John Fraud Kerry caught in another lie>>

[PatPatriot]

Yesterday during the presidential debates John Kerry criticized the President regarding the Kyoto Protocol:

And we've watched this president actually turn away from some of the treaties that were on the table.

You don't help yourself with other nations when you turn away from the global warming treaty, for instance, or when you refuse to deal at length with the United Nations.



But what you won't hear from the MSM is that Senator Kerry voted for S. RES. 98 on 7/25/1997 in the 105th Congress, which said:

• • (1) the United States should not be a signatory to any protocol to, or other agreement regarding, the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change of 1992, at negotiations in Kyoto in December 1997, or thereafter, which would--

• • • (A) mandate new commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for the Annex I Parties, unless the protocol or other agreement also mandates new specific scheduled commitments to limit or reduce greenhouse gas emissions for Developing Country Parties within the same compliance period, or

• • • (B) would result in serious harm to the economy of the United States; and

• • (2) any such protocol or other agreement which would require the advice and consent of the Senate to ratification should be accompanied by a detailed explanation of any legislation or regulatory actions that may be required to implement the protocol or other agreement and should also be accompanied by an analysis of the detailed financial costs and other impacts on the economy of the United States which would be incurred by the implementation of the protocol or other agreement.

Grouped By Vote Position <TABLE class=contenttext cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=contenttext align=middle colSpan=3>YEAs ---95</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD class=contenttext width="33%">Abraham (R-MI)
Akaka (D-HI)
Allard (R-CO)
Ashcroft (R-MO)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Bond (R-MO)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bumpers (D-AR)
Burns (R-MT)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chafee (R-RI)
Cleland (D-GA)
Coats (R-IN)
Cochran (R-MS)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Coverdell (R-GA)
Craig (R-ID)
D'Amato (R-NY)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Domenici (R-NM)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Enzi (R-WY)
</TD><TD class=contenttext width="33%">Faircloth (R-NC)
Feingold (D-WI)
Ford (D-KY)
Frist (R-TN)
Glenn (D-OH)
Gorton (R-WA)
Graham (D-FL)
Gramm (R-TX)
Grassley (R-IA)
Gregg (R-NH)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Helms (R-NC)
Hollings (D-SC)
Hutchinson (R-AR)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnson (D-SD)
Kempthorne (R-ID)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lott (R-MS)
</TD><TD class=contenttext width="33%">Lugar (R-IN)
Mack (R-FL)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Murray (D-WA)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reed (D-RI)
Robb (D-VA)
Roberts (R-KS)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Smith (R-NH)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Thomas (R-WY)
Thompson (R-TN)
Thurmond (R-SC)
Torricelli (D-NJ)
Warner (R-VA)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)
</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><TABLE class=contenttext cellSpacing=1 cellPadding=1 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=contenttext align=middle colSpan=3>Not Voting - 5</TD></TR><TR vAlign=top><TD class=contenttext width="33%">Bryan (D-NV)
Feinstein (D-CA)
</TD><TD class=contenttext width="33%">Grams (R-MN)
Harkin (D-IA)</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>

​

 

[GAMEFACE]

Used car salesman lying trial lawyer fuc.

 

[EveryGamblersDream]

Oh & I guess Bush is 100% innocent

Stop reaching for material

 

[D2bets]

Patriot,

This is not a "lie" and cannot even be called any kind of inconsistency. That Senate Resolution that you referenced was put in place simply to set certain minimum standards and provisions that need to be included (or excluded) from any agreed upon treaty. And as you can see it was something that was agreed upon by EVERY MEMBER OF THE SENATE (except those who weren't there to vote). Nobody voted against this. This is pretty standard stuff for the Senate to come up with minimum standards they could all agree upon.

Are you trying to argue that Kyoto would have violated this Resolution? If so, PROVE IT. I don't think so.

Patriot, I think you're trying argue about something for which you do not comprehend.

 

[xpanda]

I would like to add that the principle objection to Bush's rejection of Kyoto was not simply 'he didn't sign this.' The problem is that he made a commitment to return to discussions, to find solutions to parts of the protocol he didn't like, but has thus far failed to do so. Further, his own domestic policies on such things as greenhouse gas emmissions have been directly the opposite of the goals Kyoto hoped to achieve. He hasn't simply rejected Kyoto and the so-called junk science of global warming, but has rejected the idea that the international community has a shared interest in protecting the environment.

 

[D2bets]

Thank you xpanda. Well put.

But Patriot and others would rather obscure the issue by pointing to a vote by Kerry that no senator voted against...and that wasn't even an anti-Kyoto piece of legislation.

They either don't get it or don't care.

 

[PatPatriot]

Why won't China sign it?

How about India?

Or the 10 ft. laundry list of other countries

 

[IMRIGHTURWRONG]

whoa...

If you have to ask...

nevermind.