vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
The Soviet Union would've destroyed itself with or without Reagan.
Flashback: Reagan on Unions...
- Thread starter CunningStunts
- Start date
Let's get something straight about Bonzo. He was NOT a good leader, he was just a tool for the wall street and rich scumbags. During his time, he made sure that the rich and corporations made out while the average Joe suffered. It was during his time when all the outsourcing and shipping of manufacturing left our country. I don't get why unions are viewed so negatively here when the wall street douches have done more damage than anyone would like to admit. Meanwhile you have companies like GM that can't keep themselves afloat so they have to beg for public funds and then attempt to give bonuses to those who DO NOT deserve it. These are the ones Bonzo represented.
Yeah but he sped up it's demise. If you were of age back then the specter of nuclear war was very real. I lived in an area surrounded by military bases which were priority targets, so having a Pres who ended the Cold War earlier rather than later was all that mattered.
He had NOTHING to do with that, economics brought about the demise of the Soviet Union.
Jagger69
Three lullabies in an ancient tongue
I am pro-union within reason and I am most certainly no Reagan fan by any stretch but PATCO was out of control at that time and Reagan absolutely did the right thing in this instance. Those guys (and gals) have a very tough job I will admit (my *** was an air traffic controller for 33 years and the stress level is incredible) but they make huge dollars and have the same benefits that congress does. Their demands at that time were unreasonable and my *** (he had recently been ****** into retirement due to a medical condition when this occurred) agrees 100%. He has been retired since he was 56 years old, is presently 87 and he has enjoyed a full pension over that entire time and currently makes about $65,000/year. He also has 100% comprehensive health insurance that is totally free of any cost to him (socialized medicine!!). He gets a COLA every time congress votes a raise for themselves. It's a fucking gravy train.
There was a waiting list as long as your arm of extremely qualified individuals who were willing to do anything to take the ATC guys' jobs and these idiots went on strike anyway? Fuck 'em. Pigs might get fat but hogs get slaughtered. They got what they deserved. About the only thing Reagan did with which I am in agreement to be honest.
Also, let's not give Ronnie too much credit for the demise of the Soviet Union. The fact that it happened to take place on his watch was coincidental more than anything.
There was a waiting list as long as your arm of extremely qualified individuals who were willing to do anything to take the ATC guys' jobs and these idiots went on strike anyway? Fuck 'em. Pigs might get fat but hogs get slaughtered. They got what they deserved. About the only thing Reagan did with which I am in agreement to be honest.
Also, let's not give Ronnie too much credit for the demise of the Soviet Union. The fact that it happened to take place on his watch was coincidental more than anything.
emceeemcee
Banned
err the party which had declared it's intention to withdraw a year prior to that, obviously.
So show us some evidence to prove your theory. All we've heard from you is speculation.
/officially bored with the Raygun Appreciation Society.
Facetious
Moderated
Remember all of the scare tactics that were being used?
i.e. (paraphrasing) Reagan better not fire the journeymen, for flying will no longer be safe with new air traffic controllers! As it turned out, the newly hired air traffic controllers didn't skip a beat . . .
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Economics (their system was fucked) and politics (with the ogliarchs acting like lords and masters) the SU was doomed before Reagan.
I'm not denying that he sped up the demise of the SU. Certainly the spend that went into producing military stuff which shouldn't have been produced was of no benefit to the SU.
The funny thing is that when they flew former East German Fulcrums against F16s the Fulcrum would get the dogfight **** EVERY TIME. So it's better than we think that there was no war.
If I were of age? What makes you think you know my age? :tongue:
Does anyone else find it ironic that the US is now committing many the same deadly economic sins that doomed the USSR?
Back on topic, Mass. Congressman warns this struggle will "get a little ******," a clear escalation of the rhetoric. Wonder if the press will hammer him for the reference like they surely would if he was a conservative...
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...r-protests-get-a-little-******-when-necessary
'Back on topic' ......
itz truly unclear WHAT topic you are looking to address
You want to talk about Wisconsinsin, but advance a bullshit story about Reagan? The relevant direction of the discussion was derailed before the first reply
Unions and how leaders handle these types of organized labor v. the people. At least that was my intention, but the thread became more of a referendum on Reagan. :1orglaugh
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
Elaborate?Does anyone else find it ironic that the US is now committing many the same deadly economic sins that doomed the USSR?
Back on topic, Mass. Congressman warns this struggle will "get a little ******," a clear escalation of the rhetoric. Wonder if the press will hammer him for the reference like they surely would if he was a conservative...
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brief...r-protests-get-a-little-******-when-necessary
Well, it seems to me that if a right winger had said something like this, the media would be having a hissie-fit about how the rhetoric is escalating to "violent" levels... (see Rep. Giffords incident, which they wrongfully suggested the shooter was a "teabagger). Instead, barely a peep about this comment in the press. Double standard here?
What? Telling the working man that he has no rights, no power and exist only to suck the leader's flacid c*ck?
/S
Talking about those wrinkled ,dried up ,shriveled & ossificated Balls of Reagan that he tucked between his legs after those 300 Marines were ****** in Beirut?
He was pretty indecisive in his response & only decisive in his 'retreat' (as Right Wingers would say). He didn't know who or what hit us nor what the fuck to do. Probably did the right thing by leaving ,but the fool should never had sent the Marines there to suffer one of their most demoralizing events ever in the first place.
Had that been a Democratic President who got out of dodge(Beirut) like that just imagine what those war mongering Neo Cons who worship that senile old fool, Reagan ,would say........
Or when he invaded that Super Powerhouse Island nation of Grenada:dunno:
Real balls
Reagan just happened to be in office when the Soviet Union finally collapsed(spending BILlions every year trying to subsidize so many other Bloc territories or friendly communist regimes around the world like Cuba for example )
Just like Clinton's strong economy was just fortunate to benefit from the new internet/technology boom of the 90's.
We attribute too much blame & credit to Presidents when some things were bound to happen anyhow & it simply happened under their watch.
Out of all the items in your post, that is the only one I will agree to.
err the party which had declared it's intention to withdraw a year prior to that, obviously.
So show us some evidence to prove your theory. All we've heard from you is speculation.
/officially bored with the Raygun Appreciation Society.
The Soviets didn't even come up with a timetable for withdrawal until late '87.
Show you evidence?
How old were you in the 80s? 10?
/officially bored with the "Far Left Monday Night Quarterbacking Club"
Talking about those wrinkled ,dried up ,shriveled & ossificated Balls of Reagan that he tucked between his legs after those 300 Marines were ****** in Beirut?
He was pretty indecisive in his response & only decisive in his 'retreat' (as Right Wingers would say). He didn't know who or what hit us nor what the fuck to do. Probably did the right thing by leaving ,but the fool should never had sent the Marines there to suffer one of their most demoralizing events ever in the first place.
Reagan just happened to be in office when the Soviet Union finally collapsed(spending BILlions every year trying to subsidize so many other Bloc territories or friendly communist regimes around the world like Cuba for example )
Just like Clinton's strong economy was just fortunate to benefit from the new internet/technology boom of the 90's.
We attribute too much blame & credit to Presidents when some things were bound to happen anyhow & it simply happened under their watch.
What was he supposed to do in Beirut after the Marine barracks were hit? The French lost 58 that day as well from a suicide bomber.
How do you deal with a suicide bomber? No one had even dealt with such a phenomena before.
We returned fire on Syrian positions in self defense in September after repeatedly taking fire from them.
So what were we supposed to do after the Barracks in October? Get more involved? Nobody wanted to get "more" involved after Vietnam which was very fresh in everyone's mind in 1983.
More "Monday Night Quarterbacking"
Last edited:
That's one interpretation of those facts. An alternative is now that we know the Soviets were collapsing on their own, Reagan looks like a fool for spending on a rival who he didn't realize had already lost.
You (and others) theorize what the Soviets feared and responded to in order to make the story sound better. But all we know for certain is they were in decline already and spending more money than they had sustaining a multi-year war in Afghanistan.
If anything the 'Cold War' was won in the '70s when Soviet technological advances in agriculture and commercial industry fell behind at the expense of their military.
Claiming Reagan did something to 'win' the "Cold War" is like the agents of backup players attributing a basketball game win to them after being handed a 25 point 4th qtr. lead just because they made a few flashy plays during garbage time and were in the game when the clock read 00:00.
BTW, unlike some here who either weren't born yet or not even old enough to have pubic hair during the Reagan era...I was 'of age'.:2 cents:
Not true. The theory is it took the industry nearly 10 years to recover. Reagan is credited for taking bold, unprecedented action against PATCO strikers but he could afford to.
It had never been done before by private sector corps. because in practice, no CEO is going to fire all of his qualified personnel and take a decade's worth of time to recover (if at all).
What would this CEO do before the company went bankrupt? Try and bargain for his competition's employees having zero leverage? Why?? They most likely would demand the same concessions or more than the people he just fired in order to leave where they are.
Leadership? It was the reckless act of someone not responsible to the bottom line of the affected corporations. Certainly the corporations lost in revenue some multiples of what PATCO was asking for from the FAA.
Well it was Reagan who decried a policy of 'cut and run' in coining the phrase by vowing to stay and fight only to withdraw days later. Rightly or wrongly it's his withdrawal then that is seen by many as having emboldened terrorists.
vodkazvictim
Why save the world, when you can rule it?
I'm sorry; I should've phrased my query better: Elaborate which spending mistakes of the SU the US (yes, a palindrome) is repeating?
^^This.
While I'm no fan of Reagans (and indeed' I realise that I spea with hindsight) isn't it smart NOT to get "bogged down" in the mideast?Talking about those wrinkled ,dried up ,shriveled & ossificated Balls of Reagan that he tucked between his legs after those 300 Marines were ****** in Beirut?
He was pretty indecisive in his response & only decisive in his 'retreat' (as Right Wingers would say). He didn't know who or what hit us nor what the fuck to do. Probably did the right thing by leaving ,but the fool should never had sent the Marines there to suffer one of their most demoralizing events ever in the first place.
Had that been a Democratic President who got out of dodge(Beirut) like that just imagine what those war mongering Neo Cons who worship that senile old fool, Reagan ,would say........
Or when he invaded that Super Powerhouse Island nation of Grenada:dunno:
Real balls
Reagan just happened to be in office when the Soviet Union finally collapsed(spending BILlions every year trying to subsidize so many other Bloc territories or friendly communist regimes around the world like Cuba for example )
Just like Clinton's strong economy was just fortunate to benefit from the new internet/technology boom of the 90's.
We attribute too much blame & credit to Presidents when some things were bound to happen anyhow & it simply happened under their watch.
Weird - feels like it was aimed at me but, because you didn't quote me I'm not sure. Maybe my ego is too bigThe Soviets didn't even come up with a timetable for withdrawal until late '87.
Show you evidence?
How old were you in the 80s? 10?
/officially bored with the "Far Left Monday Night Quarterbacking Club"
What was he supposed to do in Beirut after the Marine barracks were hit? The French lost 58 that day as well from a suicide bomber.
How do you deal with a suicide bomber? No one had even dealt with such a phenomena before.
We returned fire on Syrian positions in self defense in September after repeatedly taking fire from them.
So what were we supposed to do after the Barracks in October? Get more involved? Nobody wanted to get "more" involved after Vietnam which was very fresh in everyone's mind in 1983.
More "Monday Night Quarterbacking"
(my cock is certainly tiny).
