The legal obligations have already been ratified in a prior treaty. So no new legally binding agreement would be made by signing on to the new understanding ( as we are pushing for it to be written)How is it you dont understand this? What the united states wanrs is an understanding that uses the legally binding bits of the 1992 treaty with non-binding pledges. So we would beno more or less bound to action than if no new understanding is reached.You have a hell of a time with reading comprehension, don't you?PC, you're an idiot. The article you post says that the agreement would not be a legally binding treaty. In other words, you really shit the bed on this one
Which is worse...the vile language or how very wrong you are?
I detect a strong desire to score points on me....which reveals that you have never been able to do so before.....and it gnaws away at you.
Great.
And you lose again....that's just one of the reasons you are known as a loser.
d. "To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....
e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html
No new legally binding requirements. No new vote.American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. negotiators are instead homing in.
Join us in rational reality. The water's great.
You have a heck of a time with honesty....or, perhaps you're just stupid.
I'll accept it if you cop to stupid.
1. While the NYTimes reveals his latest lawlessness....it is still the NYTimes, Liberal to the core.
So the massage to take off the sharp edges for a Liberal President.
"...negotiators are instead homing in...."
Does that mean that that is all they will accept?
Does it?
These are Liberal 'negotiators,' American interests are hardly at the top of their list.
2. You posted "negotiators are instead homing in
You have a hell of a time with reading comprehension, don't you?PC, you're an idiot. The article you post says that the agreement would not be a legally binding treaty. In other words, you really shit the bed on this one
Which is worse...the vile language or how very wrong you are?
I detect a strong desire to score points on me....which reveals that you have never been able to do so before.....and it gnaws away at you.
Great.
And you lose again....that's just one of the reasons you are known as a loser.
d. "To sidestep that requirement, President Obama’s climate negotiators are devising what they call a “politically binding” deal....
e. Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies....channel money to poor countries to help them adapt to climate change."
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/27/us/politics/obama-pursuing-climate-accord-in-lieu-of-treaty.html
No new legally binding requirements. No new vote.American negotiators are instead homing in on a hybrid agreement — a proposal to blend legally binding conditions from an existing 1992 treaty with new voluntary pledges. The mix would create a deal that would update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification.
Join us in rational reality. The water's great.
You have a heck of a time with honesty....or, perhaps you're just stupid.
I'll accept it if you cop to stupid.
1. While the NYTimes reveals his latest lawlessness....it is still the NYTimes, Liberal to the core.
So the massage to take off the sharp edges for a Liberal President.
"...negotiators are instead homing in...."
Does that mean that that is all they will accept?
Does it?
These are Liberal 'negotiators,' American interests are hardly at the top of their list.
2. You posted "update the treaty, and thus, negotiators say, not require a new vote of ratification."
Yet, earlier, they said that treaties did require ratification.
.....taking off the sharp edges for a Liberal President.
3. "No new legally binding requirements. No new vote."
You dope.....from the article:
"Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies."
Let me know the next time you require a beating.
That's what we are pursuing, because the senate is unlikely to approve any new treaties while Obama is in office.
1. How is it you can't read past item 2?
This: "Countries would be legally required to enact domestic climate change policies."
2. "...because the senate is unlikely to approve any new treaties while Obama is in office."
Failed history and civics???
Remind me to give you a lesson on "checks and balances."
This is really a very easy concept. Why cant you understand it?