Posted on 09/18/2010 8:48:32 AM PDT by wheresmyusa
The United Nations 2nd Committee will bring to consideration full worldwide implementation of Agenda 21 to the 65th General Assembly.
SNIP: "Under the sustainable development umbrella, the Committee was expected to consider implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for the Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the outcomes of the World Summit on Sustainable Development; follow-up to, and implementation of, the Mauritius Strategy for the Further Implementation of the Programme of Action for the Sustainable Development of Small Island Developing States; the International Strategy for Disaster Reduction, protection of global climate for present and future generations; implementation of the United Nations Convention to Combat Desertification in Those Countries Experiencing Serious Drought and/or Desertification, Particularly in Africa; the Convention on Biological Diversity; the report of the Governing Council of the United Nations Environment Programme on its eleventh special session; the United Nations Decade of Education for Sustainable Development; and harmony with nature." :END SNIP
President Obama will attend the Sept. 20-22 Summit on the Millennium Development Goals to not only endorse "global taxes", but the full implementation of Agenda 21 in the U.S.
According to the Draft outcome document of the High-level Plenary Meeting of the sixty-fifth session of the General Assembly on the Millennium Development Goals, Pg.24 :
"Millennium Development Goal 7
Ensure environmental sustainability
77. We commit ourselves to accelerating progress in order to achieve Millennium Development Goal 7,including through:
(a) Pursuing sustainable development,in accordance with the principles contained in the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, including the Report of the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, Rio de Janeiro, principle of common but differentiated responsibilities,and taking into account the respective capabilities of countries,with a view to effectively implementing the outcomes of the major summits on sustainable development and addressing new and emerging challenges"
http://www.un.org/en/mdg/summit2010/pdf/Draft%20outcome%20document.pdf
Is it worth being concerned about? Go with your gut.
Thanks for the information
not sure why you felt the need to vbe snarky
“Not rocket science.”
no it is not rocket science but it was unknown to me.
thanks again for explaining it though
You have submitted me to some of the most ugly and uncalled for hectoring on this forum before.
Not even close.
Ex-Im bank loaned money to Petrobras so that it could hire American firms and buy American equipment. Some people here think that that’s a bad thing, but they don’t know why.
WEll that sounds good
so is there any proof Petrobras spent a significant part of the 2 Billion with USA companies?
The loan was ok’d over a year ago so some money should have been spent with American companies
Seeing that Ex-Im Bank specializes in these sorts of deals . . . and the matter can be determined by simply sending a copy of an invoice . . . and defrauding Ex-Im is a federal offense . . . and there would be a rather long list of American companies screaming about it . . . .
All that is good but is there any proof that you know of Petrobras has in fact spent money with American companies
If this is under Congress oversight there should be a way to check this
frankly 0dumbo has done little to earn any trust. It would not be surprising to see his hand in this.
Now, in the real world, U.S. firms that were to benefit from that program would be screaming.
Interesting that you think asking for verification a condition was meant is a hostile request.
so have you been able to find any verification?
I am guessing not since you immediately went on the offense.
Trust but verify
what is wrong with that ?
A: Campbell's Soup makes cans that are free of botulism.
B: Can you prove that this Campbell's Soup can is free of botulism?
is that what you are calling verification now? Hostility?
Your argument is meaningless on several levels.
The issue I brought up was do we in fact know Petrobras lived up or is living up to their end of what some posted is the agreement, that we loan them money and they spend money with American conpanies.
apparently you have no interest in learning whether any of the 2 Billion we loaned with conditions has in fact been spent here with USA companies.
Nothing wrong with that and I hope you understand others want verification
The issue I brought up was do we in fact know Petrobras lived up or is living up to their end of what some posted is the agreement, that we loan them money and they spend money with American conpanies.
Well, we don't know. Again, in the real world, if we are to proceed from the assumption that Petrobras is not living up to its agreement, it would be incumbent on the person making the assumption to provide some sort of evidence that it is not. Not the other way around.
“if we are to proceed from the assumption that Petrobras is not living up to its agreement, it would be incumbent on the person making the assumption to provide some sort of evidence that it is not.”
1. Asking the question is NOT assuming anything. That actually is WHY one questions.
2.No it would be incumbent on the lending agency or hopefuuly Congress to ascertain that.
Do you see the embedded assumption?
I really am nonplussed and have nothing more to post
thank you for a discussion
Thanks for letting me know. I’ll be posting some Ex-Im threads in the future. Please keep an eye out for them.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.