Has to be from a out sider also.
Please send it to others
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Thanks for the misleading, totally blank title and post. You might want to at least tell us what it is before we click on it to see it's some stupid B.S. video.
It's a doomsday, end of the world prophecy video.
"Formerly known as Jammit - JBO member since 1998" JBOM | CSS.net
Yep.^
Just like most sheepel.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
LOL, buy into conspiracies, or be labeled as a passive animal. Do you REALLY think you aren't just insulting peoples' intelligence with that lame shot?
Your cause must be truly weak if you need to resort to that.
So, you think we are not loosing any personal libertys?
Really?
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Here's a guy from England, coming to a university in Minnesota, to warn Americans about what our prez is up to.........
and not a peep from the American liberal press.......even Fox!!
Weard right?
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Has anybody took time in there busy schedule to check for any truth before bashing?
Specific link to the actual treaty. (assuming it hasn't been altered)
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:So, you think we are not loosing any personal libertys?
Really?
Chris
Just saying...accusing people of being Sheep because they don't instantly agree with you is a rather ineffective position. It alienates and confronts, rather than sparking healthy debate.
No, I don't feel we are losing personal liberties currently. The Constitution is still unaltered, and no cases have been brough to the Supreme Court that would indicate an erosion of such rights. I must rely on these aspects, for nearly everything else floating about in the current age is biased and undependable.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Wednesday, October 28, 2009 10:18 PM
ScottaWhite wrote:Specific link to the actual treaty. (assuming it hasn't been altered)
UN Framework Convention on Climate Change
Skip to page 78 and start reading the paragraphs on compliance and mitigation. You're going to also want to have handy The Bali Action Plan, as some of the text of the Framework refers to paragraphs in that plan. The entire document is only 181 pages, so it's not a long read, but here's some things that stand out to me so far:Quote:
4. the extent to which developing country Parties will effectively implement their commitments under the Convention will depend on the effective implementation by developed country Parties of their commitments under the Convention related to financial resources and transfer of technology and will take fully into account that economic and social development and poverty eradication are the first and overriding priorities of the developing country Parties
5. The extent of mitigation actions undertaken by developing countries will depend on the extent of effective provision of financial and technological support by developed country Parties.
6. The extent to which mitigation actions can be undertaken by developing countries will depend on the effective provision of financial, technological and capacity-building support by developed country Parties
To make it simple: Developing Parties would be third world countries, and Developed Parties would be leading countries, including the US. These paragraphs basically say that leading countries are committing money and technology to the third world countries.
Note that climate change is not the leading priority here, in spite of it being the topic of the treaty. So tell me if Monckton was off base in his statements.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edited Thursday, October 29, 2009 7:35 AM
Quote:
No, I don't feel we are losing personal liberties currently. The Constitution is still unaltered, and no cases have been brough to the Supreme Court that would indicate an erosion of such rights. I must rely on these aspects, for nearly everything else floating about in the current age is biased and undependable.
Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Quote:
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the sale to civilians of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons." There was no legal definition of "assault weapons" in the U.S. prior to the law's enactment. The ten-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment
Sounds like An Infringment to me..... Granted this was under billey boy. But Im at work, and dont have that much time to dabble in this crap.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
And this thread has nothing to do with gun rights or the 2000 elections. He brought up the assault weapons ban in response to billhahns infringement constitution comment.
I don't know what you are trying to say with the passport bit...
And still kicking around Bush.... Remind me again why you posted in this thread... And did you watch the video? If you did, you'd probaby laugh with maniacal glee
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Misinformation Peddler wrote:Mr.Goodwrench-G.T. wrote:I think the general conscience for most of the JBO is: if they take 'dem gun rights... (chug a beer) we loose all our freedom!
Hmmm. Straight to mocking and insulting the intelligence level of those you disagree with. Who'd have seen that one coming?
Tell it how it is, don't like... don't reply. Simple no? Making out to be a martyr and "the victim" and avoiding the facts is just a lame attempt to bitch just for the sake of bitching. Surprise-surprise from you.
ScottaWhite wrote:And this thread has nothing to do with gun rights or the 2000 elections. He brought up the assault weapons ban in response to billhahns infringement constitution comment.
I don't know what you are trying to say with the passport bit...
And still kicking around Bush.... Remind me again why you posted in this thread... And did you watch the video? If you did, you'd probaby laugh with maniacal glee
Oh that's right we can't bring out gun rights and the 2000 election as examples, it is blasphemy over at the post November-2008 JBO.
If you step back and comprehend what I wrote, you'll see the only time your (for some) freedom get revoked is when it involves
yer gun. If you can't grasp the the sarcasm, I pity you.
Being that it is known the majority of America will never venture the world...hence no passport... there are strict rules that you can not visit certain countries around the world. Nice freedom.
Oh yea, I will bring up Bush when democracy is brought up, as it did in the video. Don't like when one brings a fact on something the other side claim do not do? Or wait, do you think democracy involves removing Saddam from power?
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
Nyah Nyah neener neener.
The thread is about a climate change treaty. Pretty simple. The discussion concerned the rights and sovreignty of the USA, being threatened by a foreign entity.
You have posts, goodwrench, so create some "look at what bush did" threads. I don't care...make a hundred of them. Sime etiquette dictates that we try to remain on topic. And the video wasn't an anti-Obama video. It was simply calling attention to a dangerous treaty.
So if you don't like the topic, then don't comment (to use you infantile reasoning in your last response)
if I saw a thread about .... "best turbo setup for a sunfire", it would be stupid of me to go in and rant on about how mitsubishi makes better turbo cars. It's distracting at best.
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Quote:
No, I don't feel we are losing personal liberties currently. The Constitution is still unaltered, and no cases have been brough to the Supreme Court that would indicate an erosion of such rights. I must rely on these aspects, for nearly everything else floating about in the current age is biased and undependable.
Quote:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Quote:
The Federal Assault Weapons Ban (AWB) (or Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act) was a subtitle of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994, a federal law in the United States that included a prohibition on the sale to civilians of certain semi-automatic firearms, so called "assault weapons." There was no legal definition of "assault weapons" in the U.S. prior to the law's enactment. The ten-year ban was passed by Congress on September 13, 1994 and was signed into law by President Bill Clinton the same day. The ban only applied to weapons manufactured after the date of the ban's enactment
Sounds like An Infringment to me..... Granted this was under billey boy. But Im at work, and dont have that much time to dabble in this crap.
Chris
Meh. Interpreting the 2nd Amendment's been done to death. Please warn me if you are going there, so I can just ignore this thread.
If this is the best example you can find over the last 15 years, then you just proved my point better than I could have. As USA remains far and away the world leader in guns per capita, I don't think those suffering from NRAbies have much to be concerned about.
Greedy Capitalist Pig wrote:To make it simple: Developing Parties would be third world countries, and Developed Parties would be leading countries, including the US. These paragraphs basically say that leading countries are committing money and technology to the third world countries.
Note that climate change is not the leading priority here, in spite of it being the topic of the treaty. So tell me if Monckton was off base in his statements.
I'll address Monckton's essential relevance first: An emotional, poetic speech, long on theatrics, short on facts...to a small college, does not Policy make. His impassioned plea has fallen on deaf ears otherwise for it is just MORE banging the drum way-too-loudly about way-too-little. (If you like that phrase, feel free to plagiarize it too...at least you'll have my permission this time!)
As to the alleged "transfer of weath" to the "developing nations"...once again your tireless crusader for equanamity, your putter-outter-of-fires-that-aren't-even-burning, is compelled to present the continuously and wholly omitted counterpoint. I can distill it down to two simple sentences:
1. Do you know how much foreign aid the USA has provided in a recent six-year period?
2. What makes this instance of aid any more alarming than this ongoing investment...is it a Brit telling us his doomy-gloomy view of it, or just an all-consuming need to keep yelling FIRE?
P.S.: I can answer the first question for you:
$108,621,000,000
I cannot answer the second question for you.
ScottaWhite wrote:Nyah Nyah neener neener.
The thread is about a climate change treaty. Pretty simple. The discussion concerned the rights and sovreignty of the USA, being threatened by a foreign entity.
You have posts, goodwrench, so create some "look at what bush did" threads. I don't care...make a hundred of them. Sime etiquette dictates that we try to remain on topic. And the video wasn't an anti-Obama video. It was simply calling attention to a dangerous treaty.
So if you don't like the topic, then don't comment (to use you infantile reasoning in your last response)
if I saw a thread about .... "best turbo setup for a sunfire", it would be stupid of me to go in and rant on about how mitsubishi makes better turbo cars. It's distracting at best.
1. Watch vid from 2:00-2:45.
2. Read my original comment.
3. Then
Oh and round of applause for thinking staying on topic is infantile.
THE POLITICALLY INCORRECT ONE.
No Bill,
Like i said, that is all i had time for.
the 1932 Gun control act, 1937, and 1988 under bush the first.
Lots of them.
Quote:
Nyah Nyah neener neener.
The thread is about a climate change treaty. Pretty simple. The discussion concerned the rights and sovreignty of the USA, being threatened by a foreign entity.
You have posts, goodwrench, so create some "look at what bush did" threads. I don't care...make a hundred of them. Sime etiquette dictates that we try to remain on topic. And the video wasn't an anti-Obama video. It was simply calling attention to a dangerous treaty.
So if you don't like the topic, then don't comment (to use you infantile reasoning in your last response)
Atleast one person got it.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Agreed then. This is another whack-job video with little relevance to anything real.
Run with it, guys...I'm outtie!
& irrelevant response for someone else. Don't like what I wrote--then don't reply.