Ever think this is BUSH fear of one's own power? COWBOY BUSH having the power and the nerve is very dangerous.lesterdiamond wrote:i hope I'm not the only one that has noticed that george bush can not pronounce the word. He always says "nucular" This is the thread to end all threads
Its nuclear, George
Re: Its nuclear, George
Vote for Pedro.
-
subterFUSE
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 11:04 pm
- Location: Winter Park, FL
Re: Its nuclear, George
12micsn1 wrote:Ever think this is BUSH fear of one's own power? COWBOY BUSH having the power and the nerve is very dangerous.lesterdiamond wrote:i hope I'm not the only one that has noticed that george bush can not pronounce the word. He always says "nucular" This is the thread to end all threads
Are you speaking English?
M-Tech D900T laptop, 17" WSXGA+ wide-screen, Intel Pentium 4 3.4 GHz HT (600 series) 2 MB cache, 2048 RAM (Dual Channel DDR2 PC4200 533 MHz), Dual hard drives: 80 gig x 2 = 160 gig SATA 5400 rpm (RAID 0 config)
Korg Zero 8 mixer/soundcard/MIDI
Korg Zero 8 mixer/soundcard/MIDI
well, I'd like to know how you feel it ended?noisetonepause wrote:Your ideas are intriguing and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.eyeknow wrote:In the end he single-handedly ended the cold war....and is probably the reason we don't (yet) live in a neckular waste land...
(I'd file it under 'comedy' though)
Dead on. That is so Seattle.djadonis206 wrote: as opposed to Seattle where Passive Aggressive attitudes and behaviour rule the day
"uhhh, you know i was thinking the other day how nice it would be if uhhh... you know, just hypothetically, if you like didn't feed glass to my dog??? Like, that would just be so neat."
..... . . . . . . . . .
-
noisetonepause
- Posts: 4938
- Joined: Sat Dec 28, 2002 3:38 pm
- Location: Sticks and stones
He doens't know how to.subterFUSE wrote:12micsn1 wrote:Ever think this is BUSH fear of one's own power? COWBOY BUSH having the power and the nerve is very dangerous.
Are you speaking English?
It's complicated, loads of factor, loads of people doing the right/wrong things at the right/wrong time. Saying Reagan ended the Cold War all on his own is like saying The Great War started with that shot in Sarajevo (or indeed that Mikhail Gorbachov ended the Cold War!) - I suppose it works if you just need to fill out 50 minutes plus commercial breaks on Discovery, but really...eyeknow wrote:well, I'd like to know how you feel it ended?noisetonepause wrote:Your ideas are intriguing and I would like to subscribe to your newsletter.eyeknow wrote:In the end he single-handedly ended the cold war....and is probably the reason we don't (yet) live in a neckular waste land...
(I'd file it under 'comedy' though)
Suit #1: I mean, have you got any insight as to why a bright boy like this would jeopardize the lives of millions?
Suit #2: No, sir, he says he does this sort of thing for fun.
Suit #2: No, sir, he says he does this sort of thing for fun.
well, I live in this country.....and I am old enough to have voted for reagan.....which is just to make a point....
It's true that without gorby (as I like to call him) reagan would not have have had the "bridge of communication" that was necessary......but I'd like to hear 5 good reasons why reagan is not the ultimate person responsible for ending the cold war.
It's true that without gorby (as I like to call him) reagan would not have have had the "bridge of communication" that was necessary......but I'd like to hear 5 good reasons why reagan is not the ultimate person responsible for ending the cold war.
erm...try the soviet union decaying from within? as told by chernobyl for oneeyeknow wrote:well, I live in this country.....and I am old enough to have voted for reagan.....which is just to make a point....
It's true that without gorby (as I like to call him) reagan would not have have had the "bridge of communication" that was necessary......but I'd like to hear 5 good reasons why reagan is not the ultimate person responsible for ending the cold war.
dude.......forge wrote:erm...try the soviet union decaying from within? as told by chernobyl for oneeyeknow wrote:well, I live in this country.....and I am old enough to have voted for reagan.....which is just to make a point....
It's true that without gorby (as I like to call him) reagan would not have have had the "bridge of communication" that was necessary......but I'd like to hear 5 good reasons why reagan is not the ultimate person responsible for ending the cold war.
......I was taking drink at the time of reading your post......man.......don't do that! I spit my drink out my nose lauging!Um........on a serious note.......what does that have to do with reagan and the cold war????????
-
subterFUSE
- Posts: 1557
- Joined: Tue May 31, 2005 11:04 pm
- Location: Winter Park, FL
The Cold War was ended because of the fundamental difference between capitalism and communism. Capitalism is the best economic model for creating wealth.... plain and simple.
During the Cold War, both sides were making huge expenditures towards defense. The difference was.... the USA, with its capitalistic economy, was in a far better financial position to beef up defense while at the same time leaving plenty of money for people to live comfortably.
Take a look at communist countries with large military budgets. The conditions for the people living in the Soviet Union were not disimilar to what the North Korean people currently face. I remember when I was in grade school, there was a boy in my class who had moved here from Moscow. He used to speak of the living conditions in the USSR vs. the USA. For example, the government there had rules for everything. You couldn't go to the grocery store except on the days when the government said so. There were no sanitation standards like we have. Just bloody meat and fish laid out to rot on piles of melting ice. I was only 6 or 7 years old, but will remember his stories forever.
I also credit Ronald Reagan for ending the Cold War. It was his policies which lead to an economic buildup, and he increased the strength of our military. The USSR tried to match our forces, and it caused their regime to collapse. They simply could not afford it. Communism doesn't create wealth like capitalism can. And you can't have a large military and prosperous society without money, and lots of it.
In a way, Forge is exactly correct with his "decaying from within" description. The USSR was working so hard to build up strength to match the USA, that the infrastructure of the country itself crumbled from neglect.
We are seeing this happen in North Korea today. They have a huge military, but that's only because all resources are being diverted to them. The rest of the people are starving. They are completely isolated from the outside world. There is hardly any electricity except in Pjonyang.
During the Cold War, both sides were making huge expenditures towards defense. The difference was.... the USA, with its capitalistic economy, was in a far better financial position to beef up defense while at the same time leaving plenty of money for people to live comfortably.
Take a look at communist countries with large military budgets. The conditions for the people living in the Soviet Union were not disimilar to what the North Korean people currently face. I remember when I was in grade school, there was a boy in my class who had moved here from Moscow. He used to speak of the living conditions in the USSR vs. the USA. For example, the government there had rules for everything. You couldn't go to the grocery store except on the days when the government said so. There were no sanitation standards like we have. Just bloody meat and fish laid out to rot on piles of melting ice. I was only 6 or 7 years old, but will remember his stories forever.
I also credit Ronald Reagan for ending the Cold War. It was his policies which lead to an economic buildup, and he increased the strength of our military. The USSR tried to match our forces, and it caused their regime to collapse. They simply could not afford it. Communism doesn't create wealth like capitalism can. And you can't have a large military and prosperous society without money, and lots of it.
In a way, Forge is exactly correct with his "decaying from within" description. The USSR was working so hard to build up strength to match the USA, that the infrastructure of the country itself crumbled from neglect.
We are seeing this happen in North Korea today. They have a huge military, but that's only because all resources are being diverted to them. The rest of the people are starving. They are completely isolated from the outside world. There is hardly any electricity except in Pjonyang.
M-Tech D900T laptop, 17" WSXGA+ wide-screen, Intel Pentium 4 3.4 GHz HT (600 series) 2 MB cache, 2048 RAM (Dual Channel DDR2 PC4200 533 MHz), Dual hard drives: 80 gig x 2 = 160 gig SATA 5400 rpm (RAID 0 config)
Korg Zero 8 mixer/soundcard/MIDI
Korg Zero 8 mixer/soundcard/MIDI