Our Sovereignty lost and a global tax

[Avatar4321]

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/10162007b.shtml

Read the interview with Senator Inhofe. This is important and its being completely ignored by the media. This could be another nail in the coffin will become the end of the USA if we arent prepared to stop it.

 

[Larkinn]

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/10162007b.shtml

Read the interview with Senator Inhofe. This is important and its being completely ignored by the media. This could be another nail in the coffin will become the end of the USA if we arent prepared to stop it.

Since when did the US have sovreignity over the Ocean?

More alarmist nonsense.

 

[Dr Grump]

Since when did the US have sovreignity over the Ocean?

More alarmist nonsense.

Absolutely...

 

[Gunny]

Absolutely...

Wrong. Since when did the US have to pay a tax to use the ocean?

Of course the board globalists would call it alarmist. Doesn't suit your vision of a mediocre world.

 

[Larkinn]

Wrong. Since when did the US have to pay a tax to use the ocean?

Since it agreed to a treaty to do so. And its not a tax to use the ocean, its a tax to get oil and mine, and I think a few other things in the ocean. This is in waters which nobody has sovreignity over. How regulating that affects American sovreignity I don't quite know.

Of course the board globalists would call it alarmist. Doesn't suit your vision of a mediocre world.

So you think its a mediocre world that the worlds oceans are split equitably, instead of the richest countries plundering it and the poor countries getting nothing? Strange version of mediocrity you have.

 

[Gunny]

Since it agreed to a treaty to do so. And its not a tax to use the ocean, its a tax to get oil and mine, and I think a few other things in the ocean. This is in waters which nobody has sovreignity over. How regulating that affects American sovreignity I don't quite know.



So you think its a mediocre world that the worlds oceans are split equitably, instead of the richest countries plundering it and the poor countries getting nothing? Strange version of mediocrity you have.

Matter of fact I do. Those that strive to achieve more should get more. Your socialist utopian dream completely destroys any incentive to excel.

Why should I? When you'd just take my extra and give it to some underachiever?

Fuck THAT.

 

[Larkinn]

Matter of fact I do. Those that strive to achieve more should get more. Your socialist utopian dream completely destroys any incentive to excel.

Why should I? When you'd just take my extra and give it to some underachiever?

Fuck THAT.

Hi, we are talking about countries not individuals. Countries have a lot of different reasons for why they don't do well economically, and saying they "underachieve" is grossly simplifying things.

And really...the tax isn't exactly going to deter companies from mining the oceans. It just means they won't make huge outrageous profits. Just huge profits.

 

[Toro]

And I wish Ronald Reagan could be here today to see this mentality that surrounds United States Senate that if it's not multinational, it's something that we don't want anything to do with.

The rest of the world would strongly disagree that the actions of the United States this decade have been particularly "multinational".

 

[Annie]

The rest of the world would strongly disagree that the actions of the United States this decade have been particularly "multinational".

I agree, but would they be correct? Have we actually chosen to 'go it alone'? Like the French in the Congo?

 

[Toro]

I agree, but would they be correct? Have we actually chosen to 'go it alone'? Like the French in the Congo?

No, but the United States has never acted more unilaterally - be it the invasion of Iraq, the increase in farm subsidies, the flouting of international trade law, etc. - than it has this decade in my life time. I don't think the standing of the US has been any lower in the world, at least in several decades.

BTW, I'm against this tax, even if the OP is grossly alarmist.

 

[Annie]

No, but the United States has never acted more unilaterally - be it the invasion of Iraq, the increase in farm subsidies, the flouting of international trade law, etc. - than it has this decade in my life time. I don't think the standing of the US has been any lower in the world, at least in several decades.

BTW, I'm against this tax.

Correct me if I'm hearing you wrong, but the US has not acted as the French in the Congo, has tried for multinationalism support, but falls short of what the UN wishes. Do I have that right?

 

[DeadCanDance]

http://www.glennbeck.com/news/10162007b.shtml

Read the interview with Senator Inhofe. This is important and its being completely ignored by the media. This could be another nail in the coffin will become the end of the USA if we arent prepared to stop it.

This could be another nail in the coffin will become the end of the USA if we arent prepared to stop it.

Oh Gawd. Calm down and stop being a drama queen.

 

[Gunny]

Hi, we are talking about countries not individuals. Countries have a lot of different reasons for why they don't do well economically, and saying they "underachieve" is grossly simplifying things.

And really...the tax isn't exactly going to deter companies from mining the oceans. It just means they won't make huge outrageous profits. Just huge profits.

Countries -- people -- same thing really. You want the richest most powerful nations on the Earth to keep working their asses off but share evenly the rewards for doing so with the do-nothings.

Applies to nations as it does people.

 

[Annie]

Countries -- people -- same thing really. You want the richest most powerful nations on the Earth to keep working their asses off but share evenly the rewards for doing so with the do-nothings.

Applies to nations as it does people.

Got that right. If the company does 'less well' so do the employees.

 

[BaronVonBigmeat]

It seems that the bureaucrats at the UN are doing what all bureaucrats tend to do: seeking out bigger budgets and more gradiose missions. The also seem to have a gigantic throbbing hard-on for a global tax of some kind or another. That's why they are pushing global warming so hard.

Think about it: what's the logical response to global warming, if it were real and as dangerous as it's made out to be? Two things:

1) A "sin tax" on carbon fuels...
2) Applied globally.

You couldn't have China belching CO2 into the atmosphere, now could you? That would set back all the expensive work done by 1st world nations. No, you would need a global tax. Gosh, if only we had...a global government! Or at least some sort of international organization, which would collect the money, and spend it on great and wonderful things. If only we could find such an organization!

 

[Toro]

Correct me if I'm hearing you wrong, but the US has not acted as the French in the Congo, has tried for multinationalism support, but falls short of what the UN wishes. Do I have that right?

Your standard is the French in one of the most chaotic and historically brutalized places on earth?

 

[Larkinn]

Countries -- people -- same thing really. You want the richest most powerful nations on the Earth to keep working their asses off but share evenly the rewards for doing so with the do-nothings.

Applies to nations as it does people.

People and countries are NOT the same thing. We have this idea in America of the "American Dream" that anyone can rise from poverty to succeed. As flawed as that idea is, in the international world regarding countries its pretty much nonsexistant.

The idea that a country is a "do-nothing" or that can share human traits is ridiculous.

Besides the fact that asking for a tax is not "sharing its evenly". Its giving them some of the proceeds of an endeavor which they don't have the ability to do.

 

[Larkinn]

It seems that the bureaucrats at the UN are doing what all bureaucrats tend to do: seeking out bigger budgets and more gradiose missions. The also seem to have a gigantic throbbing hard-on for a global tax of some kind or another. That's why they are pushing global warming so hard.

Actually the people proposing this idea were diplomats from various countries trying to arrive at a fair distribution of the oceans. Part of why they care about a fair distribution is because its a treaty, and countries need to sign on to give it legitimacy.

Think about it: what's the logical response to global warming, if it were real and as dangerous as it's made out to be? Two things:

1) A "sin tax" on carbon fuels...
2) Applied globally.

You couldn't have China belching CO2 into the atmosphere, now could you? That would set back all the expensive work done by 1st world nations. No, you would need a global tax. Gosh, if only we had...a global government! Or at least some sort of international organization, which would collect the money, and spend it on great and wonderful things. If only we could find such an organization!

Ahh...nothing like conspiracy theories to make the world go round. Actually the UN, and most countries (not the US) were looking to exempt China to make the thing actually work. Nobody, as far as I know, has suggested making a world government that can bind countries to its will, to stave off global warming. But nice try.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

Once we pass a treaty it becomes part of our Constitution.
This is one treaty we don't want.
The old Gipper would certainly oppose today's L.O.S.T. (as he did in the past)

Ronald Reagan, according to Meese and Clark, "actually opposed LOST even before he came to office. He was troubled by a treaty that had, in the course of its protracted negotiations, mutated beyond recognition from an effort to codify certain navigation rights strongly supported by our Navy into a dramatic step toward world government."

Meese (Reagan's Attorney General) and Clark (Reagan's National Security Adviser) noted that James Malone, the ambassador chosen by the president to undertake the negotiations on behalf of the U.S., said the treaty provisions "were intentionally designed to promote a new world order — a form of global collectivism known as the New International Economic Order (NIEO) — that seeks ultimately the redistribution of the world's wealth through a complex system of manipulative central planning and bureaucratic coercion."

Clark and Meese say if anything, adopting the treaty would be even more contrary to American interests than it was when Malone said that the 1994 Clinton administration "fix" not only failed to address seabed mining provisions, but "the collectivist ideologies of a now repudiated system of global central planning still embedded in the treaty" prompt a "new and potentially serious concern."

Their Meese-Clark article notes the treaty leaves the U.S. vulnerable to such factors as

"increasingly brazen hostility" of the UN and other international entities to American interests;

the UN's ambition to impose international taxes;

the world environmentalist drive to force the U.S. to adopt jobs-killing policies rejected by our elected officials;

a worldwide "jurisprudence" that would "trump" American constitutional rights;

and enabling adversaries of the U.S. military to impede American military and intelligence operations — in other words, tie our hands so we could not protect ourselves from attack. Just what we need when threatened by bloodthirsty terrorists who want to kill Americans — any Americans.

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/vernon/071015

 

[Toro]

Once we pass a treaty it becomes part of our Constitution.

No it doesn't.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/library/blconstamend.htm