Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (222470)	3/7/2005 10:01:46 AM
From: combjelly	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574854

"Revisionist history." Nonsense. If you want to read history through blinders, so be it. You cannot claim that Reagan caused the Soviet Union to collapse because he made a speech calling for the Berlin Wall to be torn down. By the time Reagan was elected, the standard of living in Poland and East Germany was already higher than it was in Moscow. When a colonial power, which is what the USSR was, starts subsidizing the colonies to the point that their economic well being is damaged, the writing is on the wall. If you want to believe that the USSR cratered because they got labeled as the Evil Empire, well, that is nice. Not reality-based at all, but the Bush Administration is pretty contemptuous about those who are reality-based, so you fit right in...

To: i-node who wrote (222470)	3/7/2005 10:05:53 AM
From: Elroy	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1574854

This will be a tough pill for the Left to swallow,* but it will be indisputable -- revisionism or not.* Blah, blah, blah. What's the point of this endless left versus right segmentation? If you notice, when this type of writing appears in a post, it is usually someone on one side telling those on the other side what he thinks they think. E.g., "let ME tell YOU David Ray what YOU will think" in a given scenario. Why can't you just stick to posting your own views on stuff, not your views of other's views (because the accuracy goes way down in the latter).