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

US and the United Nations Climate Change Conference

Options
2

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 83,333 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • 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."


  • 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: »

    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. ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 990 ✭✭✭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."


  • 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
  • Registered Users 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


  • Registered Users Posts: 83,333 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


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


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


    [/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!!


  • 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!;)


  • 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
  • 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.


  • 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.


  • 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.


  • 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!


  • 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.


  • 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?


  • 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.


  • Registered Users Posts: 83,333 ✭✭✭✭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"


  • 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]


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


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

    You tell me. You're so against him. Where is he wrong? What is he presenting that is not true?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 798 ✭✭✭bobbyjoe


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    You tell me. You're so against him. Where is he wrong? What is he presenting that is not true?

    I'm not against him just think he's a fool.

    Obama is a racist,
    Healthcare is Nazi
    Rockerfeller was a communist blah blah blah

    Then the fake crying!!! How could you take the guy seriously after that?


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


    bobbyjoe wrote: »
    I'm not against him just think he's a fool.

    Obama is a racist,
    Healthcare is Nazi
    Rockerfeller was a communist blah blah blah

    Then the fake crying!!! How could you take the guy seriously after that?

    Cut the **** and answer the question. What has he said on his show that was false? That's not a hard question to answer.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 798 ✭✭✭bobbyjoe


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    Cut the **** and answer the question. What has he said on his show that was false? That's not a hard question to answer.

    Just gave you three things.


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


    bobbyjoe wrote: »
    Just gave you three things.

    :rolleyes:


  • Registered Users Posts: 83,333 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    Pink%20Purse%20Fight.jpg


    Ladies, please.


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


    [QUOTE=Overheal;62870441cut
    Ladies, please.[/QUOTE]


    LOL. I think this over. BobbyJoe is not going to back up anything he says with anything substantial.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 798 ✭✭✭bobbyjoe


    JohnMc1 wrote: »
    LOL. I think this over. BobbyJoe is not going to back up anything he says with anything substantial.

    This is boring me and off topic.

    Why don't you start a thread about Beck?

    Anyhoo.

    Obama is racist
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MI_0Kt_e3Go

    Health care is Nazi
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8APd0OBfOlc

    Rockerfellor Communist
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=szlLM5lCNJg


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


    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.

    I never claimed anything of the above, the question I possed was why is a self proclaimed "entertainer" on a cable news station? Logical conclusions therefore lead to think that Fox care more about entertaining than News. I am glad you agree with my last point at least.;)


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


    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.

    Hmm so many to pick from, how about..
    Beck argued that President Barack Obama has repeatedly shown "a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture," saying "I'm not saying he doesn't like white people. I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist."

    or
    And it was from America. Progressive movement in America. Eugenics. In case you don’t know what Eugenics led us to: the Final Solution. A master race! A perfect person. …. The stuff that we are facing is absolutely frightening. So I guess I have to put my name on yes, I hope Barack Obama fails. But I just want his policies to fail; I want America to wake up.

    This beauty after stem cell research was approved...:D

    John Stewart has the guy pegged.
    "Finally, a guy who says what people who aren't thinking are thinking"


Advertisement