On Road to 60 Votes for Climate Bill, Senate Swells With Fence Sitters

The fence is getting a bit more crowded. Despite two significant moves over the last month -- a bill introduction and the emergence of a possible bipartisan partnership -- the number of senators unwilling to commit to voting for comprehensive climate and energy legislation continues to grow.

[Kahoki]

Its going to pass. And then Obama will sign the Copenhagen teaty in December. This is another part to the fall our Republic to a communistic global government under the guise of the enviroment.

[the independent]

What a joke!

1st it was "Global Warming"
then it was "Climate Change"
next it will be "Global Cooling"

All it is is a way to TAX American corporations...All they will do is pass those costs on to us.

If they want pollution to be curbed....try getting CHINA, INDIA AND AFRICA on board.

If they don't....nothing's going to "CHANGE"...

BUT THE POLITICIANS WILL MAKE YOU THINK THAT WE NEED THIS...

[Chicago Guy]

We do need this.

And it's not the politicians saying it.

It is the scientists.

99% of the world's scientists view this as the single greatest threat to mankind.

ONLY American conservatives view this as a strictly "political" issue.

You're worried about the debt we're saddling our kids with? That's NOTHING compared to what climate change will do in the next forty years.

[Todd]

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/...

Kahoki wrote:

Its going to pass. And then Obama will sign the Copenhagen teaty in December. This is another part to the fall our Republic to a communistic global government under the guise of the enviroment.

If President Obama signs a “global warming” treaty at the United Nations’“Climate Conference” in Copenhagen this December; and if the U.S. Senate ratifies it, will it become part of the supreme Law of the Land?

We hear it said that whenever the President signs, and the Senate ratifies, a Treaty, it becomes part of “the supreme law of the land”. But is that True? Not necessarily! Walk with me, and I will show you how to think through this question, and how to analyze other constitutional questions which come your way.

You must always ask: Is this authorized in the Constitution? Where exactly in the Constitution? And precisely what is authorized by the Constitution? Let us start at the beginning:

1. Does the federal government have authority to make treaties? Can treaties be about any subject? Or, are the proper objects of treaties limited by The Constitution?

Art II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, U.S. Constitution, says, respecting the powers of the President:

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…

[Bill Smith]

Chicago Guy wrote:

We do need this.
And it's not the politicians saying it.
It is the scientists.
99% of the world's scientists view this as the single greatest threat to mankind.
ONLY American conservatives view this as a strictly "political" issue.
You're worried about the debt we're saddling our kids with? That's NOTHING compared to what climate change will do in the next forty years.

99% huh? Got anymore lies to tell?

[Mothra]

Chicago Guy wrote:

We do need this.
And it's not the politicians saying it.
It is the scientists.
99% of the world's scientists view this as the single greatest threat to mankind.
ONLY American conservatives view this as a strictly "political" issue.
You're worried about the debt we're saddling our kids with? That's NOTHING compared to what climate change will do in the next forty years.

99% huh?

Where'd you get that number?

[Kahoki]

Todd wrote:

http://canadafreepress.com/ind ex.php/article/15969
<quoted text>
If President Obama signs a “global warming” treaty at the United Nations’“Climate Conference” in Copenhagen this December; and if the U.S. Senate ratifies it, will it become part of the supreme Law of the Land?
We hear it said that whenever the President signs, and the Senate ratifies, a Treaty, it becomes part of “the supreme law of the land”. But is that True? Not necessarily! Walk with me, and I will show you how to think through this question, and how to analyze other constitutional questions which come your way.
You must always ask: Is this authorized in the Constitution? Where exactly in the Constitution? And precisely what is authorized by the Constitution? Let us start at the beginning:
1. Does the federal government have authority to make treaties? Can treaties be about any subject? Or, are the proper objects of treaties limited by The Constitution?
Art II, Sec. 2, cl. 2, U.S. Constitution, says, respecting the powers of the President:
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…

After Obama signs this treaty and it is ratified by the Senate (complete Democrat control and all support Obama's plan but maybe a few blue dogs), this treaty will then supercede our constitution. We will loose this country, not by an outside force, but by the stroke of a pen all under the guise of a lie of man made climate change.

[Rename It]

the independent wrote:

What a joke!
1st it was "Global Warming"
then it was "Climate Change"
next it will be "Global Cooling"

Just like Bush's war in Iraq. Every time he got busted for the reason offered for the war the reasons for the war were simply changed. Three times actually.

[Rename It]

Todd wrote:

provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur…

"Present" is the manipulation part if you just stop and think about it.

[Chicago Guy]

Mothra wrote:

<quoted text>
99% huh?
Where'd you get that number?

It's an estimate. LOL

But I stand by the claim-- there are virtually NO scientists that dispute global warming based on the evidence.

On what basis do you say that it doesn't exist, or isn't a real factor?

[Chicago Guy]

Kahoki wrote:

<quoted text>
After Obama signs this treaty and it is ratified by the Senate (complete Democrat control and all support Obama's plan but maybe a few blue dogs), this treaty will then supercede our constitution. We will loose this country, not by an outside force, but by the stroke of a pen all under the guise of a lie of man made climate change.

Jesus. Paranoid, much?

How on EARTH would agreeing to address climate change with our global allies "supercede our Constitution"????

That sounds like a tinfoil hat claim, if ever I've heard one.

[Kahoki]

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
Jesus. Paranoid, much?
How on EARTH would agreeing to address climate change with our global allies "supercede our Constitution"????
That sounds like a tinfoil hat claim, if ever I've heard one.

Not paranoid at all. But, you need to wake up and come out of your shell. Stop listening to this biased elitist controled media and the crap they are feeding you.

If Obama signs this climate change treaty in Denmark in just a few weeks. The treaty has wording in it, Page 18 paragragh 38 sub section A, that creates a global government. This global government will regulate all global industry and finances under the guise "good of the enviroment." Once Obama signs the treaty, it then has to be rattified by the US Senate with a 2/3rds vote. If approved, the treaty will then supercede the constitution. So in essence, with a strike of a pen, Obama will turn over American sovereignity to that of a global government.

Now you can take that any way you want.

[The laughing liberal]

Chicago Guy wrote:

We do need this.
And it's not the politicians saying it.
It is the scientists.
99% of the world's scientists view this as the single greatest threat to mankind.
ONLY American conservatives view this as a strictly "political" issue.
You're worried about the debt we're saddling our kids with? That's NOTHING compared to what climate change will do in the next forty years.

YOU LIE...as usual.

The scientific community is fairly split with those taking grant money to research warming all for it & many that aren't taking grant money saying it wasn't man made.

They also back it up with last 10 yrs planetary temps getting cooler.

[The laughing liberal]

Mothra wrote:

<quoted text>
99% huh?
Where'd you get that number?

Outta his arse. Anything Obama pimps, chica girl pimps.

[MRLOUIS]

If history is any indicator, the climate will change and yes it will kill you! Why don’t you show it your law? I’m sure it will be impressed!

[Bill Smith]

Chicago Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
It's an estimate. LOL
But I stand by the claim-- there are virtually NO scientists that dispute global warming based on the evidence.
On what basis do you say that it doesn't exist, or isn't a real factor?

Still no facts.

[koz]

Rename It wrote:

Just like Bush's war in Iraq. Every time he got busted for the reason offered for the war the reasons for the war were simply changed. Three times actually.

You may correct your error after reading the Congressional Resolution that authorized the war.

[Bill Smith]

koz wrote:

<quoted text>You may correct your error after reading the Congressional Resolution that authorized the war.

There was a declaration of war?

[carey529]

Chicago Guy wrote:

We do need this.
And it's not the politicians saying it.
It is the scientists.
99% of the world's scientists view this as the single greatest threat to mankind.
ONLY American conservatives view this as a strictly "political" issue.
You're worried about the debt we're saddling our kids with? That's NOTHING compared to what climate change will do in the next forty years.

the single greatest threat to mankind is this kind of stupidity...

[koz]

Bill Smith wrote:

There was a declaration of war?

Can't you read? What I wrote was "authorization"; which, for all practical purposes, as all Congressmen knew at the time, was a declaration of war. Of course, our common enemy had declared war on us, and conducted war against us for years before.