What is Digg?Sponsored by Best Buy
Giving a Smart phone? Finding The Right One Just Got Easier. view!
bestbuy.com - Best Buy has all the phones and carriers in one place so you can quickly compare prices & features.
85 Comments
- Insightful, on 11/09/2009, -14/+57Buried for ideological propaganda from the editorial pages of WSJ.
Numerous book, papers, conferences, scholarly hours were spent on the study of Berlin Wall and its fall. Sadly, none of them realized the singularly most important person.
"It is a tribute to Reagan's moral and strategic determination."
"Now, there was the audacity of hope." <-- Real quote from article. - dtele, on 11/09/2009, -0/+33Actually, I think it was pushed
- induren, on 11/10/2009, -6/+31Moral clarity eh? Two words : Iran Contra.
- Focher, on 11/10/2009, -5/+29Only one person deserves credit for the specific breaking down of the Berlin wall - Gorbachev. He could have equally decided to repress the Central and East European countries as his predecessors had done, but he showed himself to be of a different caliber. To pretend like he could not have ordered Soviet troops to suppress the protests is wholly ridiculous.
From Truman to Reagan, the credit they deserve is that they didn't actually listen to the whack jobs who urged outright war with the Soviets. - Hetman, on 11/09/2009, -2/+26That is an easy question. This man single handedly brought down the Berlin Wall.
http://i66.photobucket.com/albums/h257/fatassteddy ... - krymson, on 11/10/2009, -0/+21I was there when the wall fell. I was 4 and me and my mom were traveling to Germany from Belgium to catch a cheap flight.
It was an atmosphere of chaos and celebration, with people climbing on the wall, breaking it down and selling pieces of it as souviniers. At the time, we thought graffiiti-ed concrete was a stupid souvenir. big mistake. - Insightful, on 11/10/2009, -4/+24Exactly. Angela Merkel, a former East German and now Chancellor of Germany, spoke today at the Berlin Wall. Who does she thank? Gorbachev.
How many times did she thank Reagan? Zero?
Somebody send her this editorial! Clearly she has no idea what she is talking about. American consevatives know all! - PrivateBob, on 11/09/2009, -4/+23I'm Irish, so not entirely sure of the political leanings of the WSJ, but I take it I'm not the only one to see an implied message here?
'If we stay the course, despite what more pragmatic people think, then eventually we'll win (as long as we ignore the myriad of short and long term reasons for the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR).'
Afghanistan anyone..? - yeeaauuh, on 11/09/2009, -6/+24Money (or lack thereof ) is why it fell. They ran out of it before we did.
- CourageWulf, on 11/09/2009, -1/+16When I was just a wee tike, I crossed from West to East Germany when the wall was still up. Something I won't forget.
- thegrantman, on 11/10/2009, -11/+25Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!
- merbrian, on 11/10/2009, -5/+18Because Ronald Reagan is a superhero of epic proportions! He uttered some words, and down it fell!
- Infowarsdotcom, on 11/09/2009, -1/+14Gravity.
- spartan777, on 11/10/2009, -2/+14'About 250+ people in Reagan's administration quit, were fired, been arrested, indicted, or convicted of either breaking the law or violating the ethics code. Edward Meese (the attorney general, leading law-enforcer of the nation) alone was investigated by *four* separate special prosecutors.'
-Paraphrased from George Carlin - dig1x, on 11/10/2009, -5/+16I'll listen to the WSJ when they stop being the public-organ for the GOP.
Oh, and frack Regan -- he should have died in prison for war crimes against Central America and violating US Law. - shutaro, on 11/10/2009, -6/+15REAGAN SMASH!
- appleofdischord, on 11/10/2009, -6/+15...because the soviets spent too much money on weaponry while neglecting necessities and luxuries. We were basically playing an economic game of chicken with the soviets, which due to our superior resources we were more equipped to win.
So why is it that every ignorant warmongering conservative in America longs for another Cold War? - DrNemo, on 11/10/2009, -2/+10Don't start playing with words because communism is supposed to be a stateless organisation of society. The eastern bloc was socialist and had no free market. No wonder they were sending satellites into space but didn't produce what the people wanted, like good cars. Trabants and ladas don't come up as good cars. Socialism really fails.
- Dregganaut, on 11/10/2009, -2/+9Ownage
- choopie911, on 11/10/2009, -6/+13Who the ***** longs for Socialism? Maybe retards who don't understand it.
- inactive, on 11/10/2009, -0/+6Wow, this article is about the Berlin wall and he made a comment about communism.I'm not sure why you're getting your panties in a twist and ranting about some nonsense political bs.
- scrbldcrayon, on 11/10/2009, -5/+11i couldn't even finish the article. what a load of propaganda. do people not understand that sometimes an opinionated push isn't necessary to sell their point?
- appleofdischord, on 11/10/2009, -6/+11It's roughly as far right in American politics as the Huffington Post is left (as far as I can tell).
- QQQQUUUU, on 11/10/2009, -3/+8When will idiots realize that Communism does not work. Look at history, no country that has tried communism made it work. If you do not learn from history then you are going to repeat it. Look at North Korea and South Korea. Two counties with the same people and the same resources and one is poor and communist and one is rich and capitalist
- itsthemechanic, on 11/10/2009, -0/+3Because East Germans finally wanted bananas.
- DavidNiven, on 11/10/2009, -16/+19Because Ronald Reagan was thankfully not Jimmy Carter.
- spartan777, on 11/10/2009, -10/+13Its no surprise that a publication like the WSJ would continue the the old Cold-War propaganda so long after the events. After all, the only real threat that communism posed was to Wall Street and its profits.
- flyinfoofighter, on 11/10/2009, -10/+13One wall falls, others go up.
Israeli West Bank Wall
Mexico-United States Border Wall - josepablos, on 11/10/2009, -1/+4Roger Waters Bass Power!--
- whomod, on 11/10/2009, -2/+5Yeah. To the Republicans, Reagan single handedly brought the Soviets to their knees. They conveniently forget about Solidarity, Gorbachev, the pope, Afghanistan etc. etc. The Wall and the Iron curtain fell for for a variety of reasons, Reagan being one of those reasons certainly but not the sole or primary reason.
But then this is the party that in recent years gravitated towards the teachings of Leo Strauss and his belief in the power national myths. Therefore to the gOp, it's necessary to have a FOX news to repeat to you all these stirring myths and simplistic black/white parallels that give one renewed purpose and jingoistic pride and the feeling of being on the side of absolute good, regardless of whether it's b.s. or not.
http://www.alternet.org/story/15935/ - whatthefu, on 11/10/2009, -5/+8Why doesn't News Corp. just marry Ronald Reagan already?
- osarusan, on 11/10/2009, -2/+5Ridiculous. Reagan deserves some credit, he doesn't deserve all of it, and there's certainly no call for implying that Reagan's solution was the only possibly successful outcome.
It worked. Let's all be thankful that it worked. But to say that just because it worked, all other roads were wrong is just plain stupid. A more gradual, less dogmatic approach could have taken 40 more years to bring the wall down, or it could have taken only half the time. We'll never know because we didn't go down that road. But to imply that you somehow know it wouldn't have worked, and that those who offered objections or alternate ideas were somehow bad people is stupidity beyond description.
Buried. - hollywoodphony, on 11/10/2009, -1/+4"Yet if the West's stand in Berlin demonstrates anything, it is that moral commitments have a way of reaping strategic dividends over time."
Korea. Vietnam. Grenada. Iraq. Somalia. Kosovo. Iraq again. Afghanistan. - PeppermintPig, on 11/10/2009, -2/+5Communism concerns the complete consolidation of property, eliminating private ownership. The ideology falls silent on the enforcement aspect, let alone the ethical issues of imposing it onto people without their consent. In practice of applying it as a model of government, it fails to achieve its goals because it's not possible to deny individuals the ability to make value judgments, which can foster black markets. People lacking scruples will rise through the ranks and use their position of power to abuse others and consolidate wealth.
Socialism indicates any sort of plan which argues that it is somehow superior to supplant the value judgments of individuals reflected in the exchange of goods and services with that of a 'director' or other group of people under the argument that they have sufficient knowledge, experience, moral objectivity, or other trait with which to make these decisions.
Of course any sort of government which entitles itself to the money of others runs across the problem of corruption and a lack of accountability.
I don't see much difference between socialism and communism, though. - Dregganaut, on 11/10/2009, -3/+6sure, Obama is building the new Berlin Wall, moron
- xGORDOx, on 11/10/2009, -2/+4Less than Obama has.
- javaco, on 11/10/2009, -3/+5For those who can't accept why the Europeans hold Gorbachev in higher regard than Reagan.
We were living directly at the demarcation line. Between the cruise missiles. We would have been the first target for the soviet SS-20 missiles. In case of a conflic we would have had just minutes left and many of us had the the opion "better red than dead".
I ask you, who leaves the better impression:
Your ally, a worn-out western actor who gambles at a very hight risk on your life or your enemy, the reputed epitome of evil, that makes up his mind for peaces sake and reaches you the hand? - palehorse864, on 11/11/2009, -0/+2Lot's of people burying a funny Simpsons quote. It makes me sad.
- zoomaKabu, on 11/10/2009, -1/+3Think about why.
- spartan777, on 11/10/2009, -2/+4The USSR was anything *but* socialist. That may sound ludicrous (thanks to extensive propaganda from the US and the USSR that claim otherwise), but if nothing else, socialism means the control of production by the workers. Workers were the last people with any control in the USSR. In fact, one of the first things Lenin did after him and the Bolsheviks seized control was to abolish the (real) soviets that students and workers set up in Moscow.
The USSR was about as socialist as the People's Republic of China is a republic- not at all. However, socialism has moral and intellectual prestige, so the USSR used that to describe themselves (just like the Chinese ruling class is exploiting the moral prestige of republicanism and democracy). On the other side of the world, the US ruling classes wanted to destroy the moral prestige socialism had at the time by connecting socialism to the despotic USSR. Recall that Eugene Debs, socialist candidate for president won more than 5% of the vote- there was a time that socialism was very popular in the US, and posed a threat to the power of politicians and the wealth of businessmen. - RAAFStupot, on 11/10/2009, -0/+2It doesn't have to work, for those in power.
That's why Kim Jong Il lives it up while the people starve. - Trisodium777, on 11/10/2009, -0/+2http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kzx7VEH9YUM
- dsfjvhbd, on 11/10/2009, -0/+2Mainly because their economy was too inefficient
- pizzaface200, on 11/10/2009, -2/+4REAGAN SLEEPY.
- taokr, on 11/10/2009, -1/+3Don't worry, Good ol' Rupert will soon cut off his properties from parasites like Google and Digg, and the only way you'll be able to find these articles is by paying for a subscription...
- taokr, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1Did you miss all the news stories yesterday about Rupert Murdoch saying he thought all the search engines were leeches, that he wanted people to pay for content, and that he WOULD indeed remove his sites from search engines?
I guess making money actually is more important to him than spreading his ideology! (Even though I disagree that this new strategy will actually lead to more money...) - rhodydog, on 11/10/2009, -2/+3Remind me again what Reagan did to the deficit?
- RAAFStupot, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1Tell that to the British & the Soviets.
- maviis, on 11/10/2009, -1/+2You can call it what you want, but by definition:
Control of production by workers = syndicalism
Control of production by state = socialism
Control of production by the collective = communism
Control of production by private individuals = capitalism - LemonMachete, on 11/10/2009, -0/+1He never said that you partisan hack.
-
Show 51 - 86 of 86 discussions
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 