Posted on 01/22/2003 10:22:50 PM PST by JohnHuang2
Edited on 07/12/2004 4:00:30 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
America has turned its back on Americans. Even illegal aliens count higher with the American government than native-born, taxpaying, loyal U.S. citizens, who are regarded by their government as nothing but resources to be exploited.
American taxpayers now are expected to shoulder the burden of paying for university educations for illegal aliens. When U.S. Rep. Tom Tancredo, Colorado Republican, said recently that illegal aliens should be deported, not given in-state tuition, Karl Rove, the Power Behind the Bush, told Mr. Tancredo never again to darken the steps of the White House.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
"Dude, you claimed this:" - dirtboy
To win bids with federal agencies, companies were being compelled to show how they were in compliance with Kyoto's reduced CO2 requirements, for instance.
You provided nothing to back it up." - dirtboy
Yes. Reducing energy emissions IS reducing CO2 requirements, and I provided at least four links to the EO's that Clinton signed that got us there even though the Kyoto Treaty hadn't been ratified by the Senate.
Move over because I’m pissing up the same rope hoping that’s the case. He might be thinking “OK. I have my core constituency shored up and can afford to sacrifice the Libertarian and Americafirst crowd if it means picking up the Latino vote and a few moderate dems. When I’m in for the second term I can do whatever I feel is right”.
But the ugly likelihood is that nothing will get done. This is not only a drain on our economy and a waste of our tax resources but just plain dangerous. We’re trying to keep WMD’s out of the hands of terrorists but have no problem letting anyone who wants to wander across our boarders.
Yeah. The Allentown thing was a shocker.
To win bids with federal agencies, companies were being compelled to show how they were in compliance with Kyoto's reduced CO2 requirements, for instance.
I went out and googled quite a bit and saw NOTHING to support that - and I was paying close attention to Clinton's EOs back then, and would have remembered that one.
I provided at least four links to the EO's that Clinton signed that got us there
You have not provided the text of a single EO that supports your claim in italics above. Links to articles that mention EO 13083, which was a EO about federalism, not Kyoto, don't count. Until you can provide the number and text of EOs that back up your assertion, your claim will be filed under unsubstantiated.
To win bids with federal agencies, companies were being compelled to show how they were in compliance with Kyoto's reduced CO2 requirements, for instance.
Federal agencies control bids. Clinton's EO's, as I've already posted links to you, required federal agenices to reduce energy emissions. In particular to win such federl bids, private contractors had to comply with Clinton's back-door Kyoto CO2 reductions on the Pentagon's new programs, which were specificly in the URLs that I provided you.
Bush has no anti-gun stance. The worst that can be said about Bush re: guns is that he would be willing to sign a renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban if it cleared Congress with no modifications.
On the other hand, Bush has signed TWO, yes, two "Arming pilots" bills into law.
Bush has also ordered the Justice Department to inform the Supreme Court that the **OFFICIAL** U.S. position on the 2nd Amendment is that it supports INDIVIDUAL, not so-called "group" rights to keep and bear arms, something so right-wing radical that not even Ronald Reagan was willing to do.
Bush also told the UN to go stuff its International Ban On Small Arms Trafficking (read: the end of the sale of guns in the U.S.).
No, they were not, unless it was in the Etherzone link, which I can't access due to blocking software. From the CNN link:
-- President Clinton on Thursday will sign an executive order requiring federal agencies to cut their energy use 35 percent by the year 2010, administration sources said Wednesday.
From Schafly's article you linked to on EO 13083, Federalism:
Will this authorize the feds to implement the Global Warming Treaty that Al Gore agreed to in Kyoto, even though it has never been ratified by the Senate, and probably can't be ratified?
Note the lack of specifics, as this was speculation as to the impact of the Federalism EO.
Politicaltexan link - discussed EO 13107, which doesn't even mention Kyoto or energy usage.
You're wrong again - and too small a person to either put up facts or retract your claim.
It wasn't a single EO. Clinton included various parts of Kyoto's mandates buried deep in numerous Executive Orders. I showed you four or more of them in this thread alone.
Is your goal to take me to task for saying the phrase "an EO" instead of "in multiple EO's"?
If so, fine. I misspoke. Go file that in admissions of errors, or wherever you file such things.
But focusing on my word useage misses the bigger picture, which is that Clinton had us following the Kyoto Treaty even though it wasn't ratified by the Senate, and he was quite clever about how he buried Kyoto's provisions in his EO's to enable people to claim the very thing that you seem to be claiming, which is that he **didn't** bring in Kyoto through the back door.
Thus, your arguments are making Terry McAullife proud, something that is surely not your intention.
That, iyo, is not an anti-gun stance?
"No, they were not, unless it was in the Etherzone link, which I can't access due to blocking software." - dirtboy
From post #88's text, without even going to the links that I gave you:
Pressure to uphold Kyoto treaty
The Kyoto climate agreement reached in December, 1997 calls for the United States to reduce greenhouse gases 7 percent below 1990 levels by 2008-12.Although the administration signed the Kyoto treaty, the White House has come under increased criticism in recent months from environmentalists for not moving more aggressively to curtail heat-trapping emissions. The treaty has not been ratified by Congress.
Clinton will unveil his new proposal at a White House event and then discuss it during a Cabinet meeting, highlighting a Pentagon effort to have a contractor retro-fit five military installations in the Washington area.
Hardly - you're the one emulating Terry, playing fast and loose with the facts in your zeal to promote YOUR guy. From what you have provided, Clinton issued 2 executive orders that could be associated with Kyoto - one regarding federal buildings, and one regarding biomass - hardly fitting your claim of
To win bids with federal agencies, companies were being compelled to show how they were in compliance with Kyoto's reduced CO2 requirements, for instance.
From the research I did, those were allegations that were never substantiated and not borne out by the text of ANY Clinton EO, nor was is substantiatd by your links that you continually claimed supported your position.
I prefer posters who strive for accuracy and do not cling to false claims when confronted with evidence to the contrary. You spew a lot of posts on this forum, projecting an air of authority - but this claim fell flat, which means I will suspect ANY post you make from now on.
Have a nice day.
That, however, does not mean that the contractor has to comply with Kyoto, just that their work on the Pentagon installations must meet that.
You said this was covered in Clinton EOs - that isn't even close.
Correct. I can still get my high capacity magazines, and so can you. The old Assault Weapons Ban is toothless. It is mere symbolism. Moreover, it will expire and never make it through Congress to Bush's desk, and certainly won't make it without modifications (the temptation is too great).
And Bush has said that he would veto it if it had any new gun controls added to it.
So no, I don't see that position as being anti-gun.
Nor would I highlight that position at the top of the pro-gun chart of honors, mind you, but there is a long way from being pro-gun to being anti-gun, and I don't htink that we should minimize that distance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.