ronald reagan single-handedly undid communism

[Jim in Anchorage]

to say that Ronald Reagan single-handedly undid Communism is such an over-generalization, that it's wrong on its face.

 

 

jw

Who said that? Names.

[OCinBuffalo]

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.

Well then you missed my point, and the lame attempt at a setup. I didn't.

 

IMO.

 

This is about trying pretend that winners didn't win, and that losers didn't do as bad as they did, because there were other people on the court. And, it's the same tired crap that pretends people are equal, or should be, AFTER they are created. In reality, this is about a guy who in all likelihood has been getting whipped for promoting this flawed thinking on political boards just like this one, and now, rather than dealing with that, is telling us:

 

1. something is wrong with the game, not the way he plays it.

2. he doesn't like it when individual greatness is recognized, and that somehow Patrick Ewing is just as important as Jordan, in terms of "saving the NBA", and we would know that, if we saw "the gray".

[Lori]

I take it you haven't read much of Jeff's other work. Try this one ...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...acgregor/090112

 

...and then get back to me about your second point.

[OCinBuffalo]

I take it you haven't read much of Jeff's other work. Try this one ...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story...acgregor/090112

 

...and then get back to me about your second point.

No problem, so if he does like it when individual greatness is recognized, again I ask: where is the gray? Jim Brown and Johnny Unitas also won the MVP 3 times. Nothing relative about that. The AP did poor research. (I mean seriously, by now, you guys don't have a data warehouse for this stuff and every other stat? I could build the data model for it in a week.)

 

I don't see how this mistake was caused by "not seeing the gray". Is there some sort of relativism that biases us against the old school football players, and we need to recognize it when it happens, so that we don't make flawed arguments? Or, is it the most simple explanation: somebody screwed up?

[Jim in Anchorage]

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.

The 'line in question' was obviously a clumsy attempt to get Reagan supporter's to defend a statement he heard in a bar.

Sorry, no bites.

[yall]

in honor of a friend, i read somewhere that ronald reagan single-handedly undid communism, did he?

 

jw

 

The Chinese would disagree...

[Lori]

No problem, so if he does like it when individual greatness is recognized, again I ask: where is the gray? Jim Brown and Johnny Unitas also won the MVP 3 times. Nothing relative about that. The AP did poor research. (I mean seriously, by now, you guys don't have a data warehouse for this stuff and every other stat? I could build the data model for it in a week.)

 

I don't see how this mistake was caused by "not seeing the gray". Is there some sort of relativism that biases us against the old school football players, and we need to recognize it when it happens, so that we don't make flawed arguments? Or, is it the most simple explanation: somebody screwed up?

Let's try that second point again. MacG never claimed Jordan wasn't a "winner," and he never uttered the name of Patrick Ewing. What he did do was point out (without going into exhaustive detail) that without Bird and Magic pulling the league back to respectability -- Lakers-Celtics was the reason CBS moved the NBA playoffs from tape-delay to primetime in 1987, when Jordan led the league in scoring while playing for a team with a losing record -- No. 23 may well have continued adding footage to his highlight reels in obscurity.

 

Thus rendering the "Jordan saved the league" absolute incorrect.

[Jim in Anchorage]

Let's try that second point again. MacG never claimed Jordan wasn't a "winner," and he never uttered the name of Patrick Ewing. What he did do was point out (without going into exhaustive detail) that without Bird and Magic pulling the league back to respectability -- Lakers-Celtics was the reason CBS moved the NBA playoffs from tape-delay to primetime in 1987, when Jordan led the league in scoring while playing for a team with a losing record -- No. 23 may well have continued adding footage to his highlight reels in obscurity.

 

Thus rendering the "Jordan saved the league" absolute incorrect.

What is the connection to Reagan/ fall of communism?

[Delete This Account]

what's amusing is how some people's opinions get in the way of nuance.

this entire post echoes Lori's familiar stand against sweeping generalizations and absolutes. and i think that this is the point that's trying to be made here.

but of course i could be wrong.

 

jw

[keepthefaith]

All praise Ronald Reagan!!!

 

You now, Reagan was good, but it was the total incompetence of Jimmy Carter that made him look so amazing.

[Lori]

What is the connection to Reagan/ fall of communism?

That in both cases, arguing the absolute statement -- whether in a bar or on a message board -- ignores the wider history.

 

Did Reagan play a leading role in bringing down the Berlin Wall? Of course ... but so did Gorbachev and Walesa (as Jeff noted), and I'd personally add John Paul II to the list.

[Delete This Account]

Let's try that second point again. MacG never claimed Jordan wasn't a "winner," and he never uttered the name of Patrick Ewing. What he did do was point out (without going into exhaustive detail) that without Bird and Magic pulling the league back to respectability -- Lakers-Celtics was the reason CBS moved the NBA playoffs from tape-delay to primetime in 1987, when Jordan led the league in scoring while playing for a team with a losing record -- No. 23 may well have continued adding footage to his highlight reels in obscurity.

 

Thus rendering the "Jordan saved the league" absolute incorrect.

so, you're saying Jordan was a loser at some point?

 

jw

[Lori]

what's amusing is how some people's opinions get in the way of nuance.

this entire post echoes Lori's familiar stand against sweeping generalizations and absolutes. and i think that this is the point that's trying to be made here.

but of course i could be wrong.

 

jw

'S funny. Before I sent you the link, I actually thought about posting it here -- nothing but the link, in a thread titled "You're all wrong." Just to see what happened.

[GG]

That in both cases, arguing the absolute statement -- whether in a bar or on a message board -- ignores the wider history.

 

Did Reagan play a leading role in bringing down the Berlin Wall? Of course ... but so did Gorbachev and Walesa (as Jeff noted), and I'd personally add John Paul II to the list.

 

You forgot one. Roger Waters also claims that he tore down the wall.

[Delete This Account]

'S funny. Before I sent you the link, I actually thought about posting it here -- nothing but the link, in a thread titled "You're all wrong." Just to see what happened.

i know. i find this to be a hoot. should send it to MacGregor.

 

jw

[Lori]

so, you're saying Jordan was a loser at some point?

 

jw

During his first three seasons in the league, literally, yes. And then the Bulls hired Phil Jackson and traded for Scottie Pippen.

[OCinBuffalo]

Let's try that second point again. MacG never claimed Jordan wasn't a "winner," and he never uttered the name of Patrick Ewing. What he did do was point out (without going into exhaustive detail) that without Bird and Magic pulling the league back to respectability -- Lakers-Celtics was the reason CBS moved the NBA playoffs from tape-delay to primetime in 1987, when Jordan led the league in scoring while playing for a team with a losing record -- No. 23 may well have continued adding footage to his highlight reels in obscurity.

 

Thus rendering the "Jordan saved the league" absolute incorrect.

So according to you, and I don't agree btw, Jordan did not save the NBA, Bird/Magic did. Again, where's the gray? Especially when you throw out the word "absolute". Just saying. EDIT: or, for John, Where is the Nuance?

 

The premise was: we make bad arguments like "Reagan single handedly won the cold war" because we don't see the gray. My contention is: we make bad arguments because we make mistakes, are ignorant of the facts, but most likely, we are ideologically driven, and as such, start with conclusions like "We can't let Reagan take most of the credit for winning the Cold War, because that would make us all WRONG about him", and then we run around trying to find facts that say other people helped out, and ignore all the ones that say Reagan was the man. Then, people like me catch the turds doing this, and they cry when I call them out on it.

 

Re: the NBA, I was 10 living in Chicago at the time when Jordan was drafted, so clearly I am biased But, Bird/Magic was something fun to watch, when it was going on, but it's not like I watched the NBA any other time. And, Bird/Magic was about 2 guys, each was good on their own, but I didn't really pay attention to that, when they were together was the only time the NBA was interesting.

 

Then, Jordan came along, and everything changed. Suddenly you wanted to see every game, because, you never knew what he was going to do next. And, he had a supporting cast, in Ewing, Barkley, etc. But, like I said, it was a supporting cast. With every game becoming relevant, suddenly every team became more relevant as well.

 

Maybe for you, Bird/Magic saved the league, but, for me, Jordan was the main guy...he was cast as Luke Skywalker and the reason I bring up Ewing is that he was supposed to be Darth Vader. Reality worked out differently. Jordan was such a star, it wasn't until we moved back to NY that I even thought about Ewing.

[Lori]

i know. i find this to be a hoot. should send it to MacGregor.

 

jw

Hah. As Dean likes to say, "Great minds think alike, and so do ours." Done.

[Lori]

So according to you, and I don't agree btw, Jordan did not save the NBA, Bird/Magic did. Again, where's the gray? Especially when you throw out the word "absolute". Just saying.

 

The premise was: we make bad arguments like "Reagan single handedly won the cold war" because we don't see the gray. My contention is: we make bad arguments because we make mistakes, are ignorant of the facts, but most likely, we are ideologically driven, and as such, start with conclusions like "We can't let Reagan take most of the credit for winning the Cold War, because that would make us all WRONG", and then we run around trying to find facts that say other people helped out, and ignore all the ones that say Reagan was the man. Then, people like me catch the turds doing this, and they cry when I call them out on it.

 

Re: the NBA, I was 10 living in Chicago at the time when Jordan was drafted, so clearly I am biased But, Bird/Magic was something fun to watch, when it was going on, but it's not like I watched the NBA any other time. And, Bird/Magic was about 2 guys, each was good on their own, but I didn't really pay attention to that, when they were together was the only time the NBA was interesting.

 

Then, Jordan came along, and everything changed. Suddenly you wanted to see every game, because, you never knew what he was going to do next. And, he had a supporting cast, in Ewing, Barkley, etc. But, like I said, it was a supporting cast.

 

Maybe for you, Bird/Magic saved the league, but, for me, Jordan was the main guy...he was cast as Luke Skywalker and the reason I bring up Ewing is that he was supposed to be Darth Vader. Reality worked out differently. Jordan was such a star, it wasn't until we moved back to NY that I even thought about Ewing.

You are biased. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's called being a "fan," the same reason I'll defend Andre Reed against Cris Carter and Tim Brown in HOF debates.) But for the rest of the country outside Chicago, the young Jordan was a sideshow, following in the flightpath of Julius Erving and Dominique Wilkins -- guys who had the moves, but only one ring between them to show for it. Jordan was fun to watch (when you could actually find a Chicago game on the air), yes, but I don't think he truly began to transcend the sport until the Bulls got deeper into the playoffs.

[Magox]

You are biased. (Not that there's anything wrong with that. It's called being a "fan," the same reason I'll defend Andre Reed against Cris Carter and Tim Brown in HOF debates.) But for the rest of the country outside Chicago, the young Jordan was a sideshow, following in the flightpath of Julius Erving and Dominique Wilkins -- guys who had the moves, but only one ring between them to show for it. Jordan was fun to watch (when you could actually find a Chicago game on the air), yes, but I don't think he truly began to transcend the sport until the Bulls got deeper into the playoffs.

I disagree, unless we have a different view of what "deeper" into the playoffs means. When he scored, I believe it was 63 against the Celtics, in my view there wasn't a doubt that he was the NBA's premier basketball player and that the makings of something incredibly special was unfolding right before my eyes.