TTORA Forum banner

1 - 20 of 84 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Discussion Starter #1 (Edited)
Okay i don;t care if your republican or democrat or don't give a shit!!! you must watch this video if you value our freedom............. Don't make this political ... this is our basic freedom...

DID ANYBODY READ WHAT I PUT HERE BEFORE POSTING ABOUT NOT MAKING IT POLITICAL????????

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,086 Posts
Do you have a more objective/credible source on this information?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
430 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
There;sa pretty good thread on Pirate about it also... It breaks i down alittle easyier for most lamens.. And there is a acopy of the actual treaty... If your a speed reader.......

QUOTES FORM THE ACTUAL TREATY........ Oh and a link to it!!

(d) Those parties whose national circumstances reflect greater responsibility or capability should make a greater contribution to the global effort

By 2012 the scale of financial flows to support adaptation in developing countries must be [at least USD 67 billion][in the range of USD 70-140 billion] per year

Read it your self....... WE ARE FUCKED IF THIS PASSES>>> Don't get me wrong im all for green to an extent but basically we will be directly responsible for the bill... do the math Who use 70% of the worlds resorches...we do But we have to pay penalty's to other country's for what we use??? wtf..

Link to the BILL!!!!!!!
http://unfccc.int/2860.php
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
(Cliff's Notes: Nate is an alarmist and his rant is in no way based on fact or the actual documents he's ranting about. He needs to watch less Glenn Beck and spend more time with primary sources.)

Do you have a more objective/credible source on this information?
No, because there isn't one.

Every source you read will be coming from one of two places: Christopher Monckton or a right-wing blog quoting Christopher Monckton. He's as much an authority on the effects of international law (in itself a very grey topic) on US sovereignty as I am on juxtamedullary nephrons. That is to say, I found those words in a Wikipedia article, copied them here, and happen to recognize the word "nephron" from biology in high school. Prefacing the post with "this isn't about right or left - it's about Amurka!" is a distraction - this talking point is strictly from the Beck/Limbaugh/Hannity wing of the Republican Party - aka, the entertainment section of Wal-Mart.

(If it hurts your feelings that I called those three entertainers, you may as well stop talking. It's what they call themselves.)

First of all, those words that Nate quoted appear exactly nowhere in the language of the UN Climate Convention document. See for yourself. They appear in the Working Group negotiating text - a list of proposed changes that are not yet a part of the Convention Framework. Mind you, the Convention was ratified by the US Senate in 1992
and entered into force in 1994. We're already a party to it and you can thank Clinton and George Mitchell for that, although, seeing as it does require a 3/4 vote to ratify a treaty, you also have at least 19 Republicans to thank.

The section Nate quotes is a list of suggested additions to Article 3 - Principles - in the original, already ratified Convention document. In full, it says:

9. In addition to the principles outlined in Article 3 of the Convention, the Parties shall be guided, inter alia, by the following:
(a) Developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof;
(b) All Parties should contribute to the global effort to combat climate change, in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities – a spectrum of effort is envisaged;
Enhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change [should/shall] be pursued
(c)All Parties should aim to undertake a similar level of effort to others at a similar level of development and with similar national circumstances
(d)Those Parties whose national circumstances reflect greater responsibility or capability should make a greater contribution to the global effort.
(page 59)

Now, take a look at Article 3 itself:

In their actions to achieve the objective of the Convention and to implement its provisions, the Parties shall be guided, INTER ALIA, by the following:

1. The Parties should protect the climate system for the benefit of present and future generations of humankind, on the basis of equity and in accordance with their common but differentiated responsibilities and respective capabilities. Accordingly, the developed country Parties should take the lead in combating climate change and the adverse effects thereof.

2. The specific needs and special circumstances of developing country Parties, especially those that are particularly vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, and of those Parties, especially developing country Parties, that would have to bear a disproportionate or abnormal burden under the Convention, should be given full consideration.

3. The Parties should take precautionary measures to anticipate, prevent or minimize the causes of climate change and mitigate its adverse effects. Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty should not be used as a reason for postponing such measures, taking into account that policies and measures to deal with climate change should be cost-effective so as to ensure global benefits at the lowest possible cost. To achieve this, such policies and measures should take into account different socio-economic contexts, be comprehensive, cover all relevant sources, sinks and reservoirs of greenhouse gases and adaptation, and comprise all economic sectors. Efforts to address climate change may be carried out cooperatively by interested Parties.

4. The Parties have a right to, and should, promote sustainable development. Policies and measures to protect the climate system against human-induced change should be appropriate for the specific conditions of each Party and should be integrated with national development programmes, taking into account that economic development is essential for adopting measures to address climate change.

5. The Parties should cooperate to promote a supportive and open international economic system that would lead to sustainable economic growth and development in all Parties, particularly developing country Parties, thus enabling them better to address the problems of climate change. Measures taken to combat climate change, including unilateral ones, should not constitute a means of arbitrary or unjustifiable discrimination or a disguised restriction on international trade.
Convention Doc

What does all this diplomatic language crap mean? You only need to notice one thing: every line says something that countries should do. In the law, anything that one "should" do is a recommendation; it's entirely optional and non-binding. So, basically, based on the quotes Nate posted, he and everyone who's panties got wadded up are all sandy for nothing.

Now, if he had quoted the language that, if completely misinterpreted, could actually lead one to believe that the UN was proposing a one-world government, he would have let you read this:

38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the COP with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate.
(page 18-19)

Thing is, you have to really, really stretch the language to think that this means the UN is going to form an actual government. It's simply talk of regulation - government - of the climate convention.

Oh, and just to toss an even larger wrench into the gears, the entire document is called a working document for a reason. Here's the much shorter alternative to paragraphs 1-38 (Notice that includes the language above):
[The shared vision shall take the form of preambular text that encapsulates both the long-term global goal and pulls together the other elements of the agreed outcome, in the following form:
The Conference of the Parties,
Seeking to further implement the Convention, in light of evolving science and mindful of evolving economic development and emissions trends,
Recognizing, in the light of Article 2 (objective) of the Convention, the importance of identifying one or more reference points in the mid-century timeframe that can guide the efforts of the Parties and the international community and against which aggregate global efforts can be continually assessed,
Considering, in that regard, that [ ] is/are desirable global indicator(s), Having a shared vision of [summary that ties together the elements of the agreement], Hereby adopts [an implementing agreement].]
page 19

That's it. The entire alternative. Blank spaces and all.

So, they're either going to maybe add 38 paragraphs or maybe the eleven-line alternative or maybe nothing at all will change about the document that the US already ratified. In any case, the alarmist marching band is way off the parade route.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,086 Posts
Great work, djrez4. It seems nobody understands a credible objective source lately. A lot of people think they can post a link from some unheard of site that clearly has an agenda, and call it an undisputable fact. I've stopped reading the bullshit political threads on the NB because of that. It always basically turns into this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RomPjp3ydek&feature=related
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,770 Posts
I wouldnt put it past the president to pass it if it were for real.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
I wouldnt put it past the president to pass it if it were for real.
Why?

Because he's a socialist?

Because he was born in Kenya?

Because his wife tends an organic garden on the South Lawn?

Because he's black?

Give me one concrete, empirical fact that would lead an objective observer to conclude that Barack Obama wants to sign away US sovereignty to the United Nations.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,453 Posts
TUK ur JUUUUUbs!

...everybody back in the pile...:lmao:

(hopefully some of you get the reference :D)
Long live the South Park.

djrez, the face palm is about it.

Just a suggestion, but I'd give some thought to ignoring these threads. QuickDraw has it right.

I've noticed that political "threads" are really just people looking for an internet fight. In the last 7 years of trolling these places, I've never seen a single person with an opinion who is open minded enough to admit they might be wrong.

Most of the time on other sites, these threads get a bunch of people banned.

And, just as an aside, but generally, calling Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity or Fox News anything less than our Lord and Savior is Blasphemy and makes you a terrorist. And, thinking for yourself, or, God forbid, having your own opinions, means that you hate America.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
305 Posts
Long live the South Park.

djrez, the face palm is about it.

Just a suggestion, but I'd give some thought to ignoring these threads. QuickDraw has it right.

I've noticed that political "threads" are really just people looking for an internet fight. In the last 7 years of trolling these places, I've never seen a single person with an opinion who is open minded enough to admit they might be wrong.

Most of the time on other sites, these threads get a bunch of people banned.
I just can't help it! I guess I'm a glutton for intellectual punishment. I'm well aware that I'm not going to sway or convince anyone, but I have this innate need to stomp on ignorance whenever I get a chance.
:explode:

And, just as an aside, but generally, calling Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity or Fox News anything less than our Lord and Savior is Blasphemy and makes you a terrorist. And, thinking for yourself, or, God forbid, having your own opinions, means that you hate America.
I put Beck, Limbaugh, and Hannity on the same level as Olbermann. They get paid way too much to fill the airwaves with stupid and the country suffers for it. If that garners accusations of anti-Americanism, so be it. Such accusations mean approximately squat from the people who regularly make them.

From the perspective of a "right-winger," I'm about as anti-American as you can get. I believe the theory of evolution to be more or less correct. I think preemptive war is idiotic. I fully support letting gays and lesbians marry whomever they choose. I don't really care whether humanity is causing changes in the Earth's climate; I think we should change our ways anyway. I'm for the absolute separation of church and state. Reaganomics seems pretty dumb to me. I'm not a Christian. I don't eat meat. I want more social liberty. I want health care reform, yet I have my own coverage. I own guns but want more stringent background checks and restrictions. Have any heads exploded yet?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,086 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,910 Posts
dj_rez, its clear you're an obama supporter which is fine and dandy. Thats your choice (or loss, rather), no need to get so worked up about other peoples choices/opinions. Especially over the internet.
 
1 - 20 of 84 Posts
Top