Replies

No, I have not. Lets check with B4 and cg--perhaps they have seen something on that travesty, LOST.

I did a quick news search. I came up with about the same thing as B4Ranch. No mention of it since last fall.

He was a long time supporter but now seems to be wavering on some of the language and might seek "changes." There was no real detail as to what those changes might be. In other words, he's positioned himself to say he opposes it (but probably won't, IMO).

He had used that same tactic when it came to the International Criminal Court also. He was a decided supporter of both the ICC and LOST in the late 1990s. Since then he has hedged his bets a bit. Saying you still want these things, but you want them fixed first is very problematic.

Okay, you get them fixed. Then you join. Then what?

Do we simply drop out if the fixing doesn’t stay fixed? How do you drop out of LOST when all the nations of the world have signed on and it’s a thriving enterprise? How do we stop the U.N.’s income stream? Have we dropped out of the U.N. when it didn’t stay fixed?

These international “TRAPS” are something I think we should avoid like the plague. When a guy starts talking about what a good idea these things are, it’s a clear sign of them not knowing what they hell they are talking about.

That’s my take on it, at any rate.

BTW, I agree with your take. He’s not going to buck the globalist desires here. He’s closing Gitmo because the European nations want him to. He’s a limp wrist when it comes to world opinion.

He’s a sure bet to put us in LOST and the ICC IMO. I think he’s a sure bet on the three nation security plan and movement toward a NAU.

He’s such a pushover on Gitmo, he has sworn to close it on his first day in office. So what happens to all the other prisons around the world, where we hold terrorists?

Senator McCain’s full statement was posted October 25 (2007) as follows:

"I’d like to make some changes to it. I think that we need a Law of the Sea. I think it’s important, but I have not frankly looked too carefully at the latest situation as it is, but it would be nice if we had some of the provisions in it. But I do worry a lot about American sovereignty aspects of it, so I would probably vote against it in its present form.

"I would like to see a treaty as far something to bring order, for example, in a place like the Arctic right now, where thanks to climate change, it’s going to be far more important than it was. You watch the Russians asserting their sovereignty over it, and I’d like to see some order out of that chaos. But I’m just too concerned about the aspect of United States sovereignty being handed over to some international organization. (Emphasis added)"

"We really really need it for a variety of reasons, but I would probably vote against it." I feel so much better. We're safe! No need to worry here.

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/law_of_the_sea_treaty/2007/10/27/44481.html

Not trying to bury you, honest...

Here's an interesting article that appeared on the forum on January 15th, 2008, by Cliff Kinkaid.

It touches on McCain's statements or actions related to LOST prominantly.

The article was titled, "UN Double Talk from Straight Talker McCain".

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1954211/posts