Scott Brown for US Senate
In case you have not yet heard of the epic battle for the future of our country happening right now in, of all places, Massachusetts, here’s an update.
State Senator Scott Brown is running against the most abysmal candidate the MA Dems have ever put forward. She is s lackluster, has such poor rapport with the voters and such a scandalous history as a pandering and incompetent DA and Attorney General, it’s as if the MA Dems thought they owned the “Kennedy” seat.
Well, the campaign has reached a fever pitch. We in MA, who are working night and day – Republicans, Indies and Democrats, combined with Tea Partiers and 9/12′ers – are not ready to give Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi their 60th vote without a bloody cage match. Scott Brown has vowed to vote against all tax increases, the HC “obamanation”, Cap and Trade, Amnesty and Card Check. His opponent has vowed to vote for them.
The rest of the nation is paying attention – are you? Watch below and then do what you know you should – send $$$$$! Hell, come to town for a week and volunteer – you can stay with me.
Popularity: 4% [?]
Review this site
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by BowlMeOverVa, GOPMOM. GOPMOM said: New blog post: Scott Brown for US Senate http://www.gopmom.com/2009/12/scott-brown-for-us-senate/ [...]
Proud of you Scott!!! As a retired LTC(USAR), I support you in every way? It is about time we had someone, who has actually worn the uniform, and still wearing it proudly. A rarity today in Congress!
How can I help you in PA?
Dennis H. Schaefer
LTC, IN USAR (Ret)
I hope that this message gets to Mr. Brown’s campaign..His running is of historic significants…he is firing the first shot to retake our country just like the minutemen did at concord mass.at concord bridge on april 19 1775, the first battle of the revolutionaly war,,,as ralph waldo emeerson put it in his poem in 1837. “the shot heard round the world” Mr. brown is firing the first shot to be heard around the world to retake our country….bill meeler , st augustine fl……captain us army, vietnam 1967
Awesome. Comparing a special election in Massachusetts to the beginning of the Revolutionary War doesn’t make me worry about Republicans turning to violence at all (more than the handful of crazies who already have, that is).
ATG,
This alludes to one of the Brown commercials that basically states that we have more civil ways to fight tyrannical leadership, and pictures voters casting ballots.
To many, this is like a revolution: We have leaders that don’t believe they need to listen, a one-party congress (not just a majority, but supermajority), and crippling agendas that threaten our present and future ways of life.
As Brown has not actually used a firearm in his campaign, you have to look at this as symbolic, and not literal. His “shot” is back at congress who has refused reasonable debate on issues for the last year.
Obviously a Senate candidate isn’t going to go on a shooting spree. He’s not the one I’m worried about.
It’s more of these people that I’d like to avoid….
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31208188/
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,523581,00.html
http://kdka.com/local/officers.shot.Stanton.2.975820.html
http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7017532095?Arkansas%20Teen%20Pleads%20Guilty%20To%20Obama%20Assassination%20Plot
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=8541513
Oh good Lord, ATG. Are you going all weepy Nancy Pelosi on us?
Conservatives don’t kill people. Crazy people with weapons kill people.
I think there’s a fine line between crazy and right-wing paranoia which has a lot of folks teetering on the edge between the two. Comparing the need to resist a Democratic administration pursuing standard Democratic Party goals to fighting a bloody revolution against a tyrannical overseas regime I think pushes people close to that line. I’m all for democratic opposition, I just don’t think the rhetoric is particularly healthy.
Or crazy people with airplanes?
Add another one to the list…
An airplane is a weapon. Remember?
Lol… Scott Brown responds: “Nobody likes paying taxes”
Awesome. Really love how healthy the rhetoric on the right is.
Do Independent voters like candidates who get caught cheating on their wives? Just asking.
Do trolls come out of the woodwork? Just asking
ATG, Why do you waste time arguing with these people? You can tell them all day long that Presidents from Nixon, Truman, LBJ, etc, have proposed some form of universal health care, but, as you must realize, they have selective hearing.
It is a terrible thing to compare the Democrats with any fascist dictators like Hitler & Stalin, you are dishonoring the memory of the people who suffered under them.
To say that a President is “deliberately” trying to “bring this country down” is, as you say, disengenuous, and dangerous.
I don’t think Hitler was deliberately trying to destroy his country.
Hitler murdered one third of the population of Poland when he invaded that country.
Obama can’t even get a HC bill passed.
If you want to remember the people who died under oppressive regimes, don’t forget King Leopold, or the people who died from the fascist colonialism of Great Britain.
Why do you right-wingers think Scott Brown is going to ride into Washington and challenge the “establishment” there?
He’s a Republican, a right-wing one at that, and he is going to do what he is told & toe the standard Republican line.
If you believe that includes anything except obstructionism, along with trying to make the President look bad at every opportunity, you are deluding yourselves.
There is not going to be any “taking back” of this country, it’s going to be the same old same old, sorry.
“cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans”
Ummm… they cut taxes for EVERY American, if you want to think that only “wealthiest”, well, you can be wrong if you’d like.
I didn’t say that the tax cut went only to the wealthiest. If you want to misread and distort my statement, well, you can be intellectually dishonest if you’d like. On the other hand, it is a fact that the Bush administration did dramatically cut taxes for the richest Americans (along with tax cuts for other classes as well). Here’s a WSJ link, in case you forgot to read anything between 2001-2009:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB109235864738290655.html
“I didn’t say that the tax cut went only to the wealthiest”
Actually, you did. Your full text: “no more shocking than it was when a Republican administration cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans and attempted to privatize Social Security.”
That’s not misreading or distorting. But let’s not be silly here, you send that one out, then allow me to be “intellectually dishonest” due to my misreading or distortion (in your mind only) then go out, and repeat your same point but this time with parenthesis.
Then you give an article with dubious corrollation, that does nothing to show that the bottom bracket dropped 5 points in tax rate as opposed to the top’s drop of only 4.6 points (still 10% vs 35%), as somehow this justifies your earlier comments? So let me get this straight. Not only did the top bracket pay 2.64 times the tax rate pre-Bush than the bottom, but during the Bush years, the top bracket paid 3.5 times the rate as the bottom.
Please help me figure out not only where the distortion was, but where your accurate point was…
Distortion: “Actually, you did”. No, I did not. I never used the word only. I simply said that Bush cut taxes significantly for the wealthiest Americans. That is a fact.
Accurate point (based on your comments): Bush cut taxes for the wealthiest Americans by 4.6%.
Accurate point: That 4.6% represents a massive tax cut in absolute terms for each wealthy individual. As the WSJ notes, in absolute terms the sizes of these individual tax cuts was 70x the size of the tax cut received by the median-income American.
Accurate point: That 4.6% also represents the lion’s share of the overall tax cuts.
Accurate point: You completely dodged the fact that bottom bracket got a better cut proportionately.
Accurate point: The “wealthiest” or top 25% of income earners pay 85% of the taxes collect while earning only 66% of the income.
Accurate point: If you cut someone’s taxes by the same proportion as someone who earns less, OF COURSE the person earning more will save more in total. This is simple math.
The problem is, your point was that the taxes were cut for the wealthiest despite the poorest getting a bigger cut. You’ve dodged the fact that the bottom 50% of income earners make 13% of the total income, and only pay 3% of the tax.
But never let the facts get in the way of a good argument…
Looks like we got a Lamb in independent’s Wolf clothing!!!!!!!!!!
I want my 50.00 Back Scott !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You don’t run on Fiscal responsibility ticket and then turn around and vote to spend 15 Billion.!!!!!
… $15 billion is chump change. The original bill was written to be like six times that big. Do remember that “independent” doesn’t mean “idiot tea-partyer that reflexively votes against everything proposed by a Democrat.”
Yes, because when you’re down to your last $.35 in your piggy bank (the US gov has less than that, BTW) you should definitely play $.25 in a slot machine – because it’s chump change.
P.S. The House bill is 10X’s that so we’re likely to end somewhere in the middle. When do we call $ “real $” and not “chump change”? Just asking.
Brown is a MA Republican, not a conservative.
But there is no fine line between crazy and left-wing extremism?
How many people died worldwide in the 20th century because of facism – a left-wing extreme. 60 million? 100 million?
And if you believe that the goals of the current Democrat party are in line with the goals of the traditional Democrat party, then you have crossed that line yourself.
By traditional Democratic Party do you mean the Dixie-crats of the 60s? If you mean the Democratic Party we’ve had around for decades now, I think it’s obvious that they would be in support of bills limiting carbon emissions and providing universal health care (although the versions of both of these that are currently being debated are significantly watered down from what they would be if traditional progressives had their way). It shouldn’t be a shocker that a Democratic administration actually tried to make these things happen… no more shocking than it was when a Republican administration cut taxes on the wealthiest Americans and attempted to privatize Social Security. In either case, disagreeing with these policies is all well and good, but calling them shockingly radical is disingenuous, and, I would argue, dangerous.
From Wikipedia: Fascism “is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system, and which is usually considered to be on the far right of the traditional left-right political spectrum.” You must be one of those joke commentators that calls people a socialist-fascist-authoritarian and thinks you’re speaking English.
Now if you want to criticize left-wing excess for the deaths that occurred under Mao and Stalin, fine. Just be willing to accept Hitler and Mussolini into your camp. Or… we could just not debate which insane dictators belong where because America is actually a remarkably healthy and peaceful democracy with nothing meaningful in common with any of those countries.
Oh my God, ATG. You are so ignorant, so lacking in fact and logic, you make my head hurt.