Just think about what you are saying and then turn all those implications around 180 degrees and see where it would put you..... NO oil that was produced, (drilled or refined) beyond your borders (yes, those things are covered under trade agreements) next to nothing for fresh fruits and vegetables in the winter months... just off the top of my head.... your idea freezes to death millions the first winter and starves millions more...
Great idea Zeb. On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 9:09 AM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > Idealism sure is cozy, but things seldom work that way. International > treaties when ratified in the US can supersede domestic law. We should > NEVER give foreigners ANY authority over our domestic energy policies, > through a Kumbaya treaty about global warming hokum or anything else. > > On Jul 11, 10:59 am, Mark <[email protected]> wrote: > > The whole idea behind an international treaty is that they have the > subject > > of the treaty in mind ....NOT the best interest of ONE side but of all > > involved as a whole. > > > > > > > > On Sat, Jul 11, 2009 at 7:20 AM, Zebnick <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > It would be madness to allow Obama or any President to commit the US > > > to the Kyoto treaty on his own. Treaties such as this surrender our > > > sovereignty to outside entities which seldom evidence that they have > > > our best interest in mind. Mostly the opposite, in fact. > > > > > On Jul 10, 4:51 pm, RICHARD BROWN <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > Hollywood, it has zip to do with your question posed to Travis. I > was > > > > pointing out that all of our politicians do the same thing when using > > > > executive power. They find ways around the other branches of > > > > government. It is part of the power game that they all play. > > > > If Obama can commit the U.S. to in effect go along with the Kyoto > > > > Treaty without actually getting the Senate to approve it, he will. > > > > Politicians are very adroit at doing an end run around the opposition > > > > or side stepping the rules and regulations to get what they want. > > > > Did Obama go to Congress to get a declaration of war in Afghanistan > > > > before he sent an additional 30,000 troops there, or before he used > > > > drones to bomb Pakistan? > > > > > > On Jul 10, 1:41 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Richard, > > > > > > > What has that to do with the question I posed to Travis concerning > > > > > treaties? > > > > > > > On Jul 10, 3:04 pm, RICHARD BROWN <[email protected]> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Did the President of the United States get a UN Resolution to use > > > > > > force, or did he get permission from the U.S. Congress to use > force > > > > > > when we invaded Kosovo? Did we have an exit strategy? Do we > plan on > > > > > > letting them become self-governing? > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 9:26 pm, Hollywood <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > > > > > > Travis, > > > > > > > > > Tell us how many times this has happened in our entire history. > > > > > > > > > On Jul 7, 11:22 pm, Travis <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Dick: Do you know how many senators it actually takes to > approve > > > a treaty? > > > > > > > > > > Didn't think so. Try TWO (2). > > > > > > > > > > That is all. One (1) to preside over the senate and one (1) > to > > > vote yes. > > > > > > > > > > That one (1) vote YES is two-thirds (2/3) of the senators > > > present (1) and > > > > > > > > voting (again 1). > > > > > > > > > > This was a grave mistake the founding fathers made when they > did > > > not make > > > > > > > > the vote a required two-thirds (2/3) of the senate. > > > > > > > > > > On Mon, Jul 6, 2009 at 11:14 AM, dick thompson < > > > [email protected]>wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > Sounds right to me. I don't see where the president can > just > > > make the > > > > > > > > > treaty without the consent of the US Senate. If I remember > > > right it takes > > > > > > > > > both of them to approve the treaties. It is not really a > done > > > deal if the > > > > > > > > > president signs it unless the senate also approves it. > Guess > > > they forgot > > > > > > > > > that one. Of course they also tried to forget that when it > > > came to Kyoto > > > > > > > > > for a while as the Dems tried to force the US to implement > a > > > treaty that the > > > > > > > > > Senate never ratified. Looks like another one coming > along. > > > > > > > > > > > *The Constitution Imposes Severe Limits On A President's > > > Treaty-Making > > > > > > > > > Powers: * Here's the relevant section< > > >http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_Am.. > .>: > > > > > > > > > > > He shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of > the > > > Senate, to > > > > > > > > > make Treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present > > > concur; > > > > > > > > > > > The Obama administration is finding that limitation > > > inconvenient< > > >http://hotair.com/archives/2009/07/05/obama-hey-lets-bypass-the-senat.. > .>, > > > > > > > > > and so they are thinking of "temporarily bypassing"< > > >http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/07/us-russian-arms-negot.. > .>the > > > Senate. Not on any important matter, just a little agreement with the > > > > > > > > > Russians on limiting nuclear arms. > > > > > > > > > > > I looked carefully through the Constitution, and could not > find > > > any > > > > > > > > > provision that allows a president to bypass, temporarily or > > > otherwise, that > > > > > > > > > limit on his treaty-making powers. > > > > > > > > > > > Senator Byrd — among others — isn't going to like this one > > > little bit. > > > > > > > > > - 8:08 AM, 6 July 2009 [link]< > > >http://www.seanet.com/~jimxc/Politics/July2009_1.html#jrm7578> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > *~@):~{>- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text - > > > > > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > > -- > > Mark M. Kahle, ,www.filacoffee.com > > > -- Mark M. Kahle, , www.filacoffee.com --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups. For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum * Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/ * It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. * Read the latest breaking news, and more. -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
