Posted on 11/14/2011 4:49:05 PM PST by katiedidit1
That’s funny.
>>I wanted to give Cain the benefit of the doubt, but this newest video has diminished my thinking of him, his thought process is scary. <<
I haven’t made up my mind, except for Mitt. He is a doofus. For Mitt, I sit out.
OK Naps...you're on my "HAHA Told You So" ping list for when Perry wins! Just remember to receive it in the same good spirit in which it will be sent!
“No.” would have worked. No elaboration needed...
What nonsense. Our ideology trumped there ideology. When we finally got a president who believed in conservative ideals, the Soviet Union imploded. But up until then, the Soviets had been on the march throughout the world. The list of Soviet client states that arose after WWII was long and included such geographically dispersed countries as Vietnam, Angola, South Yemen, Cuba, Nicaragua.
In fact, until Reagan came along, people were openly questioning whether the West would survive. On a technical level, they had created things such as Sputnik and on a propaganda level they had helped foster the peace movement which lead to our humiliation in Vietnam. So the Soviets were quite competent in extending their power - until they finally ran into a Western leader who believed in capitalism as strongly as the Soviets believed in communism.
You must be too young to remember these things.
I’m probably older than you. No, people were not openly questioning whether the west would survive. The peace movement did not lead to our humiliation in Vietnam, incompetence did. I was there, I remember.
Then you've forgotten. When Jimmy Carter was President, people were questioning whether the West would survive.
As to Vietnam, the war had been won in 1972. It was then lost in 1974, when the Peace Democrats cutoff military supplies to South Vietnam.
Finally, as to the importance of ideology, here is a thought experiment for you. If Reagan hadn't believed the Soviet Union was an evil empire and hadn't believed that the guiding principle for the Cold War should be "We Win, They Lose . . .", would the Soviet Union still have imploded.
Put another way, it's pretty clear that Reagan's beliefs dictated his actions, not the other way around.
Ideas are everything, competence less so.
Then we obviously don’t see things the same.
It was to mean for anyone who speaks in mutterings, sputterings, doublespeaking, that some would assume they understood what they said. Be it Zero, Cain, Clinton, Hillary, anyone.
Politicians are masters at this, the masses of their devoted followers don't care what they said, they only cared they heard something that sounded like something.
We have all heard these people speak, sounded good. Then turn to someone and ask "What the hell did they say?"
I am sure you will NOW be able to understand the meaning of what I posted.
I watched this video. He was confused for about 9 seconds. Clearly he was confused about the line of questioning and what the interviewer was getting at.
His answer was perfect though if you actually understood the nuances involved with Libya and the entire fiasco that it entailed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.