fuck reagan

Discussion in 'Pandora's Box' started by minntoker, Jun 9, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

  1. Okay, then i will, go read through my posts and tell me what you think plz.
     


  2. well Mr. Hare it seems I had missed your posts regarding the Cold War and Reagan. I asume after reading most of the posts simply stating \"f*ck Reagan\" for no real reason I may have skipped a few.


    He ended the Cold War just by being himself REAGAN. Who was really an ACTOR and a family man.

    remember ACTOR. he ACTED his way to END the Cold War.

    What are your thoughts on this KraziHare?

    ps- and I agree with you somewhat on the \"puppet\" sense. Big Brother used his acting abilities



    :)
     

  3. By that explaination it\'s just as likely that I ended the cold war by being Krazihare. Maybe you\'re being sarcastic in which case nevermind, but come on, how does that make sense? If your logic holds true then I can legitimately claim that monkeys invented the lightbulb since they existed when lightbulbs came to be. Monkeys I say! :p
     
  4. I\'m on my way out the door and can\'t respond until later but I have a question for Krazi.



    You are insistent that Reagan did not end the Cold War and, from what I understand from your posts, you believe he had nothing to do with it\'s ending.


    How did the Cold War end? I haven\'t read the alternative anywhere. If he didn\'t have anything to do with it, then I\'d like to know who did and how it was orchestrated. If people believe he did, yet there is proof that he didn\'t, I\'d like to have a clear-cut answer as to how it ended and the proof that proves that . You want proof that he ended it....you want others to give you a grand explanation as to why they truly believe that he ended it. I would like the same....but from the flip side (your side.) :)
     

  5. You have a point, I don\'t know enough about the 1980\'s soviet union to tell you how their downfall came about but my argument doesn\'t lay in the idea that anyone orchestrated it. Chances are they more or less did it to themselves. I do know enough about the era to tell you that corruption was rampant and I can also tell you that their war spending had as much to do with the Chinese as the Americans (I\'ve read some interesting books on china and russia between 1950 and 1980, see Ocean of Words by Ha Jin). But more importantly you\'re trying to make me prove a negative. Saying \"Prove to me how this man did not do what I (or someone else) claim.\" isn\'t a good argument, even in the face of my own claims. I was not the first one to claim anything about Reagan, merely the first one to demand an explanation. By the general rules of argument the burden of proof lays in the hands of whomever made the original claim.

    I didn\'t call out the argument to be contradictory, it\'s just that claiming that Reagan single handedly brought down the soviets is an argument far larger than the available facts and opinions can support. But rather than ramble on anymore about what I don\'t know I\'m going to go do some reading on the subject and come back with a real argument (any help would be appreciated ;))
     
  6. I was being sarcastic. :)


    basically he was an Actor. He didn\'t END the cold war. He was just in the right place in the right time.
     
  7. Everyone seems to have this train of thought:

    -The Soviet Union had huge economic problems from the late 80\'s until the early 90\'s, and then dissolved.
    -Regan was President from 1980-1988.
    =Therefore, Reagan caused the demise of the Soviet Union.

    That\'s the same logic as saying:

    -Someone starts smoking pot.
    -A couple years later, they start injecting heroin
    =Therefore, smoking pot leads to heroin addiction.

    It\'s really easy to make up false cause-and-effect chains.

    To establish cause-and-effect properly for a Historical situation, you must PROVE that:

    1) You know all of the relevant possible causes of the effect. (& how do you know what\'s relevant or what\'s a possible cause?)
    2) You can determine the effectiveness of each motivating factor in producing the final result.

    The only real way to establish cause-and-effect is with a scientific experiment where you can control all of the variables (or at least you\'re fairly confident you can), and perform the experiment on enough subjects to make the chances of a non-representative example as small as possible. This CAN be done to prove, for instance, that the Gateway Theory is bullshit (and has been done for this). But it can\'t prove anything like \"Reagan beat the Commies\" any more than you can prove \"Bill Clinton caused the economic boom of the 90\'s\". You can only list things Reagan did that were supposed to have combatted the USSR, and make guesses about their effectiveness.
     
  8. My 2 cents(might be a repeat cause this thread is waaaaaaay too long):

    We\'re all sheep; me you, that dude behind you, all of us. We rely on what other people told us for \'facts,\' when infact, we don\'t even know for sure what\'s true. It\'s not our fault though, we go with what seems most convincing, but we shouldn\'t let that cloud our judgement and subjectiveness. Reagan might have been a total ass, but he also might have been the best president too. I don\'t know, and please don\'t pretend you do either. Only experts on subjects should really have opinions that they whole-heartedly believe. Just leave a little room for doubt is all I\'m saying.
     

  9. Theres nothing wrong with saying he was both. What I know disgusts me, (I did want to let this thread slip, let the man rest in piece etc, but come on now) while he was being held up on a freakin pedistool for his social concerns with drugs, his policies just escalated the War On Drugs. Just Say No, established for the children, but WE are the VICTIMS. and boy we were! I dont have numbers in front of me, but they are ridicoluous and unecessary!
    SO I DO have an opinion. I am not an expert. I just know some facts, that make me want to NEVER vote to have another official in office with any kinds of views such as his. no doubt.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page