invite response« First « Previous Comments 152 - 191 of 219 Next » Last » Search these comments
You mean how incompetent both Johnson, Humphrey and Carter were.. and later
Mondale... how much of a failed policies compared to the outcome of Reagans work
with Soviets.
You're too dense to realize that plummeting oil prices hurt the USSR more than anything, because that was their only practical export. They let the security veil for all other countries go because of the expense of it.
Your still breathing air boy... your ass wasnt fried by Nuclear war... Thank
Reagan for that.
No, thank OPEC for that oil price plummet, Reagan was never that smart, and you're not either. Nuclear war equaled mutal destruction.
Cultists gain status within the cult by proving their loyalty to the cult's
strangest beliefs.
Yes, its been proven tax cuts allow for demand for capital goods by business
which in turn hired greater amounts of employees. And given Reagans tax cut,
business ordered greater amounts of computer hardware/software/services. In
Silicon Valley, this was also part of the economic growth from 1980 to 2000.
Jobs increased, incomes grew and wealth was created.. and we had increases to
tax revenues as we also saw tax revenues increase post 2001.
Spot on with the cultist analogy, as the above example of rewriting history by another blind Reagan worshipper.
Spot on with the cultist analogy, as the above example of rewriting history by another blind Reagan worshipper.
how do you explain the growth in SV and spending by many industries for tech products
the same was true with Bostons' Route 128...
it sure isnt because we listened to the lefty Marxist UC Berkeley professors...
lower taxes created demand for capital equipment purchases..
lower taxes created demand for capital equipment purchases..
I see, you're trying to equate the lowering of the very top personal income taxes into corporate spending. I like how you think that corporate taxes comes first and abolishing them leads to personal consumption spending.
No, thank OPEC for that oil price plummet, Reagan was never that smart, and you're not either. Nuclear war equaled mutal destruction.
Oil declined form early 1980's because tankers were given safe passage thanks to Reagan and the US Navy protection from Iranian attacks (a Opec member)... Opec had nothing to do with it. Iran today is still threatening to shut down the Strait of Hormus.
Since you like wikipedia so much.
In 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev tried to reform and revitalize the economy with his program of perestroika. His policies relaxed state control over enterprises, but did not yet allow it to be replaced by market incentives, ultimately resulting in a sharp decline in production output. The economy, already suffering from reduced petroleum export revenues, started to collapse. Prices were still fixed, and property was still largely state-owned until after the dissolution of the Soviet Union.[72][79] For most of the period after World War II up to its collapse, the Soviet economy was the second largest in the world by GDP (PPP), and was 3rd in the world during the middle of the 1980s to 1989.[85] though in per capita terms the Soviet GDP was behind that of the First World countries.[86]
how much of a failed policies compared to the outcome of Reagans work with
Soviets.
Your still breathing air boy... your ass wasnt fried by Nuclear war... Thank
Reagan for that.
I like how you think that corporate taxes comes first and abolishing them leads to personal consumption spending.
Higher demand for goods increased headcount and increased incomes... see Silicon valley (1980- 2000). Therefore increased consumer spending/savings.
There are no equal example by democratic policies you can point to which show increase in demand of goods and services which fueled incomes and savings. And dont bother with Clinton years.. he inherited the Reagan game plan.
Oil declined form early 1980's because tankers were given safe passage thanks
to Reagan and the US Navy protection from Iranian attacks (a Opec member)...
Opec had nothing to do with it. Iran today is still threatening to shut down the
Strait of Hormus.
Do you just make this shit up as you go? Back to wikipedia again.
The 1980s oil glutsMain article: 1980s oil glut
OPEC net oil export revenues for 1971 - 2007.[16]In response to the high oil prices of the 1970's, industrial nations took step to reduce dependence on oil. Utilities switched to using coal, natural gas, or nuclear power while national governments initiated multi-billion dollar research programs to develop alternatives to oil. Demand for oil dropped by five million barrels a day while oil production outside of OPEC rose by fourteen million barrels daily by 1986. During this time, the percentage of oil produced by OPEC fell from 50% to 29%. The result was a six-year price decline that culminated with a 46 percent price drop in 1986.
In order to combat falling revenues, Saudia Arabia pushed for production quotas to limit production and boost prices. When other OPEC nations failed to comply, Saudi Arabia slashed production from 10 million barrels daily in 1980 to just one-quarter of that level in 1985. When this proved ineffective, Saudi Arabia reversed course and flooded the market with cheap oil, causing prices to fall to under ten dollars a barrel. The result was that high price production zones in areas such as the North Sea became too expensive. Countries in OPEC that had previously failed to comply to quotas began to limit production in order to shore up prices.[17]
Higher demand for goods increased headcount and increased incomes... see
Silicon valley (1980- 2000). Therefore increased consumer spending/savings.
That doesn't even make any sense. But keep going, you've been very consistent on being wrong.
Since you like wikipedia so much.
In 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev tried to reform and revitalize the economy with his program of perestroika.
planned economies do not work. Gosplan had no idea how to allocate their resources to meet the demand for goods and services for consumption. They had plenty of lines of people..
Since you like wikipedia so much.
In 1987, Mikhail Gorbachev tried to reform and revitalize the economy with
his program of perestroika.
planned economies do not work. Gosplan had no idea how to allocate their
resources to meet the demand for goods and services for consumption. They had
plenty of lines of people..
I never said that planned economies work, you brought it up not me.upisdown says
The economy, already suffering from reduced petroleum export revenues, started
to collapse.
I notice that you didn't address that. How convenient.
o you just make this shit up as you go? Back to wikipedia again.
The 1980s oil glutsMain article: 1980s oil glut
OPEC net oil export revenues for 1971 - 2007.[16]In response to the high oil prices of the 1970's, industrial nations took step to reduce dependence on oil. Utilities switched to using coal, natural gas, or nuclear power while national governments initiated multi-billion dollar research programs to develop alternatives to oil. Demand for oil dropped by five million barrels a day while oil production outside of OPEC rose by fourteen million barrels daily by 1986. During this time, the percentage of oil produced by OPEC fell from 50% to 29%. The result was a six-year price decline that culminated with a 46 percent price drop in 1986.
sure.. want to include at as well.. go right ahead... knock yourself out !
sure.. want to include at as well.. go right ahead... knock yourself out
!
Huh????
Whatever, you don't make any sense and have a selective and really shitty memory recall system of world history.
Whatever, you don't make any sense and have a selective and really shitty memory recall system of world history.
no matter how much oil is pumped out of region, it goes through the Strait of Hormuz, what happens to costs when a near buy nation has mined the local international waters with mines and attacks ships crossing across the straits. Costs skyrocket due to risk.
Had it not been for the US Navy escort and retaliation due to Iran attacks, it would have
been a turkey shot with heavy losses....
Why is it Iran is threatening to shut the Straits down today ?
Whats the point but cut off oil shipments..the spice must flow...
JodyChunder
2013 Apr 10, 2:29pm
The idea that you could marry a man and wind up being disappointed with his inferior intelligence/intellect is a, paradoxically, a simplistic argument in itself. People excel in different subjects. I don't see why a woman with an IQ of 169 couldn't get along just fine with a solidly competent and good natured carpenter, if they loved one another.
I think that the thing that offended readers was the emphasis on strategy over nature.
no matter how much oil is pumped out of region, it goes through the Strait of
Hormuz, what happens to costs when a near buy nation has mined the local
international waters with mines and attacks ships crossing across the straits.
Costs skyrocket due to risk.
Had it not been for the US Navy escort and retaliation due to Iran attacks,
it would have
been a turkey shot with heavy losses....
Why is it Iran is threatening to shut the Straits down today ?
Now you're trying to somehow rationalize the recent(from 2006 to today) actions by Iran as the price increase, after I proved that there was a glut and ensuing drop in oil prices by OPEC in the 1980s, that finished off the USSR?
I can't follow your thought process, because I'm normal.
First this:
Oil declined form early 1980's because tankers were given safe passage thanks
to Reagan and the US Navy protection from Iranian attacks (a Opec member)...
Opec had nothing to do with it. Iran today is still threatening to shut down the
Strait of Hormus.
and then this:
no matter how much oil is pumped out of region, it goes through the Strait of
Hormuz, what happens to costs when a near buy nation has mined the local
international waters with mines and attacks ships crossing across the straits.
Costs skyrocket due to risk.
You contradicted yourself, and neither response makes any sense or has any basis in reality.
that finished off the USSR?
well... that just breaks my fucking heart. too bad all the major republics went their
own way as did much of Eastern Europe joining NATO.
You contradicted yourself, and neither response makes any sense or has any basis in reality.
you can thank Ronald Reagan and US Navy for safe conduct through a war zone..
had they not, no matter supply (glut) flowed into other nations, it was at high risk of
being attacked. Not that hard to understand, since Iran was attacking many ships.
well... that just breaks my fucking heart. too bad all the major republics
went their
own way as did much of Eastern Europe joining NATO.
You should just stop while you're behind. The more BS that you post, the dumber that you look.
you can thank Ronald Reagan and US Navy for safe conduct through a war
zone..
Yea, except that there wasn't any of the US Navy present there(Strait of Hormuz) when you claim. Why would there be, considering the skirmish between Iran and Iraq, that Reagan was playing both sides of.
Really, you aren't doing yourself any good, just stop before you embarrass yourself any further.
Really, you aren't doing yourself any good, just stop before you embarrass yourself any further.
why are you apologizing for the fall of the USSR.. you rather live there.. do you miss them ?
why are you apologizing for the fall of the USSR.. you rather live there.. do
you miss them ?
I'm not, and never have. You however, claimed that it(the fall of the USSR) was done by your pathetic idol Reagan, and I proved you wrong.........more than once. Like I said, you are only going to look worse because of your total lack of factual(not mythical right wing BS)history.
pathetic idol Reagan, and I proved you wrong.........more than once. Like I said, you are only going to look worse because of your total lack of factual(not mythical right wing BS)history.
sounds like an apologist, excuse for failure. Im sure your average Soviet citizen
didnt mind standing in line for hours ...
In soviet union .. and Ipod line is for daily bread...
.
.
sounds like an apologist, excuse for failure. Im sure your average Soviet
citizen
didnt mind standing in line for hours ...
In soviet union .. and Ipod line is for daily bread...
Feel free to entertain yourself with your delusions, and as to what any lines have to do with the downfall of the USSR that was brought on by the drop in oil prices, is in your mind a milestone.
Maybe you should go back to spouting off your shortcomings about the economy, where only you believe that you're right.
Feel free to entertain yourself with your delusions, and as to what any lines have to do with the downfall of the USSR that was brought on by the drop in oil prices, is in your mind a milestone.
Maybe you should go back to spouting off your shortcomings about the economy, where only you believe that you're right.
... so you want to go to your grave thinking the USSR failed because the fall of oil prices,
sure I can live with that... go right ahead !
so you want to go to your grave thinking the USSR failed because the fall of
oil prices,
sure I can live with that... go right ahead !
The USSR fell, and that's not a bad thing at all. It will take a couple of generations there(mainly Russia) to adjust and overcome the ways of the past.
However, if you would have claimed that the Reagan administration using Bush sr as a negotiator with the Saudis to bring on the price plummet, I would probably agree with that. Bush sr has a long history with the Saudis, and it probably began when he was at the CIA, and continued on after that. And it makes more sense than anything else you coughed up.
MisdemeanorRebel
2013 Apr 11, 1:27am
The Soviet Union fell because the Communist Party Insider's kids were wearing Levi's and Iron Maiden T-Shirts, when everybody else wore the same shit.
That's what killed the Soviet Union. People said "Classless society, my ass!"
The Insiders in those Levis, btw, became the "Oligarchs" of the 90s.
leo707
2013 Apr 11, 2:22am
Good grief. Love your selective faux outrage.
? WTF are you talking about? Yes, all kinds of people commit violations of human rights, and they all should be condemned for doing so.
Please feel free to post the quote where I think that people who have committed gross violations of human rights should be given a free pass.
Feel free to use my entire posting history to draw from.
Here I will give you an example of how it is done...
Oliver North? For real?
I also don't mind arming people to fight Marxists in South America.
So, you post in support of Oliver North and his aid -- even when that aid was in direct violation of the US Constitution -- to the Contras (even through the Contras were not fighting Marxists). You seem to have no problem supporting a group that literally -- not metaphorically, but literally committed acts that put them on the same moral ground as serial killers, rapists and child killers. You basically want to excuse Oliver North -- nay, call him a hero -- for putting his arm around people like Ted Bundy, Adam Lanza, James Holmes, etc. giving them a fat roll of cash and saying, "go do your thing boys!" as he points them towards schools, medical clinics, etc.
And, it is all OK, because the victims targeted by North's proteges lived in a country run by a liberal-socialist democratically elected government that you don't like. I hate to think of what kind of action you would approve of against Americans with whom you politically disagree with. Are you a Jim David Atkisson, Byron Williams, or Martin Hohenegger in the making or do you merely endorse people like that, and think it is a good idea to support them with government funds?
Yet, you spit, froth and gnash your teeth because some ex-Weathermen got Ivy League teaching jobs. Please, please...Please! find anyone hired by any accredited university in the US that is guilty of anything close to the crimes that Oliver North used our tax dollars to fund.
Ha, ha, right, talk about faux outrage.
FortWayne
2013 Apr 11, 2:52am
This reporter is a complete knuckle head. He looks at this poor old man, who is down on his luck, completely screwed over by the system, who is ranting against capitalism, and jumps to arguing socialism vs capitalism.
But we all know that no matter what the system is, it's still ran by human beings and we humans do tend to screw other human beings for personal gain or profit. And until we all humans become better, arguing capitalism vs socialism is a moot point.
A car is only as good as the parts in it, a system is only as good as the people in it.
Dan8267
2013 Apr 11, 3:55am
Oh, so butchering, raping, terrorizing, and torturing civilians is A-OK in your book, just as long as the perpetrators share your political views?
That's what the right always refers to as "family values".
? WTF are you talking about? Yes, all kinds of people commit violations of
human rights, and they all should be condemned for doing so.
Please feel free to post the quote where I think that people who have
committed gross violations of human rights should be given a free pass.
Have you condemned Obama for arming much worse people in Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, Yemen, Egypt, Saudi Arabia....? These people torture, kidnap, cut off heads, blow up moques, synagogues and churches.
The Contras were pikers compared to various sectarian and Islamist groups we are currently doing business with.
Personally, I don't have a problem with Obama (or Ollie's) efforts to arm folks in the greater struggle against Authoritarians. I am just laughing at your selective outrage and apparent total lack of knowledge of current events.
But we all know that no matter what the system is, it's still ran by human beings and we humans do tend to screw other human beings for personal gain or profit.
As have the Socialist done in Eastern Europe/Soviet Union. But you have to be a well connected party member to enjoy the perks, without standing in line.
Dan8267
2013 Apr 12, 12:06am
Is it too late to point out that the OP misspelled "ugliness"?
Too late, no. Too petty, yes.
I can't talk now, but someone on the Internet is wrong. And it's the worst kind of wrong: spelling.
Vicente
2013 Apr 12, 6:05am
Soviet Union
Are you posting through a time portal from 1986? News from THE FUTURE, the Soviet Union doesn't exist.
The biggest Communist country now is China, which many in the FIRE-worshipping circles seem to regard grudgingly as some sort of success story.
FortWayne
2013 Apr 12, 6:19am
China isn't communist, China is totalitarian. Hell, they are better capitalists than we are.
Vicente
2013 Apr 12, 6:41am
China isn't communist, China is totalitarian. Hell, they are better capitalists than we are.
They certainly claim to be Communists. Seems like people who worship capitalism, don't really care one with if Liberty is coincident. SovU bad, China good, largely because one did a better job at it (so far) than the other. Thus Thomas is wasting his time (and ours) talking about the dead SovU when he should be comparing China.
« First « Previous Comments 152 - 191 of 219 Next » Last » Search these comments
As ugly and despicable as the right is, it does not have a monopoly on ugliness. Recently, a successful female Princeton graduate, Susan Patton -- one of the first women to attend Princeton, by the way -- recently wrote a short, honest letter in which she advocated that Princeton women follow a long-term dating strategy in college rather than a short-term stating strategy. Patton argues that college is the best time for women to secure a husband and that who a woman marries will be instrumental in her happiness.
Of course, everything Patton said is undeniably true. College is the time in which both men and women have access to the greatest pool of eligible mates with similar interests and life situations, with the freedom to live anywhere, and the least emotional, financial, and physical baggage.
It is also indisputably true that mate selection is one of the most important, if not the most important, decision a man or woman will ever, ever make in his or her life. A happy marriage makes for a far better life than a miserable one. And as indicated the sheer ferociousness of the mating market, competition for high quality mates is extremely high for both straight men and women. (I would think that such competition would also be extremely high in homosexual and bisexual mating markets, but I'll leave that for another thread.) Not that being single can't be great, but even then, your family is an essential part of your life. If you do get married, that doesn't become less true.
So, Susan Patton advices that women at Princeton consider shifting from "playing the field" (short-term strategy) to "looking for a husband" (long-term strategy). Now, one can argue whether or not Patton is correct. There are many trade-offs in life including marrying young when your options are vast or waiting until your older and your options are limited to what's left over or in the secondary market. There are various pros and cons, and I'm sure this thread will spawn a discussion on those pros and cons and well as the nature of Patton's advice.
However, before we get to that, I would like to point out the utterly unacceptable behavior of the far left which seeks to silence the very discussion of this topic by making personal attacks on Patton and by making dumb Straw Man arguments including the false dichotomy that either a woman of college age must be completely disinterested in husband selection or she is forever doomed to live in the 1950s.
Such arguments and attacks show an irrational opposition to even listening to a discussion that creates a bubble around the left that is essentially the same as the bubble the right lives in. No facts, no ideas, no truth can get inside that bubble. And those living in the bubble must preserve the integrity of that bubble, no matter what the cost.
The letter Susan Patton wrote to The Daily Princetonian
By the way, doesn't Princetonian remind you of Praetorian? Or is that just me?
CNN Video: A nasty leftist attacks Patton
ABC News Video: Reactions to Patton's Letter
OK, have at it...