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.

totalwar23 on 30 September 2008
NJ5 said:

@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?

 

 

I'm stupify by this actually as I didn't expect it. Oh well, at least I learned something today.



Around the Network
Sqrl on 30 September 2008

Voting is not a veto, they are forced to abstain from a vote but not a veto. Thats how it has been explained to me anyways, and believe me I think it is pretty stupid myself.
To Each Man, Responsibility
NJ5 on 30 September 2008

@Sqrl: If that's the way it works, that's pretty stupid. Who needs votes when you can just veto something? Geez, go UN.

 



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

Kasz216 on 30 September 2008
totalwar23 said:
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.

-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

 

Your ignoring Chapter VII of the UN charter... where the Russian veto does come into play.

 

Also that's not the UN resolution quote.  This one is.

“The United States, Europe and all other concerned countries must stand united in condemning this aggression, and seeking a peaceful resolution to this crisis. We should continue to push for a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate end to the violence. This is a clear violation of the sovereignty and internationally recognized borders of Georgia – the UN must stand up for the sovereignty of its members, and peace in the world.”

Where he calls for a UN resolution to go foward yet never mentions Russia would just veto it... indicating it could just happen.



TheRealMafoo on 30 September 2008
Sqrl said:

Alaska's constitution...

 

Sad that in a three page thread about what congress should do, this is the first reference to a constitution.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 30 September 2008
NJ5 said:

@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?

 

Nope.  For a couple reasons.  Chapter 7 on the UN board... and also... that refers to voting.  While it says nothing about the Veto power of Russia.

So even if Russia did have to abstain from voting... it could pass without opposition (if China magically changed sides.) yet still be vetoed.



totalwar23 on 30 September 2008
Sqrl said:
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 personal 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?

 

That's great except you forgot to mention that the personal board is appointed by Governor Palin. If you were the boss and you wanted your employees to investigate you for wrongdoing, you would expect them to do what, exactly? Secondly, in the eyes of the public, she looks like she has something to hide by not cooperating and initially, she welcomed the investigation. And there's the fact that the Republican legislature is being sued to stop it. That, is fishy at best.

 

What do you want me to comment on?

 



Kasz216 on 30 September 2008
NJ5 said:

@Sqrl: If that's the way it works, that's pretty stupid. Who needs votes when you can just veto something? Geez, go UN.

 

What you expected the few powerful nations of the world to actually give up the abilities to decide things they do to other weaker nations and their other strong rivals?

 



Sqrl on 30 September 2008
NJ5 said:

@Sqrl: If that's the way it works, that's pretty stupid. Who needs votes when you can just veto something? Geez, go UN.

 

 

Oh I agree, its downright stupidity for it to work this way, but by all acounts I can find this is precisely how it works. I would love for it to work the other way though.

Honestly even if it does work that way I think you would agree that Obama didn't know it anymore than any other politician.  If he did he would have hammered back immediately and been able to score big points on Foriegn Policy.
To Each Man, Responsibility
Kasz216 on 30 September 2008
totalwar23 said:
Sqrl said:
totalwar23 said:

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

 

 

Alaska's constitution requires the personal 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?

 

That's great except you forgot to mention that the personal board is appointed by Governor Palin. If you were the boss and you wanted your employees to investigate you for wrongdoing, you would expect them to do what, exactly? Secondly, in the eyes of the public, she looks like she has something to hide by not cooperating and initially, she welcomed the investigation. And there's the fact that the Republican legislature is being sued to stop it. That, is fishy at best.

 

What do you want me to comment on?

 

Did he forget to mention it?

-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~ Also I removed the from these quotes it was supposed to be {c} with parenthesis but that gets translated into an emoticon so I changed them to (c.) - Sqrl