Tributes for Raygun
John Hatpin
radio this evening, that Reagan single-handedly toppled the Soviet
regime. Wow, some guy.
I'd always thought that the twin spirits of Perestroika and Glasnost
among the people of the former Soviet republics had brought about this
change, but it seems I've been wrong. So, was the collapse of the
former USSR purely down to US Presidential pressure, or did the feisty
ex-Ruskies perhaps have a hand in it too?
--
John Hatpin
Dana Carpender
John Hatpin wrote:
\
Depends on which side of the Pond you live on, apparently. In the US,
standard mythology is that it was all Reagan.
Dana
kay w
Below should be links to the texts of the two eulogies you mention. I'd be
interested to know which words it was that sounded like such a claim; that's
not the impression I was left with at all.
Thanks.
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38911
http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38915
--
Samuel Morse invented a code for telepathy. Louis Pasteur discovered a cure for
rabbis. Charles Darwin was a naturalist who wrote the "Organ of the Species".
Madman Curie discovered Radium.
SoCalMike
Dana Carpender wrote:
it was bound to happen sooner or later. reagan made it happen sooner. he
also spent a LOT of money on the military in the process. turns out that
they didnt want to run the world after all. now its our job! ;)
John Hatpin
>Previously, Mr Hatpin said:
>
>>I didn't realise, until I heard Bush & Blush's devotional acts on the
>>radio this evening, that Reagan single-handedly toppled the Soviet
>>regime. Wow, some guy.
>>
>>I'd always thought that the twin spirits of Perestroika and Glasnost
>>among the people of the former Soviet republics had brought about this
>>change, but it seems I've been wrong. So, was the collapse of the
>>former USSR purely down to US Presidential pressure, or did the feisty
>>ex-Ruskies perhaps have a hand in it too?
>
>Below should be links to the texts of the two eulogies you mention. I'd be
>interested to know which words it was that sounded like such a claim; that's
>not the impression I was left with at all.
>Thanks.
No problem.
>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38911
"And there were no doubters among those who swung hammers at the hated
wall as the first and hardest blow had been struck by President Ronald
Reagan. "
>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38915
"He talked of winning one for the Gipper and as president, through his
relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev, with us today, the Gipper and,
yes, Mikhail Gorbachev won one for peace around the world."
Incidentally, Dubya's refrain about "doubters" was very distasteful -
it's pretty obvious that he was referring to his own opponents.
Trying to score political points for yourself at a predecessor's
funeral is crass.
--
John Hatpin
kay w
Previously, Mr Hatpin said:
>>>I didn't realise, until I heard Bush & Blush's devotional acts on the
>>>radio this evening, that Reagan single-handedly toppled the Soviet
>>>regime. Wow, some guy.
>>>I'd always thought that the twin spirits of Perestroika and Glasnost
>>>among the people of the former Soviet republics had brought about this
>>>change, but it seems I've been wrong. So, was the collapse of the
>>>former USSR purely down to US Presidential pressure, or did the feisty
>>>ex-Ruskies perhaps have a hand in it too?
Me(kay):
>>Below should be links to the texts of the two eulogies you mention. I'd be
>>interested to know which words it was that sounded like such a claim; that's
>>not the impression I was left with at all.
>>Thanks.
MrHatpin:
>No problem.
>>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38911
>"And there were no doubters among those who swung hammers at the hated
>wall as the first and hardest blow had been struck by President Ronald
>Reagan. "
>>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38915
>"He talked of winning one for the Gipper and as president, through his
>relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev, with us today, the Gipper and,
>yes, Mikhail Gorbachev won one for peace around the world."
Sorry, neither of those quotes claims that Reagan single-handedly toppled
anybody. And with Mr Gorbachev sitting right there next to Mrs Thatcher (and
what a lovely eulogy she delivered) I'd be surprised if they had.
Mr Hatpin:
>Incidentally, Dubya's refrain about "doubters" was very distasteful -
>it's pretty obvious that he was referring to his own opponents.
>Trying to score political points for yourself at a predecessor's
>funeral is crass.
Sorry again; that paragraph with the repeated word "doubters" doesn't address
Bush's opponents at all, at all. The paragraph was:
"And Ronald Reagan believed in the power of truth in the conduct of world
affairs. When he saw evil camped across the horizon, he called that evil by its
name. There were no doubters in the prisons and gulags, where dissidents spread
the news, tapping to each other in code what the American President had dared
to say. There were no doubters in the shipyards and churches and secret labor
meetings, where brave men and women began to hear the creaking and rumbling of
a collapsing empire. And there were no doubters among those who swung hammers
at the hated wall as the first and hardest blow had been struck by President
Ronald Reagan."
I don't know exactly why you came away with that impression from the eulogies
of either President Bush, but it's not in the words they said.
Joe Shimkus
John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Incidentally, Dubya's refrain about "doubters" was very distasteful -
> it's pretty obvious that he was referring to his own opponents.
> Trying to score political points for yourself at a predecessor's
> funeral is crass.
Wait until September.
--
PGP Key (DH/DSS): http://www.shimkus.com/public_key.asc
PGP Fingerprint: 89B4 52DA CF10 EE03 02AD 9134 21C6 2A68 CE52 EE1A
Windows has always aspired to be Mac-like without Microsoft ever really
understanding what that even means. - Robert Cringely
Nick Spalding
<joe-33025C.1...@news05.east.earthlink.net>:
> In article <ddolc0djkfrf0kv63...@4ax.com>,
> John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Incidentally, Dubya's refrain about "doubters" was very distasteful -
> > it's pretty obvious that he was referring to his own opponents.
> > Trying to score political points for yourself at a predecessor's
> > funeral is crass.
>
> Wait until September.
Who's going to be buried then?
--
Nick Spalding
Greg Goss
>I don't know exactly why you came away with that impression from the eulogies
>of either President Bush, but it's not in the words they said.
As a strong anti-fan of Reagan and a vehement one of Bush, I haven't
seen any exerpts from the eulogies that offend me. (As close to
approval as I am likely to get to - grin).
The biggest offense to me was the presence of a Canadian ex-leader
whom I hate evem more than Bush 2. I loved it when Sullivan said that
he "was a bit of a bore, but every funeral should have one."
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
dwhita1
"Dana Carpender" <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote in message
news:NTvyc.30047$HG.27105@attbi_s53...
Brit Hume (Fox News) reported that Gorbachev claims that Reagan did it to
make himself look good, because Gorbachev was getting to be pretty powerful.
>
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Bill Van
Greg Goss <go...@gossg.org> wrote:
You sure he said "bore?" It was Mulroney himself in a
not-off-the-record-after-all moment who said, "There's no whore like an
old whore." He was referring to a Liberal MP accepting a patronage
appointment, but the quote stuck very nicely to himself.
John Hatpin
Kay, I've given you direct quotes that indicated that both Blush and
Bear claimed that the dissolution of the USSR was mainly because of
Reagan. The phrase "single-handedly" was ironic hyperbole, of course
- I'd have thought that was obvious from the tone of the original
post.
I stand by my assertion that the USSR collapsed from within, not from
pressure by the US administration. Furthermore, I assert that Blaish
and Blue (or whatever the fuck their names are this week) have both
claimed that the said collapse was primarily due to Raygun, and hence
to "western" interventionist foreign policy.
In other words, they're both doing the same thing - claiming
legitimacy for their own recent actions by eulogising a dead person.
>Mr Hatpin:
>>Incidentally, Dubya's refrain about "doubters" was very distasteful -
>>it's pretty obvious that he was referring to his own opponents.
>>Trying to score political points for yourself at a predecessor's
>>funeral is crass.
>
>Sorry again; that paragraph with the repeated word "doubters" doesn't address
>Bush's opponents at all, at all. The paragraph was:
>
>"And Ronald Reagan believed in the power of truth in the conduct of world
>affairs. When he saw evil camped across the horizon, he called that evil by its
>name. There were no doubters in the prisons and gulags, where dissidents spread
>the news, tapping to each other in code what the American President had dared
>to say. There were no doubters in the shipyards and churches and secret labor
>meetings, where brave men and women began to hear the creaking and rumbling of
>a collapsing empire. And there were no doubters among those who swung hammers
>at the hated wall as the first and hardest blow had been struck by President
>Ronald Reagan."
>
>I don't know exactly why you came away with that impression from the eulogies
>of either President Bush, but it's not in the words they said.
OK, so why did Bush feel the need to draw attention to the lack of
"doubters"? If there were "no doubters", then why bother to point out
the lack of them *three fucking times*?
Face it, the "doubters" thing was a reference to his own opponents in
his own foreign policy. Or have I lost my mind here?
(Incidentally, Kay, there's a large portion of devil's advocate in my
wording. Please don't take it personally - I'm genuinely interested
in your opinion of this, and prepared to accept defeat gracefully if
you can convince me I'm wrong).
--
John Hatpin
Joe Shimkus
John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
> OK, so why did Bush feel the need to draw attention to the lack of
> "doubters"? If there were "no doubters", then why bother to point out
> the lack of them *three fucking times*?
While Bush may have been trying to score points (who can tell what he
was thinking?), the way in which the paragraph reads to me is hyperbole
that not one of the masses plotting/suffering/crying for freedom doubted
that RR was personally fighting for them. I don't think it was
necessarily for political gain but it sure seems obvious it was part of
the fawning attempt to canonize Reagan.
Scott P
Nope. All Reagan. By himself. No one else. Apparently he did it
with his optimism.
Scott
Scott P
John Hatpin
>In article <np0nc0lldh383t65t...@4ax.com>,
> John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> OK, so why did Bush feel the need to draw attention to the lack of
>> "doubters"? If there were "no doubters", then why bother to point out
>> the lack of them *three fucking times*?
>
>While Bush may have been trying to score points (who can tell what he
>was thinking?), the way in which the paragraph reads to me is hyperbole
>that not one of the masses plotting/suffering/crying for freedom doubted
>that RR was personally fighting for them. I don't think it was
>necessarily for political gain but it sure seems obvious it was part of
>the fawning attempt to canonize Reagan.
Is it just me, then? Am I the only person that thinks that three (3)
references to "doubters" in a very short eulogy implies the existence
of potential "doubters" that apparently didn't actually exist, and
hence need no reference at all?
For fuck's sake, Bush was trying hard to score points. Isn't that
plain and simple, or am I just being stupid?
--
John Hatpin
Boron Elgar
John, there are very few in this country who stand up & say the
Emperor has no clothes.
I did get a delightful political button today, while wandering a
street fair in Greenwich Village:
Re-Defeat Bush
Boron
Dana Carpender
Boron Elgar wrote:
>
> John, there are very few in this country who stand up & say the
> Emperor has no clothes.
The Emperor has no clothes. Not to mention any WMDs, or an exit
strategy. Running short on credibility, too.
>
> I did get a delightful political button today, while wandering a
> street fair in Greenwich Village:
>
> Re-Defeat Bush
I like the bumpersticker with the circle/slash over a W, saying, "Let's
not elect him in 2004, either.
Dana
Crashj
<>
> Brit Hume (Fox News) reported that Gorbachev claims that Reagan did it to
> make himself look good, because Gorbachev was getting to be pretty powerful.
It is good that it is seen that way. Reagan always looked good.
Gorbachev was never going to look good until he got that thing on his
head removed, so he should have been powerful.
Hume, on the other hand, is no hunk himself.
--
Crashj
Boron Elgar
<dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
>
>
>Boron Elgar wrote:
>
>>
>> John, there are very few in this country who stand up & say the
>> Emperor has no clothes.
>
>The Emperor has no clothes. Not to mention any WMDs, or an exit
>strategy. Running short on credibility, too.
(I should have mentioned that some of them are here on afca)
Boron
John Hatpin
That's lovely to know.
Did his cheerful visage, his love of children and animals, his full
head of unfeasibly dark hair, his roots on the ole ranch and his rabid
hatred of foreginers help too?
We need to know how to defeat communism[1], should it occur again in
the future, so questions like this need to be raised. By people like
us. True patriotists.
[1] Now redefined as "terrorism"[2]
[2] Apparently pronounced "tourism" (source: GWB)
--
John "won't anyone think of the CHILDREN!!!" Hatpin
Charles Bishop
<nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>For fuck's sake, Bush was trying hard to score points. Isn't that
>plain and simple, or am I just being stupid?
Different Style cross the pond?
charles
M C Hamster
news:fjhnc01ldnn34rpm8...@4ax.com...
I happened to be channel surfing a couple of days ago and I caught Sean
Hannity interviewing John McCain. And Hannity says to McCain: "Isn't it
incredible to think that if Ronald Reagan had not been president, the world
would have been a totally different place? I mean, in all probability there
still would be a Soviet Union!" To my great disappointment, McCain did not
say "Well, Sean, you're really full of shit on that one". He did sort of
smile and change the subject, but he really should not have accepted that
crap.
M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
Huey Callison
> We need to know how to defeat communism[1], should it occur again in
> the future, so questions like this need to be raised. By people like
> us. True patriotists.
> [1] Now redefined as "terrorism"[2]
> [2] Apparently pronounced "tourism" (source: GWB)
Here in Washington DC, we're at the front lines of the War on Tourism.
Because, face it, we have all these cool monuments and museums and shit,
and they are impossible to enjoy when they're absolutely sick with
tourists. Thankfully, post-9/11, we're finally starting to get the upper
hand against these terrible Al-Queda tourists who want to destroy our
way of life.
Here's what we're doing:
Phase I: (completed, now in the maintenance period) - make all of the
airports and public transportation either annoying or scary or both.
No one is allowed to use the bathroom on flights in or out of Reagan,
occasionally there's guys with machineguns on the Metro, wacky random
street closures throughout DC, stuff like that.
Phase II: (initial stages already completed)
- put up ugly-ass fences, big concrete barriers, sawhorses, lines of
squad cars, or rifle-toting security guards around everything.
Periodically move them around at random.
Phase III: (under way) - Having substantially injured the tourism
business, see to it that oil prices stay high, so airline fares don't
drop, and hotel occupancy has been low enough for long enough that few
hotels can afford to offer discounts. Throw in a 'mad cow disease'
scare, and make sure the Chesapeake Bay watershed project goes nowhere
so all the crabs and clams and fish are all fucked, and the restaurants
can all join in the fun too. Then raise Metro fares and cab rates.
Phase IV: (under way) - anyone still capable of being a tourist after
phases I through III is obviously up to something. Put surveillance
cameras on everything and watch them.
--
Huey
SoCalMike
> that not one of the masses plotting/suffering/crying for freedom doubted
> that RR was personally fighting for them.
"im ronald w. reagan, and i will *fight* for you!"
SoCalMike
> For fuck's sake, Bush was trying hard to score points. Isn't that
> plain and simple, or am I just being stupid?
i think there probably *were* doubters then, as well. people in russia
asking themselves if theyre really ready for this, whats going to happen
next... stuff like that.
im sure there were people who were comfy with the status quo in russia.
SoCalMike
Scott P wrote:
and osama. thats when hes going to be found and killed.
Mark Steese
> I didn't realise, until I heard Bush & Blush's devotional acts on the
> radio this evening, that Reagan single-handedly toppled the Soviet
> regime. Wow, some guy.
>
> I'd always thought that the twin spirits of Perestroika and Glasnost
> among the people of the former Soviet republics had brought about this
> change, but it seems I've been wrong. So, was the collapse of the
> former USSR purely down to US Presidential pressure, or did the feisty
> ex-Ruskies perhaps have a hand in it too?
Well, we can at least give Reagan credit for the Strategic Defense
Initiative, which actually did provoke the Soviets into spending *even
more* money on military research, despite the fact that it was a
boondoggle from the word go. An open economy can absorb the long-term
impact of money spent on unproductive technology much better than a
closed economy can, and complete economic collapse was the only thing
that could bring an end to the USSR.
--
Mark Steese
Unscramble and underscore to email
---
Blaine's next announced escapade will involve dropping himself from a
helicopter at a great height into a river, which seems to symbolize
nothing more than the general public's increasing desire to see David
Blaine dropped from a great height into a river. -fametracker.com
Greg Goss
>John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> We need to know how to defeat communism[1], should it occur again in
>> the future, so questions like this need to be raised. By people like
>> us. True patriotists.
>> [1] Now redefined as "terrorism"[2]
>> [2] Apparently pronounced "tourism" (source: GWB)
>
>Here in Washington DC, we're at the front lines of the War on Tourism.
>Because, face it, we have all these cool monuments and museums and shit,
>and they are impossible to enjoy when they're absolutely sick with
>tourists. Thankfully, post-9/11, we're finally starting to get the upper
>hand against these terrible Al-Queda tourists who want to destroy our
>way of life.
In 97, I was surprised at the freedom of movement around the capitol
building. We were metal-detected on the way in, and again into the
galleries over the Senate or Congress chambers, but could otherwise
wander pretty well at random. (Some of the back stairwells had
inch-deep footsteps worn into the marble. Probably not the safest,
but it provided an immense feeling of history.)
It would be interesting to compare it now, after "the changes".
The white house was much more tightly controlled. There was clearly
someone watching me as I tried to get the right camera shot from the
bottom end of the grand lawn near the dubya monument. Later, someone
chased me away from the grand driveway at the front (main) entrance.
I didn't notice anyone watching me as I watched a car drive in from
the side entry, but I'm sure someone must have been. The tour thru
the inside was tightly controlled and guided from room to room while
dozens of alert guys watched.
>Phase I: (completed, now in the maintenance period) - make all of the
>airports and public transportation either annoying or scary or both.
>No one is allowed to use the bathroom on flights in or out of Reagan,
>occasionally there's guys with machineguns on the Metro, wacky random
>street closures throughout DC, stuff like that.
If there are already guys with machine guns on the train, then the day
that the terrorists send guys with machine guns onto every train,
nobody will suspect a thing until the exact minute that it's all
planned for. If you are used to armed people around, how can you tell
that these are the armed people that are SUPPOSED to be there?
>Phase II: (initial stages already completed)
>- put up ugly-ass fences, big concrete barriers, sawhorses, lines of
>squad cars, or rifle-toting security guards around everything.
>Periodically move them around at random.
>
>Phase III: (under way) - Having substantially injured the tourism
>business, see to it that oil prices stay high, so airline fares don't
>drop, and hotel occupancy has been low enough for long enough that few
>hotels can afford to offer discounts. Throw in a 'mad cow disease'
>scare,
The Mad Cow scare is absurd. It is important to track the cows and to
prevent further infection, but even in England where it went
undetected for more than a decade, there were what, 70? deaths from
NVCJD? Two cattle in the US, I think. How much commercial disruption
is the risk from two cows worth?
>and make sure the Chesapeake Bay watershed project goes nowhere
>so all the crabs and clams and fish are all fucked, and the restaurants
>can all join in the fun too. Then raise Metro fares and cab rates.
I don't like non-fish seafood. It always seems like more bother than
it's worth. Perhaps if I liked it, my impresssions would be
different.
>Phase IV: (under way) - anyone still capable of being a tourist after
>phases I through III is obviously up to something. Put surveillance
>cameras on everything and watch them.
Grin. Canadian Secret Agent 281 at your service.
Derek
Not only does the quote not say that Reagan won it single-handedly, it
directly refutes it. "...the Gipper and, yes, Mikhail Gorbachev, won
one for peace around the world."
John, to have your take-away from this quote be "I heard Bush &
Blush's devotional acts on the radio this evening, that Reagan
single-handedly toppled the Soviet regime. Wow, some guy." is a
disconnect.
And when you later ask "So, was the collapse of the former USSR purely
down to US Presidential pressure, or did the feisty ex-Ruskies perhaps
have a hand in it too?" we may never know--but the quote clearly tells
us what the eulogist thought. (Though he left us in the dark regarding
his opinion of Mikhail's feistiness at the time.)
Derek
Greg Goss
>boondoggle from the word go. An open economy can absorb the long-term
>impact of money spent on unproductive technology much better than a
>closed economy can, and complete economic collapse was the only thing
>that could bring an end to the USSR.
I wonder if high-data-rate circuits ended up at Cisco even though they
were never useful in SDI? How much research ends up useless, even if
it is aimed at something that will never work.
I wonder if the "moon shot" justifications can work almost as well for
the Star Wars boondoggle? Of course, those debts will be coming due
about now, if you believe in Kondratieff.
Joe Shimkus
Mark Steese <mere_...@charter.net> wrote:
> Well, we can at least give Reagan credit for the Strategic Defense
> Initiative, which actually did provoke the Soviets into spending *even
> more* money on military research, despite the fact that it was a
> boondoggle from the word go.
So who we tryin' to provoke this time 'round?
Joe Shimkus
> >Phase IV: (under way) - anyone still capable of being a tourist after
> >phases I through III is obviously up to something. Put surveillance
> >cameras on everything and watch them.
I thought Phase IV was mutant intelligent ants mutating humans into
their collective.
John Hatpin
A good point. Saying there were "no doubters", aside from the obvious
political point Bush was making, was surely factually incorrect. Some
people wanted the system to carry on running; others were afraid of
the consequences of Glasnost and Perestrioka.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
Maybe it's a Pondian thing. That "yes", surrounded by commas, implies
a question or doubt in the mind of the speaker. I'm sure the
intention was for laughs - I can't remember if it got any - but it's
pretty distasteful, and shows no recognition of the changes brought
about by people from within, and certainly no celebration of their
efforts.
If Blush is to play for laughs at a funeral, he needs a better
script-writer. And someone else to tell the gags.
>John, to have your take-away from this quote be "I heard Bush &
>Blush's devotional acts on the radio this evening, that Reagan
>single-handedly toppled the Soviet regime. Wow, some guy." is a
>disconnect.
Perhaps Pondian again - I don't understand "disconnect" as a noun.
Seriously, it doesn't make sense to me. And I've already said that
my "single-handedly" was ironic hyperbole.
>And when you later ask "So, was the collapse of the former USSR purely
>down to US Presidential pressure, or did the feisty ex-Ruskies perhaps
>have a hand in it too?" we may never know--but the quote clearly tells
>us what the eulogist thought. (Though he left us in the dark regarding
>his opinion of Mikhail's feistiness at the time.)
Now we're certainly out of the realms of Pondian differences. I'm
pretty sure that I've stated my opinion of this whole thing in clear
enough terms for people to understand them, whether they live in
Chicago or Chelmsford. The rest is all semantics.
--
John Hatpin
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote in
>news:sq1lc0p5viabm5m8g...@4ax.com:
>
>> I didn't realise, until I heard Bush & Blush's devotional acts on the
>> radio this evening, that Reagan single-handedly toppled the Soviet
>> regime. Wow, some guy.
>>
>> I'd always thought that the twin spirits of Perestroika and Glasnost
>> among the people of the former Soviet republics had brought about this
>> change, but it seems I've been wrong. So, was the collapse of the
>> former USSR purely down to US Presidential pressure, or did the feisty
>> ex-Ruskies perhaps have a hand in it too?
>
>Well, we can at least give Reagan credit for the Strategic Defense
>Initiative, which actually did provoke the Soviets into spending *even
>more* money on military research, despite the fact that it was a
>boondoggle from the word go. An open economy can absorb the long-term
>impact of money spent on unproductive technology much better than a
>closed economy can, and complete economic collapse was the only thing
>that could bring an end to the USSR.
Funnily enough, I actually give some credence to the theory that
"regime change" was brought about partly because of the way that the
USSR was forced to increase its defence spending to keep up with the
USA. Data seems to support that view.
I'm not convinced it was a deliberate strategy, though. I think the
acceleration of military expenditure in the US during the 1980s had as
much to do with non-Soviet foreign policy as Soviet, and was probably
concentrated more in the Middle East, with concerns over the balance
of power there.
In fact, sticking my neck out a little here and guessing, I think that
the US admin knew that regime change was inevitable in the Eastern
Bloc, but wouldn't admit it. There was a huge investment in the
defence industry around that time, but they already had their eyes on
Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine, Kuwait, etc. That was
where they were looking. Not Moscow, so much.
--
John Hatpin
Greg Goss
>Huey Callison <bas-...@grace.speakeasy.net> wrote:
>
>> >Phase IV: (under way) - anyone still capable of being a tourist after
>> >phases I through III is obviously up to something. Put surveillance
>> >cameras on everything and watch them.
>
>I thought Phase IV was mutant intelligent ants mutating humans into
>their collective.
Project Forty?
Greg Goss
>If Blush is to play for laughs at a funeral, he needs a better
>script-writer. And someone else to tell the gags.
The previous day at the G8 conference, he tried to tell a few
Reagan-style jokes and they fell dead flat. He laughed at one of the
two jokes (I hate people who laugh at their own jokes, especially if
nobody else does), and merely paused a bit at the other one waiting
for the croud to respond before moving quickly onwards.
Reagan he ain't.
I son't read the line you're showing as a laugh-line. It would have
been easier to tell if I'd watched the service, but I reaganed out
from TV by Monday, so I didn't see the line delivery. Looking at it
in text, I don't think it was intended as a laugh line.
It looks like a right-winger crediting a communist for helping
dismantle communism.
Derek
> >Not only does the quote not say that Reagan won it single-handedly, it
> >directly refutes it. "...the Gipper and, yes, Mikhail Gorbachev, won
> >one for peace around the world."
>
> Maybe it's a Pondian thing. That "yes", surrounded by commas, implies
> a question or doubt in the mind of the speaker.
> script-writer. And someone else to tell the gags.
Okay, here I could be wrong, but I don't think so. If anything, I
heard the "and, yes, Mikhail Gorbachev,..." as a mild rebuke to those
Rush-ites who might claim Reagan did it by himself without help.
Blindfolded. In the dark. Uphill. Both ways. In the snow.
>
> >John, to have your take-away from this quote be "I heard Bush &
> >Blush's devotional acts on the radio this evening, that Reagan
> >single-handedly toppled the Soviet regime. Wow, some guy." is a
> >disconnect.
>
> Perhaps Pondian again - I don't understand "disconnect" as a noun.
> Seriously, it doesn't make sense to me. And I've already said that
> my "single-handedly" was ironic hyperbole.
Disconnect is not proper usage. It just means that the conclusions you
inferred were not based upon the quoted material.
>
> >And when you later ask "So, was the collapse of the former USSR purely
> >down to US Presidential pressure, or did the feisty ex-Ruskies perhaps
> >have a hand in it too?" we may never know--but the quote clearly tells
> >us what the eulogist thought. (Though he left us in the dark regarding
> >his opinion of Mikhail's feistiness at the time.)
>
> Now we're certainly out of the realms of Pondian differences. I'm
> pretty sure that I've stated my opinion of this whole thing in clear
> enough terms for people to understand them, whether they live in
> Chicago or Chelmsford. The rest is all semantics.
Right. You say "those knuckleheads claimed in their eulogy that Reagan
won the cold war by himself without help--although, ahem, I'm just
hperbolizing" I say "they do not. As a matter of fact they call out,
by name, Mikhail G. as deserving of credit and give it."
Derek
kay w
Mr Hatpin:
>(Incidentally, Kay, there's a large portion of devil's advocate in my
>wording. Please don't take it personally - I'm genuinely interested
>in your opinion of this, and prepared to accept defeat gracefully if
>you can convince me I'm wrong).
I appreciate your comments.
However, I find myself frustrated in this conversation. When you say that the
comments (paraphrased by me, shown in full below)
"The others swinging hammers knew Reagan struck the first and hardest blow"
and
"Reagan and Gorbachev won one for peace"
actually say "Reagan did it alone," well, we've got a disconnect I don't know
how to fix.
Apparently we're more divided by a common language than I'd suspected.
>>>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38911
>>"And there were no doubters among those who swung hammers at the hated
>>wall as the first and hardest blow had been struck by President Ronald
>>Reagan. "
>
>>>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38915
>>"He talked of winning one for the Gipper and as president, through his
>>relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev, with us today, the Gipper and,
>>yes, Mikhail Gorbachev won one for peace around the world."
--
Samuel Morse invented a code for telepathy. Louis Pasteur discovered a cure for
rabbis. Charles Darwin was a naturalist who wrote the "Organ of the Species".
Madman Curie discovered Radium.
John Hatpin
>Previously,
>
>Mr Hatpin:
>>(Incidentally, Kay, there's a large portion of devil's advocate in my
>>wording. Please don't take it personally - I'm genuinely interested
>>in your opinion of this, and prepared to accept defeat gracefully if
>>you can convince me I'm wrong).
>
>I appreciate your comments.
>
>However, I find myself frustrated in this conversation. When you say that the
>comments (paraphrased by me, shown in full below)
>"The others swinging hammers knew Reagan struck the first and hardest blow"
>and
>"Reagan and Gorbachev won one for peace"
>actually say "Reagan did it alone," well, we've got a disconnect I don't know
>how to fix.
>
>Apparently we're more divided by a common language than I'd suspected.
The "alone" bit was deliberate exaggeration for effect - I'm sure
no-one outside of a strait-jacket believes that *only* Reagan had
anything to do with the break-up of the USSR. I thought that would
have been clear from context, but apparently not - you're not the only
one who took it literally.
To state more accurately what I believe - I disagree with both Blush's
and Bair's statements. Here's why.
>>>>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38911
>>>"And there were no doubters among those who swung hammers at the hated
>>>wall as the first and hardest blow had been struck by President Ronald
>>>Reagan. "
"Hardest"? I don't think so. Many factors contributed to the fall of
the USSR, but it's hard to believe that Reagan's actions had the
largest effect.
>>>>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38915
>>>"He talked of winning one for the Gipper and as president, through his
>>>relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev, with us today, the Gipper and,
>>>yes, Mikhail Gorbachev won one for peace around the world."
Ditto - and the implication is that Gorbachev was secondary. That was
was certainly intended for humorous effect, but I wonder how other
people in the world, who might not understand British irony, would
interpret that. If you don't get the joke, it must sound like an
insult to Gorbachev and the others who worked from within to dissolve
the USSR.
--
John Hatpin
kay w
Mr Hatpin:
>To state more accurately what I believe - I disagree with both Blush's
>and Bair's statements. Here's why.
>>>>>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38911
>>>>"And there were no doubters among those who swung hammers at the hated
>>>>wall as the first and hardest blow had been struck by President Ronald
>>>>Reagan. "
Mr Hatpin:
>"Hardest"? I don't think so. Many factors contributed to the fall of
>the USSR, but it's hard to believe that Reagan's actions had the
>largest effect.
Certainly you may disagree with President Bush's interpretation of events;
President Gorbachev, who was himself fairly close to events, apparently had no
trouble with it.
Mr Hatpin:
>>>>>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38915
>>>>"He talked of winning one for the Gipper and as president, through his
>>>>relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev, with us today, the Gipper and,
>>>>yes, Mikhail Gorbachev won one for peace around the world."
>Ditto - and the implication is that Gorbachev was secondary. That was
>was certainly intended for humorous effect, but I wonder how other
>people in the world, who might not understand British irony, would
>interpret that. If you don't get the joke, it must sound like an
>insult to Gorbachev and the others who worked from within to dissolve
>the USSR.
I see no humor in that statement. The "...yes, Mikhail Gorbachev" phrase
evoked, to me, the same sort of wonder I felt when looking into the
congregation at the services and seeing Mrs Thatcher and Gorbachev sitting side
by side at the National Cathedral IN DC at the funeral of President Reagan.
That "yes" merely highlighted the Gorbachev's inclusion, with a little "whoda
thunk it?" implication.
I'm relatively certain Mr Bush was not employing British irony when he spoke
the phrase. Neither do I see any insult to Mr Gorbachev; surely he would not
expect to be listed first in the eulogy, before the deceased, in a recount of
accomplishments.
By saying, "...the Gipper and, yes, Mikhail Gorbachev won one..." I took it as
a nod to Gorbachev, acknowledgement that Reagan did not alone "win one for
peace." I took it that way because, you see, Mr Bush specifically listed both
men, which seems counter to your assertion that President's and Mr Bush's
"devotional acts" claimed that "that Reagan single-handedly toppled the Soviet
regime."
I'm really lost, since both examples you provide specifically point to shared
accomplishments. Was there anything else in either text that might have been
the phrase that caught your ear?
Mr Hatpin:
>The "alone" bit was deliberate exaggeration for effect - I'm sure
>no-one outside of a strait-jacket believes that *only* Reagan had
>anything to do with the break-up of the USSR. I thought that would
>have been clear from context, but apparently not - you're not the only
>one who took it literally.
Well, you went to some length to ensure that the point of your original post
was to complain that during his eulogies, President Reagan was given singular
and undue credit for accomplishments. Unfortunately, the only two examples you
selected *specifically* share credit, so, um, I ...well... one of us has got
nothing.
Mr Hatpin's original post, in part:
>I'd always thought that the twin spirits of Perestroika and Glasnost
>among the people of the former Soviet republics had brought about this
>change, but it seems I've been wrong. So, was the collapse of the
>former USSR purely down to US Presidential pressure, or did the feisty
>ex-Ruskies perhaps have a hand in it too?
Like who? Like, maybe, Mikhail Gorbachev, who as we noted above, was
specifically mentioned?
Mr Hatpin:
>If you don't get the joke, it must sound like an
>insult to Gorbachev and the others who worked from within to dissolve
>the USSR.
I feel reasonably certain that at *his* funeral, Mr Gorbachev will get top
billing on the accomplishments his eulogists mention.
Opus the Penguin
> kay w wrote:
>
>>>>>http://worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=38915
>>>>"He talked of winning one for the Gipper and as president,
>>>>through his relationship with Mikhail Gorbachev, with us today,
>>>>the Gipper and, yes, Mikhail Gorbachev won one for peace around
>>>>the world."
>
> Ditto - and the implication is that Gorbachev was secondary. That
> was was certainly intended for humorous effect, but I wonder how
> other people in the world, who might not understand British irony,
> would interpret that. If you don't get the joke, it must sound
> like an insult to Gorbachev and the others who worked from within
> to dissolve the USSR.
I'm going to risk entering a political thread here, as long as we're all
friendly.
I think one of Reagan's greatest contributions was that he knew when to
*stop* being warlike. When there were signs of glasnost and perestroika,
he changed his bellicose tune. Had he not done that, he might well have
goaded the USSR into limping along a bit longer.
--
Opus the Penguin (that's my real email addy)
You snipped my sig!
Mark Steese
@news03.east.earthlink.net:
> In article <Xns950776DD...@216.168.3.44>,
> Mark Steese <mere_...@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> Well, we can at least give Reagan credit for the Strategic Defense
>> Initiative, which actually did provoke the Soviets into spending
>> *even more* money on military research, despite the fact that it was
>> a boondoggle from the word go.
>
> So who we tryin' to provoke this time 'round?
Oh, I didn't say Reagan was *trying* to provoke the Soviets into
spending their nation into bankruptcy. That would have made sense. On
the other hand, if he'd realized that SDI would never work and promoted
it only as a subterfuge, the Soviets might have seen through it.
Both Bush the Elder and Clinton scaled back the SDI program, but it was
well-enough entrenched to make killing it risky for presidents who
wanted to look strong on defense. Bush the Younger could afford to run
that risk, but he's a true believer, just as Reagan was.
Scott P
wrote:
>
>I'm going to risk entering a political thread here, as long as we're all
>friendly.
>
>I think one of Reagan's greatest contributions was that he knew when to
>*stop* being warlike. When there were signs of glasnost and perestroika,
>he changed his bellicose tune. Had he not done that, he might well have
>goaded the USSR into limping along a bit longer.
There is a lot of truth to this and I would note he did it despite his
conservative staff's recommendations against it.
scott
John Hatpin
I've no argument against this angle - Reagan deserves credit where
it's applicable, and this probably his best achievement.
The annoyance to me was in the eulogies, and the US-centric tone of
them. I'm backing out of that, because there was too much confusion,
and I was maybe getting too boring.
Reagan, for all his faults, did have a significant hand in bringing
about the fall of the USSR, and those of us old enough to remember
living under the "shadow of the bomb", and the end of the Cold War,
have that to be grateful for.
Besides, at the end, he was an old man who fell very ill and died and
was mourned by people who had loved him, liked him, respected him, and
so on. That transcends politics; it's always a sad event.
I'll shut up about the eulogies, though I stick by what I've said, bar
the confusion between Blush and Bair's speeches up there - I got them
mixed up at one point.
Enough is enough.
--
John Hatpin
Greg Goss
>I think one of Reagan's greatest contributions was that he knew when to
>*stop* being warlike. When there were signs of glasnost and perestroika,
>he changed his bellicose tune. Had he not done that, he might well have
>goaded the USSR into limping along a bit longer.
Or into the violent disintegration spasm that most of us were
expecting. Nobody was expecting the "with a whimper" collapse.
Mark Steese
[snip]
>>Well, we can at least give Reagan credit for the Strategic Defense
>>Initiative, which actually did provoke the Soviets into spending *even
>>more* money on military research, despite the fact that it was a
>>boondoggle from the word go. An open economy can absorb the long-term
>>impact of money spent on unproductive technology much better than a
>>closed economy can, and complete economic collapse was the only thing
>>that could bring an end to the USSR.
>
> Funnily enough, I actually give some credence to the theory that
> "regime change" was brought about partly because of the way that the
> USSR was forced to increase its defence spending to keep up with the
> USA. Data seems to support that view.
>
> I'm not convinced it was a deliberate strategy, though.
I'm reasonably sure it wasn't; in my opinion, it's a good example of the
Law of Unintended Consequences. Not that I fault the U.S. policymakers
for their inability to foresee that the USSR would continue to bleed
itself white funding weapons programs long after it was obvious to even
the dullest apparatchik that the system was failing. Nations don't
normally commit suicide like that.
> I think the acceleration of military expenditure in the US during the
> 1980s had as much to do with non-Soviet foreign policy as Soviet, and
> was probably concentrated more in the Middle East, with concerns over
> the balance of power there.
Indeed, although the fear of Soviet influence in the Middle East was
often lurking in the background. During the 1980s the U.S. also spent a
lot of money fighting the menace of Communism in Latin America -- funny
how the defeat of the Sandinistas didn't get played up during the
eulogies for Reagan. I guess they would have had a hard time bringing
that up without using the word "Contra."
> In fact, sticking my neck out a little here and guessing, I think that
> the US admin knew that regime change was inevitable in the Eastern
> Bloc, but wouldn't admit it. There was a huge investment in the
> defence industry around that time, but they already had their eyes on
> Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Israel, Palestine, Kuwait, etc. That was
> where they were looking. Not Moscow, so much.
From what reading I've done on the subject, I'd say the main problem
with the assumption above is that Reagan's advisers commonly disagreed
with each other about everything except for the basic principle that
Communism was Bad. The bad blood between Reagan's second Secretary of
State, George Shultz, and his first Secretary of Defense, Caspar
Weinberger, was legendary; the various U.S. intelligence agencies were
providing conflicting analyses, while the Soviet intelligence agencies
were cranking out disinformation by the ton. Some people did guess that
the USSR was about to collapse, but there was no way for anyone to be
sure.
--
Mark Steese
unscramble and underscore to email
---
Blaine's next announced escapade will involve dropping himself from a
helicopter at a great height into a river, which seems to symbolize
nothing more than the general public's increasing desire to see David
Blaine dropped from a great height into a river. --fametracker.com
Opus the Penguin
That's true. George Will (IIRC) wrote a column about how the pres. was
wimping out and had lost his way. Gone were the days when he wrote the
president's speeches and praised them in the papers the following day.
Briar Rose
>I'll shut up about the eulogies, though I stick by what I've said, bar
>the confusion between Blush and Bair's speeches up there - I got them
>mixed up at one point.
Mebbe there'd have been less confusion if you'd
just use the men's actual names!
I think Reagan was a terrible man, that GW Bush is
worse, and I'm not a huge fan of Blair or Thatcher
either, but I really can't stand it when people
repeatedly and deliberately mangle the names of
people, organizations, or products they dislike.
Once in a while, it's reasonable and even funny, but
if one is attempting to hold a coherent discussion,
step one is using clear language.
*puff* *puff*
OK, I'm better now. Carry on.
:) Connie-Lynne
--
"The sky is blue because Martians puke sapphires.
I heard John Glen say this on Fresh Air."
-- N. Jill Marsh
John Hatpin
>John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>>I'll shut up about the eulogies, though I stick by what I've said, bar
>>the confusion between Blush and Bair's speeches up there - I got them
>>mixed up at one point.
>
>Mebbe there'd have been less confusion if you'd
>just use the men's actual names!
>
>I think Reagan was a terrible man, that GW Bush is
>worse, and I'm not a huge fan of Blair or Thatcher
>either, but I really can't stand it when people
>repeatedly and deliberately mangle the names of
>people, organizations, or products they dislike.
>
>Once in a while, it's reasonable and even funny, but
>if one is attempting to hold a coherent discussion,
>step one is using clear language.
I used "Blush" and "Bair" in an attempt at satire - they're almost the
same person, ideologically speaking. Invent a connection between
al-Qaeda and Iraq, invent WMDs in Iraq, invade Iraq, kill lost of
people ... and it's not about oil, is it?
>*puff* *puff*
>
>OK, I'm better now. Carry on.
Nah, I'll stop doing that if it adds to the confusion. This shit is
almost too important for attempts at satire. I'll leave that stuff to
the Onion, if I can.
--
John Hatpin