AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@mysteryman,

Why is it that when we are discussing the tripling of the nations debt during the Reagan Administration...you and Foxfyre and the others on your side of the aisle...always blame the Democrats in congress for the spending...

...yet when speaking about the fall of the Soviet Union you same people want to give the “spending them into falling” credit to Reagan?

If in fact the reason the Soviet Union fell was because we made them try to outspend us...according you your line of reasoning...

...the credit belongs to the Democrats in congress...

...not to Ronald Reagan.

If the bullshit that the United States caused the break up of the Soviet Union is anything more than American conservatives mind ******* themselves.

2 Replies

You can ask Gorbachev and every other USSR leader at the time of collapse and they will strongly confirm that Reagan had nothing to do with the implosion. In fact, they think this is laughable.

It collapsed because communism is not viable, the USSR was left out of the new technological age, there was rampant corruption and alcoholism, it couldn't afford to bankroll the satellite countries, etc.

What Reagan DID do is send the USA into insolvency.

2 Replies

@Advocate,

My thoughts exactly! Communism cannot survive economically.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

My thoughts exactly! Communism cannot survive economically.

Then quit pushing for the policies heading that direction, and quit voting for politicians that continue to push that philosophy. The entire stimulus plan is a pile of central planned spending, that some estimate will ultimately cost us over 3 trillion.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie, It's obvious again that you have no sense of the current economic crisis or how it's necessary for our government to try to save it from complete collapse.

Define communism for me?

1 Reply

@Advocate,

Quote:

You can ask Gorbachev and every other USSR leader at the time of collapse and they will strongly confirm that Reagan had nothing to do with the implosion. In fact, they think this is laughable.

Saddam's Baghdad Bob had the same spin in each of his press briefings as I recall! LMAO!!!

1 Reply

@BigTexN,

And the relationship between to two is?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

The guy who gets his ass handed to him always claims that it wasn't because he got beat but because he tripped or bad officiating or he was going broke first or he was even trying or....

The fact is...no matter how much they try to "spin" it...they got thier asses handed to them!

2 Replies

@BigTexN,

And how often does that "really" happen? One percent? Less than?

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

cicerone imposter wrote:

okie, It's obvious again that you have no sense of the current economic crisis or how it's necessary for our government to try to save it from complete collapse.

Define communism for me?

The reason we got where we are is because of debt. Now the solution is more debt? You've lost your mind, and so have the Democrats.

Central planning for the economy and business, ci, thats part of your answer in regard to communism. Thats a start anyway. Do the research.

2 Replies

@okie,

Okie. You know I love you. You know I respect you. You know I think you're right on target with your point of view in most things and you can back it up with real evidence. You are somebody I would dearly love to invite to dinner.

So I hope you take this in the spirit in which it is intended. . .

Only an idiot argues with a. . . . .

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Point taken, Foxfyre. But I think you succumb from time to time too, right?

You are absolutely right, Foxfyre. I will try to do better. I know this, but somehow I find in ci and cyclops an occasional glimmer of common sense, so it sucks me into trying to get them to see the error of their thinking. One thing I don't know however, if they are totally genuine in what they post. I find it bizarre at times that they actually say those things out of genuine belief? I have even wondered at times if ci is just on a lark, pulling my leg?

1 Reply

@BigTexN,

BigTexN wrote:

The guy who gets his ass handed to him always claims that it wasn't because he got beat but because he tripped or bad officiating or he was going broke first or he was even trying or....

The fact is...no matter how much they try to "spin" it...they got thier asses handed to them!

Oh really? In what military engagement did that happen?

See, b/c I remember them going bankrupt and collapsing from within. But you seem to remember us kicking their asses. Can you detail exactly how we did that?

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why is it that when we are discussing the tripling of the nations debt during the Reagan Administration...you and Foxfyre and the others on your side of the aisle...always blame the Democrats in congress for the spending...

...yet when speaking about the fall of the Soviet Union you same people want to give the “spending them into falling” credit to Reagan?

If in fact the reason the Soviet Union fell was because we made them try to outspend us...according you your line of reasoning...

...the credit belongs to the Democrats in congress...

...not to Ronald Reagan.

If the bullshit that the United States caused the break up of the Soviet Union is anything more than American conservatives mind ******* themselves.

The reason is that the ONLY reason the Democrats went along with Reagan's defense build up and research into SDI was because Reagan agreed to go along with THEM in more social spending geared to endear them to their increasingly government-dependent constituents. It was a pure ideologically motivated trade off.

Now the MAC mind can understand that concept. I wonder if it is possible for a MAL to at least understand that point of view sufficiently to acknowledge it whether or not he or she agrees with it?

(P.S. I don't think any one of us thought that was the ONLY reason the Soviet Union collapsed. I do think it was a huge reason that the collapse occurred when it did however; otherwise I believe most objective analysts of that period agree that the USSR would have held on a lot longer.)

1 Reply

Obama alleges he wants the federal government to accumulate additional trillions of dollars more in debt in order to buy government projects. Obama alleges doing this will increase or save jobs.

To pay for this, he will take money away from successful private business operators. But if Obama gets away with this, he will drastically reduce the number of jobs supported and added by existing successful private business operators. Furthermore, he will stifle the development of newly successful private business operators.

However, Obama via this accumulation of additional trillion dollars of debt will reduce the wealth of everyone--wealthy and poor. He will thereby equalize all wealth except the wealth of members of the federal government.

That which Obama promises to accomplish has never been accomplished by the government of a republic forcefully transferring wealth from those who have more to those who have less.

1 Reply

@okie,

okie wrote:

Point taken, Foxfyre. But I think you succumb from time to time too, right?

You are absolutely right, Foxfyre. I will try to do better. I know this, but somehow I find in ci and cyclops an occasional glimmer of common sense, so it sucks me into trying to get them to see the error of their thinking. One thing I don't know however, if they are totally genuine in what they post. I find it bizarre at times that they actually say those things out of genuine belief? I have even wondered at times if ci is just on a lark, pulling my leg?

Yeah I know. I fall into the physician heal thyself hypocrisy trap more often than I would like to admit and for the same reason and with the same misgivings that you just listed. Smile

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Well, in response to okie's claim that he finds a "occasional glimmer of common sense" in Cyclo and I, I must say I rarely or ever find any common sense in his posts.

I would also like to ask okie to tell me which statements of mine he sees "no common sense?" He is welcome to cut and paste from any of my posts.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Oh really? In what military engagement did that happen?

See, b/c I remember them going bankrupt and collapsing from within. But you seem to remember us kicking their asses. Can you detail exactly how we did that?

I didn't realize your brain was limited to military warfare only...

1 Reply

@BigTexN,

BigTexN wrote:

Quote:
Oh really? In what military engagement did that happen?

See, b/c I remember them going bankrupt and collapsing from within. But you seem to remember us kicking their asses. Can you detail exactly how we did that?

I didn't realize your brain was limited to military warfare only...

Ah, you were spouting bullshit. Pretty much what I had assumed.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Ah, you were spouting bullshit. Pretty much what I had assumed.

Come now Cyclo, you are aware of other types of warfare besides military engagements aren't you?

If not, Google some...educate yourself!

1 Reply

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know