General Question

ezraglenn's avatar

Did Sarah Palin ACTUALLY say that she can she Russia from her house?

Asked by ezraglenn (3502points) September 25th, 2008
65 responses
“Great Question” (0points)

Everyone keeps referring to this line, and it was on SNL, but did Palin actually say that?

Observing members: 0
Composing members: 0


sundayBastard's avatar

I would not doubt it. Did McCain actually say he wants her to be VP? Both about just as stupid!

tinyfaery's avatar

Not like this is a great site, but here it is.

Love Tina Fey.

Les's avatar

No she didn’t say that exactly. But what she did say, and the McCain campaign is repeating, despite the media and left making fun of it, is that Alaska’s close proximity to Russia give her foreign policy experience.

I will look for a reputable link…

Les's avatar

OK: first she says that “You can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska”. This is from the Gibson interview.
Hardly ‘reputable’, but it is a transcript: Fox news

And McCain, in another Gibson interview said: “Alaska is right next to Russia. She understands that. Look, Sen. Obama’s never visited south of our border. I mean, please. ”
Again, here is the link. ABC News

I mean, please. This woman’s foreign policy experience is laughable, at best. The fact that the McCain campaign still does not seem to realize the absurdity of saying that someone’s proximity to a foreign nation gives that person “special” experience, is ridiculous.

But those are the facts.

ckinyc's avatar

I can see the moon from my apartment. What kind of special experience do I get?

cyndyh's avatar

I just think it’s hilarious how scarcely populated parts of Alaska are near scarcely populated parts of Russia makes for foreign policy experience, but any governor of any state bordering Canada or Mexico doesn’t count. How silly is that?

rawpixels's avatar

She has just about as much foreign policy experience as Obama, and Obama is at the top of his ticket. It’s sad that America can’t do better than this.

deaddolly's avatar

@cyndyh Exactly. She constantly proves herself to be an idiot.

robmandu's avatar

For this question and others, I’ve had a lot of luck looking at

Seems pretty balanced as it calls out both campaigns and their various sponsors on their gaffes on a daily basis.

EmpressPixie's avatar

No, she said you could see parts of Russia from part of Alaska. In response to a question that in no way resembled “give us some interesting international trivia about Alaska” and was more like “so you say you have foreign affairs experience, can you tell us some of it?”

EmpressPixie's avatar

@Robmandu: Did you see where they FactCheck’d McCain’s inclusion of FactCheck in a commercial (and found that it was a misleading use of FactCheck)?

robmandu's avatar

@EmpressPixie, ha ha ah ha… nice find!

dalepetrie's avatar

rawpixels -

Obama has actually lived in a foreign country

Palin once had a layover in Ireland

Obama has served on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee

Palin is Governor of a state from which Russia can be seen

Obama is the Chair of the Subcommittee on European Relations

Palin once visited troops in Germany

Obama has travelled to Russia, Ukraine, Azerbaijan, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, the Palestinian Territories, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, and South Africa as part of his job.

Palin spent 45 minutes talking to foreign leaders this past week.

Obama co-sponsored the Lugar-Obama act, a bi-partisan effort to increase U.S. security in terms of the elimination of conventional weapons and weapons of mass destruction.

Palin once placed second in the Miss Alaska contest.

Yeah, you’re right, about equal.

Jreemy's avatar

I’ve seen Mexico from a highway going through El Paso. I think I should be able to put that down as well.

rawpixels's avatar

@dalepetrie, the fact is, neither have great foreign policy credentials. Again, America should be able to do better.

dalepetrie's avatar

I’m more than happy with Obama’s foreign policy credentials, and what he lacks, Biden has.

Nonetheless, If you look at the most popular/successful Presidents in my lifetime, one from each side of the fence….Clinton and Reagan, Obama has stronger foreign policy credentials than either did when they first took office.

Personally, I think the best foreign policy credential you can have is judgement. I trust Obama’s judgement. I also think coming from a more multinationa/multicultural background is a far better starting point than an America-centric worldview.

We saw what happened when someone who had “executive experience” by being governor or Texas, but who had not even travelled outside our borders took office, now didn’t we?

And bottom line, I was responding to your comment that their experience is equal. I reject that theory, it’s the position of a Palin apologist if you ask me.

dalepetrie's avatar

I would also like to point out that Obama has met on several ocassions many world leaders who by and large like him and find him to be someone they can work with. Personally I think the most important foreign policy concern is the ability to work with people from other nations/cultures. I think Obama has the demeanor and the agreeable nature that will allow him to build strong working relationships with world leaders. But I think he tempers that with a toughness, he doesn’t strike me as a person who allows himself to be pushed around (if he were he never would have defeated Hillary in the primaries).

Second, public opinion around the world, and among leaders of the other nations of the world is that they are almost unanimously excited about the prospect of Obama being the US President. That’s half the battle right there…goodwill. If you go into office and everyone is excited to work with you and thinks you can usher in a new period of international diplomacy, all you have to do is follow through. After George “my way or the highway” Bush, Obama is EXACTLY the world leader we need.

I think the problem is, when Obama’s opponents, first Clinton now McCain didn’t have the substance to match him toe to to, they started bringing in all these arguments that sound good on the surface (he doesn’t have the experience), but people lose site of the fact that you don’t have Presidential experience until you’ve been the flippin’ President. Traditionally we’ve looked at fitness for the job from more than one angle…his opponents want to confine the qualifications to a little box that only they can fit in, and people buy it and spout out ignorant opinions about how someone who was mayor of a pissant town and has been governor of our 3rd least populus state for 20 months is somehow better qualified than a person who has spent his whole career doing EXACTLY the kind of things we should WANT our President to be experienced in.

Bottom line for me on the experience argument…the President’s CORE job, the thing he is SWORN to do on the day he takes office is to uphold the Constitution. Obama was a professor of Constitutional Law for 12 frickin’ years! He’s smart, he’s well reasoned, he’s a do-er, he’s a dealmaker, he exudes diplomacy…he is in my view of what a President should be a MODEL candidate.

I just don’t buy this argument, sorry.

robmandu's avatar

Sorry, @dalpetrie… while I’m not defending Palin, I certainly can point out where Obama isn’t ready for the Big Game.

Did you know that Obama overtly tried to undermine the current administration’s negotiations with the Iraqi government by telling them in essence to wait until after the election before making decisions and taking actions on troop withdrawals?

That’s a violation of federal law. (sorry, cannot find the reference right now.) Only the Executive branch of the U.S. Government is allowed to negotiate foreign policy with other states. A junior senator attempting to waltz in with his own agenda is a sign of lack of experience, poor judgment, and an inflated ego.

fireside's avatar

@ Rob – he didn’t actually tell them to wait. he asked them why they didn’t wait. That seems to be more of a question to me. It doesn’t seem like he was actually negotiating with the Iraqis. He was on a fact finding mission and he was asking questions. Seems like a pretty responsible thing to do.

Also, have you ever read the NY Post? Most of the people I know who buy it are either ashamed or blatantly buying it to laugh. Not to say that they don’t have great sports coverage…

Here’s Taheri’s writing about the issue:

A day after my op-ed was published, Obama’s campaign issued a statement, in effect confirming what I had said.

It said, in part, “Senator Obama has consistently said that any security arrangements that outlast this administration should have the backing of the US Congress — especially given the fact that the Iraqi parliament will have the opportunity to vote on it.”

robmandu's avatar

@fireside, the question, as phrased, marginalizes the current administration’s position and implies a different course of action. That’s playing partisan politics, not presenting a unified American front.

You’ll note that my referenced article ranges across 5 different citations, including direct from both Obama and McCain campaigns… not just The Post, which I wouldn’t buy either.

dalepetrie's avatar

I see ABSOLUTELY no problem at a time when there is going to be a new President, and the new President is going to go in one of two directions that differ from the current path, for one of those candidates to stress that it might be a good idea to take a wait and see approach, because seriously, the stakes are high enough that if they go one direction expecting an Obama Presidency, and the US gives them a McCain Presidency, it could be DISASTEROUS. That’s exactly the kind of prudent judgement I look for in a Presidential candidate.

And by the way, did you notice that Iraq’s plan is ALMOST EXACTLY THE SAME as Obama’s in regards to timetables for troop withdrawals. Seems like someone knows which direction the winds are blowing on the foreign front. I’d rather have a President in agreement with Iraq than one who is going to insist on an agenda they’re not going to like very much…it’s a sure way to turn this into another Vietnam if you ask me.

robmandu's avatar

@dalpetrie, your point is valid INSIDE the U.S. amongst ourselves. Outside the U.S., matters of state are handled exclusively by the Executive Branch. It must be that way… that’s the the job of that branch. It’s called checks & balances.

dalepetrie's avatar

Yes, but Obama can SAY whatever he wants. It’s a free country. He has no authority to instruct anyone, and that’s not what he did as I see it. He expressed an opinion. They can listen to it or tell him to lump it. Let’s face it, every American voices opinions about all the world leaders. I don’t see how Obama meeting with the Iraqi goverment and telling them how he sees it is exactly “negotiating”. I could meet with a world leader as as citizen of the US if that world leader would agree to meet me. It doesn’t mean that if I made a suggestion, I’d be negotiating…I have no power, no authority to negotiate. It’s not really a negotiation if one side has no authority to offer anything up.

This is mountains out of molehills, yet another distraction to keep people focused away from anything but the issues of who would actually be able to best lead our country.

fireside's avatar

Here is a breakdown of the roles of the Legislative versus the Executive Branches.

Congress can make foreign policy through:
1)—resolutions and policy statements
2)—legislative directives
3)—legislative pressure
4)—legislative restrictions/funding denials
5)—informal advice
6)—congressional oversight

Seems like what Obama did was more along the lines of informal advice to me…

robmandu's avatar

@dalpetrie… look, a government official in a foreign country talking to heads of state about matters of which he might be seen as having influence is not allowed to say whatever he wants. He has a role. He has a job with limitations. It’s not about freedom of speech. It’s about place and responsibility.

Are you allowed to go out to a customer of your company’s and say whatever negative thing you want about the company you work for? Of course not. You won’t go to jail for it (freedom of speech), but you certainly could expect to lose your job.

Back to Obama, he appears to be risking violation of the Logan Act (yay! I found it) as he does not have the authority to negotiate with foreign heads of state on behalf of the U.S.

It’s a simple concept. You need not agree with it. But Obama certainly should know better. He’s playing fast and loose and it’s a risky game for everyone.

Again, does he seriously think that Iraq was completely unaware of our election process in the U.S.? His question was not meant to inform them. Nor to discover their intentions. It was meant to cast doubt on the current administration. That’s not cool whoever does it.

fireside's avatar

This Logan act blurs the distinction here.

Obama is a US Senator who was on a government approved fact finding mission, not a US citizen who is trying to “cut a deal”.

He is not rowing a boat to Cuba to meet with Castro, he’s not passing notes to the Koreans, he’s not handling over nuclear secrets.

He asked a question so that he could better understand the dynamic of a relationship he may well be a much larger part of in just a matter of weeks now.

robmandu's avatar

Supreme Court Justice George Sutherland explains better than I can…

In this vast external realm, with its important, complicated, delicate and manifold problems, the President alone has the power to speak or listen as a representative of the nation. He makes treaties with the advice and consent of the Senate; but he alone negotiates. Into the field of negotiation the Senate cannot intrude, and Congress itself is powerless to invade it.

fireside's avatar

Still haven’t defined “negotiation”

robmandu's avatar

Negotiation – Broadly speaking, negotiation is an interaction of influences. Such interactions, for example, include the process of resolving disputes, agreeing upon courses of action, bargaining for individual or collective advantage, or crafting outcomes to satisfy various interests. ...

fireside's avatar

“He asked why we were not prepared to delay an agreement until after the US elections and the formation of a new administration in Washington,” Zebari said in an interview.

Asking why they are taking one course of action over another course of action is not any of the above.

Had Zebari said, that Obama offered something in exchange for the delay, that would be a different story…

robmandu's avatar

Look, Obama was not on American soil. He was in a foreign land talking to heads of state. He specifically questioned why they would negotiate with the current administration instead of waiting for the next one.

The official position of the American government is that Iraq negotiate with today’s government representatives… not tomorrow’s.

What Obama did just isn’t cricket. I’m willing to chalk it up to inexperience rather than more deceitful, selfish purposes.

I was refuting dalpetrie‘s position that Obama is a seasoned, experienced statesman on the world stage. Obviously, he’s prone to mistakes like any person, but I think this particular mistake was rather serious and certainly avoidable. It calls into question his abilities as well as his motives, as it could be seen that he’s assuming the mantel of power before it’s rightfully his.

@Fireside, you seem to think there’s no benefit to Obama. But that “innocent” question could be seen as exhorting the Iraqi government to eschew further negotiation with the current administration… putting Bush in an awkward spot (good for the democrats’ campaign) and providing immediate negotiation success for the next president (good for Obama if he plans to win the election).

dalepetrie's avatar

I have to side with fireside here. He didn’t offer anything in exchange for a delay, ergo there was no negotiation. He didn’t overstep his bounds. I mean, talk about splitting hairs. We have a President who committed wholesale election fraud to get into office, who then lied to Congress and the American people to lead us into an illegal and unjustified war, and he still holds office….but you have a guy who merely talks to the leader of another country and asks about the potential for taking a different path and HE’S the one that worries you. Get a grip, man.

I completely disagree that it was a mistake, that it was serious, or that there was any problem with what he did. He did not use a carrot or a stick, he just spoke his mind, end of story in my view. If you want to know who put Bush in an awkward spot, I suggest you point that finger right at Bush himself. He’s been “my way or the highway” about everything for 8 years and when he couldn’t get Congress to go along with his plans, he’s gone over their heads, legal or not. Bottom line, come noon on January 20, Bush won’t be in office anymore, if that gives Obama’s words more gravitas given his potential to be Bush’s successor, that’s just fine, but it doesn’t mean Obama has overstepped his bounds.

But even if I accept your wholly untennable position as gospel, bottom line to me is that he’s still the best man for the job, hands down, and certainly we’ve forgiven worse. But I forgot, I guess in this country if you’re a Republican you can get away with spending a trillion dollars and signing the death warrants of over 4,000 Americans and a million Iraqis by using faulty evidence you knew to be untrue to make it appear that America’s safety was at stake, and that’s all fine and dandy, but Democrats MUST be held to a higher standard, which means we can never contradict the President (even if he’s wrong) when talking to foreign leaders…I forgot, we impeach Dems for blow jobs, don’t we? It’s a bullshit double standard and it’s meant to distract us from the real issues. I don’t buy it and I don’t give a rats ass about it.

asmonet's avatar

Dale, I think I love you.

tWrex's avatar

Wow… So this question got turned from Palin’s comment to comparing Obama (a Presidential Nominee) to Palin (a Vice Presidential Nominee) to Obama’s qualifications because he sits on a chair (what the hell do you sit on?) to Obama clearly breaking the law. Ok.

@robmandu You rock. Damn it all. You rock. We are in a state of war and whether any of you like it or not, what he did was disgusting! Oh I can tell he cares for the troops. Most def. Just like gives a shit about vets.

And for the record, just cause you sit in a chair position doesn’t mean you do a fuckin’ thing. Obama has chaired the Senate Veterans’ Affairs Committee and hasn’t done a damn thing there! Oh he’s talked about it, but he’s been too busy kissing babies to do anything else. He held meetings for Veterans in Chicago saying he’d CHANGE something here. He said it was wrong the Illinois was rated worst in the country in Veterans care and that our benefits were paid so much lower than those in other states. It must have really gotten to him because I got a letter from him and the VA saying, that the reason healthcare here in Illinois was so shitty is because it’s always been that way. OHHHHH! That’s what you meant by “CHANGE”. Wait. What?

Anyone want to get back on topic?

robmandu's avatar

@dalepetrie, let’s say for argument’s sake that I support every plank of Obama’s platform. And that I think he’ll bring real answers and solutions to this country. Basically, that’s he’s awesome sauce.

That still doesn’t give him the right to undermine the president’s authority with other foreign dignitaries. Statesmanship is subject to its own rules, its own jargon. Hell, simply showing up for a meeting means something (which is why U.S. presidents refuse to grant Castro audience, for example). You’ve got to look at this in the grand scheme of how nation-states interact.

There’s nuance and subtlety at play. The Iraqi Foreign Minister Hoshyar Zebari didn’t seem to misunderstand the thrust of the question. His response when describing the meeting was that they’d rather not keep the matter open.

fireside's avatar

How about John McCain in 2006:
”...interviewed McCain for the British network Sky News’s “World News Tonight” program. Here is the crucial part of our exchange:

I asked: “Do you think that American diplomats should be operating the way they have in the past, working with the Palestinian government if Hamas is now in charge?”

McCain answered: “They’re the government; sooner or later we are going to have to deal with them, one way or another, and I understand why this administration and previous administrations had such antipathy towards Hamas because of their dedication to violence and the things that they not only espouse but practice, so . . . but it’s a new reality in the Middle East. I think the lesson is people want security and a decent life and decent future, that they want democracy. Fatah was not giving them that.”

Was this experienced statesman questioning the position of the President?

tWrex's avatar

It’s not about questioning the position of the President. It’s about the context in which it’s done. Obama met with Hoshyar Zebari and had that dialogue. McCain commented in an interview on what he believed needed to happen. Those are two totally different arenas that can have two totally different outcomes.

robmandu's avatar

what tWrex said.

dalepetrie's avatar

asmonet, geez you’re the second person to say that same thing in the last 24 hours, I’m flattered. Unfortunately I’m a little too old (and a little too married) for you…alas. :)

twrex, personally, I think when you confuse “chairing a subcommittee” with “sitting in a chair” it pretty much makes anything you have to say irrelevant. I disagree with your assessment that he hasn’t done anything with his post, and that he didn’t do anything for Veterans in Illinois. Conversely, it was McCain who in fact opposed the new GI bill. But I’m not going to convince you. And you and robmandu are not going to convince me that what Obama did was wrong, nor would I care even if it was because I don’t think the severity is anything more than a distraction. Again, don’t agree with you and don’t give a rats ass, and I think this is a distraction for stupid people.

robmandu's avatar

< < thanks @dalepetrie for the ad hominem attack and accepts victory by default in the debate.

dalepetrie's avatar

ad hominem attack or not, I didn’t call you or twrex stupid, I said the argument is one designed to distract stupid people. I stand by my assessment. If “winning” means something to you, I don’t care if you claim victory, you’re still wrong and McCain is still going to lose this election.

robmandu's avatar

Now, @dalepetrie, no need to get petulant. I supplied sources. I provided links. I cited corroborating opinion from experts in their fields. Where was I wrong?

I think you’re disingenuous to say this is a “distraction for stupid people.” You were perfectly willing to discuss this up to the point that you fizzled out. Then it was a “distraction” and then you said wouldn’t even care if Obama had broke the rules/law.

My intent was only to point out where Obama mis-steps in response to your citing his “excellent” record. It was not my expectation to change your vote… and certainly not to speculate on the outcome of the election in general.


dalepetrie's avatar

You provided sources and links and corroborating opinion, I agree. I disagree with the opinion and don’t see that what is being claimed is credible. It boils down to one simple fact.

Whether you speak to someone or about someone, there is a difference between making a suggestion and entering into negotiations. Your premise is faulty…you can prove your point if you want to make an assumption I reject, but as I reject the premise on which your assertions are based, I find it to be irrelevant and not worth any more of my time.

I don’t think it’s disingenous to state what I believe…I think it’s more disingenuous to tell someone he’s being disingenuous, when he clearly stated that what he was saying was his opinion.

I remember when this brouhaha started back when it happened. I believed then as I believe now that those who pushed this particular “problem” with Obama were themselves being disingenous, they were looking for any reason to show something about Obama that fit the impression they wanted to leave with the public about him (i.e. that he is not qualified).

As I personally don’t feel that the entire premise for the argument, regardless of how well you “proved” the argument itself, is valid, and therefore, I honestly don’t care about the argument, and don’t believe it disqualifies anything that I have stated previously. I stand by my opinion of Obama and his foreign policy credentials, and even if you, yourself personally believe that this is a grave issue, I think the issue is manufactured, and that the ultimate purpose for this “issue” having been manufactured was to sway the opinion of the “low info” voter. Again, this is my opinion, I do not recant it, I will not back down on it.

And I made the additional point that even if I somehow fell on my head and my perspective changed enough to beleive that there was something to your argument, in my opinion, I don’t believe it rises to a level of severity to warrant any further discussion, consideration or effort on my part, particlularly in light of the fact that in terms of relative severity, we find far more aggregious acts to be permissible in our governance.

To boil it down, I don’t give a rats ass about the argument, and I believe the premise was manufactured to fool stupid people. That’s not saying you’re stupid if you believe it, or that the people who manufactured it are stupid, it’s just saying that in my opinion, the entire issue is a trumped up distraction which pales in comparisson to the other issues which are of importance to me. I have been 100% consistent in this message, and I would prefer not to spend any more time discussing it because in my mind it’s not worth my time.

dalepetrie's avatar

And furthermore, one other point I would like to make, I don’t think Obama is infallible, I just don’t see this particular issue as a failing. Obama is a human being. Human beings are not perfect. Ergo Obama is not infallible. But the faults that I do see, and those which I believe I could reasonably anticipate based on what I know about Obama simply pale in comparison to the faults of John McCain, and therefore Obama has and will continue to have my full support, which will include combatting any arguments which I see to be unimportant, manufactured or in any way distractions from far more important issues.

Having said that, if you want to declare victory on this debate, be my guest.

robmandu's avatar

Nah… I think I was distracted by some of your invectives… but in the end, I get the gist of your rationale. We all have our priorities. Thx!

dalepetrie's avatar

Thank you as well for the engaging debate…keeps me on my toes!

tWrex's avatar

@dalepetrie My “chairing” comment was simply a joke. Since joking makes my comments irrelevant, so be it. Finally, if he has done something for Veterans in Illinois, please point it out. I would be the first to concede it if he did and I think it would be amazing. Unfortunately, I do live in Illinois and I am a disabled Veteran and I did get that letter. And while I normally agree with many of your assessments I do not agree with you on that.

I know that you’ve already concluded you do not wish to continue this debate (or make me believe anything), so if that is your choice no worries. I simply was continuing this because I had no opportunity to respond before you and robmandu concluded.

dalepetrie's avatar

Fair enough on the “joke”, I have a sense of humor but the tone led me to believe you were serious, my mistake, I apologize. I don’t live in Illinois and anything I can tell you about what he has “done” would not be as powerful as your personal experience. I can say that on a national level I was very impressed by the stance he took on veterans benefits, and very puzzled on the stand that McCain took. Personally I believe we need to treat the people who served our country well, and I’ve not gotten the impression that Obama disagrees with me. I do get that actions speak louder than words, and as I’ve never seen the letter you got, I have no idea how to respond to it. If he failed to accomplish anything he promised to veterans, I can only hope that it was not for a lack of trying or intent, but as a legislature is a collective body, I would imagine one could have the best intentions and even very strong skills and still fail at re-engineering something as complex as this.

Personally however, and perhaps I see this issue as being more simple that it really is, since I myself am not a veteran, but from what I’ve seen, I feel that our country has been treating it’s veterans poorly, and I see much of the reason for that being GW Bush. I also see McCains staking out similar positions to Bush. I see Obama staking out the positions that I would stake out if I were running. Personally even if one were to believe that Obama couldn’t get his way on veteran’s issues as President, but John McCain COULD (which I don’t buy for a minute), I’d rather have someone who is competent who wants to do what I want to do at least TRY to do the right thing, than to have someone who is also competent, but who wants do do the OPPOSITE of what I want to do actually SUCCEED.

For me the entire “experience” argument boils down to this same thing. Some will say McCain is more “experienced” and therefore he knows how to lead his plans to the endgame. OK, fair enough, but I’ll use a basketball analogy here. The ref standing at the 50 yard line ready to throw the ball in the air. McCain is facing to the right, Obama is facing to the left. Obama told me if he wins, he’ll buy me a Mercedes. McCain told me if he wins, I have to give him my Hyundai. Obama however is not as good of a shooter as McCain, but McCain is lousy at defense. So, if McCain gets the ball, chances are he’ll be able to shoot it in the basket, no matter how good Obama’s defense is. If Obama gets the ball, he might not make the basket, but he might. I’m going to HOPE that the ball tips to Obama’s side. In other words, I’d rather have someone with less experience running the ball in the right direction than someone with more experience running the ball in the direction I DON’T want it to go. With Obama “maybe” I get what I want. With McCain, I definitely get what I DON’T want.

As such, the experience argument falls flat on me. And as such, everything in Obama’s character and his rhetoric leads me to believe that if he says he cares about veterans, he actually DOES care about veterans. But his failure to make good on his ideals 100% of the time, though unfortunate, does not automatically in my mind make him the worst choice. Bottom line, it’s easy for me to judge if I haven’t walked a mile in your shoes, but my instinct and sense of rational reason lead me to think that I’d be far more concerned about the candidate who refused to vote for the new GI bill, than I would about the candidate who ostensibly tried to push through better veterans benefits but did not succeed.

Just my opinion.

tWrex's avatar

@dalepetrie Well put and I dig the basketball analogy. Unfortunately for all Veterans the disservice is on a National level and even when the VA was taken to court, the courts ruled that the VA was wrong and terrible, but that they wouldn’t step in. Veterans for Common Sense v. Peake . And you are right that he may have been stopped at the pass due to other people on the committee, yet if that was the case why not come out and say it. Instead I get that letter. If I can find it I’ll post it online. I think I may have thrown it away in a fit of rage.

Regardless, I’m ready to start my own Veteran Revolution. And given the nature of Veterans, I bet it wouldn’t be non-violent. Literally break down the walls of the establishment.

sferik's avatar

In this video she states: “It’s very important when you consider even national security issues with Russia, as Putin rears his head and comes into the airspace of the United States of America, where do they go? It’s Alaska. It’s just right over the border. It is from Alaska that we send those out to make sure an eye is being kept on this very powerful nation, Russia, because they are right there, right next to our state.”

fireside's avatar

GA to sferik for actually remembering the question and answering it.

dalepetrie's avatar

tWrex, I don’t blame you a bit. sferik, thanks for putting us back on track!

hoosier_banana's avatar

tWrex, here’s the deal on the new GI Bill. Starting Aug 1st 2009 the VA will pay the full tuition of post 9/11 Vets for any in-state school. ”Based on 2008 in-state tuition rates, the anticipated annual tuition payment rate for 2009 will be just over $6,000. The low being Wyoming at $3,500 a year and Michigan which is the highest payment in-state tuition rate at $13,000”. You and I will also receive money for books($1000 a year) and housing costs(E-5 with dependents rate BAH, about $1000 a month). And it is now free to enroll for all new enlistees, and the benefit can be used 15 instead of 10 years. Not to go anymore off topic, but you should know about your new benefits that Bush and McCain didn’t want you to have.

tWrex's avatar

@hoosier_banana I thought that wasn’t going to be retroactive! I’ll have to let everyone else know too.Totally appreciate the tip! Because I am so severely disabled the only thing the VA has done is enrolled me in Vocational Rehabilitation. It allows me to go to a school of my choosing (after much bs and compromising and letters to the VA) for nothing. Plus they pick up the supplies and I get a monthly stipend – that doesn’t cover an apartment or dorm or food. It is the only thing that the VA has given to me without much of a fight. Thanks again for the tip.

hoosier_banana's avatar

If you served after 9/11 and have time left on your GI Bill you are eligible. I am saving what’s left of my GI Bill till it kicks in. Here is the fact sheet. And remember, it’s based on months, so take a full course load to get the most out of it, lot’s of guys go part time and miss out. Glad I could help.

tWrex's avatar

Yeah I’ve only used a few months so I’m definitely gonna save this. Thanks for the info. I’m already passing it around.

shineyshark's avatar

She said that, I am positive I heard her say that in a convention speech

betsybug's avatar

Well as “Stalin” takes over I sure hope eveyone is happy. When I lived on Oracas Is. Washington I could see Canada ski slopes from my deck. Big deal, I lived in Alaska too and yes, on many islands Russia is very visible. Enjoy your standing in line medical insurance, enjoy being one class it’s called POOR. Once the nitwit gets through with our country you’re going to wish you’d never seen this asshole. With his screwed up background and a mom named Stanley we know all to suffer because he has so many mental problems. He needs to get out now because if he continues I will guarantee you won’t see another Dem. president for fifty years!!

augustlan's avatar

@betsybug What are you talking about… ‘mom named Stanley we know all to suffer because he has so many mental problems.’ What does that mean, exactly?

asmonet's avatar

lol, wtf.

dalepetrie's avatar

It took me about 15 minutes last night to figure out if this person had a point or was just smoking some fantastic shit, but when I remembered that Ann Dunham’s name was actually Stanley Ann Dunham, I realized bestsybug was just another unhinged right wingnut, and the series of 3 question marks I was going to post wasn’t even worth the effort to expend as it would surely fall on deaf (and likely clinically insane) ears.

asmonet's avatar

Dale, you’re a bona fide genius.

dalepetrie's avatar

@asmonet – you’re not so bad yourself!

asmonet's avatar

Aw, giggle.

cyndyh's avatar

Yeow! It’s just stunning how out-of-touch-with-reality some folks can be. Golly, where is “Oracas Is., Washington”? Too funny!

Answer this question




to answer.

Mobile | Desktop

Send Feedback