Comments on: Daily Gut: Fall of Wall All About Obama

By: AtheistCon

AtheistCon — Wed, 18 Nov 2009 02:12:39 +0000

You have to understand scope of involvement and the localization of history. Without Reagan, the Cold War would have continued. His approach to the Soviet Union was the lynchpin to ending their existence. Thus, Reagan won the Cold War.

By: El_Gordo

El_Gordo — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:08:53 +0000

Here it is now – as I said, this is not a winning issue and Obama is the last person to pull it off gracefully:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024...

By: El_Gordo

El_Gordo — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:08:53 +0000

Here it is now – as I said, this is not a winning issue and Obama is the last person to pull it off gracefully:

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2009/11/024...

By: MissQuinn

MissQuinn — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 10:19:16 +0000

no, it works… just gotta play follow the link. You know, Bill Whittle is the living example of "Brains=Sexy".

*MissQuinn*

By: Hesa Doof

Hesa Doof — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 17:35:32 +0000

"Who pooped in his pantyhose?"

By: EdSki

EdSki — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 15:17:02 +0000

That's pretty much the way the MSM and the left in general have played the story. The USSR was crumbling from within, and Super Gorby swept in to gently guide it to ground, and the only part Reagan played was to be Gorby's stooge.

That way they could play down every one as doofuses, and Gorby as the greatest hope for man kind's future. But that's all a lie. Gorbachev was no better than any other ruthless dictator. If he could have used the KGB to kill half the population to retain power, he probably would have. But there was no power left to retain.

Here's what started tipping me off the MSM was rewriting history. For as long as I can remember, back to the 1960's the elite statists of both parties were telling us the Soviets were indomitable. We had to have peaceful co-existence, we had to get along with the USSR because they were stronger than us. So we kept bowing down, agreeing to lop sided treaties, which the Russians never followed anyway.

Reagan put an end to that. There's an old story I've heard from several sources about the arms summit in Iceland. Reagan was said to be ready to offer the destruction of all nuclear weapons by both sides. Gorby wouldn't budge, he demanded Reagan cut the US nukes by far more than the USSR would agree to. Reagan walked out. The left went ballistic, Reagan was said to be pushing for WW III. But he was right.

By: Patrick Chester

Patrick Chester — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 14:36:51 +0000

A Chicken and a Supercow? (En Espanol!)

(Okay, I bow my head in shame at remembering that stupid cartoon, even if I liked Charles Adler's voice acting abilities.)

By: El_Gordo

El_Gordo — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:58:36 +0000

If the true and only point was to improve relations with Japan, fine. Not that it will make the least difference with regard to China or India. I´m sure they have heard about Japan.

So why has Obama snubbed India diplomatically twice (perhaps in a juvenile attempt to be unlike Bush, who took great care to improve our relations)? Why insult the British, Czech and Polish governments, bully Honduras and Israel, but suck up to Chavez and Russia (don´t thell me they are the future) and give Iran in effect a free hand? In the light of your post it makes even less sense. Obama is stocking up his capital, but depleting ours. He´s already running for UN secretary general.

By: El_Gordo

El_Gordo — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:43:51 +0000

Well, if history was a movie it would be full of dangling plot lines, but that is an aesthetic point of view.
I consider it finished.

By: Ken in Irvine

Ken in Irvine — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 07:22:09 +0000

I know that and the Japanese may know that. But, I am pretty sure Barack Obama doesn't know that.