Whether they sign or don't sign isn't the problem: It's that the signature wouldn't mean anything anyway. But I can't blame you guys for having such terminally short memories... just ask Julian Assange about international treaty law. Or did you forget about him already?
Wasn't aware that Julian Assange was charged with breaking international treaty law. At least not yet anyway.
Some would say, this has already happened.
Never underestimate the tenacity of lawyers.
We should let congress drive over the fiscal cliff so that democrats take the blame for thier inability to see that the Bush tax cuts don't even come close to paying for the deficit, current or projected.
How about instead of killing the economy with the uncertanty of this on again - off again tax cut, why don't we simplify the tax code completey and permanently.
there's more money and power riding on proving AGW is an urgent problem
Where is this money, and how can I get some?
Add the words "The effects of AGW in relation to (subject)" to any dissertation and watch the government funding roll in.
If the treaty has enough signatories to be in force it doesn't actually matter whether the US signs it or not, they're still bound by it - there are countries that never signed the Geneva Convention, they're still bound by it under international law.
Except it does matter. We would like to believe that countries that never signed the Geneva convention are bound to it, but it doesn't hold muster. The closest we ever come to holding countries to the Geneva Convention is on the rare occasion when we capture and hold trial of one the their leaders. No, even if the president signs a treaty, if the US Congress doesn't ratify it, we are not bound by it.
It is precisely because some foreign countries run a kangaroo court system that the US has a blanket policy of never allowing it's service members to be tried in anything but a US court. Maybe your country runs a decent court system, maybe it doesn't. Rather than trying to determine each case in each country, we make it a blanket rule. Nothing wrong with that.
Here in my state, it was the Democrats who passed the seat belt laws, but otherwise correct. Unfortunately, there are nanny state leaders on both sides.
If you work for a company that treats its employees badly and or doesn't follow the law, then it's time to look for a new company to work for. Companies that don't do the right thing, don't last long. You have more power acting on your own behalf than you ever will following a union.
The simple fact that you seem to miss in understanding his statement, tells all.
Morse code for the win!
The figure is over a $trillion because Obama couldn't just "pull the plug" on the wars. The GWB recession also resulted in dramaticly less REVENUE, which is what has really driven the deficit under Obama. It's not loke BO went out and spent $trillions. He had the rug pulled out from under in terms of revenue.
Well, yes, if you don't cut spending when revenue is down, then your deficit goes up. That is pretty simple math. So, why didn't Obama cut spending? Oh, that's right, the Democrats wanted to ram through all of their pet projects than had been on hold during the Republican reign. Sadly, I suspect the same thing will happen again if the Republicans take office. Our system is set up for just that. And, I suspect that the cycle will continue until it finally collapses.
Mitt Romney personally brought up the "47% don't pay income taxes" canard two years after it was widely debunked.
Um... hate to bust your bubble here, but the article you use for reference, clearly states that 47% of the population of the USA doesn't pay federal income tax. It goes on to say is that there are other taxes that people pay that equate to a smaller number. For instance, when you include payroll taxes, then only 10% of the population pay no taxes.
Now if you had said that Romny was missleading, I might agree with you, but he was factually true. Nice try though.
That because you don't watch Fox news.
The irony is palpable. Romney's camp is accusing his opponents of misquoting him, but the centerpiece of Romney's campaign against Obama is a misquote of Obama saying "Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" where they cut out the first part so it says "If you've got a business, you didn't build that. Somebody else made that happen" - something very different.
The sad part here is that you fell for the liberal media view that Romney's campaign pulled the statement out of context, when no such thing happend. Yes, there were a few pundits who did just that, but not the official capaign. In fact, Romney even made an alalogy to the event that sums it up nicely. (paraphrasing here) You don't give the school bus driver credit for the honour student's success. Yes, the school bus driver got the kid to school, but it was the hard work of the student that is celebrated.
In my mind, the full context of President Obama's words are just as bad. He continually denigrates successfull buisnesses, this just being one example.
Those who can, do; those who can't, write. Those who can't write work for the Bell Labs Record.
