I have an opinion on global warming!

"Denny" wrote in message
ups.com...
The current global warming pendulum is on a 15,000 year swing (and
probably longer)... Mans production of CO2 since the industrial
revolution has perhaps hastened the rate of warming... But, even
without man on the planet the warming cycle would have occurred, the
glaciers would have retreated, and we would be close to where we are
now... At worst case we accellerated the rate of glacier retreat by a
small amount... In the grand scheme of things this is not even a blip
on the graph...

So, in spite of AL G's hysterical wailings, global warming was not
caused by man and man cannot stop it, control it, or even slow it...
This warming cycle is mere foreplay leading up to the next cycle of
glaciation... Lean back, relax, and enjoy it... We are just along for
the ride... Tis better to live in a period of warming than to live in
a period of glaciation...

denny

Well said!

vincent p. norris wrote:
a mere Congressional representative.....

Jay, perhaps you playhed hookey the day your seventh-grade teacher
explained the order of succession to the Presidency.

vince norris

Sure she third in line but that doesn not give her any more power on the
international stage than the average representitive. Which is exactly zero.
Or maybe you missed that explination of the Constitution.

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...
vincent p. norris wrote:
a mere Congressional representative.....

Jay, perhaps you playhed hookey the day your seventh-grade teacher
explained the order of succession to the Presidency.

vince norris

Sure she third in line but that doesn not give her any more power on the
international stage than the average representitive. Which is exactly
zero. Or maybe you missed that explination of the Constitution.

THAT part was inconvenient.

Sure she third in line but that doesn not give her any more power on the
international stage than the average representitive.

You don't seem to understand how the House works.

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" wrote in message
...
Sure she third in line but that doesn not give her any more power on the
international stage than the average representitive.

You don't seem to understand how the House works.

Look at the constitution. The executive branch is the only ones that have
the authority to make international treaties.

Representatives should not be out conducting foreign policy. Especially
when it goes against the wishes of the branch that is charged with making
international policy.
--
Jim in NC

vincent p. norris wrote:
Sure she third in line but that doesn not give her any more power on
the international stage than the average representitive.

You don't seem to understand how the House works.

vince norris

So the unconstitutional activities of government representaitives doesn't
bother you? The Constitution clearly states that the President is the only
office that can make international treaties.

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 08:22:27 -0500, "Gig 601XL Builder"
wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

Sure she third in line but that doesn not give her any more power on
the international stage than the average representitive.

You don't seem to understand how the House works.

vince norris

So the unconstitutional activities of government representaitives doesn't
bother you? The Constitution clearly states that the President is the only
office that can make international treaties.

Not only treaties, Article 2 sections 2 & 3 give the executive the
power to appoint and to receive ambassadors and foreign ministers,
which are the only official contacts we have with foreign governments.
Though Presidents often give Congress Members ministerial assignments
when they go abroad, it is a clear violation of the Constitution for
members of Congress to speak for the United States with foreign
leaders outside those assignments.

For the leader of an opposing party to go abroad and negotiate with a
foreign leader to undermine the effectiveness of our official policy
by suggesting that they will get a better deal if they help the
opposition look good before an election is sedition at the least, and
perhaps, treason.

Don



Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

The three previous posters are correct (except for that overboard
remark about treason) , but the Constitution also gives the Congress
the power to make laws, and to conduct investigations thereto.

That includes laws relevant to our relations overseas.

BTW, how come none of you were upset when
Republican members of the House went overseas?

vince norris

On Wed, 11 Apr 2007 22:52:54 -0400, vincent p. norris
wrote:

The three previous posters are correct (except for that overboard
remark about treason) , but the Constitution also gives the Congress
the power to make laws, and to conduct investigations thereto.

That includes laws relevant to our relations overseas.

Pelosi certainly violated the largely unused Logan Act.

However, whether her actions rise to the level of treason would depend
on what agreements she made.

For example, if she were to promise (and I am making no allegation
that she did) that a Democratic President would give Syria some reward
if there were a large rise in violence just prior to the 2008
election, that would indeed be treason.

We do not know what was said in private, or if it undermined US policy
or military actions, but not having to consider such doubts is why we
have restrictions in the Constitution on who makes official contacts
with foreign governments. We need to speak with one voice to foreign
governments.

Don


Virginia - the only State with a flag rated
"R" for partial nudity and graphic violence.

vincent p. norris wrote:
The three previous posters are correct (except for that overboard
remark about treason) , but the Constitution also gives the Congress
the power to make laws, and to conduct investigations thereto.

That includes laws relevant to our relations overseas.

BTW, how come none of you were upset when
Republican members of the House went overseas?

vince norris

Because they did so with the blessing of the President much like when the
Vice President does it. And I have no problem with the Speaker making the
trip to conduct investigations. I do have a problem when she trys to run her
own foreign policy unit. I saw a sound bite from an interview she did for
NBC's Today show. It was on NBC Nightly News last night. And she all but
said that she did it because she didn't like how GW was doing it.

At least we know now why she wanted a bigger plane. Though to be honest I
don't know if she used it for this trip.