Republican Bail out - Freddie/Fannie a repeat of the McCain S&L scandal

hee hee do your own googling. She has never given 1 order to the national guard but mccain and palin keep pointing to that as her national security experience.

bold face lies.

http://news.yahoo.com/story//politico/20080907/pl_politico/13222

You are completely distorting the scenario. She IS the CIC of the Alaska National Guard when they are in state. Some random McCain spokesmen misstated that and I agree with you that dude could have said it better. But you won't link to McCain or Palin actually saying it, telling me to find it. You LOVE to post juicy rumors like that so if it were out there you wouldn't hesitate to show me. But clearly it aint. While a spokesman screwing up is nice...in the end they are surrogates....not the actual candidate. So unless you wan't to go down the road of attributing every screw up a surrogate has ever made we would have about 50 pages of crap. So again...would you like to show me a quote or video of Palin or McCain actually saying this? Please?

ok so you disagree that it gives her foreign policy experience. That is a legit issue...finally we're on to something. They aren't saying that she was in command of troops who were overseas like she was conducting missions...nothing of the sort. They are simply saying she is CIC of the Alaska NG and that same NG has been deployed overseas in a combat scenario. They are trying to link that to experience. That's not my argument that's theirs. And you disagree. I get it.

but this is no scandal

petr, how many mistakes and lies can you push? So neither McCain nor Palin said the thing that you keep insisting they said. Sad.

Tell me, how many governors have foreign policy experience? How much foreign policy experience did Bill Clinton have as governor of Arkansas?

How did that Obama-Rezko property purchase work out?

hey petr, I don't work for an investment bank, I'm on the buy side - nice try though

back to my question - what about obama's statement that he would refer the russia-georgia conflict to the un, where russia has veto power? do you agree with that statememnt? what does it say about obama's knowledge about foreign affairs?

petrfitz and neither have Obama and Biden...I'm worried about Joe Biden now...he has a terrible record in foreign policy and if he's guiding Obama we are all in big trouble.

petrfitz
about 4 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse hee hee do your own googling. She has never given 1 order to the national guard but mccain and palin keep pointing to that as her national security experience.

bold face lies.

..
no
BALD faced lie

BALD, not BOLD

evillager
about 4 hours ago
ignore this person
report abuse hey petr, I don't work for an investment bank, I'm on the buy side - nice try though

evillager, what if you did work for an investment bank? why are you pretending to be better on the "buy side?"

you can't point to more than several dozen people you know and have worked with in some capacity who have worked for an investment bank for decades straight?

don't be an asshole

hey annnec, not sure what your problem is...petrfitz asked if I am nervous about the wall street job cuts, which I am not, because my firm and job happen to be very secure. that is a fact, doesn't make me "pretending to be better"

of course I know lots of people at banks, who are either directly or indirectly affected by the layoffs

and the backdrop to this is that petrfitz, instead of answering a question, tried to throw out wall street layoffs in order to shut me up...which would be a pretty awwful thing to say if it were true

so maybe you should reconsider who you are directing your asshole comment at

as for petr - he still hasn't answered my question...

evillager: As unimpressed as I've been with Obama's statements on international relations in general, and the Caucasus in particular, I think the claim that he suggested "referring" the Russia-Georgia conflict to the Security Council is a red herring. He mentioned the U.N. as one of several avenues for applying pressure, and said that a Security Council debate might be useful in underscoring Russia's diplomatic isolation, although Russia could obviously block a formal resolution. One can reasonably dismiss that aspect of his approach as a waste of time, but he didn't say anything glaringly stupid.

More generally, I think it's sad that both sides are reverting to the same old nit-picking "gotcha" script. For once, I believe we have two genuinely excellent choices: remarkable, talaented and dedicated public servants who love their country and represent, in their different ways, much of what makes this country great. If we were ever going to have a presidential election we could be proud of, this was it. Oh, well... :o(

well, we'll see what happens when they invade one of the baltic states. if obama is president, my guess is that he and europe just step aside and let it happen, thus destroying NATO.

I hope I am wrong.

as far as playing "gotcha" games, I'm sorry, but I think the Russia issue, "present" votes, and lack of experience are valid things to bring up. petrfitz on the other hand exemplifies the daily kos method of political debate - bring up as many negative one-liners as you can, whether they are true or not, and whether they are relevant or not. meanwhile, he's unprepared to address a valid criticism of his candidate.

evillager: Sure they're valid. Yes, it matters that Obama voted "present" in the Illinois Legislature on some tough issues; on the other hand, I think that issue gets wildly overblown, since "present" seems to be an accepted and customary way of expressing reservations about a bill in that body. Anyway, the McCain campaign will drum away on that point without any context, just as the Obama campaign will pound away at the alternative fuel votes that McCain sat out. It's a lot of heat with no light, from both sides. You seem to think one side is less guilty of polishing its own biographies and accomplishments, and less guilty of smearing the other side. I think that's hooey.

As for the likely reaction to an invasion of, say, Estonia: I'm not sure there's much any president could do about it right now unless the Poles and Germans were prepared to risk annihilation. In a larger sense, the difficulty of defending the Baltic states calls into question the wisdom of having expanded NATO so aggressively; it's generally a bad idea to pledge yourself to defend countries you have no credible way of defending. I also think it's fair to ask what vital national interest would be compromised by Russian tanks in Tallinn. Maybe Estonia is worth World War III, maybe it isn't. Unfortunately, we skipped that debate and jumped right to "I double-dog dare you to cross this line."

Do you really think the problem will be Estonia? Ukraine will be next on Russia's list, and it is in our interests, and Europe's interests, to take a strong stand against Russia invading Ukraine next. A reconstituted Russian empire will make things more difficult for the U.S. in the Middle East and elsewhere. I'm sorry, but the liberal view of just talking with our adversaries to smooth things over just doesn't work in the real world.

LICComment: evillager mentioned the Baltic states. The last time I looked, Ukraine wasn't a Baltic state - nor, for that matter, was it a member of NATO.

Nobody - NOBODY - favors rolling over for Russia. Accusing opponents of doing so is a venerable tradition that dates back at least to the 50s. (It's not just a Republican trick, either; JFK did it too.) Nobody wants to see Putin at the head of a parade in Kiev. But if you seriously intend to halt the expansion of Russian influence in Eastern Europe in this century, I think it's valid to ask, "You and what army?"

Just like someone before only wanted Prague

To a hammer, everything is a nail. There are a lot of bad guys in the world. Some of them run countries. If you assume that they're all Hitler, you're going to fight a lot of preemptive wars.

Then again, if the first one is a land war in Eastern Europe against a nuclear superpower, you might only have to fight one.

George Kennan got this one right sixty years ago. Granted, containment sucks; in fact, it's the worst option in the world... except for every other one.

West, the point I was making, in response to your supposed support for taking a lax stand against Russian aggression, is that the threat goes well beyond your example of Estonia. Who said we would need a military attack? Reagan did more to topple the Soviet Union than anyone, and he did it by supporting our allies, taking a hard line politically, and through economic measures.

And Biden fought against Reagan's hard line stands against the Soviets. I don't trust that Obama will take the best approach.

I don't think re-arguing the deployment of Pershing missiles 25 years ago is a productive use of our afternoon. Besides, you've already concluded that I advocate "a lax stand against Russian aggression", so I'll just crawl back into my craven, defeatist hole and resume plotting against freedom. ;o)

Russia has no economy in the sense we have. They have the mafia officially bancrolling (in cash) a few enterprises. If their mafia-run companies, and there are no other kind now, are banned or restricted, 75% of their brutal bravado will be gone.
Russia is and has been for a long time the root of most evils. Their collective DNA has been ruined forever. Right now they are PROUD nazis who understand only force and see friendliness as weakness.