Alabama Adopts 1st State Ban on UN Agenda 21

[jimnyc]

Well Con if our Opinion is PROVED wrong by evidence like news artlcles in the video you say you watched. people can very easily say it's wrong.

LOOK, people homes where taken, the laws that did it where directly traceable to A21.

so your OPINION is proved wrong.
you are free to continue to hold that opinion but it would be in BLATANT DENIAL the facts of, at least, 1 specific case.
(unless of course you would prefer we think in terms of Consensus rather than using facts)

I guess you're right wing nuts too! Never thought I would see Rev labeled as such! :lol: :coffee:

[ConHog]

Because a few people disagree with you on some subjects? Hell, I haven't even read 90% of this thread. You shouldn't label the entire place based on some comments on one subject.

no , not based on this one thread. Based on the general flavor of every thread lately.

[revelarts]

I guess you're right wing nuts too! Never thought I would see Rev labeled as such! :lol: :coffee:

Add that to the list of types of Nut i've been called, Militia ,Ron Paul, evil empire seeing, anti gov't, 911, right wing, left wing, libertarian, constitutionalists, fundamentalist, bible toten, gun luvin uhhh what else uuhhh i can't remember what else

ah well, mixed nut ,I guess is what'd sum it up huh?
but my momma just called me special.

I think this place is full of special people too.

[jimnyc]

no , not based on this one thread. Based on the general flavor of every thread lately.

Doesn't seem that way to me. In fact, I thought in the past month or so that the amount of debate has increased and the variety as well. I also think we've seen ample affiliations and takes on those subjects. If everyone agreed, or it was a board full of right wing nuts only, there wouldn't be any threads with disagreements in them, which is obviously not true. We have a few liberals, a few far right, but the majority is anywhere from the center, to right to independent.

[jimnyc]

Add that to the list of types of Nut i've been called, Militia ,Ron Paul, evil empire seeing, anti gov't, 911, right wing, left wing, libertarian, constitutionalists, fundamentalist, bible toten, gun luvin uhhh what else uuhhh i can't remember what else

ah well, mixed nut ,I guess is what'd sum it up huh?
but my momma just called me special.

I think this place is full of special people too.

We both had Momma's who called us special. :beer:

[ConHog]

We both had Momma's who called us special. :beer:

and I have a feeling that in BOTH cases special was immediately followed with ED. :lol:

[fj1200]

When your repeatedly-made "side" argument is damaged, you need to say you were, or at least could be, wrong about it, instead of saying "That was only my side argument".
People took time out to show you how it could certainly be a problem, so the cool thing to do is to tell them they may be right.

How so?


Well Con if our Opinion is PROVED wrong by evidence like news artlcles in the video you say you watched. people can very easily say it's wrong.

LOOK, people homes where taken, the laws that did it where directly traceable to A21.

so your OPINION is proved wrong.
you are free to continue to hold that opinion but it would be in BLATANT DENIAL the facts of, at least, 1 specific case.
(unless of course you would prefer we think in terms of Consensus rather than using facts)

Links please. And not another 80 minute video.

[logroller]

Well Con if our Opinion is PROVED wrong by evidence like news artlcles in the video you say you watched. people can very easily say it's wrong.

LOOK, people homes where taken, the laws that did it where directly traceable to A21.

so your OPINION is proved wrong.
you are free to continue to hold that opinion but it would be in BLATANT DENIAL the facts of, at least, 1 specific case.
(unless of course you would prefer we think in terms of Consensus rather than using facts)
Were the owners of those homes taken afforded due process in the US?

I watched part of that video but free 15 minutes of scattered presentation I started skipping through. Can you cite the law and or court cases? Or am I to just take this guys's word for it. Common sense tells me when someone bounces around from cases to quotes out of context back to another book and than another case and than another reference without actually proving one point in the first 15 minutes....they probably have an agenda that benefits from me not really drawing any conclusion other than ignorance.

[Shadow]

Doesn't seem that way to me. In fact, I thought in the past month or so that the amount of debate has increased and the variety as well. I also think we've seen ample affiliations and takes on those subjects. If everyone agreed, or it was a board full of right wing nuts only, there wouldn't be any threads with disagreements in them, which is obviously not true. We have a few liberals, a few far right, but the majority is anywhere from the center, to right to independent.

Doesn't seem that way to me either. It is pretty much the same atmosphere as when I joined several years ago. The only change I have noticed is it is not at light hearted as it used to be, and has been more of a battleground for the last year or so. It was quite obvious anyway... that this board leaned more to the right if you took time and read posts before joining. Not sure why people feel the need to join something...and then want to try to change it to fit their needs,instead of just going with the flow.:rolleyes:

[Gaffer]

Were the owners of those homes taken afforded due process in the US?

I watched part of that video but free 15 minutes of scattered presentation I started skipping through. Can you cite the law and or court cases? Or am I to just take this guys's word for it. Common sense tells me when someone bounces around from cases to quotes out of context back to another book and than another case and than another reference without actually proving one point in the first 15 minutes....they probably have an agenda that benefits from me not really drawing any conclusion other than ignorance.

Your not going to get any facts or proof of anything by watching a few minutes and skipping through. You just remain ignorant and draw no conclusions.

Agenda 21 is about using small incremental steps through global warming to undermine our country's sovereignty. That's it in a nutshell.

[revelarts]

Were the owners of those homes taken afforded due process in the US?...

Ah so the question has moved from something like:
"show me property taken it will never happen here"
to
"show it was done without due process"

Mr. P mentioned something about boiling frogs didn't he?

Why do i get the impression that "Due process" will be interpreted as broadly as the "commerce clause" has been by some here.

[fj1200]

What, no link?

[logroller]

Your not going to get any facts or proof of anything by watching a few minutes and skipping through. You just remain ignorant and draw no conclusions.

Agenda 21 is about using small incremental steps through global warming to undermine our country's sovereignty. That's it in a nutshell.
Im ignorant? What am I ignoring?
Please point me to a specific point of reference in the video where the UN Agenda is being implemented in the US and due process was violated; just one! That would get my attention. Otherwise, it just sounds like people disagree that the environment is shared property and latch onto whatever scare tactics get that point across. I believe the US sovereignty is alive and well, and I've yet to see any evidence of the UN administering its agenda on our soil. None. Just because we implement it, doesn't mean they enforce it. I think this boils down to people don't agree with the EPA and its authority to make and enforce rules. But that is not a US sovereignty issue, it's a state sovereignty issue and that's a process that has nothing to do with the UN.

[logroller]

Ah so the question has moved from something like:
"show me property taken it will never happen here"
to
"show it was done without due process"

Mr. P mentioned something about boiling frogs didn't he?

Why do i get the impression that "Due process" will be interpreted as broadly as the "commerce clause" has been by some here.
You're familiar with kelo v city new London, right? As much as I disagree with ruling, it was afforded due process. I know property is taken, i never disputed that. You could make a case that agenda 21 was to blame; that would be a point I'd consider. But did the UN take that land? No. All I've been saying all along is argue the point you want to make. I see lots of points being argued, but nothing coherent. Rev, I respect you because you're consistent; I disagree with you, but you're true to your convictions across the board. I just want to debate one issue, not several. You have to admit, property rights, the environment, state/national sovereignty, international treaties, etc etc... They're all important, but not mutually inclusive.

Ill say this, no international force can enforce its will upon US soil. Alabama's law didn't change that. They might as well have made a law saying that no titles of nobility shall be recognized. It's moot; unless, they did so believing the US government would enforce its will upon Alabama, but that's a different argument than the UN doing it. Wouldn't you agree?

[Mr. P]

What, no link?

I suppose if you didn't watch the short vidio you can read the entire Agenda.

Here is very small part...

C. Promoting sustainable land-use planning and management

Basis for action

7.27. Access to land resources is an essential component of sustainable low-impact lifestyles. Land resources are the basis for (human) living systems and provide soil, energy, water and the opportunity for all human activity. In rapidly growing urban areas, access to land is rendered increasingly difficult by the conflicting demands of industry, housing, commerce, agriculture, land tenure structures and the need for open spaces. Furthermore, the rising costs of urban land prevent the poor from gaining access to suitable land. In rural areas, unsustainable practices, such as the exploitation of marginal lands and the encroachment on forests and ecologically fragile areas by commercial interests and landless rural populations, result in environmental degradation, as well as in diminishing returns for impoverished rural settlers.

Objective

7.28. The objective is to provide for the land requirements of human settlement development through environmentally sound physical planning and land use so as to ensure access to land to all households and, where appropriate, the encouragement of communally and collectively owned and managed land. 6/ (http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_07.shtml#6/) Particular attention should be paid to the needs of women and indigenous people for economic and cultural reasons.



Now, please feel free to read all the Agenda but tell me, how can the above be achieved without stripping folks of their private property or limiting their rights?

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_07.shtml

[logroller]

I suppose if you didn't watch the short vidio you can read the entire Agenda.

Here is very small part...


Now, please feel free to read all the Agenda but tell me, how can the above be achieved without stripping folks of there private property or limiting their rights?

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_07.shtml

Where I live, we have a regional planning commission that holds public meetings regarding major projects and zoning changes. This gives anyone and everyone who's concerned the opportunity to speak and influence changes that have an impact on their property and rights. My town has a fifty year plan too. Of course, that's not written in stone or anything, but having an idea about where you want to be is helpful in assessing current decisions. One such project was a greenbelt along the river. Its quite beautiful, connecting 4 parks throughout the town and is traversed by a bike path. The bike path was started years ago, 20+, but has more recently attracted several businesses and eateries that wouldn't have came to town without the project.(Panera Bread :2up:) The developments are subject to thematic considerations, building styles and what not. Like the plant selections for the entire project, even the private developments within the area, are limited to species endemic to our climate. Now is this limiting someone's property rights, sorta. However, all of these things serves to bring the whole project together, which includes private lands intermixed with pubic spaces. This builds value, not only within the project, but within the community as well. Plus, by selecting plants which are endemic, maintenance is lesser and prevents invasive species from gaining a foothold in the surround public land, which would then cost the taxpayers more on city maintenance.
I'm not saying bad things couldn't come about from the implementation of the ideals identified in Agenda 21; I'm saying I've seen good things that already have.

[ConHog]

I suppose if you didn't watch the short vidio you can read the entire Agenda.

Here is very small part...


Now, please feel free to read all the Agenda but tell me, how can the above be achieved without stripping folks of their private property or limiting their rights?

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_07.shtml

wouldn't sound planning necessitate respecting private property laws? Surely it's not very sound to run around telling others what they may do with their property.

[Mr. P]

Where I live, we have a regional planning commission that holds public meetings regarding major projects and zoning changes. This gives anyone and everyone who's concerned the opportunity to speak and influence changes that have an impact on their property and rights. My town has a fifty year plan too. Of course, that's not written in stone or anything, but having an idea about where you want to be is helpful in assessing current decisions. One such project was a greenbelt along the river. Its quite beautiful, connecting 4 parks throughout the town and is traversed by a bike path. The bike path was started years ago, 20+, but has more recently attracted several businesses and eateries that wouldn't have came to town without the project.(Panera Bread :2up:) The developments are subject to thematic considerations, building styles and what not. Like the plant selections for the entire project, even the private developments within the area, are limited to species endemic to our climate. Now is this limiting someone's property rights, sorta. However, all of these things serves to bring the whole project together, which includes private lands intermixed with pubic spaces. This builds value, not only within the project, but within the community as well. Plus, by selecting plants which are endemic, maintenance is lesser and prevents invasive species from gaining a foothold in the surround public land, which would then cost the taxpayers more on city maintenance.
I'm not saying bad things couldn't come about from the implementation of the ideals identified in Agenda 21; I'm saying I've seen good things that already have.

Yeah, it's called zoning and planning and we have had that in the U.S. for many many years. I don't oppose that. Good planning and zoning keep property values up and spur the local economy. That's not what Agenda 21 goals are. Just takes a fast read of a few parts of it to see that.

Providing for access to all land by everyone, is not the same thing as zoning etc.

Agenda 21 Smacks of socialism at the very least.

[ConHog]

Yeah, it's called zoning and planning and we have had that in the U.S. for many many years. I don't oppose that. Good planning and zoning keep property values up and spur the local economy. That's not what Agenda 21 goals are. Just takes a fast read of a few parts of it to see that.

Providing for access to all land by everyone, is not the same thing as zoning etc.

Agenda 21 Smacks of socialism at the very least.

That is not what Agenda21 says

From your own post

where appropriate, the encouragement of communally and collectively owned and managed land.

Obviously making you give access to all of your own personal property would not be appropriate.

[Mr. P]

That is not what Agenda21 says

From your own post

where appropriate, the encouragement of communally and collectively owned and managed land.

Obviously making you give access to all of your own personal property would not be appropriate.

Keep reading..there's a lot I didn't quote. Probably 3000 pages.

[ConHog]

Keep reading..there's a lot I didn't quote. Probably 3000 pages.

I understand, I'm only saying that everything that has been shown so far does not support your claims.

And let's not forget the most important thing about Agenda21. The US has not signed it even though it's been around since 1992. We may as well be debating about what impact the US joining the EU would have on Alabama. It doesn't matter b/c it's not going to happen.

[Missileman]

I understand, I'm only saying that everything that has been shown so far does not support your claims.

And let's not forget the most important thing about Agenda21. The US has not signed it even though it's been around since 1992. We may as well be debating about what impact the US joining the EU would have on Alabama. It doesn't matter b/c it's not going to happen.

There have been several executive orders that enact Agenda 21 in one fashion or another, including the adoption of Agenda 21 principles by several federal agencies like the EPA.

[Abbey Marie]

With Obama's interest in joining the ICC, would Agenda 21 really be so far-fetched?

[ConHog]

There have been several executive orders that enact Agenda 21 in one fashion or another, including the adoption of Agenda 21 principles by several federal agencies like the EPA.

Links?

[Mr. P]

I understand, I'm only saying that everything that has been shown so far does not support your claims.

And let's not forget the most important thing about Agenda21. The US has not signed it even though it's been around since 1992. We may as well be debating about what impact the US joining the EU would have on Alabama. It doesn't matter b/c it's not going to happen.

Hey, BUTT HEAD! I thought you weren't gonna reply to me in this thread anymore. LOL I'm glad you did though.

Look, Agenda 21 is not a signed ratified Treaty. It's called a "Soft Treaty" one that is NON BINDING. I think you probably knew that.

But as such, this "agenda" has wormed it's way into the "norm" for many locations. The frog in the water thing is all over the last 20 yrs. Folks get used to it and then the U.N. drops the BINDING treaty bomb and no one flinches..LOL

And you said I didn't know how the U.N. works. LMAO

[Missileman]

Links?

It was explained in great detail in the video.

[fj1200]

I suppose if you didn't watch the short vidio you can read the entire Agenda.

Here is very small part...


Now, please feel free to read all the Agenda but tell me, how can the above be achieved without stripping folks of their private property or limiting their rights?

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/res_agenda21_07.shtml

For one, it's not a short video and given the wonders of the interwebinator that resides on every poster's computer a link to an actual story is not too much for which to ask. Two, I'm not really asking for what A21 says or what some think it says I'm looking for evidence that property rights are being stripped without due process or some such thing.

[ConHog]

Hey, BUTT HEAD! I thought you weren't gonna reply to me in this thread anymore. LOL I'm glad you did though.

Look, Agenda 21 is not a signed ratified Treaty. It's called a "Soft Treaty" one that is NON BINDING. I think you probably knew that.

But as such, this "agenda" has wormed it's way into the "norm" for many locations. The frog in the water thing is all over the last 20 yrs. Folks get used to it and then the U.N. drops the BINDING treaty bomb and no one flinches..LOL

And you said I didn't know how the U.N. works. LMAO

My bad , I thought I'd give you another chance at being an adult.

Oh, as long as we're communicating can you show me where the the COTUS differentiates between a binding a treaty and a non binding one , because in MY copy those words don't exist.

[Kathianne]

Links?

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-201100431/pdf/DCPD-201100431.pdf

[Abbey Marie]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-201100431/pdf/DCPD-201100431.pdf

Obama sees us as One Big Federal State, sort of a United STATE of America, subject to his political choices. I am amazed that others so very much want to not see this. I guess states' rights do not matter anymore.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Obama sees us as One Big Federal State, sort of a United STATE of America, subject to his political choices. I am amazed that others so very much want to not see this. I guess states' rights do not matter anymore.

They certainly do not matter to those that have contempt for our Constitution. The Constitution is designed to prevent an all powerful central government from enslaving its citizenry. Some actually want that powerful government to be birthed and succeed at ENFORCING TOTAL EQUALITY! Which insanely includes EQUALITY OF OUTCOME in all matters! By that standard EXCEPTIONALISM is taboo and the dreaded hive mentality rules! No way I say. My children and grandchildren are not to be turned into drones. I want them to have the same freedoms and liberties that I enjoy and have been blessed with all my life.-Tyr

[Mr. P]

no offense Rev, but all I seen was more conspiracy stuff here.

And besides that is besides the point of this thread anyway. Even if this treaty is unconstitutional, passing a state law is not the appropriate response. Do you at least acknowledge that?

There is no treaty, it's an agenda. So passing state law is totally appropriate. Like I said it sends a message..WE DON'T want this BS.


I've already shown in THIS thread that when we agree to crap like this with the UN. it IS a treaty. but here is another link, calling it a TREATY

http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/45478

It is what it is.

So, someone calls it a treaty and POOF it is one? Do you know how the U.N. works, CH?

It is what it is alright, just agenda being slipped by the Dumb-mASSES as a treaty until they are so used to it no one will blink when it's ratified and really becomes law.


Mr P, if you think I like this legislation, or agree with it, you are wrong. I am ONLY arguing about what is the right way to fight something a state feels is unconstitutional.

Nothing yet fits the unconstitutional bill. There is no treaty, it is not legislation. IT'S agenda the U.N. wants to be a treaty. Alabama an other states are preempting it seems. Good for them!


My bad , I thought I'd give you another chance at being an adult.

Oh, as long as we're communicating can you show me where the the COTUS differentiates between a binding a treaty and a non binding one , because in MY copy those words don't exist.

I can't show you something that doesn't exist. Can you show me that Agenda 21 IS a treaty as you claim just because it's referred to as such? Is it signed AND ratified? No= It's NOT a treaty.

As I said many pages ago, you're arguing a totally different subject. Attention to the thread topic. You wanna talk the other stuff? Start a new thread. I doubt you'll have any opposition. Just sayin

[logroller]

Yeah, it's called zoning and planning and we have had that in the U.S. for many many years. I don't oppose that. Good planning and zoning keep property values up and spur the local economy. That's not what Agenda 21 goals are. Just takes a fast read of a few parts of it to see that.

Providing for access to all land by everyone, is not the same thing as zoning etc.

Agenda 21 Smacks of socialism at the very least.

Oh, so "zoning and planning" is OK. Because the "zoning and planning" example I gave in my town demonstrates the three E's of sustainable development which is maligned in the video you posted.

From the video: the E's of Agenda 21

Social Equity:
Individual gives up personal wants for the needs of the community

Some members in the surrounding area objected to the development because of the traffic it would create. Of course, the community as a whole needs places to shop and eat and play; but again, those individual wants were subordinate to the needs of the community. Plus, the private parking lots surrounding the development are all open to the public, as necessary for passage through them to access the public park and amphitheater.

Economic Prosperity:
Free market replaced by public/private partnerships
Like bright house networks developing the stage and amphitheater; in return for providing public wifi in the area, Brighthouse's taxes are discounted for the services provided. Is that the kind of public/private partnership that undermines the free market, yet directly benefits the people of the city?



Ecological Integrity:
Individual rights subordinated to environmental needs

The private lands surrounding the greenbelt are subject to public approval for their designs; including 10% of developed land need be green- landscaped in accordance with the approved plant list and the buildings themselves had to be outfitted with energy conserving technologies.
Aren't those individual rights being subordinated to environmental needs?


Now I now what you're thinking...false conclusion. Well, I feel the same way about the video you posted. I see him quoting one thing, then dumbing it up to make a point. Two things are necessary to subvert the maleficence of Agenda 21; due process and redress of grievances. We have that here, I think.

You wanna see an agenda in action without those two things, click here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/7414572.stm).

[logroller]

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-201100431/pdf/DCPD-201100431.pdf

Uh, I read it and, quite frankly, I'm surprised hot air.com didn't host this.

Fromt the Order


Sec4 Mission:The Council shall work across executivedepartments, agencies, and offices to coordinate development of policy recommendations topromote economic prosperity and quality of life in rural America, and shall coordinate myAdministration's engagement with rural communities.
...
Sec5 (b) Nothing in this order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect:
(i) authority granted by law to an executive department, agency, or the head thereof;or

(ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating tobudgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.

Its pretty much an order to talk about whether and what to do.

[Kathianne]

Oh, so "zoning and planning" is OK. Because the "zoning and planning" example I gave in my town demonstrates the three E's of sustainable development which is maligned in the video you posted.

From the video: the E's of Agenda 21

Social Equity:
Individual gives up personal wants for the needs of the community

Some members in the surrounding area objected to the development because of the traffic it would create. Of course, the community as a whole needs places to shop and eat and play; but again, those individual wants were subordinate to the needs of the community. Plus, the private parking lots surrounding the development are all open to the public, as necessary for passage through them to access the public park and amphitheater.

Economic Prosperity:
Free market replaced by public/private partnerships
Like bright house networks developing the stage and amphitheater; in return for providing public wifi in the area, Brighthouse's taxes are discounted for the services provided. Is that the kind of public/private partnership that undermines the free market, yet directly benefits the people of the city?



Ecological Integrity:
Individual rights subordinated to environmental needs

The private lands surrounding the greenbelt are subject to public approval for their designs; including 10% of developed land need be green- landscaped in accordance with the approved plant list and the buildings themselves had to be outfitted with energy conserving technologies.
Aren't those individual rights being subordinated to environmental needs?


Now I now what you're thinking...false conclusion. Well, I feel the same way about the video you posted. I see him quoting one thing, then dumbing it up to make a point. Two things are necessary to subvert the maleficence of Agenda 21; due process and redress of grievances. We have that here, I think.

You wanna see an agenda in action without those two things, click here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/7414572.stm).

You're missing the difference between a municipality, a county, a state, or a region, (which in many areas may well be multi-state), calling for a plan and the Fed mandating or prohibiting a plan due to UN agenda.

[logroller]

You're missing the difference between a municipality, a county, a state, or a region, (which in many areas may well be multi-state), calling for a plan and the Fed mandating or prohibiting a plan due to UN agenda.

What I'm missing is where the Fed/UN is actually mandating or prohibiting a municipal plan. I know one must exists somewhere,right? I just want someone to show an example so we might discuss and better understand the reasoning for why the state/county/city plan was deemed insufficient and by what authority the FED/UN claims an interest in such a determination.

[Kathianne]

What I'm missing is where the Fed/UN is actually mandating or prohibiting a municipal plan. I know one must exists somewhere,right? I just want someone to show an example so we might discuss and better understand the reasoning for why the state/county/city plan was deemed insufficient and by what authority the FED/UN claims an interest in such a determination.

If allowed to proceed, it may happen; thus the Alabama notice. It's nearly impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.

[ConHog]

Arkansas is considering a bill that would make it illegal for martians to camp.on private property b/c that might happen if we dont plan for it

[Kathianne]

Logroller, it's always a pleasure to discuss issues with you, as you keep an open mind. I try to, but you do!

[logroller]

If allowed to proceed, it may happen; thus the Alabama notice. It's nearly impossible to put the genie back in the bottle.

I hear ya. I feel the same way about unsustainable suburban growth. I guess what I'm saying is such agendas are implemented locally without federal interference, because I see it done all the time. I just find it an impassable position to say, "no changes are needed, the current state of development is just fine, no probs at all." I'm not saying anyone here is actually saying that, but I see it hinted at. I'm not wholly against all personal transportation, but we've got to find a way to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels for energy and that's one (personal cars) that has become so engrained in our psyches that I don't see how municipals can undo it. In my town they just spent I don't how much federal money to build a freeway that was necessary like twenty years ago. Of course, no plan for light rails, just more freeways. Hey, it created those shovel-ready jobs, but I see how that only provides a crutch for what is a coming energy crisis in the coming century. Its unsustainable, the numbers don't lie. I'd be glad to have a serious discussion as to how and why that is, but it seems people are just stuck on their "rights". I'm not downplaying rights, they're important; but when I read about the founding fathers understanding, I'm taken aback at how virtuous their intentions were too. What I see a lot with people's expression of rights is just downright selfish; so we see the government taking them away. If We don't the fix the social problems, the government will try to do it for us. That's what I see happening, and if We don't take on the responsibilities for sustainable growth, then We reap what we sow.

[Kathianne]

I hear ya. I feel the same way about unsustainable suburban growth. I guess what I'm saying is such agendas are implemented locally without federal interference, because I see it done all the time. I just find it an impassable position to say, "no changes are needed, the current state of development is just fine, no probs at all." I'm not saying anyone here is actually saying that, but I see it hinted at. I'm not wholly against all personal transportation, but we've got to find a way to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels for energy and that's one (personal cars) that has become so engrained in our psyches that I don't see how municipals can undo it. In my town they just spent I don't how much federal money to build a freeway that was necessary like twenty years ago. Of course, no plan for light rails, just more freeways. Hey, it created those shovel-ready jobs, but I see how that only provides a crutch for what is a coming energy crisis in the coming century. Its unsustainable, the numbers don't lie. I'd be glad to have a serious discussion as to how and why that is, but it seems people are just stuck on their "rights". I'm not downplaying rights, they're important; but when I read about the founding fathers understanding, I'm taken aback at how virtuous their intentions were too. What I see a lot with people's expression of rights is just downright selfish; so we see the government taking them away. If We don't the fix the social problems, the government will try to do it for us. That's what I see happening, and if We don't take on the responsibilities for sustainable growth, then We reap what we sow.

Ok, I get that you are the 'eco man' right now. Seriously, I do. Got to understand that our system doesn't fit well with: "Get on the train, bus, people mover...' when the people don't want to. They don't. Think DisneyWorld and the monorail. It was the 'future' that never was.

What will happen though is that there will be a melding of individual transport and low impact on environment. My guess is hydrogen, but I could be wrong. ;)

[SassyLady]

I hear ya. I feel the same way about unsustainable suburban growth. I guess what I'm saying is such agendas are implemented locally without federal interference, because I see it done all the time. I just find it an impassable position to say, "no changes are needed, the current state of development is just fine, no probs at all." I'm not saying anyone here is actually saying that, but I see it hinted at. I'm not wholly against all personal transportation, but we've got to find a way to decrease our dependence on fossil fuels for energy and that's one (personal cars) that has become so engrained in our psyches that I don't see how municipals can undo it. In my town they just spent I don't how much federal money to build a freeway that was necessary like twenty years ago. Of course, no plan for light rails, just more freeways. Hey, it created those shovel-ready jobs, but I see how that only provides a crutch for what is a coming energy crisis in the coming century. Its unsustainable, the numbers don't lie. I'd be glad to have a serious discussion as to how and why that is, but it seems people are just stuck on their "rights". I'm not downplaying rights, they're important; but when I read about the founding fathers understanding, I'm taken aback at how virtuous their intentions were too. What I see a lot with people's expression of rights is just downright selfish; so we see the government taking them away. If We don't the fix the social problems, the government will try to do it for us. That's what I see happening, and if We don't take on the responsibilities for sustainable growth, then We reap what we sow.

Log, do you think Alabama passed the law because they are against protecting the environment? I may be way off base, but I thought they passed the law because they don't want an "international" organization dictating what our laws are. I believe they are against a "one world" type of government and this is their way of saying ..... we are a state within the United States and between the local, state and federal levels, we can manage ourselves.

Are you advocating that you would welcome the UN into our local and state governments?

[logroller]

Ok, I get that you are the 'eco man' right now. Seriously, I do. Got to understand that our system doesn't fit well with: "Get on the train, bus, people mover...' when the people don't want to. They don't. Think DisneyWorld and the monorail. It was the 'future' that never was.

What will happen though is that there will be a melding of individual transport and low impact on environment. My guess is hydrogen, but I could be wrong. ;)

Not just eco-man, I'm econo-man too. and I even dabble in policy and sociology. I'm all one in the same;)
I get the bold completely. People movers aren't as effective as personal transportation; they're just more efficient. What the people want has produced our spatial growth pattern. Wide open spaces, and the freedom and privacy they provide are desirable; even in our cars, we like the privacy. Its interesting to me that more miles are driven in and between suburban nodes than between suburban nodes and urban centers; that's why trains are less effective. Like I said, its like a genie in a bottle. The only way I see that changing is with the price of fuels; which has been steadily growing for 40 years, ever since the US oil peak and subsequent embargo. Now, again in the last decade, we've see the battle rage about the global peak in oil. Its only going to get worse, unless we set in motion changes to our infrastructure, which is only as feasible as changing our own wants and desires. No easy task, especially when we its easier to deny the facts using scare tactics about our rights being trampled.

Hydrogen is an energy carrier though, not a source. Still need a source of energy. Lots of potential, but each has its downsides. Solar is great, but it's energy intensive. Since AB32, there's all kinds of incentives for solar on houses here; but I did the math and, even with the incentives, it was 12 years to pay itself off and its only guaranteed for 20 years-- why would I want that when I can buy an auto-off light switch for $25 that paid itself off in savings in 69 days? Large scale solar is land and resource intensive. Same with wind. Its big and ugly and takes up space. There's not one energy source that will make all the difference, but a reduction in demand has an impact regardless, and increased efficiency provides that. For example, my auto off light switches. Cost me $25 bucks, it'll save me money for a guaranteed 2 years of operation. Same goes for programmable thermostats. Technology is there, and when I hear about developed countries's resources going to developing countries, that's what I'm thinking will make the biggest impact.

[logroller]

Log, do you think Alabama passed the law because they are against protecting the environment? I may be way off base, but I thought they passed the law because they don't want an "international" organization dictating what our laws are. I believe they are against a "one world" type of government and this is their way of saying ..... we are a state within the United States and between the local, state and federal levels, we can manage ourselves.

Are you advocating that you would welcome the UN into our local and state governments?

I welcome cooperation to bring about mutual benefit. Perhaps I'm way off base, but I've yet to see any evidence the implementation of UN Agenda 21 requires dictating what our laws are.

[Kathianne]

Not just eco-man, I'm econo-man too. and I even dabble in policy and sociology. I'm all one in the same;)
I get the bold completely. People movers aren't as effective as personal transportation; they're just more efficient. What the people want has produced our spatial growth pattern. Wide open spaces, and the freedom and privacy they provide are desirable; even in our cars, we like the privacy. Its interesting to me that more miles are driven in and between suburban nodes than between suburban nodes and urban centers; that's why trains are less effective. Like I said, its like a genie in a bottle. The only way I see that changing is with the price of fuels; which has been steadily growing for 40 years, ever since the US oil peak and subsequent embargo. Now, again in the last decade, we've see the battle rage about the global peak in oil. Its only going to get worse, unless we set in motion changes to our infrastructure, which is only as feasible as changing our own wants and desires. No easy task, especially when we its easier to deny the facts using scare tactics about our rights being trampled.

Hydrogen is an energy carrier though, not a source. Still need a source of energy. Lots of potential, but each has its downsides. Solar is great, but it's energy intensive. Since AB32, there's all kinds of incentives for solar on houses here; but I did the math and, even with the incentives, it was 12 years to pay itself off and its only guaranteed for 20 years-- why would I want that when I can buy an auto-off light switch for $25 that paid itself off in savings in 69 days? Large scale solar is land and resource intensive. Same with wind. Its big and ugly and takes up space. There's not one energy source that will make all the difference, but a reduction in demand has an impact regardless, and increased efficiency provides that. For example, my auto off light switches. Cost me $25 bucks, it'll save me money for a guaranteed 2 years of operation. Same goes for programmable thermostats. Technology is there, and when I hear about developed countries's resources going to developing countries, that's what I'm thinking will make the biggest impact.

I've a programmable thermostat in my home, did in the last one too, 15 years ago. It helps, but is negligible in savings on energy.

Solar has been the 'be all' since I was in high school, in the 70's! Not much there. Yes, there are many more solar panels here and there, but the savings for those that have installed? Not great. Which is why most are not doing so.

It's a serious issue, not going to be resolved here. All you can hope is that people/businesses/organizations keep looking at possibilities.

[SassyLady]

I welcome cooperation to bring about mutual benefit. Perhaps I'm way off base, but I've yet to see any evidence the implementation of UN Agenda 21 requires dictating what our laws are.

Then why do we need to sign a treaty if the UN will have no impact?

[logroller]

Then why do we need to sign a treaty if the UN will have no impact?

Perhaps that's why we haven't signed it. Why make a state law that would be subordinate if the US did sign the treaty?

[logroller]

I've a programmable thermostat in my home, did in the last one too, 15 years ago. It helps, but is negligible in savings on energy.

Solar has been the 'be all' since I was in high school, in the 70's! Not much there. Yes, there are many more solar panels here and there, but the savings for those that have installed? Not great. Which is why most are not doing so.

It's a serious issue, not going to be resolved here. All you can hope is that people/businesses/organizations keep looking at possibilities.

Really. My programmable thermostat saved me over $200 bucks the first summer alone. I suppose if you were religious about adjusting it yourself, it wouldn't make as much of a difference. But my house has two stories and it made a huge difference because I wouldn't adjust the upper story before I left the house, then it'd be on all day. Now i set it to 85 all day, then just cool it down in time for bedtime.

I think it goes beyond looking at possibilities though, they have to be implemented at some point. Reminds me of a jump into the pool --it always feels cold when you just dip your toe.

[SassyLady]

Really. My programmable thermostat saved me over $200 bucks the first summer alone. I suppose if you were religious about adjusting it yourself, it wouldn't make as much of a difference. But my house has two stories and it made a huge difference because I wouldn't adjust the upper story before I left the house, then it'd be on all day. Now i set it to 85 all day, then just cool it down in time for bedtime.

I think it goes beyond looking at possibilities though, they have to be implemented at some point. Reminds me of a jump into the pool --it always feels cold when you just dip your toe.

I have two programmable thermostats ... one for the gas fireplace and one for the whole house heater. I never heat the house above 68 and don't have A/C so no worries about that. We also built this house ourselves and insulated, insulated and insulated. Because I don't have A/C we put tile everywhere but bedrooms. I also don't have a standard hot water heater ... I have two of the tankless hot water heaters ... one for the kitchen and guest bath, the other for the master bath and the laundry. My lawn is also on auto sprinklers.

Most of my electricity is used for the perimeter lighting ... which comes on at dusk and is motion detection for brighter lighting. I live in the country so have no street lights and I like to be outside a lot at night. I've also put in a lot of solar lights to help light up the property.

I really didn't think about saving money when I did all of this ... to me it's more of a convenience....I like the house to be warm when I get home and I'm too distracted when leaving in the mornings to worry about turning down the thermostat.

[Mr. P]

Oh, so "zoning and planning" is OK. Because the "zoning and planning" example I gave in my town demonstrates the three E's of sustainable development which is maligned in the video you posted.

From the video: the E's of Agenda 21

Social Equity:
Individual gives up personal wants for the needs of the community

Some members in the surrounding area objected to the development because of the traffic it would create. Of course, the community as a whole needs places to shop and eat and play; but again, those individual wants were subordinate to the needs of the community. Plus, the private parking lots surrounding the development are all open to the public, as necessary for passage through them to access the public park and amphitheater.

Economic Prosperity:
Free market replaced by public/private partnerships
Like bright house networks developing the stage and amphitheater; in return for providing public wifi in the area, Brighthouse's taxes are discounted for the services provided. Is that the kind of public/private partnership that undermines the free market, yet directly benefits the people of the city?



Ecological Integrity:
Individual rights subordinated to environmental needs

The private lands surrounding the greenbelt are subject to public approval for their designs; including 10% of developed land need be green- landscaped in accordance with the approved plant list and the buildings themselves had to be outfitted with energy conserving technologies.
Aren't those individual rights being subordinated to environmental needs?


Now I now what you're thinking...false conclusion. Well, I feel the same way about the video you posted. I see him quoting one thing, then dumbing it up to make a point. Two things are necessary to subvert the maleficence of Agenda 21; due process and redress of grievances. We have that here, I think.

You wanna see an agenda in action without those two things, click here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/7414572.stm).

IMO, that is the intent and goal of Agenda 21. I may be wrong, but deep inside, I don't think so.

[bullypulpit]

:laugh2: Really? Year old paranoid/delusion ravings from Glenn Beck and Alex Jones? Really? :laugh2:

[SassyLady]

:laugh2: Really? Year old paranoid/delusion ravings from Glenn Beck and Alex Jones? Really? :laugh2:

Who are they?

[Missileman]

:laugh2: Really? Year old paranoid/delusion ravings from Glenn Beck and Alex Jones? Really? :laugh2:

Enjoy your population density center!

[Gaffer]

:laugh2: Really? Year old paranoid/delusion ravings from Glenn Beck and Alex Jones? Really? :laugh2:

Oh look, the liberal hack is back. Election season is officially open. :laugh2:

For all you new members, your going to love this guy.

[logroller]

IMO, that is the intent and goal of Agenda 21. I may be wrong, but deep inside, I don't think so.

I understand your concerns. I can tell you though, from my personal experience with California's high speed rail project, there are procedural controls which the People are encouraged to participate in. Taking the executive order kathianne linked to as an example; the mission of that order was to find ways to encourage rural america, a relatively small faction (16%) of the people, to engage in the process of how to implement sustainable developments. That, to me, is a stark contrast to what happened in white horse village.

[SassyLady]

I understand your concerns. I can tell you though, from my personal experience with California's high speed rail project, there are procedural controls which the People are encouraged to participate in. Taking the executive order kathianne linked to as an example; the mission of that order was to find ways to encourage rural america, a relatively small faction (16%) of the people, to engage in the process of how to implement sustainable developments. That, to me, is a stark contrast to what happened in white horse village.

I'm not familiar with white horse village. What happened?

[logroller]

I'm not familiar with white horse village. What happened?
I linked to it a few pages back. Post 283. It's a good video, worth watching atleast part one. It was rural sustenance farming village that was developed by the central government into a urban center. There's a lot of reasons why that was done, economically speaking it makes sense because of the three gorge dam, which provides power and now inexpensive barge transport to inland china. But what you see is collusion between investors and central government, while the indigenous people get screwed...in a nutshell.