Jump to content

Prime time flop


Guest Patriot

Recommended Posts

Guest Guest
So to you everything is about which dead man to thank.

Absolutely. Reagan cut the Soviet Union's legs off. We were headed toward a nuclear war, Reagan recognized it and did what he had to do to prevent it.

The leftists won't acknowledge it, but if someone like Carter or Obama had been president during that time we might all be dead.

Yes, I thank God Reagan was president at the right time in history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Guest Guest
Absolutely. Reagan cut the Soviet Union's legs off. We were headed toward a nuclear war, Reagan recognized it and did what he had to do to prevent it.

The leftists won't acknowledge it, but if someone like Carter or Obama had been president during that time we might all be dead.

Yes, I thank God Reagan was president at the right time in history.

I just can't figure out if you're a devoted disciple of the drunk Senator from Wisconsin or you just have a rich fantasy life.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Keith
Absolutely. Reagan cut the Soviet Union's legs off. We were headed toward a nuclear war, Reagan recognized it and did what he had to do to prevent it.

The leftists won't acknowledge it, but if someone like Carter or Obama had been president during that time we might all be dead.

Yes, I thank God Reagan was president at the right time in history.

Nuclear War? How do you figure that? We all still have nukes. They haven't gone away. What were the circumstances of this impending Nuclear War when Reagan was pres?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Nuclear War? How do you figure that? We all still have nukes. They haven't gone away. What were the circumstances of this impending Nuclear War when Reagan was pres?

Just another Resmuglican fantasy of saving the country from an imaginary threat. :angry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Nuclear War? How do you figure that? We all still have nukes. They haven't gone away. What were the circumstances of this impending Nuclear War when Reagan was pres?

FYI ......The Soviet Union went away. Your naivete is amusing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Sorry John, I didn't mean to insult honest snake oil salesmen. But as you know, there are dispicable people in every walk of life and this community organizer with the line of s--t that all the loonies bought has given honest men like you a bad name. We have to endure this snake oil salesman (sorry)

3+ more years, then we're going to run his sorry flip-flopping, back-peddling, lying, cheating ass back to Chicago where he can once again hook up with

Bill Ayres and Reverend Wright, smoke a little weed together and talk about the good old days when they bombed police stations.

Great post, I laughed out loud.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
No, though he may have hastened it. The USSR broke up because Communism doesn't work. You'd think you'd know that. You can be a vet and still unpatriotic. You keep impying that our brave men and women serving in our armed forces' motor pools should be ashamed of their service, so you're anti-vet scum in my book.

That's nonsense. Reagan began a massive arms buildup which included the "star wars" project. The Soviet Union tried to match Reagan's spending and

imploded. If you think otherwise you've been swigging too much Kool-Aid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
That's nonsense. Reagan began a massive arms buildup which included the "star wars" project. The Soviet Union tried to match Reagan's spending and

imploded. If you think otherwise you've been swigging too much Kool-Aid.

Google "USSR military spending" you retard. Like most Repeblican beliefs about Reagan your talking point is an outright fabrication.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/foreign/reagrus.htm

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/wor...a/mo-budget.htm

Note that the last one indicates slowed military growth in the mid-eighties when your lie says they were rapidly increasing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
That's nonsense. Reagan began a massive arms buildup which included the "star wars" project. The Soviet Union tried to match Reagan's spending and

imploded. If you think otherwise you've been swigging too much Kool-Aid.

What's truly nonsense is how alleged fiscal conservative champion an empty suit whose grand plan was to SPEND, SPEND, SPEND on a useless project which had it been 99.9 % effective/reliable, damn near impossible at that level of complication, would have still allowed enough nukes through to destroy the world several times over.

What Reagan started was the inanely stupid belief we can SPEND, SPEND, SPEND without a care in the world about how we'll PAY, PAY, PAY.

So go stick your head in a bucket of the Kool-Aid you're so obsessed with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Absolutely. Reagan cut the Soviet Union's legs off. We were headed toward a nuclear war, Reagan recognized it and did what he had to do to prevent it.

The leftists won't acknowledge it, but if someone like Carter or Obama had been president during that time we might all be dead.

Yes, I thank God Reagan was president at the right time in history.

Of course, you can always say that the world would have collapsed had so-and-so not been president at a certain time, and no one can ever prove you wrong. Remarks like that are cheap.

Reason tells us that if the Soviet Union had wanted a nuclear war, it would have happened while they still were strong. They could see the problems they were in and chose not to start a war. Gorbachev deserves more credit for that than Reagan does. All Reagan did was put the squeeze on, hastening the Soviet collapse. It would have happened anyway. After all, Communism doesn't work, so eventually is has to collapse. That's your point, isn't it? You can't have it both ways.

If the Soviet Union had the power and the desire to start a nuclear war, it would have done so when Reagan began escalating our nuclear power, while it still had the chance. Your argument doesn't make any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
That's nonsense. Reagan began a massive arms buildup which included the "star wars" project. The Soviet Union tried to match Reagan's spending and imploded. If you think otherwise you've been swigging too much Kool-Aid.

Problem is, you're 2stupid2thinkstraight. Even if what you're saying is true, it doesn't prove your point. It proves Autonomous' point: "The USSR broke up because Communism doesn't work."

They couldn't keep up because their economy was too weak. Their economy was too weak because Communism doesn't work.

Or do you believe that Communism does work?

Take your pick, dimwit. Which way is it? You can't have it both ways.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
Problem is, you're 2stupid2thinkstraight. Even if what you're saying is true, it doesn't prove your point. It proves Autonomous' point: "The USSR broke up because Communism doesn't work."

They couldn't keep up because their economy was too weak. Their economy was too weak because Communism doesn't work.

Or do you believe that Communism does work?

Take your pick, dimwit. Which way is it? You can't have it both ways.

Communism doesn't work ?? Has anyone told Communist China, from where Obama has borrowed 700 Billion Dollars and from where the U.S. imports

about 70% of it's consumer goods ??

(Autonomous and 'Guest', otherwise known as dumb and dumber).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Communism doesn't work ?? Has anyone told Communist China, from where Obama has borrowed 700 Billion Dollars and from where the U.S. imports

about 70% of it's consumer goods ??

(Autonomous and 'Guest', otherwise known as dumb and dumber).

And the winner?

The title of DUMBEST?

YOU! Congratulations!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
Communism doesn't work ?? Has anyone told Communist China, from where Obama has borrowed 700 Billion Dollars and from where the U.S. imports

about 70% of it's consumer goods ??

(Autonomous and 'Guest', otherwise known as dumb and dumber).

Gee, maybe we should be Communists then. :rolleyes:

D**bA**

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Communism doesn't work ?? Has anyone told Communist China, from where Obama has borrowed 700 Billion Dollars and from where the U.S. imports

about 70% of it's consumer goods ??

(Autonomous and 'Guest', otherwise known as dumb and dumber).

This isn't Mao's China, dumbo. China has made considerable movement toward capitalism since then.

And what exactly is your point anyway? Are you saying Communism does work?

Furthermore, just when do you think we started borrowing from China? It wasn't January 20, 2009. In fact, it wasn't this year.

Care to take a guess, jackass?

Doesn't it bother you that you regularly say stupid things that aren't true?

Even a little?

How about telling us how much money we borrowed from China under that idiot Bush. Only the only reason for it then that was that Bush squandered our surplus on tax give-aways for all his rich friends. So instead of paying for things, we had to borrow. We weren't borrowing because the economy was about to collapse. We were borrowing because junior the cowboy decided we could build an economy on speculation. Heaven forbid we should have invested to rebuild our manufacturing base. Why do that when all Bush's friends are making billions in the stock market and writing bad mortgages? Who cares if we have a manufacturing base or an infrastructure or we're throwing trillions of dollars overseas? Let's just waste eight years we could have spent building a real economy, and trillions of dollars, and pretend everything is fine - until it isn't fine anymore. But that's OK because it's about to become someone else's mess because the people finally realize what morons and liars the Republicans are and throw them out of office. So let's just wait until a Democrat is in office and blame him for it.

And let's just ignore the fact that today the stock market is over 9,000 because Obama has done a good job keeping the economy from collapsing. Let's ignore the fact that the housing market seems to have bottomed out long before anyone thought it would, and unemployment too. Why let facts get in the way when you had your mind made up that Obama was going to be the worst president in history no matter what he did. Even though we're in much better shape today than anyone thought we could be.

I know it has been said before, but . . .

You're a complete idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Communism doesn't work ?? Has anyone told Communist China, from where Obama has borrowed 700 Billion Dollars and from where the U.S. imports

about 70% of it's consumer goods ??

China's economic rise has come from adopting a very large element of capitalism. Even they know that communism, or at least pure communism, doesn't work. North Korea hasn't figured that out yet. Look there to see how well communism works.

(Autonomous and 'Guest', otherwise known as dumb and dumber).

So says the village idiot.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest 2smart4u
China's economic rise has come from adopting a very large element of capitalism. Even they know that communism, or at least pure communism, doesn't work. North Korea hasn't figured that out yet. Look there to see how well communism works.

So says the village idiot.

Let's unspin this. By your logic, because Communist China sells their consumer goods to other countries, that makes them not "pure" communists?

Webster's definition of COMMUNISM: A theory advocating elimination of private property.

Selling consumer goods overseas is not in conflict with this theory.

Nice try though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
Let's unspin this. By your logic, because Communist China sells their consumer goods to other countries, that makes them not "pure" communists?

Webster's definition of COMMUNISM: A theory advocating elimination of private property.

Selling consumer goods overseas is not in conflict with this theory.

Nice try though.

You might want to read a book (or even magazine article) about modern China's economy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest *Autonomous*
Wow, brilliant response.

In response to a supposed Republican posting how great Communism is working? Yes. More than any post he's ever made this proves that 2dim is just an unthinking troll-he doesn't even know what Republicans believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
You might want to read a book (or even magazine article) about modern China's economy.

You're kidding right? We happen to owe China 750 billion and they're buying up real estate all over the U.S.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Guest
Let's unspin this. By your logic, because Communist China sells their consumer goods to other countries, that makes them not "pure" communists?

Webster's definition of COMMUNISM: A theory advocating elimination of private property.

Selling consumer goods overseas is not in conflict with this theory.

Nice try though.

Dumbo,

You just played a shell game with the argument. Selling consumer goods overseas is proof that China's current model is succeeding. That model is more capitalist than Communist. You tried to argue that China's current success was proof the Communism works. (1) That's a bizarre argument in any setting and certainly coming from you. (2) China's current success doesn't prove that Communism works. Your argument was stupid and you just managed to make it more stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Let's unspin this. By your logic, because Communist China sells their consumer goods to other countries, that makes them not "pure" communists?

Nice try, but you invented that particular "logic" all by yourself. What makes China not pure communism is not merely that they sell things, but that much of what they're selling is produced by companies that are not government run. Companies that choose what to produce and how to produce it based on what they think will turn a profit. Companies that compete with each other in open markets. Companies that raise capital by selling stock. Those activities aren't communism, even when they happen within a communist country.

Webster's definition of COMMUNISM: A theory advocating elimination of private property.

Here's another word for you to look up, since you appear incapable of recognizing it: "capitalism"

Selling consumer goods overseas is not in conflict with this theory.

Nice try though.

It really shouldn't need explaining, but "element of capitalism" was a reference to capitalism, not a reference to some dumb-ass misconception born of your own imagination.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...