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
-
This. The President should rarely if ever be the smartest guy in the room. There are people at State and the CIA/NSA who study a single country for 30+ years. You got guys like Mattis who have studied warfare for 40+ years. You aren't going to know more than them. Put smart people in critical positions. Rely on them. Seek strong counsel and heed it.creepycoug said:
There's a piece in the article about that too. I don't take Reagan to task for not being the smartest guy in the room. The President, like any leader, is a manager. He managed well. No, I'm confident he didn't understand everything, but he understood enuff.HardlyClothed said: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”
-
The B students hire the A students for advice.Swaye said:
This. The President should rarely if ever be the smartest guy in the room. There are people at State and the CIA/NSA who study a single country for 30+ years. You got guys like Mattis who have studied warfare for 40+ years. You aren't going to know more than them. Put smart people in critical positions. Rely on them. Seek strong counsel and heed it.creepycoug said:
There's a piece in the article about that too. I don't take Reagan to task for not being the smartest guy in the room. The President, like any leader, is a manager. He managed well. No, I'm confident he didn't understand everything, but he understood enuff.HardlyClothed said: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”
In Mad Dog we trust.
-
I own the protectionist economic platform and the slight hint of xenophobia. Sad you've entered desperation mode and are crying "national socialist" like you're ready to take your ball and go home. Go home then, pussy. You radical lefties are so far into your bubble that anything slightly right of center, or for that matter, slightly left of center, is the Third Reich to you. The philosophy and regime of your leaders Hillary, Sanders, Obama and Soros, failed. Cry about it like a bitch and run to the sidelines, or punt the ball and try again. 4th and 20.creepycoug said:
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.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.
-
I've still never understood this whole xenophobia thing.
I'm not afraid of Mexican immigrants.
I just don't like gross poor people.
Not saying all Mexicans are gross.
Just that most of the poor illegals are.
Don't twist. -
Grammar aside, yes, you don't.Pitchfork51 said:I've still never understood this whole xenophobia thing.
I'm not afraid of Mexican immigrants.
I just don't like gross poor people.
Not saying all Mexicans are gross.
Just that most of the poor illegals are.
Don't twist. -
You talking to me? Canes can convert 3rd and 43 bitch. We are not afraid of down and distance.oregonblitzkrieg said:
I own the protectionist economic platform and the slight hint of xenophobia. Sad you've entered desperation mode and are crying "national socialist" like you're ready to take your ball and go home. Go home then, pussy. You radical lefties are so far into your bubble that anything slightly right of center, or for that matter, slightly left of center, is the Third Reich to you. The philosophy and regime of your leaders Hillary, Sanders, Obama and Soros, failed. Cry about it like a bitch and run to the sidelines, or punt the ball and try again. 4th and 20.creepycoug said:
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.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.
I still have the ball. Sorry if the NS thing stung. I apologize. -
Thanks for reading and caring enough to respond on said board!HardlyClothed said:
In the off topic section of a college football forum you’re ranting about going to a better ranked school and pseudo intellectualism and you want us to take you seriously?HoustonHusky said:
Says the dumb@ss who tried to pull "intellectual superiority" by bragging about going to a shittier school than I went to? You keep on with that...BearsWiin said:
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.
So you are batting at least 0-8 now in this thread with your incredibly shrinking argument...starting from:
'this article says this' to:
'yeah but that's just the intro and the main part of the article says this' to:
'yeah well every page says what you said but I have this one question that somehow if you answer it the way I think you should it somehow negates the other 95% of the article' (it doesn't, but we'll get to that if you want to keep going)
Feel free to specifically point out where I got any of my quotes or summaries from basically every page of that article wrong, or bring something new to the table...I don't care.
It is always amusing to watch a pseudointellectual flail around when called out on their ignorance and try to rationalize themselves and others to keep their own view of themselves intact. -
Trump is doing a terrible job on the bold part.Swaye said:
This. The President should rarely if ever be the smartest guy in the room. There are people at State and the CIA/NSA who study a single country for 30+ years. You got guys like Mattis who have studied warfare for 40+ years. You aren't going to know more than them. Put smart people in critical positions. Rely on them. Seek strong counsel and heed it.creepycoug said:
There's a piece in the article about that too. I don't take Reagan to task for not being the smartest guy in the room. The President, like any leader, is a manager. He managed well. No, I'm confident he didn't understand everything, but he understood enuff.HardlyClothed said: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”
-
“I debased myself in a fit of anger and insecurity but the joke is on you for reading it!”HoustonHusky said:
Thanks for reading and caring enough to respond on said board!HardlyClothed said:
In the off topic section of a college football forum you’re ranting about going to a better ranked school and pseudo intellectualism and you want us to take you seriously?HoustonHusky said:
Says the dumb@ss who tried to pull "intellectual superiority" by bragging about going to a shittier school than I went to? You keep on with that...BearsWiin said:
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.
So you are batting at least 0-8 now in this thread with your incredibly shrinking argument...starting from:
'this article says this' to:
'yeah but that's just the intro and the main part of the article says this' to:
'yeah well every page says what you said but I have this one question that somehow if you answer it the way I think you should it somehow negates the other 95% of the article' (it doesn't, but we'll get to that if you want to keep going)
Feel free to specifically point out where I got any of my quotes or summaries from basically every page of that article wrong, or bring something new to the table...I don't care.
It is always amusing to watch a pseudointellectual flail around when called out on their ignorance and try to rationalize themselves and others to keep their own view of themselves intact. -
Somehow @BearsWiin thinks this isn't "reading" the article...HoustonHusky said:
Its not a novel...its a fucking 9 page article. I quoted directly from pages 2, 3, and 9, and summarized chunks of pages 4 and 5. Considering pages 6 and 7 were on the 1970s (with themes like Carter and Company's coddling of Russia "made it easier for the Soviet elite to preserve the system as it was" and "According to Brezhnev, detente promoted the consolidation of socialism, and he was right"...as if that somehow agrees with anything you are inferring).BearsWiin said:
Way to cherry pick from the first few pages that establish background but aren't the meat of the article. What did Reagan give to Gorbachev, and what did he tell him to do with it? I' m curious as to whether you read the whole fucking piece, because from your choice of quotes it sure as hell doesn't look like it.HoustonHusky said:
You mean the part in said article where he said such things as:BearsWiin said:
It's clear that you didn't read the piece, because even one of the architects of Reagan's second-term policy knew it was much more complicated than that.HoustonHusky said:
Fucking Cal grads...I'm not sure which one is worse. Morons like HondoFS who at least don't claim intellectual superiority or true idiots that do.BearsWiin said:
Before you try to fit a round analogy in a square hole, you might read Steve Sestanovich's "Did the West Undo The East" from a 1993 special edition of The National Interest.RaceBannon said:They said the same thing about Reagan
Now they say the Soviet Union was going to collapse anyway
The Left is never wrong. Just aks them
Or you can just keep throwing shit because you're a bitter ex-Dem. You're choice
You ought to go read it yourself...as some might say Sestanovich "concluded that Reagan’s policies were crucial factors in the disintegration of Soviet communism"
Keep rewriting history...
Since he was my boss for a year, you can bet that we discussed it in person.
"As for the detente of the 1970s, its claim to have begun digging totalitarianism's grave is weak" (i.e. the previous point of policies like sending pallets of cash to places like Iran and nuclear reactors to NK is HondoFS...)
Getting to Reagan's policy, Sestanovich said:
"Admittedly, the Soviet Union suffered no outright military defeat in the first half of the 1980s. Nevertheless, by the middle of the decade, the outlook on almost every front of the Soviet foreign policy was poor and clearly deteriorating. The list of failures needs very little elaboration: INF deployments in Europe and successive large increases in the US military budget; Afghanistan, Grenada, and the emergence of the "Reagan Doctrine," which put new pressure on Soviet clients in Africa, Asia, and Latin America; Moscow's exclusion from Middle East diplomacy, and the humiliation of Soviet-made weapons in the Lebanon war of 1982; the Solidarity challenge in Poland; robust Chinese economic growth against a background of continuing Sino-Soviet hostility. And all of this bad news before even mentioning the Strategic Defense Initiative, which threatened a new round of military competition and high-lighted Soviet technology inferiority.
...
Mearly to recite this list of Soviet setbacks is to underscore the West's (aka Reagan's policies) role in discrediting the policy of Gorbachev's predecessors."
or, as Sestanovich summarized:
"Soviet policy was particulary vulnerable because it had made a mess everywhere. This argument, if correct, implies that the unrelenting approach of the Reagan administration was probably more effective than a better balanced Western policy - beat up the Soviets here, conciliate them there-would have been."
He goes on to talk in detail about how Reagan's SDI program was particularly effective in screwing with your comrades, Reagan's calling for the wall to come down in 1987 causing all sorts of problems for the Soviets, etc. etc.
And, especially focusing on apparently you and some of you comrades here, he summarized by saying "it should be said that many who understate it (Western influence...i.e. Reagan's policies) are also moved by partisanship...."
Hey, I'm glad you worked for him. I'm sure that year his garden looked the best it has in, what, an entire year.
And a special shout-out to CreepyCoug for couging in and buying BearsDontWiin's shite.
In other news, things sharper than BearsDontWiin:
Page 8 is more general themes with such damning indictments of Reagan's policies such as "The policy shifts of the 1980s - deep hostility followed by another detente - were equally hard on the Soviet System" and citations like "Paul Kennedy makes this point: "Russia has always enjoyed its greatest military advantage vis-a-vis the West when the pace of weapons technolgy has slowed down enough to allow a standardization of equipment and thus of fighting units and tactics...Whenever an upward spiral in weapons technology has placed an emphasis upon quality rather than quantity, however, the Russian advantage has diminished"
Yeah...you keep riding this horse into the ground...
Fucking moronic Cal grads...I'm starting to think Sestanovich's garden looked like shite that year you "worked for him" as well. You can't make this idiocy up...
