Replies

This response post is long. I wish it didn't need to be so long, but there was a lot to cover.

You tossed out a number of charges, and that's all. You didn't provide links, votes, bill numbers, resolution numbers, amendment numbers..., you just threw the mud and hoped some of it stuck.

The response must be lengthy so that people reading it can verify what I am saying, and see through your subterfuge clearly.

Not only do I have to provide verifiable facts to refute your charges, I am also tasked with pointing out the tactics of subversion you are using here. People need to see what type of propaganda is being utilized on this forum right now. You're not the only one doing it, and folks need to judge clearly what is taking place on this forum right now.

This post of yours was a classic example of smearing a political candidate, and utlizing propagandist tactics to acheive goals you have denied trying to attain. It was dirty politics at it's worst. It reveals you are not an honorable person.   It reveals you are not a person who should be participating on this forum. I say this because you obviously don't share our Conservative ideals. You are fronting for a consumate Leftist, John S. McCain, a man that is not only totally incapable of representing Conservative ideals, but spends a significant amount of this time chumming it up with the most Lefist of Democrats, and trying to implement Leftist agenda.

You are trying to game the system here, by supporting John S. McCain, an Edward Kennedy/John Kerry/Barbara Boxer/Harry Reid/Nancy Pelosi Conservative, for re-election. And you are doing this to defeat a Reagan Conservative named J. D. Hayworth. Knowing you can't stand up and defend McCain openly, because he is a proven Leftist, you have chosen to use a five-pronged approach to convince unsuspecting Republicans they should cast their vote for him, even though he opposes most of what we stand for.

Tactics

1. Claim you don't support John and his indefensible personal behavior, the Leftist people and agenda he has backed for decades
2. Despite tactic one, you employ weasle words in an attempt to neutralize truthful damning comments away, rather than outright say John was right or wrong.
3. In addition to tactic one and two, you try to trash J. D. Hayworth to render him a non-viable alternative choice
4. Then, keeping tactics 1 to 3 in mind, you insist John isn't so bad, and that J. D. Hayworth is no better
5. After executing the above tactics, you claim John's senority is something Arizona citizens shouldn't discard, since John and J. D. are morally equivelant

I have watched John McCain himself uses propaganda techniques on camera. Like your post here, he was tossing a lot of mud at the wall, hoping some of it would stick. His comments sounded quite reasoned. Then I started to think about what he was really saying. Yes, there was a grain of truth in it, but I soon realized there was much more to the issue than was being stated. I have not seen other politicians go to the extent John and you do to try to smear political adversaries in their own party. And what makes this even more troubling, is that John NEVER goes for the throat like this when running against a Democrat.

Democrats will trash Republicans on their votes, in total disagreement with them. They'll demonize the politician for using poor judgment, but the emphasis is that the Republicans just don't get it. That's their big selling point. "X candidate doesn't care about you, like we Democrats do." McCain hit's his Republican brethren for casting shakey votes, when he knows damned well they were doing a lot more right with the same vote.

Another ploy he can use is to trash J. D. for voting for something, that John himself has voted for. Very few people will look it up. They'll be left with the impression J. D. was terrible to do a certain thing, when John himself did the very same thing. John doesn't mention that.

Every bill before Congress has positives and negatives. As a Congressman you try to determine which outweighs the other. You vote according to your overall perception. So one of the oldest tricks in the book is to say that your oponent voted terribly on a certain issue, knowing full well there were a number of positive aspects concerning the same bill. And John loves to employ this tactic. This reveals the type of dishonest propagadist manipulator he and you are.

It all sounds very logical during the presentation. Why yes, it was bad of so and so to vote that way. How could he/she? Then it sinks in that nearly every Republican voted as he/she did, and every Demcorat voted opposite to what he/she did. Anotherwords, Republicans voted rationally according to their ideals and Democrats voted rationally according to theirs.

For your charges to be truthful about Hayworth below (or John's to be truthful at other times), we would have to accept that Republicans voted as Democrats, and Democrats were the real Conservatives in each instance. Ouch, how to explain the failure of your and his tactis, to make sense on this point.

That test fails. You are presenting disinformation here. You are trying to claim McCain isn't so bad, Hayworth is just as bad as he is, and so it's better to vote for seniority ignoring everything else.

I have proven McCain is the worst, most Leftist, most communist/marxist leaning Republican there has ever been. Once again, his record is here. And I have a lot more shocking stuff about to be loaded into the listing. http://www.hotr.us/data/mccainagain.html

So let's move on now, to my commentary on your destructive leftist enabling propaganda.

Your comments will appear in gray, some documentation will appear in black, and my responses will be blue. I am also going to document every out right lie, and attempt at disinformation as lies. We'll have a running total.

ROFL Lies. LOL Prove its a lie. give me a post of mine where I said McCain was the greatest. Lie 01 You sir are delusional, phyco ward quality delusional. Lie 02

The ROFL didn't quite cut me to the core, but that additional LOL, was just too much to bear. /s Your witty repartee is just amazing... ...ly juvenile.

I didn't attribute the phrase, "McCain was/is/or will be the greatest" to you. The only time I've used the word greatest in the last 60 posts, I used it in conjunction with something else.

And thus your comments about delusional, psycho ward quality delusional, is just more juvenile puffery. It would be easy to say it fits you better, but most folks will figure that out for themselves as we go on here.

If people wish to see who you support, they can take a look at the reference on the right. It's a response to one of your posts, and it lays it out there for all to see. REFERENCE

you know if you and a couple of the other posters living in delusional land Lie 03 are the type of supporters JD attracts it might explain why JD is losing in the polls. Lie 04 I mean you are certifiable nuts. Lie 05

Another charge that isn't supportable. Another assumption that is flawed. Another charge that is a waste of my time to respond to.

Sarah Palin has made a number of public appearances with John S. McCain on television and at events in person. She participated in developing political spots in support of John. Those spots air on television and the Conservative talk radio stations. They have been running for months. And evidently John and Sarah think they're having some impact, because the spots are still running.

So stating that Hayworth's supporters are the reason he is losing, makes no sense to us. It makes no sense to the McCain team. It makes no sense to Sarah. You're the only one it makes sense to.

If Hayworth's supporters were ruining his chances all by themselves, there would be no need for John S. McCain to continue to pay for costly radio and television sports. And defending Hayworth's reputation against folks like you is hardly a negatvie for him. It prevents you from telling lies and trashing him in a vacuum.

you can't even understand a simple statement like: “I DO not support McCain” Lie 05

Frankly, you're the one that can't fully grasp the concept of, "I DO not support McCain", emphasis on "DO", your punctuation, not mine. If you do not support someone, you don't bother defending them, explaining why the other candidate is no better than they are, and that seniority being so important, it's best if you vote for McCain.

If you said, I do not support either John McCain or J. D. Hayworth, and stopped there, I wouldn't find fault with it. It's when you make that statement, then lie about Hayworth, use weasle word to defend McCain, and explain why it doesn't matter if folks vote in a Leftist or not, that causes me to call you a liar.

If you didn't care, you would stop at that. You wouldn't be guilty of using the five transparent tactics I listed above.

Oh and by the way the initial outlay of medicare part D was not $400 million it was $400 billion. B as in billion.Further the final vote was 216-215. a principled Conservative like JD had the power in his hand to stop the medicare bill. all he had to do was vote no and it would have gone done in defeat. He didn't he voted the party line on that vote. He like all foot soldiers when the chips were down voted how the party leadership told him how to vote. And you think in the Senate he will act differently?

This is the third time I have addressed this issue with you. Each time I have said Hayworth was wrong to vote for the bill. And each time you come back to raise the issue again. It's your one big swan song on Hayworth. You've got nothing else.

I said that the initial outlay was $600 million, not $400 million. (You didn't catch the $600 figure, and I'm owning up to it anyway.) It should have been $400 billion. I agree. My memory of the $400 figure being $600 was faulty, and it should have been obvious to me that we were talking billions, not millions. So I did made two honest mistakes. I'm sorry. You however had stated the bill cost was $8 trillion. I don't see any acknowledgement that statement was flawed, or any appology for you over estimating the intial costs by 20 times.

I think there is less of a reason to think J. D. Hayworth will be bad in the U. S. Senate. Yep, that's right. Here is why I think McCain would be even more problematic. REFERENCE

You say I'm smearing your god JD Lie 06 by pointing out that JD voted for medicare part D Lie 07 the biggest expansion of government since LBJ and then you say it was only one vote. Well guess what Tarp was only one vote, Obamacare was only one vote. sometimes it only takes one vote to show you are no conservative but a loyal foot soldier to the party leadership. Lie 08

I have consistantly stated that J. D. was wrong to vote for Medicare part D. I have never made the case that J. D. is God-like or perfect. I have said J. D. is human, and isn't perfect. I still said his track record was better than McCain's. I have never made the case that you were smearing J. D. based on your claim he voted for Medicare Part D. Other than that, you got it just right. I did say you were smearing J. D. for saying he voted for a lot of the Bush agenda during his administration, when you didn't provide specifics.

Your mention of TARP and Obamacare in the same paragraph where you stared out trashing J. D. is misleading. He wasn't even in Congress or the Senate when these issues were passed.

Look you dimwit, you're arguing J. D. was wrong to vote for Medicare Part D. We've both agreed to that, and this is the second time you've brought it up in this post alone. And as for Lie 08 above, one vote does not indicate you always vote with the leadership, and are thus a foot soldier 100% of the time. For a full week, I asked you to point out any evidence he has voted against Conservatism regularly, and got back bupkis. Nothing. Nada! One vote doesn't buttress your claim on this point, as it doesn't meet the test to suppport 'regularly'.

per your Lie 18. From JD’s own website he states: “J.D. Hayworth helped write the Bush tax cuts of 2001 and 2003. “

These were tax cuts. J. D. Hayworth helped write tax cuts and push them through. And you know what, he helped push them through over the objection of John S. McCain who voted against them in the Senate.  REFERENCE Dick Cheney even had to cast the tie breaking vote to get the tax cuts at all. And even though they only squeaked through, you're trying to trash Hayworth for not making them permanent. You know this as well as I do. But smearing J. D. is what is important to you. (And yet you claim you don't support John.)

You want some examples besides medicare part d? Yes, I've been asking for them for seven days now. What's the matter, couldn't you get in contact with the McCain team until now?

fine. (Fine? No..., excellent. I've already worked up the responses to your nonsense, and fine doesn't begin to cover it, the softballs you teed up for me. Thank you.)

=============================

JD voted against limiting lobbyists in Washington in the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act Lie 08

Since you didn't bother to list the bill number or the date, I looked up the bill. It was HR 4975. The vote was held on May 3rd, 2006, at 5:31pm.

1. The bill passed. J. D. Hayworth voted Aye The vote can be verified. Here
2. Other Titles can be found about 1.5 screens down. Here (specifically: Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006)
3. The final disposition of the Senate version of the Bill S. 2349, was tabled in the Senate of the United States on May 23rd, 2006. Verify Last Action, just above Other Titles: Here
4. Who else voted with Hayworth: Darrel Issa(R), Duncan Hunter(R), Dana Rohrabacher(R), Tom Tancredo(R), Bobby Jindal(R), Roy Blunt(R)
5. Who voted opposite of Hayworth: Nancy Pelosi(D), Tom Lantos(D), Henry Waxman(D), Diane Watson(D), Maxine Waters(D), Robert Wexler(D), Rahm Emanuel(D), John Conyers(D), Jerold Nadler(D), Charles Rangel(D), Dennis Kucinich(D), John Murtha(D), Patrick Kennedy(D), Bernard Sanders(I)

Hayworth position: Republicans agreeing: 209 Disagreeing: 20 Democrats agreeing: 8 Disagreeing: 192 Independents agreeing: 0 Disagreeing: 1

Why did I categorize your objection here as a lie? J. D. did vote for this legislation. However, you and I both know that bills are not single issue. They are complex and cover a myriad of issues. There are times when you wind up having to vote for a bill because you support much of what is in there, and you suck it up because there is one or two things you wish weren't in there. You hope to be able to come back and fix the problem areas later. Here you have played fast and loose with the facts.

There is obviously a lot more to this bill than meets the eye. If it were destructive to Conservative ideals, the Democrats would have voted for it. They didn't. There was obviously a lot of good things in this bill. You would have us believe that 209 Republicans were acting in the worst interests of our nation, while 192 Democrats voted as a true Conservative should have.

That is nonsense. You're a damned liar. Here you tried to smear Hayworth, even when that list of vile Democrats voted against him, and that list of fine Conservatives voted with him.

=============================

he voted against tax relief from the alternative min tax in favor of capital gains tax in Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act Lie 09

Since you didn't bother to list the bill number or the date, I looked up the bill. It was HR 4297. The vote was held on December 8th, 2005, at 3:23p.m.

1. The bill passed. J. D. Hayworth voted Aye The vote can be verified. Here
2. Other Titles can be found about 1.5 screens down. Here (specifically: Tax Reconsiliation Bill)
3. Final disposition of the bill was: Signed into law by President Bush on May 17, 2006. (Public law: 109-222) Verify Last Action, just above Other Titles: Here
4. Who else voted with Hayworth: Darrel Issa(R), Duncan Hunter(R), Dana Rohrabacher(R), Tom Tancredo(R), Bobby Jindal(R), Roy Blunt(R)
5. Who voted opposite of Hayworth: Nancy Pelosi(D), Tom Lantos(D), Henry Waxman(D), Diane Watson(D), Maxine Waters(D), Robert Wexler(D), Rahm Emanuel(D), John Conyers(D), Jerald Nadler(D), Charles Rangel(D), Dennis Kucinich(D), John Murtha(D), Patrick Kennedy(D), Bernard Sanders(I)

Hayworth position: Republicans agreeing: 225 Disagreeing: 3 Democrats agreeing: 9 Disagreeing: 193 Independents agreeing: 0 Disagreeing: 1

Here's another bill that you didn't provide the slightest bit of information for, to back up your claims. I can see why you didn't, because the more you know about how the final vote broke down, the more you realize how idiotic the points you were trying to make were.

Take a look at that list of Democrats.   Have you ever known them to be the protector of the public when it comes to taxation? And yet, that's your argument here. Hayworth is terrible on taxation, those Republicans that voted with him are terrible, and those Democrats are the Conservative's best friends. Is that really how you see it? Bernie Sanders is your hero on this bill?

=============================

he voted to increase pell grants and increase government spending in the College Access and Opportunity Act Lie 10

Since you didn't bother to list the bill number or the date, I looked up the bill. It was HR 609. The vote was held on March 30th, 2006 at 2:46p.m.

1. The bill passed. J. D. Hayworth voted Aye The vote can be verified. Here
2. Other Titles can be found about 1.5 screens down. Here (specifically: Gallaudet University and National Technical Institute for the Deaf Act)
3. Final disposition of the bill was: Apr 4, 2006: Received in the Senate. Read twice. Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Verify Last Action, just above Other Titles: Here
4. Who else voted with Hayworth: Duncan Hunter(R), Dana Rohrabacher(R), Tom Tancredo(R), Henry Hyde(R), Dan Burton(R), Bobby Jindal(R), Roy Blunt(R)
5. Who voted opposite of Hayworth: Nancy Pelosi(D), Tom Lantos(D), Henry Waxman(D), Maxine Waters(D), Jane Harman(D), Robert Wexler(D), Rahm Emanuel(D), John Conyers(D), Jerald Nadler(D), Charles Rangel(D), Dennis Kucinich(D), John Murtha(D), Patrick Kennedy(D), Bernard Sanders(I)

Hayworth position: Republicans agreeing: 207 Disagreeing: 18 Democrats agreeing: 14 Disagreeing: 180 Independents agreeing: 0 Disagreeing: 1

Even you must be a little sheepish about stooping this low. Here was an increase in the grants for the hearing impaired. It's the first time those grants have been increased since 1965. I am not a big fan of taking my money to pay for other people's needs in most instances. When it comes to helping the deaf be able to cope in this world, I'm going to sign on. Look at the people who did. Look at the people who disagreed with doing it.

Once again, you're on the side of some pretty disgusting Democrats. But then in your mind, they're the best Conservatives this nation has ever seen. Right? Hayworth is a jerk to have voted against them here, right? Do you really think your logic is solid here?

=============================

Jd voted for more regulation of political campaigns by increasing reporting requirements on 527-c. in the 527 Reform Act shutting off free speech. Lie 11

Since you didn't bother to list the bill number or the date, I looked up the bill. It was HR 4975. The vote was held on May 3rd, 2006, at 5:31p.m.

Sound familiar? It should. This was the first bill you tried to smear Hayworth with here. When you first referenced it, you referred to it as the Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act.

1. The bill passed. J. D. Hayworth voted Aye The vote can be verified. Here
2. Other Titles can be found about 1.5 screens down. Here (specifically: Lobbying Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006) See Also: 527 Reform Act: Here
3. The final disposition of the Senate version of the Bill S. 2349, was tabled in the Senate of the United States on May 23rd, 2006. Verify Last Action, just above Other Titles: Here
4. Who else voted with Hayworth: Darrel Issa(R), Duncan Hunter(R), Dana Rohrabacher(R), Tom Tancredo(R), Bobby Jindal(R), Roy Blunt(R)
5. Who voted opposite of Hayworth: Nancy Pelosi(D), Tom Lantos(D), Henry Waxman(D), Diane Watson(D), Maxine Waters(D), Robert Wexler(D), Rahm Emanuel(D), John Conyers(D), Jerold Nadler(D), Charles Rangel(D), Dennis Kucinich(D), John Murtha(D), Patrick Kennedy(D), Bernard Sanders(I)

Hayworth position: Republicans agreeing: 209 Disagreeing: 20 Democrats agreeing: 8 Disagreeing: 192 Independents agreeing: 0 Disagreeing: 1

Well, once again we have these outstanding examples of Conservatism voting just like you wanted, against Hayworth. Here they are: Nancy Pelosi(D), Tom Lantos(D), Henry Waxman(D), Diane Watson(D), Maxine Waters(D), Robert Wexler(D), Rahm Emanuel(D), John Conyers(D), Jerold Nadler(D), Charles Rangel(D), Dennis Kucinich(D), John Murtha(D), Patrick Kennedy(D), and Bernard Sanders(I).

I'm beginning to see why you think John McCain isn't so bad after all. If these people are your ideal Conservatives, then it makes sense for you to back McCain as a Conservative.

For the record, McCain is not Conservative. Hayworth is a Reagan Conservative.

=============================

he voted against extending the saver's tax credit in Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act Lie 12

Since you didn't bother to list the bill number or the date, I looked up the bill. It was HR 4297. The vote was held on December 8th, 2005, at 3:23p.m.

Sound familiar? It should. This was the second bill you tried to smear Hayworth with here. When you first referenced it, you referred to it identically as the Tax Relief Extension Reconciliation Act.

1. The bill passed. J. D. Hayworth voted Aye The vote can be verified. Here
2. Other Titles can be found about 1.5 screens down. Here (specifically: Tax Reconsiliation Bill)
3. Final disposition of the bill was: Signed into law by President Bush on May 17, 2006. (Public law: 109-222) Verify Last Action, just above Other Titles: Here
4. Who else voted with Hayworth: Darrel Issa(R), Duncan Hunter(R), Dana Rohrabacher(R), Tom Tancredo(R), Bobby Jindal(R), Roy Blunt(R)
5. Who voted opposite of Hayworth: Nancy Pelosi(D), Tom Lantos(D), Henry Waxman(D), Diane Watson(D), Maxine Waters(D), Robert Wexler(D), Rahm Emanuel(D), John Conyers(D), Jerald Nadler(D), Charles Rangel(D), Dennis Kucinich(D), John Murtha(D), Patrick Kennedy(D), Bernard Sanders(I)

Hayworth position: Republicans agreeing: 225 Disagreeing: 3 Democrats agreeing: 9 Disagreeing: 193 Independents agreeing: 0 Disagreeing: 1

I don't know everything that is in this bill. What I do know is that all but nine Democrats voted differently than Hayworth. The worst Democrats in the House voted against Hayworth. Some of the best Republicans voted with Hayworth.

That pretty well tells me that overall, this bill was a good one. I may not like it that one thing in there didn't please me, but if that list of Democrats voted against, this was a sound bill.

Once again, you have chosen to side with that list of Democrats as if they were the true Conservatives when it comes to taxation legislation. Well, they never are! And you don't seem to know it.

=============================

Jd voted against securing our border by not requiring all cargo shipping containers to be scanned and sealed before entering the country in Security and Accountability for Every Port (SAFE) Act ( I wonder how many illegal come in on cargo containers) Lie 13

Since you didn't bother to list the bill number or the date, I looked up the bill. It was HR 4954. The vote was held on May 4th, 2006 at 2:38p.m.

1. The bill passed. J. D. Hayworth voted Aye The vote can be verified. Here
2. Other Titles can be found about 1.5 screens down. Here (specifically: the Internet Gambling bill, the Port Security bill, the Security and Accountability For Every Port Act of 2006, the Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006, the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act)
3. Final disposition of the bill was: This bill became law when President Bush signed it on October 13th, 2006. Verify Last Action, just above Other Titles: Here
4. Who else voted with Hayworth: Duncan Hunter(R), Dana Rohrabacher(R), Tom Tancredo(R), Henry Hyde(R), Dan Burton(R), Bobby Jindal(R), Roy Blunt(R), Nancy Pelosi(D), Tom Lantos(D), Henry Waxman(D), Maxine Waters(D), Jane Harman(D), Robert Wexler(D), Rahm Emanuel(D), John Conyers(D), Jerald Nadler(D), Charles Rangel(D), Dennis Kucinich(D), John Murtha(D), Patrick Kennedy(D), Bernard Sanders(I)
5. Who voted opposite of Hayworth: Jeff Flake(R), Edward Markey(D) The vote was 421 Aye, and 2 No, with 9 not voting

Hayworth position: Republicans agreeing: 226 Disagreeing: 1 Democrats agreeing: 194 Disagreeing: 1 Independents agreeing: 1 Disagreeing: 0

On some of these, it's just embarrassing to have to take you to task over things that are as cut and dried as they are. This was another bill somewhat similar in form to the omnibus budget bill. Here they covered Internet Gambling, Port Security, and the Warning, Alert, and Response Network Act. The individual topics were developed separately. Issues were settled, then they were joined to be voted on in an omnibus bill.

Two people voted against this bill. It's very rare when nearly everyone votes for a bill, but on these omnibus bills, it's not all that infrequent. Since the issues on the various facets have already been hashed out, there's little to disagree on overall. So this vote turns out to be more of a formality rather than a real nail biter.

Why am I having to explain this to you? You're making yourself look like an idiot. You're wasting your time and mine. And sooner or later, your ass is going to be jetisoned off into the stratosphere for disruption.

=============================

he voted against a balance budget and pay go rules in: 157/HConRes376 Lie 14

What you are referring to here is Roll Call Vote 157, concerning acceptance of the submitted Democrat replacement Ammendment Number 833, applying to House Consolidation Resolution 376.

As usual, you gave very little information so that your charges were harder to verifty. You have provided no links, no ammendment number, and no date so I could make sure we were talking about the same thing. You didn't even bother to identify what the 157 pertained to.

The vote was held on May 18th, 2006, at 12:24a.m.

1. The amendment did not pass. J. D. Hayworth voted Nay The vote can be verified. Here
2. Please use "Roll Call Vote 157", "Ammendment Number 833", and "House Consolidation Resolution 376" links above for any information concerning to this roll call vote and what it pertained to.
3. Final disposition of House Amendment 833 was: Failed to pass recorded vote. Verify: Here
4. Who else voted with Hayworth: Darrel Issa(R), Duncan Hunter(R), Dana Rohrabacher(R), Tom Tancredo(R), Henry Hyde(R), Bobby Jindal(R), Roy Blunt(R)
5. Who voted opposite of Hayworth: Nancy Pelosi(D), Tom Lantos(D), Henry Waxman(D), Maxine Waters(D), Jane Harman(D), Robert Wexler(D), Rahm Emanuel(D), John Conyers(D), Jerald Nadler(D), Charles Rangel(D), Bernard Sanders(I)

Hayworth position: Republicans agreeing: 229 Disagreeing: 12 Democrats agreeing: 0 Disagreeing: 183 Independents agreeing: 0 Disagreeing: 1

This was a resolution concerning the Congressional Budget for FY 2007. Once again you are making the case that the Democrats listed in red above, are our nation's most Fiscal Conservatives, and J. D. Hayworth is the worst of the worst. Evidentlfy you think Issa, Hunter, Rohrabacher, Tancredo, Hyde, Jindal, and Blunt are too. Well, I don't.

Your arguments fall flat on their face. Either Hayworth is a Reagan Conservative, or those Democrats are. It can't be both.

=============================

Jd voted for Bush's 2006 budget in Congressional Budget for FY 2007 Lie 15

What you are referring to here is Roll Call Vote 158, concerning acceptance of the Congressional Budget for FY 2007, see additional information here.

As usual, you gave very little information so that your charges were harder to verifty. You have provided no links, no roll call number, no resolution number, and no date so I could make sure we were talking about the same thing. You just toss these nonsensical charges out, with nothing to back it up.

The vote was held on May 18th, 2006, at 1:02a.m.

1. The budget resolution passed. J. D. Hayworth voted Aye. The vote can be verified. Here
2. Please use "Roll Call Vote 158", and "House Consolidation Resolution 376" (Congressional Budget for FY 2007) links above for any information concerning this roll call vote and what it pertained to.
3. Final disposition of Roll Call Vote 158, concerning approval of the Congressional Budget for FY 2007 was: Sucessfully passed recorded vote. Verify: Here
4. Who else voted with Hayworth: Darrel Issa(R), Duncan Hunter(R), Dana Rohrabacher(R), Tom Tancredo(R), Henry Hyde(R), Bobby Jindal(R), Roy Blunt(R)
5. Who voted opposite of Hayworth: Nancy Pelosi(D), Tom Lantos(D), Henry Waxman(D), Maxine Waters(D), Jane Harman(D), Robert Wexler(D), Rahm Emanuel(D), John Conyers(D), Jerald Nadler(D), Charles Rangel(D), Bernard Sanders(I)

Hayworth position: Republicans agreeing: 218 Disagreeing: 12 Democrats agreeing: 0 Disagreeing: 197 Independents agreeing: 0 Disagreeing: 1

This was a budget bill offered up by Republicans. It was broadly opposed by Democrats. There were many appropriations bills that had been worked over before this went to the floor as an omnibus bill. When it gets to the floor of the House after all objections and pertinant issues have been hashed out, there's little reason to vote against. Going back over the bill isn't going to make it better.

Once again, you've got the Democrats as the people you think are the Conservatives, voting against this bill.

Look, Bush was a big spender. He wasn't going to cut back. You had the Democrats against fiscal responsibility and the President against it. Was J. D. Hayworth going to rule the day? No. He voted for the monstrosity. I'm not happy with that bill, or any of the bills concerning the budget under the Bush Administration. Hayworth could have voted against every one he studied, and it wouldn't have made one bit of difference.   You get what you can, and you vote to get it pushed through.

Did Hayworth try to get better deals in the appropriations phase of the budget? Did he advocate for a more sound policy? I don't know, but a vote on the overall budget does not mean that he didn't do his best to make sure a better bill was offered up.

=============================

he voted to allow USA government to enter into contracts with companies that incorp offshore to avoid USA taxes. in Hr5576 Lie 16

Simply amazing... this is the first thing you have mentioned where you stated the actual bill you were referencing, in a clear manner. The vote was held on June 14th, 2006, at 5:45p.m.

1. The bill passed in the House. J. D. Hayworth voted Yea The vote can be verified. Here
2. Other Titles can be found about 1.5 screens down. Here (specifically: Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2007 - Department of Housing and Urban Development Act, 2007 - Department of the Treasury Appropriations Act, 2007 - Department of Transportation Appropriations Act, 2007 - Executive Office of the President Appropriations Act, 2007 - The Judiciary Appropriations Act, 2007)
3. The final disposition of the Senate version of the Bill: Jul 26, 2006: Placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders. Calendar No. 535. Verify Last Action, just above Other Titles: Here This bill never became law
4. Who else voted with Hayworth: Darrel Issa(R), Duncan Hunter(R), Dana Rohrabacher(R), Henry Hyde(R), Bobby Jindal(R), Roy Blunt(R)
5. Who voted opposite of Hayworth: Tom Tancredo(R), Mike Pence(R), Ron Paul(R)

Hayworth position: Republicans agreeing: 210 Disagreeing: 17 Democrats agreeing: 195 Disagreeing: 5 Independents agreeing: 1 Disagreeing: 0

This bill never became law. Three decent Republicans voted against Hayworth here, and they may have been right to do so. None the less, the bill died in the Senate.

Look 405 people voted for this bill. 22 voted against.    Once again we have a complex bill that covered a number of issues. Treasury, Transportation, Executive Office, and Judiciary appropriations were involved. Were there other issues that convinced Hayworth and other good men that overall this bill was good, I don't know. That certainly seems to be the case.

Perhaps other legislation was expected to fix this one problem. Perhaps the bill was good in other ways. All I know is that good men voted for the bill, and there was broad consensus for support.

Does this reveal J. D. Hayworth to be a terrible Conservative? No.

=============================

He voted to increase the Hope IV program in HR5577 Lie 17

Wow, here is the second item you have mentioned where you stated the actual bill you were referencing, in a clear manner. Unfortunate for you, there was no Congressional vote on this bill. If you can take your valuable time to provide more information, I would be happy to shoot down whatever you come up with.

1. The bill was tabled on Jul 18, 2006: Unfavorable Executive Comment Received from Veterans' Affairs.. This can be verified. Here
2. The only title for the bill is listed to the right here. And can be verified Here (specifically: Veterans Identity Protection Act of 2006)
3. The final disposition of the bill: It was tabled on Jul 18, 2006: Unfavorable Executive Comment Received from Veterans' Affairs.. This can be verified. Here This bill never became law
4. Who else voted with Hayworth: No vote was held
5. Who voted opposite of Hayworth: No vote was held

Hayworth position: There was no vote on HR5577.

This may or may not have been your biggest act of lunacy in this post. You charged the guy with doing something wrong here, when no vote was held in the House on HR5577.

=============================

He voted to increase Pension Plan costs in Pension Protection Act Lie 18

Once again you were too damn lazy to provide any information pertaining to this bill. I looked up the bill. It was HR 4. The vote was held on July 28th, 2006 at 11:34p.m.

1. The bill passed in the House. J. D. Hayworth voted Yea The vote can be verified. Here
2. Other Titles can be found about 1.5 screens down. Here (specifically: Pension Reform bill - Miscellaneous Trade and Technical Corrections Act of 2006)
3. The final disposition of the Bill: Aug 17, 2006: Signed into law by President Bush, Law No: 109-280. Verify Last Action: Here
4. Who else voted with Hayworth: Darrel Issa(R), Duncan Hunter(R), Dana Rohrabacher(R), Tom Tancredo(R), Henry Hyde(R), Bobby Jindal(R), Roy Blunt(R)
5. Who voted opposite of Hayworth: Nancy Pelosi(D), Tom Lantos(D), Henry Waxman(D), Maxine Waters(D), Robert Wexler(D), Jerald Nadler(D), Charles Rangel(D), Bernard Sanders(I)

Hayworth position: Republicans agreeing: 203 Disagreeing: 16 Democrats agreeing: 76 Disagreeing: 114 Independents agreeing: 0 Disagreeing: 1

Once again, your idea of real Conservatives are listed in red above.   Your idea of terrible Conservatives are listed in Green.

Your priorities are all screwed up. There's a reason why the worst of the worst didn't vote with Hayworth on this. And yet, this didn't dawn on you during your extensive research to uncover these ridiculous charges against Hayworth.

=============================

The list could go on and on these were just a couple from 2006. JD was in office since 1994. I am not about to go through all his votes. I think I have shown enough to justify my conviction that there isn't much difference between the two JD and McCain. Lie 19

Nobody is that stupid.

You have shown nothing of the kind. You listed a buch of trumped up charges here, that if someone were actually to buy off on what you're trying to sell, they would have to believe that Democrats are the real Conservatives and Conservatives are the real Democrats. Even for someone as devious, ignorant, or both as you are, must realize this just doesn't make sense. Look at the people voting against Hayworth's postions above. In your mind, Pelosi, Lantos, Waxman, Waters, Wexler, Nadler, Rangel, and Sanders were the real Conservatives on the last issue you raised, HR 4, the Pension Reform Bill. That either actually make sense to you, or you are lying your ass off. It certainly won't make sense to any person with half a clue what these folks normally stand for. They are some of the absolute worst players in the House. Hayworth voted against their positions almost every time. And for this, you trash him. Why? Because you had to beat Hayworth down to McCain's level. That will never happen.

But I'm sure you will call them lies lies all lies (even with verifiable facts to back them up). ROFL. Lie 20

While you're there rolling on the floor, with the sane people looking on, what verifiable facts did you provide here? Did you give one link? Did you provide all the information so people could verify your charges themselves? Ah no. You simply tossed out charges with no proof whatsoever. And looking at the actual votes and who voted with and against J. D. Hayworth, it is clear you are either an ignorant jackass, or you are gaming this forum to your own political ends.

You want more rollcall votes? His votes on every one of Bush's and the GOP budget's from 2000-2006 when bush JD and McCain increased government spending by a rate not seen since LBJ? the facts say that JD voted for billions upon billions, trillions upon trillions of spending just like McCain. Lie 21

Federal yearly budget processes involve many different votes to get to the final bill. There's military appropriations, welfare, Medicare, Social Security,... the list is long. Each one is voted on separately and then in the final omnibus bill. The complexities of the final bill are enormous. So you in all your wisdom toss out that J. D. is a terrible person to vote for the yearly fiscal budgets. Nearly everyone does. The final omnibus bill for fiscal 2007, was 415 to 13. Once each appropriations bill has been passed, almost no one will vote against the final bill. It's all been hashed out by that time. J. D. may or may not have opposed various appropriations on the way to the final omnibus bill, but then you didn't bother to focus on that did you? You decided to smear him on the omnibus bills instead. This transparent attempt to trash J. D. reveals you for what you have been from the start of this thread, a disinformation technician.

But you know in your twisted world explaining that the two are about the same (just a matter of degrees)when it comes to growing government, spending our tax dollars, and increasing the power of the state over the individual well that's support for McCain. Lie 22

J. D. Hayworth has not co-sponsored bills with the House equivelent of Ted Kennedy, John Kerry, Russel Feingold, and Joe Lieberman. He did not say we have nothing to fear from an Obama Administration. He did not say that he had a great deal of respect for the Democrats and their fine goals.

J. D. did not advocate for the closure of Gitmo. He did not say he would like to join the International Criminal Court, or sign on the the LOST Treaty. He did not pat Obama on the back for killing the F-22 and a missile defense system. He did not introduce three global warming bills with a Democrat counterpart. He did not conspire with Vietnam to lay the MIA issue to rest, so Vietnam could have MFN.

J. D. did not introduce the comprehensive immigration reform bill that would have granted citizenship to 20 to 35 million illegals, and would have resulted in upwards of 100 million additional immigrants pouring into our nation over the next 20 years.

J. D. Hayworth has not formed relationships with every disgusting leftist in the House, as John has in the Senate. He has had no dealings with George Soros, Teressa Heinz Kerry, or the Tides Foundation. So yes, we can safely say Hayworth is not cut of the same cloth as McCain. He is not a POS, and John McCain clearly is.

Perhaps the worst part of your lying here, is that you are pulling the same thing Clinton and Obama supporters have. And that is very destructive. "Oh, everyone does it." No, everyone doesn't. Your moral relativist stances here are sickening to decent people.

You slander others for being the same as John McCain, when you damn well know that isn't true. So either you are as stupid as you actions here indicate, or you're doing this on purpose.

There are good people and there are bad people. Good people don't tear other people down to make themselves look better. They don't hire people to go onto internet forums to disrupt and tell lies about their opponents. They don't do their best to turn black and white to gray. They handle their disagreements in an honorable manner. They don't conspire with communists, marxists, and fascists to take our nation down. And then there is John McCain, a man that will do all of this.

Clinton was a vile man. Obama is a vile man. John McCain is a vile man.

J. D. is a good man, and you are an ass.

Pack up your lies, your disinformation, your baseless slanders, your fronting for the worst of the worst, and get lost.

Please review post 517 at your leasure...

D1, my highest compliments for one of the most carefully researched and accurate posts I have ever seen on FR in the 7 years I’ve been here.

You have revealed the reasons that ‘unseen1’ prefers to remain ‘unseen’ because any lying POS like that operates ONLY in the shadows, their scurrilous deceptions and carefully constructed disinformation thrive only in darkness. When someone like you shines the light of truth on such foul behavior, it is just like a flashlight shining underneath a kitchen cabinet and cockroaches running like Hell from the light.

‘Unseen1’ is lower than an effin cockroach, you have proven that beyond any question whatsoever, that lying troll needs to be zotted and banned for life from FR.

Thanks for all the hard work and research it took to bring this to light. The shameless McCain shills and apologists will dismiss it out of hand, IF they even bother to read it because it exposes one of their own and leaves them all naked in their inglorious dishonesty. REAL conservatives will salute you and offer you (as I do) their heartfelt thanks and appreciation.

You are to FR what the targeting computer is to a Minuteman missile.

Well done Sir, well done indeed.

And what makes this even more troubling, is that John NEVER goes for the throat like this when running against a Democrat.

McCain is for McCain and for McCain only. That is his core principle: himself. As such, he is for sale to the highest bidder, and that often means he is usually working on behalf of progressives, fascists, Socialists, globalists, and those who stand together in an unholy alliance against all that America represents.

McCain is among the most dangerous CINOs/RINOs presently in power because he cloaks himself within the mantle of conservatism--and now, the at-large Tea Party movement--while stabbing it from within for the benefit of his sponsors, his benefactors, and his clients.

McCain must be removed at all costs, even if it means voting for a non-Republican candidate in the general election or abstaining from voting for a Senator outright in the general election. Failure to remove McCain in either the primary or general elections will signal to the establishment that the Tea Party movement can be opposed and will serve as a green light for the continuation of the effective destruction of a sovereign, free, and independent United States by way of its integration into and subjugation to a greater and "global" system of governance.

Jim, if at any time in the past 14 years or so, you ever had any doubts about creating Free Republic, or the amount of work it took to keep it going, this post at #517 should put it to rest.

It won’t make the front page of the Washington Times, and it won’t cost a Dan Rather media type his job, but it is a living testament to the quality of many of the posters who spend time here.

It will take you a while to read, but it will be worth it, I assure you. I saved it to print out, and keep for posterity.

PING

Don’t miss a piece of Freeper history!

Post 517.

Good post!

Good job, DoughtyOne! You just buried unseen1 under 3 million gallons of his own sludge.

unseen1 - Member since December 2, 2009

“

You tossed out a number of charges, and that’s all. You didn’t provide links, votes, bill numbers, resolution numbers, amendment numbers..., you just threw the mud and hoped some of it stuck.”

It’s the McCain way, and the ONLY way he ever got elected!

“They don’t conspire with communists, marxists, and fascists to take our nation down. And then there is John McCain, a man that will do all of this.

Clinton was a vile man. Obama is a vile man. John McCain is a vile man.

J. D. is a good man, and you are an ass.

Pack up your lies, your disinformation, your baseless slanders, your fronting for the worst of the worst, and get lost.”

AMEN!

Well done. The RINO trolls here are as pathetic as the marxists.

Standing ovation! Great read, more than worth the time. Thanks for all your work on this DoughtyOne. You make FR shine! and lay to rest the false and demeaning arguments against J.D. Superb response!

Long? You got too much time on your hands do you ever leave the basement?

the record is the record. you can spin it how you want. JD voted to increase spending across the board. He sided with Bush and the GOP congress form 2000-2006 on almost every item. he and all GOP members of the 2000-2006 congress were responsible for the biggest increase in Federal government power and spending ever seen up to Obama’s crowning.
you think electing people that enabled that will help stop the power grab? One word: delusional.

again pointing out faults of someone does not mean support for the other guy. you seem to have a problem accepting the truth. If you want to hide in your land of delusion and think that JD will vote the conservative ticket when a liberal GOPer like Mitt is in the WH go ahead. You will be disappointed.

McCain is no better. hopefully he will do a Bryd and Az can get a real conservative to run in the next primary instead of the beltway GOPers like JD and McCain.