Beck was right about one thing at least...(MSNBC CLIPS!)

[MaggieMae]

Not to burst your bubble...

But they ARE STUPID

Well...I still like to believe they're just too easily led because Glenn Beck hates Obama. They'll therefore believe ANYTHING the man says.

Hey, idiot. Yeah, you. The video shows a clip from beck's show on MSNBC and then 99% of it is the accused in their own words. Deal with it, get your head out of your ass.

You mean bits and pieces of "their own words" cobbled together to make it look bad.

 

[MaggieMae]

Not to burst your bubble...

But they ARE STUPID

Well...I still like to believe they're just too easily led because Glenn Beck hates Obama. They'll therefore believe ANYTHING the man says.

"...they're just too easily led...They'll therefore believe ANYTHING..."

I just love it when lefties reveal how little they understand about history!

1. Liberal opinion makers in America were unhappy with the close of the Cold War. They were quick to deny that anyone had won. The theme was sounded by Mikhail Gorbachev, who spoke at the site of Winston Churchill’s legendary Iron Curtain speech, Fulton, Missouri. Hoping to put the best face on the loss after five decades, he claimed it was a mistake to speak of “winners and losers” in the Cold War, but rather we should speak of “shattering the vicious circle into which we had driven ourselves.”

a. To believe that, one would have to imagine that there was no one who had actual control during the conflict. In fact, the entire misunderstanding was based on the West’s mistaken belief, Gorbachev insisted, that Stalin had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.

2. Liberals were more than willing to sign on to this view, since the Cold War, to them, had been at best a foolish confrontation caused by groundless suspicion and paranoia on both sides, and at worst a long running example of American imperialism and reactionary behavior.
The above based on ideas in Mona Charen's “Useful Idiots:How Liberals Got It Wrong.”

"...they're just too easily led...They'll therefore believe ANYTHING... "

You've tickled my funnybone once again!

And Mona Charren is....yup, another one who likes to cherry pick her facts. It's what sells books. She, like you, gathers the opinions of a few and lumps them all together as ALL believing "...the Cold War, to them, had been at best a foolish confrontation caused by groundless suspicion and paranoia on both sides, and at worst a long running example of American imperialism and reactionary behavior." If she (and Ann Coulter, her counterpart in terrorism a'la liberalism) would bother to do some serious research, she would know that that attitude, so flowerly prosed by Mona, was barely true of all Democrats/liberals, and untrue at best by most. But...you people believe every rotten word they say about liberals. IF it WERE true, we would NOT have lauded almost to a person Ronald Reagan's ultimate effort to end the Cold War. We would have slunk back to our corners and sulked, like losers usually do.

Supposition and rhetorical propaganda doesn't equal universal truth. When are you going to learn that?

I think I've made my point without going to my OWN voluminous files to make my case. I know my history, too, but I don't try to twist it and try to make it appear that if it hadn't been for the abominable actions of liberals all along, we'd all be safe and secure, and wealthy today.

 

[MaggieMae]

"...they're just too easily led...They'll therefore believe ANYTHING..."

I just love it when lefties reveal how little they understand about history!

1. Liberal opinion makers in America were unhappy with the close of the Cold War. They were quick to deny that anyone had won. The theme was sounded by Mikhail Gorbachev, who spoke at the site of Winston Churchill’s legendary Iron Curtain speech, Fulton, Missouri. Hoping to put the best face on the loss after five decades, he claimed it was a mistake to speak of “winners and losers” in the Cold War, but rather we should speak of “shattering the vicious circle into which we had driven ourselves.”

a. To believe that, one would have to imagine that there was no one who had actual control during the conflict. In fact, the entire misunderstanding was based on the West’s mistaken belief, Gorbachev insisted, that Stalin had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.

2. Liberals were more than willing to sign on to this view, since the Cold War, to them, had been at best a foolish confrontation caused by groundless suspicion and paranoia on both sides, and at worst a long running example of American imperialism and reactionary behavior.
The above based on ideas in Mona Charen's “Useful Idiots:How Liberals Got It Wrong.”

"...they're just too easily led...They'll therefore believe ANYTHING... "

You've tickled my funnybone once again!

What did the Russians lose?

C'mon, little fella, that's an easy one...and it's based on President Reagan's 'evil empire' speech!

1. Sovietologist Seweryn Bialer of Columbia University answered it for you: “…such language stunned and humiliated the Soviet leaders . . . [who] believe that President Reagan is determined to deny the Soviet Union nothing less than its legitimacy and status as a global power . . . status . . . they thought had been conceded once and for all by Reagan's predecessors.” Seweryn Bialer, "Danger in Moscow", the New York Review of Books, February 16, 1984.

a. Reagan’s rhetoric disturbed the left because it made the moral case for anticommunism; liberals thought they had convinced everyone who mattered that anticommunism was the thing to be feared.

b. Why? Fear! After all, communism was certainly not worse than nuclear war, after all, ‘better Red than dead,’ right? Let’s not antagonize the collectivists.

2. Need more of a refresher?
Remember this joke: I invested in the Soviet Union, and it split 18 for one!

Now you remember what they lost?

Reagan wasn't the only president that used detente as a means of peaceful coexistence. He saw an opening to break the deadlock when Gorbechev, a MODERATE, became president . If Reagan had tried getting palsy with hardliners like Brezhnev or later Gromyco, he would have been laughed at. And the USSR didn't start breaking up until Reagan had been out of office for almost five years.

 

[rdean]

And yet, it's the Republicans who moved 2.4 million jobs to China from 2001 top 2008 and work with the Chamber of Commerce to move even more.

Many right wingers on the VERY board see China as a "model" for our country. A "model" that we should emulate. Go figure.

 

[MaggieMae]

What did the Russians lose?

C'mon, little fella, that's an easy one...and it's based on President Reagan's 'evil empire' speech!

1. Sovietologist Seweryn Bialer of Columbia University answered it for you: “…such language stunned and humiliated the Soviet leaders . . . [who] believe that President Reagan is determined to deny the Soviet Union nothing less than its legitimacy and status as a global power . . . status . . . they thought had been conceded once and for all by Reagan's predecessors.” Seweryn Bialer, "Danger in Moscow", the New York Review of Books, February 16, 1984.

a. Reagan’s rhetoric disturbed the left because it made the moral case for anticommunism; liberals thought they had convinced everyone who mattered that anticommunism was the thing to be feared.

b. Why? Fear! After all, communism was certainly not worse than nuclear war, after all, ‘better Red than dead,’ right? Let’s not antagonize the collectivists.

2. Need more of a refresher?
Remember this joke: I invested in the Soviet Union, and it split 18 for one!

Now you remember what they lost?

Ummmmmm.......sounds like a win to me

What gets me is that the first START treaty can be attributable to Reagan and the demise of the Cold War. So what happens when the evil "liberals" want to keep it in place and not let it expire last December? PC's favorite clowns currently in office fought like tooth and nails against its renewal. Go figure.

 

[MaggieMae]

Our ideology won

The Russian people won.

The free people of the world, led by the Americans, won...under the leadership of Ronald Reagan.

Don't forget Gorby.

Without his leadership and restraint, the whole thing could have turned into a shooting war.

Absolutely. And he gets zero credit even to this day. The irony is that Gorbechev went on to form his own INDEPENDENT party, because he had the forethought to realize that the younger generations of Russians were no longer interested in hard-line Communism. That leads us to Glenn Beck's predictions of a Caliphate. He is dismissing the fact that the entire Mideast region where revolutionary activities are currently hot is made up of people under 30 who don't like dictatorships and they don't like terrorists either.

 

[MaggieMae]

The free people of the world, led by the Americans, won...under the leadership of Ronald Reagan.

Don't forget Gorby.

Without his leadership and restraint, the whole thing could have turned into a shooting war.

Wingy, I know it was all the way back to yesterday, but post #44 put that obfuscation to bed.

You don't really want the world (at least the world of USMB) to know that you actually bought the nonsense that 'Gorby' was willing to watch the vaunted Soviet Union recede into lesser-status, do you?

And, at the risk of repeating, are you buying this:"..., the entire misunderstanding was based on the West’s mistaken belief, Gorbachev insisted, that Stalin had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.."


Do you? Huh? Do you?

Do you have a source other than Mona Charron for that quote? Frankly, even if he said it, probably his boss was Andrei Gromyko at the time, and he (Gorbechev) wouldn't have dared say otherwise.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well...I still like to believe they're just too easily led because Glenn Beck hates Obama. They'll therefore believe ANYTHING the man says.

"...they're just too easily led...They'll therefore believe ANYTHING..."

I just love it when lefties reveal how little they understand about history!

1. Liberal opinion makers in America were unhappy with the close of the Cold War. They were quick to deny that anyone had won. The theme was sounded by Mikhail Gorbachev, who spoke at the site of Winston Churchill’s legendary Iron Curtain speech, Fulton, Missouri. Hoping to put the best face on the loss after five decades, he claimed it was a mistake to speak of “winners and losers” in the Cold War, but rather we should speak of “shattering the vicious circle into which we had driven ourselves.”

a. To believe that, one would have to imagine that there was no one who had actual control during the conflict. In fact, the entire misunderstanding was based on the West’s mistaken belief, Gorbachev insisted, that Stalin had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.

2. Liberals were more than willing to sign on to this view, since the Cold War, to them, had been at best a foolish confrontation caused by groundless suspicion and paranoia on both sides, and at worst a long running example of American imperialism and reactionary behavior.
The above based on ideas in Mona Charen's “Useful Idiots:How Liberals Got It Wrong.”

"...they're just too easily led...They'll therefore believe ANYTHING... "

You've tickled my funnybone once again!

And Mona Charren is....yup, another one who likes to cherry pick her facts. It's what sells books. She, like you, gathers the opinions of a few and lumps them all together as ALL believing "...the Cold War, to them, had been at best a foolish confrontation caused by groundless suspicion and paranoia on both sides, and at worst a long running example of American imperialism and reactionary behavior." If she (and Ann Coulter, her counterpart in terrorism a'la liberalism) would bother to do some serious research, she would know that that attitude, so flowerly prosed by Mona, was barely true of all Democrats/liberals, and untrue at best by most. But...you people believe every rotten word they say about liberals. IF it WERE true,Supposition and rhetorical propaganda doesn't equal universal truth. When are you going to learn that?

I think I've made my point without going to my OWN voluminous files to make my case. I know my history, too, but I don't try to twist it and try to make it appear that if it hadn't been for the abominable actions of liberals all along, we'd all be safe and secure, and wealthy today.

Well, nice to see you again.

1. Let's see if I can grasp the import of this post....
"And Mona Charren is....yup, another one who likes to cherry pick her facts. It's what sells books."
So, you don't agree with conservative writers????
Shocking!

2."...was barely true of all Democrats/liberals, and untrue at best by most.""
Kind of vague, but, your words leave room for those who did feel the way Ms. Charen suggests, one might decide that you were cherrypicking your facts.....


3. "... we would NOT have lauded almost to a person Ronald Reagan's ultimate effort to end the Cold War. We would have slunk back to our corners and sulked, like losers usually do."
I do belive I gotcha!
And I really like that 'losers' part!

1. “I urge you to beware the temptation of pride --the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.” Ronald Reagan, American Rhetoric: Ronald Reagan -- Remarks to the National Association of Evangelicals ("Evil Empire")

2. The left was apoplectic in the face of such a clear definition of the Soviet Union.

a. Henry Steel Commager: “…the worst presidential speech in American history,…No other presidential speech has ever so flagrantly allied the government with religion.”

b. “… Reagan's "red-baiting" and "bellicose" rhetoric, as it was branded in the press, elicited widespread disapproval from the pundits. Then-New Republic editor Hendrik Hertzberg told The Washington Post that "words like that frighten the American public and antagonize the Soviets," condemning the speech as "not presidential." The HooK: ESSAY- Reagan: On the right side of history

c. Perhaps the best evidence of the stance of the left, then and even now, is a huge mythology about the “McCarthy Era,” spun and used as cover by the left.

d. Get this revisionism: “One of the greatest sources of our strength throughout the Cold War was a bipartisan foreign policy….politics stopped at the water’s edge.” Bill Clinton’s 1997 State of the Union Speech.
Even you must chuckle when you read that one.


3. Not only do I appreciate your indulgence, in the sense of participating in these mini debates, but I will readily admit that were many staunch anticommunists on the left. And I'll list some if you like...but the truth is that the left, as a group, supported the efforts of the communists and the totalitarian ideals.

To focus this point, the communist party was, by itself, impotent. At its peak, 1932, they garnered a mere The received 102,785 votes for the communist candidate for President.

They had approximately half that number in the CPUSA.
Their strength came from the 'useful idiots' who supported their movement...and make excuses for it now.

 

[MaggieMae]

PC

I have noticed the change in your posting style in recent months. While in the past, you stated your personal opinions (which were pretty good) backed by an appropriate reference, your recent postings reveal an obvious agenda. You have taken on the role of an intellectual troll trying to bait left wing posters with obvious rightwing propaganda. I thought it was amusing at first, but it is growing too predictable

Your postings used to provide room for thought and discussion, now they are little better than I can get from watching an hour of Glenn Beck

Frankly, if PC supports the muddled and extremist views of Glenn Beck, she won't see me even attempting to refute her claims. I would then be able to write her off as a complete loon, which I don't think she is. Yet.

 

[MaggieMae]

PC

I have noticed the change in your posting style in recent months. While in the past, you stated your personal opinions (which were pretty good) backed by an appropriate reference, your recent postings reveal an obvious agenda. You have taken on the role of an intellectual troll trying to bait left wing posters with obvious rightwing propaganda. I thought it was amusing at first, but it is growing too predictable

Your postings used to provide room for thought and discussion, now they are little better than I can get from watching an hour of Glenn Beck

1. "obvious agenda. "
I would hope so!

2. "trying to bait left wing posters with obvious rightwing propaganda. I thought it was amusing at first, but it is growing too predictable"

What is predictable is that you guys on the left, unable to compete in the marketplace of ideas, are reduced to ad hominem...

3. For some reason, you guys on the left feel it is your birthright to provide the dispositive response in all debates....and you are upset because I don't bow to your wishes....
Those days are over.

I explain things to you for the same reason I believe the freezer deserves a light as well as the frig.

So what you're saying is that it's not okay for us to post our marketplace of ideas, because they're all wrong wrong wrong, but it's okay for you to post yours because they're right right right. I have a suggestion: The next time you're browsing through your vast repertoire of ultra-conservative literature, take a moment and look up the meaning of political debate in a good old-fashioned dictionary, just for giggles.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Don't forget Gorby.

Without his leadership and restraint, the whole thing could have turned into a shooting war.

Wingy, I know it was all the way back to yesterday, but post #44 put that obfuscation to bed.

You don't really want the world (at least the world of USMB) to know that you actually bought the nonsense that 'Gorby' was willing to watch the vaunted Soviet Union recede into lesser-status, do you?

And, at the risk of repeating, are you buying this:"..., the entire misunderstanding was based on the West’s mistaken belief, Gorbachev insisted, that Stalin had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.."


Do you? Huh? Do you?

Do you have a source other than Mona Charron for that quote? Frankly, even if he said it, probably his boss was Andrei Gromyko at the time, and he (Gorbechev) wouldn't have dared say otherwise.

1. Gobachev spoke in Russian.
"The 45-minute address was delivered in Russian and simultaneously translated into English by U. S. State Department interpreter Harris Coulter."
Mikhail Gorbachev - Winston Churchill Memorial and Library - Fulton, Missouri

2. Now as to your suggestion that Ms. Charen was either incorrect, or made up the idea that Gorbachev excused and mitigated Stalin's positions, the following from the translation of Gorbachev's speech, should disabuse you of said idea.

"But the West, and the United States in particular, also committed an error. Its conclusion about the probability of open Soviet military aggression was unrealistic and dangerous. This could never have happened, not only because Stalin, as in 1939-1941, was afraid of war, did not want war, and never would have engaged in a major war."
The River of Time and the Imperative - Winston Churchill Memorial and Library - Fulton, Missouri

You see, the incorrect beliefs that you on the left have about the Soviets and their apologists has given you a worldview that, if not slender, is outright corrupt.

 

[PoliticalChic]

PC

I have noticed the change in your posting style in recent months. While in the past, you stated your personal opinions (which were pretty good) backed by an appropriate reference, your recent postings reveal an obvious agenda. You have taken on the role of an intellectual troll trying to bait left wing posters with obvious rightwing propaganda. I thought it was amusing at first, but it is growing too predictable

Your postings used to provide room for thought and discussion, now they are little better than I can get from watching an hour of Glenn Beck

1. "obvious agenda. "
I would hope so!

2. "trying to bait left wing posters with obvious rightwing propaganda. I thought it was amusing at first, but it is growing too predictable"

What is predictable is that you guys on the left, unable to compete in the marketplace of ideas, are reduced to ad hominem...

3. For some reason, you guys on the left feel it is your birthright to provide the dispositive response in all debates....and you are upset because I don't bow to your wishes....
Those days are over.

I explain things to you for the same reason I believe the freezer deserves a light as well as the frig.

So what you're saying is that it's not okay for us to post our marketplace of ideas, because they're all wrong wrong wrong, but it's okay for you to post yours because they're right right right. I have a suggestion: The next time you're browsing through your vast repertoire of ultra-conservative literature, take a moment and look up the meaning of political debate in a good old-fashioned dictionary, just for giggles.

1. "...So what you're saying is that it's not okay for us to post our marketplace of ideas, because they're all wrong wrong wrong, ..."
Surely you know me better than that!
I love the battle!

I want you to post, and wingy and everyone else....I don't think you guys are communists, but I do think that you need to hear the other- what I believe are correct- views.

2. BTW, I have regularly quoted from “Why We’re Liberals,” by Eric Alterman, as I find it valuable to read the other side as well...

You might consider that method as well.

3. "... the meaning of political debate..."
Did you mean that the actual definition is allowing liberals to dominate the discussion?
I always liked the definition of a racist: a conservative winning the debate.

 

[MaggieMae]

"...they're just too easily led...They'll therefore believe ANYTHING..."

I just love it when lefties reveal how little they understand about history!

1. Liberal opinion makers in America were unhappy with the close of the Cold War. They were quick to deny that anyone had won. The theme was sounded by Mikhail Gorbachev, who spoke at the site of Winston Churchill’s legendary Iron Curtain speech, Fulton, Missouri. Hoping to put the best face on the loss after five decades, he claimed it was a mistake to speak of “winners and losers” in the Cold War, but rather we should speak of “shattering the vicious circle into which we had driven ourselves.”

a. To believe that, one would have to imagine that there was no one who had actual control during the conflict. In fact, the entire misunderstanding was based on the West’s mistaken belief, Gorbachev insisted, that Stalin had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.

2. Liberals were more than willing to sign on to this view, since the Cold War, to them, had been at best a foolish confrontation caused by groundless suspicion and paranoia on both sides, and at worst a long running example of American imperialism and reactionary behavior.
The above based on ideas in Mona Charen's “Useful Idiots:How Liberals Got It Wrong.”

"...they're just too easily led...They'll therefore believe ANYTHING... "

You've tickled my funnybone once again!

And Mona Charren is....yup, another one who likes to cherry pick her facts. It's what sells books. She, like you, gathers the opinions of a few and lumps them all together as ALL believing "...the Cold War, to them, had been at best a foolish confrontation caused by groundless suspicion and paranoia on both sides, and at worst a long running example of American imperialism and reactionary behavior." If she (and Ann Coulter, her counterpart in terrorism a'la liberalism) would bother to do some serious research, she would know that that attitude, so flowerly prosed by Mona, was barely true of all Democrats/liberals, and untrue at best by most. But...you people believe every rotten word they say about liberals. IF it WERE true,Supposition and rhetorical propaganda doesn't equal universal truth. When are you going to learn that?

I think I've made my point without going to my OWN voluminous files to make my case. I know my history, too, but I don't try to twist it and try to make it appear that if it hadn't been for the abominable actions of liberals all along, we'd all be safe and secure, and wealthy today.

Well, nice to see you again.

1. Let's see if I can grasp the import of this post....
"And Mona Charren is....yup, another one who likes to cherry pick her facts. It's what sells books."
So, you don't agree with conservative writers????
Shocking!

2."...was barely true of all Democrats/liberals, and untrue at best by most.""
Kind of vague, but, your words leave room for those who did feel the way Ms. Charen suggests, one might decide that you were cherrypicking your facts.....


3. "... we would NOT have lauded almost to a person Ronald Reagan's ultimate effort to end the Cold War. We would have slunk back to our corners and sulked, like losers usually do."
I do belive I gotcha!
And I really like that 'losers' part!

1. “I urge you to beware the temptation of pride --the temptation of blithely declaring yourselves above it all and label both sides equally at fault, to ignore the facts of history and the aggressive impulses of an evil empire, to simply call the arms race a giant misunderstanding and thereby remove yourself from the struggle between right and wrong and good and evil.” Ronald Reagan, American Rhetoric: Ronald Reagan -- Remarks to the National Association of Evangelicals ("Evil Empire")

2. The left was apoplectic in the face of such a clear definition of the Soviet Union.

a. Henry Steel Commager: “…the worst presidential speech in American history,…No other presidential speech has ever so flagrantly allied the government with religion.”

b. “… Reagan's "red-baiting" and "bellicose" rhetoric, as it was branded in the press, elicited widespread disapproval from the pundits. Then-New Republic editor Hendrik Hertzberg told The Washington Post that "words like that frighten the American public and antagonize the Soviets," condemning the speech as "not presidential." The HooK: ESSAY- Reagan: On the right side of history

c. Perhaps the best evidence of the stance of the left, then and even now, is a huge mythology about the “McCarthy Era,” spun and used as cover by the left.

d. Get this revisionism: “One of the greatest sources of our strength throughout the Cold War was a bipartisan foreign policy….politics stopped at the water’s edge.” Bill Clinton’s 1997 State of the Union Speech.
Even you must chuckle when you read that one.


3. Not only do I appreciate your indulgence, in the sense of participating in these mini debates, but I will readily admit that were many staunch anticommunists on the left. And I'll list some if you like...but the truth is that the left, as a group, supported the efforts of the communists and the totalitarian ideals.

To focus this point, the communist party was, by itself, impotent. At its peak, 1932, they garnered a mere The received 102,785 votes for the communist candidate for President.

They had approximately half that number in the CPUSA.
Their strength came from the 'useful idiots' who supported their movement...and make excuses for it now.

[Sigh] Once again, you've chosen comments by conservatives who are also trying to make THEIR case. Why is it you refuse to see what you're doing? Although this article is intended to make the distinction between anti-Communist Democrats in years past and today's Democrats under Obama's leadership, it nonetheless will SHOW YOU how many political leaders who were Democrats actually were applauding and supporting the anti-Communist efforts, contrary to your intimation that none ever did.

The American Spectator : When Democrats Were Cold Warriors

All you have to do is stop being so all-inclusive in your lopsided fact-checking, and you would know that you are wrong.

 

[MaggieMae]

Wingy, I know it was all the way back to yesterday, but post #44 put that obfuscation to bed.

You don't really want the world (at least the world of USMB) to know that you actually bought the nonsense that 'Gorby' was willing to watch the vaunted Soviet Union recede into lesser-status, do you?

And, at the risk of repeating, are you buying this:"..., the entire misunderstanding was based on the West’s mistaken belief, Gorbachev insisted, that Stalin had any intent or even capacity, to expand communist hegemony beyond Eastern Europe.."


Do you? Huh? Do you?

Do you have a source other than Mona Charron for that quote? Frankly, even if he said it, probably his boss was Andrei Gromyko at the time, and he (Gorbechev) wouldn't have dared say otherwise.

1. Gobachev spoke in Russian.
"The 45-minute address was delivered in Russian and simultaneously translated into English by U. S. State Department interpreter Harris Coulter."
Mikhail Gorbachev - Winston Churchill Memorial and Library - Fulton, Missouri

2. Now as to your suggestion that Ms. Charen was either incorrect, or made up the idea that Gorbachev excused and mitigated Stalin's positions, the following from the translation of Gorbachev's speech, should disabuse you of said idea.

"But the West, and the United States in particular, also committed an error. Its conclusion about the probability of open Soviet military aggression was unrealistic and dangerous. This could never have happened, not only because Stalin, as in 1939-1941, was afraid of war, did not want war, and never would have engaged in a major war."
The River of Time and the Imperative - Winston Churchill Memorial and Library - Fulton, Missouri

You see, the incorrect beliefs that you on the left have about the Soviets and their apologists has given you a worldview that, if not slender, is outright corrupt.

Thank you for posting the source. Now wasn't that easy?

And just as a heads up shocker, I am not now nor have I ever been an apologist (such a catch-all word for the uber-right to use) for the Soviet Union, and I still don't trust the Russians to this day. It also may come as a complete surprise that not too many other Democrats do either. Are there those of us who believe the U.S. should stop going around labeling other sovereign nations as "evil"?? You betcha. You yourself don't seem to appreciate ad hominem attacks. Well the people of other countries don't much like it either. Have left-wing pundits stated opinions decrying that practice? Of course. By labeling Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil," how has that advanced our position in the world?

 

[PoliticalChic]

Do you have a source other than Mona Charron for that quote? Frankly, even if he said it, probably his boss was Andrei Gromyko at the time, and he (Gorbechev) wouldn't have dared say otherwise.

1. Gobachev spoke in Russian.
"The 45-minute address was delivered in Russian and simultaneously translated into English by U. S. State Department interpreter Harris Coulter."
Mikhail Gorbachev - Winston Churchill Memorial and Library - Fulton, Missouri

2. Now as to your suggestion that Ms. Charen was either incorrect, or made up the idea that Gorbachev excused and mitigated Stalin's positions, the following from the translation of Gorbachev's speech, should disabuse you of said idea.

"But the West, and the United States in particular, also committed an error. Its conclusion about the probability of open Soviet military aggression was unrealistic and dangerous. This could never have happened, not only because Stalin, as in 1939-1941, was afraid of war, did not want war, and never would have engaged in a major war."
The River of Time and the Imperative - Winston Churchill Memorial and Library - Fulton, Missouri

You see, the incorrect beliefs that you on the left have about the Soviets and their apologists has given you a worldview that, if not slender, is outright corrupt.

Thank you for posting the source. Now wasn't that easy?

And just as a heads up shocker, I am not now nor have I ever been an apologist (such a catch-all word for the uber-right to use) for the Soviet Union, and I still don't trust the Russians to this day. It also may come as a complete surprise that not too many other Democrats do either. Are there those of us who believe the U.S. should stop going around labeling other sovereign nations as "evil"?? You betcha. You yourself don't seem to appreciate ad hominem attacks. Well the people of other countries don't much like it either. Have left-wing pundits stated opinions decrying that practice? Of course. By labeling Iraq, Iran, and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil," how has that advanced our position in the world?

"Now wasn't that easy? "

What a snide remark.

I always can document my posts.

Where is your apology for doubting it?

When you do so, you can be sure that I will not say "Now wasn't that easy?"

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is more than interesting, in fact, illustrative of the left that, due to it's penchant for a moral relativism, it is unable to recognize evil.

Especially evil empires.

 

[rightwinger]

It is more than interesting, in fact, illustrative of the left that, due to it's penchant for a moral relativism, it is unable to recognize evil.

Especially evil empires.

Well said PC

Only the right is capable of recognizing evil. Your professors would be proud of you

 

[PoliticalChic]

It is more than interesting, in fact, illustrative of the left that, due to it's penchant for a moral relativism, it is unable to recognize evil.

Especially evil empires.

Well said PC

Only the right is capable of recognizing evil. Your professors would be proud of you

Unlike the Left, we didn't make pilgrimages to the Soviet Union and North Vietnam, and praise their versions of utopia...

Congrats.

 

[rightwinger]

It is more than interesting, in fact, illustrative of the left that, due to it's penchant for a moral relativism, it is unable to recognize evil.

Especially evil empires.

Well said PC

Only the right is capable of recognizing evil. Your professors would be proud of you

Unlike the Left, we didn't make pilgrimages to the Soviet Union and North Vietnam, and praise their versions of utopia...

Congrats.

During WWII it was the left who first spoke out against the evil of Hitler. It was the conservatives who urged FDR to not pick sides

 

[PoliticalChic]

Well said PC

Only the right is capable of recognizing evil. Your professors would be proud of you

Unlike the Left, we didn't make pilgrimages to the Soviet Union and North Vietnam, and praise their versions of utopia...

Congrats.

During WWII it was the left who first spoke out against the evil of Hitler. It was the conservatives who urged FDR to not pick sides

So, you don't care to continue with a discussion of communists, fellow travelers, spies in FDR's administration, Hollywood Ten, Rosenbergs, Walter Duranty, myths about McCarty, dupes, progressives,....

none of that?

I think I get your drift.

We can keep it a secret that the left was behind Hitler up until June 22, 1941...or does that infract your fantasy?