(10-27-2016 02:24 PM)shere khan Wrote:  Lol. Idiot baby boomers have produced the idiots we have today.

Smart baby boomers have produced the smart successful people we have today.

This whole thread. Lol.

This.

(10-27-2016 02:29 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 02:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  both of you proved incapable of reading this thread.

And are you for real? How many school children in the US were killed by nukes? How many have been killed by school shootings?

Read the whole thing. Still waiting for you to make a point. All I see from this is there are too many millennials who are unable to take responsibility for their lives and decisions. They prefer to blame the lack of need for their $200,000 gender studies degree on everyone else.

Try reading up on your history and understanding how close we were to nuclear war with the Cuban missile crisis. Compare the repercussions of that and the impact on the lives of the people at that time, to how likely it was for you to experience a school shooting or actually be harmed in one.

Whether the baby boomers sucked or not, it doesn't change where we are today. People have to deal with reality, not what we wish it to be.

have you ever studied the cold war extensively at the college level? I have. so don't lecture me on it.

all I'm saying is that no baby boomer should brag about "well in my day we had duck and cover drills...you guys don't"

unfortunately some people (that would be you) fail to see how asinine that line of thinking is. yet when called out on it you only double down on that line of thought.

As someone who lived through the "duck and cover" drills all I can tell you is that it was just part of our P.E. curriculum. We were told to duck and cover and put our heads between our legs to limber our bodies. Then we were told that in case of a real attack to "kiss our asses goodbye." Boy, were we limber.

(10-28-2016 12:02 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  As someone who lived through the "duck and cover" drills all I can tell you is that it was just part of our P.E. curriculum. We were told to duck and cover and put our heads between our legs to limber our bodies. Then we were told that in case of a real attack to "kiss our asses goodbye." Boy, were we limber.

yeah duck and cover was at its core stupid nonsense.

active shooter drills are very real, taken seriously, and done for good reason.

(10-28-2016 12:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 12:02 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  As someone who lived through the "duck and cover" drills all I can tell you is that it was just part of our P.E. curriculum. We were told to duck and cover and put our heads between our legs to limber our bodies. Then we were told that in case of a real attack to "kiss our asses goodbye." Boy, were we limber.

yeah duck and cover was at its core stupid nonsense.

active shooter drills are very real, taken seriously, and done for good reason.

I don't think anyone expected duck and cover to protect one from a nuclear blast. Duck and cover was more to protect those further out from a blast from falling debris, etc similar to tornado drills. I agree about the active shooter drills.

(10-27-2016 09:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  have you ever studied the cold war extensively at the college level? I have. so don't lecture me on it.

(10-29-2016 08:59 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 09:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  have you ever studied the cold war extensively at the college level? I have. so don't lecture me on it.

He probably just read the Wikipedia article.

(10-27-2016 09:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 02:29 PM)GeorgeBorkFan Wrote:  

(10-27-2016 02:18 PM)john01992 Wrote:  both of you proved incapable of reading this thread.

And are you for real? How many school children in the US were killed by nukes? How many have been killed by school shootings?

Read the whole thing. Still waiting for you to make a point. All I see from this is there are too many millennials who are unable to take responsibility for their lives and decisions. They prefer to blame the lack of need for their $200,000 gender studies degree on everyone else.

Try reading up on your history and understanding how close we were to nuclear war with the Cuban missile crisis. Compare the repercussions of that and the impact on the lives of the people at that time, to how likely it was for you to experience a school shooting or actually be harmed in one.

Whether the baby boomers sucked or not, it doesn't change where we are today. People have to deal with reality, not what we wish it to be.

have you ever studied the cold war extensively at the college level? I have. so don't lecture me on it.

all I'm saying is that no baby boomer should brag about "well in my day we had duck and cover drills...you guys don't"

unfortunately some people (that would be you) fail to see how asinine that line of thinking is. yet when called out on it you only double down on that line of thought.

Obviously, you didn't understand what you studied anymore than you understand the constitution and civil rights related to trials. And you didn't live what you studied. I guess its a waste to double down because you lack the mental acuity to even grasp the argument. MAD didn't happen and the threat was removed.

And again you demonstrate how you and some other younger people these days live in a self-centered bubble. "Woe is me."

(10-28-2016 12:15 PM)VA49er Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 12:04 PM)john01992 Wrote:  

(10-28-2016 12:02 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  As someone who lived through the "duck and cover" drills all I can tell you is that it was just part of our P.E. curriculum. We were told to duck and cover and put our heads between our legs to limber our bodies. Then we were told that in case of a real attack to "kiss our asses goodbye." Boy, were we limber.

yeah duck and cover was at its core stupid nonsense.

active shooter drills are very real, taken seriously, and done for good reason.

I don't think anyone expected duck and cover to protect one from a nuclear blast. Duck and cover was more to protect those further out from a blast from falling debris, etc similar to tornado drills. I agree about the active shooter drills.

They were quite relevant to people in smaller towns that were close to metro areas but not too close to ground zero. It protected from any shock wave and got you into the fallout shelter away from the immediate radioactive debris.

(10-27-2016 09:25 PM)john01992 Wrote:  have you ever studied the cold war extensively at the college level? I have. so don't lecture me on it.

Serious question. I'll accept that you took one or more college courses about the cold war. I would be interested as to what degree the professor(s) attributed the demise of Soviet communism and the cold war to Ronald Reagan/Margaret Thatcher/John Paul II.

Us gen xers were supposed to be the phuck ups. We have boomers ahead of us and millenials behind us. LOL, we are sitting pretty.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

I find it interesting that millennials seem to believe that they were endowed at birth with preternatural wisdom.

Bullet: All I'm saying is that I strongly disagree with Borkfan on the idea that we had a realistic chance of being nuked at any moment and I specifically disagree with using the Cuban Missile crisis to further that point.

The CMC is simultaniously a moment where we came pretty close to a nuclear war, while also showing that when the two were locked in a major crisis, they were not going to take that final step. One aspect that was mentioned when I had a class on it was the outcome had a major impact on relations with the US and various NATO countries because they felt the incident proved the US would stand down in a major crisis and that the US and USSR wouldn't seriously engage each other.

You bring up MAD but ignore the key point of it. Mutually assured destruction. one side won't do it because to pull the trigger on the USSR is akin to pulling the trigger on ourselves. I really don't understand why YOU would bring up MAD when it is the key point of the side I'm arguing.

The fact of the matter is that russia still has nukes. a lot of nukes and we are not on good terms with them. so trying to argue the threat from today verse the cold war is radically different is simply untrue. you guys are on one hand arguing that we are safer today in the past while on the other hand support positions of "Iran is super dangerous and terrorists can flood this country" pretty contradictory if you ask me.

QS: The class I am referencing specifically was a cold war in film class. it was a 4 credit class that had double the time commitment as a typical class because it involved movies. We had to watch everything from 1920s soviet propaganda to I love Lucy to US Army training reels. First half of the week would be your standard history lecture, second half was the film and discussion afterwards. The professor was the department chair and this class was basically his baby. Huge time commitment but definitely my favorite class.

The material went from WWI to Vietnam so I can't really elaborate on the fall of the USSR. but speaking from a political mind set. I think the cons drastically overplay reagan's role in it. two things I want to point out is

1) the cons on this forum are absolutely terrible on this subject. there was a thread on here that showed favorability ratings of various european countries and one of the cons on here said "eastern european countries like us the most because reagan ended the cold war for them." Pretty BS statement because few eastern europeans believe that. those favorability ratings are because they fear russia and we are their protection. it just goes to show just how out of wack the thinking on here can get if the cons here really think our "america f*** yeah" self centric view on history is how history is taught over there.

2) it is undeniable that there is some degree of revisionist history on reagan due to the result that on the tail end of the bush adminstration the GOP was in a very bad spot with terrible national perception and they lacked a succesful GOP president from recent memory to promote the party. Bush I, Ford, and Nixon didn't give them good pickings. even Ike while gifted was pretty well known for being apolitical and rose from the military rather than the longstanding politician guys like truman and FDR were. plus Ike wasn't recent enough for all but a few americans. hell not even coolidge (right before the crash), taft (the anti roosevelt), and mckinley (got shot and that helped the nation), were all that great to promote on top of being outside the lifetime of most americans. so the GOP needed someone to attach themselves to and reagan was literally the only person they had, so they propped him up. add in the timing of his death and that sealed the deal. obama in his last year actually has approval ratings similar to reagan and at one point were actually higher than Reagan in that same month. I'm not sure if this is still true or not.

so with that in mind I think the reagan ended the cold war talking point is pretty much the conservapedia spin on history. the fall of the USSR can be more attributed to internal reformers than anything else. if you want to look at america's direct impact on it a supermarket in houston probably had the single biggest impact. yelstin was visiting the Johnson space center and while in america decided to visit a local grocery store to see how americans lived. it was said to have single handedly shatter any faith he had in communism as he felt the food selections there was superior to the food selections available to even senior ranks of the soviet govt.

(10-29-2016 12:04 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  I find it interesting that millennials seem to believe that they were endowed at birth with preternatural wisdom.

I find it interesting that cons think no one can be smart at a young age.

adams and jefferson established themselves in their early 30s.

william pitt the younger and William Wilberforce were 24 when they turn british parliment on its head.

alexander the great died at age 32.

(10-29-2016 01:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so with that in mind I think the reagan ended the cold war talking point is pretty much the conservapedia spin on history. the fall of the USSR can be more attributed to internal reformers than anything else.

And yet in Gorbachev's own memoirs, he cites Reagan's intransigence at Reykjavik, concerning the development of the Strategic Defense Initiative, as the penultimate event of the collapse. Gorby admitted that when he left Reykavik, he knew the Soviet Union had lost the cold war.

Everyone knows the Soviet Union was destined to collapse because Soviet communism was at its heart, an unworkable system, both politically and economically. What Reagan did was to exacerbate the decay by going all-in on SDI. That followed the tactical raises of Pershings, which followed the US's sabotage of the USSR-European natural gas deal.

It is not spin that Reagan forced the hand of the internal reformers. Had it not been for Reagan, maybe Clinton would have been able to take credit.

like any subject on history that gets spun out of context by people looking for a political takeaway, you see people attach themselves to a couple of single pieces of evidence while ignoring the overall evidence. with those pieces being all they ever come across and give it the most coverage. case and point using Reykavik and its impact on the end of the USSR in a google search gets you mostly partisan sources focus on it and mainstream sources don't really give that a lot of weight in regards to it triggering the fall of the USSR. plus your take on iceland ignores the timeline. gorbechev was already laying the reformist groundwork before that meeting, the USSR was already dealing with the afghanstan war, and by even going to iceland (a core nato member) for talks already showed a willingness to allow the US more favorable terms.

but do you deny that in general, there is no spin on reagan simply on the merit that the GOP lacks a quality president to prop up?

(10-29-2016 12:04 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  I find it interesting that millennials seem to believe that they were endowed at birth with preternatural wisdom.

In fairness to the smug, self-righteous millennials, younger people in all generations haven't known how much they don't know. Its just that many millennials seem not to have been taught manners.

(10-29-2016 01:26 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 01:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so with that in mind I think the reagan ended the cold war talking point is pretty much the conservapedia spin on history. the fall of the USSR can be more attributed to internal reformers than anything else.

And yet in Gorbachev's own memoirs, he cites Reagan's intransigence at Reykjavik, concerning the development of the Strategic Defense Initiative, as the penultimate event of the collapse. Gorby admitted that when he left Reykavik, he knew the Soviet Union had lost the cold war.

Everyone knows the Soviet Union was destined to collapse because Soviet communism was at its heart, an unworkable system, both politically and economically. What Reagan did was to exacerbate the decay by going all-in on SDI. That followed the tactical raises of Pershings, which followed the US's sabotage of the USSR-European natural gas deal.

It is not spin that Reagan forced the hand of the internal reformers. Had it not been for Reagan, maybe Clinton would have been able to take credit.

He spent the Soviets into oblivion.

(10-29-2016 01:52 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 01:26 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(10-29-2016 01:11 PM)john01992 Wrote:  so with that in mind I think the reagan ended the cold war talking point is pretty much the conservapedia spin on history. the fall of the USSR can be more attributed to internal reformers than anything else.

And yet in Gorbachev's own memoirs, he cites Reagan's intransigence at Reykjavik, concerning the development of the Strategic Defense Initiative, as the penultimate event of the collapse. Gorby admitted that when he left Reykavik, he knew the Soviet Union had lost the cold war.

Everyone knows the Soviet Union was destined to collapse because Soviet communism was at its heart, an unworkable system, both politically and economically. What Reagan did was to exacerbate the decay by going all-in on SDI. That followed the tactical raises of Pershings, which followed the US's sabotage of the USSR-European natural gas deal.

It is not spin that Reagan forced the hand of the internal reformers. Had it not been for Reagan, maybe Clinton would have been able to take credit.

He spent the Soviets into oblivion.

who were already willing to concede on not trying to match the US military might and wanted to focus on nonintervention in the wake of afghanstan