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
-
Should we be shocked that you sound like a fucking snowflake?HoustonHusky said:BearsWiin said:
Existential panic, epistemic uncertainty and anti-elitism go a long way in explaining the Trump voter mindset.dflea said:
In case you and the paste eating retard obk forgot, the liberals with brains gave us the Touring machine and the fucking bomb that won the war for the Allies.RaceBannon said:
Let Israel win the 48 or 68 war and its solvedcreepycoug said:
This is getting embarrassing. We're not in middle school here. I'm told international affairs are different.oregonblitzkrieg said:
When the bully comes to break your glasses and take your lunch money, guys like you hand it over and then ask if there's anything else you can do to appease them. Trump just kicks the bastards in the balls and breaks their teeth. Winston Churchill had the same attitude toward Hitler.That's the proper way to deal with a bully. Your way and the way of your pussy "new democrats" who were supposed to "drag the rest of the country kicking and screaming into the 21st century" failed. Time to try something else.BearsWiin said:
It's cute that you think that your kindergartner-in-chief is solving anything.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
If it were that simple, we'd have settled the middle east a long, long, long time ago.
All these fucking brilliant we can't solve anything assholes and their forced ties set this shit storm up
You were told wrong
Look to FDR, the last war time consigliere (sp) we had
Imagine sharing the earth with Nazi Europe and Nissan Far East
Nope, we won. Then the bright lights who can't solve shit gave away half of Europe setting up the Cold War
It's cool to rip on intellectuals when you're a retard because what the fuck else are you going to do?
http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2017/01/trump_sold_america_a_miracle_cure_it_will_fail_he_ll_get_off_for_free.html
Should we be shocked you are lapping up the writings of a Liberal who loves to defend intolerance in the name of Liberalism and "tolerance"? -
I'll take it from your WTF vote that you didn't actually read the full article. You don't seem the type to have a JSTOR membership.
-
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... -
.... 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? -
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... -
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. -
It’s clear that the left local candidates are gaining ground. Trump needs a win. Because we all know that Mueller will string this thing out 3 weeks before the election, if there’s nothing to Indict Trump, He sure as hell won’t reveal it anytime soon.YellowSnow said:
Sure, LIPO, but it's becoming more and more of a realistic possibility the GOP loses the house. That's not left wing propaganda, and something you might want to be concerned over. Doesn't mean he gets convicted in the Senate or something but you won't be getting much done legislatively.oregonblitzkrieg said:
LIPOYellowSnow said:
So, what have you gotten thus far OBK different from orthodox GOP positions? Are the 11 million illegals gone? Is the wall built? There were some tax cuts in the standard GOP fare. The jurdges are the same that any GOP President would have nominated. Style over substance if you axe me.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.
-
who the fuck is reagan?
isnt that megan foxs character in new girl?
-
