Brown to Vote Against Reciprocity Bill

Status
Not open for further replies.
lancecolonel said:
he needs to try to appease everyone. it's easier to appease the majority of ma**h***s when the majority of congress is democrat. he will do and say what he needs to do and say to appear as if he feels the same way most ma**h***s do.
Click to expand...

Let me tell you why I don't understand the appease "everyone strategy". There's not one damn thing Scott Brown could do that would swing moonbat voters short of resigning tomorrow and letting Deval Patrick appoint his Democratic successor. Vote with Democrats 99.99999999% of the time and those people won't vote for him.

So, basically, Scott Brown is pandering to a constituency that will NEVER, EVER vote for him while depressing the turnout of moderates and conservatives, who would vote for him. In the meantime, he's screwing us just slightly less than Liz Warren would if she held the seat today. What a great stategy, huh? [sad2]

And you know what, if Scott Brown would "turn more conservative" after the election, what does that say about him as a person? It says he basically has no principles and isn't fit to govern anyway.
 
Last edited:
Cardinal Ximinez said:
And you know what, if Scott Brown would "turn more conservative" after the election, what does that say about him as a person? It says he basically has no principles and isn't fit to govern anyway.
Click to expand...

We don't live in a perfect world. Take some time to study Warren's principles.

I'm still waiting for substantiation of a claim he votes 90% with Dems.
 
Nana the Great said:
We don't live in a perfect world. Take some time to study Warren's principles.

I'm still waiting for substantiation of a claim he votes 90% with Dems. 99.99999 is an even bigger stretch. Support the claim unless it was a joke.
Click to expand...
I think we already went through that in this thread - I've seen articles claiming 90%+ but my own sampling showed that he votes with "leading" dems about 45% of the time across the board.

I was not able to substantiate that claim of 90% or more, but a valid point was raised that "not all votes are created equal" and Scott has found himself with the Dems on headline votes a few times...
 
Cardinal Ximinez said:
Let me tell you why I don't understand the appease "everyone strategy". There's not one damn thing Scott Brown could do that would swing moonbat voters short of resigning tomorrow and letting Deval Patrick appoint his Democratic successor. Vote with Democrats 99.99999999% of the time and those people won't vote for him.

So, basically, Scott Brown is pandering to a constituency that will NEVER, EVER vote for him while depressing the turnout of moderates and conservatives, who would vote for him. In the meantime, he's screwing just slightly less than Liz Warren would if she held the seat today. What a great stategy, huh? [sad2]

And you know what, if Scott Brown would "turn more conservative" after the election, what does that say about him as a person? It says he basically has no principles and isn't fit to govern anyway.
Click to expand...


Please refer to his voting record. As cekim posted, he's 56 to 57% Republican. And Lizzie?...0%!!! Look, you've been posting about this for awhile now and I don't think, at this point, you're going to change any minds. You can have your say and spout all you want, but I'm sure the majority on this site, disagree.
 
cekim said:
I think we already went through that in this thread - I've seen articles claiming 90%+ but my own sampling showed that he votes with "leading" dems about 45% of the time across the board.

I was not able to substantiate that claim of 90% or more, but a valid point was raised that "not all votes are created equal" and Scott has found himself with the Dems on headline votes a few times...
Click to expand...

Thanks for the follow-up and candor.
 
Billsail said:
Please refer to his voting record. As cekim posted, he's 56 to 57% Republican. And Lizzie?...0%!!! Look, you've been posting about this for awhile now and I don't think, at this point, you're going to change any minds. You can have your say and spout all you want, but I'm sure the majority on this site, disagree.
Click to expand...

So, reading is fundamental...I didn't say he voted with Democrats 99.99999% of the time, I said he could and the moonbats still wouldn't vote for him.

And, I don't mind not following the herd. At one point in time, most people thought the sun revolved around the earth. Doesn't mean they were right.
 
Billsail said:
Please refer to his voting record. As cekim posted, he's 56 to 57% Republican. And Lizzie?...0%!!! Look, you've been posting about this for awhile now and I don't think, at this point, you're going to change any minds. You can have your say and spout all you want, but I'm sure the majority on this site, disagree.
Click to expand...

It's less than that. If you compare his voting record to someone like John Kerry he voted the same about 50% of the time. You also have to keep in mind that many of those votes are not "key," meaning they're routine votes that pass almost unanimously or aren't partisan issues. All in all it's somewhat less than 50% depending on how you want to define "key." it might not be quite as bad as 10% but less than half is pretty pathetic.
 
Interesting article from ABC, Cekim. This is the money quote from Brown:

"I wanted to make it very clear that I will be voting for cloture. But that, in fact, does not mean I support the actual bill when it comes to a vote,” said Brown in a quick speech on the Senate floor, his second. “As I said when I first came here, I believe in process and I believe that we should have an opportunity after full and fair debate to move bills forward and hopefully send back a product that we can all live with,” he said.
Click to expand...

Translation: I'd do and say anything to get reelected. Yeah, Scott sure has an impressive set of principles. [rolleyes]

And seriously, how many moonbat votes did this get him? They're going to switch their votes based on this cloture vote, right? [rolleyes]
 
Cardinal Ximinez said:
So, reading is fundamental...I didn't say he voted with Democrats 99.99999% of the time, I said he could and the moonbats still wouldn't vote for him.

And, I don't mind not following the herd. At one point in time, most people thought the sun revolved around the earth. Doesn't mean they were right.
Click to expand...

You have been saying you wouldn't vote for Brown for several months now. That's fine, your choice,but please, trying to convince a conservative/libertarian (for the most part) forum, is a task you will fail at. With all due respect, your Eminence, vote as wish, but don't complain if you don't like the outcome.
 
jasons said:
It's less than that. If you compare his voting record to someone like John Kerry he voted the same about 50% of the time. You also have to keep in mind that many of those votes are not "key," meaning they're routine votes that pass almost unanimously or aren't partisan issues. All in all it's somewhat less than 50% depending on how you want to define "key." it might not be quite as bad as 10% but less than half is pretty pathetic.
Click to expand...

If those votes are not "key", and are non partisan, then who cares? And as pathetic as 10% is (I feel it may be more than that), it's still better than 0%! I sometimes feel I'm being "trolled" here! I can't believe some of you feel this way!!
 
Billsail said:
You have been saying you wouldn't vote for Brown for several months now.
Click to expand...

How does the saying go? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Listen, I voted for Brown. Donated to his campaign. Went to a few of his rallies to show support. I really thought the guy might be a breath of fresh air. However, I think it's pretty clear that he's just a politician. And, if you're just a politician, by definition, whether you're conservative, moderate, or liberal, you're not good for the country.

Billsail said:
That's fine, your choice,but please, trying to convince a conservative/libertarian (for the most part) forum, is a task you will fail at.
Click to expand...

Well, I'm actually not trying to convince anyone, just providing my opinion. However, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean I should stop, and that seems like your clear implication.
 
Billsail said:
If those votes are not "key", and are non partisan, then who cares? And as pathetic as 10% is (I feel it may be more than that), it's still better than 0%! I sometimes feel I'm being "trolled" here! I can't believe some of you feel this way!!
Click to expand...

You're not being trolled (at least not by me.) I just have a really hard time finding the silver lining while I'm getting bent over by our "friend of the second amendment." Is he the lesser of two evils? Yes. Is that enough to make be hold signs or pull out my checkbook again? Hell no.
 
Cardinal Ximinez said:
How does the saying go? Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Listen, I voted for Brown. Donated to his campaign. Went to a few of his rallies to show support. I really thought the guy might be a breath of fresh air. However, I think it's pretty clear that he's just a politician. And, if you're just a politician, by definition, whether you're conservative, moderate, or liberal, you're not good for the country.



Well, I'm actually not trying to convince anyone, just providing my opinion. However, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean I should stop, and that seems like your clear implication.
Click to expand...


I stated it was "fine" that you post as you do. I only "implied" that it wouldn't be easy to influence anyone here, who has already made their mind up.
 
Well, it look's like EC was right:
Today's GOA bulletin said:
Anti-gun Amendment Passes

One extremely troubling amendment to the bill was slipped in on a voice vote. Sponsored by Republican David Reichert (“C” rated by GOA), the amendment instructs the Government Accounting Office to:

“Conduct a study of the ability of State and local law enforcement authorities to verify the validity of licenses or permits, issued by other States, to carry a concealed firearm.”

Nowhere in the Constitution is there even a hint of authority for the federal government to “study” the exercising of a right. Even worse, you can be sure that anti-gunners will use any excuse, including this study, to push for some type of national carry license.

The bill now heads to the Senate, where GOA is already working with key Senators to address ALL of the problems with the bill. GOA is also working with Rep. Paul Broun (R-GA) on legislation, H.R. 2900, that takes a constitutional approach to concealed carry recognition.
Click to expand...

ETA: Link
 
Last edited:
Just got off the phone speaking with a Brown representative in DC and he is indeed against HR 822. According to person I spoke with "he's concerned about criminals getting guns". Rubbish!
 
i agree that this bill, while a good theory, is flawed... this country need a concise, clear, reasonable process for licensing law abiding citizens. our 2nd amendment is a national right, not a state right and a federal cc license makes the most sense. the difference form state to state with laws is disturbing, especially for those of us in northeast who can cross 4 borders in a few hours of driving. not to mention the expense. it costs me $200 to renew in ma & ct. which, while that isnt horrible, it is pathetic that we have to pay anything to observe a right that our forefathers felt was 2nd only to free speech... sen brown was sent to washington to represent the people of MA and in case noone has noticed, this state is very liberal. im politically independent and think the republican party is a joke almost more than the democrats. scott brown is gonna have a hard time winning ma because he puts a R next to his name and soo many in ma just blindly follow the D's.
 
this country need a concise, clear, reasonable process for licensing law abiding citizens.
Click to expand...
they do already

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Click to expand...
Doesn't really get any more clear or concise IMHO
 
joshh said:
i agree that this bill, while a good theory, is flawed... this country need a concise, clear, reasonable process for licensing law abiding citizens. our 2nd amendment is a national right, not a state right and a federal cc license makes the most sense. the difference form state to state with laws is disturbing, especially for those of us in northeast who can cross 4 borders in a few hours of driving. not to mention the expense. it costs me $200 to renew in ma & ct. which, while that isnt horrible, it is pathetic that we have to pay anything to observe a right that our forefathers felt was 2nd only to free speech... sen brown was sent to washington to represent the people of MA and in case noone has noticed, this state is very liberal. im politically independent and think the republican party is a joke almost more than the democrats. scott brown is gonna have a hard time winning ma because he puts a R next to his name and soo many in ma just blindly follow the D's.
Click to expand...

I don't know about you, but I've had my license since I was born, and this is what it looks like.

billofrights.jpg
 
Cardinal Ximinez said:
Let me tell you why I don't understand the appease "everyone strategy". There's not one damn thing Scott Brown could do that would swing moonbat voters short of resigning tomorrow and letting Deval Patrick appoint his Democratic successor. Vote with Democrats 99.99999999% of the time and those people won't vote for him.

So, basically, Scott Brown is pandering to a constituency that will NEVER, EVER vote for him while depressing the turnout of moderates and conservatives, who would vote for him. In the meantime, he's screwing us just slightly less than Liz Warren would if she held the seat today. What a great stategy, huh? [sad2]

And you know what, if Scott Brown would "turn more conservative" after the election, what does that say about him as a person? It says he basically has no principles and isn't fit to govern anyway.
Click to expand...
******
Brown is a LTC in the Ma.Guard. He went thru Infantry Officer Basic Course w/a few Officers I know. They told me is was a good Officer and a good guy. That makes him heads and tails above Lizzie no matter what he has done since. He worked his way thru college and law school while serving in the Guard. Over 30 yrs. Military service. Not many citizens have that on their resume. I met him twice when he was in the IG office. He came to the field when we were on AT and asked us if we had any problems or concerns and told us if we needed to talk to him privately to call anytime. He gave us a POC directly to him. I didn`t even know who he was at the time.
 
Last edited:
rwl1955 said:
It`s not unexpected. He`s running for re-election against a uber liberal moonbat who would have beat him up if he supported the bill. I have already sent him an email telling him how disappointed we are in him. I will still support him because, as I`ve stated previously, he`s a Republican and he drives the liberal Dems crazy because he`s in Teddy`s seat. Would you rather have Lizzie Moonbat in the seat?
Click to expand...

But he IS effectively a flaming liberal if he votes like this. May as well show him and other pussy RINOs what will happen to phonies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

3 House Democrats file bill to ban 50 caliber rifles
2
Replies
42
Views
1K
T-Unit
T
Maine: Only One Vote Needed to Kill Waiting Periods
Replies
7
Views
390
whacko
whacko
Kennedy is a no vote.
2 3 4
Replies
98
Views
2K
HARRYM
H
Bill H.4139
2
Replies
39
Views
2K
Ron Jablonski
R
Nebraska lawmakers pass bill that would allow smaller school districts to arm staff members
Replies
0
Views
69
Reptile
Reptile
Back
Top Bottom