Legit reasons why you shouldn't vote Republican (McSame) this year

[!! Shawn]

Aleksandr Yakovlev was Gorbachev's adviser and had this to say about the theory of Reagan's policies:

It played no role. None. I can tell you that with the fullest responsibility. Gorbachev and I were ready for changes in our policy regardless of whether the American president was Reagan, or Kennedy, or someone even more liberal. It was clear that our military spending was enormous and we had to reduce it.

Gorbachev when asked about it even said, "I think we all lost the Cold War, particularly the Soviet Union. We each lost $10 trillion..."

Gorbachev wasn't Stalin. He knew his country was dying before he or Reagan took office. He increased freedoms and was attempting both social and political reforms across the board were in the works before true fear of collapse began.

I am not disputing that Gorbachev was a reformer, but he was put into power because of an economic crisis induced by the defense spending of Reagan. You just proved my point. Reagan forced Russia to spend itself into collapse.

It is not coincidence that Gorbachev came into power AFTER Reagan was re-elected. The Russians knew that they were headed for disaster if Reagan was able to force them to spend like they where. Gorbachev was brought in to change things around, but unfortunately the changes he made lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

[Dirt E Gomez]

I am not disputing that Gorbachev was a reformer, but he was put into power because of an economic crisis induced by the defense spending of Reagan. You just proved my point. Reagan forced Russia to spend itself into collapse.

It is not coincidence that Gorbachev came into power AFTER Reagan was re-elected. The Russians knew that they were headed for disaster if Reagan was able to force them to spend like they where. Gorbachev was brought in to change things around, but unfortunately the changes he made lead to the collapse of the Soviet Union.

I didn't prove your point. Their economy was crashing BEFORE Reagan took office. Every president since (Truman?) had been doing their part, good or bad, that led to its collapse. Unless while Reagan was busy being an actor he somehow was ruling the government behind a curtain and influencing policy.

[Don Corleone]

[QUOTE=vladimir303;4005703]Name one thing that I said that wasn't factual. We argued back and forth based on opinion about how much McCain's Vp Pick will help him.

I allready stated you are entitled to you opinon, but all I was just pointing out where you were running in circles with your own opinions and trying to pass them off as fact. That's all...

It helps my case because it's a present with an explanation. We don't know what his explanations were for each one. As someone who is against Obama, you can either use it against him or as a supporter you can take it for what it is.

A present vote = a No with an explanation.

To quote what A Republican State Rep. Bill black said:

I'm sure it does more to hurt him then help him, and if you assume all of them were strictly "no" votes with explanations because he trully has a problem with the issue needing correction then you need to re-asses everything you have posted. Obviously there were many issues which he couldn't answer because they were too difficult, but you cannot seriously defend him by saying that they all needed correction. For someone who is looking to become president of the United States, the most powerful job in the world, Obama needs to make clear choices. 130 "present" votes are not clear choices. Those are potential flip-flop decision that would hurt him in the long run. A real no vote is a no vote, not a "present" vote with an explanation, because most "supposedly" needed correction. Good try but no thanks...

[Don Corleone]

Sure I would. there was nothing to respond to. No substance, just longwinded paragraphs to try and make yourself look smarter then you really are.


Lets write a long novel next time shall we, so when I don't dissect your post word for word, you can accuse me of not responding to it.

Sheeesh.

You're a moron for insulting my intelligence when your media stolen garbage material and wiki stolen articles are the basic structure of your posts. You can't put up a good debate so you resort to insults. The reason I'm posting so much is because the media has taken over your mind. You cannot think for yourself and every post of yours is quoted by another source. Good job son...

[Dirt E Gomez]

Also, while I'm talking politics in an appropriate thread...

Palin is the choice for McCain for the purpose of future elections. The "true" republican party doesn't even like McCain, odds of any Republican winning this election after 8 years of Bush were slim to nil, and by throwing Palin on the list they're building her up for the future of the party.

[!! Shawn]

I didn't prove your point. Their economy was crashing BEFORE Reagan took office. Every president since (Truman?) had been doing their part, good or bad, that led to its collapse. Unless while Reagan was busy being an actor he somehow was ruling the government behind a curtain and influencing policy.

It is true that the Soviets were having economic problems, but no more than any other communist country. Eight years of Reagan put them over the edge. It is not a coincidence that the most aggressive president they faced is the president that defeated them.

[Dirt E Gomez]

It is true that the Soviets were having economic problems, but no more than any other communist country. Eight years of Reagan put them over the edge. It is not a coincidence that the most aggressive president they faced is the president that defeated them.

Ask any country outside of the US what lead to the USSR's collapse and their answer will be Gorbachev, not Reagan. Perestroika and glasnost.

8 years of Reagan did end up being the nail in the coffin, but I'd say 8 years of any other president would've probably ended in similar fashion.

I'm not some nut who says that the war ended in spite of Reagan's policies, but I certainly wont give him credit for such an accomplishment for being in the right place at the right time.

[Vladimir303]

You're a moron for insulting my intelligence when your media stolen garbage material and wiki stolen articles are the basic structure of your posts. You can't put up a good debate so you resort to insults. The reason I'm posting so much is because the media has taken over your mind. You cannot think for yourself and every post of yours is quoted by another source. Good job son...

Am I supposed to answer to this???? This was an insult accusing me of being a blind CNN supporter....which is not true. The same as the other longwinded post I supposebly ducked. Like I said, I'm not looking for a pissing contest.

I posted facts about past republicans and I got my beliefs about Obama. I'm willing to give him a chance to do what he set out to do (policies that I have researched), rather then give McCain a shot to do what I know he will do. Which is more of the same.

[Vladimir303]

I'm sure it does more to hurt him then help him, and if you assume all of them were strictly "no" votes with explanations because he trully has a problem with the issue needing correction then you need to re-asses everything you have posted. Obviously there were many issues which he couldn't answer because they were too difficult, but you cannot seriously defend him by saying that they all needed correction...

I repeat again:

We don't know what his explanations were for each one (or whether there were explanations for all of them or not, it's all assumptions). As someone who is against Obama, you can either use it against him or as a supporter you can take it for what it is.

A present vote = a No with an explanation.


I'm not holding it against him. There is more dirt on McCains voting record then Obama's. Voting against equal pay for women, for starters. That's one thing the vagina Hillary supporters don't like.

[!! Shawn]

Ask any country outside of the US what lead to the USSR's collapse and their answer will be Gorbachev, not Reagan. Perestroika and glasnost.

8 years of Reagan did end up being the nail in the coffin, but I'd say 8 years of any other president would've probably ended in similar fashion.

I'm not some nut who says that the war ended in spite of Reagan's policies, but I certainly wont give him credit for such an accomplishment for being in the right place at the right time.

What you are ignoring is that 4 years of Reagan lead to Gorbachev. Like I said, it is not coincidence that after Reagan was re-elected, Gorbachev gained power. I know I know, he gained power on the death of Chernenko, but there was significant political maneuvering to get him into power.

I personally feel it was Glasnost that led to the collapse as Perestroika itself would not have been disastrous, but the introduction of freedom to a society that had known none proved too revolutionary to be controlled by the government.

Any way you cut it, it took spending on the level that Reagan was willing to do to put the Soviets over the edge. By 1982, the Soviets were spending over 60% of their national budget on military buildup. We were spending 40% of ours.

People give Reagan crap for creating a massive deficit, but that deficit financed the downfall of the soviet union, it was worth every penny, at least in my eyes.