If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Boston.com)   Scott Brown refuses to debate Elizabeth Warren because it turns out that Ted Kennedy's wife is a Democrat   (boston.com) divider line 137
    More: Asinine, Democrat Party, Vicki Kennedy, Kennedy family, Tom Brokaw, NBC Nightly News, Harvard Law School, refuses, President John F. Kennedy  
•       •       •

3204 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Jun 2012 at 5:11 PM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



137 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-19 05:35:28 PM

AntiNerd: ArkAngel: I see no problem with refusing to participate in a debate where the head of the sponsoring organization endorsed my opponent

He didn't require those terms in 2010. He's scared now.


there are other debates scheduled
 
2012-06-19 05:36:25 PM

what_now: cameroncrazy1984: Great. She hasn't. Why isn't he debating?

Because his entire campaign platform is "I have a truck, and could theoretically be a moderate, even though I've voted with the GOP 99% of the time", and his opponent was a state debating champion at age 13.


That is untrue.

http://www.opencongress.org/people/voting_history/412384_Scott_Brown

His partisanship record is 71%. That puts him on par with Olympia Snowe and slightly more partisan than Susan Collins as well as makes him less partisan than 97 other senators including all Democrats.

Now that you've been corrected, I'm sure you'll change your opinion.
 
2012-06-19 05:36:58 PM
It must suck being the most vulnerable member of your party's coalition. No one wants to sit next to the red shirt.
 
2012-06-19 05:39:19 PM

Mrbogey: Brown

His partisanship record is 71%. That puts him on par with Olympia Snowe and slightly more partisan than Susan Collins as well as makes him less partisan than 97 other senators including all Democrats.

Now that you've been corrected, I'm sure you'll change your opinion.


Yes, but *which* votes did he break party lines on? Was it only ones where the republicans were going to lose anyways? Was he ever the deciding vote, or did he ever choose to break party ranks even if the 'other' side *wasn't* going to win? (Vote to break fillibuster even if there weren't going to be enough votes to break fillibuster, etc).
 
2012-06-19 05:40:33 PM

FormlessOne: He can't win in a public forum, and he knows it


uhhh, you do know that he is the incumbent right? that he won is a public forum before?
 
2012-06-19 05:42:32 PM
RUN COWARD
 
2012-06-19 05:44:34 PM
Is this the only debate?

Also, debates most often provide little insight into anything.

You'd do just as well to decide your vote by who has the hottest daughters.
 
2012-06-19 05:45:24 PM

Felgraf: Mrbogey: Brown

His partisanship record is 71%. That puts him on par with Olympia Snowe and slightly more partisan than Susan Collins as well as makes him less partisan than 97 other senators including all Democrats.

Now that you've been corrected, I'm sure you'll change your opinion.

Yes, but *which* votes did he break party lines on? Was it only ones where the republicans were going to lose anyways? Was he ever the deciding vote, or did he ever choose to break party ranks even if the 'other' side *wasn't* going to win? (Vote to break fillibuster even if there weren't going to be enough votes to break fillibuster, etc).


So "99%" is just slang for "only the votes I think are important".

Did you know 99% of the time people think you're moving the goalposts?
 
2012-06-19 05:46:39 PM

Mrbogey: Felgraf: Mrbogey: Brown

His partisanship record is 71%. That puts him on par with Olympia Snowe and slightly more partisan than Susan Collins as well as makes him less partisan than 97 other senators including all Democrats.

Now that you've been corrected, I'm sure you'll change your opinion.

Yes, but *which* votes did he break party lines on? Was it only ones where the republicans were going to lose anyways? Was he ever the deciding vote, or did he ever choose to break party ranks even if the 'other' side *wasn't* going to win? (Vote to break fillibuster even if there weren't going to be enough votes to break fillibuster, etc).

So "99%" is just slang for "only the votes I think are important".

Did you know 99% of the time people think you're moving the goalposts?


Did you know that 100% of the time, my name isn't what_now?
 
2012-06-19 05:46:39 PM
There is not ONE vote he has made that would have mad a difference that he didn't vote with the GOP.

He voted to block DADT repeal even though he said he was for the repeal. He does this all the time says one thing but then voted with the GOP but then says he was tricked, or votes against the GOP but only when his vote actually doesn't make any difference.

It's all BS and what's sad is much of Mass. is falling for it.
 
2012-06-19 05:47:36 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: FormlessOne: He can't win in a public forum, and he knows it

uhhh, you do know that he is the incumbent right? that he won is a public forum before?


where he could lie about what he would do in congress. Now that his voting record showed he lied it might be harder to make those lies work again.
 
2012-06-19 05:48:16 PM

Mrbogey: what_now: cameroncrazy1984: Great. She hasn't. Why isn't he debating?

Because his entire campaign platform is "I have a truck, and could theoretically be a moderate, even though I've voted with the GOP 99% of the time", and his opponent was a state debating champion at age 13.

That is untrue.

http://www.opencongress.org/people/voting_history/412384_Scott_Brown

His partisanship record is 71%. That puts him on par with Olympia Snowe and slightly more partisan than Susan Collins as well as makes him less partisan than 97 other senators including all Democrats.

Now that you've been corrected, I'm sure you'll change your opinion.



Not so fast there, Sparky Link
Republican Scott Brown supported Republican obstruction of measures that had the backing of at least 50 Senators - measures that failed but would have passed on an up-or-down vote - 40 times out of 53 roll call votes, or 75.5% of the time. In other words, during his tenure in the U.S. Senate, when Republican Scott Brown was faced with a choice between bipartisan leadership and partisan obstruction, Brown chose partisan obstruction over bipartisan leadership 3 to 1.

Eleven of the thirteen votes Republican Scott Brown took in opposition to Republican obstruction of a measure with majority support occurred after Elizabeth Warren officially filed papers to form her Senate campaign's exploratory committee on August 18, 2011. Obviously, this event gave Brown clear political motivation to artificially distance himself from his Republican colleagues.

Perhaps the most revealing finding of the study - the metric that best indicates how Republican Scott Brown will vote in the U.S. Senate in 2013 and beyond should he win re-election - is that, prior to the formation of Elizabeth Warren's Senate campaign exploratory committee on August 18, 2011, Brown voted in support of Republican obstruction of measures with majority support a resounding 30 out of 32 times (93.8%).
 
2012-06-19 05:48:43 PM
God damn you Republicans are complete and total pussies.
 
2012-06-19 05:48:51 PM

improvius: RUN COWARD


t3.gstatic.com

I HUNGER
 
2012-06-19 05:49:04 PM

Mrbogey: Felgraf: Mrbogey: Brown

His partisanship record is 71%. That puts him on par with Olympia Snowe and slightly more partisan than Susan Collins as well as makes him less partisan than 97 other senators including all Democrats.

Now that you've been corrected, I'm sure you'll change your opinion.

Yes, but *which* votes did he break party lines on? Was it only ones where the republicans were going to lose anyways? Was he ever the deciding vote, or did he ever choose to break party ranks even if the 'other' side *wasn't* going to win? (Vote to break fillibuster even if there weren't going to be enough votes to break fillibuster, etc).

So "99%" is just slang for "only the votes I think are important".


No for every vote were it would of mattered he voted with the GOP, even on bills where he said his position was the opposite like DADT.
 
2012-06-19 05:49:51 PM

Felgraf: Mrbogey: Felgraf: Mrbogey: Brown

His partisanship record is 71%. That puts him on par with Olympia Snowe and slightly more partisan than Susan Collins as well as makes him less partisan than 97 other senators including all Democrats.

Now that you've been corrected, I'm sure you'll change your opinion.

Yes, but *which* votes did he break party lines on? Was it only ones where the republicans were going to lose anyways? Was he ever the deciding vote, or did he ever choose to break party ranks even if the 'other' side *wasn't* going to win? (Vote to break fillibuster even if there weren't going to be enough votes to break fillibuster, etc).

So "99%" is just slang for "only the votes I think are important".

Did you know 99% of the time people think you're moving the goalposts?

Did you know that 100% of the time, my name isn't what_now?


heehee
 
2012-06-19 05:55:04 PM

Felgraf: Did you know that 100% of the time, my name isn't what_now?


When you get on the field to play the game, you can't move the goalposts still.
 
2012-06-19 05:56:30 PM

Mrbogey: Felgraf: Did you know that 100% of the time, my name isn't what_now?

When you get on the field to play the game, you can't move the goalposts still.


he didn't plant the posts, he's free to set his wherever he likes
 
2012-06-19 05:56:44 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: FormlessOne: He can't win in a public forum, and he knows it

uhhh, you do know that he is the incumbent right? that he won is a public forum before?


First of all, Elizabeth Warren is no Martha Coakley. Second, he's doing worse BECAUSE he is an incumbant and has an actual record to defend.
 
2012-06-19 05:57:40 PM

Corvus: No for every vote were it would of mattered he voted with the GOP, even on bills where he said his position was the opposite like DADT.


I understand that's the argument, but the problem is, you want a Democrat. Saying he votes with the Republicans most of the time is a problem to you... because you want a Democrat. If it was a Democrat in that seat and they voted Democrat literally 99% of the time and not this "99%" figurative nonsense, you wouldn't have a complaint.

He's more moderate than any Democrat as evidenced by his votes... but again, you want a Democrat, not an independent moderate. I just want some honesty here.
 
2012-06-19 05:57:43 PM
Curious , does anyone even bother to read the article anymore?

They are scheduled to debate several times with other moderators. He's just refusing to a debate that is being held by someone who is going to be endorsing his opponent.
 
2012-06-19 05:58:49 PM

skullkrusher: he didn't plant the posts, he's free to set his wherever he likes


He latched onto the 99% figure and continued the argument. Do you understand how arguments work? If he idn't support an argument, he would have crafted a new one and not tried to continue an old one.
 
2012-06-19 05:59:38 PM

CujoQuarrel: Curious , does anyone even bother to read the article anymore?


No. This is a Fark politics thread. No one reads the article. This is more of a support group than a discussion group.
 
2012-06-19 06:00:45 PM
Why does anyone give a fark about Vicky Kennedy and what she thinks? She is not running and is obviously going to endorse the Democrat.
 
2012-06-19 06:03:24 PM

Mrbogey: skullkrusher: he didn't plant the posts, he's free to set his wherever he likes

He latched onto the 99% figure and continued the argument. Do you understand how arguments work? If he idn't support an argument, he would have crafted a new one and not tried to continue an old one.


he didn't "latch" onto the 99% figure. He did argue that Brown voted in a partisan fashion when his vote counted. He evolved the argument. The 99% figure is provably false. I understand how arguments work. You don't get to accuse someone of moving the goalposts unless they planted them in the first place.
 
2012-06-19 06:03:41 PM

Mrbogey: When you get on the field to play the game, you can't move the goalposts still.


When discussing bipartisanship, asking about the context of the votes that he 'voted on the other side with' isn't exactly moving the goalposts.

Or, oh, do you expect me to demand the hyperbole of 99%?!?!?!1111one.

Is today one of the days where hyperbole and figures of speech are taken as if they were statements of fact and intent again? I always get those confused.
 
2012-06-19 06:06:54 PM
Brave Sir Brown ran away.

Bravely ran away, away.

When danger reared its ugly head,

He bravely turned his tail and fled

Yes, Brave Sir Brown turned about

And gallantly he chickened out

Bravely taking to his feet

He beat a very brave retreat

Bravest of the brave Sir Brown

Petrified of being dead

Soiled his pants then brave Sir Brown

Turned away and fled.

Bravely good Sir Brown was not at all afraid

To have his eyeballs skewered ...

... and his kidneys burnt and his nipples skewered off
 
2012-06-19 06:09:00 PM
FTFA "We respect Vicki Kennedy's decision but we regret that we cannot accept a debate invitation from someone who plans to endorse Scott Brown's opponent," Brown Campaign Manager Jim Barnett said in a statement. "The Kennedy Institute cannot hold itself out as a nonpartisan debate sponsor while the president of its board of trustees gets involved in the race on behalf of one of the candidates."

I have no problem with this.
 
2012-06-19 06:09:08 PM

Mrbogey: not an independent moderate.


He's not exactly very independent.
 
2012-06-19 06:15:22 PM

Felgraf: Is today one of the days where hyperbole and figures of speech are taken as if they were statements of fact and intent again? I always get those confused.


Feel free to tag everything you post with "not intended to be a factual statement".

Scott Brown's record is one that doesn't favor the narrative of him being a partisan republican.

skullkrusher: I understand how arguments work.


Citation needed.
 
2012-06-19 06:18:06 PM

Mrbogey: He's more moderate than any Democrat as evidenced by his votes... but again, you want a Democrat, not an independent moderate. I just want some honesty here.


I think MA voters want someone who will vote for the positions they care about. Scott's voting record on some magical board of "liberal vs conservative" is hardly germaine. In this case, many of his liberal votes he opposed the bills in the early stages publically and then voted for them when it became clear they would pass no matter which way he voted. He also suddenly started voting more liberally when he was faced with a credible challenger, which calls into question his actual beliefs on those votes, and questions if he would continue doing so if he were not under pressure. On things that are very important to a lot of (generally liberal) MA voters, like DADT, he chose to be as conservative as they come.
 
2012-06-19 06:18:08 PM

Corvus: tenpoundsofcheese: FormlessOne: He can't win in a public forum, and he knows it

uhhh, you do know that he is the incumbent right? that he won is a public forum before?

where he could lie about what he would do in congress. Now that his voting record showed he lied it might be harder to make those lies work again.


which is exactly 0bama's problem.
 
2012-06-19 06:25:21 PM

Emposter: FTFA "We respect Vicki Kennedy's decision but we regret that we cannot accept a debate invitation from someone who plans to endorse Scott Brown's opponent," Brown Campaign Manager Jim Barnett said in a statement. "The Kennedy Institute cannot hold itself out as a nonpartisan debate sponsor while the president of its board of trustees gets involved in the race on behalf of one of the candidates."

I have no problem with this.


Then explain why MSNBC isn't suitable as a debate broadcaster.
 
2012-06-19 06:26:01 PM

Mrbogey: Citation needed.


this thread. Not hard, my friend. The 99% conversation had been refuted, the point of Brown's partisanship was still up for discussion. He brought up the circumstances under which Brown voted this way or that. A legitimate question to determine how independent Brown was according to his voting record. You accused him of moving goalposts because you wanted to pretend the debate had been won - he hadn't planted those goal posts.
 
2012-06-19 06:28:02 PM

Mrbogey: Felgraf: Is today one of the days where hyperbole and figures of speech are taken as if they were statements of fact and intent again? I always get those confused.

Feel free to tag everything you post with "not intended to be a factual statement".

Scott Brown's record is one that doesn't favor the narrative of him being a partisan republican.

skullkrusher: I understand how arguments work.

Citation needed.



Can you show me the votes when he wasn't a partisan?
 
2012-06-19 06:33:26 PM
suggest a neutral location?
 
2012-06-19 06:33:28 PM

Mrbogey: Feel free to tag everything you post with "not intended to be a factual statement".



What?

Again, 100% of the time, I'm not what_now. Whatnow was the one that posted the 99% thing. Please point to where I've engaged in hyperbole, or stating that *my own posts* are not intended to be a factual statement?

Do you have some sort of internet-version of face blindness?

I shall try to lay out how this has gone.
(NOTE BECAUSE APPARENTLY THIS IS NECESSARY: THIS IS A SLIGHTLY HUMOROUS SUMMATION. ONLY THE PART IN BOLD AT THE END IS A DIRECT QUOTE. LOUD NOISES.)
What_now: "Brown is partisan! He votes for the republicans 99% of the time!!"
You: "Hold on! He actually votes with the republicans X% of the time, showing he's not super-partisan."
Me: "Actually, that doesn't necessarily mean he's not super-partisan. We'd have to look at the context of the votes where he voted with the democrats, etc etc etc.
You: "OMG MOVING GOALPOSTS."
Me. "Uh. No. Also I don't think the 99% thing was meant to be true, just hyperbole."
You: " Feel free to tag everything you post with "not intended to be a factual statement".
 
2012-06-19 06:33:40 PM

FormlessOne: Emposter: FTFA "We respect Vicki Kennedy's decision but we regret that we cannot accept a debate invitation from someone who plans to endorse Scott Brown's opponent," Brown Campaign Manager Jim Barnett said in a statement. "The Kennedy Institute cannot hold itself out as a nonpartisan debate sponsor while the president of its board of trustees gets involved in the race on behalf of one of the candidates."

I have no problem with this.

Then explain why MSNBC isn't suitable as a debate broadcaster.


were you watching their broadcast during the 2010 shellacking?
 
2012-06-19 06:36:05 PM

keithgabryelski: suggest a neutral location?


gotta be outside Massachusetts. Not fair to debate in a place with an Native American name.
 
2012-06-19 06:38:12 PM

Tyrano Soros: Can you show me the votes when he wasn't a partisan?



The votes are on the page I linked to.

skullkrusher: this thread.


Tautological victory.

skullkrusher: He brought up the circumstances under which Brown voted this way or that


Yes, the "important" votes. A nebulous self-certified standard. Keep in mind, if you set that standard as cloture, then 50% would be right even for going either way. He's a Republican. Can you be surprised that roughly 3/4 of the time he's voting with his party on a narrow metric? Should Democrats who voted 100% for cloture be lambasted for partisanship?

Like I said, the problem you have is Scott Brown is a Republican. You want a Democrat. But there's no need to paint your political enemies as stubborn partisan idiot cowards because it makes you feel better.
 
MFK
2012-06-19 06:42:55 PM
Scott Brown voted for my student loan interest rates to go up because he didn't want to close a tax loophole that allows wealthy business owners to dodge their taxes (By filing as an S-Corp). I called his office and to their credit they did engage me for about 10 mins to discuss it, but the answer i got was "Senator Brown is introducing his own bill to pay for it by ending improper payments to dead people"

Which. Never. Happened.

But it was really telling. Scott Brown would rather risk sticking the middle class with higher student loan payments than close a tax loophole that rich people use to skip out on their tax obligation.
 
2012-06-19 06:43:14 PM

Mrbogey: Yes, the "important" votes. A nebulous self-certified standard. Keep in mind, if you set that standard as cloture, then 50% would be right even for going either way. He's a Republican. Can you be surprised that roughly 3/4 of the time he's voting with his party on a narrow metric? Should Democrats who voted 100% for cloture be lambasted for partisanship?


you really don't see the importance of knowing how he voted AND for what to determine whether he acted in a moderate fashion? No one would expect Brown to vote 100% for the Democrats or even 50/50. However, it is necessary to know the circumstances of his votes against the GOP (and with them) in order to judge his partisanship. Did he cross the aisle on any contentious issues? Did he side with the Dems when it was a closely contested vote? Did he vote for progress or obstructionism? If so, how often for each? That's important. Not absolute %s this way or that
 
2012-06-19 06:44:46 PM

ArkAngel: I see no problem with refusing to participate in a debate where the head of the sponsoring organization endorsed my opponent


You seem confused. He has demanded that a private individual agree in advance not to endorse a candidate, or he will not take part. He wants to restrict another person's political free speech. You are okay with that?
 
2012-06-19 06:45:24 PM

skullkrusher: gotta be outside Massachusetts. Not fair to debate in a place with an Native American name.


martha's vineyard?

Mrbogey: Like I said, the problem you have is Scott Brown is a Republican. You want a Democrat. But there's no need to paint your political enemies as stubborn partisan idiot cowards because it makes you feel better.


context of his votes is more important than numbers. If liberals put forth 99 votes that were about naming bridges and parks after people, and 1 vote about giving marriage equality and Brown joined them on the 99 "meaningless" votes and opposed them on the 1 important vote, thats an important thing to consider when you decide to case your vote. MA voters by and large tend to be liberal (compared to the nation at large) so it should be no surprise that they care if one of their senators is voting with their opinions. Its not Dem vs. Repub. If the majority of MA residents were communists, they'd expect their senator to support important communist ideals.
 
2012-06-19 06:46:06 PM
Scott Brown refuses to debate Elizabeth Warren because it turns out that Ted Kennedy's wife is a Democrat he knows he would get his ass handed to him.
 
2012-06-19 06:48:16 PM

CujoQuarrel: Curious , does anyone even bother to read the article anymore?

They are scheduled to debate several times with other moderators. He's just refusing to a debate that is being held by someone who is going to be endorsing his opponent.


Everybody knows that. they want to know why. It is not normal and customary to make such a demand, nor have I ever heard of it. For all my life, politicians of all stripes participated in debates held by various groups - notably the League of Women Voters - and I have never heard of any politician , however conservative, refusing to participate in their debates.
This is no different than Mayweather requiring that Paquiao meet a condition that is not normal and customary, and refusing to fight him if he doesn't. It makes it obvious that he's ducking a fight.
Looks the same here. Got any answers?
 
2012-06-19 06:53:34 PM

jso2897: This is no different than Mayweather requiring that Paquiao meet a condition that is not normal and customary, and refusing to fight him if he doesn't. It makes it obvious that he's ducking a fight.


the oddest part is that Brown did this to himself. he could just have said "meh, 2 boston based TV debates is more than i want to do. 2 televised debates are enough- one in eastern and one in wastern MA." issue over. By making this wierd, never-going-to-happen requirement to appear at the kennedy center, he forced this controversy (from which he comes across looking petty and afraid)
 
2012-06-19 07:03:04 PM
I had no idea Scott Brown was such a chicken sh*t.
 
2012-06-19 07:10:13 PM

gaspode: ArkAngel: I see no problem with refusing to participate in a debate where the head of the sponsoring organization endorsed my opponent

You seem confused. He has demanded that a private individual agree in advance not to endorse a candidate, or he will not take part. He wants to restrict another person's political free speech. You are okay with that?


She wants something from him that he is not obligated to do. He is perfectly within his rights to attach a condition
 
2012-06-19 07:14:55 PM

tenpoundsofcheese: FormlessOne: Emposter: FTFA "We respect Vicki Kennedy's decision but we regret that we cannot accept a debate invitation from someone who plans to endorse Scott Brown's opponent," Brown Campaign Manager Jim Barnett said in a statement. "The Kennedy Institute cannot hold itself out as a nonpartisan debate sponsor while the president of its board of trustees gets involved in the race on behalf of one of the candidates."

I have no problem with this.

Then explain why MSNBC isn't suitable as a debate broadcaster.

were you watching their broadcast during the 2010 shellacking?


Please humor us as to how Tom Farking "TEH GREATEST GENERATION" Brokaw is a librul cheerleader interchangeable with Ed Schultz. And none of your usual deflection bullshiat, either. Don't change the subject...lay it out for us.

Really...Brokaw? The vapid corpse NBC reels out of storage on election night to provide rich historical voice-overs on the ways "Reagan made us stand tall"? Librul...plant. They're really goin' with this line, eh?
 
Displayed 50 of 137 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report