posted on May 18, 2007 04:09:23 PM newAll except idiots know when the same AP reporter updates their articles.....they post pretty much the same thing WITH any updates they have to add.
I HAVE THE SAME ARTICLE BY THE SAME AUTHOR WITH THE SAME DATE AND TIME.
posted on May 18, 2007 04:28:45 PM new
OH NO......POST THE LINK....so we all know where it came from and we can read it ourselves. LOL
I want you Helenjw
posted on May 18, 2007 01:48:14 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
back up your LIE helen where you falsely accused me of OMITTING some info. that was just SO vital to you this morning.
Logansdad,
I sometimes check her data and source just for my information and amusement. Today, I found the original AP story that she copy pasted yesterday... the original story word for word with the exception that her copy paste did not include a remark by Ted Kennedy and a favorable remark by Arlen Specter. A mention that the president planned to sign a bill by summer was also omitted.
A simple link could clear up such confusion but she chose not to provide one.
posted on May 18, 2007 04:40:47 PM new
Since you did not provide a link in your original post, the burden of proof is on you. If you can provide that proof by simply posting a link, what are you waiting for?
posted on May 18, 2007 04:45:31 PM new
No, you LIAR...it's not on me.
Read what your buddies post here all the time. They don't follow the old protocol that we USED to.
And of course, that NEVER bothers you. LOL LOL
I have my link ready.....and it says exactly what my OP post SAID it SAID. IN FULL.
You've been the one who made the false accusation about me....tried to discredit me....and EXPECT people to take YOUR WORD LOL LOL LOL for it.
It's YOUR LIE to prove.
I KNOW where I got mine from. L0L
Obviously YOU made your slander up, once again. Just to get your extremely NEEDED attention.
But you can't prove your lies, helen.
Or your won't.
Until you do.....I'll leave this that they can either find the article themselves.....using that TIME posted.....or I'll assume NO ONE IS AS ANAL NOR AS MUCH A LIAR AS YOU ALWAYS ARE.
Wasting a whole day TALKING......but can't back up your lies.
posted on May 18, 2007 04:56:17 PM new
Providing links to your article is not my responsibility, Linda. If you have one, I suggest you post it. How many times have I said that????
posted on May 18, 2007 05:30:34 PM new
Wow, I come back over six hours later and you're still throwing the same tantrum, Linda_K - and you told ME to grow up? ..... hahaha
Linda_K posted on May 18, 2007 04:28:45 PM
I want you Helenjw
Why did you slip that in, Linda_K? Getting a bit kinky in the middle of your temper tantrum or what?
Linda, the story is all over the net...just type the first sentence into google and you will find them. I have used bold to mark the quotes omitted from your copy paste at the beginning of this thread.
Key senators in both parties and the White House announced agreement Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border.
The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here...legally.
The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush's Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.
Bush hailed completion of the deal as a "historic moment," and said he looked forward to signing it into law, according to Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff, who said he called the president to inform him of it.
"Politics is the art of the possible, and theagreement that we just reached is the best possible chance we will have in years to secure our borders and bring millions of people out of the shadows and into the sunshine of America," Kennedy said.
Anticipating criticism from conservatives, Sen. Arlen Specter, R-Pa., said, "It is not amnesty. This will restore the rule of law."
The accord sets the stage for what promises to be a bruising battle next week in the Senate on one of Bush's top non-war priorities. The president has said he wants to sign an immigration bill by summer's end.
The keybreakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so-called "point system" that would for the first time prioritize immigrants' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.
The draft bill "gives a path out of the shadows and toward legal status for those who are currently here" illegally, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
The immigration issue also divides both parties in the House, which isn't expected to act unless the Senate passes a bill first.
The proposed agreement would allow illegalimmigrants to come forward and obtain a "Z visa" and _ after paying fees and a $5,000 fine _ ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.
They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.
A new temporary guestworker program would also have to wait until those so-called "triggers" had been activated.
Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.
Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.
In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from animmigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end "chain migration" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it's an unfair system that rips families apart.
Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card _ except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.
New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-bornparents into the country.
Copyright 2007 by the Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
posted on May 18, 2007 07:45:14 PM new
LOL.....NO LINK....of course.
The QUEEN of links couldn't find MINE.
Nope, helen that IS NOT the AP article I copied and pasted IN FULL. Close, but NO cigars. Not even the same time....proves it's NOT the same article and didn't come from the same place/link. LOL And since you couldn't post the link.....we don't even know if you CHANGED the time on what you c&p. LOL Can't trust you to be honest....not at all. Without a link....yours proves NOTHING. Especially not that it WAS the one I c&P. LOL
You're still a LIAR. I omitted NOTHING from the one ***I*** copied.
LOL LOL LOL
LIAR............
As I said....THIS is the exact article ***I*** copied and pasted - with NOTHING omitted/deleted
posted on May 17, 2007 11:02:09 AM
Agreement Reached on Immigration Reform
May 1701:41 PM US/Eastern
By JULIE HIRSCHFELD DAVIS
Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON (AP) - Key senators and the White House reached agreement Thursday on an immigration overhaul that would grant quick legal status to millions of illegal immigrants already in the U.S. and fortify the border.
The plan would create a temporary worker program to bring new arrivals to the U.S. A separate program would cover agricultural workers. New high-tech enforcement measures also would be instituted to verify that workers are here legally.
The compromise came after weeks of painstaking closed-door negotiations that brought the most liberal Democrats and the most conservative Republicans together with President Bush\'s Cabinet officers to produce a highly complex measure that carries heavy political consequences.
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass., said he expects Bush to endorse the agreement.
The accord sets the stage for what promises to be a bruising battle next week in the Senate on one of Bush\'s top non-war priorities.
The key breakthrough came when negotiators struck a bargain on a so- called \"point system\" that would for the first time prioritize immigrants\' education and skill level over family connections in deciding how to award green cards.
The draft bill \"gives a path out of the shadows and toward legal status for those who are currently here\" illegally, said Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif.
A spokesman for Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., one of his party\'s key players in the talks, confirmed that the group had reached agreement.
The proposed agreement would allow illegal immigrants to come forward and obtain a \"Z visa\" and—after paying fees and a $5,000 fine—ultimately get on track for permanent residency, which could take between eight and 13 years. Heads of household would have to return to their home countries first.
They could come forward right away to claim a probationary card that would let them live and work legally in the U.S., but could not begin the path to permanent residency or citizenship until border security improvements and the high-tech worker identification program were completed.
A new temporary guest worker program would also have to wait until those so-called \"triggers\" had been activated.
Those workers would have to return home after work stints of two years, with little opportunity to gain permanent legal status or ever become U.S. citizens. They could renew their guest worker visas twice, but would be required to leave for a year in between each time.
Democrats had pressed instead for guest workers to be permitted to stay and work indefinitely in the U.S.
In perhaps the most hotly debated change, the proposed plan would shift from an immigration system primarily weighted toward family ties toward one with preferences for people with advanced degrees and sophisticated skills. Republicans have long sought such revisions, which they say are needed to end \"chain migration\" that harms the economy, while some Democrats and liberal groups say it\'s an unfair system that rips families apart.
Family connections alone would no longer be enough to qualify for a green card—except for spouses and minor children of U.S. citizens.
---
And THIS, below, was the last paragraph/sentence that was in MY article:
New limits would apply to U.S. citizens seeking to bring foreign-born parents into the country.
=====================
Exactly and in FULL as it was in the article **I** c&p.
Claim whatever LIE you want to. LOL LOL LOL
You could have just added whatever else YOU read in some other similar article.....but no that's not part of your 'game playing' ways. LOL
Much more fun for you to lie and LIE about me omitting some stupid little part that is SOOOOOoooooo very important to you. That part that WASN'T in my article. Mine ended EXACTLY as you see above.
You've been proven to have lied. shame shame on you. And not the first time you've done so either.
Anything to give you something to whine and snivel about- and TRY to slander my credibility with. That makes your day.
You're pathetic, ANAL and you were WRONG, once again.
Next time TRY to know what you're talking about, AND be able to back it up, before you LIE about my actions . Especially when you can't back them up - like you couldn't this time.....AGAIN.
edited to add....helen's link wasn't showing up for me....it is now.
But it sure wasn't mine.
[ edited by Linda_K on May 18, 2007 08:15 PM ]
posted on May 18, 2007 08:19:34 PM new
It's the SAME article with the SAME headline written by the SAME author of the SAME news service on the SAME day and hour.
The only difference between this article and the one that you posted are the quotes that you left out.
Now go do what you do best. Laugh out loud while denying facts.
posted on May 18, 2007 08:25:27 PM new
helen....IF you were as smart as you try to convince us you are.....lol lol....you would KNOW that different url's post different times that THEY used the wires to post their articles.
You're WRONG....WRONG.....WRONG....hellen.
NOW, apologize. You slandered MY credibility here as you always try to do...but you were WRONG.
I'll not hold my breath waiting for you to EVER admit you could have handled this whole thing differently, rather than FALSELY accusing me of omitting any part of an article.
No....not hellen's way. She continues to lie and slander me. And she is always WRONG on the FALSEHOODS she tells others about me.
Couldn't just post YOUR own article that added what you wanted others to know....nope....that wouldn't have showed your true LYING character, helen.
But you sure have today.tsk tsk tsk
=
The url of the FULL article **I** posted....not omitting ANYTHING....proving once again, helen doesn't know what she's talking about when she viciously and maliciously LIES about my actions. tsk tsk tsk
But that's hellens sad lack of character or knowing what TRUTH even means.
posted on May 18, 2007 08:36:54 PM new
Linda, I have posted nothing but truth...documented truth.
My link works and takes you straight to the story as it was originally written on the same date and time as the one you posted.
If you believe two different stories were issued by the same reporter from the same news agency on the same time and date you can always post your link to prove that miraculous occurrence.
posted on May 19, 2007 11:10:21 AM new
Helenjw
posted on May 18, 2007 06:06:03 AM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Linda, when you copy pasted the article you failed to include the following lines. Such selective omissions should be noted ""
And, Helen, They ARE! In the Good Morning thread is an example of just what you're talking about....linduh's "sins of omission"
Deleting half a sentence to create a lie....but slimey underhandedness is the byword of rpugs!
If you READ MY comments, you will find that I did not call you a liar. You called me a liar several times simply because I made it clear that parts of the original story were omitted in your version.
BTW...You stated above in bold letters that I had not provided a link when in fact I did include a link with my version of the story...The headline is hyperlinked.
The truth,linda is that I have little confidence in the honesty of your presentation. When you refuse to provide a link, that only adds to the questions that I may have. In this case, you could have resolved the question by simply supplying a link.
I believe that it's exceedingly strange that the quotes favorable to the passage of the immigration bill in my version of the article had been removed from your version.
