GOP: Putin Is bad. Gorbachev Is Good.

Oct 2010
64,323
25,320
Colorado
#11
To imaginethat & Camelot: Thanks for saying “Putin Is bad. Gorbachev Is Good.”

My response will go over your heads. No matter. My reply is a reminder for conservatives. They should never forget what Gorbachev was and is:


There must be no let-up in the war against religion because as long as religion exists Communism cannot prevail. We must intensify the obliteration of all religions. Mikhail Gorbachev.
The Perestroika Deception Updated
by Cornelia R. Ferreira
February 8-10, 2002

The FATIMA FILE February 8-10 (feb8fat.htm)
Gorbachev has been making excuses for the failure of Soviet Communism since his sorry ass was kicked out of power. He changed the tune he sang when he was a blood soaked dictator. He now says that all religions should be respected. No doubt he wants respect for the Socialist/Communist religion, too, since he said this in 2005:

"I am almost 75 years old but I've been trying to exercise every day," he said. "That will enable you to take the blows," he added. "We're no longer high priests who just discuss ideas."​

Media reports
18 October 2005
Gorbachev: U.S. needs perestroika

Gorbachev: U.S. needs perestroika

Gorbachev’s Nobel Peace Prize deserves special mention because of his former dictator status. Have you ever seen an article, or heard a media mouth, talk about Gorbachev without mentioning his 1990 Nobel Peace Prize?

Nobel Peace Prizes now favor environmental hustlers. Gorbachev founded Green Cross International.

When Ronald Reagan led the fight that defeated the Soviet Union it was a bold stroke for peace, yet no Peace Prize was forthcoming.​

http://defendingthetruth.com/warfare/66346-go-stay-question.html#post1172427

The best Gorbachev joke of all is that he got his PP for getting booted out by his own people.

What Reagan told Gorbachev

Likewise, the movie short-changes credit on the human-rights side. While it shows that Charlie Wilson had rightly and quite commendably informed Congressional liberals about the horror of Soviet-made booby-trapped toys blowing limbs off Afghan children, Ronald Reagan went much further, directly excoriating Mikhail Gorbachev for this vicious tactic. Reagan courageously did so, to the shock of his moderate advisers, in his first one-on-one with Gorbachev at the Geneva Summit in November 1985.

An angry, seething Reagan -- as emotionally attached to the Afghan suffering as was Charlie Wilson -- concluding his reprimand of Gorbachev by snapping at the Soviet leader: "Are you still trying to take over the world?" Gorbachev was visibly shaken, staring at Reagan in silence, mouth agape, with a stunned expression. Reagan arms control director Ken Adelman, a witness, called Reagan's words in that exchange the most "harsh indictment of Soviet behavior ever delivered to the top Soviet man." Reagan biographer Edmund Morris reported that the only person who appeared more flabbergasted was the State Department note-taker.​

January 12, 2008
Whose War? Separating Fact from Fiction in 'Charlie Wilson's War'
By Paul Kengor

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2008/01/whos_war_separating_fact_from.html

Remember that Gorbachev was one of the Communist dictators responsible for the nine years of brutality the Afghan people suffered at the hands of Soviet Communists. The war, and the unbelievable savagery, was started by Leonid Brezhnev and continued under Gorbachev. To hear Gorbachev’s admirers tell it the old butcher never did a bad thing in his life.

NOTE: Soviet brutality in Afghanistan was ignored by the same people who shit pink pickles over Gitmo and harsh interrogation techniques.

Here is one question Gorbachev’s cheerleaders never ask: Why is not the phoney International Criminal Court charging a Communist warmonger with war crimes? Answer: Because he won a Nobel Peace Prize.

Gorbachev founded Green Cross International an environmental scam designed by the United Nations. If that does not tell you where all the good little Communists have gone nothing ever will. Communists would still be running an intact Soviet Union.

Rarely have I read such a piece of puffery about Mikhail Gorbachev than an adoring article in the Boston Globe by James Carroll in December 2008. It is not that Carroll obviously considers Gorbachev a great man —— as do every liberal —— Carroll went one step further and said that the old Commie dictator was right:


By the grace of God, it is not too late to match the greatness with which Gorbachev acted 20 years ago, an overdue acceptance of his historic invitation. "This is our common goal," he concluded, "and it is only by acting together that we may attain it. Thank you."​

The first thing wrong about the above excerpt is that Gorbachev would still be a brutal dictator enslaving hundreds of millions.

The second thing is that Gorbachev rolled over like a two dollar hooker when he faced firm opposition led by Ronald Reagan. It was then that he realized that he could not win a war against the West. His “greatness” had nothing to do with altruism, freedom of choice, or the other stuff he has been peddling since his own people opted for a chance at a better life than the one Gorbachev offered.

As soon as Gorbachev realized that a military confrontation was a losing proposition he fell back on Nikita Krushchev’s game plan:


"We can't expect the American people to jump from capitalism to communism, but we can assist their elected leaders in giving them small doses of socialism, until they awaken one day to find that they have communism."​

In the years since losing power, Gorbachev’s game plan became the same as Krushchev’s; Communist takeovers through incrementalism. There is one important deviation from Krushchev: Gorbachev now speaks as a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and private citizen, without a threatening army at his beck and call. That gives him the illusion of respectability that neither he nor Krushchev ever acquired as dictators. The fact is: Gorbachev will die an unrepentant ruthless Communist when he was a working butcher who approved of booby-trapping toys for Muslim children in Afghanistan?

The most dangerous feature of Gorbachev’s newfound respectability is that he is still preaching disarmament; i.e., Americans must disarm. That was the Left’s cry throughout the Cold War. With the Soviet Union gone, and China mistakenly portrayed as moving toward individual liberties, Obama’s defenders made the case that there was no need to strengthen, or even maintain, America’s nuclear retaliatory capabilities. After all, Gorbachev agrees. What more can anyone ask for?

Communists do not have to take over every country in the world one by one to achieve worldwide Communist domination. Eliminate major opposition to Communism in a few countries with respectable militaries, and the hardcore Communist governments can slap the remaining majority in line by force.

It goes without saying that the United States must go Communist, or at least submit to U.N. authority, before anything can be accomplished. The United States is the one and only country that can stand alone against any number of Communist countries. Fortunately, America will have plenty of allies so long as it remains strong militarily.

Obama was Gorbachev’s last best hope to see Communism take a giant step forward in his, Gorbachev’s, lifetime. Supporting Obama was the last hurrah for the old guard before passing the torch to the next generation of Communists.

In an interview conducted by Newsmax deposed Communist butcher, Mikhail Gorbachev, basically told Obama he wanted New START ratified. That settled it! New START was ratified.

If Gorbachev was sitting atop America’s military superiority there would be no talk of disarmament or peace. He can prove me wrong by preaching his garbage to his Communist pals in China. I am sure they would disarm if Putin crosses his heart and says “Pretty please.”

Gorbachev always demonstrated that he has America’s best interests at heart. Just ask Nancy Pelosi.


Agenda 21, One World Government
Pelosi laid groundwork for Obama’s Transformation of America
By Judi McLeod Tuesday, March 2, 2010

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/20572

When Gorbachev’s countrymen dropped him like a used condom the global government crowd embraced him (liberals call it the International community). It simply would not do to have one of their own treated like a former commonplace dictator; so they did everything they could to turn him into a respected elder statesman. The truth is: The guy was a bum when the Russians got rid of him, and he is a bum today.

Here is Carroll’s complete puff piece:


TWENTY YEARS AGO this month, Mikhail Gorbachev stood before the UN General Assembly and said, "The compelling necessity of freedom of choice is also clear to us. The failure to recognize this . . . is fraught with very dire consequences, consequences for world peace." At that time, as Soviet general secretary, Gorbachev was the ruler of hundreds of millions of people, both in the Soviet Union and in Central and Eastern Europe - a population that had no freedom of choice. The government over which Gorbachev presided had long made sure that was the case. Freedom of choice would get you killed. That is why his declaration stunned the world. "Freedom of choice is a universal principle to which there should be no exceptions."

To make sure his listeners understood that this was no mere flourish of rhetoric, the Soviet leader went on to announce the dismantling of the military occupation of Eastern Europe, the force that had prevented that freedom. "Today I can inform you of the following: The Soviet Union has made a decision on reducing its armed forces . . . by 500,000 persons, and the volume of conventional arms will also be cut considerably. These reductions will be made on a unilateral basis." Six tank divisions would be promptly withdrawn from East Germany, Czechoslovakia, and Hungary, he said, and the rest of the Soviet military presence would be reconfigured as purely defensive. Not only would the Soviet gun be removed from Warsaw Pact nations, it would no longer be pointed at the rest of Europe.

All of this, Gorbachev said, was "aimed at the demilitarization of international relations," the changing of the world economy "from an economy of armament to an economy of disarmament," and "the movement toward a nuclear-free and nonviolent world." He saluted Ronald Reagan, whose term was just ending, and with whom he had already agreed in principle to abolish nuclear weapons. He hoped to continue, and promised that the "newly elected President George Bush will find in us a partner . . . It seems to us we have the preconditions for making 1989 the decisive year."

Gorbachev was correct about that - from his side. In 1989, because of that UN speech, the satellite nations decisively claimed their freedom. The Soviet Union itself began to dissolve, a process that climaxed in 1991 - 17 years ago this week - when the red flag was lowered from the Kremlin, and when, with Gorbachev's resignation, the USSR ceased to exist. But from the side of the United States, 1989 had been decisive in an opposite way. Only weeks after the Berlin Wall was peacefully breached by Gorbachev-licensed dancers instead of tanks, the new American president ordered tens of thousands of US troops to invade Panama - Operation Just Cause. That wholly unjustified action amounted to America's answer to Gorbachev, a declaration that this nation was a long way from the "demilitarization of international relations." Other unnecessary American wars would follow, and so would Washington's refusal to dismantle its Cold War military economy.

The "decisive year" for which Gorbachev called two decades ago may now be here - for our side. Americans stand today, as the last Soviet dictator put it then, "on the threshold of a year from which all of us expect so much. One would like to believe that our joint efforts to put an end to the era of wars, confrontation and regional conflicts, aggression against nature, the terror of hunger and poverty, as well as political terrorism, will be comparable with our hopes."

Is it too much to expect Barack Obama to change history? Make peace? Transform an economic system? Rescue the Earth? Build a political program around the truth? Restore a great nation's decency? Are we kidding ourselves to place such hopes in him?

On the cusp of this decisive year, it will do Americans well to recall that just such a transformation took place once before, even if we declined to respond with transformation of our own. By the grace of God, it is not too late to match the greatness with which Gorbachev acted 20 years ago, an overdue acceptance of his historic invitation. "This is our common goal," he concluded, "and it is only by acting together that we may attain it. Thank you."
Gorbachev's model for Obama
By James Carroll
December 29, 2008

Gorbachev's model for Obama - The Boston Globe
More long ass verbal masturbation.

You're in Putin's camp whether you know it or can accept it.
 
Likes: 2 people
Jul 2018
2,408
1,126
Trump World! Where the circus is always in town.
#12
More long ass verbal masturbation.

You're in Putin's camp whether you know it or can accept it.

The commie haves long kept a low profile in this country, no more. Trump has made them feel justified and safe to come out into the open.

Like cockroaches after the exterminator sprays.
 
Sep 2015
13,274
4,901
Brown Township, Ohio
#13
The commie haves long kept a low profile in this country, no more. Trump has made them feel justified and safe to come out into the open.

Like cockroaches after the exterminator sprays.
Crazy ants kill and eat cockroaches. A cockroach invasion is anything but fun and don't kill the crazy ants no matter how disgusting they are.
 
May 2018
960
77
East Coast Of U.S.A.
#14
Still see you cannot dispute what he says but only insult. That is showing your lack of intelligence or your laziness or both.

You notice when a truth that does not fit the Liberals world view,

they throw insults or firebombs.
To TNVolunteer73: A double thank you.

I am used to liberals attacking the messenger whenever they are too stupid to attack the message. It is a no-win situation for libs because they are not too bright when they do attack the message.


Little known fact but Gorbachev was Admiral of the Soviet Navy in 1972 and signed a peace agreement to prevent collisions at sea. Gorbachev Good, Putin Bad.
To Twisted Sister: There has never been a law or a treaty that prevented anything. He might just as well have signed a treaty that prevented jaywalking.

Every time a ship moves, day or night, it is bound by the International and Inland Rules of the Road. There are even rules for ships at anchor or tied to a dock. Blame for a collision is assigned to the vessel that violated the applicable rule.

I do not expect you to read the rules, but a quick look at the link will tell you how comprehensive they are. Scroll down and take a look at the pictures covering lights. You will even see pictures of a guy in a rowboat with a flashlight. So perhaps you can explain exactly what Gorbachev’s treaty accomplished.


https://www.navcen.uscg.gov/pdf/navrules/navrules.pdf

The commie haves long kept a low profile in this country, no more. Trump has made them feel justified and safe to come out into the open.
To noonereal: How did Trump bring out these guys?

Eugene V. Debs (1855 - 1926) ran for president on the Socialist Party ticket five times.

Norman Thomas (1884 - 1968 ) ran for president on the Socialist ticket six times between 1928 and 1948. Thomas founded the National Civil Liberties Bureau during WW I which became a premier Communist organization —— the ACLU.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are only accusing Trump of bringing out Communists in Congress:


Socialists in Congress with Ties to Communist Party USA
Posted by Donna Calvin

Socialists in Congress with Ties to Communist Party USA - Watchwoman on the Wall

I hope you are not blaming Trump for Jane Fonda’s low profile:

I, a Socialist, think we should strive toward a Socialist society, all the way to Communism.

"If you understood what Communism was, you would hope, you would pray on your knees that one day we would become Communist." (speaking to students at the University of Michigan in 1970)
http://defendingthetruth.com/communism/81122-tom-joad-s-daughter.html#post1190748