You are unemployed and want a new job, under a Democratic president you have a better chance of getting one!

the Russians have their own version of our "Monroe doctrine"

The largest nation in the world, with the biggest inferiority complex. LOL!
We're allowed to enforce our Monroe Doctrine, but not Russia? We can't accommodate or at least work with their security concerns and see if we can build better relations with them, without compromising our relationship with other Eastern European nations? You're a poor foreign policy analyst. Your world view leads to perpetual war and even the eventual destruction of human civilization, via WWIII.
 
You're definitely the one pulling shit out of your ass, with your shallow, silly analysis.

According to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Fannie and Freddie were involved in about 20% of subprime purchases

Did you actually look for info on their website?
 
We're allowed to enforce our Monroe Doctrine, but not Russia? We can't accommodate or at least work with their security concerns and see if we can build better relations with Russia, without compromising our relationship with other Eastern European nations. You're a poor foreign policy analyst. Your world view leads to perpetual war and even the eventual destruction of human civilization, via WWIII.

If Russia ever occupied your country, you're not allowed to ever defend yourself against Russia in the future.

It makes Russia sad.

You're a poor foreign policy analyst. Your world view leads to perpetual war

I agree, those nations need to invite Russian troops back in. For peace!
 
If Russia ever occupied your country, you're not allowed to ever defend yourself against Russia in the future.

It makes Russia sad.

You're a poor foreign policy analyst. Your world view leads to perpetual war

I agree, those nations need to invite Russian troops back in. For peace!

More flawed, shallow, short-sighted conclusions, while completely ignoring much of what I said. Todd, others will simply read what I said about this issue a few posts earlier, and see how disingenuous you are. Do I have to repeat myself again, with all of the same talking points? I won't but I'll say this...

First of all, what does this have to do with us? We're on the American continent surrounded by two vast oceans, thousands of miles away from Eastern Europe. Does Todd have to send his sons and daughters to Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Ukraine to fight Russia's supposed imminent invasion or occupation of those lands? WOW, when did you graduate from Oral Roberts? Ask yourself what is the context of that conflict, and does it apply to the US or even to Western Europe, where we have security commitments? Do we have to deploy our sons and daughters to fight and maybe die a horrible death, in Estonia? Ukraine? Really?

You admitted earlier, that the reason you want NATO there isn't because post-Soviet Russia was threatening those countries with military aggression but because they were part of the USSR, decades ago, before its collapse. That supposedly warrants us saber rattling with NATO, a Cold War military alliance, inherently hostile to Russia, operationally, doctrinally, and historically, in Eastern Europe, right near Russia's borders.

Isn't there a less provocative, aggressive way to improve diplomatic relations between Russia and other Eastern European nations, other than deploying American troops and hardware? Is that really the best way to achieve that? There is so much we could've done in the 1990s, in the 2000s, to improve our relations with Russia and their relations with Eastern European countries. We failed, due to fuzzy Todd "logic", which includes the reckless pursuit of profits and power, by the Western ruling class. Todd sees foreign policy through the prism of American capitalist imperialism, which in his mind justifies the saber rattling and jingoism. The result of that is instability, more wars, and of course, an increase in profits for Western capital.






 
Last edited:
According to the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission, Fannie and Freddie were involved in about 20% of subprime purchases

Did you actually look for info on their website?
Send me the link to your evidence against what I said. If you want to change the topic now and get back into the 2008 capitalist-run economic recession, sure, let's do that. Link, please. Let's wrestle some more with it.
 
Last edited:
Send me the link to your evidence against what I said. If you want to change the topic now and get back into the 2008 capitalist-run economic recession, sure, let's do that. Link, please. Let's wrestle some more with it.
post your evidence of the 20%, I believe he asked you, so it's now your burden to prove your statement. Do you know how debates even work? I doubt it since you can't do a simple exchange. You posted a figure, I must conclude came from some resource, so post the link to your number 20%. No one owes you anymore until you comply with that ask.
 
Last edited:
post your evidence of the 20%, I believe he asked you, so it's now your burden to prove your statement. Do you know debates even work? I doubt it since you can't do a simple exchange. You posted a figure, I must conclude came from some resource, so post the link to your number 20%. No one owes you anymore until you comply with that ask.
I'm debating him, not you. He claims my 20% is wrong based upon the website he mentioned. He can send me the link and I'll examine his evidence.
 
Last edited:
Send me the link to your evidence against what I said. If you want to change the topic now and get back into the 2008 capitalist-run economic recession, sure, let's do that. Link, please. Let's wrestle some more with it.

You said 20%, I posted evidence that the government agencies held over 70% of all the subprime mortgages at the time of the meltdown.

If you made up the 20% figure, just say so.
 
You said 20%, I posted evidence that the government agencies held over 70% of all the subprime mortgages at the time of the meltdown.

If you made up the 20% figure, just say so.
Where is your link to the evidence for the 70% figure?
 
Where is your link to the evidence for the 70% figure?

It's in this thread.

It was after I asked you, multiple times, over several days, to post how much subprime Fannie and Freddie bought and you kept running away. It was beautiful.
 
It's in this thread.

It was after I asked you, multiple times, over several days, to post how much subprime Fannie and Freddie bought and you kept running away. It was beautiful.
It's irrelevant for the reasons I stated, but anyway, I'd like to see your evidence for it. Do you have the post #?
 
I'm debating him, not you. He claims my 20% is wrong based upon the website he mentioned. He can send me the link and I'll examine his evidence.
no, he asked you for where you got your figure from and to post it. Then he asked if you got it from that website. You aren't good at this chump

BTW, you're on a message board and all can see and communicate in the thread. If you want to own the conversation with him, IM him
 
It's irrelevant for the reasons I stated, but anyway, I'd like to see your evidence for it. Do you have the post #?
so you still can't post where you got your 20% figure from. Truly amazing how you can simply ignore the conversation like it didn't happen when in our reality, it did.
 
so you still can't post where you got your 20% figure from. Truly amazing how you can simply ignore the conversation like it didn't happen when in our reality, it did.
Whatever you request from me, I will wipe my ass with it, because I wasn't even talking to you. So go fly a kite asshole.
 
Whatever you request from me, I will wipe my ass with it, because I wasn't even talking to you. So go fly a kite asshole.
I get it, you're embarrassed because you can't defend your own post. that must suck huh?
 
Back
Top Bottom