Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Kim Jong-un has committed to denuclearisation
Comments
-
brb jooregonblitzkrieg said:
-
YBEoregonblitzkrieg said: -
The cry of mentally unstable women and moronic wannabe intellectuals around the world...'but its more complicated than that...YOU just don't understand'. I quoted the article extensively...you just keep backpedaling once you got caught either lying or highlighting your ignorance.BearsWiin said:
I never bashed Reagan's role. I said there was a lot more going on.HoustonHusky said:
I've quoted from about every page of the article showing it says absolutely nothing of what you originally claimed (bashing the idea of Reagan's role in bringing down the Soviets).BearsWiin said:.... and you still didn't get it. Not surprising that context and nuance are totally lost on you.
What did Reagan give to Gorbachev, and what did he tell him to do with it?
Keep backpedaling and ducking and weaving...I'm heading to bed.
Fucking Cal grad morons...
If you can't answer my question, there's no chance that you understood the article.
Thanks you for bashing Cal. It shows that you know your betters.
And I know where you are going with this latest line of thought and I'll wipe the floor with you on it as well. Keep flailing.
And sorry...I went to a school ranked well above Cal if that's how you want to compare yourself to me (not that it should matter). Keep hope alive.
-
Talking about solving a problem and solving a problem aren't the same woman.oregonblitzkrieg said:
It's cute that you don't. Funny how a brash shit talker is solving problems that all of your alleged academis could not. Thats got to hurt.BearsWiin said:
It's cute that you think you understand this shit.RaceBannon said:
It's cuter that you think he is. There is absolutely no risk in sitting down with the tinpot. The risk is in NK because their dear leader can't even admit SK existsBearsWiin said:
It's cute that you think your guy isn't being played.RaceBannon said:
The Builder in Chief is wiping up the floor with the career diplomats.BearsWiin said:
It's cute that you think building problems are somehow equivalent to diplomacy.RaceBannon said:
Nobody should. Trust but verify isn't just a slogan from the 80'sGrundleStiltzkin said:I don't trust that fat dumpling for a second.
History has proven time and again that strength and the projection of power work better against despots than pallets of cash and agreements to allow them to build nukes
After 20 r 30 years of the latter we can try the former
@BearsWiin says not all problems have a solution
We builder developer types know that every problem is just a solution waiting to happen
Chuck Knox in another 80's slogan that I have used ever since
I'm a problem solver for a living
When your living and think tank salary depend on not finding a solution so you can say things like "not every problem has a solution" you won't find a solution.
Being played is giving NK reactors and cash and telling us? that it will be for peaceful use
Bubba got played just like Obama in Iran -
The architect of the campaign that was shrewd enuff to purposefully appeal to a previously marginalized and ignored voting base and predict and exploit the giant fuck-up that was the DNC strategy? The guy who created that perfect storm?RaceBannon said:
The Bannon obsession is not your finest hour herecreepycoug said:
Steve Bannon is why Trump won. When he got there, he had no more use for an idealogue who attracts the wrong kind of attention. But everyone knows why Trump got elected.oregonblitzkrieg said:Kasich was a loser bitch. He was no different than Hillary or any other jackass representing the one party in power. The R or a D behind the name is just a guise. It's the same party. Trump didn't belong to it. It's why he won. It's why they hate him. It's why I'm voting him in for a second term.
Yeah, color me obsessed. Sure, he's back in a dark corner where people like that (fringe) tend to belong, but make no mistake, Trump is where he is in large measure (if not entirely) because of Steve Bannon.
We all have our heroes. You have yours; I have mine. If I ever abandon my politics and want to turn into OBK - a national socialist with a protectionist economic platform and a slight hint of xenophobia - then, Bannon will be mine. You are free to choose as you wish. -
I'm still coughing. I vaguely remember reading this article years ago and it popped up on my Googly search.HoustonHusky said:
The cry of mentally unstable women and moronic wannabe intellectuals around the world...'but its more complicated than that...YOU just don't understand'. I quoted the article extensively...you just keep backpedaling once you got caught either lying or highlighting your ignorance.BearsWiin said:
I never bashed Reagan's role. I said there was a lot more going on.HoustonHusky said:
I've quoted from about every page of the article showing it says absolutely nothing of what you originally claimed (bashing the idea of Reagan's role in bringing down the Soviets).BearsWiin said:.... and you still didn't get it. Not surprising that context and nuance are totally lost on you.
What did Reagan give to Gorbachev, and what did he tell him to do with it?
Keep backpedaling and ducking and weaving...I'm heading to bed.
Fucking Cal grad morons...
If you can't answer my question, there's no chance that you understood the article.
Thanks you for bashing Cal. It shows that you know your betters.
And I know where you are going with this latest line of thought and I'll wipe the floor with you on it as well. Keep flailing.
And sorry...I went to a school ranked well above Cal if that's how you want to compare yourself to me (not that it should matter). Keep hope alive.
https://www.nytimes.com/1988/05/29/weekinreview/two-journeys-reagan-s-evolution-a-change-of-heart-as-well-as-tatics.html
It doesn't make anyone here look stupid, but it does make the point that the entire matter was a little more complicated than the idea of Reagan's charismatic leadership and vilification of the USSR bringing it to its knees. That's the much more fun way to look at things, sure, but it's way too simplistic.
This piece makes both points. The main take-away, other than several experts and WH staffers having somewhat competing views of the thing, is that Reagan himself had competing views of the thing ... that it wasn't that simple. One guy calls into question the idea that an uptick in US military prowess was a big reason for the collapse, arguing that nothing really had changed in terms of fundamental US military capability. Others say that the uptick in the US economy and other factors favorable to US interests gave the administration "renewed confidence" in the US position to "negotiate" with the USSR (not punch it in the mouth).
Whatever the case, I firmly believe that the USSR was fated to its collapse, and I will always take categorical assertions that its demise was greatly hastened by Reagan's rhetoric with a grain of salt. We don't know , because there's only one version of history, and that's the one that played out.
My only bit of inside baseball on this was from a former Russian law partner who came here to go to school and practiced here for a while - he's back there now. That guy could regale you with anecdotes of how fucked up life was in the Soviet Union all day long w/o ever repeating a story. So I take it as patently obvious that the USSR wasn't built for the long-haul and would have, at some point - who knows when - collapsed on itself. Reagan himself is said to have held the same view.
And, in the final analysis, isn't that a good thing? Isn't it a better take that the system of communism, so hostile to ours, was inherently flawed? I'd prefer that version over Reagan heroics. -
You sound insecure.HoustonHusky said:
The cry of mentally unstable women and moronic wannabe intellectuals around the world...'but its more complicated than that...YOU just don't understand'. I quoted the article extensively...you just keep backpedaling once you got caught either lying or highlighting your ignorance.BearsWiin said:
I never bashed Reagan's role. I said there was a lot more going on.HoustonHusky said:
I've quoted from about every page of the article showing it says absolutely nothing of what you originally claimed (bashing the idea of Reagan's role in bringing down the Soviets).BearsWiin said:.... and you still didn't get it. Not surprising that context and nuance are totally lost on you.
What did Reagan give to Gorbachev, and what did he tell him to do with it?
Keep backpedaling and ducking and weaving...I'm heading to bed.
Fucking Cal grad morons...
If you can't answer my question, there's no chance that you understood the article.
Thanks you for bashing Cal. It shows that you know your betters.
And I know where you are going with this latest line of thought and I'll wipe the floor with you on it as well. Keep flailing.
And sorry...I went to a school ranked well above Cal if that's how you want to compare yourself to me (not that it should matter). Keep hope alive.
You refuse to answer my question because you would then have to acknowledge the part of the article that undercuts whatever the fuck argument you think you're trying to make. -
What exactly is this whole thread about again
I zoned out at the tits -
Good place to stop.Pitchfork51 said:What exactly is this whole thread about again
I zoned out at the tits -
I’m not sure how you can watch any 30 second clip of our senile oaf president speaking incoherently about the simplest things and conclude that “yeah this guy gets international diplomacy”
