clinton

[DukeLeto]

Yes, weapons were sold, but Reagen was never found guilty.

Right. The fact the Republicans controlled all the bodies prosecuting him was just a coincidence.

Gorbachev was a key factor in bringing an end to the cold war, but it was Reagen's SDI program and a poor Russian economy that guided his decisions. To say that Gorbachev alone ended the cold war is an overly simplified view of history and I suggest you learn some humility. You are a very arrogant person.

What? SDI? Military scientists said it wouldn't work, it would have cost billions of dollars, and it probably would have just pissed off the USSR enough to fire nukes at us just to see how well it worked. ::)

[number6]

Right. The fact the Republicans controlled all the bodies prosecuting him was just a coincidence.

Wrong. You should know that an independent counsel was responsible for the investigation.

What? SDI? Military scientists said it wouldn't work, it would have cost billions of dollars, and it probably would have just pissed off the USSR enough to fire nukes at us just to see how well it worked.

SDI may not have been feasible, but the Soviets were lead to believe it was. It's called subterfuge and it worked. I guess it is my turn to roll the eyes ::)

[Anathema]

I'm not about to make another thread about war motives, as it has been brought up dozens of times and didn't get us anywhere. Sorry for going to far off topic.

[Edric O]

I am not sure where you get your information. Perhaps a link or 2 to support your statements? Many reputable sources have credited Reagen with winning the cold war. Now you say he had nothing to do with it. Do you see why I am skeptical?

Number6, there's no actual way to determine who or what ended the Cold War, or to prove that one person or thing had more influence on it than another. All we can do is to make theories and educated guesses. I just posted mine.

[number6]

You might as well say there is no way to prove anything and all we have is opinion. It has been proven through research and investigation that US policy during the Reagen years had a definite impact on the disbanding of the USSR. There are facts that prove this.

[Acriku]

I've always thought that the collape of the Soviet USSR brought upon the end of the Cold War (it is did end, some say it hasn't yet). But what brought that collapse? Well, the loads of money spent on the arms race, competing with the US and such, corruption of dictators and their power, possibly other factors.

[Edric O]

Ah, THAT's the kind of thing you were talking about! My mistake, sorry.

Well, then, show me these facts of yours. Personally, I've never heard of any evidence that Reagen's policy had anything to do with the collapse of the USSR.

[number6]

Well there is plenty of printed material on the subject, but if you want a quick example here is an excerpt from a nice website about the US presidents:

Ronald Reagan was able to put the scandal behind him. And while the national debt had tripled and the gap between rich and poor had greatly widened by the time he left office, a soaring stock market and economic good times for many helped him regain much of his lost popularity. Critics charged that he betrayed Jimmy Carter's finest legacy-a foreign policy committed to human rights. But others pointed out that the threat of his "Star Wars" program actually helped force a diplomatic breakthrough in U.S.-Soviet relations. President Reagan and Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev held a total of five summits which culminated in the signing of a historic agreement, the first actual reduction in each side's nuclear arsenals. It marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War, and it stands as Reagan's most enduring achievement.

Here is the link to the site:

http://www.americanpresident.org/history/ronaldreagan/biography/PresidentialYears.common.shtml

Obviously the Star Wars program had a lot to do with the end of the USSR. If you wish to commision me for some real research we can talk offline.

[exatreide]

The USSR collapsed apon itself. The west had very little to do with it. IMO atleast.

[emprworm]

lol. maybe you should re-examine your history- LEVI jeans selling in the Russian black market for 100's of $$$. Ya, the west had a TON to do with it.

[SurlyPIG]

Without the West, the USSR might never have realized that Communism sucks for the people and that it doesn't work.

[Edric O]

You really don't pay any attention to anything I'm trying to explain to you about Communism, do you Ace? Funny, I thought you were an open-minded person. I guess I was wrong.

Number6, now I see what you mean. Reagan helped end the Cold War in the sense that he and Gorbachev put an end to the weapons race. That is true, and I agree with you. I thought you meant that Reagan somehow contributed to the collapse of the USSR, which he obviously did not.

[Acriku]

I thought it was Nixon with his detente that stopped the arms race and put forth negotiations?

[SurlyPIG]

Oh yes I have. I've read each word carefully. But I'm immune to that kind of propaganda. I've studied communism far more than was good for my stomach. It slows and even ends all kinds of progress, ultimately leads to opressive dictation (as it always has) and ultimately leads to poverty.

Oh and as for the Cold War, ultimately the ball was in the Soviet's court and kudos to Gorbachev for his perestroika and his eventual step-down.

[Edric O]

I've studied communism far more than was good for my stomach. It slows and even ends all kinds of progress, ultimately leads to opressive dictation (as it always has) and ultimately leads to poverty.

Funny, because that's exactly what capitalism is doing today... Of course, it's doing it SLOWER than stalinism, but the end result is the same.

- slowing down progress: Capitalism has proved itself utterly unable to make us a space-faring civilization. The most important part of Humanity's future has been neglected and left to rot for 30 years. In fact, the only reason we went to the Moon in the first place was to beat the COMMUNISTS to it.

- leading towards oppressive dictation: You can see it everywhere in the capitalist world. Democracy has been reduced to nothing more than a mockery. The corporate oligarchy holds all the power, and all politicians are on their payroll. It is only a matter of time before they do away with the puppet show of democracy altogether.

- ultimately leading to poverty: The gap between rich and poor is bigger than ever before in history, and keeps growing. Thousands die of starvation each day, while the rich capitalist overlords build themselves luxurious mansions and yachts. Never before have so many suffered so much because of so few.

[Gobalopper]

I guess you missed the news Edric but there are lots of examples of people in America attempting commercial space travel and there are even rewards out for the first person to do it.

[Acriku]

We beat the communists to it in the race to the moon, hmm reminds me of capitalist competition.

[SurlyPIG]

slowing down progress: Capitalism has proved itself utterly unable to make us a space-faring civilization. The most important part of Humanity's future has been neglected and left to rot for 30 years. In fact, the only reason we went to the Moon in the first place was to beat the COMMUNISTS to it.

Funny, I guess all the Mars probes and an international space station must have been fake then. I guess the Hubble is just 'capitalist propaganda' ::). And since when is space the most important part of humanity's future? That's YOUR opinion. Here's a perfect example of self-absorbed communism forcing itself on the rest of the world. Do you think starving kids in Africa give a shit about space? No, our future lies on Earth and with each other. Communism ended all social progress but also all economic progress and technological progress. Under commie quotas there was no incentive to do anything more than the bare minimum. Consumer goods were worthless, dictated prices were unfair, and there was no right of choice. Thus the Black Market. And what inventive progress was there? Only that dictated by the government, nuclear of course. I wonder if communists wanted to invent ways to increase efficiency and decrease pollution lol. What would the point be? Why spend that effort when there's no reason to?

- leading towards oppressive dictation: You can see it everywhere in the capitalist world. Democracy has been reduced to nothing more than a mockery. The corporate oligarchy holds all the power, and all politicians are on their payroll. It is only a matter of time before they do away with the puppet show of democracy altogether.

Candidates are still elected. The majority still rules. Elections are still called. Parliaments still propose, pass, defeat, and modify bills. Has this ever happened under communism? NO. Did Mao Zedong consult an elected cabinet before making his decisions? Did Lenin and Stalin poll the people do figure out what they thought was best for themselves? The UN has kicked tbe bucket but that's because it's government-controlled and not controlled by people.

- ultimately leading to poverty: The gap between rich and poor is bigger than ever before in history, and keeps growing. Thousands die of starvation each day, while the rich capitalist overlords build themselves luxurious mansions and yachts. Never before have so many suffered so much because of so few.

The poorest of the West are several times better off than the poorest of the former USSR, East Asia, or Africa. Just look at Korea. Separated for no more than a decade, the standard of living of the AVERAGE South Korean is nine times higher than the average North Korean. The people under dictatorial rule are getting worse and worse, and the free people free to own property, make products, sell products, and spend money as they choose are getting better abd better.

[Edric O]

Praying on the weak is fit for animals, Acriku, not civilized man.

I guess you missed the news Edric but there are lots of examples of people in America attempting commercial space travel and there are even rewards out for the first person to do it.

Oh yes, what a glorious achievement: In a few years, they might actually manage to do the same thing that has been done before, some 40 years ago! ::)

Funny, I guess all the Mars probes and an international space station must have been fake then. I guess the Hubble is just 'capitalist propaganda'. ::) And since when is space the most important part of humanity's future? That's YOUR opinion. Here's a perfect example of self-absorbed communism forcing itself on the rest of the world. Do you think starving kids in Africa give a shit about space?

Well, seeing how you capitalists are buisy turning the Earth into a toxic wasteland, I was thinking that getting the hell out of here might actually be a good idea. ::) And guess what: All the probes and telescopes in the world won't get any human being anywhere.

And about the children - yes, I'm sure they're far more interested in seeing the brave American soldiers killing their fathers and brothers. ::)

No, our future lies on Earth and with each other. Communism ended all social progress but also all economic progress and technological progress. Under commie quotas there was no incentive to do anything more than the bare minimum. Consumer goods were worthless, dictated prices were unfair, and there was no right of choice. Thus the Black Market. And what inventive progress was there? Only that dictated by the government, nuclear of course. I wonder if communists wanted to invent ways to increase efficiency and decrease pollution lol. What would the point be? Why spend that effort when there's no reason to?

Oh, not this old crap again! I thought we already discussed the matter of incentive - use the economic surplus to give bonuses to hard-working people. Also note the fact that if you work better, everyone in your community will live better, including yourself. By working for the common good, you also work for your own personal good.

You know, I wonder why you right-wingers always seem to think that the only way to get someone to work is by threatening them with a slow, painful death...

Candidates are still elected. The majority still rules. Elections are still called. Parliaments still propose, pass, defeat, and modify bills. Has this ever happened under communism? NO. Did Mao Zedong consult an elected cabinet before making his decisions? Did Lenin and Stalin poll the people do figure out what they thought was best for themselves? The UN has kicked tbe bucket but that's because it's government-controlled and not controlled by people.

There you go confusing Stalinism with Communism again...

And as for your beloved present-day "democracies" - perhaps you haven't noticed, but politicians no longer give a damn about their voters, or any of the people for that matter. They represent the corporations who fund their campaigns.

The poorest of the West are several times better off than the poorest of the former USSR, East Asia, or Africa. Just look at Korea. Separated for no more than a decade, the standard of living of the AVERAGE South Korean is nine times higher than the average North Korean. The people under dictatorial rule are getting worse and worse, and the free people free to own property, make products, sell products, and spend money as they choose are getting better abd better.

Well of course they are! Because they are living off the backs of the poor innocents who live under corporate-controlled dictatorships.

Welcome to GLOBALISATION, Ace! For the first time in history, we have exploitation on a global scale: The opulent rich bourgeois of the West are getting richer and richer, while the unfortunate 80% of the world's population are living miserable lives under the boot of Western corporate capitalism.

[SurlyPIG]

Well, seeing how you capitalists are buisy turning the Earth into a toxic wasteland, I was thinking that getting the hell out of here might actually be a good idea. ::) And guess what: All the probes and telescopes in the world won't get any human being anywhere.

Spacecraft to transport humans will be COMPLETELY USELESS if you have nowhere to go. Tell me Edric, just where are humans going to travel TO?

And about the children - yes, I'm sure they're far more interested in seeing the brave American soldiers killing their fathers and brothers. ::)

LIES. Name one place in Africa where US soldiers are located where they are not under the UN flag as peacekeepers. (Iraq is in the middle east)

Oh, not this old crap again! I thought we already discussed the matter of incentive - use the economic surplus to give bonuses to hard-working people.

Who defines what 'hard working' is? You? The government? What is is based on? Number of hours worked? Number of calories expended on the job? Dollars earned for the company? Efficiency returns? BS. All BS. It's all one twisted group's idea of what is best for everyone. Does a secretary work any harder than a brain sergeon? Why should the brain surgeon care about his patients if their job is equated to that of filing papers? At the same time, why should a secretary be paid any less than a brain surgeon if she works more hours?

Also note the fact that if you work better, everyone in your community will live better, including yourself. By working for the common good, you also work for your own personal good.

BS. How do you possibly equate this? If you work for a central agency and you're paid the same shit as everyone else, you might never even SEE the fruits of your labour.

You know, I wonder why you right-wingers always seem to think that the only way to get someone to work is by threatening them with a slow, painful death...

Some people require this much to do anything. Decrease handouts and you decrease unemployment. Some people will live effortless, shameful lives if they can live a free ride. Other people don't and won't, so they won't have any problem with such a system.

And as for your beloved present-day "democracies" - perhaps you haven't noticed, but politicians no longer give a damn about their voters, or any of the people for that matter. They represent the corporations who fund their campaigns.

Not if they want to stay elected. If they don't do what the people want, they lose their jobs. The people decide who runs the country not corporations.

[Edric O]

Spacecraft to transport humans will be COMPLETELY USELESS if you have nowhere to go. Tell me Edric, just where are humans going to travel TO?

To begin with, we could try going to the Moon (again) and actually STAYING there this time, by building a permanent Lunar settlement. Later on, we would be able to move on to Phobos and Deimos, and from there to go down to Mars.

LIES. Name one place in Africa where US soldiers are located where they are not under the UN flag as peacekeepers. (Iraq is in the middle east)

Did I say anything about Africa? I was only referring to the Middle East. The Africans have no oil, you see, so invading an African country would be pointless.

Who defines what 'hard working' is? You? The government? What is is based on? Number of hours worked? Number of calories expended on the job? Dollars earned for the company? Efficiency returns? BS. All BS. It's all one twisted group's idea of what is best for everyone. Does a secretary work any harder than a brain sergeon? Why should the brain surgeon care about his patients if their job is equated to that of filing papers? At the same time, why should a secretary be paid any less than a brain surgeon if she works more hours?

Oh, and I suppose the ruthless capitalist economy of supply and demand is a better judge? Do you really think that a system where you can get filthy rich by just manipulating money and not doing anything productive is a system that promotes hard work? ::)

And now to answer your question: Determining who is a hard worker is a simple matter of basic math. Person X has a quota to reach in a certain time. If he goes above that quota, then he is a hard worker and should receive extra pay. It's as simple as that.

Pay should also be proportional to the level of education necessary to work at a certain job. The brain surgeon needs college education, the secretary does not. Again, it's all very simple.

BS. How do you possibly equate this? If you work for a central agency and you're paid the same shit as everyone else, you might never even SEE the fruits of your labour.

You work better -> the agency starts doing better -> you get paid more. Of course, it doesn't work that way in capitalist agencies, but they're not the ones I am talking about. Communist agencies are collectively owned by their employees. Every worker is a share holder, so to speak. Capitalist wage slavery, whether private or state-run, must be abolished.

Some people require this much to do anything. Decrease handouts and you decrease unemployment. Some people will live effortless, shameful lives if they can live a free ride. Other people don't and won't, so they won't have any problem with such a system.

Yes, of course you'll decrease unemployment, because the unemployed will starve to death... ::)

The capitalist way of treating people like beasts of burden that need to be whipped into line never ceases to amaze me...

Every human being has the right to live. As such, he is entitled to basic food, clothing, shelter, health care and education. Any system that does not provide these things freely to its citizens has the blood of innocents on its hands.

Not if they want to stay elected. If they don't do what the people want, they lose their jobs. The people decide who runs the country not corporations.

Corporate-funded propaganda easily manipulates public opinion, Ace. Not to mention that in the vast majority of countries the voters only have 2 or 3 real political options to choose from, and all of them are very similar to each other. What kind of a democracy is one where two virtually identical sides switch places every few years?

If the USA is such a "land of the free", how come every single one of its presidents has been a white male Protestant?

[TMA_1]

"You really don't pay any attention to anything I'm trying to explain to you about Communism, do you Ace? Funny, I thought you were an open-minded person. I guess I was wrong."

This is the kind of talk that shows how immature and childish you are at debating. You will slandor people just because of their views, and try to put them into a corner with that. real low edric.

EDRICS PROPOGANDA, DIRECTLY TAKEN FROM HIS BEHIND... I MEAN THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. ;)

"ruthless capitalist economy"

"you can get filthy rich by just manipulating money"

"Capitalist wage slavery"

"The capitalist way of treating people like beasts of burden"

"it doesn't work that way in capitalist agencies." I liked the italics you used. really brings back memories of middle school. lol ;)

"Corporate-funded propaganda"

"If the USA is such a "land of the free", how come every single one of its presidents has been a white male Protestant?"

Lol the kicker. I loved how you ended it with the derogitory term WASP (white anglo saxon protestant).

The sheer number of your propoganda filled messages in just ONE post shows me how bias you are. Not only that, you wont admit it. and will respond with something idealistic like this.

"Idealistic?? idealistic to feed starving children from werewolf dog money driven evil capitalists? those fiends from hell who take their propoganda and change the minds of the people so that they will not understand their own freedom? bbblah blah blah"

Edric, you are a talking doll. Every time I pull the string, you say one of you 5 different attacks on an issue. you are as 1 dimensional as a line, because your spin isnt even from your own creativity. come on man geesh. you are more intelligent than that.

[Edric O]

Let's see...

- post filled with nothing except ad-hominem attacks: check

- lack of any actual arguments: check

- trying to ridicule statements and labeling them as "propaganda" without actually showing why they're wrong: check

- failure to understand that bold and italics are used to emulate different tones of voice by placing an emphasis on a certain word: check

- lack of any kind of logical reasoning behind his comments: check

- usage of the same "you're childish" line he has been using against everyone for the past 10 months: check

Yep, it's good ol' TMA all right! ::)

Listen, TMA, me and Ace are trying to have a civilized mature discussion here. Do you mind running along?

[TMA_1]

you and ace are not having a civilized debate because you are the one attacking him. I may disagree with ace but he is one fair debater. I attacked your views because they are so biased that there is no reason to debate with them. A wise person would not use all of the propaganda you use. All of the silly terms that come from the mouth of any zealot.

[Acriku]

I believe John Adams was an atheist...