NC-Gov: McCrory dons tinfoil hat

[Miles]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more.

[Zioneer]

Anything that has the words "Glenn Beck" or "John Birch Society" in it gives me a headache. Glad to know that I can discount McCroy as either a far-right conspiracy theorist, or someone who panders to them.

[Miles]

As the article implies, he was a very forward-thinking and moderate mayor. Ever since he lost to Perdue, he's gone hard right; he's embraced virtually everything that the Republican Assembly has passed.

[Miles]

As the article implies, he was a very forward-thinking and moderate mayor. Ever since he lost to Perdue, he's gone hard right; he's embraced virtually everything that the Republican Assembly has passed.

And the sad part is that he didn't really have to.  Didn't he already have the nomination sewn up by now?  And overwhelmingly at that?  As well as leading consistently in the polls against Democrats?  Talk about shooting yourself in the foot.  Needlessly.

Well, until last year, it was thought that McCrory could have a primary fight from his right, so thats why he became more conservative. In 2011, the entire NC Republican Congressional delegation signed a letter endorsing him; that effectively scared off any serious primary challengers.

But yeah, going forward, his Achilles heal may be his strong connection to the very unpopular General Assembly.

[Svensson]

Oh, for fig's sake. Guess I won't be making an endorsement here after all!

[BigSkyBob]

Well, here is what the UN says about "Agenda 21:"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"In every area that effects the environment," including farming, the production and use of energy, housing, and, even, the decision to have a child. Agenda 21, itself, specifies a global role for the UN. If Glenn Beck's characterization isn't completely accurate, it is hardly wrong.

Claims that it is "nonbinding" ignores the fact that the UN itself places the implementation of the project on its future agenda.

Whether you think issues such as "the environment," whatever that means, ought to be dealt within each sovereign nation based on the best interests of the people of those respective nations, or addressed by a central global authority depends in large part on your point of view. Dismissing the folks whom take the former position as wearing "tinfoil hats" might very well fit into your point of view, but, it simply isn't an accusation based on any objective fact or reason.

[Miles]

Well, here is what the UN says about "Agenda 21:"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"In every area that effects the environment," including farming, the production and use of energy, housing, and, even, the decision to have a child. Agenda 21, itself, specifies a global role for the UN. If Glenn Beck's characterization isn't completely accurate, it is hardly wrong.

Claims that it is "nonbinding" ignores the fact that the UN itself places the implementation of the project on its future agenda.

Whether you think issues such as "the environment," whatever that means, ought to be dealt within each sovereign nation based on the best interests of the people of those respective nations, or addressed by a central global authority depends in large part on your point of view. Dismissing the folks whom take the former position as wearing "tinfoil hats" might very well fit into your point of view, but, it simply isn't an accusation based on any objective fact or reason.

Speaking of tinfoil hats....

[BigSkyBob]

Well, here is what the UN says about "Agenda 21:"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"In every area that effects the environment," including farming, the production and use of energy, housing, and, even, the decision to have a child. Agenda 21, itself, specifies a global role for the UN. If Glenn Beck's characterization isn't completely accurate, it is hardly wrong.

Claims that it is "nonbinding" ignores the fact that the UN itself places the implementation of the project on its future agenda.

Whether you think issues such as "the environment," whatever that means, ought to be dealt within each sovereign nation based on the best interests of the people of those respective nations, or addressed by a central global authority depends in large part on your point of view. Dismissing the folks whom take the former position as wearing "tinfoil hats" might very well fit into your point of view, but, it simply isn't an accusation based on any objective fact or reason.

Speaking of tinfoil hats....

Your spouting the ad hominem fallacy when you claim that anyone whom has the audacity to prefer to implement "environmental policy," whatever that means, at the national level, rather than the international level is wearing a "tinfoil hat."

You are perfectly entitled to advocate a UN role for "environmental policy," whatever that means. I just think it is a very bad idea. That isn't a sign of wearing a "tinfoil hat," whatever that means. That is a distinction that makes a difference that seems to have eluded you.

[Miles]

Well, here is what the UN says about "Agenda 21:"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"In every area that effects the environment," including farming, the production and use of energy, housing, and, even, the decision to have a child. Agenda 21, itself, specifies a global role for the UN. If Glenn Beck's characterization isn't completely accurate, it is hardly wrong.

Claims that it is "nonbinding" ignores the fact that the UN itself places the implementation of the project on its future agenda.

Whether you think issues such as "the environment," whatever that means, ought to be dealt within each sovereign nation based on the best interests of the people of those respective nations, or addressed by a central global authority depends in large part on your point of view. Dismissing the folks whom take the former position as wearing "tinfoil hats" might very well fit into your point of view, but, it simply isn't an accusation based on any objective fact or reason.

Speaking of tinfoil hats....

Your spouting the ad hominem fallacy when you claim that anyone whom has the audacity to prefer to implement "environmental policy," whatever that means, at the national level, rather than the international level is wearing a "tinfoil hat."

You are perfectly entitled to advocate a UN role for "environmental policy," whatever that means. I just think it is a very bad idea. That isn't a sign of wearing a "tinfoil hat," whatever that means. That is a distinction that makes a difference that seems to have eluded you.

I'm not spouting anything; I haven't even given an opinion of what I think about this article. All I said was that he was a pragmatic mayor and pointed out that his politics are changing.

My last comment more refers to your body of commentary as whole.

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more.

Actually following your link it links to the UN Preamble which seems to call for a UN tax upon developed countries that would be transferred to "developing" countries:

"1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations."

For the record, do you support this goal?

[Miles]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more.

Actually following your link it links to the UN Preamble which seems to call for a UN tax upon developed countries that would be transferred to "developing" countries:

"1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations."

For the record, do you support this goal?

Yeah, I think its well-intentioned legislation.

[BigSkyBob]

Well, here is what the UN says about "Agenda 21:"

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"In every area that effects the environment," including farming, the production and use of energy, housing, and, even, the decision to have a child. Agenda 21, itself, specifies a global role for the UN. If Glenn Beck's characterization isn't completely accurate, it is hardly wrong.

Claims that it is "nonbinding" ignores the fact that the UN itself places the implementation of the project on its future agenda.

Whether you think issues such as "the environment," whatever that means, ought to be dealt within each sovereign nation based on the best interests of the people of those respective nations, or addressed by a central global authority depends in large part on your point of view. Dismissing the folks whom take the former position as wearing "tinfoil hats" might very well fit into your point of view, but, it simply isn't an accusation based on any objective fact or reason.

Speaking of tinfoil hats....

Your spouting the ad hominem fallacy when you claim that anyone whom has the audacity to prefer to implement "environmental policy," whatever that means, at the national level, rather than the international level is wearing a "tinfoil hat."

You are perfectly entitled to advocate a UN role for "environmental policy," whatever that means. I just think it is a very bad idea. That isn't a sign of wearing a "tinfoil hat," whatever that means. That is a distinction that makes a difference that seems to have eluded you.

I'm not spouting anything; I haven't even given an opinion of what I think about this article. All I said was that he was a pragmatic mayor and pointed out that his politics are changing.

To the extend that he reassesses his political opinions to more conservative one, that is something that I see as a good thing, and you see as a bad thing. People can disagree. Fine. What is totally unreasonable is slurring someone as "donning a tinfoil hat" simply because they have the audacity to move away from your positions.

[Miles]

To the extend that he reassesses his political opinions to more conservative one, that is something that I see as a good thing, and you see as a bad thing. People can disagree. Fine. What is totally unreasonable is slurring someone as "donning a tinfoil hat" simply because they have the audacity to move away from your positions.

True; I guess accusing someone of wearing a tinfoil hat is better than insulting their mother, so I guess you're right.

[BigSkyBob]

As the article implies, he was a very forward-thinking and moderate mayor. Ever since he lost to Perdue, he's gone hard right; he's embraced virtually everything that the Republican Assembly has passed.

Your statement is premised on the belief that being "hard right," whatever that means, and being "forward-thinking," whatever that means, is contradictory. That is just your opinion. Others have, and have had, the opposite opinion. For instance, the Founding Fathers believed that their revolution against central authority in favor of a government with limited, enumerated powers was "forward-thinking."

We could go around in circles forever about what is "forward-thinking," and what is not. Or, we could cut to the chase and ask the simple question, "Was McCrory right to reject a UN role for 'environmental policy', whatever that means?" And, more to the point, is Dalton for a UN role in "environmental policy," whatever that means, including a UN tax?

[BigSkyBob]

To the extend that he reassesses his political opinions to more conservative one, that is something that I see as a good thing, and you see as a bad thing. People can disagree. Fine. What is totally unreasonable is slurring someone as "donning a tinfoil hat" simply because they have the audacity to move away from your positions.

True; I guess accusing someone of wearing a tinfoil hat is better than insulting their mother, so I guess you're right.

The person whom made this accusation withdrew it and apologized for making it, yet you wish to persist in this ad hominem attack.

Why is that?

[Miles]

Moving on....

[BigSkyBob]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Read more.

Actually following your link it links to the UN Preamble which seems to call for a UN tax upon developed countries that would be transferred to "developing" countries:

"1.4. The developmental and environmental objectives of Agenda 21 will require a substantial flow of new and additional financial resources to developing countries, in order to cover the incremental costs for the actions they have to undertake to deal with global environmental problems and to accelerate sustainable development. Financial resources are also required for strengthening the capacity of international institutions for the implementation of Agenda 21. An indicative order-of-magnitude assessment of costs is included in each of the programme areas. This assessment will need to be examined and refined by the relevant implementing agencies and organizations."

For the record, do you support this goal?

Yeah, I think its well-intentioned legislation.

Does Lt Gov Dalton? Does Dalton support a UN tax? Or does he wear a "tinfoil hat" as well?

Nor, will I allow the comment "I think its well-intentioned legislation" to go without comment. History is replete with examples of "well-intentioned legislation" that turned out to be a very bad ideas. Prohibition was one. It simply isn't enough to claim that it is "well-intentioned." The burden of proof ought to be in showing that it is a good idea.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I have long stated that the only way to acheive a reduction in carbon emissions, had to be an internation agreement, including China and India.


However, relying on and trusting the UN to achieve anything is postively ridiculous.

[BigSkyBob]

I have long stated that the only way to achieve a reduction in carbon emissions, had to be an internation agreement, including China and India.


However, relying on and trusting the UN to achieve anything is positively ridiculous.

Exactly! In practise, once the "developing" countries realize they have more votes than the "developed" ones, they will be in a position to keep raising the assessment/tax upon "developed" countries out of pure selfishness regardless of any considerations of "the  environment," whatever that means.

What the voters of North Carolina should know in this election is whether Dalton also opposes such a UN role [which could be characterized as him wearing the tin cone of silence],  or actually supports the folks in North Carolina paying taxes to the UN?