PDA

View Full Version : Nader LOL.



LegalSmash
02-24-2008, 03:33 PM
Ok, I guess in an effort not to be outdone, or let ol' Ron Paul be the only extraneous candidate, Nader has once again thrown his pointy green hat into the presidential race...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080224/ap_on_el_pr/nader;_ylt=AsSaKzSWKW3G9f1j4d8.QBSs0NUE

Red
02-24-2008, 04:59 PM
Good for the right, bad for the left.

Zero001
02-24-2008, 05:10 PM
Good for the right, bad for the left.

QFT...

What the hell is Nader thinking? I wonder if he works for Bush&Co.

MANFRA
02-24-2008, 05:22 PM
But you know whats funny? He's still not the worse candidate running... I'm still debating whether Hillary or McCain gets that award. Either way, I wouldn't vote for those three if they were running against Steel.. lol.

This year will be the year I would be more then happy to "throw my vote away".. I vote because of my principles, not popularity or who someone tells me is good.

LegalSmash
02-24-2008, 05:39 PM
despite trying to play down the impact of his decision to include himself, dems are filing in fed ct against him, seeking to prevent his entry....
I think they know what he could do... take the 1 or 2 % along with him to obscurityville, pulling away the WH from the dhimmis again.... thing is, paul essentially stands for the same on the other front... It shall be interesting.

MANFRA
02-24-2008, 05:44 PM
despite trying to play down the impact of his decision to include himself, dems are filing in fed ct against him, seeking to prevent his entry....
I think they know what he could do... take the 1 or 2 % along with him to obscurityville, pulling away the WH from the dhimmis again.... thing is, paul essentially stands for the same on the other front... It shall be interesting.

It's complete bullshit that the two leading parties will try and do this.. but here's the thing, people who will vote for Ron Paul wouldn't vote for McCain either way.. Can't say the same for the Nader fans, but it's still B.S. if they keep Nader out of the race. That's not democracy.

LegalSmash
02-24-2008, 05:46 PM
i agree, i just find it ironic, since they are the ones complaining about democracy, yet denying rights to viable candidates through SLAAP suits. Go dems! (sarcasm)

phatman76
02-24-2008, 05:57 PM
It's complete bullshit that the two leading parties will try and do this.. but here's the thing, people who will vote for Ron Paul wouldn't vote for McCain either way.. Can't say the same for the Nader fans, but it's still B.S. if they keep Nader out of the race. That's not democracy.

Too bad Paul isn't running as an independent, he is running for the GOP nomination. The GOP is smart enough to not let Paul destroy its tenuous grip on the Libertarian party. Fortunately for us conservatives, however, the Dems have even more trouble holding onto the more radical treehuggers...

LegalSmash
02-24-2008, 06:03 PM
I also think that the repubs are aware that their main group for votes is pretty much shot. Hardline conservatives and traditional conservatives are not going to go along with McCaine. I have a feeling that the GOP is going to take a hell of a shellacking this election, whether its desired, appreciated, etc. or not.

There was an article in newsweek talking about this exact issue. GOP needs to return to its roots to get the win: schrewd spending, savings, eco policy, small government, and accountability.

MANFRA
02-24-2008, 06:04 PM
Too bad Paul isn't running as an independent, he is running for the GOP nomination. The GOP is smart enough to not let Paul destroy its tenuous grip on the Libertarian party. Fortunately for us conservatives, however, the Dems have even more trouble holding onto the more radical treehuggers...

It's too bad that the GOP is losing faithfull people like me everyday though.. they're going in the wrong direction thinking everyone will follow. It aint going to happen. Within 20 years the GOP will get back on track to what they used to be.. otherwise they're doomed.. we're doomed.

LegalSmash
02-24-2008, 06:22 PM
My beef with them is going for the "religious right" section of the conservative group rather than the entire conservative spectrum. I have not seen any conservative candidate in the past that was running around eating abortions and bending over, dropping trou like a catomite. This whole fetish of pleasing the religiously minded is folly for the party. You lose a GREAT deal of credibility with commonsense conservative people that just arent all that religious when you tell them GOD told you to do something. I rather that the person TELL ME in plain language what the hell they want to do, why are they are trying to do it, and keep the pandering to the high and holy to themselves.

This isnt to slight other conservatives, but I think that the GOP as of the past decade has been FAR too invested in this idea. They need to pull back, take a deep breath, put down the "Jayeez-usssh" hat and look at their audience... which ranges from elderly war vets that want security in their age but not a handout to college students that want accountability in their educational institutions and less "free money" based on conditions out of your own control (blackness, or any other non-whiteness essentially, ability to run fast, poverty, disability, etc.), but rather money based on MERIT not a condition.

I think they need to go back to stressing the values of hard work, accountability, and honest dealings, and staightline thinking, rather than this pipedream drivel that has spewed from both parties like a bad case of dysentary in a barracks.

They need to "Take it back" doo doo doo doo (who gets the rocky V reference?)

phatman76
02-25-2008, 12:32 AM
My beef with them is going for the "religious right" section of the conservative group rather than the entire conservative spectrum. I have not seen any conservative candidate in the past that was running around eating abortions and bending over, dropping trou like a catomite. This whole fetish of pleasing the religiously minded is folly for the party. You lose a GREAT deal of credibility with commonsense conservative people that just arent all that religious when you tell them GOD told you to do something. I rather that the person TELL ME in plain language what the hell they want to do, why are they are trying to do it, and keep the pandering to the high and holy to themselves.

This isnt to slight other conservatives, but I think that the GOP as of the past decade has been FAR too invested in this idea. They need to pull back, take a deep breath, put down the "Jayeez-usssh" hat and look at their audience... which ranges from elderly war vets that want security in their age but not a handout to college students that want accountability in their educational institutions and less "free money" based on conditions out of your own control (blackness, or any other non-whiteness essentially, ability to run fast, poverty, disability, etc.), but rather money based on MERIT not a condition.

I think they need to go back to stressing the values of hard work, accountability, and honest dealings, and staightline thinking, rather than this pipedream drivel that has spewed from both parties like a bad case of dysentary in a barracks.

They need to "Take it back" doo doo doo doo (who gets the rocky V reference?)

You have already forgotten that it was the lockstep vote of the religious, evangelical right under the auspices of Jerry Fallwell and the bunch that brought the conservatives rule in Congress in the early 1990s. It was an act of political expedience. It doesn't take a genius to realize that politics is antithetical to evangelical Christendom. However, the lines have been blurred in this interest group democracy of ours.

The GOP can't abandon the religious right, and Huckabee is the ultimate manifestation that the evangelicals will not sit in the corner and vote for Republicans just because they are told to. The GOP is already losing the Christian right, Huckabee is proof. These people are the opposite of Libertarians. They believe in a social agenda of government responsibility and control along with economic intervention. Funny they find themselves in the same party line as most Libertarians. The GOP is losing the Libertarians too, however, the result of Paul's obviously losing bid. Unless McCain plays his cards smart and the party rallies, it will lose both wings of the hard right... all we can hope for at this point is a Clinton to unify us in mutual hate...

LegalSmash
02-25-2008, 12:49 AM
I agree with the last statement, however, I think you misunderstand me, I dont think the GOP should abandon the religious right outright, but rather, have a more globally conservative agenda... imho it would be possible to please both sides of the right (hard religious and hard
rugged independence, for these purposes) if the presidential candidate does its best to support the traditional agendas of the GOP, pleasing the religious with conservative judicial appointments and continually stating that abortion is controllable by states after viability (current scotus doctrine), and in that sense is not an "abortothon" it would be possible to keep them... satisfied.

I have issue with the fact that the GOP has a defacto dependence on falwell in order to win a vote.



They believe in a social agenda of government responsibility and control along with economic intervention.

I agree with you that this is pretty much what the religious right wants, but I find it rather disconcerting. I dont see the difference between that and the far left democrat's "social utopia bullshit"

phatman76
02-25-2008, 06:49 PM
I agree with you that this is pretty much what the religious right wants, but I find it rather disconcerting. I dont see the difference between that and the far left democrat's "social utopia bullshit"

there isn't, that is why I dislike Huckabee.

However, it is possible to be the "complete conservative", to be religiously conservative and to also be fiscally conservative. These people believe in economic non-intervention, a strong foreign policy, and even a lot of personal liberty (except for abortion).

LegalSmash
02-25-2008, 07:45 PM
I cant really say i have a problem with that set up right there.

As for abortion, if you pay 120K+ in law school, youll learn that roe v. wade is the most misunderstood case ever, people are stupid and politicians manipulate the basic premise to turn it into an abortion issue, when its really about privacy re: personal body, rather than abortion.

Too bad I had to pay that much to learn that...

Italian Jew
02-25-2008, 08:19 PM
really? I learned that from high school. Anyways, both parties are generally full of shit at the extremes. Best to get rid of them entirely, but it won't happen...just gotta keep picking the lesser of two evils. Ralph Nader needs to gtfo and let the big dogs play. All he is going to do is take away vote from a candidate and cost them the election. He needs to stop being a leech.

LegalSmash
02-25-2008, 08:27 PM
Shit, they didnt even TRY to touch abortion in florida when i was in high school.


All he is going to do is take away vote from a candidate and cost them the election. He needs to stop being a leech.

I disagree completely. He has the same right as the other pricks to run. As long as its his money, and he's doing it legally, let him have the shot. I dont think people need to be voting "anti-opposition" but rather for whom they want rather than who will best beat the other party's bid.

I will say though, that if hil-dog gets the nomination, I'll write in jesus, satan, santa, shit, maybe even mandela before I vote for her or mccaine.

Slavic
02-25-2008, 08:42 PM
I think that the GOP seeks out the religious vote so much is because once the rapture hits, everyone is going to want to be the GOP's friend : D

Nader should be allowed to run, this is a democratic system, and in a democratic system we give the power to the masses, and have you actually gotten a load of the masses???

Me being an undecided Socialist with Libertarian leanings, I hope that Hillary doesn't get nominated as well. I'd have to decide to put my votes either into McCain or Nader.

phatman76
02-25-2008, 10:26 PM
I think that the GOP seeks out the religious vote so much is because once the rapture hits, everyone is going to want to be the GOP's friend : D

Nader should be allowed to run, this is a democratic system, and in a democratic system we give the power to the masses, and have you actually gotten a load of the masses???

Me being an undecided Socialist with Libertarian leanings, I hope that Hillary doesn't get nominated as well. I'd have to decide to put my votes either into McCain or Nader.

how the hell can you be a socialist with libertarian leanings? That is literally the two opposite extremes of the right and left.

LegalSmash
02-25-2008, 10:38 PM
hes EXTREEEEEEME

Italian Jew
02-25-2008, 11:01 PM
This system is nowhere near democratic anymore...not even democratic republic. Sort of oligarchial-democratic-republic way of things. You are either in or you are out. Nader is never going to be in, so he will never be president or a viable candidate and should not run. The ins would be Republicans and Democrats, and until parties are abolished by some miracle, there is always going to be two dumb ass parties trying to control the country. Nowadays its not the people's ideas that rule. It is what those select few tell you what is important and the media has transformed all issues into two answer problems. You are either a left or a right wing, which is utter bullshit considering what principles this nation was founded upon. George Washington would bitch slap every American today for letting this happen.

Nadar running now does not help the situation at all. The only way his candidacy would help if 20 other candidates popped up that were not Republicans or Democrats. that way it wouldn't be Democrats and Republicans vs. a third party...it would be a free for all between 22 different candidates.

phatman76
02-26-2008, 12:06 AM
This system is nowhere near democratic anymore...not even democratic republic. Sort of oligarchial-democratic-republic way of things. You are either in or you are out. Nader is never going to be in, so he will never be president or a viable candidate and should not run. The ins would be Republicans and Democrats, and until parties are abolished by some miracle, there is always going to be two dumb ass parties trying to control the country. Nowadays its not the people's ideas that rule. It is what those select few tell you what is important and the media has transformed all issues into two answer problems. You are either a left or a right wing, which is utter bullshit considering what principles this nation was founded upon. George Washington would bitch slap every American today for letting this happen.

Nadar running now does not help the situation at all. The only way his candidacy would help if 20 other candidates popped up that were not Republicans or Democrats. that way it wouldn't be Democrats and Republicans vs. a third party...it would be a free for all between 22 different candidates.

Italian it has always been two or maybe three parties. There are only wide ranges of choice in parliamentary democracies, which are actually more dictatorial because the executive is not chosen by the people, but by the parliament. Our separation of powers, and the two party system, have kept our country out of the major economic and policy screw-ups that have plagued other countries such as France and Spain.

George Washington would bitch slap us, but not for the two party system. He would bitch slap us because of how giant the government has even been allowed to become. There wouldn't be so many problems if the bureaucrats upstairs didn't exist...

Italian Jew
02-26-2008, 08:15 AM
Washington did not have a party! : ) Look how well his presidency was.

I do not think our two party system has kept us out of problems as you say, but it has rather created them. If you can honestly say we are not in an economic crisis now, or any of our policies are out of whack, then I have no idea where you have been for the past decade. Washington even said political parties or factions would destroy the country, which is what he warned about in the speech he gave after his presidency.

Having only two major parties means that people believe there are only two answers to an issue, meaning if you are a liberal, you are dumb and if you are a conservative, you are dumb. You should be you, not a mindless zombie in a party. Parties only result in bad things happening in the long run. Too much power, and they effectively run the government themselves (i.e. look at the rise of the Nazi party in Germany, turned the government into one of the world's worst dictatorships.)

Having a large government is not a problem, having a large democracy is, especially a democratic-republic. Large countries are most effectively ruled by a dictator, which does not necessarily mean a bad ruler. the problem with dictator's is that they are people, and most of the time, people with political ambitions are fucking loons. Not saying that we need a dictatorship now, but in the possibly near future, America will shift towards that form of government because it will get too large. We will basically turn into the Roman Empire for an era, and then decline afterwards. It is the simple cycle of history.

LegalSmash
02-26-2008, 08:46 AM
A few things:

Washington was not part of a party, in fact he abhored them... read his farewell address, although that masterpiece was partly authored by Hamilton.

We have generally had 2-3 parties in some degree of activities, whether it was the anti-feds and the feds, the democratic republicans, the republicans the democrats, or the green party. The parties are a pain in the ass, as is the lobbying... the problem is that our countrymen are fucktards that are wholly uninterested on any actual "non-yes-no" question or anything that requires active listening. That is what is killing our country's once robust political culture.

Here is the rub though, most Americans fall into the general smorgasboard of very similar ideal platforms that the Dhimmis and the GOP represent... they care about industry, education, spending, labor, social control and liberation, and most important, taxes. Despite tooting his own horn over it, both Nader and Paul appeal to a very small minority of the population, the well read, idealistic, rugged independent/isolationist or maverick. Despite the image of americans has all of those, they really arent that much so politically... they are pretty sheep-like in the sense. As long as they get a bone tossed their way, they will not "rabble rabble"... which is disconcerting considering the turbulent founding of this country.

I like the fact that BOTH nader and Paul are running. I've previously stated that I dont really dislike Paul on an individual level, and there are folks such as manfra, and others that will vote on ideals (the correct way to vote from an ethical standpoint) rather than voting AGAINST a candidate. To vote for a McCaine, or a Huckabee when you dont care for either of them, but DONT want hillary to win, defeats the purpose of the whole damn thing ideally, namely, to select the candidate you think is best.

Assuming arguendo, that there WERE more than 2-3 viable parties, a whole new crop of divisive political ploys that would make the 50 50 splits in our bicameral legislatures seem tame. Instead you would have 33 33 33 splits and even more extreme parties appearing, ie. france, germany, england parlimentary democracy systems.

Italian Jew
02-26-2008, 09:24 AM
We should breed our leaders in vats so that they have common sense on issues and don't rely on their own personal needs and wants to interfere with their duties...

Less realistic would be Liberals and Conservatives coming together...

Don't know why, but you would think all of those "well educated" men and women could see all the points of an argument before spewing out what they believe to be right. Things need to be run differently during different periods of time. Sometimes the government needs to be more liberal, sometimes more conservative, but problems occur where conservative policies are needed, but a liberal is in charge and fights the problem incorrectly and vice versa.

Efforts at becoming less of a party member yield a negative response from members of that party, so if you are a democrat trying to level out with conservatives, the democratic zealots would snub him later. The same goes for conservatives. I would have no problem with parties if they could just chill and understand each other and talk about things. the nation would greatly benefit from it as well.

Slavic
02-26-2008, 09:41 AM
A few things:

Washington was not part of a party, in fact he abhored them... read his farewell address, although that masterpiece was partly authored by Hamilton.

We have generally had 2-3 parties in some degree of activities, whether it was the anti-feds and the feds, the democratic republicans, the republicans the democrats, or the green party. The parties are a pain in the ass, as is the lobbying... the problem is that our countrymen are fucktards that are wholly uninterested on any actual "non-yes-no" question or anything that requires active listening. That is what is killing our country's once robust political culture.

Here is the rub though, most Americans fall into the general smorgasboard of very similar ideal platforms that the Dhimmis and the GOP represent... they care about industry, education, spending, labor, social control and liberation, and most important, taxes. Despite tooting his own horn over it, both Nader and Paul appeal to a very small minority of the population, the well read, idealistic, rugged independent/isolationist or maverick. Despite the image of americans has all of those, they really arent that much so politically... they are pretty sheep-like in the sense. As long as they get a bone tossed their way, they will not "rabble rabble"... which is disconcerting considering the turbulent founding of this country.

I like the fact that BOTH nader and Paul are running. I've previously stated that I dont really dislike Paul on an individual level, and there are folks such as manfra, and others that will vote on ideals (the correct way to vote from an ethical standpoint) rather than voting AGAINST a candidate. To vote for a McCaine, or a Huckabee when you dont care for either of them, but DONT want hillary to win, defeats the purpose of the whole damn thing ideally, namely, to select the candidate you think is best.

Assuming arguendo, that there WERE more than 2-3 viable parties, a whole new crop of divisive political ploys that would make the 50 50 splits in our bicameral legislatures seem tame. Instead you would have 33 33 33 splits and even more extreme parties appearing, ie. france, germany, england parlimentary democracy systems.

Legal has it entirely right with those points. It is hard for specific laws to be passed in parliamentary systems because it has to go through so many different political parties, making quite a jam. And the parliamentary governments are actually less democratic as Legal stated, because of how they get their executive power, and not to mention the House of Lords, wtf is up with that.

And Legal the reason why I say that I am Libertarian Socialist is because I have mixed ideals. I believe that certain systems under certain conditions can work out effectively, so I do not like "subscribing" to one camp. I tend to have more Socialist leanings, but I do not think Socialism is good for America at the moment, or that that moment will ever really happen. I think that Conservatism with Libertarian civil rights though will be better for our country.

Dictatorships are also very beneficial given the right environment. All of the power and none of the congressional hassle. Make an honest intelligent man a Dictator and he could turn a country around very quickly.

*Votes Legal for Dictator*

MANFRA
02-26-2008, 11:21 AM
how the hell can you be a socialist with libertarian leanings? That is literally the two opposite extremes of the right and left.

lol i was thinking the same thing slavic. socialists want to control and regulate everyone's lives.. libertarians want you to live your own lives and make your own choices with the lease amount of government involvement as possible.

Slavic
02-26-2008, 11:44 AM
Libertarian Socialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-socialism)

Red
02-26-2008, 12:16 PM
Retarded Retardedness (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarcho-socialism)

LegalSmash
02-26-2008, 12:51 PM
Legal has it entirely right with those points. It is hard for specific laws to be passed in parliamentary systems because it has to go through so many different political parties, making quite a jam. And the parliamentary governments are actually less democratic as Legal stated, because of how they get their executive power, and not to mention the House of Lords, wtf is up with that.

And Legal the reason why I say that I am Libertarian Socialist is because I have mixed ideals. I believe that certain systems under certain conditions can work out effectively, so I do not like "subscribing" to one camp. I tend to have more Socialist leanings, but I do not think Socialism is good for America at the moment, or that that moment will ever really happen. I think that Conservatism with Libertarian civil rights though will be better for our country.

Dictatorships are also very beneficial given the right environment. All of the power and none of the congressional hassle. Make an honest intelligent man a Dictator and he could turn a country around very quickly.

*Votes Legal for Dictator*


I accept... can i get my sig to say dictator and everyone call me "el commandante"?

LegalSmash
02-26-2008, 12:58 PM
We definitely need a commissar for morale purposes.

I'll wear a sash. A blue one, and some of those Balls they put on the trucks.

phatman76
02-26-2008, 06:26 PM
We definitely need a commissar for morale purposes.

I'll wear a sash. A blue one, and some of those Balls they put on the trucks.

Wonderful, but you might need a few ICBMs to give you the ego...

Anyways, I think that all of your peoples pessimism is ridiculous and at points absurd. First of all, Washington didn't have a party but his ideas were lockstep with the feds, and on top of that other great presidents (Lincoln, FDR, Reagan) were essentially hardliners in some way (Abolition/Federalism, social programs, and ending the Cold War). They all existed at a time when only two parties were in power.

Another point, much of Washington politics isn't as partisan as it may seem. On many non-partisan issues coalitions and caucuses form that are bipartisan, and they don't spout ideological crap. You ask why we have "that mess in washington" and think a dictator or many parties could do a better job, when in fact they would not.

A dictator would fail just like every other dictator ever (whether through his own failings or poor choices that hurt his replacement). period. Don't give me that roman emperor crap, Marcus Aurelius was one of the best and chose such a bad successor that the empire fell apart from the inside.

As for multiple parties, I don't see England, France or Germany handling conflict and waste any better than we do. In fact, they are a good deal worse at it.

Nader running isn't some sign that the two-party system sucks, it is a sign that the crazies want their two cents and are entitled to have it.

LegalSmash
02-26-2008, 09:03 PM
word ^

Repeat
02-26-2008, 09:16 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I want a libertarian candiate for righteous victory.

phatman76
02-26-2008, 11:04 PM
I've said it before and I'll say it again -- I want a libertarian candiate for righteous victory.

good for you... expressing your beliefs...

now go throw your vote away :)




Seriously, however, politics is the art of compromise. As good as a candidate might be as a solid libertarian, he just won't be able to marshal enough votes.

One factor to a libertarians un-electability, and I dislike this, is that liberalism begets constituents while conservatism/libertarianism destroys them. Every time a liberal helps a minority or group, he gets their vote. Conservatives are the bad guys because in order to do good, they must take away.

Slavic
02-27-2008, 11:39 AM
Congratulations you beat up little ol Argentina : D

Italian Jew
02-27-2008, 11:58 AM
Well, Argentina deserves to get the shit kicked out of them for trying to take something of the UK. Honestly, did they think they were gonna be like "Cheerio, wot wot...I say...why have the Falklands stop writing to us? Well, we lost another one, best be off. Ta ta!" Nah, they got a kick ass Navy and they used it. A bit of overkill though...teeny tiny Argentina...PWNED

phatman76
02-27-2008, 07:45 PM
Ever heard of the Falkland Islands? We pwned their ass when no-one else thought we could. Our force was outnumbered at least 5-1 and they had Exocet missiles recently bought from the French.

Thatcher did some things right...

True that. Thatcher was a pretty good leader. Us Yanks did some things right too though, ever heard of the Soviets?

Slavic
02-27-2008, 07:51 PM
True that. Thatcher was a pretty good leader. Us Yanks did some things right too though, ever heard of the Soviets?

What's a Soviet? Are they these hippies I keep hearing about from old people?

Italian Jew
02-27-2008, 08:56 PM
The soviets dissolved from the inside because communism or their form of "communism" can only survive if the entire planet conformed to it. Communism cannot coexist with capitalism for large stretches of time because the capitalists excommunicate the communists from the rest of the world, and since every nation depends on the global economy to thrive, that would kill any country. If the UK became Communist as well as other key nations in Europe, the U.S. would have dissolved and conformed to communist ideals.

So it wasn't just us Yanks....it was the whole damn world vs. them.

The only country we have beaten by ourselves is Mexico and Spain I believe in the 1800's. All the other wars had extensive help from other countries.

Red
02-27-2008, 08:58 PM
But mostly us

LegalSmash
02-27-2008, 09:30 PM
My two cents

The soviets were a dead stick long before Reagan. Reagan gave the deathblow to the Soviet "republic"... in the infamous words of Hitler prior to starting operation barbarosa: he "kicked the door in and the whole rotting structure came down".

Since the late 1960s the Soviet military had been running up a huge bill in their attempts to match technology with us, and quell disturbances. Additionally, their economy was on the floor already by that point. The Soviet economic model relied heavily on state regulation of most industries, this was also characterized by price fixing, lack of promotion, performance bonuses, etc. this doesnt work well to encourage a growing GDP. Also, add to the fact that the Soviet party itself was corrupt as all hell, and the people knew it, the shit was not going to fly. We ALL had a hand in fucking over the Soviets by not buying into their model of life... however, it WAS Reagan's policies, and the softening of the Politburo itself that ended up with everything falling down for the Soviets.

Evidence can be seen by the condition of the former soviet union in the decade or so after the wall came down and the Soviet Union ceased to be... their economy was in the proverbial shitter, their people unable to do much of anything, demoralized, and confused.

This didnt really stop there either, a domino effect of sorts occured after this, as the nearby soviet satelite countries went through transitions, and fidel castro's communist cuba and other nations in that sphere of influence found themselves unable to find a reliable trading partner outside of china. (Not to say china isnt more than adequate).

Bonus cents:

Falklands was just imho. The argentines are some uppity little bastards, and if you ask the right Jews, Nazi-sympathizers and hiders. (Mengele anyone?) They invaded territory that wasnt there, and the Queen's boys Spanked them but good. It was well deserved. Also, given the English Military's proclivity for killing droves of other europeans throughout history, You would think the Argentines would have thought twice about that ignorant move.

Italian Jew
02-27-2008, 10:45 PM
Reagan also killed our economy as well...Reagan's policies were nothing too great...just ruin our economy and watch theirs fall to pieces. They fell first because their economy was crap in the capitalist world. However, our economy went to shit as well, as his "great" policies can be felt today. Making a large deficit even larger and proposing such idiotic plans as "Star Wars"... some other, more realistic ideas of his were good and all, but saying his policies destroyed the U.S.S.R. is not correct. They did speed up the process, but what killed the Soviets was capitalism...

phatman76
02-27-2008, 11:13 PM
Reagan also killed our economy as well...Reagan's policies were nothing too great...just ruin our economy and watch theirs fall to pieces. They fell first because their economy was crap in the capitalist world. However, our economy went to shit as well, as his "great" policies can be felt today. Making a large deficit even larger and proposing such idiotic plans as "Star Wars"... some other, more realistic ideas of his were good and all, but saying his policies destroyed the U.S.S.R. is not correct. They did speed up the process, but what killed the Soviets was capitalism...

I can say this with absolute certainty. If the United States had not been a player in the Cold War, the Soviets would have taken over the planet. Q.E.D., America won the cold war. That was my original point. Just wanted to show that if the USA can kick ass in wars too :) As for the end of the Cold War, Reagan did basically cinch it, it would have been won anyways but I think he sped it up quite a bit. His reheat of the arms race broke what was left of the Soviet economy. His economic policies also ended a period of stagflation caused by Carter that began an economic boon that continued a very long time.

Italian Jew
02-27-2008, 11:18 PM
The Soviets could not have possibly taken over the planet...zomg that sounds like the plot of Red Dawn...

Also, the Cold War was not really a war, it was a series of them...so let's see....we kicked ass a bit in Korea, then got pushed back by China....we got bitch slapped in vietnam...but our economy outlasted the U.S.S.R.'s...so we won that one!!! There was no real fighting between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S., and if their was, we would not be here today. Both would have lost because both would nuke the other as soon as someone attacked.

As for Reagan's boom...it made the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...all at the expense of the nation, which the deficit of the U.S. grew tremendously. We got a little better for the short run, but completely screwed in the long run. Not a good policy in my book...

phatman76
02-27-2008, 11:24 PM
The Soviets could not have possibly taken over the planet...zomg that sounds like the plot of Red Dawn...

Also, the Cold War was not really a war, it was a series of them...so let's see....we kicked ass a bit in Korea, then got pushed back by China....we got bitch slapped in vietnam...but our economy outlasted the U.S.S.R.'s...so we won that one!!! There was no real fighting between the U.S.S.R. and the U.S., and if their was, we would not be here today. Both would have lost because both would nuke the other as soon as someone attacked.

As for Reagan's boom...it made the rich get richer and the poor get poorer...all at the expense of the nation, which the deficit of the U.S. grew tremendously. We got a little better for the short run, but completely screwed in the long run. Not a good policy in my book...

Somehow you managed to reply while ignoring the main part of my post. Call the Cold War whatever you want, but the USA was the most important player against the USSR. If the USA had not existed, the West would have stood a much poorer chance in the USSR's proxy wars and economic expansion via satellite states.

Italian Jew
02-27-2008, 11:25 PM
Well, you have to explain the context of the U.S. not being there....are we saying that if the U.S. NEVER existed? The U.S. disappeared after WWII? Or that the U.S. just chilled on the sidelines after WWII and did nothing?

phatman76
02-28-2008, 08:32 PM
I love how people think that the Domino Effect could exist. The reason Communism collapsed in the Soviet Union wasn't anything to do with foreign policies. Simply put, the ideas of communism are that there is no Capitalism, and that nobody gets rich whilst others get poor, so everyone no matter what the social hierarchy, are equal.

Since this concerned everyone most people realised "Hey, if we all get the same pay no matter what we are, we don't have to work." This meant that the Russian economy collapsed, the war effort nearly stopped altogether, and all of a sudden there was mass unemployment, due to either refused work or mass cutbacks.

Most of the Asian continent and other areas became various types of Communist (Korea, China, Vietnam, Kazakhstan, Afghanistan, etc.), but most of those countries' governments collapsed under similar circumstances or has had foreign intervention -- except for China, and I'm not sure myself how they managed to be successful.

P.S. When I read the 'Reagan' theories I was sharply reminded of the Spitting Image sketch of him with a dot-to-dot book with a square-headed chief of security. xD

Communism is inherently incompatible with human nature. I think we can all agree on that. Greed means that it can never work. However, that doesn't mean the USSR never had a chance at global domination. If the USA and its NATO allies had not fought back the USSR and its satellite states, in both terms of economics and proxy wars, the USSR would have become a global empire. It would have still collapsed eventually, it would have just destroyed civilization as we know it...

As for China, their success is a bit of a mystery. However, their vast population, powerful, dictatorial central government and vast natural resources explain it. China won't, however, last forever on its current course. It has to join the free world. Either through civil war or reform...

*Queen VenomousFate*
02-28-2008, 08:48 PM
Whether or not the Democrats like him, he has the right to run for president just like every other natural born citizen. Yes he may be a "spoiler", but he has just as much right to run as Obama.

KingTim
02-28-2008, 09:28 PM
Im voting for Nader LOL

LegalSmash
02-28-2008, 10:01 PM
^^ my point ALL along.

KingTim
02-28-2008, 11:05 PM
^^ my point ALL along.


lol well I looked at all the other people and dont like what I see right now. Maybe it will change later. And I dont really like getting into it because I have seen people fight over stupid stuff dealing with politics.

LitKey
02-28-2008, 11:54 PM
lol well I looked at all the other people and dont like what I see right now. Maybe it will change later. And I dont really like getting into it because I have seen people fight over stupid stuff dealing with politics.

don't think he was referring to your post, but the one right above yours

KingTim
02-28-2008, 11:57 PM
don't think he was referring to your post, but the one right above yours

o lol