Obama to cede union
- Thread starter strawman
- Start date
- Status
I don't know jack about what's happening in Copenhagen. What is wrong with what he's saying? I'm really being honest here, I have no idea what he's talking about, I'm just to busy to keep up with all the news going on right now.
I don't know jack about what's happening in Copenhagen. What is wrong with what he's saying? I'm really being honest here, I have no idea what he's talking about, I'm just to busy to keep up with all the news going on right now.[/QUOTE]
He's saying that Obama will be signing a treaty establishing a communist world govenrnment.
I don't know jack about what's happening in Copenhagen. What is wrong with what he's saying? I'm really being honest here, I have no idea what he's talking about, I'm just to busy to keep up with all the news going on right now.[/QUOTE]
He's saying that Obama will be signing a treaty establishing a communist world govenrnment.[/QUOTE]
No, no, I KNOW what he's saying. He is saying, "I read this document, and here is what it says".
I assumed you had read it and could refute it. He says that it says it takes precedence over the constitution according to the actual document. Does it say that?
I don't know jack about what's happening in Copenhagen. What is wrong with what he's saying? I'm really being honest here, I have no idea what he's talking about, I'm just to busy to keep up with all the news going on right now.[/quote]
He's saying that Obama will be signing a treaty establishing a communist world govenrnment.[/quote]
No, no, I KNOW what he's saying. He is saying, "I read this document, and here is what it says".
I assumed you had read it and could refute it. He says that it says it takes precedence over the constitution according to the actual document. Does it say that?[/QUOTE]
You honestly believe that such a document exists?
A
Armadillo
That's some fine refutin' you guys are doing.
M
makare
From what I have gathered it is some kind of leaked supposed draft of the agreement. I wouldn't put a lot of stock in it.
Man, I told you, I really don't know anything about it. I would assume it doesn't say that. That's terrifying language and I have zero doubt any President would ever sign anything like that. Seriously. Even Obama.
I'm just asking since you responded so strongly to it. I assumed you knew something about it.
Nor would I, I really can't see any president signing anything like that. I just can't see it. Even the most far left of democrats would, I assume, have serious issues with that.
A
Armadillo
Nor would I, I really can't see any president signing anything like that. I just can't see it. Even the most far left of democrats would, I assume, have serious issues with that.[/QUOTE]
God, you'd hope so, wouldn't you?
OK, I started reading the document, but didn't get very far as it's in a draft format, meaning it's message is sort of all jumbled up. I'll have to speak to the authenticity of the document, then. The site that it is linked on is one that calls itself a proud right wing extremist site with a cartoon of obama coming out of an egg with a crown of thorns with the inferrence that he's basically the antichrist, so I'm going to go ahead and have to say that it is probably not legit.
North_Ranger
Staff member
I would weep for human stupidity, but unfortunately I've been exposed to Fox and that tired old YouTube windbag who fancies himself Thomas Paine...
You don't have to refute something that has no support. It's one of the fine intracacies of debating. When commenting on how utterly without merit and baseless an accusation is, you don't have to trip over yourself to prove it isn't true.
AKA- Your mom is a baby killer. Now prove she isn't.
You don't have to refute something that has no support. It's one of the fine intracacies of debating. When commenting on how utterly without merit and baseless an accusation is, you don't have to trip over yourself to prove it isn't true.
AKA- Your mom is a baby killer. Now prove she isn't.[/QUOTE]
So, is this treaty not true? I don't know if it is or it isn't. This is the first I am hearing about this.
You don't have to refute something that has no support. It's one of the fine intracacies of debating. When commenting on how utterly without merit and baseless an accusation is, you don't have to trip over yourself to prove it isn't true.
AKA- Your mom is a baby killer. Now prove she isn't.[/QUOTE]
So, is this treaty not true? I don't know if it is or it isn't. This is the first I am hearing about this.[/QUOTE]
No one knows. He claims to have read the actual document. People here have not read it and say he is wrong. That's the "debate" so far.
You don't have to refute something that has no support. It's one of the fine intracacies of debating. When commenting on how utterly without merit and baseless an accusation is, you don't have to trip over yourself to prove it isn't true.
AKA- Your mom is a baby killer. Now prove she isn't.[/quote]
So, is this treaty not true? I don't know if it is or it isn't. This is the first I am hearing about this.[/quote]
No one knows. He claims to have read the actual document. People here have not read it and say he is wrong. That's the "debate" so far.[/QUOTE]
It's because the accusation is absurd to the point of being assenine. I shall look up more info on this british windbag.
You don't have to refute something that has no support. It's one of the fine intracacies of debating. When commenting on how utterly without merit and baseless an accusation is, you don't have to trip over yourself to prove it isn't true.
AKA- Your mom is a baby killer. Now prove she isn't.[/quote]
So, is this treaty not true? I don't know if it is or it isn't. This is the first I am hearing about this.[/quote]
No one knows. He claims to have read the actual document. People here have not read it and say he is wrong. That's the "debate" so far.[/QUOTE]
It's because the accusation is absurd to the point of being assenine. I shall look up more info on this british windbag.[/QUOTE]
I'm not disagreeing that it is probably untrue.
But raking up mud on a speaker instead of actually refuting the points he claims are in the ACTUAL document isn't going to get anyone to take your side any more seriously than you are taking him.
If you want to disprove him find something that refutes what he claims is in the document or else it's all just verbal masturbation.
You don't have to refute something that has no support. It's one of the fine intracacies of debating. When commenting on how utterly without merit and baseless an accusation is, you don't have to trip over yourself to prove it isn't true.
AKA- Your mom is a baby killer. Now prove she isn't.[/quote]
So, is this treaty not true? I don't know if it is or it isn't. This is the first I am hearing about this.[/quote]
No one knows. He claims to have read the actual document. People here have not read it and say he is wrong. That's the "debate" so far.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, Espy.
There's nothing to debate. It's a guy who supposedly has seen an agreement no one else has seen (or reported on yet) and he knows what the nefarious plan is behind it.
Color me unimpressed.
Information on Lord Christopher Monckton
I believe the content of someone's character lends to their validity. He's the one claiming to have read the document. His voracity is very much the point of this whole thread.
What I have found out about him is that he's a old school conservative Torry who has, among other things, called for the internment of anyone infected with AIDS.
Source not reliable, therefore, I don't have to have any faith in what he is saying is any way true.
What I have found out about him is that he's a old school conservative Torry who has, among other things, called for the internment of anyone infected with AIDS.
Source not reliable, therefore, I don't have to have any faith in what he is saying is any way true.
You don't have to refute something that has no support. It's one of the fine intracacies of debating. When commenting on how utterly without merit and baseless an accusation is, you don't have to trip over yourself to prove it isn't true.
AKA- Your mom is a baby killer. Now prove she isn't.[/quote]
So, is this treaty not true? I don't know if it is or it isn't. This is the first I am hearing about this.[/quote]
No one knows. He claims to have read the actual document. People here have not read it and say he is wrong. That's the "debate" so far.[/QUOTE]
Exactly, Espy.
There's nothing to debate. It's a guy who supposedly has seen an agreement no one else has seen (or reported on yet) and he knows what the nefarious plan is behind it.[/QUOTE]
If there is no information on the document then I agree, there is nothing to debate. However people here have said it's clearly false what he is saying and can't back that up when called upon in any way other than "It's stupid". Which is fine, don't get me wrong, but it would be nice to actually have something to go on from another source. Especially since most of us haven't even heard of this.
I could list literally a hundred or more reasons why this couldn't happen and is probably a fake... but I only need one: Obama wants to live to see tomorrow just like everyone else. He may be making some questionable decisions, but I doubt he's all that interested in becoming a bullet magnet for every militia, lone gunman, or celebrity obsessed killer in the US.
As I said, there's a supposed draft of this out there, but it's validity is also in question.
I've never claimed to have read it, you're the one who made that assumption. As stated in my previous post, this guys character and validity are the only things that we have to go on. Seeing as he's a looney from what I've read, There's no reason to merit anything that he is saying as true.
As I said, there's a supposed draft of this out there, but it's validity is also in question.
I've never claimed to have read it, you're the one who made that assumption. As stated in my previous post, this guys character and validity are the only things that we have to go on. Seeing as he's a looney from what I've read, There's no reason to merit anything that he is saying as true.[/QUOTE]
You are totally misunderstanding me. I'm not saying "he's right". I'm saying He claims to have seen this in the document and people here said it's not true. Some of us actually would be interested in knowing what's really in it and assumed, since we don't know much about it, that those who said "BAM! WRONG!" might have been due to knowing something about it.
As I stated in my above post, I don't think it's real and even if it was I don't believe Obama or any president would sign it. That doesn't mean however one can just say WRONG! then not be asked to back that up beyond "uh, cuz it's dumb and I read something about this guy and he's uncool".
Either way, I had just hoped someone had some more info on this. Guess we will have to wait and see.
I've been trying to, but so far can't find the actual document (or anything official).
I'll keep looking.
Here's what politifact uncovered:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...h-climate-skeptic-says-copenhagen-treaty-thr/
They rated his claims as "Pants on fire."
It goes on at some length, explaining that the existing 'draft' is not much more than a stream of consciousness type document with ideas, some conflicting, options, alternatives, etc. It isn't anything close to a real treaty.
Further, if anything is signed anytime soon, all it will say is, "We promise to come to the table for the next conference and discuss this issue further" since it's blindingly obvious to all participants that this conference is not going to produce a treaty before it's adjourned.
But, even if what this guy says is true about the supposed treaty, politifact makes the following points:
- Signing a treaty doesn't mean that its provisions become binding.
- The Senate would have to approve any binding agreement with a 67-vote supermajority.
- The Obama administration has publicly pledged that it will not sign an agreement unacceptable to Congress.
- The negotiators are aware of sovereignty concerns and are weighing options that would limit intrusiveness.
- Even if the United States does eventually cede some sovereignty on climate change, "freedom" and "democracy" are not at stake.
Although one can nit-pick at the last point inasmuch as the freedom for people to continue to pollute in certain ways would be restricted. Losing that freedom would be on par with all the companies that lost the freedom to use CFCs decades ago.
Still, it's a very interesting point of view. Radical and inflaming, certainly, but it certainly brought the issue to a lot of people that weren't thinking about it before.
-Adam
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...h-climate-skeptic-says-copenhagen-treaty-thr/
They rated his claims as "Pants on fire."
It goes on at some length, explaining that the existing 'draft' is not much more than a stream of consciousness type document with ideas, some conflicting, options, alternatives, etc. It isn't anything close to a real treaty.
Further, if anything is signed anytime soon, all it will say is, "We promise to come to the table for the next conference and discuss this issue further" since it's blindingly obvious to all participants that this conference is not going to produce a treaty before it's adjourned.
But, even if what this guy says is true about the supposed treaty, politifact makes the following points:
- Signing a treaty doesn't mean that its provisions become binding.
- The Senate would have to approve any binding agreement with a 67-vote supermajority.
- The Obama administration has publicly pledged that it will not sign an agreement unacceptable to Congress.
- The negotiators are aware of sovereignty concerns and are weighing options that would limit intrusiveness.
- Even if the United States does eventually cede some sovereignty on climate change, "freedom" and "democracy" are not at stake.
Although one can nit-pick at the last point inasmuch as the freedom for people to continue to pollute in certain ways would be restricted. Losing that freedom would be on par with all the companies that lost the freedom to use CFCs decades ago.
Still, it's a very interesting point of view. Radical and inflaming, certainly, but it certainly brought the issue to a lot of people that weren't thinking about it before.
-Adam
K
Kitty Sinatra
Holy crap. Krisken, I couldn't even make it to the 1 minute mark. No Western nation is gonna do what he says. (in that first 45 seconds)
Hell, his own country - I'm assuming this guy's a Brit - is unwilling to even fully join the European Union (They still don't use the Euro as their currency, for example). It's laughable to think they'd jump from that straight into a world government.
It's absurd.
Hell, his own country - I'm assuming this guy's a Brit - is unwilling to even fully join the European Union (They still don't use the Euro as their currency, for example). It's laughable to think they'd jump from that straight into a world government.
It's absurd.
Honestly, I think I was paralyzed by confusion and disbelief.
I think I smell "Obama Derangement Syndrome"
Good lord. This is comedy, right?
...Right?
...Anyone can actually take this seriously? Really? I'm losing faith in the media, here. And people. Really.
Okay. Look. There won't be a final treaty in Copenhagen. All there will be is another small step towards a global climate plan. Just like Kyoto was. Heck, the EU just had a summit about trying to work out who's going to pay how much (in the EU, so that we can come out as a front and try to get the US to actually, you know, pay a meaningful amount as opposed to the beggar's watch it's throwing in right now). We could hardly reach an agreement internally. No way in hell will there suddenly be some sort of supranational agreement. Everybody's out for their own interests, as always.
The only documents currently in circulation are NOT even approved drafts - they're pre-summit drafts by think tanks from several angles. As such, their content isn't so much "not set in stone", as it is "likely to change radically and completely".
Furthermore...Seriously. Suddenly a whole World Government, just for kicks? Conspiracy theory much?
Lastly, though, small thing, Steinie: signing a treaty *does* bind your country to certain things. Once signed by the head of state, a treaty *must* be presented in the democratic house fopr ratification (which, of course, can vote it down. Durr.) Once *ratified* by all necessary houses/senates/congresses/parliaments/dumas/whatnots, however, an international treaty *does* outweigh and outrank a national constitution, taking precedence.
It's something the USa has ften had troubles with in the past, since they seem to think this somehow lessens their sovereignty or whatever - but it doesn't; it's the epitome of it.
...Right?
...Anyone can actually take this seriously? Really? I'm losing faith in the media, here. And people. Really.
Okay. Look. There won't be a final treaty in Copenhagen. All there will be is another small step towards a global climate plan. Just like Kyoto was. Heck, the EU just had a summit about trying to work out who's going to pay how much (in the EU, so that we can come out as a front and try to get the US to actually, you know, pay a meaningful amount as opposed to the beggar's watch it's throwing in right now). We could hardly reach an agreement internally. No way in hell will there suddenly be some sort of supranational agreement. Everybody's out for their own interests, as always.
The only documents currently in circulation are NOT even approved drafts - they're pre-summit drafts by think tanks from several angles. As such, their content isn't so much "not set in stone", as it is "likely to change radically and completely".
Furthermore...Seriously. Suddenly a whole World Government, just for kicks? Conspiracy theory much?
Lastly, though, small thing, Steinie: signing a treaty *does* bind your country to certain things. Once signed by the head of state, a treaty *must* be presented in the democratic house fopr ratification (which, of course, can vote it down. Durr.) Once *ratified* by all necessary houses/senates/congresses/parliaments/dumas/whatnots, however, an international treaty *does* outweigh and outrank a national constitution, taking precedence.
It's something the USa has ften had troubles with in the past, since they seem to think this somehow lessens their sovereignty or whatever - but it doesn't; it's the epitome of it.
D
Dusty668
"Obama to cede union"
Fine by me. Damn Yankees.
Fine by me. Damn Yankees.
No one listens to Damn Yankees.
A
Armadillo
No one listens to Damn Yankees.[/QUOTE]
I've been known to rock "High Enough" in the shower from time to time.
No one listens to Damn Yankees.[/QUOTE]
Whatever Lola wants, Lola gets.
- Status