PDA

View Full Version : Non-Republicans Come Here


SkinWalker
07-31-2004, 11:59 AM
Go to www.bushwatch.com (http://www.bushwatch.com/) it's serious.

Or go to BushOnCrack.com (http://www.bushoncrack.com/). It's hilarious.

DarthDurp
07-31-2004, 12:51 PM
lol........thats great thanx for the links

ET Warrior
07-31-2004, 12:55 PM
:D Now this is my kinda thread :D

El Sitherino
07-31-2004, 07:43 PM
YAY!!!!!!!!!!!

anyone been watching the democratic convention lately?

ET Warrior
08-01-2004, 03:04 AM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
anyone been watching the democratic convention lately?

No, because I'm an idiot :(

Though my friend watched it, and talked about how Kerry asked Bush at the end of his speech if they could be adults about this, and instead of focusing on the negatives just talk about their positives, and this morning Bush had a live speech condemning John Kerry and his lies.....


Real grown up of him :lol:

DarthDurp
08-01-2004, 03:08 AM
i watched it as much as i could. it was funny i was in NY when Clinton's book came out and i met him and got a signed copy. the only thing i asked him is if he was sure he couldn't run again, lol. thats the only thing i thought about during his speech, what a speaker he is. i also noticed kerry's plea to bush to respect one another. when i saw bush's speech today i couldn't help but remind myself that the only thing he could do is bash Kerry. What else could he do? He has absolutely nothing to be proud of in the last 5 years.

yaebginn
08-01-2004, 03:14 PM
OMG, you hipocrites! most of kerrys ads have been bashing Bush. and then kerry calls a truce. its like if I smakc my lil bro upside the head, he smakcjs me,m then I smack him and yell truce! I mean, jeez. and if clinton ran again, omg, I'd laugh myself silly.

DarthDurp
08-01-2004, 03:18 PM
NONE of Kerry's ads have been bashing Bush, they have only been about what he has accomplished and that he'd like to be our next president. you show me an ad where Bush dosen't bash Kerry.

yaebginn
08-01-2004, 03:20 PM
they have been bashing bush, r u blind? alwasy, about no child left behind, about iraq, alot o crap. Bush doesnt have that kany ads, all of his are just telling the true part of Kerrys ads, defending himself.

DarthDurp
08-01-2004, 03:30 PM
and im sure bush criticizing kerry for missing most of his senate votes is not bashing him at all, and i dont know what ads you have been seeing, but kerry has only been talking about how he got his purple hearts, and had a succesful senate career. the most he's dont in his ads was say that it was unwise to go into war with all of our allies hating us.

El Sitherino
08-01-2004, 03:55 PM
In none of Kerry's ads has he ever attacked Bush, or his character. I suggest you stop spouting your rhetoric and otherwise bull****.

yaebginn
08-01-2004, 05:07 PM
yes he has! He said that Bush lied about No child left behind.

Ice Demon44
08-01-2004, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by yaebginn
yes he has! He said that Bush lied about No child left behind.

Thats not "bush bashing". That is stating something not an insult.

yaebginn
08-01-2004, 05:25 PM
its as much bashing bush as bush bashing Kerry.

El Sitherino
08-01-2004, 05:46 PM
I just finished watching every john kerry campaign ad, and not in a single one has he even mentioned bush.

yaebginn
08-01-2004, 05:55 PM
well I know for a fact, he did. he bashed him for no child left behind. it showed a kid sitting at a desk in the dirt.

El Sitherino
08-01-2004, 06:00 PM
are you sure you're not thinking of the howard dean ad?

Ice Demon44
08-01-2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by InsaneSith
I just finished watching every john kerry campaign ad, and not in a single one has he even mentioned bush.

Where you get them?

Completely off topic
You all need to take a breath, take off your socks, put your feet on the table and play Presidential Knockout (http://www.miniclip.com/knockout.htm)

El Sitherino
08-01-2004, 06:20 PM
www.johnkerry.com

SkinWalker
08-01-2004, 07:33 PM
I think we need to make the distinction between "bashing" a politician and addressing pointed issues.

I equate bashing with ad hominem attack and insult. Attacking the very character of a person or insulting them on a personal level.

Attacking an issue that they stand for or have failed at isn't ad hominem.

I see no reason why Kerry's position on the No Child Left Behind Act is unfounded. It is under-funded and the very title of the act is a promise to "leave no child behind." And yet, many, many are getting left behind. The act itself needs to be enhanced and funded. That's what John Kerry wants to do.

I can cite the source for that if you're interested.

yaebginn
08-01-2004, 07:37 PM
One thing, if you dont call that bashing, then bush didnt bash kerry. but the no child left behind commercial in invalid. the issues it addressed would be strictly on a local level. not national.

El Sitherino
08-01-2004, 07:42 PM
Originally posted by yaebginn
One thing, if you dont call that bashing, then bush didnt bash kerry. but the no child left behind commercial in invalid. the issues it addressed would be strictly on a local level. not national. I was under the impression that no child left behind WAS a national program. Perhaps I've misinterpreted.

yaebginn
08-01-2004, 08:06 PM
the program was, but the issues mentioned in the commercial were obviously a local issue. I mean, the state descides how many teachers are per classroom, and how large the class sizes are, it doesnt go as high as the president, more likely the governor.

TK-8252
08-02-2004, 01:11 AM
I only have one thing to say:

You can't spell democrat without rat.

DarthDurp
08-02-2004, 01:18 AM
and you can't spell 'republican' without 'liar', lol

TK-8252
08-02-2004, 01:23 AM
Originally posted by DarthDurp
and you can't spell 'republican' without 'liar', lol

Uh, yes I can. Re-pub-li-can.

DarthDurp
08-02-2004, 01:35 AM
RepubLIcAn (take out the capitalized letters)
R L I A (re-arrange them)
And boom! you get LIAR

so, no you can't

TK-8252
08-02-2004, 01:45 AM
Originally posted by DarthDurp
RepubLIcAn (take out the capitalized letters)
R L I A (re-arrange them)
And boom! you get LIAR

so, no you can't

Whatever, rat is spelt out and emphasized right in the word. DemocRAT.

El Sitherino
08-02-2004, 01:54 AM
I wish we could go back to like the 1800's when it was Democratic-Republican, before that partisan split crap.

VanLingo
08-02-2004, 02:47 AM
Maybe you can -- I'll bet those dead people who wanted to vote for Gore would love to run for Senate.

El Sitherino
08-02-2004, 03:08 AM
... why do you insist on being such a prick?

VanLingo
08-02-2004, 03:10 AM
I believe that is a flame.

lol, gotta love the SWB.net moderation.

El Sitherino
08-02-2004, 03:13 AM
and unjustly calling someone a racist isn't?
also, I believe I have a reason to call you such, it's not so much an attack as a general statement that you just keep going out of your way to upset people.

VanLingo
08-02-2004, 03:32 AM
Hey, Mr. Smart InsaneSith -- this whole THREAD was made to upset people! Wake up.

El Sitherino
08-02-2004, 03:48 AM
... not really. this was a place for non-republicans to come, just like that republicans come here thread was for republicans, just some people have a hard time keeping out of other peoples business, and I'm sorry that one of our fellows invaded y'alls conversation and started the debate.


oh and thanks for correcting my grammar.

SkinWalker
08-02-2004, 03:54 AM
If you are referring to me, I've voted Republican more times than I ever have Democrat or Independant. In fact, Reagan was the first President I voted for (second term... I was too young in the first).

Wouldn't that mean that I was "invited?" :D

El Sitherino
08-02-2004, 03:58 AM
Originally posted by SkinWalker
If you are referring to me, I've voted Republican more times than I ever have Democrat or Independant. In fact, Reagan was the first President I voted for (second term... I was too young in the first).

Wouldn't that mean that I was "invited?" :D touche, and should McCain be the designated Republican running for president in 2008 I will definitely vote for him, keeping in mind he still has his stances on issues that he does now.

And hopefully he'll have that good sense of humour still. :)


and I was talking more about that darthdrup fellow.

yaebginn
08-02-2004, 04:09 PM
I'm glad the thread I made turned into what it did. It allowed democrats to share thier opinion. and has tunred into a heated debate on several topics, gay marriage, religion, and politics. its a super-thread.

DarthDurp
08-02-2004, 06:48 PM
yeah, i started the debate, and im not saying sorry. since the times of Aristotle debate has been what brings all ideas together to get what's best for their society. I still believe in this concept sooo much, that those of you who make it a point to personally attack people during the debate should wake up and realize that debating is not made for you to look good, but it's made to get what's best for the country. if anything, i upholded the american spirit by starting that debate.

btw, if McCain runs for pres in 2008, he better pray that Hilary Clinton dosen't run, cause she'll thrash him. Whether you like her or not, she would destroy McCain, and i'm a fan of McCain!

yaebginn
08-02-2004, 07:10 PM
I'm not mad at u, I appreciate it. and no, she wouldnt.

DarthDurp
08-02-2004, 07:49 PM
just keep on living in your dream world, lol :o

yaebginn
08-02-2004, 07:52 PM
I wish I could live in my dream world. Then I'd be a Jedi and I would slice and dice so many people.

SkinWalker
08-02-2004, 08:02 PM
I have to agree with yaebginn. While I think H. Clinton would bring a lot to race between her and McCain, I think that McCain would take it by a large margin.

We probably don't agree on why, however. I think that the nation is far to bigotted to tolerate a female President. Vice-President, perhaps. But not a President.

DarthDurp
08-02-2004, 08:33 PM
trust me, i agree all to well that this country is very bigoted. but if you think about it, the people that wouldn't vote for clinton for being a woman are the ones that wouldn't vote for her, even if she was a man! i really don't think she'll be losing any votes because everybody knows the dems would vote for her, and so would the fence-sitters. why? because they will realize that she is the husband of a former presiedent that created 22 million jobs and a $300 billion surplus.

yaebginn
08-02-2004, 08:46 PM
amd cheated on his wife, and didnt catch Osama when he could've. I mean, clinton was a horrible prsidnet.

ET Warrior
08-02-2004, 09:13 PM
Originally posted by yaebginn
amd cheated on his wife, and didnt catch Osama when he could've. I mean, clinton was a horrible prsidnet.

:eyeraise: He was a horrible president because he cheated on his wife? You do realize that affected the well-being of our country approximately zero? And you may also note, that your friend Bush hasn't caught Osama either. He seems to have forgotten about him even AFTER he made a direct attack against the US. :dozey:

DarthDurp
08-02-2004, 09:29 PM
How many people were hurt by Clinton cheating on his wife? Three! Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea. What you need to understand is how good of a president someone is has absolutely nothing to do with their moral beliefs. Heck, FDR had a dozen mistresses and he was married, and he was a teriffic president dealing with WWII. JFK, who single-handedly evaded an all out war with the Soviet Union had an affair with Marilyn Monroe. You can't tell me Clinton wasn't a good president because of him cheating on his wife, after all he did for the economy.

yaebginn
08-02-2004, 09:35 PM
Clinton was just a horrible president in general, not just because he cheated. he was also a liar and a sleaze in gneral/

El Sitherino
08-02-2004, 09:38 PM
Originally posted by yaebginn
Clinton was just a horrible president in general, not just because he cheated. he was also a liar and a sleaze in gneral/ ... weren't you complaining about bush bashing from kerry? doesn't this seem a bit hypocritical?

yaebginn
08-02-2004, 09:46 PM
I am not complaing. I like it when Bush basjhes kerry.

DarthDurp
08-02-2004, 09:58 PM
prove POLITICALLY that Clinto was a liar and/or sleaze

El Sitherino
08-02-2004, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by yaebginn
I am not complaing. I like it when Bush basjhes kerry. that's not what I said, I said bush bashing FROM kerry, because you said kerry bashes bush. and you support bush bashing kerry too?! that just is a steaming pile of hypocriticism.

yaebginn
08-02-2004, 10:02 PM
if Kerry is gonna bash bush, he shouldnt complain about busyh bashing kerry. fight fire with fire. Kerrys just a whiner.

El Sitherino
08-02-2004, 10:16 PM
and so are you. Also Kerry doesn't bash Bush so.... whatever.

yaebginn
08-02-2004, 11:17 PM
was it you who was complaining about people who insult others in debates?

Mike Windu
08-02-2004, 11:48 PM
You bashed Clinton. He's a person.:indif:

:D

yaebginn
08-02-2004, 11:51 PM
but not involved in this debate.

El Sitherino
08-03-2004, 12:13 AM
no, you brought up kerry complaining that he bashes bush. and I'm not bashing or insulting you.

yaebginn
08-03-2004, 12:15 AM
u alled me a whiner.

Mike Windu
08-03-2004, 12:19 AM
He called you a whiner?

Let me play you a sad song on the world's smallest violin:violin:

No really, it IS the world's smallest violin.

yaebginn
08-03-2004, 12:21 AM
yeah, he did, breaking his own debating rules.

El Sitherino
08-03-2004, 12:23 AM
it isn't an insult when you do it. so what, you whine, it's nothing new. Lots of people whine. Hell I whine a bit too.

yaebginn
08-03-2004, 12:25 AM
one tihng, I dont whine. bu tyes it is. If there was a gay guy. and I walked up and go, ' you crap packer!' I'd be insuling him ,but it would be true.

Mike Windu
08-03-2004, 12:32 AM
So... I can insult you and call you a hypocrite... because it's true?


Funny theory you have going there.

El Sitherino
08-03-2004, 12:37 AM
Originally posted by yaebginn
one tihng, I dont whine. bu tyes it is. If there was a gay guy. and I walked up and go, ' you crap packer!' I'd be insuling him ,but it would be true. no, because you can't say that. It's all about the things you say. Whiner isn't an insult. and i did not say it in a derogatory tone.

SkinWalker
08-03-2004, 01:01 AM
Bleh. If you guys are going to bicker like this, I'm out.

I have to agree, Clinton did lie and it was wrong. But I think overall he was a damn fine President. There was a lot accomplished in his two terms and his speaking skills are excellent when compared with the sitting President.

I've not seen any Kerry ads that attack Bush with ad hominem remarks, but I have heard several Bush speeches that attack Kerry in this way. There are also several of the Bush ads that distort the truth and out-right lie about Kerry's position on several issues.

If you would like examples, I can give them to you. IF the petty bickering stops, that is.

SkinWalker
08-03-2004, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by yaebginn
amd cheated on his wife, and didnt catch Osama when he could've. I mean, clinton was a horrible prsidnet.

Bush has cheated the entire country and didn't catch Osama when he could have. I'd take Clinton's brand of cheating any day.

yaebginn
08-03-2004, 10:04 AM
when clinton got in, there wasa fine economy and so forth. all he had to do was keep it that way. and I'm seriosu, all of you. I want to have a good debate. an we were just talking about not insulting. and there you go, insanesith. You say you didnt insuklt, I say you did, we are getting nowhere, drop it.

EDIT- an how coul dBush've got osama and how ddi he cheat the country?

SkinWalker
08-03-2004, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by yaebginn
an how coul dBush've got osama and how ddi he cheat the country?

He could have used the resources (troops, money, weapons) wasted in Iraq, which was well contained on the War on Terrorism. Instead, he deceived the American public into believing that Iraq had WMD and that Iraq was the same as Al Qaeda. No empirical evidence has demonstrated this prior to or following the American Invasion of Iraq.

Indeed, we would have had the support of nearly every nation in the world; we would have caught bin Laden; Afgahnistan would be a secured nation and well on its way to being rebuilt; we would have truly struck fear in the hearts of our enemies.

Face it. The Iraq Invasion is a failure. Sure, Saddam was caught and he was a bad guy. There are a lot of "bad guys" in the world. Bush is a traitor to the American people for letting us down in Afgahnistan.

yaebginn
08-03-2004, 12:09 PM
If you saw yhe press interivew thing. We had intelligence syaing there was WMDs. and Saddam was a way bigger threat than afganistan. we disarmed saddam and now he isnt a threat. we just made the world a bit safer, and oyu're still griping.

SkinWalker
08-03-2004, 12:16 PM
Poppycock.

Proof that there are those that will believe whatever nonsense is handed to them as long as their core belief system is reinforced.

Bush making appeals to authority and the misguided belief that Saddam is/was a bigger threat to the U.S. than bin Laden & Al Qaeda are proof of the deception.

History will reflect this as one of our nation's great blunders... right along side the Bay of Pigs.

yaebginn
08-03-2004, 12:19 PM
Thats what you say, as a democrat. as a republian, I say he was one of the best presidents, next to reagan.

DarthDurp
08-03-2004, 12:37 PM
Reagan was not a good president, he was a great guy, but not a good president. first of all, with the collapse of the soviet union, he was in the right place at the right time. and don't say the arms buildup is what caused their collapse, they were bankrupt as it is.

also, another reason why he is not a good president is, so he could pay for the arms buildup, he closed down numerous mental institutions, mainly in NYC. He let out thousands of menatlly ill people out on the streets with nothing. don't believe me? take a walk in central park in NYC on any given day. you can see groups of homeless people that are mentally ill, and that coldheartedness is Reagan's doing, he put a dormant threat in the soviet union as a top priority over all the thingsw he needed to do here, like build up the economy

DarthDurp
08-03-2004, 12:40 PM
quote:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by yaebginn
when clinton got in, there wasa fine economy and so forth. all he had to do was keep it that way.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------


no, youre talking about Bush, he had a chance to keep p the surplus that CLINTON CREATED, but instead he decided to go to war AND lower taxes, and the two dont mix. so, he decided to feed off of the surplus to pay for his bogus war.

yaebginn
08-03-2004, 12:41 PM
for starters evry1 syas 'he asa tt the right place at the right time' that is so lame. he was a great president, and you jut cnat stand that

DarthDurp
08-03-2004, 12:47 PM
i realize by saying what i said i might have started a flame war, so we better stop it before it starts, sorry.

yaebginn
08-03-2004, 12:51 PM
how? if anyone it was insane sith by calling me a whiner. you and I are just disagreeing. as people do in debates. and no, clinton walked into a good economy and such. he just had to keep it good.

DarthDurp
08-03-2004, 12:59 PM
just calm down, im not just talking about you. reagan is on a "love him or hate him" basis and it is probable that one of us will throw a flame because the issue is so fragile.

yaebginn
08-03-2004, 01:03 PM
I am calm, you cant tell, because its type, not words. but I dont love reagan. I wsnt alive when he was in office, but IMo he was a great president.

DarthDurp
08-03-2004, 01:06 PM
i can accept that you thought reagan was a good president, but i cant take your opinion seriously unless you give me some good things that he did and back it up with proof, or else i'll just think you're telling me what your parents say.

yaebginn
08-03-2004, 02:00 PM
the whole thing with gorbachav.

ET Warrior
08-03-2004, 02:03 PM
Originally posted by yaebginn
the whole thing with gorbachav.

Elaborate, what did he do with Gorbachev that made him a fantastic president?

yaebginn
08-03-2004, 02:09 PM
stoped him and commanded him to take down the wall. you aren good with history, are you?

DarthDurp
08-03-2004, 02:45 PM
as i said before, Reagan had NOTHING to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union, they were on the verge of bankruptcy long before Reagan took office. He could have done nothing, not even the arms buildup and the USSR would've fallen.

DarthDurp
08-03-2004, 02:47 PM
i bet that if Clinton got rid of gorbachev and had the berlin wall taken down you wouldn't call HIM a good president.

yaebginn
08-03-2004, 03:43 PM
if he didn ,I would, but he dint. so ha/

DarthDurp
08-03-2004, 06:33 PM
so ur basically saying its a manner of timeframe, any president at that time would have been good because of the collapse,

therefore, he was in the right place at the right time, so what if it's lame, it's TRUE

yaebginn
08-03-2004, 06:37 PM
but its time. if clintons bad hadnt made that left turn when he was 16, he maybe would anever met whoever his wife is and clinton woulda never been born. all about right place at right time.

DarthDurp
08-03-2004, 06:40 PM
so ur basically saying that its a matter of timeframe, any president who was in office during the collapse would have been great.

so, he was in the right place at the right time

so what if its lame?

DarthDurp
08-03-2004, 06:40 PM
whoops sorry about the double post

DarthDurp
08-03-2004, 06:42 PM
but the presidency is not about chance, you cant base the fate of the nation on a roll of the dice. reagan did nothing of importance in his time in office that he personally made a decision for, it was all be chance.

coupes.
08-03-2004, 06:44 PM
DarthDurp, you can edit your posts you know... intead of double posting. You can even delete your posts, so I suggest you edit your posts when you have something to add and delete the double posts... ;)

yaebginn
08-03-2004, 06:48 PM
but u just said it wasnt about chance.

DarthDurp
08-03-2004, 09:46 PM
EXACTLY, thats why i dont think reagan wasn't a good president, because he just happened to have something good happen for him, by chance

yaebginn
08-03-2004, 10:17 PM
that reasoning makes no sense. refer to my clintons dad theory.

DarthDurp
08-03-2004, 10:57 PM
ur missing my point. you are giving reagan credit for something that was dictated by time, not him, time. he did nothing to make him a good president, it all just fell into his lap.

yaebginn
08-03-2004, 11:00 PM
no it didnt. because he has awesome speaking skills. and I assume saddam fell into Bush's lap?

DarthDurp
08-03-2004, 11:05 PM
reagan did have good speaking skills, but that hardly caused the collapse, it was their lack of money that caused it.

and Saddam didn't fall into Bush's lap, because bush was palnning on invading before he took office, to finish his daddy's job. and one difference between the collapse of the soviet union and the so-called liberation of iraq - the collapse was good for the world.

yaebginn
08-03-2004, 11:33 PM
thats all just liberla propaganda

Mike Windu
08-04-2004, 12:58 AM
What else do you call politics if not propaganda. :indif:

yaebginn
08-04-2004, 01:03 AM
negotiations

El Sitherino
08-04-2004, 01:10 AM
Originally posted by yaebginn
negotiations yeah. that's definitely what America is known for.:rolleyes:


Anyway, Reagans greatest accomplishment was Bedtime for Bonzo.

ET Warrior
08-04-2004, 01:13 AM
Here's a quote taken from the Jar Jar thread.andif jar jar didnt give him the powers, someone else wouldve.

And if Reagan hadn't been in office when the soviet Union fell, someone else would have, and by your OWN arguments, that makes him an unimportant president :dozey:

yaebginn
08-04-2004, 01:18 AM
they are two differner threads. one is about a fictional character one is about reagan. your reasoning is retarded.

ET Warrior
08-04-2004, 01:30 AM
Originally posted by yaebginn
they are two differner threads. one is about a fictional character one is about reagan. your reasoning is retarded.

Not atall, your own logic dictates that your arguments should follow the same rational. It doesn't matter if they're different threads or not. Fact is, you said that Jar Jar isn't important because he was just there, but someone else would've done the same thing. Same with Reagan, and, again, by YOUR OWN logic, Reagan was an unimportant pres :dozey:

yaebginn
08-04-2004, 01:32 AM
not, its not. jar jar was in a movie. his importance is judged differently.

El Sitherino
08-04-2004, 01:39 AM
Originally posted by yaebginn
not, its not. jar jar was in a movie. his importance is judged differently. not true. Your contradiction and going back on your word a lot leads me to question your credibility on any of your posts.

Jar Jar was deemed unimportant because he had the chance to create the empire, but if he wasn't there someone else would have done the job. and by that logic Reagan is unimportant because he was there by chance to say "tear this wall down" had he been "removed" someone else would have done the same, thus we'd have the same ending, credits roll.

ZBomber
08-04-2004, 01:41 AM
Hey yaebginn:
http://ssbm.echonetwork.net/DieYae.JPG

yaebginn
08-04-2004, 01:42 AM
no, the outcoe woulda ultimately been the same if jar jar just wasnt in. not treu with reagan. if you just pretended reagan didnt exist, then history would be forever changed. in the movie, its not real, so it doesnt matterm so my judgement is different. I'm gonna go to bed now cya

edit- noob? I just startd and have over 1000 posts. and if you want someone to kill themselves because of something they say, then ur really screwed up.

ET Warrior
08-04-2004, 01:48 AM
Originally posted by yaebginn
no, the outcoe woulda ultimately been the same if jar jar just wasnt in. not treu with reagan. if you just pretended reagan didnt exist, then history would be forever changed. in the movie, its not real, so it doesnt matterm so my judgement is different. I'm gonna go to bed now cya

But if Jar Jar just wasn't in the outcome would have been changed too. Which we've shown with evidence, that you simply ignore, by making up scenarios, which I can also make up. Say Reagan isn't pres, and someone else is, and the Soviet Union still collapses because they were bankrupt anyways. The end.

yaebginn
08-04-2004, 10:59 AM
but it wouldn't have happened with the same ultimate ending. reagans good skills convinced gorbachav. you are just altering history to suit your political beliefs.

DarthDurp
08-04-2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by yaebginn
but it wouldn't have happened with the same ultimate ending. reagans good skills convinced gorbachav. you are just altering history to suit your political beliefs.

trust me, anybody's speaking skills can convince someone to abandon a form of government. all he has to say is.....give up communism or we'll invade your country. having virtually no defense at that time, gorbachav had no other choice.

Originally posted by yaebginn
if you just pretended reagan didnt exist, then history would be forever changed.

how?

SkinWalker
08-04-2004, 12:48 PM
Reagan's influence on history and the fall of communism is indisputable, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that "only Reagan" could have done it. It seems to me that U.S. foreign policy wouldn't have been that muchy different with a different administration.

It is a great fallacy of political extremists that one side of the false-dichotomy of partisan politics operates wholey different than the other. History has demonstrated that to not be true. There are, indeed, some differences in adminstrating domestic policies, but when it comes to foreign policy, I've seen little difference in position.

We basically spent the USSR to death. Period. True, Gorbachev stated publically his respect for Reagan's perseverance, but in the end, Gorby didn't have the ultimate power to do what he wanted out of respect for an American President. His government collasped economically.

yaebginn
08-04-2004, 01:14 PM
I never said only reagan could do it. but I did say only reagan coulda done it that way. the outcoe woulda been the same in that instance, but the world is not yet over, so we dont know yet how reagan affected it. unlike jar jar, because the movie is over.

ZBomber
08-04-2004, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by yaebginn

edit- noob? I just startd and have over 1000 posts. and if you want someone to kill themselves because of something they say, then ur really screwed up.

That's why you are a noob. You post so much **** in a little amount of time.

Thank you sir, I think you are screwed up, too. And look, I bought you a gift! It's a dictionary! :thumbsup:

yaebginn
08-04-2004, 01:28 PM
but most of the stuff I post is intelligent information in debates. Also, I have not resorted to flames at all in any debate that I can recall. Unlike InsaneSith, the very person who thanked me for not flaming. and, zbomber, you have over 8000 posts. you have been here a bit over two years. in two year, you have 8000 posts. thats pretty noob-like to me. especially since all you post is crap.

ZBomber
08-04-2004, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by yaebginn
but most of the stuff I post is intelligent information in debates. Also, I have not resorted to flames at all in any debate that I can recall. Unlike InsaneSith, the very person who thanked me for not flaming. and, zbomber, you have over 8000 posts. you have been here a bit over two years. in two year, you have 8000 posts. thats pretty noob-like to me. especially since all you post is crap.

Ok, "dood". You call it intelligent, I call it a desperate way of getting posts and attention. You say it's intelligent, but it really is no debate at all. You just like to argue, it's obivous.

Thank you sir, for calling me a noob. That means so much coming from a 2004 veteran like yourself.

Kthx drive-thru.

El Sitherino
08-04-2004, 05:52 PM
also, zbomber and myself post in most of the forums. kthxbai.

Kuuki
08-04-2004, 05:55 PM
pownt :D

yaebginn
08-04-2004, 09:16 PM
where did you come from?