always in a state such as these totalitarian it is the secret police who have the most accurate knowledge of the conditions of the state. Even the highest ranking of CP members were not ever told true economic data and the conditions of corruption and productivity. The KGB on the other hand were aware. In 1982 the Politburo recognized this, although they did not know specifically or exactly what was wrong, but they were aware serious problems existed. Hence Yuri Andropov's selection, he who previously held the Director of the KGB post would be most aware of the current state of the Union. Upon his death, his chosen successor was to be Mikhael Gorbachev, but instead reactionary forces selected Chernenko. This was the first sign of a growing rift within the Soviet Union between factions that would ultimately tear apart the Soviet Union. Upon Chernenko's death the reform minded CP members were able to act upon Andropov's wishes and selected Gorbachev, while also elevating a number of younger reform minded party members. It is most often misunderstood that the two factions that struggled during this time right up until August 1991 were simply in disagreement on how to save the Soviet Union, there never was any real attempt at changing the Soviet model, only enhancement and reform. But Gorbachev's reforms were not only not successful, they brought into more light the systematic problems with the system that were born with Stalin.

Starting back in the early 1970s in Poland, there was the same forces that saw that the system itself needed reforming, so there was a opening in control that we in the West would see as pro-democracy or pro-freedom movements. This was not the intention per se of the reformers, they merely wanted to end the systematic corruption and low productivity in the economy. The classic example of this opening was shown to Polish viewers, and people around the world the movie Man of Marble. The significance of this movie was it not only showed to Polish viewers aspects of the system they where previously not allowed to see, but an acknowledgment of the continuing cycle of openness and repression that occurred throughout all of Eastern Europe since 1945. It is interesting to note that in this film, the journey of the protagonist ends in a certain Gdansk shipyards, otherwise known as the Lenin Shipyards, to be made famous years later by the Solidarity movement. Essentially we see in this film, made in 1976, the roots of the Solidarity movement 5 years before it took shape. The very fact this film was not only made, but also released was quite significant. It should be understood in the context of history that this occured at a time when the CP of Poland sought the best model to release them from systematic ills was to open up society more, to which the cycle was to soon close again in 1981. Most in the West saw Poland in 1981 as a dramatic and strange occurrence that sprung from nowhere, without understanding these where trends throughout all of the Eastern bloc since 1945.

So in essence, whether Ronald Reagan was in office or not, made very little difference at all. The Soviet Union cared little about Ronald Reagan, as he had truly very little impact at all with the growing problems within the Soviet Union. The argument that ultimately is used, that Reagan outspent the Soviets, is rather moot to say the least. The infection that ultimately caved the system began in the early 1970s, some argue as far back as Khrushchev. Whether the Soviet Union had to spend more or less on tanks had no bearing what so ever as it still would not have addressed the issue anyways whether the Soviets could move from Heavy to Light industry, and the most important of all whether they could reform the agriculture industry that was yearly loosing production. It also would have had no effect on the systematic corruption that under Brezhnev was allowed to flourish (his own son in-law was involved in one of the most famous corruption scandals).

So people can claim as much as they want that "Reagan won the cold war", unfortunately reality says differently.
Click to expand...



I will take "What is "reagan revisionist history" for $200, Jack".... :lol:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I will take "What is "reagan revisionist history" for $200, Jack".... :lol:
Click to expand...

Answer: "Reagan singlehandedly ended the cold war when he jumped on air force one, drunk down a handle of Jameson. Went to Russia kicked Gorbechev in the balls and punched out a bear."
 
PogueMoran said:
Answer: "Reagan singlehandedly ended the cold war when he jumped on air force one, drunk down a handle of Jameson. Went to Russia kicked Gorbechev in the balls and punched out a bear."
Click to expand...



Hyperbole and strawmen. How fun! :lol:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Hyperbole and strawmen. How fun! :lol:
Click to expand...

Just about as fun as your setting up of jeopardy questions with a host called Jack? The fact is the cold war ended in spite of Reagan. Your comment about Reagan ending the cold war is just about as scholarly as Columbus founding America.

But again you can't seem to tell the difference between a joke and a strawman. In order for it to be a strawman I would actually have to claim you're making an argument you're not making just so I can knock it down.
 
Last edited:
PogueMoran said:
Just about as fun as your setting up of jeopardy questions with a host called Jack? The fact is the cold war ended in spite of Reagan. Your comment about Reagan ending the cold war is just about as scholarly as Columbus founding America.
Click to expand...


Ok mr. revisionist... Reagan had nothing to do with ending the cold war. and sorry I got the wrong jeopardy guy, I get off my couch every now and then.... lol:

But again you can't seem to tell the difference between a joke and a strawman. In order for it to be a strawman I would actually have to claim you're making an argument you're not making just so I can knock it down.
Click to expand...




hmm, or, just or, you suxors at teh humorz..... Just sayin... This is twice now. :shrug:
 
sam_w said:
Whether the Soviet Union collapsed in 91 or 87 is meaningless, as the events transpiring in the Soviet Union had little to do with the West. This was a slow progression that began the final slide under Brezhnev in the mid 1970s when the Politburo began to slowly recognize the endemic corruption throughout the entire system, especially in agriculture.

As always in a state such as these totalitarian it is the secret police who have the most accurate knowledge of the conditions of the state. Even the highest ranking of CP members were not ever told true economic data and the conditions of corruption and productivity. The KGB on the other hand were aware. In 1982 the Politburo recognized this, although they did not know specifically or exactly what was wrong, but they were aware serious problems existed. Hence Yuri Andropov's selection, he who previously held the Director of the KGB post would be most aware of the current state of the Union. Upon his death, his chosen successor was to be Mikhael Gorbachev, but instead reactionary forces selected Chernenko. This was the first sign of a growing rift within the Soviet Union between factions that would ultimately tear apart the Soviet Union. Upon Chernenko's death the reform minded CP members were able to act upon Andropov's wishes and selected Gorbachev, while also elevating a number of younger reform minded party members. It is most often misunderstood that the two factions that struggled during this time right up until August 1991 were simply in disagreement on how to save the Soviet Union, there never was any real attempt at changing the Soviet model, only enhancement and reform. But Gorbachev's reforms were not only not successful, they brought into more light the systematic problems with the system that were born with Stalin.

Starting back in the early 1970s in Poland, there was the same forces that saw that the system itself needed reforming, so there was a opening in control that we in the West would see as pro-democracy or pro-freedom movements. This was not the intention per se of the reformers, they merely wanted to end the systematic corruption and low productivity in the economy. The classic example of this opening was shown to Polish viewers, and people around the world the movie Man of Marble. The significance of this movie was it not only showed to Polish viewers aspects of the system they where previously not allowed to see, but an acknowledgment of the continuing cycle of openness and repression that occurred throughout all of Eastern Europe since 1945. It is interesting to note that in this film, the journey of the protagonist ends in a certain Gdansk shipyards, otherwise known as the Lenin Shipyards, to be made famous years later by the Solidarity movement. Essentially we see in this film, made in 1976, the roots of the Solidarity movement 5 years before it took shape. The very fact this film was not only made, but also released was quite significant. It should be understood in the context of history that this occured at a time when the CP of Poland sought the best model to release them from systematic ills was to open up society more, to which the cycle was to soon close again in 1981. Most in the West saw Poland in 1981 as a dramatic and strange occurrence that sprung from nowhere, without understanding these where trends throughout all of the Eastern bloc since 1945.

So in essence, whether Ronald Reagan was in office or not, made very little difference at all. The Soviet Union cared little about Ronald Reagan, as he had truly very little impact at all with the growing problems within the Soviet Union. The argument that ultimately is used, that Reagan outspent the Soviets, is rather moot to say the least. The infection that ultimately caved the system began in the early 1970s, some argue as far back as Khrushchev. Whether the Soviet Union had to spend more or less on tanks had no bearing what so ever as it still would not have addressed the issue anyways whether the Soviets could move from Heavy to Light industry, and the most important of all whether they could reform the agriculture industry that was yearly loosing production. It also would have had no effect on the systematic corruption that under Brezhnev was allowed to flourish (his own son in-law was involved in one of the most famous corruption scandals).

So people can claim as much as they want that "Reagan won the cold war", unfortunately reality says differently.
Click to expand...

And for a differing view . . .

How Reagan won the Cold War. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine

(Just matching opinion with opinion here.)
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I will take "What is "reagan revisionist history" for $200, Jack".... :lol:
Click to expand...

The answer Alex is the good Reverend is poorly educated, and easily manipulated by propaganda. Should the good Reverend have actually been educated in a proper institution, received at least a Masters or PhD on this very subject, they would know this instantly.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I will take "What is "reagan revisionist history" for $200, Jack".... :lol:
Click to expand...

He's actually partially correct. Our own people acknowledge that the Soviet Union crumbled under the weight of a government that was over stretched, dealing with dozens of cultural ethnicities and providing for tens of satellites across the world. The only people who still believe that Reagan played any serious role in the downfall of the Soviets are Americans and Russians who now feel they are worse off then before. If anything Reagan was more like the dog barking at what was the inevitable fall of a giant who was trying to do too much at the same time. I think you should read this paper. It's by a former Russian politician who works for the AEI now. It was a matter of time before the Russians fell and Reagan just happened to be there to witness it and take credit for it regardless of the real contributing factors to it's fall.

Remember that it was called 'the cold war'. Not a single shot was fired in the open by either power. We didn't beat the Russians by blowing up their industries. We didn't beat them by blowing up Moscow. We didn't go to the Kremlin and kidnap Lenin's body. None of this happened. So stating that Reagan had any real serious effect in the war and was the one who ended up 'beating' them shows a completely American view of what actually happened.

http://www.aei.org/issue/25991

As a result, I decided to turn to more academic pursuits. The title of my latest book, which I would like to discuss today, can be translated as The Collapse of an Empire: Lessons for Modern Russia.[1] It relates the story of the last few years of the Soviet Union. But when I wrote about the collapse of the Soviet Union, I also had in mind dilemmas of contemporary Russia.

There were several factors which pushed me to write this book. The first was the rise in oil prices, which in real terms have started to approach the level of the late Brezhnev period. The second was the disturbing tendency to mythologize the late Soviet period in current Russian society and popular culture. These myths include the belief that, despite its problems, the Soviet Union was a dynamically developing world superpower until usurpers initiated disastrous reforms. At least 80 percent of Russians are convinced of this flawed interpretation of history.

Historically, such myths have a dangerous precedent--namely, Germany between World War I and World War II. Then, the legend went that Germany was never defeated in the war, but "stabbed in the back" by the Jews and the Socialists. To some degree, the responsible party was the democratic German government, as it was unprepared to publish materials about what really happened before and after World War I.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
He's actually partially correct. Our own people acknowledge that the Soviet Union crumbled under the weight of a government that was over stretched, dealing with dozens of cultural ethnicities and providing for tens of satellites across the world. The only people who still believe that Reagan played any serious role in the downfall of the Soviets are Americans. If anything Reagan was more like the dog barking at what was the inevitable fall of a giant who was trying to do too much at the same time. I think you should read this paper. It's by a former Russian politician who works for the AEI now.

http://www.aei.org/issue/25991
Click to expand...





I can see your point, but it is all speculation, we have to look at the other "communist" nations and thier fate.

China, while more capitalist now, is still in existance. Cuba? N. Korea? It seems that everything else is speculation other than Reagan outspent the USSSR in a monopoly game. :shrug:
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
Ok mr. revisionist... Reagan had nothing to do with ending the cold war. and sorry I got the wrong jeopardy guy, I get off my couch every now and then.... lol:
Click to expand...

I thought you were stuck in the basement? Nothing revisionist about it. Everything I stated actually did happen. Look up team B. I've read enough about the cold war even a Reagan favorable perspective by Richard Pipes, who was on Team B. Reagan had nothing to do with ending the cold war it ended after he left office and ended in spite of him. All this revisionism happened during the late clinton years trying to improve Reagan's image after the Iran-Contra mess. We knew they were going to collapse back during the ford years.

Reverend_Hellh0und said:
hmm, or, just or, you suxors at teh humorz..... Just sayin... This is twice now. :shrug:
Click to expand...
Sorry its not Half Hour news hour show kind of humor but its satire none the less. Strawmen arguments are completely different. I'd have to dig through your posts to find some. Maybe next time I'll put some emoticons after my posts so you'll know.
 
sam_w said:
The answer Alex is the good Reverend is poorly educated, and easily manipulated by propaganda. Should the good Reverend have actually been educated in a proper institution, received at least a Masters or PhD on this very subject, they would know this instantly.
Click to expand...



That's right, "Alex", I'll remember that next time.


However, your insults and personal attacks are unnessecary.
 
Reverend_Hellh0und said:
I can see your point, but it is all speculation, we have to look at the other "communist" nations and thier fate.

China, while more capitalist now, is still in existance. Cuba? N. Korea? It seems that everything else is speculation other than Reagan outspent the USSSR in a monopoly game. :shrug:
Click to expand...

So you're saying Reagan increased the size of the government and that's what did the reds in.
 
Harshaw said:
And for a differing view . . .

How Reagan won the Cold War. - By Fred Kaplan - Slate Magazine

(Just matching opinion with opinion here.)
Click to expand...

Unfortunately the article you present bears no reading further when they state: "If Yuri Andropov's kidneys hadn't given out...". The significance of this is that the writer is absolutely clueless as to why Yuri Andropov was selected, and what the significance of his selection entailed. As I said, Andropov was the former Director of the KGB, he alone knew the true conditions in the system. Most Politburo members, and almost all party members, were forbidden to see the actual economic data that the KGB collected. While most understood and recognized there were serious issues, none understood the why or how much. By selecting Andropov it was beleived that he alone would be able to address the serious issues of a worsening and weakening state. This is an issue that had gone on for years, but under Brezhnev nobody was able to address it. Since most in the party were ignorant to the specific situation and problems they were unable to effectively work on anything. By selecting Andropov it was believed that he alone would know where the problems where, and how to address them. This is 1982. Do you understand now the significant nature of an Andropov selection? The Soviet Union was by 1980 already a dying state, actions taken were reactionary to the conditions within the state, regardless of the U.S.
 
PogueMoran said:
I thought you were stuck in the basement? Nothing revisionist about it. Everything I stated actually did happen. Look up team B. I've read enough about the cold war even a Reagan favorable perspective by Richard Pipes, who was on Team B. Reagan had nothing to do with ending the cold war it ended after he left office and ended in spite of him. All this revisionism happened during the late clinton years trying to improve Reagan's image after the Iran-Contra mess. We knew they were going to collapse back during the ford years.
Click to expand...


Team b.? come now, you are not even in the same league as the Good Reverend! I am pro obviously, while you may be "A" team in the beer league, its hardly a cause to attack my greatness.


What you are doing is an appeal to authority, and while doing that, you have not established even, your credentials.... Such fail..... such fail. :lol:

The fact that the cold war ended after he left office, would be akin to say that bush policies had no effect on Obama's economy, and as a partisan who claims to be centerist, I'd pay the board a 5 spot to see you admit this...


Check and mate.



Sorry its not Half Hour news hour show kind of humor but its satire none the less. Strawmen arguments are completely different. I'd have to dig through your posts to find some. Maybe next time I'll put some emoticons after my posts so you'll know.
Click to expand...


lame.... You were humoring me, now this is just lame... up your game pogue.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom