By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Nancy Pelosi needs to be fired.

totalwar23 on 30 September 2008
Kasz216 said:
Sqrl said:
NJ5 said:
Sqrl said:

The first link is a liberal news site and the second is a forum =P

 

Did you do the google search? I specifically pointed out that it was just a search I did...

Wouldn't it be more constructive to give me a link with proof of those trade negotiations? I thought we were trying to get to some conclusions here.

 

 

Sure, but we don't want to reach the wrong conclusions either, right?  So wouldn't you agree it is constructive to rule out sources that have strong bias or are unreliable?

Of course I could ask you the same question, you say you did a google search and found that McCain asked for a UN resolution as well but didn't provide a link...how constructive is that?  Nobody but you knows which article you saw or what context the comment was made in.

John McCain never actually said the UN should pass resolutions against Russia.  He said the UN should draft up a bunch of resolutions against Russia, that Russia would then veto to embaress Russia on the world stage.

Which is quite similar.  Though somewhat different as one gives you the idea he knows how the UN works.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080811/pl_politico/19061_1

John McCain knows that said resolution won't pass but thinks it's a good idea for political gain... vs Obama who thinks the UN can actually get something done.

I doubt that very much. There was nothing to stop the Russian agression against Georgia. However, both wanted to appear statesmanlike and "on the situation" without actually doing anything, because they can't. In the end, it didn't matter, did it as they weren't involve in the situation.



Around the Network
Sqrl on 30 September 2008
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:

That states there were trade missions, though possibly none from Russia.  Which makes the comment "She has no foreign policy expierence"wrong... as states on the boarders often need to make trade deals with other countries.

Being next to foreign countires gives you expierence because you have to make such negotiations at times.

I also find it weird that this went in to a thing about Palin when this thread was originally about how Pelosi taking away the "Shared political cover" might of caused the Bailout to fail.

 

It talks about one trade mission to Yukon... which means the "trade negotiations with many foreign countries" claim is, so far, unproven at best.

She's next to Russia, yet there's no evidence of any trade missions with Russia.

@Sqrl: If you search for mccain un resolution you'll get plenty of links about McCain's call for an UN resolution on Russia. Not that that matters much, I was just replying to bigjon's attack on Obama.

 

So you're abandoning the constructive angle?  

No worries Kasz provided the link with the context I was looking for (I actually knew the context already, I was just making a point).

 
To Each Man, Responsibility
whatever on 30 September 2008
bigjon said:
whatever said:
bigjon said:

 I was reffering to this election. Obama and McCain, and it is a different kind of emotion. With Obama it is a ooeey gooee type feeling some people get over him. With bush it was his charater and ability to stand for what he believes. Also, we do live in a dangerous world so reminding people of the danger of terrorist while striking an emotional cord is needed.

The thing about abortion is that both sides feel strongly about it to begin with. On one side you believe murder is legal, and the other you feel your personal rights are being exploited. The dems use emotion more there, they act like abortion will be illegal if McCain is elected. Rasicm? LOL. Obama and a few dems are TRYING to create a race issue. Did you not see the ad where he tried to compare Limbaugh to McCain? Anti- Foriegn? Maybe, although I never noticed it. Religous? Yea I'll give you what one, but Religion is very do to many people and seeing secularist like Obama and Kerry does worry people. Anit-Gov? yea I get into that one, the gov just ruins most things it touches. So much waste. Anti-female? Lost me there.

My point I was not reffering to emotional issues. I was reffering to people "voting with their hearts"

You have to admit Obama has more of that than McCain. And therefore if people stopped doing it all together it would hurt him. I never No One votes for McCain out of Emotion. Obama has more of it. Thus the better connection with Women and Young People.

 

Where did you pull this crap from?  With Bush it was the fact that more people would have wanted to sit and have a beer with him than with either Gore or Kerry.  The ooeey gooee feeling if you like to put it that way.

Just as many people will vote for McCain based on personal feelings.  Don't be so biased.  Your credibility may slip even lower than it is already.

 

Bush does not drink Beer. He used to. But I know that was not your point. I don't personally know anyone that thougth about Bush in that way. The most "emotional" reason that alot people voted for him was that he claimed to be a Christian, so some Christians voted for him, just because he is a Christian... and acted like one, that is key, that why Obama does not get the Christian votes just for saying he is one. I also think that is why the far left hates he so, because he is a Christian and stands for what he believes.

Besides, I already said I was referring to this election, and I was just kidding Rubang a bit. He took it as that.

Also, I am right. Obama has a more emotional connection than does McCain, more people will vote on him out of pure emotion. I really don't give a shit if you think my credibility is slipping. I do not base what I say or believe on whether it will make people think more of me.

 

That doesn't mean it isn't true.  I do know people that felt this way.

As for Obama, this is all your opinion.  If you have some poll numbers to back it up, I'd like to see them.

If you don't want people to respect your opinion, just keep acting like a republican shill, it doesn't bother me any.

 



Sqrl on 30 September 2008
totalwar23 said:
Kasz216 said:

John McCain never actually said the UN should pass resolutions against Russia.  He said the UN should draft up a bunch of resolutions against Russia, that Russia would then veto to embaress Russia on the world stage.

Which is quite similar.  Though somewhat different as one gives you the idea he knows how the UN works.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080811/pl_politico/19061_1

John McCain knows that said resolution won't pass but thinks it's a good idea for political gain... vs Obama who thinks the UN can actually get something done.

I doubt that very much. There was nothing to stop the Russian agression against Georgia. However, both wanted to appear statesmanlike and "on the situation" without actually doing anything, because they can't. In the end, it didn't matter, did it as they weren't involve in the situation.

"The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning Russian aggression, noting the withdrawal of Georgian troops from South Ossetia, and calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory. We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion."

The full quote.

And if you read the full article he has a lot more to say in regards to other avenues of pressuring Russia, he wasn't falling back on a single hope with the UN SC.
To Each Man, Responsibility
Kasz216 on 30 September 2008
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:

That states there were trade missions, though possibly none from Russia.  Which makes the comment "She has no foreign policy expierence"wrong... as states on the boarders often need to make trade deals with other countries.

Being next to foreign countires gives you expierence because you have to make such negotiations at times.

I also find it weird that this went in to a thing about Palin when this thread was originally about how Pelosi taking away the "Shared political cover" might of caused the Bailout to fail.

 

It talks about one trade mission to Yukon... which means the "trade negotiations with many foreign countries" claim is, so far, unproven at best.

She's next to Russia, yet there's no evidence of any trade missions with Russia.

@Sqrl: If you search for mccain un resolution you'll get plenty of links about McCain's call for an UN resolution on Russia. Not that that matters much, I was just replying to bigjon's attack on Obama.

 

There is also energy policy talks with Finland's president, which were ignored from your particular source due to no doubt bias... since about every other article on it talks about that.

There are also records of her talking to a russian foreign official... ammusingly in articles attacking her for not seeing them enough since Alaska and Russia have a strong foreign relationship due to being right next to each other.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2008174647_palinrussia12m0.html

Aside from which, there seems to be a claim that some law prevents them from talking about trade deals.  Which some people claim is a way to get around it... but haven't proven that such a law doesn't exist.



Around the Network
NJ5 on 30 September 2008
Sqrl said:
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:

That states there were trade missions, though possibly none from Russia.  Which makes the comment "She has no foreign policy expierence"wrong... as states on the boarders often need to make trade deals with other countries.

Being next to foreign countires gives you expierence because you have to make such negotiations at times.

I also find it weird that this went in to a thing about Palin when this thread was originally about how Pelosi taking away the "Shared political cover" might of caused the Bailout to fail.

 

It talks about one trade mission to Yukon... which means the "trade negotiations with many foreign countries" claim is, so far, unproven at best.

She's next to Russia, yet there's no evidence of any trade missions with Russia.

@Sqrl: If you search for mccain un resolution you'll get plenty of links about McCain's call for an UN resolution on Russia. Not that that matters much, I was just replying to bigjon's attack on Obama.

 

So you're abandoning the constructive angle?  

No worries Kasz provided the link with the context I was looking for (I actually knew the context already, I was just making a point).

 

This is getting irritating... In what way did I abandon the constructive angle? I gave you the exact string you can use to find the information you asked for. Is it hard to do a google search?

 



My Mario Kart Wii friend code: 2707-1866-0957

Kasz216 on 30 September 2008
totalwar23 said:
Kasz216 said:
Sqrl said:
NJ5 said:
Sqrl said:

The first link is a liberal news site and the second is a forum =P

 

Did you do the google search? I specifically pointed out that it was just a search I did...

Wouldn't it be more constructive to give me a link with proof of those trade negotiations? I thought we were trying to get to some conclusions here.

 

 

Sure, but we don't want to reach the wrong conclusions either, right?  So wouldn't you agree it is constructive to rule out sources that have strong bias or are unreliable?

Of course I could ask you the same question, you say you did a google search and found that McCain asked for a UN resolution as well but didn't provide a link...how constructive is that?  Nobody but you knows which article you saw or what context the comment was made in.

John McCain never actually said the UN should pass resolutions against Russia.  He said the UN should draft up a bunch of resolutions against Russia, that Russia would then veto to embaress Russia on the world stage.

Which is quite similar.  Though somewhat different as one gives you the idea he knows how the UN works.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080811/pl_politico/19061_1

John McCain knows that said resolution won't pass but thinks it's a good idea for political gain... vs Obama who thinks the UN can actually get something done.

I doubt that very much. There was nothing to stop the Russian agression against Georgia. However, both wanted to appear statesmanlike and "on the situation" without actually doing anything, because they can't. In the end, it didn't matter, did it as they weren't involve in the situation.

Did you real the article?  McCain says we should go through with the resolution despite Russian veto threats.

In otherwords... knowing they were going to veto it.

 



Sqrl on 30 September 2008
NJ5 said:
Sqrl said:

So you're abandoning the constructive angle?  

No worries Kasz provided the link with the context I was looking for (I actually knew the context already, I was just making a point).

 

This is getting irritating... In what way did I abandon the constructive angle? I gave you the exact string you can use to find the information you asked for. Is it hard to do a google search?

 

You're the one who brought the quote up, it's your job to bring the link as well if someone asks, thats how forums work.  You could have grabbed one article and I could end up grabbing another..then we argue about a completely different article and waste time for both of us.

Of course in this case I already knew the comment you were citing was out of context.

 

 
To Each Man, Responsibility
totalwar23 on 30 September 2008
Sqrl said:
totalwar23 said:
Sqrl said:
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:

That's just not true at all... not that it's any indication of common sense... but she's demonstrated how she's had trade negotiations with many foreign countries.

 

Not true? I've seen at least two clips where she talks about her geographical proximity with Russia when asked about her foreign policy experience.

I haven't heard of these trade negotiations... Google's results for palin "trade negotiations" aren't very promising:

Palin's mysterious trade missions - War Room - Salon.com

NO PALIN TRADE MISSIONS WITH RUSSIA ON RECORD - New Developments ...

(etc...)

 

The first link is a liberal news site and the second is a forum =P

 

I believe the point is that if you google trade missions with palin, that's all you'll get. Not very promising if she has demonstrated how she has all of these "trade missions" with other countries.

Oh yes, I hate S. Palin. I can accept Obama as President. I can accept McCain as President. I can accept Biden as President. No way in hell, though, is Palin qualify for the Executive.

 

Well lets do a small comparison:

Just curious were you aware of Obama's previous executive experience in which he was given $110 million to spend on Chicago schools to improve them from last in the nation?  I would assume not since the CAC's own investigation into their results found they had little or no impact.  On the other hand Palin negotiated a nearly $40 billion pipeline running through Canada (requires negotiations with Canada) with terms so good for Alaskans that people told her initially that it could never be done.

PS - A highly edited daily show video isn't exactly giving me the context of the comment, it gives me the context that John Stuart finds is most funny.  Considering he is a liberal I think we can both agree how useless the video is at providing the context for the comment.  And of course Kasz has already pointed out more of the context anyways.

 

Negotiations with Canada to get a pipeline through their soil? You're kidding me right? How hard must you pissed off the Canadians before they walk away from negotiations? Alaska is rediculously wealthy in oil, with an extremly low population to the point where taxes aren't even a big deal. Just how much executive experience do you need to run Alaska? I won't mention the scandal everyone else has mention about her which you already know.

That clip shows John McCain calling for the UN to draft up a resolution which is precisely what you wanted to know, context or not. And Kasz merely interpretated the context, as did I. The facts are, both called for a UN resolution for the situation in Georgia but the thing is, it currently is not their responsibility to start calling up actions. Bush is still president, like it or not, and it's his administration's job.



Kasz216 on 30 September 2008
totalwar23 said:
Sqrl said:
totalwar23 said:
Sqrl said:
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:

That's just not true at all... not that it's any indication of common sense... but she's demonstrated how she's had trade negotiations with many foreign countries.

 

Not true? I've seen at least two clips where she talks about her geographical proximity with Russia when asked about her foreign policy experience.

I haven't heard of these trade negotiations... Google's results for palin "trade negotiations" aren't very promising:

Palin's mysterious trade missions - War Room - Salon.com

NO PALIN TRADE MISSIONS WITH RUSSIA ON RECORD - New Developments ...

(etc...)

 

The first link is a liberal news site and the second is a forum =P

 

I believe the point is that if you google trade missions with palin, that's all you'll get. Not very promising if she has demonstrated how she has all of these "trade missions" with other countries.

Oh yes, I hate S. Palin. I can accept Obama as President. I can accept McCain as President. I can accept Biden as President. No way in hell, though, is Palin qualify for the Executive.

 

Well lets do a small comparison:

Just curious were you aware of Obama's previous executive experience in which he was given $110 million to spend on Chicago schools to improve them from last in the nation?  I would assume not since the CAC's own investigation into their results found they had little or no impact.  On the other hand Palin negotiated a nearly $40 billion pipeline running through Canada (requires negotiations with Canada) with terms so good for Alaskans that people told her initially that it could never be done.

PS - A highly edited daily show video isn't exactly giving me the context of the comment, it gives me the context that John Stuart finds is most funny.  Considering he is a liberal I think we can both agree how useless the video is at providing the context for the comment.  And of course Kasz has already pointed out more of the context anyways.

 

Negotiations with Canada to get a pipeline through their soil? You're kidding me right? How hard must you pissed off the Canadians before they walk away from negotiations? Alaska is rediculously wealthy in oil, with an extremly low population to the point where taxes aren't even a big deal. Just how much executive experience do you need to run Alaska? I won't mention the scandal everyone else has mention about her which you already know.

That clip shows John McCain calling for the UN to draft up a resolution which is precisely what you wanted to know, context or not. And Kasz merely interpretated the context, as did I. The facts are, both called for a UN resolution for the situation in Georgia but the thing is, it currently is not their responsibility to start calling up actions. Bush is still president, like it or not, and it's his administration's job.

How did I interpret anything?  He said exactly "despite Russian veto threats."