Obama Ditches Thatcher Funeral

[Synthaholic]

I don't think the British who cared about Thatcher care what Obama did or didn't do anymore. They had a lovely ceremony and honored her; Obama didn't matter.

You really think there are Brits who still care about Milk Snatcher Thatcher?

Apparently you have a phobia for actual news.

They loved her!

 

[boedicca]

Oh Gee. That's convincing.

 

[Pop23]

Reagans, along with others leadership did lead to the end of the cold war. Fact

Opinion. Some say Reagan extended the life of the Soviet Union by giving them a foreign opponent to rally the population around.

The Soviets did not increase military spending to match Reagan's buildup, so Reagan did nothing to create the Soviet economic crash. Just what did he supposedly do to destroy the Soviets?

Sure, give them an opponent they couldn't keep up with. Sure you hate em you just can't keep up with them.

They didn't increase spending, probably not because they didn't want to, but more likely they were out of the ability to do so.

 

[Trajan]

Reagans, along with others leadership did lead to the end of the cold war. Fact

Opinion. Some say Reagan extended the life of the Soviet Union by giving them a foreign opponent to rally the population around.

thats great, really......

The Soviets did not increase military spending to match Reagan's buildup, so Reagan did nothing to create the Soviet economic crash. Just what did he supposedly do to destroy the Soviets?

the soviets were a spent force, salinger and tuchman and all of the other progressive historians that the left & academia and detente peddlers loved so much, urged just more detente and, actually spptiing the USSR economically and technically. Others thought that after Afghanistan etc,. they were at a tipping point and Gorbachav as Thatcher said was someone they could do biz with, but he needed several shoves.

They had zero specie, money or know how to compete with Reagan build up militarily, to include the promise of star wars, stealth aircraft research and rhetorically, from the Poles stirring, the new pope etc etc etc .. etc...it all reached a crescendo capped by Mathias Rust landing his plane on red square, a greatly underestimated event, Gorbachev knew then and there, it was over. They would have to rebuild the entire soviet air defense command (PVO), and their economy and manufacturing sect just could not make that push.........and Gorbachev was the right man at the right time as well, he deserves a lot of credit for realizing it and ding what he did at great risk.

 

[Pop23]

Reagans, along with others leadership did lead to the end of the cold war. Fact

thats great, really......

The Soviets did not increase military spending to match Reagan's buildup, so Reagan did nothing to create the Soviet economic crash. Just what did he supposedly do to destroy the Soviets?

the soviets were a spent force, salinger and tuchman and all of the other progressive historians that the left & academia and detente peddlers loved so much, urged just more detente and, actually spptiing the USSR economically and technically. Others thought that after Afghanistan etc,. they were at a tipping point and Gorbachav as Thatcher said was someone they could do biz with, but he needed several shoves.

They had zero specie, money or know how to compete with Reagan build up militarily, to include the promise of star wars, stealth aircraft research and rhetorically, from the Poles stirring, the new pope etc etc etc .. etc...it all reached a crescendo capped by Mathias Rust landing his plane on red square, a greatly underestimated event, Gorbachev knew then and there, it was over. They would have to rebuild the entire soviet air defense command (PVO), and their economy and manufacturing sect just could not make that push.........and Gorbachev was the right man at the right time as well, he deserves a lot of credit for realizing it and ding what he did at great risk.

And I'm still wondering why the democrats seem so dead against tax cats.

According to a couple of partisans in this thread, the Democrats actually gave tax cuts to Rich during that time and we still were able to end the military spiral with the Soviets, yet cutting taxes now wouldn't stimulate a sagging economy?

Would seem far more difficult to bring down a superpower then to stimulate the economy.

 

[Synthaholic]

Reagans, along with others leadership did lead to the end of the cold war. Fact

thats great, really......

The Soviets did not increase military spending to match Reagan's buildup, so Reagan did nothing to create the Soviet economic crash. Just what did he supposedly do to destroy the Soviets?

the soviets were a spent force, salinger and tuchman and all of the other progressive historians that the left & academia and detente peddlers loved so much, urged just more detente and, actually spptiing the USSR economically and technically. Others thought that after Afghanistan etc,. they were at a tipping point and Gorbachav as Thatcher said was someone they could do biz with, but he needed several shoves.

They had zero specie, money or know how to compete with Reagan build up militarily, to include the promise of star wars, stealth aircraft research and rhetorically, from the Poles stirring, the new pope etc etc etc .. etc...it all reached a crescendo capped by Mathias Rust landing his plane on red square, a greatly underestimated event, Gorbachev knew then and there, it was over. They would have to rebuild the entire soviet air defense command (PVO), and their economy and manufacturing sect just could not make that push.........and Gorbachev was the right man at the right time as well, he deserves a lot of credit for realizing it and ding what he did at great risk.

Don't you mean "Democrat House's buildup?

 

[Pop23]

You mean the United States government military buildup

The same government that, apparently then could cut taxes on the Rich and still defeat a Superpower without firing a shot, but now does not think cutting taxes would stimulate the economy.

 

[Pop23]

Reagans, along with others leadership did lead to the end of the cold war. Fact

thats great, really......

The Soviets did not increase military spending to match Reagan's buildup, so Reagan did nothing to create the Soviet economic crash. Just what did he supposedly do to destroy the Soviets?

the soviets were a spent force, salinger and tuchman and all of the other progressive historians that the left & academia and detente peddlers loved so much, urged just more detente and, actually spptiing the USSR economically and technically. Others thought that after Afghanistan etc,. they were at a tipping point and Gorbachav as Thatcher said was someone they could do biz with, but he needed several shoves.

They had zero specie, money or know how to compete with Reagan build up militarily, to include the promise of star wars, stealth aircraft research and rhetorically, from the Poles stirring, the new pope etc etc etc .. etc...it all reached a crescendo capped by Mathias Rust landing his plane on red square, a greatly underestimated event, Gorbachev knew then and there, it was over. They would have to rebuild the entire soviet air defense command (PVO), and their economy and manufacturing sect just could not make that push.........and Gorbachev was the right man at the right time as well, he deserves a lot of credit for realizing it and ding what he did at great risk.

Don't you mean "Democrat House's buildup?

Tip O'Niell and Ronald Reagan sure did work together well.

 

[Synthaholic]

You mean the United States government military buildup

The same government that, apparently then could cut taxes on the Rich and still defeat a Superpower without firing a shot, but now does not think cutting taxes would stimulate the economy.

For the terminally stupid:

Cutting taxes from 70% to 40% will stimulate the economy.
Cutting taxes from 35% to 33% will not stimulate the economy.

 

[Synthaholic]

thats great, really......


the soviets were a spent force, salinger and tuchman and all of the other progressive historians that the left & academia and detente peddlers loved so much, urged just more detente and, actually spptiing the USSR economically and technically. Others thought that after Afghanistan etc,. they were at a tipping point and Gorbachav as Thatcher said was someone they could do biz with, but he needed several shoves.

They had zero specie, money or know how to compete with Reagan build up militarily, to include the promise of star wars, stealth aircraft research and rhetorically, from the Poles stirring, the new pope etc etc etc .. etc...it all reached a crescendo capped by Mathias Rust landing his plane on red square, a greatly underestimated event, Gorbachev knew then and there, it was over. They would have to rebuild the entire soviet air defense command (PVO), and their economy and manufacturing sect just could not make that push.........and Gorbachev was the right man at the right time as well, he deserves a lot of credit for realizing it and ding what he did at great risk.

Don't you mean "Democrat House's buildup?

Tip O'Niell and Ronald Reagan sure did work together well.

Run tell John Boner!

 

[mamooth]

The same government that, apparently then could cut taxes on the Rich and still defeat a Superpower without firing a shot, but now does not think cutting taxes would stimulate the economy.

So who told you of these mysterious Democrats that said tax cuts would defeat the Soviets?

I lived through the era, and I don't recall any such thing. That's why I'm wondering where you got such a bizarre idea.

 

[Pop23]

You mean the United States government military buildup

The same government that, apparently then could cut taxes on the Rich and still defeat a Superpower without firing a shot, but now does not think cutting taxes would stimulate the economy.

For the terminally stupid:

Cutting taxes from 70% to 40% will stimulate the economy.
Cutting taxes from 35% to 33% will not stimulate the economy.

You could answer, guess you won't.

Superpower vs. economy

How could cutting taxes on the Rich, while bringing down a superpower work then, but cutting taxes to stimulate the economy not work.

Today's Democrats just aint what they used to be, huh?

 

[Pop23]

Don't you mean "Democrat House's buildup?

Tip O'Niell and Ronald Reagan sure did work together well.

Run tell John Boner!

And Obama

 

[mamooth]

How could cutting taxes on the Rich, while bringing down a superpower work then, but cutting taxes to stimulate the economy not work.

Why are you asking us? It's your crazy argument. We're not under any obligation to prove your strange claims. You are the only one babbling about how a tax cut brought down the Soviet Union.

Today's Democrats just aint what they used to be, huh?

Today's Republicans sure do make up a lot of crazy stories about yesterday's Democrats.

But then, it's not like they've ever been able to address what any Democrat actually said, so making it all up is the only option they have.

 

[Pop23]

The same government that, apparently then could cut taxes on the Rich and still defeat a Superpower without firing a shot, but now does not think cutting taxes would stimulate the economy.

So who told you of these mysterious Democrats that said tax cuts would defeat the Soviets?

I lived through the era, and I don't recall any such thing. That's why I'm wondering where you got such a bizarre idea.

Nobody did.

You'll have to go back to post 565 or so where thruthseeker said that the only people who got tax breaks during the Reagan years were the Rich.

Then on a post not much later, synth stated that the arms buildup that brought down the Soviet Union was thanks to the appropriations of the Democratic house.

Knowing that the House is responsible for both, and giving credit where credit is due, then the House Democrats appropriated the needed funds to bring down the Soviet Union while also giving the Rich a tax break.

I too don't remember it that way.

And the entire time Reagan was simply taking a nap.

The question is, if we can bring down a superpower while cutting taxes the, why can't we stimulate the economy while cutting taxes now?

 

[Pop23]

How could cutting taxes on the Rich, while bringing down a superpower work then, but cutting taxes to stimulate the economy not work.

Why are you asking us? It's your crazy argument. We're not under any obligation to prove your strange claims. You are the only one babbling about how a tax cut brought down the Soviet Union.

Today's Democrats just aint what they used to be, huh?

Today's Republicans sure do make up a lot of crazy stories about yesterday's Democrats.

But then, it's not like they've ever been able to address what any Democrat actually said, so making it all up is the only option they have.

Oh, it's not my claim at all, you'll have to ask the others about it, I'm just asking questions as to how the dual claims are even possible.

 

[Synthaholic]

The same government that, apparently then could cut taxes on the Rich and still defeat a Superpower without firing a shot, but now does not think cutting taxes would stimulate the economy.

So who told you of these mysterious Democrats that said tax cuts would defeat the Soviets?

I lived through the era, and I don't recall any such thing. That's why I'm wondering where you got such a bizarre idea.

Nobody did.

You'll have to go back to post 565 or so where thruthseeker said that the only people who got tax breaks during the Reagan years were the Rich.

Then on a post not much later, synth stated that the arms buildup that brought down the Soviet Union was thanks to the appropriations of the Democratic house.

Knowing that the House is responsible for both, and giving credit where credit is due, then the House Democrats appropriated the needed funds to bring down the Soviet Union while also giving the Rich a tax break.

I too don't remember it that way.

And the entire time Reagan was simply taking a nap.

The question is, if we can bring down a superpower while cutting taxes the, why can't we stimulate the economy while cutting taxes now?

If you go back and look, I said "may or may not have".

I've never seen any evidence at all that anything Reagan or the House Democrats did had any effect on the USSR. I've seen a lot of speculation, though!

But if it's your contention that US defense spending did it, you must credit the ones who control expenditures.

 

[tinydancer]

You really think there are Brits who still care about Milk Snatcher Thatcher?

Apparently you have a phobia for actual news.

They loved her!

They estimated 250,000 supporters lined the initial route.

Why can't you just give it up? This makes no sense.

 

[tinydancer]

 

[JoeB131]

I don't think the British who cared about Thatcher care what Obama did or didn't do anymore. They had a lovely ceremony and honored her; Obama didn't matter.

You really think there are Brits who still care about Milk Snatcher Thatcher?

Synthaholic actually asked me to prove my point that assholes who are out there never ever thought she did well



thank you

Not really. The fact is, people are realizing that in our anxiousness to win the Cold War, we eleceted a bunch of assholes who dismantled the middle class. Thatcher, Reagan, the Bushes, etc.

Yeah, but we "won" the Cold War? So why does China have all the money now?