Delete This Account Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 in honor of a friend, i read somewhere that ronald reagan single-handedly undid communism, did he? jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 in honor of a friend, i read somewhere that ronald reagan single-handedly undid communism, did he? jw Not only did he, but he used his left hand. Just to make it more challenging. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ExiledInIllinois Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Be careful what one wishes for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
murra Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Be careful what one wishes for. What? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 To be fair, Reagan didn't do it alone. He had Chuck Norris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Not only did he, but he used his left hand. Just to make it more challenging. And that hand was tied behind his back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 All praise Ronald Reagan!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 in honor of a friend, i read somewhere that ronald reagan single-handedly undid communism, did he? jw Ho hum, victory has 1000 fathers, defeat has only one. I suppose you were totally behind Reagan when he walked out of the peace talks with Gorbachev, wouldn't relinquish SDI(which was one of the best bluffs in history, btw), and basically outplayed the Soviets single-handed, and against the advice of the State Departmet and of course the media...Nah, you stood strong behind Reagan while the Democrat-Controlled Congress, State Department, and Dan Rather, etc. were in hysterics claiming that he was going to get us all killed. or... were you laughing at the Reagan puppet show, loving the Gensis "Land of Confusion" video, clinging to your Sting "Hope the Russians love their children too" tape while you were running around screaming that Reagan was going to start a nuclear war, and get us all killed? I find it hysterical that, confronted with the fact that Reagan was clearly the lead role in defeating Communism, the only thing that you can say is "yeah but, there were other characters on the stage as well". There were, but Reagan was the star, by a lot. Now deal with it. It's the truth. You can't stand that can you? So, instead of gaining wisdom from this reality, you start straw grasping on the periphery and saying "yeah, but" a lot? Like I said: hysterical. Buddy, you can't let being wrong about something own you. Especially not things that happened over 20 years ago. That's no way to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted March 16, 2010 Author Share Posted March 16, 2010 someone sent me a link to this amusing column Worst. Column. Ever .... which led to this post. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 in honor of a friend, i read somewhere that ronald reagan single-handedly undid communism, did he? jw Point? I assume this is bait.What is the expected response you are fishing for? Just stay drunk and worry about sports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 Since when should an ESPN article be taken seriously in regards to sports, much less politics? in honor of a friend Why isn't Hedd starting his own ridiculous threads today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Delete This Account Posted March 16, 2010 Author Share Posted March 16, 2010 Point? I assume this is bait.What is the expected response you are fishing for?Just stay drunk and worry about sports. the point was, there are so many people with black and white perspectives that they fail to see the greys. and, in this internet age, anyone and everyone gains a sense of entitlement that their black is blacker, or white is whiter, than anyone else's. and because it's posted on the intrawebs, well, then, it's gotta be right. to say that Ronald Reagan single-handedly undid Communism is such an over-generalization, that it's wrong on its face. to use a sports analogy, it's like suggesting Ryan Miller single-handedly won the silver medal. heck, i've now bumped into people who have made the claim that Miller is not only better than Hasek but also the best goalie in the whole wide world. that's debatable at best. all i did was make a statement and ask if it was correct? bait, sure, but i think it proved a certain point given some of the responses. did Reagan play a role in the fall of communism? sure. might communism in the way it was structured in the Soviet Union unravel eventually, probably. thing is, Mr. Reagan didn't do it single-handedly. jw Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KD in CA Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 the point was, there are so many people with black and white perspectives that they fail to see the greys. and, in this internet age, anyone and everyone gains a sense of entitlement that their black is blacker, or white is whiter, than anyone else's.and because it's posted on the intrawebs, well, then, it's gotta be right. to say that Ronald Reagan single-handedly undid Communism is such an over-generalization, that it's wrong on its face. to use a sports analogy, it's like suggesting Ryan Miller single-handedly won the silver medal. heck, i've now bumped into people who have made the claim that Miller is not only better than Hasek but also the best goalie in the whole wide world. that's debatable at best. all i did was make a statement and ask if it was correct? bait, sure, but i think it proved a certain point given some of the responses. did Reagan play a role in the fall of communism? sure. might communism in the way it was structured in the Soviet Union unravel eventually, probably. thing is, Mr. Reagan didn't do it single-handedly. jw Why would you ask if a statement is correct if you have already determined that it is wrong on its face? Most of the responses seem to be mocking you. Hedd will be disappointed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 someone sent me a link to this amusing column Worst. Column. Ever .... which led to this post. jw Just disappointed it took this long for someone to bite. Not sure whether I'd classify that as "obscene accusations and inflammatory arguments" or vice-versa. And yeah, folks, that's my link. I thought JW would be amused by this clip, which reminded me of a certain message board: I'm not so sure there was ever a time in American history when these debates were civil. When there was a rhetorical etiquette of some kind. We've always argued sports and politics red-faced and at the top of our lungs. The difference these days is one of reach, and how far the shouts of our arguments now carry. That and the fact that the Internet allows us our fraudulent assertions and baseless speculations and slanderous idiocies without the imminent threat of a punch in the nose. Thanks for providing proof of same. BTW, Tom, Reagan was left-handed (or so he claimed) ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 I'll play along, Reagan was the most effective president in foreign policy and job creation that we have had over the last couple generations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 to say that Ronald Reagan single-handedly undid Communism is such an over-generalization, that it's wrong on its face.to use a sports analogy, it's like suggesting Ryan Miller single-handedly won the silver medal. heck, i've now bumped into people who have made the claim that Miller is not only better than Hasek but also the best goalie in the whole wide world. And Bush caused the Katrina disaster, and Carter was solely responsible for the Iranian hostages. And Obama...okay, he hasn't done anything yet, but he'll be solely responsible for something. Over-generalizations happen all the time in politics and history. And they're always false - history is rarely determined by single individuals (the only two exceptions I can think of off the top of my head are Alexander the Great and Genghis Khan). Even Hitler didn't cause World War II by himself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 BTW, Tom, Reagan was left-handed (or so he claimed) ... He claimed to have been "cured" of it in his youth. He wrote with his right hand through his presidency...I went with the photographic evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 someone sent me a link to this amusing column Worst. Column. Ever .... which led to this post. jw Interesting....so while I think we can both agree that neither Reagan or Jordan did what they did in a vacuum, that means that they weren't the single largest contributor? WTF? Yes, Spud Webb, Patrick Ewing and Charles Barkley were just as important as Jordan once the Byrd/Magic thing wore off and the NBA was floundering. Everybody is equal! This guy is exposing his own flawed world view, and underscoring his own point, by accident, that starting out with flawed premises is a bad idea, and he doesn't even know it! Thanks for the laughs. Let me get this straight: we shouldn't call Jordan a winner(6 rings) and Patrick Ewing a loser? We shouldn't say that Reagan was a winner? He set a small group of people, on multiple tracks = war, economics, culture, media, with the expressed purpose of defeating the USSR, and against massive odds, they won, over and over again, but we shouldn't call Reagan a winner? If not, then I guess we can't call Phil Jackson a winner either. Since, of course, Larry Brown did a lot of good things too? Sorry dude, but the simple fact is that there ARE winners and losers in this world, there are starters and scrubs, and no amount of handing out participation trophies changes that. Denying that once again simply exhibits a flawed premise, based on a flawed world view. Blaming the new media, and that a lot more of us have access to, and in fact can now be, the media(like when I report training camp stuff on my cell phone here), seems to me to have a lot more to do with whining that the average media person doesn't enjoy the status they once did than any thing else. That of: nobody can argue with me because I "know" more, and, I am the only one who's opinion matters, since it is the only one that you will read in the paper tomorrow. So, now, you guys face real competition, and just like I saw in public utilities, you aren't even close to being ready. Instead, we get this here: a hit on everybody who doesn't agree, or, based on what you just wrote, doesn't see the "relativism"?, framed in pseudo-philosophical complaining that the new rules of the game aren't right.... ...and that's the reason that nobody wants the health care bill. Hint: that bill is a loser, and most that vote for it will be as well. Where is the gray that I am missing? Do tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 The line in question said "single-handedly;" once you agreed that Reagan/Jordan didn't work in a vacuum, that rendered the rest of your point unnecessary. IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 16, 2010 Share Posted March 16, 2010 the point was, there are so many people with black and white perspectives that they fail to see the greys. and, in this internet age, anyone and everyone gains a sense of entitlement that their black is blacker, or white is whiter, than anyone else's.and because it's posted on the intrawebs, well, then, it's gotta be right. to say that Ronald Reagan single-handedly undid Communism is such an over-generalization, that it's wrong on its face. to use a sports analogy, it's like suggesting Ryan Miller single-handedly won the silver medal. heck, i've now bumped into people who have made the claim that Miller is not only better than Hasek but also the best goalie in the whole wide world. that's debatable at best. all i did was make a statement and ask if it was correct? bait, sure, but i think it proved a certain point given some of the responses. did Reagan play a role in the fall of communism? sure. might communism in the way it was structured in the Soviet Union unravel eventually, probably. thing is, Mr. Reagan didn't do it single-handedly. jw And this column would be moot if Algore didn't invent the Intertubes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts