PDA

View Full Version : L.O.S.T.


Pell Mell
02-13-2012, 12:38 PM
The Law of the Sea Treaty (LOST) has been signed, and the Obama administration — with the aid of RINO Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.) — will push for its ratification as soon as Lugar’s primary in Indiana is over this year. LOST requires that the United States pay an international body half of its royalties from offshore drilling. The body would then distribute the funds as it sees fit to whichever nations it chooses. The United States would only have one vote out of 160 regarding where the money goes. LOST will also oblige us to hand over our offshore drilling technology to any nation that wants it … for free.

Do you think this will be ratified? Bad news if it does...

Greyfox
02-13-2012, 01:11 PM
Must be part of Obama's plan for wealth redistribution to poorer nations.
That shouldn't surprise anyone.

boxcar
02-13-2012, 01:41 PM
Must be part of Obama's plan for wealth redistribution to poorer nations.
That shouldn't surprise anyone.

Obama is a part of America-is-what-wrong-with-the-World group. Therefore, he's out to punish this country for all its sins against humanity everywhere. I'm serious when I say this.

Boxcar

Tom
02-13-2012, 02:28 PM
How can our technology be handed over when it is owned by the oil companies?

Not that I think Obama would have no problem doing a chicken-shit thing like that.

All the more reason to vote for an American this November.
Preferably some white guy, since that is the new standard according to SLJ and accepted by some here. :rolleyes:

riskman
02-13-2012, 02:31 PM
This Treaty in various versions has been kicking around at least since the 80's. Reagan wanted nothing to do with it. I think Clinton signed a revised version of this disaster but the Senate refused to ratify the agreement. Not sure it went before GWB, but here we go again.
Let us hope that the Senate does the sensible thing and rejects LOST and any further UN encroachments on our sovereignty.

Greyfox
02-13-2012, 02:43 PM
Can anyone see a pattern here?

Breaking News:

Obama proposes $800 million in aid for "Arab Spring"

In his annual budget message to Congress, President Barack Obama asked that military aid to Egypt be kept at the level of recent years -- $1.3 billion -- despite a crisis triggered by an Egyptian probe targeting American democracy activists.

The proposals are part of Obama's budget request for fiscal year 2013, which begins October 1. His requests need the approval of Congress, where some lawmakers want to cut overseas spending to address U.S. budget shortfalls and are particularly angry at Egypt.



More at link: http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/02/13/us-usa-budget-foreign-idUSTRE81C1C920120213

Tom
02-13-2012, 03:02 PM
Can anyone see a pattern here?

Rise of a mad socialist dictator?

Robert Goren
02-13-2012, 03:27 PM
This oil company technology stuff is crazy. Any country that has off shore oil already has access to it from the companies drill off their shores. More crazy right ramblings from people who haven't a clue and the Obama haters eat it right up like it was prime rib. You can disagree with Obama about lot of things, but you look really dumb when you go after things like this. Even our Military says this a good deal. If this best you can come up with, get ready for another 4 years because anybody with half a brain isn't buying this crap.

Greyfox
02-13-2012, 03:34 PM
If this best you can come up with, get ready for another 4 years because anybody with half a brain isn't buying this crap.

Anybody with half a brain isn't buying this next budget either:

Obama budget: National debt will be $1 trillion higher in a decade than forecast

President Obama on Monday unveiled a $3.8 trillion spending plan that seeks to pump billions of dollars into the economy while raising taxes on the rich to tame a soaring national debt now projected to grow significantly faster than previously forecast.

The president’s outlook for debt reduction has deteriorated markedly since September, when Obama told Congress that his proposals would hold annual deficits well under $600 billion after next year and permit the debt held by outside investors to rise to $17.7 trillion by 2021, or 73 percent of the overall economy.





http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-budget-national-debt-will-be-1-trillion-higher-in-a-decade-than-previously-forecast/2012/02/13/gIQA2Rn1AR_story.html?wprss=

ArlJim78
02-13-2012, 03:56 PM
Anybody with half a brain isn't buying this next budget either:

Obama budget: National debt will be $1 trillion higher in a decade than forecast

President Obama on Monday unveiled a $3.8 trillion spending plan that seeks to pump billions of dollars into the economy while raising taxes on the rich to tame a soaring national debt now projected to grow significantly faster than previously forecast.

The president’s outlook for debt reduction has deteriorated markedly since September, when Obama told Congress that his proposals would hold annual deficits well under $600 billion after next year and permit the debt held by outside investors to rise to $17.7 trillion by 2021, or 73 percent of the overall economy.





http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/obama-budget-national-debt-will-be-1-trillion-higher-in-a-decade-than-previously-forecast/2012/02/13/gIQA2Rn1AR_story.html?wprss=
speaking of budgets I was reminded today that Obama's first budget in 2009 was titled "A New Era of Responsibility".:lol: :lol:

thats almost as bad as the "affordable" health care act of 2010, which it turns out is completely unaffordable.

boxcar
02-13-2012, 04:37 PM
This Treaty in various versions has been kicking around at least since the 80's. Reagan wanted nothing to do with it. I think Clinton signed a revised version of this disaster but the Senate refused to ratify the agreement. Not sure it went before GWB, but here we go again.
Let us hope that the Senate does the sensible thing and rejects LOST and any further UN encroachments on our sovereignty.

This is an excellent example of what I was telling Johnhannibalsmith in another thread. The Left is like a vicious attack dog that never lets an issue go until the dog has had its way with it. In other words, the issue dies because the objective was achieved. The Left is diabolically relentless in pursuing its agenda.

Boxcar

boxcar
02-13-2012, 04:40 PM
speaking of budgets I was reminded today that Obama's first budget in 2009 was titled "A New Era of Responsibility".:lol: :lol:

thats almost as bad as the "affordable" health care act of 2010, which it turns out is completely unaffordable.

You can always tell what any given leftist bill is about by its name. All one has to do is go the opposite way of the name and you will know what the bill is intended to do to America.

Boxcar

mostpost
02-13-2012, 05:21 PM
We start this thread with an unsourced claim that the UN is trying to take control of the high seas. It is stated that the United States would have to hand over its proprietary drilling technology free of charge. The treaty says no such thing. It encourages signees to share technology relevant to environmental issues, but does not mandate such. In fact, Part XI added in the eighties specifically says that is not mandated.

Then the claim is made that the United States will be forced to turn over half its Royalties from off shore drilling to a mysterious international body. Maybe one of you can point out where this is in the actual treaty, because I could find nothing to confirm that in the text of the treaty. You know the text of something-what is actually written there.

There is some language about paying for the operations of the commission, but it does not involve one half of our royalties and the money goes specifically to the UN commission charged with enforcing the treaty and not to any individual nations.

Then someone comes along with some common sense post about how ridiculous the entire idea is and the response is to start talking about the National debt. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand. If you want to discuss the national debt, start your own darn thread.

Greyfox
02-13-2012, 06:37 PM
There is some language about paying for the operations of the commission, but it does not involve one half of our royalties and the money goes specifically to the UN commission charged with enforcing the treaty and not to any individual nations.

.

Giving a nickel to the United Nations for any reason is a waste of money.
That organization has become a very useless agency.
Secondly, as you know so much about LOST, tell us how signing this agreement strengthens America's standing in the world.
In fact, tell us anything that Obama has done that strengthens America in any way vis-a-vis to the rest of the world.

boxcar
02-13-2012, 07:35 PM
Giving a nickel to the United Nations for any reason is a waste of money.
That organization has become a very useless agency.
Secondly, as you know so much about LOST, tell us how signing this agreement strengthens America's standing in the world.
In fact, tell us anything that Obama has done that strengthens America in any way vis-a-vis to the rest of the world.

In fact, why do we need L.O.S.T.? This nation is already there. :lol:

But seriously, here is a link to a lengthy read. It appears that the Dictator-in-Chief, by EO, bypassed Congress again (where treaty ratifications are mandated) to give away a piece of our sovereignty. Just another small step toward that "new world order".

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=31564

Boxcar

mostpost
02-13-2012, 09:31 PM
In fact, why do we need L.O.S.T.? This nation is already there. :lol:

But seriously, here is a link to a lengthy read. It appears that the Dictator-in-Chief, by EO, bypassed Congress again (where treaty ratifications are mandated) to give away a piece of our sovereignty. Just another small step toward that "new world order".

http://www.informationliberation.com/?id=31564

Boxcar
It appears that you are full of it, again.
The "National Ocean Council" was established more than eighteen months ago and has nothing to do with the LOST treaty. It is a mechanism for coordinating internal US policy regarding the Oceans and waterways of this country. The Executive order did not clandestinely ratify the LOST treaty. Anyone who tells you it did is a liar and thinks you are a fool.

mostpost
02-13-2012, 09:40 PM
Giving a nickel to the United Nations for any reason is a waste of money.
That organization has become a very useless agency.
Secondly, as you know so much about LOST, tell us how signing this agreement strengthens America's standing in the world.
In fact, tell us anything that Obama has done that strengthens America in any way vis-a-vis to the rest of the world.
Ask the United States Navy that question. They support the LOST treaty because it clarifies and codifies the varying territorial waters claims made by different countries. As it is now, a country can change its claims on a whim and the Navy is obliged to honor those claims. Until it ratifies the treaty the United States does not have standing to bring action against violators. We abide by the terms of the treaty, but we cannot make anyone else abide by them.

mostpost
02-13-2012, 09:47 PM
This Treaty in various versions has been kicking around at least since the 80's. Reagan wanted nothing to do with it. I think Clinton signed a revised version of this disaster but the Senate refused to ratify the agreement. Not sure it went before GWB, but here we go again.
Let us hope that the Senate does the sensible thing and rejects LOST and any further UN encroachments on our sovereignty.

How is this an encroachment of our sovereignty? We do not have the right to do anything we want on the high seas. Might does not make right. As much as some here may hate the idea, we are a part of the world community. We cannot just bully our way around the planet. Some of you act like the world is the sixth grade playground at recess.

Greyfox
02-13-2012, 09:51 PM
Ask the United States Navy that question. They support the LOST treaty because it clarifies and codifies the varying territorial waters claims made by different countries. As it is now, a country can change its claims on a whim and the Navy is obliged to honor those claims. Until it ratifies the treaty the United States does not have standing to bring action against violators. We abide by the terms of the treaty, but we cannot make anyone else abide by them.

Ratification or not most countries honor the idea that the economic zone off shore is 200 nautical miles. The treaty will not change that.
Nothing about that idea strengthens America.

boxcar
02-13-2012, 11:30 PM
It appears that you are full of it, again.
The "National Ocean Council" was established more than eighteen months ago and has nothing to do with the LOST treaty. It is a mechanism for coordinating internal US policy regarding the Oceans and waterways of this country. The Executive order did not clandestinely ratify the LOST treaty. Anyone who tells you it did is a liar and thinks you are a fool.

You don't read too swell, do you? Show me where Congress ratified the L.O.S.T. treaty, Einstein.

Boxcar

mostpost
02-14-2012, 01:18 PM
You don't read too swell, do you? Show me where Congress ratified the L.O.S.T. treaty, Einstein.

Boxcar
You are the one who does not read too "Swell." Nowhere in my post does it say or imply that Congress ratified the LOST treaty.

boxcar
02-14-2012, 04:21 PM
You are the one who does not read too "Swell." Nowhere in my post does it say or imply that Congress ratified the LOST treaty.

And neither will it ever be. From the article I posted:

Because of the decades of difficulty that the collectivists have had trying to ratify the Law Of Sea Treaty (LOST), Obama is sneaking it in through the back door, by way of this Executive Order establishing the Council. Because LOST is a treaty, Obama's Executive Order is not Constitutional as treaty ratification requires 2/3 approval from the Senate. Michael Shaw said that the Agenda 21 Convention on Biodiversity treaty of 1992 failed to pass Congress so it was executed through soft law and administratively on local levels, and Obama's Executive Order is a similar soft law tactic to enact the LOST treaty.

What part of the concept "circumventing the Senate", don't you understand, Mosty. LOST will never be ratified by the Senate.

Boxcar

Tom
02-14-2012, 10:22 PM
The senate down'st vote on anything anymore, do they?
Aren't the senate dems the party of NO! (voting?) :lol: :lol: :lol:

The greeters at Walmart do more work in a day than Dingy Harry.
Pretty sad when you have to table ALL the bill that come up because:
1. The ones the repubs send would be good and make your party look bad
2. The ones your president sends would be BAD and make your party look worse.

:lol: