Posted on 01/04/2007 5:32:40 AM PST by Mount Athos
And I corrected that error in reply #35, but even though I corrected you like a good Pravda "journalist" will run with the berating.
In a manner that one couldn't even tell it was a correction. After you had spread the original lie for some time, and you only retracted it when called on it.
Now how about you find some of the threads where you have spread this error for the last few months and correct it? Or at least issue corrections for a couple of weeks on immigration threads?
Or are you content just to run to the next bogus talking point? After all, saying one third of the house losses were from the Tancredo caucus sounds bad until it is made clear they were nearly half the GOP House. How about you be big enough to say that the Tancredo caucus actually lost at a lesser percentage than the non-caucus GOP members?
Uh dude that "original" lie came from an article that I posted on FR two days ago.
Now are you going to deny the fact that 1/3rd of the democrat pickups for the House came from the Tancredo caucus.
You can deny all you want and you can believe that "denial" is a river in Egypt for all I care.
BTW, also I ain't going to get into a p!ssing match with you dirt, why don't you try to prove that 1/3 of the democrat pickups in the House did not come from Tancredo immigration caucus. Just my opinion, you can't.
You're the one who made the claim. Substaniate it youself, Ms. Mapes. You're just like her. Having been caught in a lie, you ask your opponent prove the negative, instead of YOU proving the positive.
Of the 98 members of Rep. Tom Tancredo's Immigration Reform Caucus who ran for reelection, 91 won their races. Of the 104 caucus members, 6 did not run. So 7 of the Dem pickups were from caucus members actively running for re-election.
Let's see - 7/31 equals less than one-quarter. Not one third. But I did notice the weasel-word in the claim:
with almost one-third of the 31 Democrat House pickups coming from Rep. Tom Tancredo's (R-Colo.) anti-immigration caucus.
Almost is SUCH a flexible term.
But the truth is, immigration caucus members up for re-election lost seats at a lesser rate than the average for pubbies. Which means non-caucus members got trounced a lot harder.
Oh, and while doing a Google Search on this topic, I noticed a couple of Socialist/Communist websites parroting the same kind of talking points you have been using. You might want to check them out for a new one now that yours has been demolished.
Well, Dane thought she could spread her lies elsewhere. No chance.
You have that very much right. You can sit in a room of Republicans here in the DC area and find most want common sense imigration policy and protecting the borders, while the minority, those that write the checks and those that recieve the checks, defending amnesty and other bad immigration policies.
Your howls about the relative percentages of the Tacredo caucus remind me of the fact that the immigration issue, despite the merit or lack thereof of Dane, got you no seats in Congress. It simply does not resonate with a great number of conservatives, though it seems that it will put blood in the eye of some of them, judging from this thread.
Our Government is going to be in for a rude surprise in the next 100 hours of the new session of Congress. Pelosi is about to find out what the electorate is all about. Go ahead and increase the minimum wage to $7.14 per hour and legalize 30 million illegals.
These people are peasants and cannot speak, read, or write English. The employers will fire ALL of them with English speaking hispanics and American citizens. Since the illegals were paid under the table, they are not due unemployment benefits since their Employer does not cover them with his 1% payroll tax for unemployment that they pay to the state.
9.8% of candidates with an "A" ranking on immigration lost.
25% of those with an "F" ranking lost.
Do the math.
Really?
Methinks if they can't get IN, that's a start.
I have yet to meet ONE just ONE person who thinks amnesty is a good thing and who thinks that "illegal immigrants" are here helping, just doing the work that nobody else wants to do. Where I am the illegals are just starting to move in, and the original citizens are moving out. I have NEVER seen more houses for sale in my area before. I have lived here many years and we are a very small community, people are not shy about why they are leaving.
ARE THE CHILDREN BORN HERE AUTOMATIC CITIZENS? ARE WE STILL GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR FREE HEALTHCARE? WILL THEY THEN ACTUALLY QUALIFY FOR WELFARE? WILLL THEY BE ALLOWED TO BRING DEPENDANTS FROM MEXICO WITH THEM? WILL WE THEN BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE HEALTHCARE OF ELDERLY DISABLED DEPENDANTS? WHILE YES,THEY WILL BE PAYING TAXES, WILL THE FAMILY OF A HOUSE PAINTER WITH 5 KIDS THEN GET AN EARNED INCOME TAX CREDIT? THINK OF THAT TIMES 10 MILLION, Y'ALL! THIS IS RIDICULOUS. IF THERE ARE CERTAIN INDUSTRIES THAT BELIEVE THAT THEY CANNOT OPERATE WITHOUT UNSKILLED, UNEDUCATED LOW PAYING WORKERS, I'M ALL FOR IT AS LONG AS THE PARTICULAR EMPLOYERS SPONSOR THE WORKER, THAT MEANS MAKING SURE THAT THEY HAVE ALL THEIR NEEDS TAKEN CARE OF SO THE TAX PAYER DOES NOT HAVE TO FOOT THE DANG BILL FOR THEIR CHEAP LABOR!!!!!! AND IF YOU ARE A GUEST WORKER, ANY CHILDREN BORN WHILE YOU ARE HERE ARE NOT AMERICAN CITIZENS BUT THE CITIZENS OF THE PARENTS ETHNIC COUNTRY!!!
Uh you do know of the famous quote by a wealthy Manhattan west sider who siad after the 72 Presidential election(which Nixon won with a 49 state lanslide) of, "I don't know how Nixon won, nobody I knew voted for him".
JMO, you are just as isolated as that wealthy woman back in 72.
Poor poor pitiful me, I guess I just don't get out too much, waahhhh. Give me a break. Show me anywhere that a huge influx of illegals have taken over where things either remained the same or had gotten better. Lets see, as far as my frame of reference I feel I am pretty well informed when it comes to MY LIFE AND MY COMMUNITY!!! My husband does one of those jobs that AMERICANS can't or won't do, so don't go there with me. In fact he has spent all week fixing problems from these so called wonderful, attentive workers. He's worked construction for way too many years not to notice the difference in quality. Don't you dare try to insinuate that he has no idea what he is talking about either. Believe it or not that here in Atlanta there ARE STILL BUILDERS who won't hire crews with illegals and there is a huge difference. Ya know whats really funny? The builders that do use illegals for their everyday houses won't let the illegals work on their OWN homes, gee I wonder why?
Dane you liar. Only 6.7% of republican members of Tancredo's caucus lost, which is below the percentage of republicans not in Tancredo's caucus who lost. Do you just make crap up?
http://www.smallgovtimes.com/story/06dec06.brownback.liberal.globalist/
You may need to seek help for all the lying you do, Dane.
Lemme slip in here with a little thought amongst this spirited name-calling. What happens after amnesty? The good people that refuse to pay legal wages to legal citizens will continue the cycle by not paying legal wages to the next batch of New Americans. Then it will all start anew. Why do I not find this in the Political discussion?
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.