Losing Our Sovereignty?, Copenhagen conssessions

Patch,

Thanks for pointing out how you answered my question before about the "crotch salute." I'm sorry I missed that the first time, I could have skipped the bowing stuff!

While I don't agree that not putting your hand on your heart to salute the flag is unpatriotic, at least you defined what you meant. And you usually do by the way, which I appreciate.

Stevenpd,

My concern isn't so much about the adjectives used as it is that they are used as the end of the argument. In other words, saying Obama is dangerous is given as a statement of fact without any added justification. I'm just looking for the why someone thinks he is dangerous, or a wanker, or an idiot. That's all. I happen to like colorful adjectives and, as CelticSpecter indicated, sometimes that is all you have left! I would just like to see more of the why. It is how I learn.

I truly believe that discussions like those that take place here are important and can do much to change things. They fine tune opinions, even change them and can cause one to, at a minimum, check facts and be exposed to new and different ideas. At least they can if there is an explanation given to justify the colorful adjectives employed.

His move toward socialism from our capitalistic society would be the most dangerous.

Second is his fiscal policy upon which the house just voted to add another 1 (plus) Trillion in bail out dollars. Third, Health care which will add another Trillion to the deficit when it has been proven that the government cannot effectively manage ANY program. Fourth Cap and Trade. We are going to raise the price of fuel and power for those who can least afford it at a time when unemployment/under employment is at near depression levels. Fortunately it is not likely to pass as people are waking up and the D's are now aware of same. Fifth, these additions to the deficit will at some point in the near future generate interest payments that we cannot meet. Consequently America will default on it's obligations. Sixth, of all the money that was appropriated to create jobs, much was stolen and very little created any jobs. Now we have another "jobs program." New unemployment claims dipped to 11K two weeks ago and it was touted as an economic turn around. Last week the numbers were back near 500K. At 500K new claims a week we may just be doomed as this is not sustainable.

The list goes on.

As for the "Wanker" you need to talk with a citizen of the UK, Scotland or Ireland about that.

Re: patriotism, this is AMERICA and his actions are unpatriotic when he fails to honor the American flag. That is not lost on veterans and they vote.

The names I have seen obama called here are not as bad as those the liberals directed at bush during his tenure.

My personal opinion is that obama is an educated individual who lacks common sense and is a narcissist.

Slàinte,

Patch

I believe Barack H. Obama has an extensive traditional education (how well he did during this "education" is a matter of speculation since he has thus far refused to make his educational records public), as well as extensive mentoring by a number of Marxist intellectuals and true believers. However.... I think the jury should still be out on how "educated" he is. "Book Smarts" should not be the only consideration in determining if someone is "educated". I have ran into more than a few people during my lifetime with a high school education (or less), who instead came up through “the school of hard knocks" and they have more intelligence, common sense, and "education" than many people I know with college educations, including people with masters and doctorate degrees!

His move toward socialism from our capitalistic society would be the most dangerous. Many people now realize this and will vote their opposition.

Second, is his fiscal policy. The house just voted to add another 1.1Trillion in bail out dollars. at a time when tax revenue is rapidly shrinking. The senate is now considering the same. This fact is not lost on conservatives, independents and a number of liberals and they vote.

Third, would be health care which will add another Trillion plus to the deficit when it has been proven that the government cannot effectively manage ANY program and control it's cost. This fact is not lost on seniors and they vote.

Fourth, Cap and Trade. We are going to raise the price of fuel and power for those who can least afford it at a time when unemployment/under employment is at "near" depression levels. Fortunately it is not likely to pass as people are waking up and the D's are painfully aware of that fact. When this hurts the low income citizens they will realize it and they will likely vote

Fifth, these additions to the deficit will at some point in the near future generate interest payments that we cannot meet. Consequently America will default on it's obligations. When we arrive at that point most everyone will vote their displeasure.

Sixth, of all the money that was appropriated to create jobs, much was stolen and very little created any jobs. Now we have another "jobs program." New unemployment claims dipped to 11K two weeks ago and it was touted as an economic turn around. Last week the numbers were back near 500K. At 500K new claims a week we may be doomed by this alone as this is not sustainable. The unemployed and the under employed will be voting too.

The list goes on.

As for the "Wanker" you need to talk with a citizen of the UK, Scotland or Ireland about that. That description was hung on him there for reasons they feel strongly about.

Re: patriotism, this is AMERICA and his actions are notably unpatriotic when he fails to publicly honor the AMERICAN flag. As the leader of this country his failure to do so also shows a lack of common sense. (not a good leadership trait) That is not lost on veterans and they vote.

The names I have seen obama called here are not nearly as bad or frequent as those the liberals directed at bush during his tenure, though as times passes it could equalize.

My personal opinion is that obama is an educated individual who lacks common sense and is a narcissist.

Slàinte,

Patch

The alarm has been raised. Let's see what he does upon arrival. Although the issue is a dangerous one, it is interesting.

Climate Deal Brings Legal Objections

Who ever wrote that article isn't very good at math. The current number of US Senators required to ratify a treaty is 67 ( and has been since Hawaii entered the Union on August 21, 1959).

MacE,

Once again, I am in complete agreement with you! This might be a trend. What is going to happen to my Liberal Democrat membership?

Incidently, I believe the President can sign the treaties, but they are not binding until ratified by the Senate.

If and when the President signs the treaty it is the world's perception that it will be binding. Regardless of the technicalities. With the treaty signed the Dem's will fall in line and agree.

The danger is the end run around the Constitution, which.is S.O.P. for Obama.

CelticSpecter,

Care to elaborate on what Obama has done that is an end run around the constitution?

As far as the Democrats falling in line because Obama signs something, I wish that was true, but this issue is even more divisive within the party than Health care. I just don't see 67 of these Senators agreeing on much of anything, and I believe that governments know very well how this process works, what is binding and what is not.

The most blatant are his "czars." With these "advisers" he has basically created a shadow government for one. Two, his administration is standing by to force change by changing the rules. Case in point, EPA and climate change. Statements made by Lisa Jackson such as:

Administrator Lisa P. Jackson, Remarks to the United Nations Climate Change Conference in Copenhagen, As Prepared

While he has been in office stories have surfaced of underhanded cronyism.

Gerald Walpin speaks: The inside story of the AmeriCorps firing

Walpin has since been exonerated.

I don't see how the appointing of advisers is unconstitutional. They don't have any actual power do they? Perhaps they have influence, but so what. That's still within the purview of an adviser.

While I agree that AGW (climate change being the new PC euphemism) is overestimated and not potentially catastrophic if its occurring at all, that doesn't mean the EPA actions are unconstitutional. There's no constitutional mandate to not be stupid.

As for cronyism, isn't that business as usual in Washington?

CelticSpecter,

I appreciate that you answered my question. Thank you. I don't know that I would come to the same conclusions that you have, but I think I understand your concerns.

Perhaps you are aware that the term "czar" was made up by the media and refers to department heads and advisors in a presidents administration. As such, the media makes it sound like these are special positions within the government that would not normally exist. These positions go back to Roosevelt. Many of Obama's are carry overs from previous administrations. So, while you still have a point about that he has advisors and one could be anxious about what they advise, as Antwn says, he is allowed to do so as other presidents have done and it isn't unconstitutional to have department heads.

As far as the EPA goes and changing rules, the EPA was founded in 1970 and its mission is listed as follows:

The mission of EPA is to protect human health and to safeguard the natural environment -- air, water and land -- upon which life depends.

EPA's purpose is to ensure that:

all Americans are protected from significant risks to human health and the environment where they live, learn and work;

national efforts to reduce environmental risk are based on the best available scientific information;

federal laws protecting human health and the environment are enforced fairly and effectively;

environmental protection is an integral consideration in U.S. policies concerning natural resources, human health, economic growth, energy, transportation, agriculture, industry, and international trade, and these factors are similarly considered in establishing environmental policy;

all parts of society -- communities, individuals, businesses, and state, local and tribal governments -- have access to accurate information sufficient to effectively participate in managing human health and environmental risks;

environmental protection contributes to making our communities and ecosystems diverse, sustainable and economically productive; and

the United States plays a leadership role in working with other nations to protect the global environment.



I don't see that the EPA is doing anything it wasn't authorized to do, just that it has decided to do it now. It could have done it before if it felt that the data on co2 emissions warranted it. I suspect the move to do it now is politically motivated to fit within the global warming excitement, but I don't think there is anything unconstitutional about it.

Forcing someone to resign, cronyism, as Antwn indicates, happens in most large agencies, private and public. Congress or the Justice Dept. has a right to investigate if alarmed. But I don't see this as particularly alarming or new to Obama's administration.

Change we can believe in?

Ouch! Clever one MacE!

CelticSpecter:

IG's are to oversee the actions of the govt. They are supposed to be insulated from pressure.

Sadly, as a true narcissist, obama does not see the need to follow the law in his actions.

At least the meeting was in disarray. I would be interested in finding where we are going to get any funds that obama promised.

Slàint,    

Patch