Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 9/2/08 09:32 PM, TheMason wrote: Okay, on the surface this is potentially damaging to the Commander-in-Chief argument I've been making. What the General said is true, she doesn't have a say when the Pentagon activates a Guard unit. However, the decision to go to war is actually a very small part of being the commander-in-chief...furthermore NO president should involve themselves in tactical operations once the decision has been made.

Mason, this is damaging to your argument. First of all, you made major implications that her role as governor had given her experience in national security. You would have had us believe that she was commanding the national guard in times of crisis. Which she clearly did not and does not seeing as the national guard is a "federal operation". Secondly, you can not argue with a straight face that commanding the armed forces is not a major role of the Commander-in-Chief, seeing as it is the inherent right of any Commander-in-Chief to govern the actions performed by the US military.

Here's the point about Russia. We have a claim to the Arctic ocean because of Alaska. Russian Bear bombers are starting to fly into Canadian and American (Alaska and Naval groups) airspace. So yes...people are right on when they talk about how she is not negotiating treaties. However, it is her state's sovereignty that is being violated by Russia. It is sea lanes into her state that Moscow is messing with. So while she may not be negotiating treaties and taking the lead on the issue...she is the one who has to deal with the consequences of national policy. Where in Obama's or Biden's past do they have experience like that?

She has to deal with the consequences of national policy? Heh, don't we all. Besides from that not being the specific examples of Sarah Palin's actions negotiating with Russia, like you implied she had, it's also not really impressive in itself. I'll give you that most likely Palin is briefed on possible threats to Alaskan soil, if there ever has been one in the 2 years she's been elected. However, this isn't what I would call 'foreign relations'.

My other point is that Governors often travel out of the country to various places to promote industries in their state. Alaska has oil, seafood and tourism as the top three industries that can be exported. There are international goodwill tours where a governor exercises powers that are more akin to those of the president than what is exercised by congressional fact finding trips.

I'm not that well versed on how often she has done this.

Well, I went ahead and did some research for you. Sarah Palin has left the country three times since she recieved her passport in 2007. Germany and Kuwait to visit US soliders.

Ms. Palin appears to have traveled very little outside the United States. In July 2007, she had to get a passport before she visited members of the Alaska National Guard stationed in Kuwait, according to her deputy communications director, Sharon Leighow. She also visited wounded troops in Germany during that trip.

She's also claimed that she's visited Ireland as part of her foreign experience.

I wrote the other day that a Palin spokeswoman said trips to Germany, Kuwait and Ireland made up her foreign travel.

Two details worth clarifying:

The Ireland trip was a refueling stop on her trip to military installations in Germany and Kuwait, spokeswoman Maria Comella said.

Oh well, so much for that argument.

Well, I think people should make up their minds already, but I strongly feel a Muslim should not be a president of the US for Chrissake, if we don't want another "World Trade Center Affairs" kind of crap.

At 9/3/08 12:35 AM, blitztactics07 wrote: Well, I think people should make up their minds already, but I strongly feel a Muslim should not be a president of the US for Chrissake, if we don't want another "World Trade Center Affairs" kind of crap.

0/10.

At 9/2/08 10:27 PM, N0VA64 wrote:

And before that was mayor of a city with a population lower than a small college. Obama, on the other hand, has seven years on the illinois state senate and 2 on the us senate which has more to do with foreign policy than being governor.

1) The State Senate and US senate have nothing to do with Foreign Policy, and neither have Exective or Managemental Experience.

2) Obama began his run for the Presidency a mere 5 months into his US senatorial Career.

Two months of US senate experience? Hardly.

At 9/3/08 12:35 AM, blitztactics07 wrote: Well, I think people should make up their minds already, but I strongly feel a Muslim should not be a president of the US for Chrissake, if we don't want another "World Trade Center Affairs" kind of crap.

Christians are actually more dangerous than Muslims. Christians have led at least 9 crusades killing everyone off right away. Christians take over nations and either be Christian or die. See, most Christians, for example, support the embargo against Cuba, a move that has costed thousands of innocent Cuban lives. The same Christians who invaded Panama to take Noriega out, who was a legitimate and popular leader. The sam Christians who forcefully installed Pinochet in Chile just because people in there did not agree with Christian ideals. Christians are a murderous race, who won't think twice about pulling the trigger on anyone who thinks differently.

At 9/3/08 12:42 PM, Dalaran2007 wrote:

your stupidity knows no bonds

At 9/2/08 10:01 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 9/2/08 09:32 PM, TheMason wrote:
Where in Obama's or Biden's past do they have experience like that?

Obama may not, but Biden does. He actually went to Georgia and talked to there president, instead of just blustering about it like McCain. He's been chairman of the sentate foreign relations comitee for years and has worked with leaders of both are allies and hostile nations.

Now don't get me wrong, I think the whole experience issue is crap. But I saw an error and decided to correct it. Ultimately, Sarah Palin doesn't have more experience than Obama or Biden though. Being a governor of a small (population-wise, not land-wise) state and being president of a nation is very different. Nothing can prepare you for the presidency, nothing.

Umm actually no you did not see an error there, you misunderstood the question. What experience in dealing with the immediate effects of tensions with Russia? Is his state's airspace being violated by Bear Bombers? Is his state's sea lanes and undersea natural resources being directly messed with/challenged by this ex-Superpower that's trying to reconstitute itself?

Yes Biden is on the Foreign Relations committee and yes he visited Georgia. But is tensions with Russia a daily thing in Delaware? So he does have a broad range of experience with foreign policy. In fact he and McCain have about the same amount of relevant experience. What is funny here is we are talking about the experience of the number 2 person on the Republican ticket as to whether or not she has more or less experience than the number 1 person on the Democratic ticket. Ahhh surrealism.

As for preparing one for president, yes there are jobs that prepare you for the presidency. Governor, mayor of New York or Chicago sized cities, military command, corporate experience, even leadership experience in the Congress (which none of the Senators running has).

TheMason, I can be a teacher in charge of a bunch of children. And there could be a bully or a bad man or some threat that the children constantly have to deal with. But if I don't do anything, being in an authoritative position doesn't mean anything.

So, as the question as been asked before, what specifically has she done in relation to Russia. Thats cool that she has to deal with it and make decisions, but can you please name one decision she's made or more. More would be great, but even one would be nice.

At 9/2/08 11:51 PM, Coherent wrote:

At 9/2/08 09:32 PM, TheMason wrote:

Mason, this is damaging to your argument. First of all, you made major implications that her role as governor had given her experience in national security. You would have had us believe that she was commanding the national guard in times of crisis. Which she clearly did not and does not seeing as the national guard is a "federal operation". Secondly, you can not argue with a straight face that commanding the armed forces is not a major role of the Commander-in-Chief, seeing as it is the inherent right of any Commander-in-Chief to govern the actions performed by the US military.

1) My point, as a political scientist and member of the military, is that the most important role of the president is the care and feeding of the troops. This is fundamental to all other aspects of being commander-in-chief.
2) The national guard is dual-hatted as both a state and federal "operation" (after my six years on active duty I've spent the last two in the Air Guard). When they deploy overseas it is a federal operation...under the command of the president. The rest of the time they are under the command of the governor. While they receive federal funds and support to operate, the state also provides funds for the operation of the Guard. Thus whenever there is a state emergency the governor is in charge of the national guard.
3) I can argue with a straight face that the president should NOT be involved on a tactical level. Just to put you on the same page; the tactical level of war is the battlefield. The movement and positioning of troops. At this level of command...the White House should in no way be involved in the decision making process. In Vietnam LBJ made tactical decisions from the White House that proved disasterous. Beyond the US the disasterous consequences of executive over-involvement in military tactics can be seen in both Stalinist USSR in WWII and Hitler's Germany. There is another level of war, the Strategic level of war where the president does have an important role to play. This includes the decision to go to war (which is all up to him) but also what strategic targets to hit (an adversary's command and control infrastructure, industrial target, employment of special strategic weapons).

So in this way your criticism of my argument is not valid.

She has to deal with the consequences of national policy? Heh, don't we all. Besides from that not being the specific examples of Sarah Palin's actions negotiating with Russia, like you implied she had, it's also not really impressive in itself. I'll give you that most likely Palin is briefed on possible threats to Alaskan soil, if there ever has been one in the 2 years she's been elected. However, this isn't what I would call 'foreign relations'.

1) It is called "national security" not "foreign relations" there is a subtle difference.
2) What I admitted about the foreign policy is that I am not up on all the times she has traveld overseas.

Well, I went ahead and did some research for you. Sarah Palin has left the country three times since she recieved her passport in 2007. Germany and Kuwait to visit US soliders.

Ms. Palin appears to have traveled very little outside the United States. In July 2007, she had to get a passport before she visited members of the Alaska National Guard stationed in Kuwait, according to her deputy communications director, Sharon Leighow. She also visited wounded troops in Germany during that trip.

She's also claimed that she's visited Ireland as part of her foreign experience.

I wrote the other day that a Palin spokeswoman said trips to Germany, Kuwait and Ireland made up her foreign travel.

Two details worth clarifying:

The Ireland trip was a refueling stop on her trip to military installations in Germany and Kuwait, spokeswoman Maria Comella said.

Oh well, so much for that argument.

Not necessarily. The actual travel abroad, especially in today's global information and economic paradigm, is not where the majority of foreign policy experience comes from.

As governer she is responsible for managing Alaska's international trade. In fact, Alaska's office of international trade is part of the governor's office. LINK Furthermore, here is a list of Alaska's export trade partners. LINK 2

Considering that the bulk of foreign policy that a president deals concerns trade...I guess your argument is here nullified. :)

At 9/3/08 12:35 AM, blitztactics07 wrote: Well, I think people should make up their minds already, but I strongly feel a Muslim should not be a president of the US for Chrissake, if we don't want another "World Trade Center Affairs" kind of crap.

Hate to break it to you, but Obama is not a Muslim. What is funny about this oft-repeated bunch of shit is that he has been severly criticized for his attending a racist Christian church.

At 9/3/08 02:11 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: So, as the question as been asked before, what specifically has she done in relation to Russia. Thats cool that she has to deal with it and make decisions, but can you please name one decision she's made or more. More would be great, but even one would be nice.

Your teacher analogy is not really that convincing or applicable. (Sorry)

What decision has Biden or Obama made? Who has dealt with the immediate impact of Russia's actions in the Arctic more, Biden, Obama, McCain or Palin? The answer is Palin. Her office has to handle the changes in commerce and trade brought about by changes in geopolitical realities. She has to prepare her state for UN decisions regarding trade routes and natural resource claims in the Arctic circle. (Oil and other resources are on whose continental shelf).

Does Palin make national policy to counter Russia? No. Does she have to deal with the immediate effects of federal policy and the movements of great powers on the grand chessboard of the geopolitical game? Yes. Guess what this leads to? Intimate knowledge of issues relating to US/Russian relations and a perspective and insight that Obama or Biden does not have. McCain has similar experience and insight due to his Naval experience.

In the end you issue a challenge that, on the surface, appears logical and necessary. However, when examined closely and with a deeper understanding of geopolitical experience it is actually irrelevant. Palin does gain pertinent knowledge, understanding and even experience from her proximity to Russia.

At 9/3/08 12:35 AM, blitztactics07 wrote: Well, I think people should make up their minds already, but I strongly feel a Muslim should not be a president of the US for Chrissake, if we don't want another "World Trade Center Affairs" kind of crap.

1. Obama is not a muslim
2. not all muslims are like the ones who attacked us

At 9/3/08 02:29 PM, TheMason wrote:

At 9/3/08 02:11 PM, gumOnShoe wrote: So, as the question as been asked before, what specifically has she done in relation to Russia. Thats cool that she has to deal with it and make decisions, but can you please name one decision she's made or more. More would be great, but even one would be nice.

Your teacher analogy is not really that convincing or applicable. (Sorry)

What decision has Biden or Obama made? Who has dealt with the immediate impact of Russia's actions in the Arctic more, Biden, Obama, McCain or Palin? The answer is Palin. Her office has to handle the changes in commerce and trade brought about by changes in geopolitical realities. She has to prepare her state for UN decisions regarding trade routes and natural resource claims in the Arctic circle. (Oil and other resources are on whose continental shelf).

Intimate knowledge of issues relating to US/Russian relations and a perspective and insight that Obama or Biden does not have.

Ok, so what has she actually done? If you're going to tell me her actual actions aren't relevant then you don't have a base to stand on. Having experience doesn't make you good for the job. Look at every president, name a bad one, you've proved my point. We're not talking about McCain, Biden or Obama, they have their own topics. What has she done? It is entirely valid and logical.

At 9/3/08 12:42 PM, Dalaran2007 wrote:

how hadn't i quoted you earlier?

The only reason McCain picked her as his VP is to try and get hillary clinton supporters on his side

At 9/3/08 07:06 PM, gumOnShoe wrote:

At 9/3/08 02:29 PM, TheMason wrote:

Ok, so what has she actually done? If you're going to tell me her actual actions aren't relevant then you don't have a base to stand on. Having experience doesn't make you good for the job. Look at every president, name a bad one, you've proved my point. We're not talking about McCain, Biden or Obama, they have their own topics. What has she done? It is entirely valid and logical.

What happens with the Northern Passage will effect the economy of Alaska. This is a major Geopolitical issue that is bringing conflict between countries such as Canada and the Dutch. This effects the Alaskan economy and claims (based upon the geographical location of Alaska) of the US to natural resources under the Arctic.

What this means is that the federal government is taking the lead in the United Nations over competing claims as to which continent the continental shelf belongs to. However, it is going to be up to the Alaskan governor to manage this. Do really think this is an issue that as governor Palin is not studying and/or following this issue? Do you really think that she is not knowledgable about this spark that really promises to re-ignite the Cold War? As a community organizer...do you really think Obama has been paying attention? This is the leg I'm standing on. Sure at this point in time she's not making policy. However, neither is McCain, Obama or Biden (yeah, yeah Biden is on the Foreign Affairs committee. This means he has an advisory role...not a policymaking role). So since no one running is involved in the policymaking process...who has the most knowledge on this issue?

Now on to foreign policy in general. Her office is responsible for managing international trade in Alaskan exports. As I linked to in a previous post Alaska exports several Billion dollars to our most important trading partners in Asia, North America and Europe.

For example she was involved in the decision and negotiations with a Canadian company and the Canadian government to build and manage a pipeline through another country to bring oil to the lower 48.

In the end you ask for specifics instances. While on the surface this sounds logical, as a political scientist...it is an unreasonable request for a forum such as this. There are so many managerial decisions that a governor makes that is not reported in the media and to quantify would take months of study and research. Even a governor who has been in office for only 20 months.

In the end you have to look at the structures of the offices involved. As a lawmaker McCain, Obama and Biden made laws which essentially guides the policies set forth by the executive branch. So when you attack my argument about knowledge that I made previously you are saying that Biden, McCain and Obama have no experience either. The role of the various senate committees (that do not deal with the budget) is to advise the executive branch...not make policy. So if Palin has no Russia experience because she is not setting policy...then nobody running is qualified.

But that's not true. Biden has knowledge from on the foreign affairs committee. McCain on armed services. Knowledge is thus a qualifier...and cannot be quantified as you want them to. The truth is the attacks on Palin is by and large showing an ignorance of government and governing...and which only highlights problems with the other three candidates.

You'll have to forgive me, I controlled z away my original response so I might not be as accurate or eloquent this early in the morning as when I tried a few hours ago. But here it goes, I'll try nonetheless.

At 9/4/08 01:15 AM, TheMason wrote: What happens with the Northern Passage will effect the economy of Alaska. This is a major Geopolitical issue that is bringing conflict between countries such as Canada and the Dutch. This effects the Alaskan economy and claims (based upon the geographical location of Alaska) of the US to natural resources under the Arctic.

Will effect, but has not yet effected Alaska and henceforth has not effected Palin. And maybe she's studying it, but she hasn't had the opportunity to respond, so it doesn't matter. As far as I'm concerned, she's done nothing there and thats simply true. We can't see the future we don't know how she'll handle it and she doesn't have any experience with it on a Foreign policy level. And as you've admitted, that's settled by the federal government anyway.

What this means is that the federal government is taking the lead in the United Nations over competing claims as to which continent the continental shelf belongs to. However, it is going to be up to the Alaskan governor to manage this. Do really think this is an issue that as governor Palin is not studying and/or following this issue? Do you really think that she is not knowledgable about this spark that really promises to re-ignite the Cold War?

Knowledgeable does not imply correctness. You can know a lot of a falsehood you assume to be correct and be wrong. As none of us know what she knows or what she's been doing I don't see how you can even argue she knows anything about it. She certainly hasn't really gone into it, and probably for good reason.

As a community organizer...do you really think Obama has been paying attention?

A community organizer in a city of 2,000,000 whereas Palin is the governer of a state of roughly 660,000 people. Who has to care about more people Mason? The simple fact of the matter is that the executive position is supposed to uphold the laws of our nation as created by the legislative branch. Having the intimate knowledge of the law and the intentions behind it you could say Obama is better ready to enforce those laws than a governer who has to worry about less people. Even Biden's state of delaWHERE"?" has more people in it than Alaska.

This is the leg I'm standing on. Sure at this point in time she's not making policy. However, neither is McCain, Obama or Biden (yeah, yeah Biden is on the Foreign Affairs committee. This means he has an advisory role...not a policymaking role). So since no one running is involved in the policymaking process...who has the most knowledge on this issue?

This is true, which is why its silly to claim Palin is better suited for the job of making policy when she has the same amount of experience. Biden at least, as you pointed out, has actually had to deal with this issues for longer than 20 months and was concerned about more than soaking up every drop of oil from the united states.

Now on to foreign policy in general. Her office is responsible for managing international trade in Alaskan exports. As I linked to in a previous post Alaska exports several Billion dollars to our most important trading partners in Asia, North America and Europe.

As do several other states. Alaska isn't that special. In fact, its mainly able to keep up what is because of federal subsidies on taxes, not from the state level, which almost give it an unfair advantage in the economic sector over the rest of the states. Not to mention it just happens to have lots of oil.

For example she was involved in the decision and negotiations with a Canadian company and the Canadian government to build and manage a pipeline through another country to bring oil to the lower 48.

Yes, but its not built. And if it doesn't get built that company still gets the money. And there's no guarantee that it will get built since she's alienated all of the oil companies that do business up there. Yeah you can argue she's a maverick who wants the money to go to the people, but she's not doing anything to really help anyone when she's not compromising and continues to support our addiction on oil by further drilling.

In the end you ask for specifics instances. While on the surface this sounds logical, as a political scientist...it is an ...

Well, if you don't know what she's done, how can you say she's qualified. She's an unknown is what you're saying. You're saying you don't know anything about her, but she's awesome. Don't worry about what she's done, its the whole that matters, the whole which even you don't understand as you can't point out an individual action she's done. You just assume she's read up on the Russian confrontation. Whopdeefuckingdoo!

In the end you have to look at the structures of the offices involved. As a lawmaker McCain, Obama and Biden made ... is not setting policy...then nobody running is qualified.

But that's not true. Biden has knowledge from on the foreign affairs committee. McCain on armed services. ...with the other three candidates.

I'd hope you didn't view this as an attack, and more as a lively debate, but anyways... I'm not looking for quantitative results. I'm looking for individual actions and a qualititative measurement of the decisions made therein. What are the highlighted problems sir? How are they highlighted by attacks on Palin? What is Palin's knowledge, we don't know! All I've heard as an example of what she's done is be a hockey mom, a good christian (almost devisively), and negotiate hardball with the oil companies that way Alaska can better take advantage of its resources for its own monetary gain as each resident recieves a check for oil sold each year.

I'm seeing a lot of rhetorical fluff in your arguments and assumptions that you are passing off as fluff.

What we do know about palin is that she has the tendency to believe she's doing holy work, she asks people to pray for causes and use religion to help choose the right form of government, she's under investigation fraud, her projects aren't nearly completed, and her interests have always been soley the alaskan people's and never once has she had to consider the nation as a whole. She's not tried and tested in anyway. And sure you can make some of the arguments about Obama. You'd have a harder time to make them for McCain or Biden. In the end though, what you have is a candidate who you can't claim has more experience or better judgement because she clearly has been on the playing field less.

She has less knowledge of the United States constitution. She shows she lacks knowledge of american history, not even knowing the history of the pledge of allegiance amoung other things. She's isolated in Alaska world, a world where her own husband is part of a group that wants to succeed from the U.S. and form Alaska the country. I might add that she's given speeches or written papers for this group.

I'm sorry, but I see a lot reasons not to vote for her, but all I'm hearing as a reason to vote for her is that she's a maverick (not really), moral (in a backassward way), experienced in governatorial matters (for a population of 600,000 and only on dealing with oil and making sure the national guard gets its supplies (mostly determined by funding from state congress I'm sure)), and that she's a hot woman who's children play hockey.

That's not presidential material, that's fucknuts crazy.

lol hehehehehe

At 9/4/08 05:05 AM, gumOnShoe wrote: a good response

Gum,

I actually appreciate the lively debate and I am not so easily offended.

Russia
By not giving her any foreign relations points here you effectively take out Biden's credentials. As I've pointed out, Biden is not crafting foreign policy here. Yes the Senate makes laws that the executive branch must carry out except in the case of foreign policy. In foreign policy the roles are reversed. The executive branch makes agreements (treaties) that will become US law. The role of the senate foreign relations committee is to study the issues and be knowledgeable of them. Then the Senate ratifies or vetoes the treaties.

Biden, McCain or Obama are therefore not making policy decisions...only studying the issues and gaining knowledge. So then all four people have the same international relations experience.

As for Obama, he wanted to take it to the UN Security Council. Hmmm? What does this say about Obama's knowledge and skill as a statesman? It should be a glaring warning that Obama has no idea about how to deal with Russia. Does he realize that Russia has a VETO on the Security Council? That he is proposing an impotent "solution". I'm sorry, but after hearing this I lost all comfort with the idea of Obama being Commander-in-Chief and Chief Diplomat. This shows he has very poor judgment when it comes to foreign policy matters.

Finally, what is amusingly hypocritical by Obama supporters is the fact that you have this unknown quantity in which you can put all your political hopes and dreams in. You are correct we do not know what she knows; she has not had the chance to articulate her opinions and what she knows. Whenever the McCain camp tries to make its case a chorus of Obama supporters shouts her down and attacks her. I just wish they would shut-up and let the woman speak, rather than aggressively attempt to tear her down. (Gum, I'm not directing this at you.)

Foreign Policy
You do not actually attack my argument by saying all states engage in international trade. You are actually supporting my structural claim that a governor gains better foreign policy experience than a lawmaker. Trade is the most important part of president's foreign relations job.

Drilling
Obama's energy plan is dangerous. We need alternative energy, but we also need an economically responsible plan to get us there. This is something that is lacking in Obama's plans.

Community Organizer
Hate to break it to you, but how does being a community organizer give a person any experience in being responsible for 2,000,000 people? What kind of community organizer was Obama that gave him experience making decisions that affects people's lives? I mean if it was unelected and he gain governmental executive experience...that sounds like a petty dictator to me.

And you accuse me of using a "fluff" argument!

Troopergate II
(NOTE: The first Troopergate was under Clinton when he was Gov of Arkansas.)
Okay so there is a scandal out there. Here are the facts as presented in the media:

1) Her sister-in-law got divorced from a state trooper and there is a nasty custody case going on.
2) Aides made calls to Alaska's chief of public safety to get him fired.
3) The guy being pressured refused...and then got fired.
4) There are e-mails that suggest Palin was in the loop for all of this.
5) She is cooperating with the special prosecutor, this person (a Democrat) has indicated there is no need for subpoena in this case at this time.
6) Her office is being investigated, at her request, for ethics charges.

Now lets look at the political situation of Alaskan state politics:

1) Palin unseated a sitting governor of her own party.
2) She then got the state chairman of her own party kicked out of his position...and then she kicked him off a state board.
3) She then encouraged a long-time political ally (Senator Ted Stevens) to come clean about his federal indictment.

Now my friend I've been around politics awhile and I actually know a thing or two.

1) Potential VPs are thoroughly vetted. That this was in the local papers and is well known suggests that there is nothing here...or else she would not have made it to the meeting with John McCain.
2) Some of your worst enemies are in your own party. She unseated a governor by besting him in the Republican primary. She then cleaned house by getting the state chairmen removed. She made POWERFUL enemies...and I'm not talking Democrats! It is not a stretch at all to think that this is a mountain out of a mole-hill.

At 9/4/08 07:48 PM, TheMason wrote: should be a glaring warning that Obama has no idea about how to deal with Russia. Does he realize that Russia has a VETO on the Security Council? That he is proposing an impotent "solution". I'm sorry, but after hearing this I lost all comfort with the idea of Obama being Commander-in-Chief and Chief Diplomat. This shows he has very poor judgment when it comes to foreign policy matters.

You do know that according to the UN charter, a party to a dispute must abstain from voting... Russia wouldn't be able to use it's veto power against the resolution. I guess Obama knows more about foreign policy than you do Mason.

At 9/4/08 08:32 PM, Musician wrote: You do know that according to the UN charter, a party to a dispute must abstain from voting... Russia wouldn't be able to use it's veto power against the resolution. I guess Obama knows more about foreign policy than you do Mason.

Oh really?

* So how come the USSR vetoed a resolution regarding their blockade of Berlin on 25 October 1948?
* Then on 26 July 1960 they vetoed their own complaint against the US?
* And then most damning of your criticism of my argument: From 7-9 January 1980 the USSR vetoed UN Security Council resolutions regarding their invasion of Afghanistan.
* On 12 September 1983 the USSR vetoed a UN Security Council resolution regarding their accidental downing of a S. Korean airliner.
* On 27 October 1983 the USA vetoed a UN Security Council resolution regarding our invasion of Grenada (again very damning of your criticism).

So I guess I do know more about foreign policy than Obama.

SOURCE

At 9/4/08 08:54 PM, TheMason wrote: Oh really?

Yep, the examples you have cited occured in all cases at least 20 years ago. Things operate differently now in the UN. In it's current state, Article 27 Section 3 of the UN charter reads as such:

3) 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.

Feel free to plug your ears and say "LALALALALA"

Oh, and also for you consideration Mason. McCain also called for a resolution through the UN.

McCain called for a United Nations Security Council resolution condemning Russian aggression and calling for the withdrawal of Russian forces from Georgian territory.

At 9/4/08 09:53 PM, Musician wrote:

At 9/4/08 08:54 PM, TheMason wrote: Oh really?

Yep, the examples you have cited occured in all cases at least 20 years ago. Things operate differently now in the UN. In it's current state, Article 27 Section 3 of the UN charter reads as such:

Feel free to plug your ears and say "LALALALALA"

On this point my friend...you do not have me. See the section you quoted has not been changed since 1945. And none of the amendments or non-amended changes to the UN charter have not related to this. If you don't like the fact that the examples I pointed out were from over 20 years ago (an invalid point since the section you quoted was written 63 years ago) look at the list again. I think it was 30 June in 2002 that the US used the veto power (something different than voting) to quash a resolution that would affect US servicemen's immunity from trial under the ICC.

But guess what? You have lost this argument. But your left hook got me. I had forgotten that McCain had made a similar suggestion.

Obama campaign manager David Plouff:

"Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin specifically mocked Barack's experience as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago more than two decades ago, where he worked with people who had lost jobs and been left behind when the local steel plants closed. Let's clarify something for them right now. Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies."

You know, this really should cut Obama more than Palin. He was "organizing" in a city run by Democrats. So if politicians in Chicago are out of touch or have failed policies (remember, Obama was one of these politicians)...it is Democrats who are out-of-touch and failing in their policy decisions. Now I know all of the Zobamas are having a knee jerk reaction to these comments: "these poor, oppressed people were going to St. Obama because the Republicans controlled congress and the White House." Sorry that red herring has started to smell already.

It seems from everything I've seen that Obama's activities were directed on the local level, supporting ACORNS activities against municipal and county bodies. Bodies that are heavily controlled by Democrats.

Furthermore, ACORN has become infamous for voting fraud:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7

Doing legal work for (and calling it "community organization") and currently accepting donations from an organization known for voter fraud and funny campaign money schemes? Barrack Obama says he wants change, but it looks like he's part of the same old Chicago-style machine politcs. Is that the change we want in Washington?

So let's look at the scorecard:
Obama's own campaign says there is a need in Chicago to deal with out of touch politicians and failed policies...that come from Obama's own party. Minus one for Obama.
Obama's "community organizing" helped organizations that committ voter fraud and campaign funding violations. Minus two for Obama.

I just don't see where his change would be for the better. In fact looking at his economic policies and other reforms, economically speaking Obama I will be Bush III.

At 9/5/08 12:27 PM, TheMason wrote: Obama campaign manager David Plouff:

"Both Rudy Giuliani and Sarah Palin specifically mocked Barack's experience as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago more than two decades ago, where he worked with people who had lost jobs and been left behind when the local steel plants closed. Let's clarify something for them right now. Community organizing is how ordinary people respond to out-of-touch politicians and their failed policies."

You know, this really should cut Obama more than Palin. He was "organizing" in a city run by Democrats. So if politicians in Chicago are out of touch or have failed policies (remember, Obama was one of these politicians)

No he wasn't. I read up on it a while ago. Basicly Obama was a community organizer who called out politicians to get rights, jobs, etc for the communities he was in. Then he felt he could do more for the community from the other side of the table and that's when he went off to become a politician. I don't know how or even if he was affiliated with the democrats at the time. Either way the democratic party then is not what it is now. He went into politics to change them.

At 9/5/08 12:05 PM, TheMason wrote: On this point my friend...you do not have me. See the section you quoted has not been changed since 1945.

Right, it was a bad assumption that the charter had changed. However, Russia would still not be able to vote on anything that falls under Chapter VI of the UN Charter, which is the only kind of resolution that would have been passed through the UN anyways. Furthermore, the UN is an international forum, even if Resolutions you still call attention to the Issue through caucus with other countries. It wasn't unreasonable for Obama or McCain to ask for the issue to be brought to the UN.

she is an awesome selection. she is a spit fire with a lot of guts and determination. what a wonderful candidates

Haven't read the thread, just the title... just gonna drop in to say I think choosing a woman as a VP running mate was a desperate attempt to grab more votes by McCain.