CTH Public Relations

• Torture by CO2HOG [May 02, 2012, 10:19:42 PM]
• China by CO2HOG [March 31, 2012, 02:24:13 PM]
• Global Warming Watch by TonyBlair [October 09, 2011, 06:41:37 PM]
• Solar Panel Doubts by TonyBlair [September 02, 2011, 08:25:23 AM]
• Barack Hussein Obama, Emp... by TonyBlair [August 10, 2011, 08:57:54 PM]
• National Debt Clocks and ... by Counter [August 08, 2011, 10:30:42 AM]
• Scanner or Pat Down? by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:09:51 PM]
• Rise of the Police State by Vocal Observer [June 28, 2011, 01:01:03 PM]
• Who can we trust? by Vocal Observer [June 08, 2011, 01:07:59 PM]
• Anthony Wiener's wiener i... by CarolinaBuckeye [June 01, 2011, 11:29:22 PM]
• Democrat's Culture of Cor... by TonyBlair [May 18, 2011, 06:55:46 AM]
• Hey Obama..You want Taxes... by Vince the Fox [April 21, 2011, 03:12:25 AM]
• Obama Policy Watch by TonyBlair [April 20, 2011, 06:56:14 AM]
• George W. Obama by TonyBlair [April 19, 2011, 06:11:57 AM]
• The Religion of Peace Upd... by TonyBlair [April 12, 2011, 06:43:20 AM]

[Guest]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever

Login with username, password and session length

Members

• Total Members: 329
• Latest: boborians

Stats

• Total Posts: 40602
• Total Topics: 5158
• Online Today: 19
• Online Ever: 252
• (April 10, 2011, 07:49:21 AM)

Users Online

Users: 0
Guests: 16
Total: 16

EducateWorthington.org

The 912 Project - Glenn Beck

912 Group of Central Ohio

Please let me know if you'd like your link added

I guess they called off the book burning party... I was hoping that American Muslims would denounce all terrorism! and say WE are AMERICANS 1st and Muslims 2nd..

Otherwise wrap it in Bacon and light it up!

Why should we focus ACCUSATORY attention on American Muslims?

This all sounds too familiar.

The Jews were once the focus of this sort of attention.

This summer goes down in my journal as the summer of Fox News sponsored hate.

I suggest you reconsider you approval of burning sacred texts.

Human actions have meaning just as words do.

The meaning of a political burning of texts is powerful.

Burning sacred texts as well as burning non-sacred books means that those books and the advocates of those books hated.
Those people who defend and cherish those books are less than fully human.

Now I am an atheist of a certain type.
I do not believe that the God of (popular or folk) Christianity , Judaism and Islam exists.


But, I would never would never burn their sacred texts. The meaning is much too strong.

This entire circus is orchestrated.
The entire war on terror is a disaster.
The mighty U.S. military is chasing a handful of goat herders and losing.
The cost is bankrupting us.
We truly are making more enemies faster than we can kill them.

Reagan bankrupted the Soviets.
The ghost of Obama bin Laden is going to bankrupt the United States of America.
We had 10 years to fight this battle.
There is no end in sight.
It is time to come home.

Well they burn the  "American Flag"... shout death to America.....Threaten to Behead/Kill Americans over a freaking cartoon... force Salmon Rushdie into hiding for publishing a book, etc,etc.

Now We are supposed to be afraid of what "they" [ muslim extremists] might do ?

I say F%%k them .. lets have a pork grease koran fire and expose them ... then we have a better understanding of "WHO" they are.....

They ain't going away... Smoke' m  ...J.M.H.O.

Well they burn the  "American Flag"... shout death to America.....Threaten to Behead/Kill Americans over a freaking cartoon.

There are more than 1.5 BILLION Muslims in the world.

So, when you say "they" I suspect that you are referring to only a couple of hundred or a couple thousand Muslims.
You are not referring to the millions of Muslims who are peace-loving and non-violent.


You are willing to insult over 1.5 billion people to express your disapproval of murder and terror.
I suggest you  find a more effective and LESS OFFENSIVE means to express this disapproval.

We truly are making more enemies faster than we can kill them.

Reagan bankrupted the Soviets.

-Counter

I agree that the Wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have not gone well. We should have focused our attention on Afghanistan after 9/11 and not gotten into Iraq at all.

The idea that Reagan bankrupted the soviets has always interested me.
I have never seen any evidence that supports this claim.

I looked again after reading your post and still didn't find any.

I suspect that the claim refers to military spending -- that Soviet military spending increased thus bankrupting them.

There is no evidence that military spending increased from 1960 until today.

In the decade of the 70s spending was around 15% of Soviet GDP.
In the decade of the 80s when Reagan was president it dropped to around 14% of Soviet GDP.

There was one year in the 70s when it was 14% and two years in the 80s when it was 15%.

So, I think the idea that Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union is PURE MYTH.

See pp. 129-130 of A History of CIA Estimates of Soviet Defense Spending

Source: http://books.google.com/books?id=U12Ilui7NH0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=cia+estimates+soviet+military+spending&source=bl&ots=Gfthb-Puhn&sig=CVD7mo56KNAY_z909X_-WYqiYEM&hl=en&ei=dAKNTO79CdO3ngezlsX5Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=cia%20estimates%20soviet%20military%20spending&f=false

[this allocation of military spending to ministries other than the Ministry of Defense reflected the Soviet approach to managing resource allocation. Weapons produced by agencies such as the Ministry of General Machinebuilding [missiles] or the Ministry of Shipbuilding Industry [ships] were essentially provided as "free goods" to the Ministry of Defense.]

Reagan bankrupted the Soviets.

There is no evidence that military spending increased from 1960 until today.
[...]
So, I think the idea that Reagan bankrupted the Soviet Union is PURE MYTH.

In 1988 military spending was a single line item in the Soviet state budget, totaling 21 billion rubles, or about US$33 billion. Given the size of the military establishment, however, the actual figure was at least ten times higher. Western experts concluded that the 21 billion ruble figure reflected only operations and maintenance costs.

The amount spent on Soviet weapons research and development was an especially well-guarded state secret, and other military spending, including training, military construction, and arms production, was concealed within the budgets of all-union ministries and state committees. Apart from considerations of state secrecy, this allocation of military spending to ministries other than the Ministry of Defense reflected the Soviet approach to managing resource allocation. Weapons produced by agencies such as the Ministry of General Machinebuilding [missiles] or the Ministry of Shipbuilding Industry [ships] were essentially provided as "free goods" to the Ministry of Defense.

Source: GlobalSecurity.org

I suspect that the claim refers to military spending -- that Soviet military spending increased thus bankrupting them.

There was more to it than that. it was an all-out economic war.

Reagan sent Bill Casey to Riyadh to essentially "strong arm" the Saudis into massively increasing oil production, which had the effect of cutting prices by ~50%. Reagan's objective was two-fold: 1) economic boom here in the West, and 2) a roundhouse punch to throat of the Soviet economy which had been struggling for a long time. Reagan's plan worked.

Added to all this was Regan's secret funding of the Solidarity movement in Poland after the Soviets declared martial law there, which he followed up with economic sanctions by canceling trade agreements, making grain sales tougher, and restricting credit. The rest of Europe saw his resolve and they followed suit.

The combined effect of all this was to cost the Soviet empire billions in hard currency. Combined with the fact that they were propping up third world dictators and stuck in their own Vietnam-style quagmire in Afghanistan, there wasn't much they could do. Their new gas pipeline from Siberia helped some, but it was too little too late.

So this gave the reformers an opening, and Gorbachev was able to win the politburo elections by one vote. So now we have the reformers at the helm, which honestly could not have happened if Reagan hadn't created this horrible economic climate for the Soviets.

Personally, I think the coup de grace was the fact that Solidarity had strong backing from the US, which brought about democratic elections, and that caused the dominoes to fall in many other Eastern Bloc countries, but it took all of these steps to really seal the deal.

These are the facts of history, and that is how Reagan won the cold war.

In 1988 military spending was a single line item in the Soviet state budget, totaling 21 billion rubles

Nothing in the Globalsecurity.org piece you cite contradicts anything I quoted on Soviet Military spending.
In fact -- it repeats the CIA figures I quoted.

So this gave the reformers an opening, and Gorbachev was able to win the politburo elections by one vote. So now we have the reformers at the helm, which honestly could not have happened if Reagan hadn't created this horrible economic climate for the Soviets.

This whole story about how Reagan won the Cold War is WAY TOO SIMPLISTIC and thus false. It didn't happen that way.

This whole era is much too complicated to get into here.

My point stands -- The Soviet Union didn't collapse because it increased military spending in response to American increases in military spending.

WAY TOO SIMPLISTIC and thus false.

Faulty logic. Lex parsimoniae. Here, let me try one like that: "It is WAY TOO OBVIOUS, and thus false." Or perhaps this is what you meant, "It is WAY TOO IRRITATING TO ME, and thus false."  You could also say something like "It is WAY TOO CHOCOLATEY, and thus false," or, "It is WAY TOO TRUE, and thus false."

(i.e., something being simple does not make it false.)

Obviously, the entire story is much wider in scope and could fill a tome, but this is an internet forum, and brevity is a good thing, as many of us have jobs.

My point stands -- The Soviet Union didn't collapse because it increased military spending in response to American increases in military spending.

Agreed. But that was your assertion. I'm asserting that Reagan did much more to bring about the collapse of the CCCP.

IS said

This whole story about how Reagan won the Cold War is WAY TOO SIMPLISTIC and thus false.

You suggest that this is "faulty logic" --

Faulty logic. Lex parsimoniae. Here, let me try one like that: "It is WAY TOO OBVIOUS, and thus false." Or perhaps this is what you meant, "It is WAY TOO IRRITATING TO ME, and thus false."  You could also say something like "It is WAY TOO CHOCOLATEY, and thus false," or, "It is WAY TOO TRUE, and thus false."

- Peter

I think you're pushing this a bit too far. I'll back off a bit too -- the explanation for the fall of the Soviet Union may not be exceedingly complex. But if the explanation requires elements e1, e2, e3,... en and you offer only e1 as the explanation then your explanation fails, i.e., it is false.

Here's where you go too far:

The principle of lex parsimoniae (Wikipedia gives a succinct description) is popularly interpreted as "the simplest explanation is usually the correct one". When competing hypotheses are equal in other respects, the principle recommends selection of the hypothesis that introduces the fewest assumptions and postulates the fewest entities while still sufficiently answering the question.

This is great in science. F = ma  or e = mc^2.

Fundamental laws of physics adhere to this principle.

But human behavior through time - in short history --has never lent itself to scientific explanation. There are no fundamental laws of history.

This is exactly what your principle of lex parsimoniae in explaining historical events amounts to, i.e., turning history into an exact and rigorous science, such that future events would be as predictable as the next solar eclipse.

Given that we lack simple laws (or even complex laws) of human history, it follows that explanations of history cannot employ any such simple laws.

More to the point, you seem to attribute all of the causal factors resulting in the fall of the Soviet Union to Reagan. I would suggest that Carter's policy of ending detente and opposing the invastion of Afganistan had much to do with the fall.

Probably the most important causal factors were internal forces within the Soviet Union let loose by Perestroika and Glasnost. For example, the nationalist and anti-soviet tendencies of the various constituent republics were much stronger than anyone anticipated and the result was way beyond anything Gorbchev intended.

Or, when censorship of Russian media was loosened, the results were more than was intended. The official media lost its propaganda power and as information about economic problems and crimes of the past were publicized faith in the soviet system began to collapse.

The powerful role of historical figures in bring about change should never be overlooked. It is certainly reasonable to suggest that a strong American president can alter the course of history.

But that holds true for figues such as Gorbachev and Yeltsen as well. Gorbachev tried to reverse the course of dissolution but failed. After Yeltsen defeated Gorbachev leaders from the Gorbachev govenment attempted a coup to oust Yeltsen. It failed.

My point is that simple explanations miss the important nitty gritty of events. It is these nitty gritty factors that are important.





 

[We could say [Democrats] spend money like drunken sailors, but that would be unfair to drunken sailors. It would be unfair, because the sailors are spending their own money. --Ronald ReaganAl Gore didn't invent the internet, he invented global warmingThe welfare of humanity is always the alibi of tyrants - CamusThe person who advocates government planning of the economy always assumes that it is his plan that will be put into effect. --Hayek]

Whoever this guy is, I like the way he thinks!

Criticisms of pastor apply to mosque-builders, too
Saturday, September 18, 2010  02:57 AM

The universal condemnation of the fringe pastor who threatened to burn the Quran highlights all that is wrong with the hypocritical progressive movement. Had this pastor wanted to burn an American flag, the American Civil Liberties Union would have been right there, offering him a lighter.

Had the pastor wanted to remove a Nativity scene from a city park, the ACLU would drive the moving truck. Had the pastor wanted to sue the Boy Scouts, the ACLU would award him a merit badge of honor. Had this pastor been responsible for the slaughter of thousands of innocent lives and was about to be interrogated by the CIA, the ACLU would be right there with a life preserver and towel to dry him off.

Had this pastor expressed himself in a manner that was more anti-American, anti-Christian, anti-CIA, anti-military or anti-anything that makes America great, the ACLU would have rushed to his aid. But over this issue, the ACLU remains silent.

Why? Because the ACLU stands for one and only one thing: pushing a progressive-Marxist agenda. The purpose of the ACLU, as with most progressive groups, isn't to deliver truth and equal justice; it is to undermine the American system.

Last week, almost all of America, conservative and liberal, condemned the pastor. Almost all of America recognized his threat as irresponsible, inflammatory, dangerous, immature, outrageous and insensitive, and they said so.

Americans spoke with one voice that he may have the “right” to burn the Quran, but as an American, he had the “responsibility” not to. Americans simply don't do those things. Unfortunately, that same message America sent to the pastor is just as applicable to the builders of the proposed mosque near ground zero, but the progressives aren't as quick to condemn the building of the mosque; in fact, many marched in support, carrying manufactured signs accusing those who oppose it of racism.

Americans never would support the building of a monument to the Japanese Air Force at Pearl Harbor, a monument to the Ku Klux Klan in Harlem or a monument to the Nazis in Arlington National Cemetery, and no American would support the building of a triumphal mosque near ground zero. Everything America rightfully accused the pastor of applies to the builders of the mosque, as well, only thousands of times over.

No one dies from the burning of a Quran, while thousands of fellow Americans died on 9/11. The builders of the mosque may have the right to build that mosque, but if they claim to be part of the American family, they have a responsibility not to build it and would feel as much pain about the decision as the families who lost loved ones on 9/11.

America is a melting pot, not an a-la-carte line. If people immigrate here, refuse to assimilate and fail to understand and accept what it means to be an American, we can expect this mosque to be a sign of the America we will become, where we no longer are Americans and we become a nation of hyphenated tribes, dividing America and ultimately tearing it apart.

Great nations never are conquered from without until they have destroyed themselves from within. United we stand; divided we will surely fall.

ROBERT M. WAGNER

Columbus

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/editorials/stories/2010/09/18/criticisms-of-pastor-apply-to-mosque-builders-too.html?sid=101

Damn good post!...I can't see how anyone could not agree.

I am sending that [ROBERT M. WAGNER] letter to everyone.  thanks T.B.

Vince the Fox Condemns Burning the Koran

Damn good post!...I can't see how anyone could not agree.

-Vince the Fox

Americans spoke with one voice that he may have the “right” to burn the Quran, but as an American, he had the “responsibility” not to. Americans simply don't do those things.


Robert Wagner

I assume that you agree with Wagner and Progessives that burning the Koran is stupid.


This is about the only part that I agree with you Wagner on.


I know conservatives hate the idea critical assessment of their own views but let me try once again.

The universal condemnation of the fringe pastor who threatened to burn the Quran highlights all that is wrong with the hypocritical progressive movement. Had this pastor wanted to burn an American flag, the American Civil Liberties Union would have been right there, offering him a lighter.
-Robert Wagner

Let’s make an elementary distinction between those actions (a) that are constitutionally permitted and (b) those actions which are constitutionally permitted but ill-advised, stupid, or imprudent.
Progressive support for the ACLU derives from the first principle that those actions which the constitution protects should not be made unlawful by legislature action.
The constitution protects political speech – burning the Koran is political speech and so is burning the flag.

Generally it is stupid and imprudent to burn either the Koran or the flag. Under most conditions it makes perfectly good sense to condemn such actions.
Wagner has apparently deceived you.
Wagner says – “Had this pastor wanted to burn an American flag, the American Civil Liberties Union would have been right there, offering him a lighter.”
The deception here is that Wagner wants you to think that The ACLU is being hypocritical in taking one sort on the Koran burning and a different position on flag burning.
This is simply false. The ACLU supports the right of individuals to burn the Koran and the flag.

Why? Because the ACLU stands for one and only one thing: pushing a progressive-Marxist agenda.
Robert Wagner

There,  there. Sorry you think that defending the constitution is a form of Maxism.

Americans never would support the building of a monument to the Japanese Air Force at Pearl Harbor
Robert Wagner

Wagner’s ignorance of political matters is understandable. Ignorance of the attack on Pearl Harbor is too much.
The Japanese Air Force did not exist during WWII. There were the Japanese Naval Air Force and Japanese Army Air Force.

The ACLU has a long history of one-sided behavior. It consistently defends the rights of liberal speakers, but their ideological bias becomes glaringly clear when you note the cases that the ACLU chooses to ignore.

One example among many: Harper v. Poway, whether a student can wear a T-shirt denouncing homosexuality. The ACLU staunchly supports the right of students to wear T-shirts that promote homosexuality, but when free speech opposes homosexuality, the ACLU is mute.

These examples abound! It's such an obvious thing that I'm beginning to think that you live in a purely abstract world, and literally can't see evident truth.

I implore you, open your eyes.