Out Fucking Standing, A Victory For America

A vast Liberal ejaculation stopped in mid-tube before it could spew all over our national sovereignty. Thank the Lord:



Law of the Sea Treaty now dead, DeMint says

The Law of the Sea Treaty now has 34 senators opposed and thus will not have enough Senate votes for ratification, a key opponent of the treaty announced Monday.

More here:

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jul/16/demint-says-law-sea-treaty-now-dead/


It's a shame those senators went against all military advice on this one.
 
According to Bob Reiss, a lot of people were for the Law of the Sea Treaty.

"-- In Washington, politicians are jockeying over whether to ratify "The Law of the Sea Treaty," under which countries abutting oceans will be able to claim up to 200 extra miles of undersea territory if they can prove it an extension of their continental shelves. For the U.S., that could mean extra territory the size of California off Alaska.

President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush support the treaty, as does an oddly aligned group including the Pentagon, Sierra Club, oil companies, shipping companies and environmentalists, who favor the part of the treaty designed to help protect the world's oceans. Although every other Arctic country has ratified the treaty, in the U.S. it has been blocked for years by conservative senators who fear that it gives too much influence to multinational bodies.

-- An undersea land rush has started under the treaty, with Russia claiming an area the size of France and Spain combined. Norway's claim has been granted, and other Arctic nations preparing to file claims. One U.S. Coast Guard admiral, speaking of the treaty, told me, "If this was a ball game, the U.S. wouldn't be on the field, in the stadium or even in the parking lot. We're last in this race.""

CNN Linkage
 
"require U.S. businesses to pay royalties for resource exploitation"

The article vettman posted said this was part of the treaty. If that is really the language in there I would reject the entire document. What the hell is "resource exploitation" and who decides what it is and where do the royalties go?

If entity x is saying I will pay you this much for a resource and entity y says "I'll take it" there is no exploitation involved. This happens at car dealerships and grocery stores everyday.
 
"require U.S. businesses to pay royalties for resource exploitation"

The article vettman posted said this was part of the treaty. If that is really the language in there I would reject the entire document. What the hell is "resource exploitation" and who decides what it is and where do the royalties go?

If entity x is saying I will pay you this much for a resource and entity y says "I'll take it" there is no exploitation involved. This happens at car dealerships and grocery stores everyday.

I saw that. The list of concerns seems legitimate, however 163 countries have already signed on? They are making laws and dividing land and we dont even have a voice in that? This seems like one of those moments where participating is inevitable, and the longer we take ,the less we're going to like it when we eventually give in.
 
I saw that. The list of concerns seems legitimate, however 163 countries have already signed on? They are making laws and dividing land and we dont even have a voice in that? This seems like one of those moments where participating is inevitable, and the longer we take ,the less we're going to like it when we eventually give in.

No one can claim land under sea that would be ours via the treaty so it is not like we are missing out on anything. Besides not paying taxes/fees for that land.....
 
Shit can never get done with all those spoiled ass babies in DC
 
Last edited:
I saw that. The list of concerns seems legitimate, however 163 countries have already signed on? They are making laws and dividing land and we dont even have a voice in that? This seems like one of those moments where participating is inevitable, and the longer we take ,the less we're going to like it when we eventually give in.

We don't have to join it right now. We can afford to wait to see the reality of how they use it. If it's OK then we can join in or we can reject it. If they set down a bunch of rules how can they deny them to countries that are late to the game. The whole "resource exploitation" thing sounds like it's about a fairness thing. The treaty wouldn't mean much if they pick some countries and say the rules don't apply to you if you sign on.
 
President Barack Obama and former President George W. Bush support the treaty, as does an oddly aligned group including the Pentagon, Sierra Club, oil companies, shipping companies and environmentalists...


This is Vetteman's liberal conspiracy? One that includes oil companies and the Pentagon?
 
No one can claim land under sea that would be ours via the treaty so it is not like we are missing out on anything. Besides not paying taxes/fees for that land.....

I read something that suggests that might not be the case. If another country and our claims overlap each other and they are part of the treaty and we are not there is a chance that their claim would be honored and we would only get the part that doesn't overlap.
 
OK

too long thread to read

lemme guess

VETTE and OTHER pro Americans are happy

And NIGGERZ, aka, AMERICA HATERS are not?


close?:)
 
"require U.S. businesses to pay royalties for resource exploitation"

The article vettman posted said this was part of the treaty. If that is really the language in there I would reject the entire document. What the hell is "resource exploitation" and who decides what it is and where do the royalties go?

If entity x is saying I will pay you this much for a resource and entity y says "I'll take it" there is no exploitation involved. This happens at car dealerships and grocery stores everyday.

"Exploitation" here simply means "use"; it's not a value-laden term in this context. To mine, e.g., iron is to exploit the mineral deposits of the land -- always, whatever you do with the ore or however you get it out.

The royalties would be collected only on resource exploitation of seabeds under international waters, and would be paid to the International Seabed Authority.
 
one of the main anti-ratification arguments being a charge that the ISA is flawed or unnecessary. In its original form, the Convention included certain provisions that some found objectionable, such as:

Imposition of permit requirements, fees and taxation on seabed mining; ban mining absent ISA permission
Use of collected money for wealth redistribution in addition to ISA administration
Mandatory technology transfer
 
Back
Top