It is currently 04/11/25 6:33 pm

All times are UTC - 6 hours




Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 48 posts ]
Author Message
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/17/10 12:46 pm • # 1 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
[Begin heavy sarcasm] Lovely guy, Scott Brown ~ no wonder he's the new darling of the tea-baggers and birthers ~ [end sarcasm] ~ Image�~ Sooz


By Lee Fang on Jan 16th, 2010 at 7:16 pm
Brown Justifies Denying 9/11 Rescue Workers Aid: 'We Had To Take Care Of Our Own Priorities First'

As the Plum Line
reported yesterday, State Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), the Republican candidate for the U.S. Senate special election on Tuesday, voted on October 17, 2001 to deny financial aid to Red Cross rescue workers who had volunteered with 9/11 recovery efforts. As a state representative at the time, Brown was one out of only three legislators who had opposed the overwhelmingly bipartisan measure.

At a campaign rally today in Hyannis, ThinkProgress caught up with Brown for comment on why he voted against the measure:

Quote:

TP: In 2001, you voted against 9/11 recovery workers, giving them aid, do you have any comment on this story?

BROWN: Yes, it was a time when our budget was down. We had a lot of cuts unfortunately, and we had to take care of our own priorities first.

Watch it:

During the same month Brown was voting down efforts to support 9/11 rescue workers, he was pushing a bill to appropriate a tax-subsidized bond to build a golf course in Norfolk, a city in his district. "Priorities," indeed.

Also during the same period, he was busy fighting for tax subsidies for corporate interests. According to a 2002 article in the Lowell Sun, Brown scored a perfect pro-corporate tax subsidy rating in the months following his anti-9/11 rescue workers vote:

Quote:

House members who supported decreasing the minimum corporate excise tax which was rejected were also given credit. Positive marks were also given to representatives who voted in favor of term limits for the speaker, voted against increasing the auto excise tax, and voted in favor of freezing the unemployment insurance rates. [...] Rep. Scott Brown, a Wrentham Republican, and Rep. Brad Hill, an Ipswich Republican, were the other two lawmakers to receive 100 percent taxpayer friendly ratings.

For Brown's "priorities," golf courses and corporations are above the Massachusetts Red Cross volunteers who rushed to the site of the twin towers after the terror attack.




Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/17/10 12:53 pm • # 2 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Arghhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ~ Sooz


By [url=/author/Lee%20Fang]Lee Fang[/url] on Jan 15th, 2010 at 5:37 pm
Wall Street Investors Lavish Scott Brown's Campaign With Money, Get Out The Vote Operations

Major U.S. banks which instigated the financial crisis are set to pay out "
record" bonuses and compensation - $145 billion by some estimates. State Sen. Scott Brown (R-MA), the Republican candidate running for the special U.S. Senate election next week, announced yesterday that he would oppose the recently announced financial crisis responsibility fee on large banks.

Brown's defense of the financial industry has not been ignored by Wall Street. Wall Street's two largest political enforcers are also out fighting to elect him:

Quote:

- The Wall Street front group FreedomWorks is mobilizing get out the vote efforts for Brown this weekend. FreedomWorks organized the very first tea party protests, and has used its extensive staff and resources to mobilize rallies and advocacy campaigns on behalf of corporate interests. Dick Armey, who as a corporate lobbyist represented AIG, Lehman Brothers, and Merrill Lynch during the bailouit, is the leader of FreedomWorks. FreedomWorks is also funded and chaired by Steve Forbes and Frank Sands of Sands Capital Management.

- The Wall Street front group Club for Growth is strongly "boosting" Brown and is expected to run ads in support for him. According to recent disclosures, the Club for Growth is funded by a $1.4 million dollar donation from investor Stephen Jacksons of Stephens Groups Inc, a $1.4 million dollar donation from broker Richard Gilder, and $210,000-$630,000 donations from at least 10 other investors and financial industry professionals. The Club is also supporting a slate of candidates to repeal health reform, while its other endorsed candidates have opposed a financial truth commission.

According to a ThinkProgress analysis of Brown's latest Federal Elections Commission disclosures (part 1, part 2, part 3), filed on Jan. 8 and 11, business executives and Wall Street executives have lavished Brown's campaign coffers with 11th hour contributions:

Image

A report on financial industry compensation by New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo found that large financial corporations - including Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan, and Citigroup - spend between 25% to 50% of total revenue on paying out executive compensation. While the finance industry often refuses to offer lines of credit to American businesses struggling in this economy, they operate largely as vehicles to make bankers richer.

Brown casts himself as an everyday man, telling reporters "it's me against the machine." In fact, Brown is teaming up with Wall Street bankers to kill financial reform and preserve a system of Bush-era unfettered capitalism.

(ThinkProgress interns Nick McClellan and DJ Carella contributed research to this post.)

http://thinkprogress.org/2010/01/15/wallst-scott-brown/



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/19/10 6:36 am • # 3 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Just in case anyone has doubts about the dishonest creepiness of Scott Brown, consider that both Orly Taitz and Andy Martin [aka Anthony Martin-Trigona, whom I can personally attest is a total whack-o] are supporting/defending him ~ Image ~ Sooz


Birthers Defend Conservative Candidate's Bizarre Comment About Obama's Birth; 6 Shocking Discoveries About the GOP Senate Candidate

By Max Blumenthal and Laura Clawson, AlterNet. Posted January 18, 2010.

We've learned a lot of scary stuff about Massachusetts Senate candidate Scott Brown in the past 10 days.


Prominent 'Birthers' Defend GOP Senate Candidate's Bizarre Remarks About Obama's Parents

By Max Blumenthal

Leaders of the "birther" movement that has sought to discredit President Barack Obama's status as an American citizen are defending Republican Senate candidate Scott Brown's suggestion that Obama was born out of wedlock.

Andy Martin, a right-wing polemicist and perennial vanity candidate who claims on the front page of his blog that Obama's real father was the communist intellectual Frank Marshall Davis, said of Brown's remarks, "I think this shows Mr. Brown is a lot smarter than I realized and he's a lot more honest." Martin told me that he was planning to publish a defense of Brown on his Web site.

Orly Taitz, the eccentric Orange County-based dental technician who has filed numerous failed lawsuits challenging Obama's status as an American citizen, told me, "What [Scott] Brown is saying is true, which is that no one has seen a marriage certificate. I think the context in which he was saying this is that a lot of people are asking questions and want answers."

Brown made his comments immediately after the Republican National Convention in a debate on the now-defunct local CN8 news channel. The key moment, during an exchange in which Brown was defending the honor of Sarah Palin, went as follows:

Quote:

Brown: Barack's mom had him when she was, what, 18 years old?

Guest: And married!

Brown: Well, I don't know about that.

Brown's suggestion that Obama was born out of wedlock echoes claims Martin made during the 2008 campaign. As Blue Mass pointed out, in July 2008, just before Brown made his notorious remarks, Martin wrote:

Quote:

Barack Obama, Senior, and Anne Dunham never married. Obama knows this fact. This is also why he keeps his white grandmother a virtual prisoner; she knows too, and she won't lie.

Through the past several decades Obama has pretended he 'didn't know' the facts about his illegitimate birth. He thought he could get away with the big lie. And he almost did get away with it….

His mother was promiscuous and had a child out of wedlock, in 1961, when that was still scandalous behavior. Is this Obama's idea of 'family values?' Obviously, he has been deceiving the American people and hoping his advertising lies could overcome the truth. He has failed.

Martin has an extensive history of extreme statements and bizarre behavior, including a series of anti-Semitic rants that he described to me as "35-year-old rubbish." When Martin declared his candidacy in the Illinois Republican Senate primary and then attacked frontrunner Mark Kirk as "a defacto pedophile," Illinois GOP chairman Pat Brady dismissed him as "a sick man."

Nevertheless, Martin is a prolific and popular figure within far-right Tea Party circles, prompting him to entertain the notion that his writings might have influenced Brown. "I'm not trying to say that [Brown] got the idea from me," he said, "but the fact is my work has had a lot of impact."

For Martin, Taitz and the movement they represent, Brown's victory would be a watershed event. Though he has portrayed himself as a moderate, Martin sees Brown as a stealth candidate whose success would help move even the most hysterical birther claims about Obama's background further into the mainstream.

"I said to Obama himself that either you come clean about the truth or there will come a time when people will unelect you and delegitimize you," Martin said. "The mainstream media elected Barack Obama by refusing to tell the truth but I think that we might be witnessing a dam burst here."

*****

6 Shocking Discoveries About Scott Brown

By Laura Clawson,
Daily Kos

The campaign against Scott Brown has effectively been 10 days long. Ten days is not a long time, but in that time we've learned a lot about Brown.

1. Scott Brown suggested on television that President Obama was born out of wedlock, then tried to claim that Martha Coakley was making things up when her campaign called attention to it.

2. Scott Brown voted against aid to 9/11 recovery workers because it was too expensive, while at the same time he was trying to fund a golf course in his district and give tax subsidies to corporations.

3. Scott Brown tried to deny emergency contraception to rape victims. When he was called on it, he tried to deny the truth, then hid behind his daughters.

4. Scott Brown claimed he didn't know anything about any Tea Parties, even though he'd appeared at their rallies and publicized fundraisers they threw for him.

5. Scott Brown opposes a fee to get back bailout money from the biggest banks.

6. Scott Brown supports a constitutional ban on gay marriage and thinks two women raising a child is "just not normal."

That's a lot to take in in 10 days. Imagine if there had been a longer campaign in which these stories emerged more gradually so voters had time to absorb them fully.

Now imagine what else we'll know about Scott Brown in 10 more days.

http://www.alternet.org/story/145239/bi ... age=entire



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/19/10 6:40 am • # 4 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
even if Obama WAS born out of wedlock (which i doubt), how does this IN ANY WAY reflect on Obama?


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/19/10 2:45 pm • # 5 
Brown leads 53-46 with 21% of the precincts in.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/19/10 2:55 pm • # 6 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
Did you know he did a full nudity photo shoot in Playgirl? ~ what a guy ~ Image

Sooz



Top
  
PostPosted: 01/19/10 3:10 pm • # 7 
Barney Frank probably ogles it every night as he's heading off to bed. Image


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/19/10 3:25 pm • # 8 
It turns out it was in Cosmo, not Playgirl, and it was back in 1982 when he was a law student. It's a huge non-issue.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/19/10 3:29 pm • # 9 
AP is saying Brown won. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34923900/ns/politics-capitol_hill/


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/19/10 3:32 pm • # 10 
Apparently, Coakley called him to concede.

What a difference a day makes.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/19/10 3:36 pm • # 11 
Amazing. Guess the dems didn't bitch enough about Palin, Rush, Beck etc up there. Image


We ain't seen nothin yet. If the dems don't change their priorities and tactics they will lose it all.



Top
  
PostPosted: 01/19/10 3:38 pm • # 12 
I have to say it... your system of government sucks. I can't see how the Democrats, having a majority in the Senate can't get past the minority Republicans. It just doesn't make sense.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/19/10 3:42 pm • # 13 
They can. They just don't want to because they want to be able to stop the repubs if the repubs get control. It's not our government that sucks. It's the politicians on both sides who suck.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/19/10 3:42 pm • # 14 
Your lack of understanding doesn't mean it sucks. The Republicans haven't held up anything on the health insurance bill - It has been the Democrats who have been holding it up.

Our system protects the ability of the minority to have a voice in government. It's very important, because strict majority rule of the kind Democrats wish they had leads to the tyranny of the majority.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/19/10 3:43 pm • # 15 

Katy - How would u do it? If you were running America what would you do differently? Let's just let the people die in the streets so the insurance companies can enjoy their profits. Possibly declare a few more wars to demonstrate our machismo? Maybe we should all sing the praises of big business and social conservatism. Let's just crown Palin empress now instead of waiting until 2012.



Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/19/10 3:55 pm • # 16 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
gopqed wrote:
Your lack of understanding doesn't mean it sucks. The Republicans haven't held up anything on the health insurance bill - It has been the Democrats who have been holding it up.

Our system protects the ability of the minority to have a voice in government. It's very important, because strict majority rule of the kind Democrats wish they had leads to the tyranny of the majority.

the tyranny of the minority is far worse.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/19/10 4:03 pm • # 17 

Lol. Wow.

I would not have made promises I couldn't keep. I would not have put down Hillary for ideas I later claim as my own.

I would get us out of Afghanistan as soon as possible. I would not kiss the asses of places like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. I would not continue the threats against Iran and North Korea. I would not continue to hold people when we don't have enough proof to convict them. I would work with other countries to improve the respect and communication to fight terrorism which is a global problem, not one in one or two countries.

I would not have bailed out the banks or the auto industry but instead would have used funds to increase the alternative energy technology.

I would have laid out what i wanted as the new health reform and would ask both parties to do the same. Then take the time to debate, compare, get the input of the voters, etc. I would not try to push through garbage just to get something passed quickly. I would in the meantime make sure everyone gets the care they need, making sure that people can go to the nearest medical clinic instead of having to go to the emergency room.

We have no machismo, we are bullies. We were under Bush and we still are because Obama isn't really changing anything except to send more of our kids to die in Afghanistan to support a monster.

I would not sign a budget bill full of pork.

I hate big business. I hate the amounts the CEOs are paid for driving their companies into bankruptcy and the bonuses they get. I hate that we are more interested in profit than quality. I lke co-ops and participative management and profit sharing.

Are you saying I'm a social conservative? I disagree with damn near everything Palin says.

I would stop the emphasis on every child going to college and put more emphasis on making sure they get the proper basic education. I would have more charter schools and find ways to determine the areas the kids are best at and help them with that.

Is that enough?



Top
  
PostPosted: 01/19/10 4:09 pm • # 18 
the tyranny of the minority is far worse.

There is no tyranny of the minority. The filibuster is designed to encourage compromise and negotiation, which is important to producing legislation which serves the nation as a whole.

I find it hilarious that Democrats, who were apoplectic a few years ago when Republicans threatened an end to filibusters of judicial nominees (a proposal I opposed) are now hollering about how unfair and undemocratic the filibuster is. They can't even negotiate a compromise within their own caucus, which explains a lot about them.


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/19/10 4:13 pm • # 19 
User avatar
Editorialist

Joined: 01/16/09
Posts: 14234
gopqed wrote:
the tyranny of the minority is far worse.

There is no tyranny of the minority.

yes there is. you can spin it all you like, gop, but you are fooling nobody but yourself.

the filibuster rule is bullshit. it makes the electoral college seem like a model of direct government by comparison.

I find it hilarious that Democrats, who were apoplectic a few years ago when Republicans threatened an end to filibusters of judicial nominees (a proposal I opposed) are now hollering about how unfair and undemocratic the filibuster is. They can't even negotiate a compromise within their own caucus, which explains a lot about them.

i don't give two s*&ts about what Democrats think. i am not one myself, and have no plans to become one.

i have ALWAYS thought the filibuster rule sucked, i still do, and no amount of whining, or taunting, or laughing, or whatever else you have in mind to tout it's virtues will change my mind.

the filibuster rule gets in the way of majority positions. it is profoundly undemocratic, and compromises every piece of legislation it touches.


Last edited by macroscopic on 01/19/10 4:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/19/10 4:19 pm • # 20 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
First, I'm not all that disappointed in Obama ~ at least not yet ~ today is the last day of his FIRST year in office ~ he spent, by necessity, an enormous amount of time and effort on stopping the hemorrhaging we were doing ~ some of that time and effort was clearly because of the wall erected by Rs ~ the hemorrhaging has mostly stopped and he HAS made significant progress in many areas, things that don't take 60 votes to get thru ~ I'm giving him a "B" for effort ~ and I'm giving him time to readjust the agenda ~

Katy, I agree with most of your priorities ~ but many of those you named take the 60 votes ~ perhaps it's time to consider executive orders and recess appointments ~ I'm no expert on foreign affairs ~ and you know that I loathe war ~ but I'm curious if you are willing to concede that Obama has more information than we the public do and that his decisions are based on that info and on the opinions of the experts?

Sooz


Top
  
 Offline
PostPosted: 01/19/10 4:22 pm • # 21 
User avatar
Administrator

Joined: 11/07/08
Posts: 42112
gop, I'm still very curious exactly what compromises the Rs have made ~ seems to me the R negotiation tactic has been "give me what I want and I still won't vote for any progressive issue" ~

Sooz


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/19/10 4:27 pm • # 22 
I do not understand how any of those things tie into the Massachusetts Senate election. I think the people of MA just threw Ted Kennedy's legacy in the toilet.

Big business wanted this result.

Wall Street watched the election closely. The Dow Jones industrial average rose 116 points, and analysts attributed the increase to hopes the election would make it harder for Obama to make his changes to health care. That eased investor concerns that profits at companies such as insurers and drug makers would suffer.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34923900/ns/politics-capitol_hill/

The bailouts were bailing out we the people. If all the banks etc collapsed so would our retirement funds. This isn't just a matter making sure that AIG guys get their bonuses. It was a matter of not throwing away thirty some years of people's savings.

So Obama's somehow going to legislate that the Medi-clinics take people who can't pay. Brown and co think healthcare is a privilege. If you can't pay, well you shoulda worked harder.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/19/10 4:28 pm • # 23 
Yes there are some things he should do by executive order. think there are some things he can do to plug problems in the healthcare system until we get a good and fair bill passed.

Yes, he does get info from his experts. Of course, those experts are also the ones who had our soldiers build their tiny place in a valley so they could be picked off from the mountains. I don't expect anyone to have all the knowledge about everything. I do expect them to choose the right advisors to help them. I didn't think he would and so far I'm right. I also acknowledge that if Hillary would have won we'd also be staying in Afghanistan. We are not getting the people who threaten us. They move about as much as they need to. What could his experts possibly tell him that would make it worth the lives of our kids to defend Afghanistan and its corrupt government? They have had all these years to build their own damn army. It's way past time for them to defend themselves.


Top
  
PostPosted: 01/19/10 4:30 pm • # 24 
sooz08 wrote:
gop, I'm still very curious exactly what compromises the Rs have made ~ seems to me the R negotiation tactic has been "give me what I want and I still won't vote for any progressive issue" ~

Sooz


They were never offered any compromise positions. Had they been offered some of those, any votes would have been cast as a result of the Republicans making a huge number of concessions on the bill as a whole.

As it was, the compromises the Democrats came to were a result of their decision to negotiate only with their own members.


Last edited by gopqed on 01/19/10 4:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
PostPosted: 01/19/10 4:36 pm • # 25 
Kathy, I didn't see that you were asking me specifically about the Mass election. You asked what I would do if I ruled the country, I thought.

I don't give a damn what Brown and company think about healthcare being a privilege. It isn't, and I do think there are some things that can get changed before the health care bill passes. I hate this all or none crap by both sides.

A lot of people did lose their retirements. A lot of retired people are having to work again. I don't see the bailouts changed anything except put us in more debt.


Top
  
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  

Go to page 1, 2  Next   Page 1 of 2   [ 48 posts ] New Topic Add Reply

All times are UTC - 6 hours



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
© Voices or Choices.
All rights reserved.