On Tue, Dec 15, 2009 at 10:41 AM, Nicholas Geti <[email protected]> wrote: > I have no knowledge of the details at Copenhagen's conference. But why do > you assume because I believe that our planet is indeed warming, that I > approve of Copenhagen conference letting China off the hook.
OK, point taken. Just to clarify: Your position is you're uninformed and unconcerned about it, then? I was under the impression you were "for" it and I apologize for jumping to that conclusion. > This is all > political bs. China is the worst polluter in the world. Have you seen the > satellite pictures of a dust plume coming from their mining and mfg > facilities near Mongolia? It is thousands of miles across and full of > mercury, lead, and all the other heavy metals plus dangerous gases. > > Why do you assume I approve of "treatying" away our rights. At no time have > I ever written about any of these "Constitutional safeguards" you keep > mentioning that I approve of. I am not even sure we will lose anything in > any case. Well, not anything we're not already losing by other means, I guess. I just know that treaties take precedence over the Constitution and as such represent a far easier way to amend it, if you don't like this or that about it and want to do away with it altogether, as I believe is true about the current administration and its officials. - Publius > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Publius Maximus" <[email protected]> > To: "ProFox Email List" <[email protected]> > Sent: Tuesday, December 15, 2009 8:03 AM > Subject: Re: [OT] In Bolivia, Water and Ice Tell of Climate Change > > >>I want Nick to answer this, because all I ever hear from people who >> are for "doing something" is certitudes and platitudes about the >> alleged problem. >> >> I'd like Nick to explain why Copenhagen's attempt to create a "global >> governance" and establish the concept of "climate debt" and exempt >> India and China is a good idea that will help fix things, and why he's >> OK treatying away our Constitutional safeguards in exchange for... >> what? >> >> - Publius >> >> On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Pete Theisen <[email protected]> >> wrote: >>> Publius Maximus wrote: >>> >>>> What are the essential provisions in the Copenhagen treaty, and why >>>> are they a good idea? >>> >>> Hi Bob, >>> >>> There are 32 points. One thing that hit me right away was that it is to >>> replace the Kyoto Protocol. >>> >>> There is an assumption in the language that all this stuff is some kind >>> of fact, no acknowledgement that the scientists have been caught lying >>> through their teeth - in other words, same old, same old. A *lot* of >>> generalizing, big buzzwords and plenty of money, of course. >>> >>> Not a word about the lap dances. >>> >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_treaty >>> http://www.scribd.com/doc/23831690/Copenhagen-Climate-Change-Agreement >>> >>> It appears from the Guardian article that the developing countries' rep >>> thinks it snubs his constituents. >>> >>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/dec/09/copenhagen-summit-danish-text-leak >>> >>> Of course, since the whole thing is a farce we need to bag it all up and >>> stuff it into Al Gore's back yard. At least it isn't 2000 pages. >>> -- >>> Regards, >>> >>> Pete >>> http://pete-theisen.com/ >>> http://elect-pete-theisen.com/ >>> [excessive quoting removed by server] _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[email protected] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
