Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

lpkmckenna · Jan 16, 2011, 08:13 PM

Tangentially, here's the ultimate proof that US politics (especially right-wing politics) has gone overboard in violence rhetoric: People OK With Murdering Assange.

BadKosh · Jan 16, 2011, 08:33 PM

Originally Posted by OldManMac

The Soviet Union fell apart all by itself because it was an economically disastrous system, that was unsustainable! It's sphere of influence had been in decline for quite some time already, when the pseudo cowboy Ronald Reagan simply transferred his cowboy rhetoric to the White House, and convinced the gullible, such as yourself, that he had something to do with it.

Wrong. It was Reagan's rhetoric that let the soviet populace realize they had supporters on the outside, which in turn gave them the cue to overthrow. The reason the world is collapsing now is the lack of support Obama is giving to the rest of the world, except his radical idols, Muslim extremists, dictators and the like.

OldManMac · Jan 16, 2011, 08:36 PM

Originally Posted by BadKosh

Wrong. It was Reagan's rhetoric that let the soviet populace realize they had supporters on the outside, which in turn gave them the cue to overthrow. The reason the world is collapsing now is the lack of support Obama is giving to the rest of the world, except his radical idols, Muslim extremists, dictators and the like.

Wrong. It was the collapse of their economy, with people looking for a better life. If you think Ronald Reagans' voice was heard by the average Soviet citizen, there is no help for you. Another gullible one.

Laminar · Jan 16, 2011, 08:53 PM

Originally Posted by BadKosh

the lack of support Obama is giving to the rest of the world, except his radical idols, Muslim extremists, dictators and the like.

Words....cannot....describe...

Doofy · Jan 16, 2011, 08:55 PM

Rest of the world here. Please send support, we're collapsing rapidly! We can't function without support from the US and A. HALP!

freudling · Jan 16, 2011, 09:18 PM

Everything in the US comes down to right and left wing politics. Jesus, it's black, it's white. That's it. Nothing else to it. Everyone move along.

Chongo · Jan 16, 2011, 09:25 PM

Originally Posted by Lint Police

Yeah, none in 1984.

YouTube - Walter Mondale TV Ad: "Orbiting"

YouTube - Mondale/Ferraro Commercial 1984

Or 1964 YouTube - daisy ad 1964

Athens · Jan 16, 2011, 10:37 PM

Originally Posted by BadKosh

Wrong. It was Reagan's rhetoric that let the soviet populace realize they had supporters on the outside, which in turn gave them the cue to overthrow. The reason the world is collapsing now is the lack of support Obama is giving to the rest of the world, except his radical idols, Muslim extremists, dictators and the like.

Your both wrong, the end of the USSR was due to the cold war race. They just couldn't afford it and after decades of trying to match the US in power the people who got less and less started to revolt over it. This paved the way for a graceful exit and a new political direction.

Athens · Jan 16, 2011, 10:39 PM

Originally Posted by Buckaroo

This proves how wrong the Left Wing Liberals are. It was Reagan that brought the USSR to it's knees without firing a single bullet, and spending a FRACTION of the money that Obama wasted in 2 years. Obama is a disgrace to this country. He single handedly has done more destruction than any president in history.

No that honor goes to G.W. Bush, Obama's problem is being left to clean up a massive mess no other president has ever had to deal with.

Chongo · Jan 16, 2011, 10:59 PM

Originally Posted by Athens

Your both wrong, the end of the USSR was due to the cold war race. They just couldn't afford it and after decades of trying to match the US in power the people who got less and less started to revolt over it. This paved the way for a graceful exit and a new political direction.

Originally Posted by Athens

No that honor goes to G.W. Bush, Obama's problem is being left to clean up a massive mess no other president has ever had to deal with.

This was the turning point : Nine Days that Changed the World

Athens · Jan 16, 2011, 11:26 PM

Originally Posted by Chongo

This was the turning point : Nine Days that Changed the World

I stand corrected, That prob had a bigger impact then the financial race. I never knew of his visit to Poland during the soviet years.

Wiskedjak · Jan 16, 2011, 11:35 PM

Originally Posted by Athens

Your both wrong, the end of the USSR was due to the cold war race. They just couldn't afford it and after decades of trying to match the US in power the people who got less and less started to revolt over it. This paved the way for a graceful exit and a new political direction.

And, the USSR not being able to afford the Cold War race was largely a factor of the creation of OPEC, which drove the price of oil lower than the USSR could afford to extract and sell their supplies for. Had the OPEC nations not colluded to drive the price of oil down, the USSR would have had more than enough revenue to compete in the Cold War *and* keep it's citizens happy.

Or, yeah, the Russians heard the Word of Reagan and the Word was Good and they rose up in a bloody revolution and overthrew their communist masters.

stumblinmike · Jan 16, 2011, 11:49 PM

Originally Posted by Chongo

This was the turning point : Nine Days that Changed the World

If Newt produced it, it HAS to be true...

Chongo · Jan 17, 2011, 04:07 AM

Originally Posted by stumblinmike

If Newt produced it, it HAS to be true...

Same can be said of anything Michael Moore/The National Enquirer has produced.

lpkmckenna · Jan 17, 2011, 05:21 AM

I find it sad that a good Catholic like Chongo doesn't give Pope John Paul 2 the credit he deserves.

The fall of the Soviet Union had many causes. To give all the credit to Reagan is idolatry of the worst kind.

BadKosh · Jan 17, 2011, 07:23 AM

Originally Posted by Athens

No that honor goes to G.W. Bush, Obama's problem is being left to clean up a massive mess no other president has ever had to deal with.

Except he's made it worse. Marxist aren't about success of the little guy. Ask Carter, Clinton, Chris Dodd, Barney Frank et al about those great policies that caused the mess in the first place.

BadKosh · Jan 17, 2011, 07:27 AM

I guess following the lead of Lech Walesa didn't help either?

stupendousman · Jan 17, 2011, 08:11 AM

Originally Posted by Athens

No that honor goes to G.W. Bush, Obama's problem is being left to clean up a massive mess no other president has ever had to deal with.

The assumption being:

A. No other Presidents inherited a really bad economy and pulled things through. Reagan has things so bad it was referred by his predecessor as a general "malaise." He pulled things through. Clinton had the end of a recession to deal with when he took office. Things ended up okay within a year or so. Same with Bush II.

The problem is that all of Obama's added spending on Democrat priorities hurt the economy by increasing our debt, and making those with the cash to spend leery of his plans. So, they are waiting for cooler heads to prevail before investing again.

B. That it was Bush that got us in this "mess". Most of the current economic woes we see have to do with increased spending and troubles with the housing market. Two things that are just as much caused by Democrats who have been in power the past 4 years and pretty much running the show when it comes to federally regulated mortgage lending management.

It's time for Obama to put on his "big boy panties" and stop blaming and actually start implementing a strategy that might work. Economists told him that he was flushing money down the toliet as it came to stimulating the economy, with his spending. Plans to tax are not going to help either. At some point, he's got to forget about his political goals and focus on doing what's right for the economy. So far, he's been reluctant to do that. That is in no way Bush's fault.

Jimmy Carter 2? Seems that way.

ebuddy · Jan 17, 2011, 08:30 AM

Originally Posted by Athens

No that honor goes to G.W. Bush, Obama's problem is being left to clean up a massive mess no other president has ever had to deal with.

In what manner have Obama's policies (foreign or domestic for that matter) differed from Bush's that he is in essence "cleaning up after the massive mess" G.W. Bush left?

In other words, what is Obama doing differently than Bush?

Wiskedjak · Jan 17, 2011, 09:13 AM

Originally Posted by Chongo

Same can be said of anything Michael Moore/The National Enquirer has produced.

So, you agree that it's probably all made up, then?

Chongo · Jan 17, 2011, 09:20 AM

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna

I find it sad that a good Catholic like Chongo doesn't give Pope John Paul 2 the credit he deserves.

The fall of the Soviet Union had many causes. To give all the credit to Reagan is idolatry of the worst kind.

What do you think "Nine Days That Changed the World" is about? It wasn't about Reagan going to Poland. The Soviets were so afraid of him they had their Bulgarian proxies sent Ali Aga to assassinate him, only to make a living Martyr of him.

ThinkInsane · Jan 17, 2011, 09:42 AM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

Had the OPEC nations not colluded to drive the price of oil down, the USSR would have had more than enough revenue to compete in the Cold War *and* keep it's citizens happy.

Or, yeah, the Russians heard the Word of Reagan and the Word was Good and they rose up in a bloody revolution and overthrew their communist masters.

I had the opportunity to visit the Soviet Union when I was in high school. I can assure you that know one was happy about much of anything, and were quite insistent that they hadn't been for forty years or so. But ask some russians that were around back in the day, ask them what they thought of Reagan the first time they saw him on television, when he had the summit with Gorbachev in Geneva. I think you'd be shocked at the effect that had on the Soviet populace.

And I would note that Reagan was the one that got Saudi Arabia to boost production to further hamper the Soviet Economy. Would the Soviet Union have collapsed if someone else had been president? Maybe, maybe not. But to say it would have collapsed regardless, at that time, without Reagan's influence? I don't think so. If Walter Mondale had won, I think the Soviets would have got more milage out of the ol' hammer and sickle. The collapse may have been unavoidable, but Reagan certainly was instrumental in bringing it about.

Laminar · Jan 17, 2011, 10:39 AM

Originally Posted by Athens

I never knew of his visit to Poland during the soviet years.

Not knowing stuff has never stopped you from posting, though.

stupendousman · Jan 17, 2011, 10:52 AM

Apparently, what might have influenced Loughner was exactly the opposite of what was speculated (Palin, Tea Parties, etc.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us...gfYK5d56DmiDjg

"He became intrigued by antigovernment conspiracy theories, including that the Sept. 11 attacks were perpetrated by the government and that the country’s central banking system was enslaving its citizens. His anger would well up at the sight of President George W. Bush, or in discussing what he considered to be the nefarious designs of government."

So, it was left-wing paranoid speculation against Bush that drove this guy to kill government officials, right?

Still - NOPE. The guy was a loon. I'm not going to suggest that people, even some who where picked by the Obama administration for leadership posts, who ranted about all sorts of evil Bush supposedly had done - to the point of suggesting he be impeached or even killed, had anything to do with it. None. The guy was crazy. Crazy people engage in crazy acts. For instance, Charles Manson claimed that the Beatles influenced him to kill. Should the Beatles share any guilt for what Manson did? Of course not.

I think someone owes Tea Party members, and Sarah Palin a HUGE apology since if ANYTHING had influenced Loughner, it would have been a political ideology the opposite of what Palin or the Tea Parties support. If these people would made these politically motivated charges were really serious about being civil and helping the "tone" of discourse, that's exactly the example they'd set. I'm already suspect that such a thing was really ever their goal, so I'm guessing we'll never see such an apology.

Doofy · Jan 17, 2011, 11:25 AM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/16/us...gfYK5d56DmiDjg

He belonged to the Arizona Jazz Academy

I've been saying for years that jazz unbalances the mind.

Chongo · Jan 17, 2011, 11:47 AM

Miles Davis is good example.

besson3c · Jan 17, 2011, 12:34 PM

A good example of what?

screener · 01:08 PM

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

The collapse may have been unavoidable, but Reagan certainly was instrumental in bringing it about.

So was this guy,
Soviet war in Afghanistan - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Islamists who fought also believed that they were responsible for the fall of the Soviet Union. Osama bin Laden, for example, was asserting the credit for "the collapse of the Soviet Union ... goes to God and the mujahideen in Afghanistan ... the US had no mentionable role," but "collapse made the US more haughty and arrogant."

Chongo · Jan 17, 2011, 01:21 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

I've been saying for years that jazz unbalances the mind.

Originally Posted by Chongo

Miles Davis is good example.

Originally Posted by besson3c

A good example of what?

That Jazz unbalances the mind.

stupendousman · Jan 17, 2011, 02:37 PM

Today we honor a divisive public figure whose aggressive political rhetoric changed the way we do things today. He didn't just try to get along and he wasn't all that interested in reaching across the aisles towards those who were against him, to find a middle ground. His political rise was met with violent opposition and he still fought for what he thought was right, and some say died because of it.

I'm pretty sure that if you where able to ask him today if he regretted the way he spoke about those who where opposed to him, I'm guessing he wouldn't. I'm pretty sure that if he followed the advise of the current talking heads who are squeamish at the thought of people not just going along to get along when things aren't right, he wouldn't have made the impact he did.

Sometimes I seriously wonder what the people who make outlandish statements like that which have been made against certain individuals, in trying to tie their words to this tragedy, have in place of real brains. Mush I'm guessing...

ort888 · Jan 17, 2011, 03:07 PM

Originally Posted by stupendousman

I think someone owes Tea Party members, and Sarah Palin a HUGE apology since if ANYTHING had influenced Loughner, it would have been a political ideology the opposite of what Palin or the Tea Parties support. If these people would made these politically motivated charges were really serious about being civil and helping the "tone" of discourse, that's exactly the example they'd set. I'm already suspect that such a thing was really ever their goal, so I'm guessing we'll never see such an apology.

A massive mistrust of the government is the opposite of what the Tea Party support?

Who needs to apologize? Do you expect all of the liberals in the country to look down, drag there toe around in the dirt and say "aw shucks, we sowwee sawah..."

besson3c · Jan 17, 2011, 03:43 PM

Originally Posted by Chongo

That Jazz unbalances the mind.

How exactly?

Doofy · Jan 17, 2011, 03:50 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

How exactly?

It makes disconnected, discordant shite seem legitimate.

besson3c · Jan 17, 2011, 03:56 PM

Originally Posted by Doofy

It makes disconnected, discordant shite seem legitimate.

No more than Buckaroo's dumb Matrix example, the music of bands like the Doors or other psychedelic sort of bands, all sorts of other modern art, literature, you name it.

Simplistic finger pointing just doesn't work here, particularly since there is all sorts of jazz that is tonal and whatever the opposite of discordant is.

Lint Police · Jan 17, 2011, 03:58 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

...simplistic finger pointing just doesn't work here....

omfg.

besson3c · Jan 17, 2011, 04:03 PM

Originally Posted by Lint Police

omfg.

Do you skim read threads like this, and just share your reactions with us to make yourself feel better or something?

stupendousman · Jan 17, 2011, 04:14 PM

Originally Posted by ort888

A massive mistrust of the government is the opposite of what the Tea Party support?

The Tea Party does not support the notion that they don't trust the government because they are engaging in genocide of their own people. That's a left-wing extremist position.

I'm kind of doubting that Loughner got the notion that George Bush is an evil murderer from Tea Party members, or Sarah Palin.

Who needs to apologize?

No one who really isn't interested in "civility" as it's being preached.

OAW · Jan 17, 2011, 04:52 PM

Is it just me?

OAW

stupendousman · Jan 17, 2011, 05:15 PM

Originally Posted by OAW

Is it just me?

OAW

No. That was the case the minute someone tried to blame one "side" on what happened.

turtle777 · Jan 17, 2011, 05:35 PM

And this thread is NOT locked - WHY???

-t

Laminar · Jan 17, 2011, 06:39 PM

Originally Posted by besson3c

No more than Buckaroo's dumb Matrix example, the music of bands like the Doors or other psychedelic sort of bands, all sorts of other modern art, literature, you name it.

Simplistic finger pointing just doesn't work here, particularly since there is all sorts of jazz that is tonal and whatever the opposite of discordant is.

andi*pandi · Jan 17, 2011, 06:41 PM

At this point it's more of a choose-your-own-adventure pinball machine than a derail.

besson3c · Jan 17, 2011, 07:18 PM

OAW · Jan 17, 2011, 07:27 PM

At this stage in the game, the way I see it is this ...

Some nutcase tried to murder a sitting US Representative. Thus far he was unsuccessful in his primary goal ... though he did manage to kill several other secondary targets (including a 9 year old girl) and wound even more. And given the progress that Rep. Giffords has been making it appears that she will survive. I trust we can all at least agree that this is a good thing.

While it is not completely unreasonable to assume that the shooting of a political figure at a political event was an assassination attempt committed by a political opponent ... unless this guy speaks as to his motivations the reasons why he committed this crime will likely never be known. Considering the fact that he's nuttier than a Snickers bar I think it does a disservice to the political discourse in this country to try to pin this incident on the Tea Party or the political right in general. This guy could have simply been obsessed with Ms. Giffords for some strange and unknown reason for all we know.

Now having said that, it is not out of bounds to criticize incendiary, gun oriented, violent, and insurrectionist political commentary and imagery by whoever is doing it ... left, right, or whatever ... because it contributes to a political climate where someone may deem that settling ideological and/or policy differences in the streets instead of through the democratic process is acceptable behavior. A political climate where such violent measures would be ostensibly "condemned" by the perpetrators' political cohorts with a wink and a nod ... or at a minimum with an "I never intended for anyone to go out and physically harm another person!" type of defense. And I'll say it again ... that type of foolishness needs to stop. Because it's really not that deep. This is not at all about "stifling debate" or "silencing the opposition" or anything of the sort. It just doesn't take all of that nonsense to get your point across. If you are unable to engage in the political debate without resorting to demonizing your opponent as being "un-American" ... or vilifying those that disagree with you as being "out to destroy America" ... or carrying "Hang Bush for War Crimes" signs .. or saying that Obama is a "socialist devil, murderer" and that you "pray that he dies and goes to hell" ... then you truly do suck at it. Period. And you really ought to seriously consider other avenues to occupy your time.

OAW

Wiskedjak · 10:48 PM

Originally Posted by ThinkInsane

And I would note that Reagan was the one that got Saudi Arabia to boost production to further hamper the Soviet Economy. Would the Soviet Union have collapsed if someone else had been president? Maybe, maybe not. But to say it would have collapsed regardless, at that time, without Reagan's influence? I don't think so. If Walter Mondale had won, I think the Soviets would have got more milage out of the ol' hammer and sickle. The collapse may have been unavoidable, but Reagan certainly was instrumental in bringing it about.

Sorry, I didn't mean to suggest that the creation of OPEC was without US influence. I made the assumption that was common knowledge.

I actually think the architecting of the fall of the Soviet Union without a superpower war was nothing short of a stroke of genius, with everything from creating an environment that accelerated Soviet bankruptcy, to helping Russians understand a better way of life, to the friendship the developed between Gorbachev and Reagan.

But, I don't think any one element alone was responsible for the Soviet Union falling when it did.

Athens · Jan 17, 2011, 10:43 PM

Originally Posted by Wiskedjak

And, the USSR not being able to afford the Cold War race was largely a factor of the creation of OPEC, which drove the price of oil lower than the USSR could afford to extract and sell their supplies for. Had the OPEC nations not colluded to drive the price of oil down, the USSR would have had more than enough revenue to compete in the Cold War *and* keep it's citizens happy.

Or, yeah, the Russians heard the Word of Reagan and the Word was Good and they rose up in a bloody revolution and overthrew their communist masters.

I doubt it, they had other organizational issues. They grew enough food to feed every one but lots of it went bad before being distributed because of lots of red tape and over doing procedures. I think the out come would have been the same reguardless of how much money they had, it just speed it up.

Wiskedjak · Jan 17, 2011, 10:50 PM

Originally Posted by Athens

I doubt it, they had other organizational issues. They grew enough food to feed every one but lots of it went bad before being distributed because of lots of red tape and over doing procedures. I think the out come would have been the same reguardless of how much money they had, it just speed it up.

Agreed. The fall of the Soviet Union, as it existed, was likely inevitable, but there were several factors that accelerated it.

smacintush · Jan 17, 2011, 11:04 PM

I generally liked the way Reagan handled the Soviet Union, but to give him credit for its fall is just retarded.

The Soviet Union fell because it was a severely flawed governmental system based upon a false and corrupt philosophy, implemented and maintained by the only kind of people such a system can possibly attract and cultivate: corrupt, power-lusting criminals.

It was doomed at conception, the cold war just accelerated it.

OldManMac · Jan 17, 2011, 11:33 PM

Originally Posted by smacintush

I generally liked the way Reagan handled the Soviet Union, but to give him credit for its fall is just retarded.

The Soviet Union fell because it was a severely flawed governmental system based upon a false and corrupt philosophy, implemented and maintained by the only kind of people such a system can possibly attract and cultivate: corrupt, power-lusting criminals.

It was doomed at conception, the cold war just accelerated it.

Exactly. It's bizarre how easily some people are fooled into thinking otherwise, simply because they don't understand.

Buckaroo · Jan 18, 2011, 03:47 AM

Originally Posted by OldManMac

The Soviet Union fell apart all by itself because it was an economically disastrous system, that was unsustainable! It's sphere of influence had been in decline for quite some time already, when the pseudo cowboy Ronald Reagan simply transferred his cowboy rhetoric to the White House, and convinced the gullible, such as yourself, that he had something to do with it.

You don't have a clue. What rock were you sleeping under for the past 20 years?