Posted on 02/02/2006 10:51:37 AM PST by ZGuy
IT'S BOEHNER, 122-109
Somewhere, Bill Clinton just perked up.
You made a post on a public forum using words that weren't yours and containing no link to give credit to the actual writer. That is plagiarism. Those are the facts. You don't want to be held to the same standards as everyone else. You screwed up and you don't have the decency to apologize to the forum. Not to me. I couldn't care less. I know what you're all about. You misled people into believing the words you posted were your own. You're not only a plagiarist and a liar, but you're attempting to convince yourself and others, you did nothing wrong. You committed a serious error in judgment and even though you were caught red handed, you're not smart enough to say, 'I'm sorry' and have it end right here and now.
If we had just ONE Tonk in D.C., there would be no problem.
You could have fooled me.
Are you orgasmic?
Are you certain of this? Do you have a cite?
Well we'll have to see now what he does if the Senate comes back with a guest worker program, it's something he supports. I would have rather seen Blunt since he goes for enforcement first.
House candidates' ratings
The Washington Times ^ | January 28,2006 | The Washington Times - Editoria
Posted on 01/28/2006 9:07:14 AM PST by Seattle Conservative
The editorial page of The Washington Times has reviewed the interest-group and ideological ratings and rankings of the three Republican House members -- John Boehner of Ohio (first elected in 1990), John Shadegg of Arizona (1994) and Roy Blunt of Missouri (1996) -- seeking the post of House majority leader, which Tom DeLay permanently vacated recently.
>snip
Mr. Shadegg, who has compiled five 100% ratings in 10 years from the American Conservative Union (ACU), has a lifetime ACU rating of 97.6. With four 100% ratings over 14 years, Mr. Boehner's lifetime ACU rating is 93.4. Mr. Blunt, who has received two 100% ratings from the ACU in eight years, has a lifetime rating of 92.9. Over the latest three years (2002-2004), the average annual ACU scores have been: 98.7, Shadegg; 94.7, Blunt; and 90.7, Boehner.
>snip
The National Taxpayers Union (NTU), whose mission is the pursuit of limited government and low taxes, has issued a "fiscal snapshot" for the leader's race. For 2004, NTU gave Mr. Shadegg an A, Mr. Blunt a B and Mr. Boehner a B+. NTU reports the following "lifetime percentage of A ratings": Shadegg, 90%; Boehner, 14%; Blunt, 0%.
>snip
On the liberal end of the ideological continuum, Americans for Democratic Action (ADA), which selects 20 key votes each year, reports that none of the three candidates supported an ADA position in 2005, 2004 or 2002.
>snip
The candidates' lifetime AFL-CIO ratings are: Blunt, 9.5%; Boehner, 3.6; and Shadegg, 2.5. Their lifetime ratings from the ACLU are: Shadegg, 14.2%; Blunt, 12.2; and Boehner, 8.9.
(Excerpt) Read more at washtimes.com ...
National Journal derives composite conservative and liberal scores. In 2004, Mr. Shadegg's composite conservative score was 94.5, compared to 85.5 for Mr. Boehner and 80.3 for Mr. Blunt. On the other hand, Mr. Blunt, who achieved a perfect composite conservative score in 2002, recorded a composite conservative score of 90.3 in 2003, compared to 87 for Mr. Boehner and 74.8 for Mr. Shadegg.
Then I will not support him.
As soon as McCain backed Shadegg I was for anyone else.
Shameful, pathetic and disgraceful.
Can't wait to see what your next act of plagiarism will bring to FreeRepublic.
Why?
Question:“Why did you vote against the recent border security bill, H.R. 4437? Do you support amnesty for illegal immigrants?”
Boehner: H.R. 4437 has a number of strong provisions aimed at stemming the tide of illegal immigration, all of which I support.
I opposed one section of the bill that places a massive unfunded mandate on small businesses. I for one don’t think we stop illegal immigration by strangling the small businesses that are the backbone of our economy. Nor do I believe it is right to turn small business owners into felons for failing to do the federal government’s job of protecting the borders. Had it not been for this one section, I would have supported the bill.
I worked with colleagues of mine to address these concerns, but we were not allowed to offer an amendment. And my committee, which has jurisdiction over these employer issues, was only given twenty-four hours to review the bill. That’s not enough time to fully review a massive piece of legislation and offer substantive changes.
The only way to make my voice heard was to cast a risky vote. I did so, and I have no regrets.
As for the second question: no. I do not support giving amnesty to illegal immigrants. I never have and I never will. Illegal immigrants are just that -- illegal. Their first act upon entering our country was to break our laws and they need to be held accountable.
This Needed Repeating
Your bad week led you to this pathetic display? You're reaching for straws like a DUmmy.
WHAT! A gun grabber?
Do you have a cite for us?
You're not only a Bush sycophant, you're a Howlin sycophant too boot. LMBO hahahahahahahahahahahahaha
Read on..It was a mistaken belief.
Excellent choice, knows the ropes. But oh Herman Cain will bemoan him as a "professional politician".
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.