Forum Thread

Lake Martin Topics

(Lake Martin Specific)

111,226 messages

Updated 8/28/2024 4:39:15 PM

Off-Topic

Lakes Online Forum

83,915 messages

Updated 9/7/2024 7:52:09 AM

Boat Maintenance

Lakes Online Forum

5,200 messages

Updated 8/23/2024 12:20:47 PM

Lake Martin Fishing

(Lake Martin Specific)

4,171 messages

Updated 5/29/2024 10:51:34 PM

Jokes

Lakes Online Forum

4,171 messages

Updated 6/27/2024 7:05:46 AM

Sports

Lakes Online Forum

4,261 messages

Updated 5/28/2024 6:31:10 AM

Grilling & Recipes

Lakes Online Forum

2,979 messages

Updated 6/26/2024 5:03:03 AM

Lake Martin SCUBA

(Lake Martin Specific)

169 messages

Updated 5/31/2023 1:39:35 PM

Tallapoosa River Topics

Lakes Online Forum

98 messages

Updated 4/15/2024 1:00:58 AM

Forum Usage Rules

Name:	lotowner -	Reply
Subject:	US Sovereignty
Date:	10/21/2009 8:29:54 PM

Listen to this speaker and then decide how great the threat is to this country.

URL: http://www.youtube.com:80/watch?v=PMe5dOgbu40

Name:	Psycho -	Reply
Subject:	US Sovereignty
Date:	10/21/2009 10:44:48 PM

Thanks for posting the link. I hope everyone will listen to what this guy is saying. I just wish it was have talked about the trillions of dollars it was going to cost the USA yearly.
I just emailed to link to everyone in my address book...I hope more will do the same.

Name:	Yankee06 -	Reply
Subject:	US Sovereignty
Date:	10/21/2009 10:55:52 PM

Hey Lot,
-I placed this same this clip below under the Climate Blackmail thread, but didn't get much comment.
-The sad thing here is that Obama was for this treaty prior to being president, ...it was brought up during the campaign, but no one seemed to care,--including McCain. Since his election, Obama has not commented on it. If I remember, teh price tag for the US is something like 8% of our GDP.
-THis of course is a big rip off. Very doubrful that even this senate would vote in favor of it.
-However, if teh administration is in favor of the treaty, it can still provide the funds , or some part of them, to the UN without ever signing the treaty. The only good thing about that is that the next administration could just stop payiing any money if it so directed.
-But if this administration signs a treaty that says the US will comply , and the senate ratifies that treaty, then future administrations must, according to the constitution, continue to pay, until a new senate votes to withdraw from teh treaty (even though this treaty supposedly have a clause that says no signee can withdraw unless all other signees (or maybe some lagre % of them) agree. This requirement for our continued adhearance to the treaty results from Article VI of our Constitution which says that treaties ratified by the Senate must be viewed as "...the supreme Law of the Land."
-Scary , huh!

Name:	MAJ USA RET -	Reply
Subject:	Climate Treaty vs GDP
Date:	10/22/2009 9:20:39 AM

To put this into perspective, according to the president's FY2010 budget figures, the Department of Defense was 4.8 percent of the FY2009 budget. Hmmmm... we are going to spend TWICE as much for a dubious, ineffective international climate treaty.

This has nothing to do with climate science. The international economic playing field is being leveled. The United States is the highest hump. China is the next... and they won't sign such a treaty (if they did, they certainly wouldn’t abide by it).

Trust your instincts!

Quick Links
Lake Martin News
Lake Martin Photos
Lake Martin Videos