Go Back   Winnipesaukee Forum > Lake Issues > General Issues
Home Forums Gallery Blogs YouTube Channel Classifieds Links Calendar Register FAQDonate Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-19-2012, 06:56 AM   #1
Lakesrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,129
Thanks: 380
Thanked 1,016 Times in 345 Posts
Default UN Agenda 21 meeting in Moultonborough tonight

7pm at the town library. If you don't want to live in a regionalized society you owe it to yourself to go and get information. Or pretty soon you won't own your own water well, and you will be taxed on it and the money will go to other towns. Should wake some people up on what is happening in this country that most know nothing about.
Just saying.
Lakesrider is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Lakesrider For This Useful Post:
nicole (09-19-2012)
Old 09-19-2012, 07:35 AM   #2
Just Sold
Senior Member
 
Just Sold's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Suncook, NH, but at The Lake at Heart
Posts: 2,607
Thanks: 1,059
Thanked 431 Times in 208 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakesrider View Post
7pm at the town library. If you don't want to live in a regionalized society you owe it to yourself to go and get information. Or pretty soon you won't own your own water well, and you will be taxed on it and the money will go to other towns. Should wake some people up on what is happening in this country that most know nothing about.
Just saying.

Agenda21
Agenda 21 is a comprehensive plan of action to be taken globally, nationally and locally by organizations of the United Nations System, Governments, and Major Groups in every area in which human impacts on the environment.
Agenda 21, the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development, and the Statement of principles for the Sustainable Management of Forests were adopted by more than 178 Governments at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development (UNCED) held in Rio de Janerio, Brazil, 3 to 14 June 1992.
The Commission on Sustainable Development (CSD) was created in December 1992 to ensure effective follow-up of UNCED, to monitor and report on implementation of the agreements at the local, national, regional and international levels. It was agreed that a five year review of Earth Summit progress would be made in 1997 by the United Nations General Assembly meeting in special session.
The full implementation of Agenda 21, the Programme for Further Implementation of Agenda 21 and the Commitments to the Rio principles, were strongly reaffirmed at the World Summit on Sustainable Development (WSSD) held in Johannesburg, South Africa from 26 August to 4 September 2002.
__________________
Just Sold
At the lake the stress of daily life just melts away. Pro Re Nata
Just Sold is offline  
Old 09-19-2012, 10:36 AM   #3
Lakegeezer
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Moultonboro, NH
Posts: 1,497
Blog Entries: 1
Thanks: 282
Thanked 467 Times in 208 Posts
Default Don't forget your teacup

There is a lot of hyperbole and scare tactics presented by those that use Agenda 21 as a political agenda. It does matter to the lakes region. Our environmental quality is dependent on research, education and yes - ordinances that restrict people's use of their own land. Your ability to drain or pollute a shared aquifer with your well is not a right. Your right to clear-cut or build 50 feet from state owned lake water is rightly restricted. The tea-party led folks against Agenda 21 sometimes get confused about the intent of local and state control, believing it is part of, or is a slippery slope to a UN agenda. The result is a head-wind on local efforts to protect the lakes region environment.
__________________
-lg
Lakegeezer is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Lakegeezer For This Useful Post:
SteveA (09-30-2012)
Old 09-19-2012, 10:47 AM   #4
AC2717
Senior Member
 
AC2717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay
Posts: 2,142
Thanks: 582
Thanked 253 Times in 185 Posts
Default

not touching this topic with a 10 foot pole

oh crap, just touched it
__________________
Capt. of the "No Worries"
AC2717 is offline  
Old 09-19-2012, 11:02 AM   #5
Lakesrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,129
Thanks: 380
Thanked 1,016 Times in 345 Posts
Default

The part that scares me is the taxation of your own well. Then the money will be redistributed to poorer towns. Much like what is happening already within the school systems. Where will it stop. Soon you will have to pay a tax to breath.
And someone thinks it a good idea to let the UN determine what you do or how you do it? Not me. We already have enough gov't intervention in everything we do.

Read the whole thing....The N is telling the States what they should do. Huh?

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/r...nda21_33.shtml
Lakesrider is offline  
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lakesrider For This Useful Post:
AC2717 (09-19-2012), CGI3 (09-22-2012), DRH (09-19-2012), Rattlesnake Gal (09-23-2012)
Sponsored Links
Old 09-19-2012, 12:33 PM   #6
TomC
Senior Member
 
TomC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: MA & Moultonboro
Posts: 540
Thanks: 8
Thanked 26 Times in 18 Posts
Default midweek, in the fall?

sort of a bad date to get any representation from seasonal/vacation property owners...
TomC is offline  
Old 09-19-2012, 01:15 PM   #7
TMI Guy
Senior Member
 
TMI Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Midcoast Maine & Sanbornton
Posts: 352
Thanks: 3
Thanked 151 Times in 75 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakesrider View Post
The part that scares me is the taxation of your own well. Then the money will be redistributed to poorer towns. Much like what is happening already within the school systems. Where will it stop. Soon you will have to pay a tax to breath.
And someone thinks it a good idea to let the UN determine what you do or how you do it? Not me. We already have enough gov't intervention in everything we do.

Read the whole thing....The N is telling the States what they should do. Huh?

http://www.un.org/esa/dsd/agenda21/r...nda21_33.shtml
The UN can't tax your well. The UN can spend as much hot air as they want telling states what they "should" do, but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Is anyone in Concord talking about passing legislation that would even come close to what the UN is saying "should" be done? No? I didn't think so.
TMI Guy is offline  
Old 09-19-2012, 02:00 PM   #8
songkrai
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 688
Thanks: 34
Thanked 140 Times in 94 Posts
Default

A coalition of folks from the Tea Party to the John Birch Society to the Free Staters.
songkrai is offline  
Old 09-19-2012, 02:32 PM   #9
jrc
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Hollis/Gilford
Posts: 2,688
Thanks: 33
Thanked 437 Times in 247 Posts
Default

Watch out for black helicopters! It's the Illuminati here to get us! Or is it the umbrella corporation. Some people have a hard time telling where fact ends and fiction begins.

The political activities of the UN have drifted towards farce for quite awhile. An organization that equates countries just because they are contries without regard for the inherent freedom of their citizens, does not truly represent the world's peoples.

It only represents the world's ruling regimes. Only the UN believes that a Cuban dictators vote is equal to the vote of democratically elected leader of Canada.
jrc is offline  
Old 09-19-2012, 02:54 PM   #10
Billy Bob
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Tiera Verdi Fl & Moultonborough
Posts: 216
Thanks: 101
Thanked 98 Times in 60 Posts
Default

These are the same people that caused the OLD MAN to fall off Cannon Mountain !!!
This UN taking over the world stuff is a bit on over the edge .
Billy Bob is offline  
Old 09-22-2012, 02:39 PM   #11
Acrossamerica
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 239
Thanks: 0
Thanked 133 Times in 66 Posts
Default

Part of the UN what ever is the scenic highway designation which allows the town, country and state to tell you what you can and can not do with your front yard up to 80 feet back from the road. A friend just had a letter sent to them about a business sign that has been up for years, that it is now prohibited because it is in the senic highway zone. They can decide (and who knows who are the deciders) that they find your shubbery to be offensive or if you have a bunch of children and the toys take away from the scenic highway look that they can not be within 80 ft of the road. Not what I call "Live Free or Die" but --
Acrossamerica is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Acrossamerica For This Useful Post:
Lakesrider (09-23-2012)
Old 09-22-2012, 03:01 PM   #12
RailroadJoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 620
Thanks: 259
Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts
Default

What UN? Is this the United Nations in NY or some other UN?
RailroadJoe is offline  
Old 09-22-2012, 07:16 PM   #13
Slickcraft
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Welch Island and West Alton
Posts: 2,564
Thanks: 820
Thanked 1,417 Times in 650 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrossamerica View Post
Part of the UN what ever is the scenic highway designation which allows the town, country and state to tell you what you can and can not do with your front yard up to 80 feet back from the road. A friend just had a letter sent to them about a business sign that has been up for years, that it is now prohibited because it is in the senic highway zone. They can decide (and who knows who are the deciders) that they find your shubbery to be offensive or if you have a bunch of children and the toys take away from the scenic highway look that they can not be within 80 ft of the road. Not what I call "Live Free or Die" but --
In NH, a scenic road designation is made at the Town level and requires a vote of the Town Meeting. So if you are old enough to vote you should have seen that warrant article when it was up for vote. You and your friend also had a chance to speak against it at the Town Meeting that I'm sure you attended.

That is how democracy works thanks to all those who won our freedom and actually fought for the live free or die principal.
Slickcraft is offline  
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Slickcraft For This Useful Post:
ishoot308 (09-23-2012), Lakesrider (09-23-2012), TMI Guy (09-22-2012)
Old 09-22-2012, 07:49 PM   #14
TMI Guy
Senior Member
 
TMI Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Midcoast Maine & Sanbornton
Posts: 352
Thanks: 3
Thanked 151 Times in 75 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrossamerica View Post
Part of the UN what ever is the scenic highway designation which allows the town, country and state to tell you what you can and can not do with your front yard up to 80 feet back from the road. A friend just had a letter sent to them about a business sign that has been up for years, that it is now prohibited because it is in the senic highway zone. They can decide (and who knows who are the deciders) that they find your shubbery to be offensive or if you have a bunch of children and the toys take away from the scenic highway look that they can not be within 80 ft of the road. Not what I call "Live Free or Die" but --
The UN "what ever" does not allow the town, county or state to tell you what you can and can't do with your front yard. Period.
TMI Guy is offline  
Old 09-23-2012, 12:50 PM   #15
Lakesrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,129
Thanks: 380
Thanked 1,016 Times in 345 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Acrossamerica View Post
Part of the UN what ever is the scenic highway designation which allows the town, country and state to tell you what you can and can not do with your front yard up to 80 feet back from the road. A friend just had a letter sent to them about a business sign that has been up for years, that it is now prohibited because it is in the senic highway zone. They can decide (and who knows who are the deciders) that they find your shubbery to be offensive or if you have a bunch of children and the toys take away from the scenic highway look that they can not be within 80 ft of the road. Not what I call "Live Free or Die" but --

Like RT 109. That is a scenic byway. There are plenty of scenes of cracks in the road. Potholes and grass growing up in the middle of the road. Where else but a scenic byway in a heavily populated Summer Tourist area can you actually get air off one of the frost heaves. I mean you have to go to an amusement park and ride an old style wooden roller coaster to get more bumps and negative G's than on RT 109..... Not one deer crossing sign on that road either.....
Lakesrider is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 06:32 AM   #16
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 469
Thanked 836 Times in 584 Posts
Default

You are so right, Lakesrider. This is very scary. I heard all about it on a radio show last night. Rochester, NH voted against it. Good for them, they are smart!

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/
tis is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 08:19 AM   #17
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 687 Times in 425 Posts
Default

I am totally against the UN telling any US citizen what they can or cannot do with their property.

When President Bush signed the UN Agenda 21 document, he proudly said this:
It is the sacred principles enshrined in the UN Charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance.”

I am sure the American people were very surprised or perhaps totally unaware that a U.S. President would pledge allegiance to a foreign body instead of the U.S. Constitution.
Rusty is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Rusty For This Useful Post:
ITD (09-30-2012), Jonas Pilot (09-30-2012)
Old 09-30-2012, 10:40 AM   #18
Lakesrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,129
Thanks: 380
Thanked 1,016 Times in 345 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMI Guy View Post
The UN can't tax your well. The UN can spend as much hot air as they want telling states what they "should" do, but it doesn't amount to a hill of beans. Is anyone in Concord talking about passing legislation that would even come close to what the UN is saying "should" be done? No? I didn't think so.
Well they are looking into it.....

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...12/HB1634.html

The State of NH voted against the UN Agenda 21 but it is still an issue with many other states, so it is technically still an issue with our state as well.

People that think this is a joke have their heads in the sand. There are lots of things going on that we are unaware of. I feel sorry for our next generations as it is all falling apart quickly. Even if you don;t believe in things such as Agenda 21 you need to read between the lines. If this isn't ratified by all the states there will be people using back doors to get something like it passed.

Are all these articles wrong? If everyone is fighting it...it must be a real issue.

http://nashua.patch.com/articles/letters-9de63afd

http://miscellanyblue.com/post/31536085323

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda2...lent-news.html
Lakesrider is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 11:15 AM   #19
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 469
Thanked 836 Times in 584 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakesrider View Post
Well they are looking into it.....

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...12/HB1634.html

The State of NH voted against the UN Agenda 21 but it is still an issue with many other states, so it is technically still an issue with our state as well.

People that think this is a joke have their heads in the sand. There are lots of things going on that we are unaware of. I feel sorry for our next generations as it is all falling apart quickly. Even if you don;t believe in things such as Agenda 21 you need to read between the lines. If this isn't ratified by all the states there will be people using back doors to get something like it passed.






http://nashua.patch.com/articles/letters-9de63afd

http://miscellanyblue.com/post/31536085323

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda2...lent-news.html

Yes, congratulations to Rochester for rejecting it! I hope Moultonboro and the other Lakes Region towns are as smart.

Did that bill pass in the state, Lakesrider, or is it just being studied?
tis is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 01:07 PM   #20
Lakesrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,129
Thanks: 380
Thanked 1,016 Times in 345 Posts
Default

I believe the House rejected UN Agenda 21 back in May. I hadn't looked that up before my original post. If they did in fact reject it I wonder why they even had a meeting about it in Sept though? Like Vinny Barbarino used to say........
I'm zohoooooo confuuuuuused.

I gotta do more digging when I have time. Gotta get my new well in fast.
Lakesrider is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 01:32 PM   #21
TMI Guy
Senior Member
 
TMI Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Midcoast Maine & Sanbornton
Posts: 352
Thanks: 3
Thanked 151 Times in 75 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakesrider View Post
Well they are looking into it.....

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legi...12/HB1634.html

The State of NH voted against the UN Agenda 21 but it is still an issue with many other states, so it is technically still an issue with our state as well.

People that think this is a joke have their heads in the sand. There are lots of things going on that we are unaware of. I feel sorry for our next generations as it is all falling apart quickly. Even if you don;t believe in things such as Agenda 21 you need to read between the lines. If this isn't ratified by all the states there will be people using back doors to get something like it passed.

Are all these articles wrong? If everyone is fighting it...it must be a real issue.

http://nashua.patch.com/articles/letters-9de63afd

http://miscellanyblue.com/post/31536085323

http://www.democratsagainstunagenda2...lent-news.html
The "looking into it" that you point to was an act to establish a committee to study procedures to prevent the implementation of UN Agenda 21.

Are all those articles wrong? I don't know, but I do know that a conspiracy theory does not become true just because it's repeated enough times.

As I said in my earlier post, the UN can't tax your well. The New Hampshire legislature may be able to do that, but I doubt they will. Why? Because unlike at the UN, New Hampshire citizens have a say about what goes on in Concord.
TMI Guy is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to TMI Guy For This Useful Post:
Rusty (09-30-2012)
Old 09-30-2012, 02:16 PM   #22
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 469
Thanked 836 Times in 584 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakesrider View Post
I believe the House rejected UN Agenda 21 back in May. I hadn't looked that up before my original post. If they did in fact reject it I wonder why they even had a meeting about it in Sept though? Like Vinny Barbarino used to say........
I'm zohoooooo confuuuuuused.

I gotta do more digging when I have time. Gotta get my new well in fast.
That's what I wondered too-why have the meeting in Sept. in Rochester if the state passed a bill banning it. The person I heard talking about it last night mentioned that places in NC, CA, and Rochester, NH had all rejected it. When she said Rochester it really got my attention.
tis is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 02:28 PM   #23
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 687 Times in 425 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tis View Post
That's what I wondered too-why have the meeting in Sept. in Rochester if the state passed a bill banning it. The person I heard talking about it last night mentioned that places in NC, CA, and Rochester, NH had all rejected it. When she said Rochester it really got my attention.
NH didn't pass a Bill to ban UN Agenda 21. As TMI Guy said: The Bill is an "act to establish a committee to study procedures to prevent the implementation of UN Agenda 21".
The Bill has been sitting in the House with not action taken since early this year.
Rusty is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 02:34 PM   #24
RailroadJoe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 620
Thanks: 259
Thanked 158 Times in 100 Posts
Default

Why study it? Just reject it. What happened to Live Free or Die. The government tells us too much of what we can do now. I think it is time to "get the US out of the UN".
RailroadJoe is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to RailroadJoe For This Useful Post:
Grandpa Redneck (09-30-2012)
Old 09-30-2012, 02:40 PM   #25
Grandpa Redneck
Senior Member
 
Grandpa Redneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: White Mountain Area NH
Posts: 146
Thanks: 268
Thanked 107 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RailroadJoe View Post
Why study it? Just reject it. What happened to Live Free or Die. The government tells us too much of what we can do now. I think it is time to "get the US out of the UN".
And while we are at it get the UN out of the US!
__________________
Freedom Lovin' gun crazy Redneck
Grandpa Redneck is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Grandpa Redneck For This Useful Post:
Pineedles (10-01-2012), RailroadJoe (09-30-2012)
Old 09-30-2012, 02:45 PM   #26
TMI Guy
Senior Member
 
TMI Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Midcoast Maine & Sanbornton
Posts: 352
Thanks: 3
Thanked 151 Times in 75 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tis View Post
That's what I wondered too-why have the meeting in Sept. in Rochester if the state passed a bill banning it. The person I heard talking about it last night mentioned that places in NC, CA, and Rochester, NH had all rejected it. When she said Rochester it really got my attention.
I don't think that the NH legislature "banned" anything. Local city and town councils and boards of selectmen still have the ability to regulate local land use as they (and their constituents) feel best, within extisting state law. That's good, right? From my brief look at it, the Rochester thing was a vote to reject a federal "sustainable community initiative grant," whatever that is. I guess that certain people think that such grants are some sort of communist/socialist/UN/new world order plot to subvert our American way of life.

One of the many web sites that talks about this says that American court rooms are controlled by Queen Elizabeth II of England. The proof is that the American flags in U.S. courtrooms have gold fringe around the edges, which is a symbol of maritime law, and England is a maritime nation. Really.
TMI Guy is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 06:29 PM   #27
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 469
Thanked 836 Times in 584 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RailroadJoe View Post
Why study it? Just reject it. What happened to Live Free or Die. The government tells us too much of what we can do now. I think it is time to "get the US out of the UN".
Exactly, the state should reject it! That's the way I read what was posted that it was a study. I thought maybe someone knew something more recent.

And yes, get the US out of the UN and as Granpa said, get the UN out of the US.

Did anyone go to the Moultonboro meeting. BTW, what is the now correct spelling of Moultonborough-Moultonboro? Is it orough now?
tis is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 07:07 PM   #28
TMI Guy
Senior Member
 
TMI Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Midcoast Maine & Sanbornton
Posts: 352
Thanks: 3
Thanked 151 Times in 75 Posts
Default

It sounds like a lot of people who are against Agenda 21 are getting their knickers in a wad simply because they've heard that the UN is "imposing" a radical anti-American agenda on local governments, when nothing could be further from the truth. There are certain parts of Agenda 21 that clearly go against traditional American values and that probably even violate the federal and state constitutions and will never be implemented in the United States. There are other parts of Agenda 21 that are fairly main stream and are being used in many American communities without controversy. Most of Agenda 21 lies somewhere between those two extremes.

The United Nations has zero ability to impose anything on any government in the United States. Governing bodies may consider recommendations that are part of a UN report, but anything that's implemented must comply with both federal and state constitutions and presumably, must have popular support lest elected representatives find themselves out of a job after the next election.
TMI Guy is offline  
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to TMI Guy For This Useful Post:
Just Sold (10-01-2012), SteveA (09-30-2012)
Old 09-30-2012, 07:15 PM   #29
Lakesrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,129
Thanks: 380
Thanked 1,016 Times in 345 Posts
Default

George Bush's quote on Agenda 21...

"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter to which the American People will henceforth pledge their allegiance."
Lakesrider is offline  
Old 09-30-2012, 07:30 PM   #30
TMI Guy
Senior Member
 
TMI Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Midcoast Maine & Sanbornton
Posts: 352
Thanks: 3
Thanked 151 Times in 75 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakesrider View Post
George Bush's quote on Agenda 21...

"It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter to which the American People will henceforth pledge their allegiance."
Context is important, as I'm sure that you know. How about providing a link to the whole speech, or quoting the whole paragraph that contains this sentence as well as the paragraphs before and after?

That quote is 20 years old. Have we been pledging our allegiance to the principles in the UN charter since then? Do you even know what the principles in the UN charter are?

Edited later to add: I don't think that George H.W. Bush ever said this. I spent a few minutes doing an internet search, and the only place that I could find these words was on wacko conspiracy theory web sites, plus a web site that lists false Bush quotes. Presidential speeches and statements are scrupulously recorded and archived. If Bush really said these words in public at the UN, or anywhere else, there would be an easily located and verifiable record of it. I could be wrong (it wouldn't be the first time), but I don't think so.

Last edited by TMI Guy; 09-30-2012 at 09:29 PM.
TMI Guy is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to TMI Guy For This Useful Post:
Just Sold (10-01-2012)
Old 10-01-2012, 10:24 AM   #31
Lakesrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,129
Thanks: 380
Thanked 1,016 Times in 345 Posts
Default

Well. I guess we can all just sit back in our lazy boy chairs and take a wait and see attitude then. I mean Government certainly hasn't messed up this country so far right? So why should it in the future? If everyone has the view that nothing is wrong out there, the future is looking very bleak for the next generations.
Lakesrider is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 10:49 AM   #32
TMI Guy
Senior Member
 
TMI Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Midcoast Maine & Sanbornton
Posts: 352
Thanks: 3
Thanked 151 Times in 75 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakesrider View Post
Well. I guess we can all just sit back in our lazy boy chairs and take a wait and see attitude then. I mean Government certainly hasn't messed up this country so far right? So why should it in the future? If everyone has the view that nothing is wrong out there, the future is looking very bleak for the next generations.
I'm not saying that nothing's wrong with our government; in fact, I think there's quite a lot that's wrong. And I wish that everyone had an opinion on what the government does and how they do it; that would make for a much more involved electorate, which is something that we definitely need.

BUT- as a famous politician once said, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts (or something like that). Using false information in the political process, or any other process, is harmful in the long run.

UN Agenda 21 "is is a non-binding, voluntarily implemented action plan of the United Nations with regards to sustainable development." All or any part of it cannot be and will not be implemented against the wishes of elected governments in the United States, never mind the fact that some of its provisions are likely unconstitutional.

George H.W. Bush never said "It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter to which the American People will henceforth pledge their allegiance." The quote was likely made up as a scare tactic to advance a theory that there are certain interests in this country that want to see a "New World Order" with a unified world government which would mean the end of national sovereignty.

You can find lots of crazy stuff on the internet; that's easy. Separating the wheat from the chaff takes a little more effort. Nobody said democracy was easy.
TMI Guy is offline  
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to TMI Guy For This Useful Post:
Billy Bob (10-10-2012), ishoot308 (10-01-2012), ITD (10-01-2012), Just Sold (10-01-2012), Lakegeezer (10-01-2012), Lakesrider (10-01-2012), NickNH (10-01-2012), SteveA (10-01-2012)
Old 10-01-2012, 11:53 AM   #33
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 469
Thanked 836 Times in 584 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakesrider View Post
Well. I guess we can all just sit back in our lazy boy chairs and take a wait and see attitude then. I mean Government certainly hasn't messed up this country so far right? So why should it in the future? If everyone has the view that nothing is wrong out there, the future is looking very bleak for the next generations.
That's the problem. Too many of us sit back and think everything will be ok. Thank goodness some people in Rochester were smart enough to get out and fight for their freedoms. We need to make sure we do that in the Lakes Region too. I really wish someone here had gone to that meeting in Moultonboro to see what was said.

TMI Guy said it will not be implimented against the wishes of elected officials, but many of our elected officials don't understand what they are voting for sometimes. A lot of those on the Council in Rochester voted for Agenda 21. You CAN find anything on the internet and we had better well pay attention or we might find ourselves in big trouble. The UN would like nothing better than to destroy our country. Of course they don't realize that would also destroy themselves.
tis is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 12:42 PM   #34
Puck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 71
Thanks: 0
Thanked 41 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Agenda 21 is a voluntary strategy that Nations can endorse or not. There are no ramifications for participating or not. There was no transfer of authority nor granting of any interest or right to another nation or politcal body when the US endorsed this document. Many of the ideas related to planning, development strategies, and environmental issues were already common in the US 20 years before Agenda 21 was drafted. And yet somehow now these same ideas on infrastructure planning and development and environmental issues have come to be seen as the insidious means of some UN plan to take over the US. Now evidently planning ahead and using forethought about the way we as a nation use our resources is seen as an evil, un-American idea. That's right, don't think or plan for the future, it's un-American. The UN does need to take this country over... between shooting ourselves in the feet and cutting off our noses to spite our faces we'll simply bleed out and be no more.

What is going to happen when people realize that the UN also supports the concept of democracy, women's rights, and the education of children?
Puck is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 01:30 PM   #35
surfnsnow
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 166
Thanks: 133
Thanked 50 Times in 27 Posts
Default

maybe when we can vote in a free election there
surfnsnow is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 02:03 PM   #36
Acrossamerica
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 239
Thanks: 0
Thanked 133 Times in 66 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Puck View Post
Agenda 21 is a voluntary strategy that Nations can endorse or not. There are no ramifications for participating or not. There was no transfer of authority nor granting of any interest or right to another nation or politcal body when the US endorsed this document. Many of the ideas related to planning, development strategies, and environmental issues were already common in the US 20 years before Agenda 21 was drafted. And yet somehow now these same ideas on infrastructure planning and development and environmental issues have come to be seen as the insidious means of some UN plan to take over the US. Now evidently planning ahead and using forethought about the way we as a nation use our resources is seen as an evil, un-American idea. That's right, don't think or plan for the future, it's un-American. The UN does need to take this country over... between shooting ourselves in the feet and cutting off our noses to spite our faces we'll simply bleed out and be no more.

What is going to happen when people realize that the UN also supports the concept of democracy, women's rights, and the education of children?
Wow, I have not seen that level of communistic thought here in NH ever. I could understand perhaps coming from some areas of MA, NJ or NYC or possibly of course CA but NH the live free or die state. I am very disheartened that you would even think the UN cares about anything other than being able to take large sums of money from one, skim off a fairly high precentage for in house largess and give the rest out to dictators who care not a whit for their own people. If that is what you wish for the United states, pelase start as far away from NH as you can get. I am thinkning maybe Nancy Pelosi's district in SF. She seems more in line with your thinking.
Acrossamerica is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Acrossamerica For This Useful Post:
tis (10-01-2012)
Old 10-01-2012, 02:49 PM   #37
Puck
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 71
Thanks: 0
Thanked 41 Times in 11 Posts
Default

Born and raised here as part of a family that has been here since the mid 1700's. Maintaining a healthy level of skeptism, thinking for ourselves, doing those things that need to be done to keep NH good for us and our business, understanding that those things meant a certain level of government was actually necessary, and staying out of our neighbor's personal lives used to be NH values. Not considering options that are good for us as a state, things that could help businesses here, because we buy into conspiracy theories propagated on the internet is not grounded in NH values. What you may think the UN wants is beside the point. They have no legal authority here.
Puck is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 03:33 PM   #38
TMI Guy
Senior Member
 
TMI Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Midcoast Maine & Sanbornton
Posts: 352
Thanks: 3
Thanked 151 Times in 75 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by tis View Post
A lot of those on the Council in Rochester voted for Agenda 21.
The council vote in Rochester wasn't a vote for or against Agenda 21; from what I understand it was a vote on whether or not to accept a federal "sustainable community initiative grant," which some people apparently thought was part of an insidious plot to turn the good city of Rochester over to UN control. So, the city council said "no thanks" to the federal money. I guess some other community will get it.

tis, what specific part of Agenda 21 do you find most disagreeable?

Are there any parts of Agenda 21 that you are OK with? Maybe the part that says governments, "in cooperation with relevant international organizations, where appropriate, should promote proper planning, including environmental impact assessment where appropriate, of safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive waste, including emergency procedures, storage, transportation and disposal, prior to and after activities that generate such waste." I don't know, that sounds to me like a common sense thing to do. I can't imagine anyone who would be against that, except maybe for someone who owned a business that cleaned up after a radiological accident.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tis View Post
The UN would like nothing better than to destroy our country.
I'm curious as to where you get this idea. I know that there are some UN member states that would like to see the United States destroyed, but they are a very small number when compared to the UN membership as a whole, and they have little to no influence on the overall organization. The US position as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council gives us veto power over any Security Council resolution. Therefore, the best thing is for the United States to remain in the UN, so when that inevitable resolution calling for the destruction of our country is introduced, we can veto it!
TMI Guy is offline  
Old 10-01-2012, 05:32 PM   #39
tis
Senior Member
 
tis's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 4,714
Thanks: 469
Thanked 836 Times in 584 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMI Guy View Post
The council vote in Rochester wasn't a vote for or against Agenda 21; from what I understand it was a vote on whether or not to accept a federal "sustainable community initiative grant," which some people apparently thought was part of an insidious plot to turn the good city of Rochester over to UN control. So, the city council said "no thanks" to the federal money. I guess some other community will get it.

tis, what specific part of Agenda 21 do you find most disagreeable?

Are there any parts of Agenda 21 that you are OK with? Maybe the part that says governments, "in cooperation with relevant international organizations, where appropriate, should promote proper planning, including environmental impact assessment where appropriate, of safe and environmentally sound management of radioactive waste, including emergency procedures, storage, transportation and disposal, prior to and after activities that generate such waste." I don't know, that sounds to me like a common sense thing to do. I can't imagine anyone who would be against that, except maybe for someone who owned a business that cleaned up after a radiological accident.



I'm curious as to where you get this idea. I know that there are some UN member states that would like to see the United States destroyed, but they are a very small number when compared to the UN membership as a whole, and they have little to no influence on the overall organization. The US position as one of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council gives us veto power over any Security Council resolution. Therefore, the best thing is for the United States to remain in the UN, so when that inevitable resolution calling for the destruction of our country is introduced, we can veto it!
You are right, the vote in Rochester was for a federal grant-I think from HUD. I think the whole thing leads to UN control and as I have said I don't think the UN has our best interest at heart at all. Many of them hate our country and want all our wealth to go to them. And it won't go to help their people, it will go to the dictators. They do want to tax the rich countries of the world to give to the poor. I am not at all confident that our members would vote in the best interest of our country.
tis is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 09:53 AM   #40
Lakesrider
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 2,129
Thanks: 380
Thanked 1,016 Times in 345 Posts
Default

As they have consistently shown in the past.
Lakesrider is offline  
Old 10-03-2012, 01:22 PM   #41
TMI Guy
Senior Member
 
TMI Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Midcoast Maine & Sanbornton
Posts: 352
Thanks: 3
Thanked 151 Times in 75 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lakesrider View Post
As they have consistently shown in the past.
I'm assuming that when tis refers to "our members," that means the U.S. representative to the U.N.

Which past votes by the U.S. representative do you feel have not been in the best interest of our country?
TMI Guy is offline  
Old 10-09-2012, 08:06 AM   #42
AC2717
Senior Member
 
AC2717's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Maynard, MA & Paugus Bay
Posts: 2,142
Thanks: 582
Thanked 253 Times in 185 Posts
Default

for all who do not think this is an issue, read this

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...tax-americans/
__________________
Capt. of the "No Worries"
AC2717 is offline  
Old 10-09-2012, 08:47 AM   #43
TMI Guy
Senior Member
 
TMI Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Midcoast Maine & Sanbornton
Posts: 352
Thanks: 3
Thanked 151 Times in 75 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AC2717 View Post
for all who do not think this is an issue, read this

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/...tax-americans/
Please. This is an opinion piece. Look who wrote the article. It might as well have been written by Carl Rove. The president cannot unilaterally imopose any tax. It has to be passed by congress first. As I mentioned in an earlier post, you can find lots of crazy stuff on the internet. Just because it's been written by some national political pundit (from the right OR the left) doesn't mean that it's true.
TMI Guy is offline  
Old 10-09-2012, 09:06 AM   #44
Grandpa Redneck
Senior Member
 
Grandpa Redneck's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: White Mountain Area NH
Posts: 146
Thanks: 268
Thanked 107 Times in 56 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMI Guy View Post
Please. This is an opinion piece. Look who wrote the article. It might as well have been written by Carl Rove. The president cannot unilaterally imopose any tax. It has to be passed by congress first. As I mentioned in an earlier post, you can find lots of crazy stuff on the internet. Just because it's been written by some national political pundit (from the right OR the left) doesn't mean that it's true.
Just because its "SUPPOSED" to be passed by congress first doesn't seem to mean anything lately, just look at all the executive orders that Obama has used to by-pass congress on many issues in this term. What makes you think he won't use executive orders even more in his second term????
__________________
Freedom Lovin' gun crazy Redneck
Grandpa Redneck is offline  
Old 10-09-2012, 10:09 AM   #45
TMI Guy
Senior Member
 
TMI Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Midcoast Maine & Sanbornton
Posts: 352
Thanks: 3
Thanked 151 Times in 75 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandpa Redneck View Post
Just because its "SUPPOSED" to be passed by congress first doesn't seem to mean anything lately, just look at all the executive orders that Obama has used to by-pass congress on many issues in this term. What makes you think he won't use executive orders even more in his second term????
An executive order to implement a tax to be imposed on all Americans is so clearly unconstitutional as to be out of the realm of possibility for all but the heartiest of tinfoil hat conspiracy theorists.

I would be curious as to the amount and scope of executive orders issued by the current president as compared to his predecessors, not to mention the "signing statements" put out by his immediate predecessor.
TMI Guy is offline  
Old 10-09-2012, 11:10 AM   #46
Boater
Senior Member
 
Boater's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 74
Thanks: 4
Thanked 12 Times in 4 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TMI Guy View Post
I would be curious as to the amount and scope of executive orders issued by the current president as compared to his predecessors
Others to FDR - NONE
FDR - 11 in 16 years
Truman - 5 in 7 years
Ike - 2 in 8 years
Kennedy - 4 in 3 years
LBJ - 4 in 5 years
Nixon - 1 in 6 years
Ford - 3 in 2 years
Carter - 3 in 4 years
Reagan - 5 in 8 years
Bush - 3 in 4 years
Clinton - 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush - 62 in 8 years
Obama - 923 in 3 1/2 years!

Many of the over 900 Executive Orders give the President control over EVERY aspect of our lives (power, water, transportation, communications, energy, etc.) and set it up so that pesky Congress won't be needed to take control. If you rely on the liberal media for your information you probably aren't aware of what he's quietly doing.
Boater is offline  
Old 10-09-2012, 11:37 AM   #47
TMI Guy
Senior Member
 
TMI Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Midcoast Maine & Sanbornton
Posts: 352
Thanks: 3
Thanked 151 Times in 75 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boater View Post
Others to FDR - NONE
FDR - 11 in 16 years
Truman - 5 in 7 years
Ike - 2 in 8 years
Kennedy - 4 in 3 years
LBJ - 4 in 5 years
Nixon - 1 in 6 years
Ford - 3 in 2 years
Carter - 3 in 4 years
Reagan - 5 in 8 years
Bush - 3 in 4 years
Clinton - 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush - 62 in 8 years
Obama - 923 in 3 1/2 years!

Many of the over 900 Executive Orders give the President control over EVERY aspect of our lives (power, water, transportation, communications, energy, etc.) and set it up so that pesky Congress won't be needed to take control. If you rely on the liberal media for your information you probably aren't aware of what he's quietly doing.
Interesting; thank you for sharing. Can you please provide a link to your source for this information?
TMI Guy is offline  
Old 10-09-2012, 11:40 AM   #48
LakeSnake
Senior Member
 
LakeSnake's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Pine (Alton) Mountain
Posts: 136
Thanks: 39
Thanked 33 Times in 20 Posts
Default

New taxes - just look at the Affordable Helathcare Act - something like 20+ hidden taxes that got ram rodded through the legislature (most of whom did not read it).

Our country is being systematically dismantled.
__________________
I'm in NH 24/7 now.
LakeSnake is offline  
Old 10-09-2012, 11:47 AM   #49
Rusty
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 2,028
Thanks: 603
Thanked 687 Times in 425 Posts
Default

President Obama has signed 143 executive orders as of Sept. 28, 2012.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-r...ecutive-orders

Here is what Snopes has to say about it: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama...tiveorders.asp
__________________
It's never crowded along the extra mile.

Last edited by Rusty; 10-09-2012 at 11:51 AM. Reason: Changed date for exec orders
Rusty is offline  
The Following User Says Thank You to Rusty For This Useful Post:
TMI Guy (10-09-2012)
Old 10-09-2012, 12:05 PM   #50
TMI Guy
Senior Member
 
TMI Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Midcoast Maine & Sanbornton
Posts: 352
Thanks: 3
Thanked 151 Times in 75 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Boater View Post
Others to FDR - NONE
FDR - 11 in 16 years
Truman - 5 in 7 years
Ike - 2 in 8 years
Kennedy - 4 in 3 years
LBJ - 4 in 5 years
Nixon - 1 in 6 years
Ford - 3 in 2 years
Carter - 3 in 4 years
Reagan - 5 in 8 years
Bush - 3 in 4 years
Clinton - 15 in 8 years
George W. Bush - 62 in 8 years
Obama - 923 in 3 1/2 years!

Many of the over 900 Executive Orders give the President control over EVERY aspect of our lives (power, water, transportation, communications, energy, etc.) and set it up so that pesky Congress won't be needed to take control. If you rely on the liberal media for your information you probably aren't aware of what he's quietly doing.
A quick Google search turns up some very different information. Here's a link to the Federal Register section of the National Archives:

http://www.archives.gov/federal-regi...sposition.html

It shows that through August 10, 2012, Obama has signed 135 Executive Orders, broken down as follows:

2009 - 39
2010 - 35
2011 - 34
2012 - 27 (through 8/10/2012)

I doubt that he has signed an additional 788 Executive Orders between August 10th and today, buy maybe you know something that I don't.

Here is how Obama compares to past presidents for numbers of Executive Orders signed (again, according to the National Archives link above):

Obama - 135
G.W. Bush - 291
Clinton - 364
G.H.W. Bush - 166
Reagan - 381
Carter - 320
Ford - 169
Nixon - 346
Johnson - 324
Kennedy - 214
Eisenhower - 482
Truman - 894
F.D. Roosevelt - 3,467
Hoover - 996

If the number of Executive Orders signed is indeed an indication that the president is taking control over every aspect of our lives, than we're too late, because that happened over 70 years ago with FDR.

I'm not trying to argue for the political left or the political right; I'm trying to argue that you shouldn't accept every "fact," especially the ones that are being used to push a political agenda, without doing your own research first. The truth is out there, folks, and most of the time it's not too hard to find.
TMI Guy is offline  
The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to TMI Guy For This Useful Post:
Billy Bob (10-10-2012), Bucktail (11-23-2012), Just Sold (10-09-2012), Lakegeezer (10-10-2012), Loony Singer (10-10-2012), Newbiesaukee (10-09-2012), NickNH (10-09-2012), Rusty (10-09-2012), trfour (10-09-2012)
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:48 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

This page was generated in 0.19866 seconds