Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

US and the United Nations Climate Change Conference

«1

Comments

  • #2
    bobbyjoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 798 ✭✭✭bobbyjoe


    Maybe the mainbstram media didn't pick up on him because he is a partisan loon?

    Also wouldn't be using Beck and inform in the same sentence.


  • #3
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    For those who'd rather read than listen......
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/


  • #4
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Monkton wrote:
    How many of you think that the word “election” or “democracy” or “vote” or “ballot” occurs anywhere in the 200 pages of that treaty? Quite right, it doesn’t appear once. So, at last, the communists who piled out of the Berlin Wall and into the environmental movement, who took over Greenpeace so that my friends who funded it left within a year, because [the communists] captured it – Now the apotheosis as at hand. They are about to impose a communist world government on the world. You have a president who has very strong sympathies with that point of view. He’s going to sign it. He’ll sign anything. He’s a Nobel Peace Prize [winner]; of course he’ll sign it

    It has to be said that its a testament to the fact that ignorance and education can safely co-exist, seemingly without conflict, probably without ever meeting.


  • #5
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    Wow, a Communist World Government is about to be imposed on the west by stealth?
    I'll be watching this with interest! :D


  • #6
    sceptre
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    This is the same Christopher Monckton that once sued John Major's government for agreeing to pay towards the EU's Social Policy protocol and got laughed out of court (or technically, the case got dismissed "for want of relevancy")?

    As kooks go he's up there with the best of them. He's been convinced that climate change was invented by the "international left" as a flag to rally round. There are limited times when an ad hominem dismissal is perfectly justified and Monckton deserves one based on past performance.

    Why isn't it covered by the mainstream media? Because there are enough nuts on the telly already.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    im at work: whats impeachable exactly?


  • #8
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    sceptre wrote: »
    This is the same Christopher Monckton that once sued John Major's government for agreeing to pay towards the EU's Social Policy protocol and got laughed out of court (or technically, the case got dismissed "for want of relevancy")?
    As kooks go he's up there with the best of them. He's been convinced that climate change was invented by the "international left" as a flag to rally round. There are limited times when an ad hominem dismissal is perfectly justified and Monckton deserves one based on past performance.
    Why isn't it covered by the mainstream media? Because there are enough nuts on the telly already.
    Just because the information was brought to our attention by Lord Monckton, does that make the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference treaty he is referring to non-existent, and not newsworthy?

    Ad Hominem arguments, although effective, are rather disingenuous if content is reliable IMO.
    Overheal wrote: »
    im at work: whats impeachable exactly?
    Just by signing the treaty which inherently cedes our sovereignty, it could fall under the oldest of reasons for impeachment: "... those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself." --Alexander Hamilton, March 7, 1788


  • #9
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Well that seems rather...obscufusculated.

    I know thats not a word. Thats kinda the point. That argument is so out there it defies common logic.

    Besides that if you look back at the last 50 years theres probably been plenty of questionably impeachable stuff. But a climate change treaty? Seriously?
    Also wouldn't be using Beck and inform in the same sentence.
    Beck is a sharp guy. He is a bit sensationalist and even fear mongering at times, but that doesnt always make him wrong.


  • #10
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Overheal wrote: »
    Well that seems rather...obscufusculated.

    I know thats not a word. Thats kinda the point. That argument is so out there it defies common logic.

    Besides that if you look back at the last 50 years theres probably been plenty of questionably impeachable stuff. But a climate change treaty? Seriously?

    I believe the biggest problem here, from what I’m hearing discussed on this topic, is that "Treaties" trump the US Constitution, according to Article VI of the US Constitution. This would be a “Treaty” and the UN would set up a “Government” in this matter.

    What US citizen here feels we should be turning over 2% of our GDP to Third World Countries... for nothing more than being a perceived "Bad Guy" in the past on climate issues. Like we’ve never helped out countries in time of war, never helped the sick and poor, never come to the rescue of others in natural disasters, etc, etc...


  • #11
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Nodin wrote: »
    For those who'd rather read than listen......
    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/10/16/obama-poised-to-cede-us-sovereignty-in-copenhagen-claims-british-lord-monckton/
    You scholar! :D

    Something I noticed in the comments, and looked up thereafter:
    In the United States a treaty must be consented to by the Senate. The first step in that process, usually, is review of the treaty by the current administration, to see if it is consistent with United States policies and law. The Geneva Act was reviewed initially by the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO). This Office was actively involved in the development of the Geneva Act, including attending all the meeting of experts and the diplomatic conference in 1999. The United States signed the treaty document, indicating a commitment to presented it to Congress for approval.
    The United States State Department reviews each treaty for the administration and prepares a recommendation for the President on whether the United States should ratify the treaty. The State Department works closely with the PTO during this review, but the policy considerations taken into consideration are of a broad scope. The State Department prepares the documents for submission to the Senate to request approval of the treaty. A final review of these documents is made by the President's staff. If the President considers the treaty in the best interest of the United States, the documents are sent to the Senate, to start the process of consent. In the case of the Geneva Act, the treaty was sent to the Senate by a letter from the President on November 13, 2006, with a supporting document.
    A treaty sent to the Senate for ratification is referred to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. A review of the histories in the Senate for recent treaties forwarded to that committee indicated various results. Usually, there is a hearing on the treaty, to determine if there is any public concerns, or need for special legislative implementation. A political decision is made by the Committee Chair on what the appropriate process should be.
    The submission of a treaty to the Senate may include specific reservations or declarations that should be made, recommended by the administration. In the case of the Geneva Act, the supporting document listed several declarations that should be made as part of the Senate consent to the treaty, to adjust the treaty to the United States legal system.
    There may be United States laws that need to changed as a result of treaty approval. A separate legislative bill is introduced by the administration to accomplish this change, and the bill follows the standard process for approval of new laws in the Congress. The Senate may wait for the legislation approval before giving its consent to the treaty. In the case of the Geneva Act, the President's letter made the commitment not to take the final step to deposit the necessary documents, to implement the treaty until the United States laws have been changed to comply the the treaty.
    The administration has not submitted legislation to make the few changes needed in the United States patent law. The PTO has draft the legislation, but it is still under review. At the same time, the PTO needs to develop the necessary Patent and Trademark rules for the Geneva Act. This process will require public input, and it is a significant effort. It is one of the important next steps that need to occur for the United States ratification of the Geneva Act to occur. The Senate may wait for the complete package, law and rules change, before providing its consent. The final steps for Senate consent are a recommendation by the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and a favorable vote by the Senate.
    The Senate Foreign Relations Committee is responsive to expression of support and questions from the public. Companies and other organizations can contact this Committee to express their support and ask questions (See Topic: How United States companies can participate in the ratification process).
    http://www.fryer.com/WGAERPA.htm
    In the United States, the term "treaty" has a different, more restricted legal sense than exists in international law. U.S. law distinguishes what it calls treaties from treaty executive agreements, congressional-executive agreements, and sole executive agreements. All four classes are equally treaties under international law; they are distinct only from the perspective of internal American law. The distinctions are primarily concerning their method of ratification. Whereas treaties require advice and consent by two-thirds of the Senate, sole executive agreements may be executed by the President acting alone. Some treaties grant the President the authority to fill in the gaps with executive agreements, rather than additional treaties or protocols. And finally, congressional-executive agreements require majority approval by both the House and the Senate, either before or after the treaty is signed by the President.
    Currently, international agreements are executed by executive agreement rather than treaties at a rate of 10:1. Despite the relative ease of executive agreements, the President still often chooses to pursue the formal treaty process over an executive agreement in order to gain congressional support on matters that require the Congress to pass implementing legislation or appropriate funds, and those agreements that impose long-term, complex legal obligations on the U.S.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty#United_States_law

    For something thats going to be so obviously controversial (obvious to some maybe :pac:) I doubt this will be an Executive agreement and will actually get Ratified by house and/or Senate?

    And doesnt it take like a 2/3rds vote?

    Lord Mockington here does go off and admit in the Q&A he doesnt really "do" US Politics. So I can see how he might have totally jumped the gun on his apocalyptic projections.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Just because the information was brought to our attention by Lord Monckton, does that make the 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference treaty he is referring to non-existent, and not newsworthy?

    The 2009 United Nations Climate Change Conference treaty ? No. Its what he says about it thats irrelevant.

    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Just by signing (.....)rch 7, 1788

    And whats the difference between signing that treaty and signing START I....?


  • #13
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Nodin wrote: »
    And whats the difference between signing that treaty and signing START I....?
    To be fair, START didnt create a tertiary govt entity that governed nuclear disarmament or anything remotely like the current proposal. An apple and an orange.

    Again though, START was also ratified.


  • #14
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Overheal wrote: »
    To be fair, START didnt create a tertiary govt entity that governed nuclear disarmament or anything remotely like the current proposal. An apple and an orange.

    There was joint monitoring as part of the deal though, afaik. You show me yours and I'll show you mine kind of thing......


  • #15
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    His views on AID's
    Monckton's views on how the AIDS epidemic should be tackled have been the subject of some controversy. In an article for The American Spectator entitled "AIDS: A British View",[39] written for the January 1987 issue of The American Spectator, he argued that "there is only one way to stop AIDS. That is to screen the entire population regularly and to quarantine all carriers of the disease for life. Every member of the population should be blood-tested every month ... all those found to be infected with the virus, even if only as carriers, should be isolated compulsorily, immediately, and permanently." This would involve isolating between 1.5 and 3 million people in the United States ("not altogether impossible") and another 30,000 people in the UK ("not insuperably difficult"). The article was highly controversial, with The American Spectator's then assistant managing editor, Andrew Ferguson, denouncing it in the letters column of the same issue.[40] Monckton appeared on the BBC's Panorama programme in February 1987 to discuss his views and present the results of an opinion poll that found public support for his position


  • #16
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Overheal wrote: »
    Beck is a sharp guy. He is a bit sensationalist and even fear mongering at times, but that doesnt always make him wrong.

    Beck is definitely OTT with his crying [hence why the left can only focus on that] and his worse case scenarios but he does do his research [which his Van Jones, Anita Dunn and the other Obama Czars, ACORN,etc prove] which is very admirable for a guy who only refers to himself as an entertainer [he says this on the air numerous times so where the left keeps hammering the "he's not a journalist" argumenet is silly. He never pretended to be one]


  • #17
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Beck is definitely OTT with his crying [hence why the left can only focus on that] and his worse case scenarios but he does do his research [which his Van Jones, Anita Dunn and the other Obama Czars, ACORN,etc prove] which is very admirable for a guy who only refers to himself as an entertainer [he says this on the air numerous times so where the left keeps hammering the "he's not a journalist" argumenet is silly. He never pretended to be one]
    He's almost deliberately misleading as one. Tbh, that seems like the whole Fox platform, morning and night. Which is why its frankly only a shadow of a news network anymore, its almost become a pure sphere of opinions.
    jank wrote: »
    His views on AID's
    Is it wrong that I agree with him in the Pragmatic way? Tbh (2x in one post!) we do worse to cats and dogs. Millions of times. Annually.


  • #18
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    In person Glenn Beck is one of the nicest, funniest, personable, passionate and intellegent people you can ever meet. I went to see him many years ago before he became big and famous, at a little place called the Roxy Theater in a small town where I lived. It was raining, and he came out and stood there in the rain, speaking to us and answering questions before the show. His passion is for real as far as I could tell. And even then he was all about faith, family, conservatism and country. Good guy!


  • #19
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    sceptre wrote: »
    This is the same Christopher Monckton that once sued John Major's government for agreeing to pay towards the EU's Social Policy protocol and got laughed out of court (or technically, the case got dismissed "for want of relevancy")?

    As kooks go he's up there with the best of them. He's been convinced that climate change was invented by the "international left" as a flag to rally round. There are limited times when an ad hominem dismissal is perfectly justified and Monckton deserves one based on past performance.

    Why isn't it covered by the mainstream media? Because there are enough nuts on the telly already.

    So how about John Holdren, Barack Obama’s Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, Assistant to the President for Science and Technology, and Co-Chair of the President's Council of Advisors on Science and Technology, informally known as the United States' Science Czar? Should we also put him into the same category of "There are limited times when an ad hominem dismissal is perfectly justified and Monckton deserves one based on past performance."

    In the 1970s, Holdren’s concluded that government-mandated population control was essential to prevent "eco-disasters" such as the foreseen coming new ice age. In 1977 he warned that the world was headed for a new ice age unless the government mandated urgent measures to control population, including the possibility of involuntary birth control measures such as forced sterilizations. Holdren predicted "ecocide" or the "destruction of all life on this planet" were a possible consequence of inaction.

    In Ecoscience: Population, Resources, and Environment (1977: p. 686), Paul Ehrlich, Anne Ehrlich, and John Holdren stated:
    "Many observers have speculated that the cooling could be the beginning of a long and persistent trend in that direction—that is, an inevitable departure from an abnormally warm period in climatic history."


    Lets look at some of his recommendations back then:
    • Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
    • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
    • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
    • People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
    • A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force.
    So how about it, should an ad hominem argument also apply to John Holdren? Should he be forced to resign… someone who advocated forced abortions and mass sterilization as needed to save the planet? Or does the "nut" classification only pertain to those who are skeptical of man made climate change?


  • #20
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    I think it's because he has testified to a Senate or Congressional committee that he doesn't espouse those views.
    http://commerce.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Hearings.Hearing&Hearing_ID=9ba25fea-5f68-4211-a181-79ff35a3c6c6


  • #21
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    ...Anymore? Scientific viewpoints based on which way the political wind blows?

    Well science has proven his track record to be 0-1. Interesting if science will make it 0-2?


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    So Pocono Joe tell us more about your fears of this Communist World Government your trumpeting.


  • #23
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    I really dont think either Mockington's views in the 80s or Holdren's views in the 70s are really relevant. Its like asking me how I felt about legalizing drugs 5 years ago.


  • #24
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    So Pocono Joe tell us more about your fears of this Communist World Government your trumpeting.

    Take a look at the Treaty in question… A fundamental element of the agreement which is intended to take the place of the Kyoto Protocol, is that it will provide massive transfers of cash from the First World to the Third World. These transfers are supposed to offset the cost for poorer nations to "go green" as the UN oversees the transformation of the global economy. You can’t get much more Communist than that.

    Also, forget about what Barack Obama’s teleprompter tell us, look at his actions and agenda: Massive government spending and borrowing, more control of banks, takeover of car companies, cap and trade energy legislation, nationalized health care, a far left Supreme Court appointment, and so on. You tell me… Does his agenda align itself more with Capitalism, or more with Socialism/Marxism/Communism?


  • #25
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    You can’t get much more Communist than that.
    I'm not sure how that qualifies as "communism" actually.
    Is charity the same thing as communism in your view?
    Nevertheless, nothing about Communist World Government takeover in your post.
    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    ...look at his actions and agenda: Massive government spending and borrowing, more control of banks, takeover of car companies, cap and trade energy legislation, nationalized health care, a far left Supreme Court appointment, and so on. You tell me… Does his agenda align itself more with Capitalism, or more with Socialism/Marxism/Communism?
    All that you have mentinoed above, has been in response to the economic crisis that that your buddy Bush governed over during his long tenure.
    You do remember that Bush started the bailouts?
    Something about rescuing companies to "save the free market"...?


  • #26
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    I'm not sure how that qualifies as "communism" actually.
    Communism… A system of government in which the state plans and controls the economy and a single, often authoritarian party holds power, claiming to make progress toward a higher social order in which all goods are equally shared by the people.

    This UN "World Government" will oversee the transformation of the global economy for "the greater good."

    Seems pretty evident to me.
    Is charity the same thing as communism in your view?
    Did you mean charity or vulgarity? ;)


  • #27
    RedPlanet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,691 ✭✭✭RedPlanet


    This doesn't qualify a US Politics discussion imo, it's for the Conspiracy Theories forum.
    Your rightful home.


  • #28
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    RP, I think we can respectfully agree to disagree.


  • #29
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Take a look at the Treaty in question… A fundamental element of the agreement which is intended to take the place of the Kyoto Protocol, is that it will provide massive transfers of cash from the First World to the Third World. These transfers are supposed to offset the cost for poorer nations to "go green" as the UN oversees the transformation of the global economy. You can’t get much more Communist than that.


    So you define these compensation payments as "communist" and then point and shout "Communism". Hmmmmmmm.
    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    [
    Massive government spending and borrowing, more control of banks, takeover of car companies, cap and trade energy legislation, nationalized health care, a far left Supreme Court appointment, and so on. You tell me… Does his agenda align itself more with Capitalism, or more with Socialism/Marxism/Communism?


    Nothing that hasn't been done elsewhere by right wing Governments. Its debatable where his supreme court appointment could be called "far left".


  • #30
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Nodin, RedPlanet originally used the term communism in this thread. I only pointed (not shouted) out in response to his questions that it sure does appear to smack of Communism by definition IMO.

    And I do not consider these required payments as “compensation,” but rather as thugary, utilizing unresolved scientific issues as their basis, from the Left which has taken over the United Nations with their anti-American purpose driven agenda.

    And as a conservative, I consider his Supreme Court pick as “far left.” But I realize and respect others will consider differently. And that’s okay in my book (as long as you don’t try and make me go sit in the corner ;)).


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Nodin, RedPlanet originally used the term communism in this thread. I only pointed (not shouted) out in response to his questions that it sure does appear to smack of Communism by definition IMO..

    It's aid/compensation.
    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    And I do not consider these required payments as “compensation,” but rather as thugary, utilizing unresolved scientific issues as their basis, from the Left which has taken over the United Nations with their anti-American purpose driven agenda.
    .

    You'd be better off here......
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576


  • #32
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    And I do not consider these required payments as “compensation,” but rather as thugary, utilizing unresolved scientific issues as their basis, from the Left which has taken over the United Nations with their anti-American purpose driven agenda.
    I could have been happy with it if it was compensation for Protectionism practices. But its not. Its Cap and Trade. Oddly implemented at that.

    It also seems like the wrong approach, "We'll pay you so we can continue to pollute the planet". I'd rather the money spent on fuel alternatives. Because im sure the Third World is going to take this money and spend it on daffodils and bio-diesel, not shotguns and humvees.


  • #33
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Overheal wrote: »
    He's almost deliberately misleading as one.


    How? Because he does research like a Professional Journalist should be doing?

    Tbh, that seems like the whole Fox platform, morning and night. Which is why its frankly only a shadow of a news network anymore, its almost become a pure sphere of opinions.

    One can make that arguement for CBS, the NBC, CNN as well in that regard. Atleast Fox will have liberals on to let them give their side of the story. Can't say that baout those networks. As one guy said about MSNBC "List me any Conservatives that have appeared on Olbermann or Maddow and I'll buy you a dinner for each name."


  • #34
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    This doesn't qualify a US Politics discussion imo, it's for the Conspiracy Theories forum.
    Your rightful home.
    Nodin wrote: »
    You'd be better off here......
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=576

    I'm confused, what constitutes these directives from what I have posted? Please enlighten me, I really would like to know.

    And can someone please point me to where we can vote for Faux Mod of the Month? Just kidding, I know we aren't allowed to have votes in the US Politics Forum. ;)


  • #35
    LostinKildare
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 992 ✭✭✭LostinKildare


    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    Lets look at some of his recommendations back then:
    • Women could be forced to abort their pregnancies, whether they wanted to or not;
    • The population at large could be sterilized by infertility drugs intentionally put into the nation's drinking water or in food;
    • Single mothers and teen mothers should have their babies seized from them against their will and given away to other couples to raise;
    • People who "contribute to social deterioration" (i.e. undesirables) "can be required by law to exercise reproductive responsibility" -- in other words, be compelled to have abortions or be sterilized.
    • A transnational "Planetary Regime" should assume control of the global economy and also dictate the most intimate details of Americans' lives -- using an armed international police force

    Holdren never recommended any of those methods. In the book you reference, he and his coauthors discussed those and other coercive measures that have been tried or proposed at one time or another in various countries -- that's a far cry from advocating them. What they did recommend was that voluntary birth control, abortion, and sterilization be made accessible to populations that want them. Beck, Hannity, Malkin et al. perverted the authors' academic writings to fit their twisted conspiracy theories and smear an Obama appointee. Fox foxiness strikes again, and their viewers accept it uncritically.

    Politifact.com, which fact checks political statements across the spectrum, explains it here:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/

    And while we're on Politifact, they quite effectively take apart Monckton's "not only unsupported but preposterous" claims re the Copenhagen treaty here:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/20/christopher-monckton/british-climate-skeptic-says-copenhagen-treaty-thr/
    Pocono Joe wrote: »
    I believe the biggest problem here, from what I’m hearing discussed on this topic, is that "Treaties" trump the US Constitution, according to Article VI of the US Constitution.

    Incorrect. From the Supreme Court decision in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957):
    "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."


  • #36
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Lost…, I read the piece you provided, and if I used the term "advocate" by Holdren, then I retract it. But it does smack of something like a guide on "How to build a bomb." Then providing detailed instructions, and finally stating afterward "But we don’t recommend you build a bomb."

    I liked the second link you provided. The last section's "Even if the United States does eventually cede some sovereignty on climate change, "freedom" and "democracy" are not at stake."
    Then I guess it might cede some US sovereignty, which was my point. I never said freedom and democracy were at stake.

    As for "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty." Well, with a left leaning Supreme Court who often considers the US Constitution as a "living" document, we can't really count on that stance long term, can we?

    (edit: Oh yeah... don't think Politifact isn't biased at times. http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matthew-vadum/2009/06/03/biased-politifact-com-covers-acorn-attacks-michele-bachmann)


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    RedPlanet wrote: »
    This doesn't qualify a US Politics discussion imo, it's for the Conspiracy Theories forum.
    Your rightful home.

    If you genuinely think that, it would be worth using the Report function to say so. If not, that's really just being insulting.

    I will point out though that if this thread becomes one about One World Communist Government (TM), then it will be heading for the CT forum. I rely on you people to tell me if that happens, since personally I can't distinguish between US politics and CT these days anyway.

    moderately,
    Scofflaw


  • #38
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    tbh I could say the same thing of Irish politics ;)


  • #39
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    LostinKildare wrote: »
    [/LIST]
    Holdren never recommended any of those methods. In the book you reference, he and his coauthors discussed those and other coercive measures that have been tried or proposed at one time or another in various countries -- that's a far cry from advocating them. What they did recommend was that voluntary birth control, abortion, and sterilization be made accessible to populations that want them. Beck, Hannity, Malkin et al. perverted the authors' academic writings to fit their twisted conspiracy theories and smear an Obama appointee. Fox foxiness strikes again, and their viewers accept it uncritically.

    Politifact.com, which fact checks political statements across the spectrum, explains it here:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jul/29/glenn-beck/glenn-beck-claims-science-czar-john-holdren-propos/

    And while we're on Politifact, they quite effectively take apart Monckton's "not only unsupported but preposterous" claims re the Copenhagen treaty here:

    http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/20/christopher-monckton/british-climate-skeptic-says-copenhagen-treaty-thr/



    Incorrect. From the Supreme Court decision in Reid v. Covert, 354 U.S. 1 (1957):
    "this Court has regularly and uniformly recognized the supremacy of the Constitution over a treaty."

    GAME, SET, MATCH....next!!


  • #40
    jank
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 13,018 ✭✭✭✭jank


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Beck is definitely OTT with his crying [hence why the left can only focus on that] and his worse case scenarios but he does do his research [which his Van Jones, Anita Dunn and the other Obama Czars, ACORN,etc prove] which is very admirable for a guy who only refers to himself as an entertainer [he says this on the air numerous times so where the left keeps hammering the "he's not a journalist" argumenet is silly. He never pretended to be one]

    What is he doing on a cable news program so? Entertaining!
    Yep telling people what they want to hear.

    I am gald after all this time you realise that fox is more entertainment than news!;)


  • #41
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    jank wrote: »
    What is he doing on a cable news program so? Entertaining!
    Yep telling people what they want to hear.

    I am gald after all this time you realise that fox is more entertainment than news!;)

    Please show me proof where Beck has ever referred to himself as a journalist or just shut up. Fox is alot more of a news show than your precious MSNBC.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    bobbyjoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 798 ✭✭✭bobbyjoe


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Please show me proof where Beck has ever referred to himself as a journalist or just shut up. Fox is alot more of a news show than your precious MSNBC.

    He certainly presents what he says as if it was factual.

    So he can say whatever he wants and later claim it was just entertainment?Genius.


  • #43
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    bobbyjoe wrote: »
    He certainly presents what he says as if it was factual.

    So he can say whatever he wants and later claim it was just entertainment?Genius.

    Can you intelligently dispute anything he has said on the show ?[you know without resorting to the "He's nuts". "Look at him cry." bull****] Van Jones resigning and Anita Dunn on the way out shows there is obvious truth to what he is saying.


  • #44
    bobbyjoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 798 ✭✭✭bobbyjoe


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Can you intelligently dispute anything he has said on the show ?[you know without resorting to the "He's nuts". "Look at him cry." bull****] Van Jones resigning and Anita Dunn on the way out shows there is obvious truth to what he is saying.

    Don't watch it, only seen clips on youtube etc.
    He seems nuts though. The crying and the blackboard, pouring water on someone pretending its petrol, he even pretended to boil a frog.


  • #45
    Pocono Joe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 795 ✭✭✭Pocono Joe


    Things are looking up. United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon now says world leaders are not likely to agree to a new climate change pact at next month's summit in Copenhagen.

    Although President Obama and congressional Democrats have pledged support for a new treaty, Congress is concerned over losing jobs to low-cost economies with no emission rules, and members are now considering setting duties to be paid on their imports. Congressional leaders, embroiled for months in the debate over health-care legislation, made no promises that the full Senate will take up the current US climate bill before 2010. And having no Congressional mandate will make it next to impossible to commit to a target in Copenhagen’s treaty talks.

    I think it is very telling that Obama hasn’t yet decided whether to make an appearance in Copenhagen. He’s a likely no-show because stalled climate bills in Congress mean the US may have little to offer, threatening to unravel prospects for a global deal. In addition, Senate Republicans on Tuesday boycotted the start of committee debate on a bill to curb carbon gas emissions. With Obama’s approval waning, it now looks unlikely that US legislatures (who are worried about their political futures after Tuesday's election results) will support a new global treaty that could potentially cost the US 2% of our GDP.

    News agencies here, with their paltry reporting on this Climate Treaty, are failing to inform Americans that developing countries want wealthy nations to bear most all of the financial and political responsibility for reducing carbon gas emissions. But I believe that information will slowly filter out and public outrage will deal the final deathblow for to any "Treaty."

    It’s pretty safe to assume now that without clarity on what the US is going to do, a treaty won’t happen because the US is expected to bear the brunt of the treaty’s financial burden.

    We can only hope!


  • #46
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    bobbyjoe wrote: »
    Don't watch it, only seen clips on youtube etc.
    He seems nuts though. The crying and the blackboard, pouring water on someone pretending its petrol, he even pretended to boil a frog.

    Watch it then run your mouth. How do you expect to be taken seriously running your mouth about a show and the host when you don't even watch. I wouldn't be surprised if the clips you watch are a Young Turks hatchet job. Typical leftist metality.


  • #47
    bobbyjoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 798 ✭✭✭bobbyjoe


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Watch it then run your mouth. How do you expect to be taken seriously running your mouth about a show and the host when you don't even watch. I wouldn't be surprised if the clips you watch are a Young Turks hatchet job. Typical leftist metality.

    I've seen enough to realise he is a clown.
    Young Turks never heard of it but looked it up good stuff thanks.
    Typical Leftist metality!!!! lol

    Anyway this is off topic what about Obama and Al Gores evil plans to turn the world into North Korea?


  • #48
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    bobbyjoe wrote: »
    I've seen enough to realise he is a clown.
    Young Turks never heard of it but looked it up good stuff thanks.
    Typical Leftist metality!!!! lol

    Anyway this is off topic what about Obama and Al Gores evil plans to turn the world into North Korea?

    Typical response. I've read enough of your posts to realize the same thing about you.


  • #49
    Overheal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 86,729 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Can you intelligently dispute anything he has said on the show ?[you know without resorting to the "He's nuts". "Look at him cry." bull****] Van Jones resigning and Anita Dunn on the way out shows there is obvious truth to what he is saying.
    Well the thing is Beck is a sharp and intelligent guy, likes to back up his sources and likes to explain himself pretty thoroughly.

    He just does it with a lot of ridiculous antics that makes it harder to take him seriously. Kinda like Jon Stewart. But Jon is not on a leading News Network. He's on Comedy Central where the genre is always "Fake News"


  • #50
    JohnMc1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,987 ✭✭✭JohnMc1


    Overheal wrote: »
    Well the thing is Beck is a sharp and intelligent guy, likes to back up his sources and likes to explain himself pretty thoroughly.

    He just does it with a lot of ridiculous antics that makes it harder to take him seriously. Kinda like Jon Stewart. But Jon is not on a leading News Network. He's on Comedy Central where the genre is always "Fake News"

    I never disputed he could be OTT. I issue is with certain posters here doing the typical leftist "He's a loon,etc" and can't dispute what he's saying [Hell there are some leftist loons that were wishing he would have died last night from his appendicitis surgery [And this is the 'Loving" and "Inclusive" crowd here]


  • #51
    bobbyjoe
    Closed Accounts Posts: 798 ✭✭✭bobbyjoe


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    I never disputed he could be OTT. I issue is with certain posters here doing the typical leftist "He's a loon,etc" and can't dispute what he's saying [Hell there are some leftist loons that were wishing he would have died last night from his appendicitis surgery [And this is the 'Loving" and "Inclusive" crowd here]

    Out of interest then what is he saying?
    How are we supposed to know which parts are entertainment and which are news?


  • Advertisement
Advertisement