Surprise U.S.-China climate deal reverberates north and south

[waldo]

Invasion of Iraq! Where did that come from! lmao.

it came from you emphasizing the Legislative Branch... in keeping with the prior/same RogueNation theme, I certainly took the liberty to speak to a more prolific example of just that.

The President's signature meant NOTHING unless the Senate consents by 2/3.

The U.S didn't commit to sh*t.

BADABING

BADABING? You form Joysey? Keep emphasizing the ratification side to, apparently, give cover to the influence the U.S. bought to the negotiations and signatory side of the treaty. If it makes you feel better! :lol:

 

[EagleSmack]

no - again, the treaty had 2 stages... signatory and ratification. As they all do - duh! This is not a difficult concept!

It shouldn't be a difficult concept but you are having such a hard time with it.

I will most certainly emphasize the signature side for the U.S. particularly in how it so influenced the makeup of the treaty and actions taken by other nations based on the U.S. participation and signing of the agreement. What's significant is to realize that even in the face of the U.S. turning it's back on the commitments it made as a part of the signatory phase, other nations did not, in turn, also renege on their commitments made... even though the U.S. had significant influence on what they did.

The U.S made no commitments therefore we did not turn our backs on anyone. If the Senate concurred the U.S would be committed to Kyoto. Alas the Senate did not. Sucks 2BU!

That should be the end of it but I am doubtful.

the same ratification pursuit was needed in Canada... that process took the Liberal government years as it had to negotiate with individual provinces. And yes, if Canada had failed to ratify the agreement, I would be saying the exact same thing from that perspective: that Canada didn't meet it's signatory commitments.

You sure did fail to meet its commitments! To the tune of $14 BILLION! Geez. Canada should have followed the U.S's lead on this and stayed out of Kyoto. We told you so.

 

[waldo]

Oh, boy, another dipstick's gonna argue international law with me! Fun fun fun!

if the AUMF was already there (as it was), why the need to pursue the additional H.J.Res.114?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

BADABING? You form Joysey? Keep emphasizing the ratification side to, apparently, give cover to the influence the U.S. bought to the negotiations and signatory side of the treaty. If it makes you feel better! :lol:

Yep, the Clinton administration brought all kinds of influence, and pushed the Kyoto Accord hard. Which does not change the fact that, under the Constitution, no treaty is "made" without the 2/3 concurrence of the Senate. No amount of dodging and dancing on your part will change that.

Just for you, here's the text:

"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. . ."
U.S. Const., Art. II, sec. 2, cl. 2 (boldface mine).

if the AUMF was already there (as it was), why the need to pursue the additional H.J.Res.114?

The first AUMF was against Al Qaeda. Iraq had a separate AUMF.

 

[waldo]

Geez. Canada should have followed the U.S's lead on this and stayed out of Kyoto. We told you so.

the U.S. lead you so gleefully covet, should have had the U.S. stay out of Kyoto... from the onset. It would have made your "told you so" actually mean something. Somehow you just keep skimming over the influence the U.S. actually had in the treaty process... again, in it's makeup and what other countries chose to do.

Yep, the Clinton administration brought all kinds of influence, and pushed the Kyoto Accord hard. Which does not change the fact that, under the Constitution, no treaty is "made" without the 2/3 concurrence of the Senate.

didn't say otherwise. Again, given the U.S. influence in the negotiations/signatory side, I choose to emphase the commitments the U.S. made as a part of that phase... because of that influence and the affect it had on the treaty and member countries.

The first AUMF was against Al Qaeda. Iraq had a separate AUMF.

are you equating the AUMF (any AUMF) with H.J.Res.114?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

the U.S. lead you so gleefully covet, should have had the U.S. stay out of Kyoto... from the onset. It would have made your "told you so" actually mean something. Somehow you just keep skimming over the influence the U.S. actually had in the treaty process... again, in it's makeup and what other countries chose to do.



didn't say otherwise. Again, given the U.S. influence in the negotiations/signatory side, I choose to emphase the commitments the U.S. made as a part of that phase... because of that influence and the affect it had on the treaty and member countries.



are you equating the AUMF (any AUMF) with H.J.Res.114?

Nope, I haven't looked up the res. Hang on one. . .

Yup. Section 3(a) is the meat of it.

 

[waldo]

Nope, I haven't looked up the res. Hang on one. . .

Yup. Section 3(a) is the meat of it.

whaaa! "Imminent threat"!!! Ya, ya... what imminent threat to the U.S. did Iraq pose? WMD? :lol:

anyway, thanks all for some interesting exchange... lunch calls... CU later!

 

[Zipperfish]

I was pointing out his hypocrisy.

I forgot... you're too stupid to see that.

You ain't exactly no intellectual giant yourself there, buddy. :lol:

 

[EagleSmack]

the U.S. lead you so gleefully covet,

I do?

So, you're getting slapped about so you'll just make stuff up?

Typical typical.

should have had the U.S. stay out of Kyoto... from the onset. It would have made your "told you so" actually mean something. Somehow you just keep skimming over the influence the U.S. actually had in the treaty process... again, in it's makeup and what other countries chose to do.

Well President's will do as they do. That's life.

But the U.S DID stay out of Kyoto... Canada did not and REALLY had to back out of it's commitments. We told you so.

You ain't exactly no intellectual giant yourself there, buddy. :lol:

Troll says what?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

whaaa! "Imminent threat"!!! Ya, ya... what imminent threat to the U.S. did Iraq pose? WMD? :lol:

anyway, thanks all for some interesting exchange... lunch calls... CU later!

When you come back, can you highlight the phrase "imminent threat" in the text?

SEC. 3. AUTHORIZATION FOR USE OF UNITED STATES ARMED FORCES.

• (a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--

• • (1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and

• • (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

 

[mentalfloss]

What does China need to do to meet its carbon pledge? | Environment | The Guardian

 

[petros]

When do the reveberations start?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

When do the reveberations start?

R-r-r-ight n-n-n-now.

 

[petros]

Was that the P wave?

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Was that the P wave?

Please keep your P jokes to yourself. Or put 'em in Machjo's BDSM thread.

 

[waldo]

I do?

So, you're getting slapped about so you'll just make stuff up?

Typical typical.

But the U.S DID stay out of Kyoto... Canada did not and REALLY had to back out of it's commitments. We told you so.

the only getting slapped here is your slap-happy self! I didn't make anything up. If you keep talking about "following the U.S. lead", coupled with your nattering "we told you so", why yes, you really want other Kyoto nation countries (their peoples) to accept that "U.S. lead" was significant/instrumental/meaningful to them; i.e., you covet that U.S. lead theme you proffer.

and the U.S. backed out of it's Kyoto signatory phase commitments... and the U.S. backed out of the influence shaping commitments it offered to all other nations during the Kyoto treaty negotiations. Effectively you present this imaginary reality of yours where you don't even recognize the U.S. being involved shaping and influencing the treaty process and outcomes. And like I said, like I'll keep saying, please continue to highlight the Kyoto treaty failure of Harper Conservatives... the one they rationalized by replacing it with other emission reduction commitments, that Harper Conservatives equally ignored.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Yep, he's an idiot.

 

[petros]

Haven't things move on to Copenhagen after the failure of Kyoto?

 

[EagleSmack]

the only getting slapped here is your slap-happy self! I didn't make anything up. If you keep talking about "following the U.S. lead", coupled with your nattering "we told you so", why yes, you really want other Kyoto nation countries (their peoples) to accept that "U.S. lead" was significant/instrumental/meaningful to them; i.e., you covet that U.S. lead theme you proffer.

and the U.S. backed out of it's Kyoto signatory phase commitments... and the U.S. backed out of the influence shaping commitments it offered to all other nations during the Kyoto treaty negotiations. Effectively you present this imaginary reality of yours where you don't even recognize the U.S. being involved shaping and influencing the treaty process and outcomes. And like I said, like I'll keep saying, please continue to highlight the Kyoto treaty failure of Harper Conservatives... the one they rationalized by replacing it with other emission reduction commitments, that Harper Conservatives equally ignored.

Canada should have definitely followed the U.S lead and not join that asinine protocol.

Instead Canada had to back out with a $14 BILLION dollar invoice heading their way.

Harper did the right thing. Canada doesn't have $14 BILLION hanging around.

When Canada backed out it was a HUGE "I told you so!" moment and I applauded that move.

 

[taxslave]

Yep, he's an idiot.

aldo or obummer?