Bush Sr's Puppet Dies of Shame: Ronald Reagan Goes to Hell
-=+ Osama Bin Kenobi +=-
around you. The whole world will know what you have done, and there will be
no escape. No terrorists will be able to save you, not even nuclear war
will save you...
Mourning in America: Ronald Reagan Dies at 93
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,121883,00.html
Ronald Reagan's War Crimes:
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Ronald_Reagan/WarCrimes_Reagan_iF.html
Ronald Reagan the thief:
http://www.totse.com/en/politics/political_spew/crime1.html
Reagan-Bu$h, the founders of Al Qaeda:
http://www.bushwatch.com/bushmoney.htm
Allegations
Businesses associated with Prescott Bush, such as the Union Banking
Corporation, were confiscated just prior to World War II under the Trading
With the Enemy Act.
George H. W. Bush and George W. Bush were members of the Skull and Bones
secret society (Bush's membership in the Skull and Bones society was the
subject of several Doonesbury cartoons). The group is allegedly associated
with crime and satanism.
George H. W. Bush was head of the Central Intelligence Agency in 1976-77;
among other things, he may have been involved in the 1976 assassination of
Orlando Letelier (Bush remains silent on this and the CIA refuses to
release many of the internal documents which could shed some light on it).
John Hinckley Jr, the ‘deranged drifter with the hots for Jodie Foster,’
also happened to be the son of one of George H. W. Bush's better supporters
in his campaign against Ronald Reagan; the Hinckleys' Vanderbilt Energy was
threatened with a $2-million fine the morning of the assassination attempt;
the families are sufficiently close that Scott Hinckley and Neil Bush had a
dinner appointment for the next day.
George W. Bush has sealed the presidential records of both himself and his
father.
Ayatollah Khomeini dealt with George Bush and/or his operatives to arrange
the Iran-Contra deal and allegedly the October Surprise, on behalf of U.S.
Presidential candidate Ronald Reagan.
Saddam Hussein, was provided with weapons and funding during the Iran-Iraq
War in the 1980s, during the Reagan administration, in which George H. W.
Bush was Vice President. In addition, Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense
under George W. Bush was the Special Envoy to the Middle East in this
period, appointed by President Ronald Reagan and met personally with Saddam
Hussein during the Iran-Iraq war
Osama bin Laden, then a minor Mujahedeen leader in Afghanistan, is reputed
to have been a CIA agent who made use of CIA resources and US-funds to
bolster the morale of radical Islamists after the Soviet invasion of
Afghanistan.
Dick Cheney was G.H.W. Bush's Defense Secretary, and G.W. Bush's Vice-
President. Cheney is the former President and CEO of Halliburton Company
which has been given, by George W. Bush, an exclusive (and unbidded)
contract in postwar Iraq. In addition, Halliburton's accounting firm was
Arthur Andersen. This latter firm was conviced of obstruction of justice
and, allegedly, commited fraud.
The Carlyle Group is an investment group which includes both the Bush
family and bin Laden family (one of the richest in Saudi Arabia).
Furthermore, George W. Bush and Salem bin Laden were coinvestors/business
partners in Arbusto.
George W. Bush's Defense Advisor Richard Perle is said to have a nickname,
amongst friends, as "The Prince of Darkness"
George W. Bush is strongly associated with the Patriot Act, which opponents
argue is a piece of legislation which "undoes" the Bill of Rights.
George W. Bush often appears to have a complete disregard for the validity
of international law, the International Criminal Court, and the United
Nations.
Some critics have alleged that the Republican Party fixed the 2000
Presidential Election in Florida by rigging it in collusion with
ChoicePoint and Governor Jeb Bush. Some regard this as the most serious
credible accusation.
According to the Democratic National Committee, George W. Bush lied during
the 2003 State of the Union Address when he argued that Iraq had been
attempting to purchase uranium from Africa. (The CIA insists it had warned
before the speech that the documents on which the uranium claim was based
were unreliable.).
Some accuse the Bushes of supporting policies that support their own
interests in oil companies.
http://www.encyclopedia4u.com/b/bush-family-conspiracy-theory.html
--
--==( Ö§âmâ ßíñ Këñ0ßí )====-- ----- --- - --- ----
R.ebel A.lliance G.alactic U.senet N.ews S.ervice
---- --- ---====================-------- - --------
http://www.president-bush.com/gulfwars.jpg
http://tlf.cx/bilder/bush_nkpm.jpg | http://www.ryano.net/iraq/?684397
http://www.aracnet.com/~allied/images/bush_vader.jpg
http://members.chello.nl/r.kremers/darth.jpg
http://www.mncollegedems.org/DarthBush.jpg
http://www.mingthemerciless.com/atat.html
http://www.dailyprobe.com/arcs/fbi_suspects/bin_18kenobi.shtml
http://www.bloodforoil.org/ | http://www.dyncorp-sucks.com/pmc/default.htm
CKOMOPOX
"-=+ Osama Bin Kenobi +=-" <ab...@anarchy.gov> wrote in message
news:OBK94FFC0CB...@r2-dv8.anarchy.gov...
> --==( Ц§вmв Янс Kлс0Ян )====-- ----- --- - --- ----
Chris Scalone
over 2 hours
"-=+ Osama Bin Kenobi +=-" <ab...@anarchy.gov> wrote in message
news:OBK94FFC0CB...@r2-dv8.anarchy.gov...
Darwin
wrote:
> You're a real cock sucker for disrespecting a man who has been dead
> alittle
> over 2 hours
A good vermin is a dead vermin.
Would this make Reagan...good?
--
-darwin-
Using Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/m2/
Nicolas Benicoeur
alittle
> over 2 hours
R.I.P Ronald Ray-gun
Jim E
"CKOMOPOX" <slave...@gulags.ru> wrote in message
news:S_swc.6164$c76.3...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
> It's just like you to jump on the grave of a dead man.
>
>
That pretty much exhausts his supply of courage.
Jim E
Darwin
I don't understand why BBC is making such a fuss on this thing, giving it
top status in the hourly newsfeeds.
I mean, the old creep was already brain dead for so long, what makes this
a prime news piece?
Or perhaps was he killed by ....al Qaeda?
CKOMOPOX
"Darwin" <darwin...@spamcop.net> wrote in message
news:opr85wl0euapv6ta@paulo...
> On Sun, 6 Jun 2004 02:21:09 +0100, Nicolas Benicoeur
> <dontspam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You're a real cock sucker for disrespecting a man who has been dead
> > alittle
> >> over 2 hours
> >
> > R.I.P Ronald Ray-gun
>
> I don't understand why BBC is making such a fuss on this thing, giving it
> top status in the hourly newsfeeds.
> I mean, the old creep was already brain dead for so long, what makes this
> a prime news piece?
>
> Or perhaps was he killed by ....al Qaeda?
>
> --
> -darwin-
>
I guess you just don't understand the historical implications i.e. you just
don't get it.
Think about where Europe is today and where it was when Reagan took office.
MirTopolskiRex
>
> Think about where Europe is today and where it was when Reagan took office.
Short answer: Those days Europe had poor Evil Empire next door to the
east, whereas today it has rich Evil Empire next door to the west.
MirTopolskiRex
>
> The Russians were playing with only half a deck. They were also playing
> against a much better card player. The dumb Russkies fell for Star Wars
> hook, line and sinker.
Quite exceptionally, Brookski has a point. The Soviets also fell for
Moon Landing trick. After Stalin's death their leaders' collective IQ
was insufficient to grasp US logic. It's reverse game now ...
MANFRED the heat seeking OBOE
>MirTopolskiRex wrote:
>>CKOMOPOX wrote:
>>> The Russians were playing with only half a deck. They were also playing
>>> against a much better card player. The dumb Russkies fell for Star Wars
>>> hook, line and sinker.
>Quite unexceptionably, he is still wrong. The Soviets fell for
>a lot of things since they were as dumb as Reagan (or Bush, or
>Nixon) - sure. Yet, it's changed _nothing_. USSR's economy
>had not dwindled at all - it simply kept on rotting more or less
>the same way it had gone for about 20 years.
..
>I find it supremely ironic that the most ardent proponents of
>the "Reagan defeated communism" idea invariably take the side
>of the orthodox communism teachings' when it comes to such
>matters as "role of individual in history" and "economic foundations
>of political process".
>
>If you insist on glorifying celebrating anyone when it comes to
>communism demise then Gorby is a much more appropriate subject than
>Ronnie.
Gorbechov's contribution to the demise of the Soviet Union stems
from his popular referendum: "Should the Soviet Union remain a Super Power".
The 'Peoples' negative response had its ultimate consequence:
a failed coup, a burgeoning Kleptocratic class headed by Yeltsin
whoimposed a 125% capital gains tax upon his own people followed by
the inevitable Soros-Devaluation-for-Dollars scheme, $100's of millions for
funnelled to their own personal needs.
Gorbechov's secondary contribution to state of World History was to
recognize the mediocrity of the Clinton Administration, to flagrantly waste
the opportunities present in the decade of 90's to build a lasting and sustainable Peace.
http://www.crisismagazine.com/february2002/feature1.htm
My relationship with President Clinton was quite strained, if not downright tense.
..I was highly critical of his foreign policy. He is guilty for the fact that the U.S. has
wasted those ten years following the end of the Cold War.
The world is the way it is, now,
not because we did NOT heed Clinton's Policies,
it is the way it is PRECISELY BECAUSE his policies were heeded.
Peace was not what was on the mind of the Clinton Administration.
If Clinton be guilty of one thing, it be of telling the world precisely what
he intended to do, and daring us to stop him.
His Life,
His World,
His Passion,
His Apotheosis,
His Daring us to Stop Him.
This is Clinton's Bridge.
The Penultimate expression of his
particular brand of Moral Vandalism is
in seeking pleasure in the death and demise of a good man.
No. It was NOT Ronald Reagan who defeated Communism.
It was the power of his Ideas and the resolve to act upon them.
This is the issue of this election: whether we believe in our capacity
for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution
and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan
our lives for us better than we can plan for ourselves. -- rr
Thank YOU! Bill Clinton.
For Being There at the Pinnacle of our Civilization, to PISS IT ALL AWAY.
MirTopolskiRex
> a lot of things since they were as dumb as Reagan (or Bush, or
> Nixon) - sure. Yet, it's changed _nothing_. USSR's economy
> had not dwindled at all - it simply kept on rotting more or less
> the same way it had gone for about 20 years.
Economy in stock market plus mass media era is just as tricky as Star
Wars and Moon Landing. Soviet leaders weren't smart enough to read this
written on the wall. They kept preaching old crappy stuff by Karl Marx &
Co and had zero idea about virtual evolution of real world.
> More than that: The state of economy per se has almost nothing
> to do with the stability of the political system. Witness Cuba and
> N. Korea.
Right. So what?
> Witness fucked for life blacks defending capitalistic
> freedom and Russian prols defending communist equality. Had
> Andropov lived for another 20 years, the communism would
> have survived for those 20 years without any uncommon
> problems.
Communism this or that - it's all about world power. This is game
without rules. Soviet leaders could not grasp this modern wisdom.
> I find it supremely ironic that the most ardent proponents of
> the "Reagan defeated communism" idea invariably take the side
> of the orthodox communism teachings' when it comes to such
> matters as "role of individual in history" and "economic foundations
> of political process".
Irrelevant - see above.
> If you insist on glorifying celebrating anyone when it comes to
> communism demise then Gorby is a much more appropriate subject than
> Ronnie.
Frankly speaking, I can't care less about Communism. Gorby was
giga-idiot who sold his empire (rotten, communist or else, who cares)
for nothing. Reagan played smarter and he had good spin doctors like Ed
Teller.
CKOMOPOX
"D.K." <d...@no.email.thankstospam.net> wrote in message
news:sv57c0l108qm90k7k...@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:05:54 +0200, MirTopolskiRex
<2472...@onlinehome.de>
> wrote:
>
> >D.K. wrote:
> >> On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 20:44:39 +0200, MirTopolskiRex wrote:
> >>
> >>>CKOMOPOX wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>The Russians were playing with only half a deck. They were also
playing
> >>>>against a much better card player. The dumb Russkies fell for Star
Wars
> >>>>hook, line and sinker.
> >>>
> >>>Quite exceptionally, Brookski has a point. The Soviets also fell for
> >>>Moon Landing trick. After Stalin's death their leaders' collective IQ
> >>>was insufficient to grasp US logic. It's reverse game now ...
> >>
> >> Quite unexceptionably, he is still wrong. The Soviets fell for
> >> a lot of things since they were as dumb as Reagan (or Bush, or
> >> Nixon) - sure. Yet, it's changed _nothing_. USSR's economy
> >> had not dwindled at all - it simply kept on rotting more or less
> >> the same way it had gone for about 20 years.
> >
> >Economy in stock market plus mass media era is just as tricky as Star
> >Wars and Moon Landing. Soviet leaders weren't smart enough to read this
> >written on the wall. They kept preaching old crappy stuff by Karl Marx &
> >Co and had zero idea about virtual evolution of real world.
>
> based on the production of actual goods. This is bullshit that
> traces down to the Tulip mania in the 17th century (or the Internet
> bubble of the Clinton era). In that sense, The "old crappy stuff
> by Karl Marx and Co" is still 100% valid.
>
> >> More than that: The state of economy per se has almost nothing
> >> to do with the stability of the political system. Witness Cuba and
> >> N. Korea.
> >
> >Right. So what?
>
> USSR is valid, by itself it does not in any way imply the inevitable
> collapse of the communism.
>
> This is is the Reagan's only claim to fame (apart from being
> demented brick) it follows that even it is quite invalid.
>
> >> Witness fucked for life blacks defending capitalistic
> >> freedom and Russian prols defending communist equality. Had
> >> Andropov lived for another 20 years, the communism would
> >> have survived for those 20 years without any uncommon
> >> problems.
> >
> >Communism this or that - it's all about world power. This is game
> >without rules. Soviet leaders could not grasp this modern wisdom.
>
> of USSR annihilating anyone anytime it wished, noone had _more_
> world power than them. Which means that your argument is 100%
> empty - as long as USSR was willing to exist exist, there was
> nothing Reagan and chronies could do.
>
> >> I find it supremely ironic that the most ardent proponents of
> >> the "Reagan defeated communism" idea invariably take the side
> >> of the orthodox communism teachings' when it comes to such
> >> matters as "role of individual in history" and "economic foundations
> >> of political process".
> >
> >Irrelevant - see above.
>
> start contradicting themselves, it renders their whole argument
> invalid. Simple logic. As in "Reagan defeated the evil communism"
> is in fact as stupid as 'Stalin perverted the true communism".
>
> >> If you insist on glorifying anyone when it comes to
> >> communism demise then Gorby is a much more appropriate subject than
> >> Ronnie.
> >
> >Frankly speaking, I can't care less about Communism. Gorby was
> >giga-idiot who sold his empire (rotten, communist or else, who cares)
> >for nothing. Reagan played smarter and he had good spin doctors like Ed
> >Teller.
>
> As there were 1000+ external factors, that outcome does not mean
> the loss had much to do with the Reagan's camp being smart
> and responsible for the win.
>
> Quite the contrary: It is very possible that the only real result
> in the foreign politics Reagan should credited with was establishment
> of muslim fundamentalism as a global force. Todays Americans reap
> the fruits of this move in full swing...
>
> DK
>
Sounds like DK is still bitter about the downfall of his beloved slave
state.
Hey DKie, It's 2004. You can stop crying now.
Me
> <dontspam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> You're a real cock sucker for disrespecting a man who has been dead
> > alittle
> >> over 2 hours
> >
> > R.I.P Ronald Ray-gun
>
> I don't understand why BBC is making such a fuss on this thing, giving it
> top status in the hourly newsfeeds.
> I mean, the old creep was already brain dead for so long, what makes this
> a prime news piece?
>
Darwin
[..]
> I guess you just don't understand the historical implications i.e. you
> just
> don't get it.
>
> Think about where Europe is today and where it was when Reagan took
> office.
Much better, indeed.
Sunday, June 06, 2004
Reagan's Passing
I did not say anything yesterday about Ronald Reagan's death. The day a
person dies he has a right to be left alone.
But yesterday is now history, and Reagan's legacy should not pass without
comment.
Reagan had an ability to project a kindly image, and was well liked
personally by virtually everyone who knew him, apparently. But it always
struck me that he was a mean man. I remember learning, in the late 1960s,
of the impact Michael Harrington's The Other America had had on Johnson's
War on Poverty. Harrington demonstrated that in the early 1960s there was
still hunger in places like Appalachia, deriving from poverty. It was hard
for middle class Americans to believe, and Lyndon Johnson, who represented
many poor people himself, was galvanized to take action.
I remember seeing a tape of Reagan speaking in California from that era.
He said that he had heard that some asserted there was hunger in America.
He said it sarcastically. He said, "Sure there is; they're dieting!" or
words to that effect. This handsome Hollywood millionnaire making fun of
people so poor they sometimes went to bed hungry seemed to me monstrous. I
remember his wealthy audience of suburbanites going wild with laughter and
applause. I am still not entirely sure what was going on there. Did they
think Harrington's and similar studies were lies? Did they blame the poor
for being poor, and resent demands on them in the form of a few tax
dollars, to address their hunger?
Then when he was president, at one point Reagan tried to cut federal
funding for school lunches for the poor. He tried to have ketchup
reclassified as a vegetable to save money. Senator Heinz gave a speech
against this move. He said that ketchup is a condiment, not a vegetable,
and that he should know.
The meanness was reflected, as many readers have noted, in Reagan's "blame
the victim" approach to the AIDS crisis. His inability to come to terms
with the horrible human tragedy here, or with the emerging science on it,
made his health policies ineffective and even destructive.
Reagan's mania to abolish social security was of a piece with this kind of
sentiment. In the early 20th century, the old were the poorest sector of
the American population. The horrors of old age--increasing sickness, loss
of faculties, marginalization and ultimately death--were in that era
accompanied by fear of severe poverty. Social security turned that around.
The elderly are no longer generally poverty-stricken. The government can
do something significant to improve people's lives. Reagan,
philosophically speaking, hated the idea of state-directed redistribution
of societal wealth. (His practical policies often resulted in such
redistribution de facto, usually that of tossing money to the already
wealthy). So he wanted to abolish social security and throw us all back
into poverty in old age.
Reagan hated any social arrangement that empowered the poor and the weak.
He was a hired gun for big corporations in the late 1950s, when he went
around arguing against unionization. Among his achievements in office was
to break the air traffic controllers' union. It was not important in and
of itself, but it was a symbol of his determination that the powerless
would not be allowed to organize to get a better deal. He ruined a lot of
lives. I doubt he made us safer in the air.
Reagan hated environmentalism. His administration was not so mendacious as
to deny the problems of increased ultraviolet radition (from a depleted
ozone layer) and global warming. His government suggested people wear
sunglasses and hats in response. At one point Reagan suggested that trees
cause pollution. He was not completely wrong (natural processes can cause
pollution), but his purpose in making the statement seems to have been
that we should therefore just accept lung cancer from bad city air, which
was caused by automobiles and industry, not by trees.
In foreign policy, Reagan abandoned containment of the Soviet Union as a
goal and adopted a policy of active roll-back. Since the Soviet Union was
already on its last legs and was not a system that could have survived
long, Reagan's global aggressiveness was simply unnecessary. The argument
that Reagan's increases in military funding bankrupted the Soviets by
forcing them to try to keep up is simply wrong. Soviet defense spending
was flat in the 1980s.
Reagan's aggression led him to shape our world in most unfortunate ways.
Although it would be an exaggeration to say that Ronald Reagan created
al-Qaeda, it would not be a vast exaggeration. The Carter administration
began the policy of supporting the radical Muslim holy warriors in
Afghanistan who were waging an insurgency against the Soviets after their
invasion of that country. But Carter only threw a few tens of millions of
dollars at them. By the mid-1980s, Reagan was giving the holy warriors
half a billion dollars a year. His officials strong-armed the Saudis into
matching the US contribution, so that Saudi Intelligence chief Faisal
al-Turki turned to Usamah Bin Laden to funnel the money to the Afghans.
This sort of thing was certainly done in coordination with the Reagan
administration. Even the Pakistanis thought that Reagan was a wild man,
and balked at giving the holy warriors ever more powerful weapons. Reagan
sent Orrin Hatch to Beijing to try to talk the Chinese into pressuring the
Pakistanis to allow the holy warriors to receive stingers and other
sophisticated ordnance. The Pakistanis ultimately relented, even though
they knew there was a severe danger that the holy warriors would
eventually morph into a security threat in their own right.
Reagan's officials so hated the Sandinista populists in Nicaragua that
they shredded the constitution. Congress cut off money for the rightwing
death squads fighting the Sandinistas. Reagan's people therefore needed
funds to continue to run the rightwing insurgency. They came up with a
complicated plan of stealing Pentagon equipment, shipping it to Khomeini
in Iran, illegally taking payment from Iran for the weaponry, and then
giving the money to the rightwing guerrillas in Central America. At the
same time, they pressured Khomeini to get US hostages in Lebanon, taken by
radical Shiites there, released. It was a criminal cartel inside the US
government, and Reagan allowed it, either through collusion or
inattention. It is not a shining legacy, to have helped Khomeini and then
used the money he gave them to support highly unsavory forces in Central
America. (Some of those forces were involved after all in killing leftwing
nuns).
Although Reagan's people were willing to shore up Iranian defenses during
the Iran-Iraq War, so as to prevent a total Iraqi victory, they also
wanted to stop Iran from taking over Iraq. They therefore winked at
Saddam's use of chemical weapons. Reagan's secretary of state, George
Schultz, sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad twice, the second time with an
explicit secret message that the US did not really mind if Saddam gassed
the Iranian troops, whatever it said publicly.
I only saw Reagan once in person. I was invited to a State Department
conference on religious freedom, I think in 1986. It was presided over by
Elliot Abrams, whom I met then for the first time. We were taken to hear
Reagan speak on religious freedom. It was a cause I could support, but I
came away strangely dissatisfied. I had a sense that "religious freedom"
was being used as a stick to beat those regimes the Reagan administration
did not like. It wasn't as though the plight of the Moro Muslims in the
Philippines was foremost on the agenda (come to think of it, perhaps no
Muslims or Muslim groups were involved in the conference).
Reagan's policies thus bequeathed to us the major problems we now have in
the world, including a militant Islamist International whose skills were
honed in Afghanistan with Reagan's blessing and monetary support; and a
proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which the Reagan
administration in some cases actually encouraged behind the scenes for
short-term policy reasons. His aggressive foreign policy orientation has
been revived and expanded, making the US into a neocolonial power in the
Middle East. Reagan's gutting of the unions and attempt to remove social
supports for the poor and the middle class has contributed to the creation
of an America where most people barely get by while government programs
that could help create wealth are destroyed.
Reagan's later life was debilitated by Alzheimer's. I suppose he may
already have had some symptoms while president, which might explain some
of his memory lapses and odd statements, and occasional public lapses into
woolly-mindedness. Ironically, Alzheimer's could be cured potentially by
stem cell research. In the United States, where superstition reigns over
reason, the religious Right that Reagan cultivated has put severe limits
on such research. His best legacy may be Nancy Reagan's argument that
those limitations should be removed in his memory. There are 4 million
Alzheimers sufferers in the US, and 50% of persons living beyond the age
of 85 develop it. There are going to be a lot of such persons among the
Baby Boomers. By reversing Reaganism, we may be able to avoid his fate.
posted by Juan @ 6/6/2004 12:57:54 PM
Darwin
[..]
> the 80s was an exciting decade, and he was president during that time
I was a teen then, and man, these times were not exciting at all.
Cold War was more boring than ever, music was pretty horrible,
fashion...well...I will not even mention 80's fashion, or the lack of
it... Beirut, Iran/Iraq, Palestine, all in the news, things that would
require such a heavy background to understand that they were virtually
meaningless...
Jezz, how I hated the 80's... I was living them and hating them, indeed.
The only funny thing I can recall about that time is Monty Phiton, Faulty
Towers, Alf, ALl in the Family...Oh, the sitcoms were certainly good back
then.
Just to keep in topic, Genesis videoclip performing Reagan as a puppet was
funny too. ;)
MirTopolskiRex
"Reagan defeated communism". Again, Communism was irrelevant in the
endspiel of US-SU big game. It was giga-idiocy of Gorby & Co that made
Reagan's bluff work. Look around - we've got World Capitalism out there.
But GWB & Co is a bunch of mega-idiots, whereas Putin is the best player
in the northern hemisphere, though his reich is still pretty poor. So
both Europe (its relevant part, that is) and China just luv Putin and
spit on Uncle Sam. Isn't it funny?
D.K. wrote:
> On Mon, 07 Jun 2004 00:05:54 +0200, MirTopolskiRex <2472...@onlinehome.de>
> wrote:
>
>
>>D.K. wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 06 Jun 2004 20:44:39 +0200, MirTopolskiRex wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>CKOMOPOX wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The Russians were playing with only half a deck. They were also playing
>>>>>against a much better card player. The dumb Russkies fell for Star Wars
>>>>>hook, line and sinker.
>>>>
>>>>Quite exceptionally, Brookski has a point. The Soviets also fell for
>>>>Moon Landing trick. After Stalin's death their leaders' collective IQ
>>>>was insufficient to grasp US logic. It's reverse game now ...
>>>
>>>Quite unexceptionably, he is still wrong. The Soviets fell for
>>>a lot of things since they were as dumb as Reagan (or Bush, or
>>>Nixon) - sure. Yet, it's changed _nothing_. USSR's economy
>>>had not dwindled at all - it simply kept on rotting more or less
>>>the same way it had gone for about 20 years.
>>
>>Economy in stock market plus mass media era is just as tricky as Star
>>Wars and Moon Landing. Soviet leaders weren't smart enough to read this
>>written on the wall. They kept preaching old crappy stuff by Karl Marx &
>>Co and had zero idea about virtual evolution of real world.
>
>
> Wrong. What you are describing is the pseudo-economy that is not
> based on the production of actual goods. This is bullshit that
> traces down to the Tulip mania in the 17th century (or the Internet
> bubble of the Clinton era). In that sense, The "old crappy stuff
> by Karl Marx and Co" is still 100% valid.
>
>
>>>More than that: The state of economy per se has almost nothing
>>>to do with the stability of the political system. Witness Cuba and
>>>N. Korea.
>>
>>Right. So what?
>
>
> So this: Even if the fallible reasoning that Reagan outspent
> USSR is valid, by itself it does not in any way imply the inevitable
> collapse of the communism.
>
> This is is the Reagan's only claim to fame (apart from being
> demented brick) it follows that even it is quite invalid.
>
>
>>>Witness fucked for life blacks defending capitalistic
>>>freedom and Russian prols defending communist equality. Had
>>>Andropov lived for another 20 years, the communism would
>>>have survived for those 20 years without any uncommon
>>>problems.
>>
>>Communism this or that - it's all about world power. This is game
>>without rules. Soviet leaders could not grasp this modern wisdom.
>
>
> World power this or that. As long as there was a potential threat
> of USSR annihilating anyone anytime it wished, noone had _more_
> world power than them. Which means that your argument is 100%
> empty - as long as USSR was willing to exist exist, there was
> nothing Reagan and chronies could do.
>
>
>>>I find it supremely ironic that the most ardent proponents of
>>>the "Reagan defeated communism" idea invariably take the side
>>>of the orthodox communism teachings' when it comes to such
>>>matters as "role of individual in history" and "economic foundations
>>>of political process".
>>
>>Irrelevant - see above.
>
>
> Completely relevant. When people in their long-winded argument
> start contradicting themselves, it renders their whole argument
> invalid. Simple logic. As in "Reagan defeated the evil communism"
> is in fact as stupid as 'Stalin perverted the true communism".
>
>
>>>If you insist on glorifying anyone when it comes to
>>>communism demise then Gorby is a much more appropriate subject than
>>>Ronnie.
>>
>>Frankly speaking, I can't care less about Communism. Gorby was
>>giga-idiot who sold his empire (rotten, communist or else, who cares)
>>for nothing. Reagan played smarter and he had good spin doctors like Ed
>>Teller.
>
>
CKOMOPOX
"Giga-Idiot MirTopolskiRex" <2472...@onlinehome.de> wrote in message
news:ca0v13$2g8$1...@online.de...
> R U playing Brookski Vulgaris now or what? I am not talking about
> "Reagan defeated communism". Again, Communism was irrelevant in the
> endspiel of US-SU big game. It was giga-idiocy of Gorby & Co that made
> Reagan's bluff work. Look around - we've got World Capitalism out there.
> But GWB & Co is a bunch of mega-idiots, whereas Putin is the best player
> in the northern hemisphere, though his reich is still pretty poor. So
> both Europe (its relevant part, that is) and China just luv Putin and
> spit on Uncle Sam. Isn't it funny?
>
China can't spit too much. The USA is its numero uno customer.
Putin doesn't have to do anything. High oil prices do all the work. Russia's
economy is dependant on oil exports, almost as much as Saudi Arabia.
MirTopolskiRex
>
> Putin doesn't have to do anything. High oil prices do all the work.
How do you know they are not related to Putin's work?
Walter Sickert
news:S_swc.6164$c76.3...@news4.srv.hcvlny.cv.net:
> It's just like you to jump on the grave of a dead man.
>
And I shall piss on it, I will.
Walter Sickert
"Chris Scalone" <csca...@wi.rr.com> wrote in
news:Nftwc.38117$to.1...@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com:
Jack Nichols
-=+ Osama Bin Kenobi +=-
wrote:
> It's just like you to jump on the grave of a dead man.
Now that he's dead, and Wormtongue Bu$h's sorcery on him has warn off, he can
see things clearly. As a matter of fact, I consulted with him before writing
this. He appeared to me as glowing apparition, dressed in robes and with one
of the biggest bongs I've ever seen. He said:
"God dammit Nancy, we have to get that backstabbing motherfucker!"
It took me a long time to explain to him that I was not Nancy, but the
sentiment remains the same. Reagan wants the entire Bu$h crime family and
their co-conspirators arrested for treason!
Oh yes, he also mentioned that the Bible was wrong.