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

Forums - General Discussion - Nancy Pelosi needs to be fired.

NJ5 on 30 September 2008
Kasz216 said:

Like i orignally said.  It was in every article except the one you pulled.  Nor did I say trade relations mattered.  I was talking about her statmenet that saying you live next to Russia and other countires is a stupid reason for saying your expierenced in foreign policy when your the head executive of the state.

Though I was wrong in that it was  Iceland not Finland.

Palin spokesman Bill McAllister said she met with Iceland's president, Olafur Ragnar Grimsson last fall, and they discussed energy issues. She also has met with various trade delegations during her two years in office.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080926/ap_on_el_pr/palin

There are two different things here... One thing is her claim that being next to Russia gives her foreign policy experience. By itself, that claim is just plain stupid. The other thing is that she mentioned "trade missions back and forth", but apparently she wasn't in those (or at least she didn't want to say so). The only real proven relationship with Russia seems to be that conversation with a Russian politician.

If she wanted to make sense, she'd mention these conversations instead of saying "we're near Russia", "Putin rears his head in Alaska" and such nonsense which doesn't really imply she has experience. She could make a better case for her own credentials, instead of sounding so naive and aggressive.

 



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

Around the Network
totalwar23 on 30 September 2008
Kasz216 said:
totalwar23 said:
Kasz216 said:

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.

 

Everybody knows that Russia would veto anything brought up against them. That's not some secret UN inside information, man. Both of them, Obama and McCain, as they were running for President call for UN resolutions as they wanted to appear Presidential, stay on top of the situation, but both knew there was nothing to be done to stop the Russian agression. What you're doing is opinionating (like I am, I admit) that Obama is this naive guy who lives in a world of puppies and sunshines while McCain was hatching a plan to embarass Russia. The Georgia conflict came up in the campaign and they both said their piece. Have we heard anything about Georgia, anymore? The news has already passed both are now talking about the economy saying whatever they have to say.

 

It's no opinionating... I'm taking both candidates at there word.

Obama said "The UN should pass a resolution to condemn russia."

McCain said "The UN should go foward with resolutions against Russia despite there threats of vetoing to put them up on the world stage."

You don't see that as two different talking points?

McCain also just talked about Georgia like... last week a day or two before the debate.

Also I still like how this became about Palin when in reality the thread is about Pelosi saying she wants "Equal political coverage" then trying to pull that coverage away at the last moment.

 

And as I said, you expect that Obama doesn't know how the UN works? Obama said what he had to say and McCain had to say what he had to say because they were expected to say it. Let's not forget that the UNSC didn't do what McCain or Obama said. As it were, their statements were kind of pointless.

@HappyS

It would be hard for the Canadian governments to allow the Alaskan government to pay a Canadian company to build a pipeline running through their land so their friendly southern neighbor could have access to oil?

 



fkusumot on 30 September 2008

When did Canada secede from the Union?


I Blame Wii Fit!

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

Everybody knows that Russia would veto anything brought up against them. That's not some secret UN inside information, man. Both of them, Obama and McCain, as they were running for President call for UN resolutions as they wanted to appear Presidential, stay on top of the situation, but both knew there was nothing to be done to stop the Russian agression. What you're doing is opinionating (like I am, I admit) that Obama is this naive guy who lives in a world of puppies and sunshines while McCain was hatching a plan to embarass Russia. The Georgia conflict came up in the campaign and they both said their piece. Have we heard anything about Georgia, anymore? The news has already passed both are now talking about the economy saying whatever they have to say.

 

It's no opinionating... I'm taking both candidates at there word.

Obama said "The UN should pass a resolution to condemn russia."

McCain said "The UN should go foward with resolutions against Russia despite there threats of vetoing to put them up on the world stage."

You don't see that as two different talking points?

McCain also just talked about Georgia like... last week a day or two before the debate.

Also I still like how this became about Palin when in reality the thread is about Pelosi saying she wants "Equal political coverage" then trying to pull that coverage away at the last moment.

 

And as I said, you expect that Obama doesn't know how the UN works? Obama said what he had to say and McCain had to say what he had to say because they were expected to say it. Let's not forget that the UNSC didn't do what McCain or Obama said. As it were, their statements were kind of pointless.

@HappyS

It would be hard for the Canadian governments to allow the Alaskan government to pay a Canadian company to build a pipeline running through their land so their friendly southern neighbor could have access to oil?

 

He said the UN should pass a resolution against Russia.  So yes.  It seems pretty obvious that he didn't know that it would get vetoed.  Otherwise he would of mentioned that.  Or said the UN should progress with a resolution against russia desptie the fact that Russia would just veto it.

While John McCain said they should go foward with drafting a resolution despite the fact the russians would veto it.

If you can't see the difference in those two statements... you've just got your blinders on.

Put it this way... lets say I wasn't aloud in a certain store because the owner doesn't like me and refuses to sell me a sandwhich...

and after i tell these two guys one of them says "You should go into the store and buy yourself a sandwhich"

While the other guy says "You should go into the store and try and buy the sandwhich even though he won't sell it to you."

Isn't it fairly obvious that the first guy missed the point somewhere along the line... while the second guy thinks I should go along with the action as a protest?



HappySqurriel on 30 September 2008
totalwar23 said:

@HappyS

It would be hard for the Canadian governments to allow the Alaskan government to pay a Canadian company to build a pipeline running through their land so their friendly southern neighbor could have access to oil?

 

 

It all depends on how you define hard ...

It comparison to negotiating a lasting peace in the middle east it would be very easy to get a pipeline built between Canada and Alaska; in comparison to most of the negotiations that would take place between border states and the Canadian Government it would be remarkably complicated and difficult due to the size and number of parties interested in the project.



Around the Network
Sqrl on 30 September 2008
totalwar23 said:
Sqrl said:

 

Well if context isn't important then I have a clip I'd like to show you were Obama admits he is muslim...of course context is important, and Obama never said that. The point is that it's just not important to you right now when it serves your point.

So no comment on the ~$110 miullion Obama spent with no effect?

As for the Canadian negotiations, what exactly makes you think they were such a cake walk?  Do you honestly think they would let a multi-billion dollar project come through their land without trying to put the screws to her for their slice of the pie?  Of course you're correct that Canada was probably the easier of the two negotiators to deal with.  The Oil Companies probably put up one hell of a fight..but we know how that turned out for them.

PS - Which scandal are you referring to?  There have been plenty of accusations so its hard to be sure.

My point is that McCain called for the UNSC to to start drafting up resolutions against Russia, which has already been established. I pick the first vid off the internet I found where it showed him saying such a thing. If you doubt its accuracy, why don't you show me a source which says he said no such thing? You show me a clip where Obama says he's a muslim and I show a source which says it isn't true.

What do you want to say about $110 million dollar thing? Actually, what is your point? He's a complete failure there?

I didn't say the Canadians were a cakewalk but what were you trying to say about the Canadians negotations? Palin succeeded there so she was a superb leader? Let Obama and Palin switch roles. Would Obama fail at negotiating with the Canadians and would Palin succeed in reforming the Chicago schools systems?

Yeah, there's been plenty of accusations. That alone is incredibly tiring.

McCain's point was never to pass sanctions but to make Russia veto them so they look bad, while Obama's point was to actually pass them..which cannot be done.  For someone who is so articulate and well thought out it and gives long explicit answers you would expect him to explain that extra aspect but he didn't and McCain did, and yet we are once against asked to give him the benefit of the doubt on his own words.

In regards to the CAC, yes, I think he failed there, and I have no idea if palin would have been more successful , there is no way to know. But I don't think she would have given the money to programs that require students and parents to become politically active to recieve the aid and I don't think she would have turned down groups that wanted to emphasize and re-focus the schools on math and science education. But thats exactly what happened while Obama controlled the money, and the results speak for themselves.

And yes her negotiations with Canada and the Oil companies are a great example of her leadership in action and it happens to be on a multi-national multi-billion dollar project.  The scale and scope of the project was enormous and she did a great job with it by all accounts.  While Obama's smaller scale smaller scope project faired very poorly.  We can speculate about who would have done better if the roles were reversed but they weren't reversed and this is what we have, this is reality.

So you don't want to cite a specific accusation you were referring to, you just want to keep it general where I can't respond to it?

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

It's no opinionating... I'm taking both candidates at there word.

Obama said "The UN should pass a resolution to condemn russia."

McCain said "The UN should go foward with resolutions against Russia despite there threats of vetoing to put them up on the world stage."

You don't see that as two different talking points?

McCain also just talked about Georgia like... last week a day or two before the debate.

Also I still like how this became about Palin when in reality the thread is about Pelosi saying she wants "Equal political coverage" then trying to pull that coverage away at the last moment.

 

And as I said, you expect that Obama doesn't know how the UN works? Obama said what he had to say and McCain had to say what he had to say because they were expected to say it. Let's not forget that the UNSC didn't do what McCain or Obama said. As it were, their statements were kind of pointless.

@HappyS

It would be hard for the Canadian governments to allow the Alaskan government to pay a Canadian company to build a pipeline running through their land so their friendly southern neighbor could have access to oil?

 

He said the UN should pass a resolution against Russia.  So yes.  It seems pretty obvious that he didn't know that it would get vetoed.  Otherwise he would of mentioned that.  Or said the UN should progress with a resolution against russia desptie the fact that Russia would just veto it.

While John McCain said they should go foward with drafting a resolution despite the fact the russians would veto it.

If you can't see the difference in those two statements... you've just got your blinders on.

Put it this way... lets say I wasn't aloud in a certain store because the owner doesn't like me and refuses to sell me a sandwhich...

and after i tell these two guys one of them says "You should go into the store and buy yourself a sandwhich"

While the other guy says "You should go into the store and try and buy the sandwhich even though he won't sell it to you."

Isn't it fairly obvious that the first guy missed the point somewhere along the line... while the second guy thinks I should go along with the action as a protest?

What Obama said:

"Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. Georgia's territorial integrity must be respected. All sides should enter into direct talks on behalf of stability in Georgia, and the United States, the United Nations Security Council, and the international community should fully support a peaceful resolution to this crisis."

A prepared statement which meant absolutely nothing and speaks nothing about his knowledge about the UN.

Also,

http://www.un.org/aboutun/charter/chapter5.htm

Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.

 

So yeah. From that, it might appear that we all are kind of wrong on this one. The Security Council can pass something relating to the Georgian crisis without Russian approval.

-mod edit- From now on please try to remove unecessary old quotes when you quote back and forth so we don't get a mountain of old quotes. Thanks~ - Sqrl

 



totalwar23 on 30 September 2008
Sqrl said:

McCain's point was never to pass sanctions but to make Russia veto them so they look bad, while Obama's point was to actually pass them..which cannot be done.  For someone who is so articulate and well thought out it and gives long explicit answers you would expect him to explain that extra aspect but he didn't and McCain did, and yet we are once against asked to give him the benefit of the doubt on his own words.

In regards to the CAC, yes, I think he failed there, and I have no idea if palin would have been more successful , there is no way to know. But I don't think she would have given the money to programs that require students and parents to become politically active to recieve the aid and I don't think she would have turned down groups that wanted to emphasize and re-focus the schools on math and science education. But thats exactly what happened while Obama controlled the money, and the results speak for themselves.

And yes her negotiations with Canada and the Oil companies are a great example of her leadership in action and it happens to be on a multi-national multi-billion dollar project.  The scale and scope of the project was enormous and she did a great job with it by all accounts.  While Obama's smaller scale smaller scope project faired very poorly.  We can speculate about who would have done better if the roles were reversed but they weren't reversed and this is what we have, this is reality.

So you don't want to cite a specific accusation you were referring to, you just want to keep it general where I can't respond to it?

 

OK, aide's refusal to testify to the Alaskan legislature for troopergate, go. Edit: the scandal itself might be innocent, but why exactly is everybody refusing to testify when she came saying she supported the investigation.

 



NJ5 on 30 September 2008

@totalwar23: That's quite a find. Does this mean that McCain was wrong and Obama right on their declarations about a potential UN resolution on Russia?

 



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

Sqrl on 30 September 2008
totalwar23 said:
Sqrl said:

McCain's point was never to pass sanctions but to make Russia veto them so they look bad, while Obama's point was to actually pass them..which cannot be done.  For someone who is so articulate and well thought out it and gives long explicit answers you would expect him to explain that extra aspect but he didn't and McCain did, and yet we are once against asked to give him the benefit of the doubt on his own words.

In regards to the CAC, yes, I think he failed there, and I have no idea if palin would have been more successful , there is no way to know. But I don't think she would have given the money to programs that require students and parents to become politically active to recieve the aid and I don't think she would have turned down groups that wanted to emphasize and re-focus the schools on math and science education. But thats exactly what happened while Obama controlled the money, and the results speak for themselves.

And yes her negotiations with Canada and the Oil companies are a great example of her leadership in action and it happens to be on a multi-national multi-billion dollar project.  The scale and scope of the project was enormous and she did a great job with it by all accounts.  While Obama's smaller scale smaller scope project faired very poorly.  We can speculate about who would have done better if the roles were reversed but they weren't reversed and this is what we have, this is reality.

So you don't want to cite a specific accusation you were referring to, you just want to keep it general where I can't respond to it?

 

OK, aide's refusal to testify to the Alaskan legislature for troopergate, go.

 

 

Alaska's constitution requires the personel board and no other body to investigate the matter.  The legislature is violating Alaska's constitution by investigating the matter because they are only empowered by the constitution to investigate matters when they further legislation..this does not.

The Attourney General of Alaska notified state employees not to cooperate because the Legislature has no authority in the matter.

Source:

AS 39.52.310(c.) - Requires the matter to be investigated by the personel board not the legislature.

AS 39.52.060(c.) - Establishes the personel board which consists of 3 members with 6 year terms appointed by the Governor and approved by the legislature in joint session.

In short the aide was following the order from the state attourney general who has a strong legal basis for his objections.

PS - Not going to respond to the rest of it?

 
To Each Man, Responsibility