Guess who agrees on what to do in Iran

[PoliticalChic]

Although I have had so little experiece in the area, I can understand how difficult it must be to admit how abjectly wrong you have been.

But try- as it will serve you well to practice same, and come in handy many times.

You have an adolescent's understanding of the term 'support' in the context of what happended at the end of the Cold War.

No doubt when you hear the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword," you have the mental image of a large, sharp pen.

Maybe you should look at it this way.

If Reagan did not send his "support" would the communist fell in Poland and the other eastern European nations. The answer is yes.

So what did Reagan actually do? Also, why did he do it? I still stand by my posts....


But explain to us, how does the words of a nation that previous talked about attacking your nation and constantly argues for curbing any nuclear technological development (even those that are clearly allowed under international treaty) beneficial to your revolt?

Moral support from an enemy--that is what you are arguing for.

You're right, and Political Chick is a certifiable nutcase. Apparently she loves to read her own verbose posts.

Although the part "she loves to read her own verbose posts," is true, the school bell is ringing for you two, so I'm going to have to put you both back in the corner- but I'll water you before I go.

 

[Harry Dresden]

You're right, and Political Chick is a certifiable nutcase. Apparently she loves to read her own verbose posts.

if P.Chick is a "NUTCASE" ..then you are already in the asylum with a straight jacket on.....ive seen your posts.....Bobo is gonna love you....Bobosville is thataway>>>>>>after a while turn and go thisaway<<<<<<<<you cant miss it.....

 

[amrchaos]

Although I have had so little experiece in the area, I can understand how difficult it must be to admit how abjectly wrong you have been.

But try- as it will serve you well to practice same, and come in handy many times.

You have an adolescent's understanding of the term 'support' in the context of what happended at the end of the Cold War.

No doubt when you hear the saying "The pen is mightier than the sword," you have the mental image of a large, sharp pen.

Maybe you should look at it this way.

If Reagan did not send his "support" would the communist fell in Poland and the other eastern European nations. The answer is yes.

So what did Reagan actually do? Also, why did he do it? I still stand by my posts....


But explain to us, how does the words of a nation that previous talked about attacking your nation and constantly argues for curbing any nuclear technological development (even those that are clearly allowed under international treaty) beneficial to your revolt?

Moral support from an enemy--that is what you are arguing for.

Weak, very weak.

I almost feel sorry for you.

But to enter the arena of knowledge and intelligence unarmed, as you have, you get what you deserve.

First, are you able to find Poland on a map? OK, good start.

Now the hard part: learn who Lech Walesa is. Try to evaluate the statements of a former President of Poland, Nobel Prize Winner, and prime mover in the labor and human rights movements, in relation to the importance of President Ronald Reagan.

Weigh his statements against yours.

Get it?

Now, with respect to " would the communist fell in Poland and the other eastern European nations..." why rely on the hypothetical. First, the six-pillar plan that involved support for "Solidarity" worked, nicht wahr? Second, there are reams of material that agree with the impact that Reagan and Thatcher and John Paul II had, without sending "munitions."

Further, if one were to dabble in hypotheticals, why did the Evil Empire succumb to Reagan, but not Carter?

And, in the area of neurosis or some juvenile attempt to behave as though you have some hypothetical support, your use of "explain to us..."

The "us" would be your imaginary coterie?

And the use of the "us" is reserved for 1) royalty, 2) editors of newspapers, or 3) those with a tapeworm.

Now back to your homework.

Lech Walesa was president of poland. He won numerous awards and is credited with helping to overthrow the Communists regime. The problem here is that Walesa is a skilled politician himself, and would only give praise to his allies in order to cast Poland in a good light with them.

That leads to a conflict of interests when he decides to make comments on American presidents in Leaders. What--do you expect him to make disparaging remarks against Reagan? To be critical of him?

Not to belittle the point, but using Walesa's comments to further your arguement is the same as using North Korean Propaganda to justify nuking Hawaii. Learn to be judgemental with your "witnesses" next time, Politicalchic

Finally, the plans was led out by Truman on how to defeat Communism. Everyone else just kept at it.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Maybe you should look at it this way.

If Reagan did not send his "support" would the communist fell in Poland and the other eastern European nations. The answer is yes.

So what did Reagan actually do? Also, why did he do it? I still stand by my posts....


But explain to us, how does the words of a nation that previous talked about attacking your nation and constantly argues for curbing any nuclear technological development (even those that are clearly allowed under international treaty) beneficial to your revolt?

Moral support from an enemy--that is what you are arguing for.

Weak, very weak.

I almost feel sorry for you.

But to enter the arena of knowledge and intelligence unarmed, as you have, you get what you deserve.

First, are you able to find Poland on a map? OK, good start.

Now the hard part: learn who Lech Walesa is. Try to evaluate the statements of a former President of Poland, Nobel Prize Winner, and prime mover in the labor and human rights movements, in relation to the importance of President Ronald Reagan.

Weigh his statements against yours.

Get it?

Now, with respect to " would the communist fell in Poland and the other eastern European nations..." why rely on the hypothetical. First, the six-pillar plan that involved support for "Solidarity" worked, nicht wahr? Second, there are reams of material that agree with the impact that Reagan and Thatcher and John Paul II had, without sending "munitions."

Further, if one were to dabble in hypotheticals, why did the Evil Empire succumb to Reagan, but not Carter?

And, in the area of neurosis or some juvenile attempt to behave as though you have some hypothetical support, your use of "explain to us..."

The "us" would be your imaginary coterie?

And the use of the "us" is reserved for 1) royalty, 2) editors of newspapers, or 3) those with a tapeworm.

Now back to your homework.

Lech Walesa was president of poland. He won numerous awards and is credited with helping to overthrow the Communists regime. The problem here is that Walesa is a skilled politician himself, and would only give praise to his allies in order to cast Poland in a good light with them.

That leads to a conflict of interests when he decides to make comments on American presidents in Leaders. What--do you expect him to make disparaging remarks against Reagan? To be critical of him?

Not to belittle the point, but using Walesa's comments to further your arguement is to use North Korean Propaganda to justify nuking Hawaii. Learn to be judgemental with your "witnesses" next time, Politicalchic

Finally, the plans was led out by Truman on how to defeat Communism. Everyone else just kept at it.

Weak, weaker, and now, you have succeeded to weakest.

The last straw at which you clutch is that "Walesa is a skilled politician himself."

And now you have also swept up the 1st prize in the category of "Unintentional Humor." Don't you realize that you've pulled the plug on your own argument?

Let's quote my witness, that woul be you:
"Did Reagan send munitions to poland? No.

Did Reagan send our military to aid poland Revolutionaries?"

You claimed that without such aid, President Reagan was no help to Poland. Now, because your attention span is that of a flash-bulb, you wish to claim "What--do you expect him to make disparaging remarks against Reagan? To be critical of him?"

So, let's see: Reagan was no help, but now he now he needs to retain his help?

And as for " your arguement is to use North Korean Propaganda to justify nuking Hawaii," are there any folks outside of any younger siblings to whom this makes any sense? Too bad I've already used 'clutching at straws.'

The time has come for you to find a good lawyer, one who might take pity on you and entertain a lawsuit against any and all institutions that may- I say may, to cover any possibility, have awarded you- inadvertent though it may be, a diploma. Even a GED.

Your lack of knowledge, great though it may be, is only surpassed by the gall you evince in presenting yourself as eligible to debate. Clearly you are unaware that the Truman Doctrine, advanced by George Kennan, was one of containment of the Soviet Union, as opposed to the Reagan program that resulted in the dissolution of same.

Now for the technicalities.
"Lech Walesa was president of poland." Capitalize Poland. I generally capitalize 'President' as well, out of respect.

"...helping to overthrow the Communists regime." That should be either Communist's Regime or Communist Regime.

"...make comments on American presidents in Leaders." ??? Is "Leaders" the name of a bar?

"Not to belittle the point..." I believe that term you are searching for is 'belabor.'

"...to further your arguement ..." The spelling is 'argument.'

"Learn to be judgemental ..." That spelling would be 'judgmental.'

Further, the term, I believe would be 'critical' or 'precise,' unless you are claiming that I have used them even though they are evil.

Again, in terms of language, "the plans was led out by Truman on how to defeat Communism..." Horses are led out, not plans. Plans are... proposed, or perhaps, implemented. And 'was' would be for a singular plan; 'were' would be appropriate. And, of course, you are incorrect about the Truman Doctrine vis-a-vis Reagan's Campaign.

And 'communism' as a singular term is not capitalized.

"Everyone else just kept at it." Do you have any idea how incomprehensible that sentence is ?

In closing, I would suggest that you get the game of "Clue," and play it a few times.

 

[rhodescholar]

Self loathing gay Republicans are the best!

Are you the National Asshole of America? You seem to be...

 

[Harry Dresden]

Self loathing gay Republicans are the best!

Are you the National Asshole of America? You seem to be...

Chrissy is their spokesman....

 

[sealybobo]

You're right, and Political Chick is a certifiable nutcase. Apparently she loves to read her own verbose posts.

if P.Chick is a "NUTCASE" ..then you are already in the asylum with a straight jacket on.....ive seen your posts.....Bobo is gonna love you....Bobosville is thataway>>>>>>after a while turn and go thisaway<<<<<<<<you cant miss it.....

Sorry Harry, but I'm not alone. 72% agree with me. You should probably pack up and leave the country. I hear Zurich has great government run healthcare.

 

[amrchaos]

Weak, very weak.

I almost feel sorry for you.

But to enter the arena of knowledge and intelligence unarmed, as you have, you get what you deserve.

First, are you able to find Poland on a map? OK, good start.

Now the hard part: learn who Lech Walesa is. Try to evaluate the statements of a former President of Poland, Nobel Prize Winner, and prime mover in the labor and human rights movements, in relation to the importance of President Ronald Reagan.

Weigh his statements against yours.

Get it?

Now, with respect to " would the communist fell in Poland and the other eastern European nations..." why rely on the hypothetical. First, the six-pillar plan that involved support for "Solidarity" worked, nicht wahr? Second, there are reams of material that agree with the impact that Reagan and Thatcher and John Paul II had, without sending "munitions."

Further, if one were to dabble in hypotheticals, why did the Evil Empire succumb to Reagan, but not Carter?

And, in the area of neurosis or some juvenile attempt to behave as though you have some hypothetical support, your use of "explain to us..."

The "us" would be your imaginary coterie?

And the use of the "us" is reserved for 1) royalty, 2) editors of newspapers, or 3) those with a tapeworm.

Now back to your homework.

Lech Walesa was president of poland. He won numerous awards and is credited with helping to overthrow the Communists regime. The problem here is that Walesa is a skilled politician himself, and would only give praise to his allies in order to cast Poland in a good light with them.

That leads to a conflict of interests when he decides to make comments on American presidents in Leaders. What--do you expect him to make disparaging remarks against Reagan? To be critical of him?

Not to belittle the point, but using Walesa's comments to further your arguement is to use North Korean Propaganda to justify nuking Hawaii. Learn to be judgemental with your "witnesses" next time, Politicalchic

Finally, the plans was led out by Truman on how to defeat Communism. Everyone else just kept at it.

Weak, weaker, and now, you have succeeded to weakest.

The last straw at which you clutch is that "Walesa is a skilled politician himself."

And now you have also swept up the 1st prize in the category of "Unintentional Humor." Don't you realize that you've pulled the plug on your own argument?

Let's quote my witness, that woul be you:
"Did Reagan send munitions to poland? No.

Did Reagan send our military to aid poland Revolutionaries?"

You claimed that without such aid, President Reagan was no help to Poland. Now, because your attention span is that of a flash-bulb, you wish to claim "What--do you expect him to make disparaging remarks against Reagan? To be critical of him?"

So, let's see: Reagan was no help, but now he now he needs to retain his help?

And as for " your arguement is to use North Korean Propaganda to justify nuking Hawaii," are there any folks outside of any younger siblings to whom this makes any sense? Too bad I've already used 'clutching at straws.'

The time has come for you to find a good lawyer, one who might take pity on you and entertain a lawsuit against any and all institutions that may- I say may, to cover any possibility, have awarded you- inadvertent though it may be, a diploma. Even a GED.

Your lack of knowledge, great though it may be, is only surpassed by the gall you evince in presenting yourself as eligible to debate. Clearly you are unaware that the Truman Doctrine, advanced by George Kennan, was one of containment of the Soviet Union, as opposed to the Reagan program that resulted in the dissolution of same.

Now for the technicalities.
"Lech Walesa was president of poland." Capitalize Poland. I generally capitalize 'President' as well, out of respect.

"...helping to overthrow the Communists regime." That should be either Communist's Regime or Communist Regime.

"...make comments on American presidents in Leaders." ??? Is "Leaders" the name of a bar?

"Not to belittle the point..." I believe that term you are searching for is 'belabor.'

"...to further your arguement ..." The spelling is 'argument.'

"Learn to be judgemental ..." That spelling would be 'judgmental.'

Further, the term, I believe would be 'critical' or 'precise,' unless you are claiming that I have used them even though they are evil.

Again, in terms of language, "the plans was led out by Truman on how to defeat Communism..." Horses are led out, not plans. Plans are... proposed, or perhaps, implemented. And 'was' would be for a singular plan; 'were' would be appropriate. And, of course, you are incorrect about the Truman Doctrine vis-a-vis Reagan's Campaign.

And 'communism' as a singular term is not capitalized.

"Everyone else just kept at it." Do you have any idea how incomprehensible that sentence is ?

In closing, I would suggest that you get the game of "Clue," and play it a few times.

Well, I guess that sending words of moral support is of great aid to the revolutionaries.

Tell us, how did the Poles hear Reagans words of moral support?

Through CNN? The Communists News Network?

Did they get it through the Washington posts? The London Times? Do you understand that there was a media block on the nation before and during the revolt?

Let us take a look at that map you are so proud of.. POLAND IS LAND LOCKED. What did we do--use a SDI program to beam Reagans speech into their heads? I know, we built underground radio antennas in Poland and broadcast Reagan's speech on Radio Free Europe. The Communists did not know how to triangulate a radio signal so of course that worked!!


What you are saying, politicalchic, is not realistic. Most, if not all, of the revolutiionaries would not have heard Reagans speech until after the fall of their communists regime. Even Walesa suggested this concept when he talked about the Poles "lack of showing gratitude" in the early days of the new government. Add in the fact that the Poles have fought and protested against their communists regimes for generations(noting that Poland had numerous unsuccessful uprisings before this one. The strange thing about this one is that the Red Army did not come to put it down!!) and it is obvious that what brought the regime down was not moral support from the West, but the intrinsic nature of the people in Poland.


Ask yourself--was Reagan's words necessary? Did Reagan spur forward the revolts through his comments, or was Communism on the march out before Reagan came into office? i think communism was on the way out and Reagan used the opportunity to boolster his own popularity at home through the speech. It makes sense in the national political arena, does little on the international scene since most nations know where we stand on issues of liberty and human rights.

 

[Harry Dresden]

You're right, and Political Chick is a certifiable nutcase. Apparently she loves to read her own verbose posts.

if P.Chick is a "NUTCASE" ..then you are already in the asylum with a straight jacket on.....ive seen your posts.....Bobo is gonna love you....Bobosville is thataway>>>>>>after a while turn and go thisaway<<<<<<<<you cant miss it.....

Sorry Harry, but I'm not alone. 72% agree with me. You should probably pack up and leave the country. I hear Zurich has great government run healthcare.

i did not say you were....im just pointing all these new left leaners your way....then you can mold them to be like you....you otta be thanking me....

by the way thanks Bo....Switzerland is supposed to be a great place to live....thats were all the rich of the world park some of their cash....ill send ya a post card....