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:
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?

 

True, but I'm thinking that if something was serious enough to make countries defy big countries that way, it would probably be serious enough to start a war without regards to UN anyway.

 



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

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

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.

Nope. Under Chapter VII, Russia can vote in this matter but Russia must abstain from Chapter VI, which any purely symbolic resolution will fall under. If the UNSC decides to take actions against Russia, that's where Russia can veto it.

 



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

 

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?

 

Whoops sorry, but that's the point isn't it. Anything investigation by the board of personnel is pointless.

 



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

Nope. Under Chapter VII, Russia can vote in this matter but Russia must abstain from Chapter VI, which any purely symbolic resolution will fall under. If the UNSC decides to take actions against Russia, that's where Russia can veto it.

 

Yeah... which is why it's so strange that NOBODY IN THE UN SEEMS TO KNOW THAT.

No.  It's just you.  Your right... despite the fact that nobody in the UN from any country seems to know that.

No it's not possible you just don't understand the rule.

You should go to the UN with your newfound knowledge and tell them.  Hell knowing UN law better then all the ambassadors and lawyers at the UN could probably get you quite the position there.



Sqrl 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?

 

@bolded,

Did you even read it?

It doesn't matter who appointed the board, its called the LAW.  You don't just ignore it because you don't like it. In the eyes of the public it looks shady that the guy who is leading the legislative investigation (Hollis French) was part of the reason Monegan got fired, and it looks shady that he was declaring what he would find before the investigation ever started...now those are things you actually forgot to mention. 

You don't have to comment on any of it, not responding speaks for itself, I just wanted to give you the opportunity to respond before I assume you have nothing more to add to those issues.

edit: Also she isn't their boss, she appointed them but she can't fire them or really do anything to them.  It's basically a judicial position.
To Each Man, Responsibility
Around the Network
totalwar23 on 30 September 2008
Kasz216 said:
totalwar23 said:

Nope. Under Chapter VII, Russia can vote in this matter but Russia must abstain from Chapter VI, which any purely symbolic resolution will fall under. If the UNSC decides to take actions against Russia, that's where Russia can veto it.

 

Yeah... which is why it's so strange that NOBODY IN THE UN SEEMS TO KNOW THAT.

No.  It's just you.  Your right... despite the fact that nobody in the UN from any country seems to know that.

No it's not possible you just don't understand the rule.

 

Chapter VI is nonbinding and pointless which is why Russia can't vote on it but it is a way for the SC to move without Russia. If McCain is calling for things covered in Chapter VII, well then it's pointless, too. But hey, Obama is just some dumb hick who doesn't understand how anything works, right? He just got incredibly lucky.

 

 



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

Nope. Under Chapter VII, Russia can vote in this matter but Russia must abstain from Chapter VI, which any purely symbolic resolution will fall under. If the UNSC decides to take actions against Russia, that's where Russia can veto it.

 

Yeah... which is why it's so strange that NOBODY IN THE UN SEEMS TO KNOW THAT.

No.  It's just you.  Your right... despite the fact that nobody in the UN from any country seems to know that.

No it's not possible you just don't understand the rule.

 

Chapter VI is nonbinding and pointless which is why Russia can't vote on it but it is a way for the SC to move without Russia. If McCain is calling for things covered in Chapter VII, well then it's pointless, too. But hey, Obama is just some dumb hick who doesn't understand how anything works, right? He just got incredibly lucky.

 

 

Your also ignoring the Russia's veto.  Your missing the point.  Chapter 7 AND the Veto both make any georgian resolution impossible.

Otherwise why hasn't one passed?

 



Kasz216 on 30 September 2008
NJ5 said:
Kasz216 said:
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?

 

True, but I'm thinking that if something was serious enough to make countries defy big countries that way, it would probably be serious enough to start a war without regards to UN anyway.

 


You'd be surprised how a bunch of nations could "nick" a less favorable nation to death... pecking away at minor disputed territories, and creating new territory claims to nick away.


Nothing to start a war over... but a few resources here, a territory there.  Favorable deal canceled etc...  That would eventually lead to a "screw it stop it or i'm leaving the UN/going to war."

That's the thing about the UN.  They think it is more important to have a place where every country in the world can come and talk, then it is to fix any of the worlds problems.



totalwar23 on 30 September 2008
Sqrl said:
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 - Requires the matter to be investigated by the personel board not the legislature.

AS 39.52.060 - 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?

 

@bolded,

Did you even read it?

It doesn't matter who appointed the board, its called the LAW.  You don't just ignore it because you don't like it. In the eyes of the public it looks shady that the guy who is leading the legislative investigation (Hollis French) was part of the reason Monegan got fired, and it looks shady that he was declaring what he would find before the investigation ever started...now those are things you actually forgot to mention. 

You don't have to comment on any of it, not responding speaks for itself, I just wanted to give you the opportunity to respond before I assume you have nothing more to add to those issues.

 

I've already admitted my mistake in an earlier post. I've been here for 2 hours talking to you and I am a bit tired. A Republican control board approved the investigation and if they have such a problem with French, why don't they just torpedo the investigation? As I've mentioned, the Legislature is being sued to stop. And you're right, I've been arguing with you guys for a long time and I like to take a break.

 



Jackson50 on 30 September 2008

As Total mentioned, Chapter VI resolutions are non-binding. Even if the issue were to come up at the Security Council, we can be certain of a negative vote from China for any non-binding resolution. I doubt neither McCain nor Obama had such knowledge that Russia would be precluded from voting under those circumstances.