Scott Brown: Progressive Republican

[mrjarrell]

Bwahahaha. The Republicans have got another weasel in sheep's clothing amongst their number. And they call this a victory. He's for national health care, just not the Democrat version, although he like parts of it. He also thinks gun owners should be licensed.

YouTube - We are past campaign mode

On The Issues

 

[dburkhead]

Considering that this was Massachusetts Scott Brown counts as a raving reactionary.

 

[Waveraider]

Did you notice in his acceptance speech, he would not call himself a Republican. He's the best your gonna get from Looneyville.

 

[CarmelHP]

Bwahahaha. The Republicans have got another weasel in sheep's clothing amongst their number. And they call this a victory. He's for national health care, just not the Democrat version, although he like parts of it. He also thinks gun owners should be licensed.

This is news. Where have you been for the last week?

https://www.indianagunowners.com/fo...sing_key_symbolic_senate_seat.html#post785061

 

[antsi]

He's about as conservative as you can get in Massachusetts without bursting spontaneously into flames.

Which is to say, just to the left of Trotsky.

 

[HICKMAN]

I agree with him on more things than I disagree.

Coming from THAT state, I am quite happy.

 

[Phil502]

I think he'll do, I don't know if it's gun owners or concealed carriers that he wants to be licensed.
Is it a victory? Damn right it is, I hear all the Dems crying now that they don't have the votes to shove everything their little lefty brains desire at us.
Some of those opinions are old, who knows where he stands now.

Your link says:

 

[pudly]

Bwahahaha. The Republicans have got another weasel in sheep's clothing amongst their number. And they call this a victory. He's for national health care, just not the Democrat version, although he like parts of it. He also thinks gun owners should be licensed.

I don't understand what the problem is. He is much better than the alternative. Did you actually read the information at the link that you provided?

• He has vowed to vote against the current health care abomination.
• He believes in treating terrorists as enemy combatants instead of common criminals.
• He's not perfect on gun issues, but he isn't an anti.
• He believes in a default of joint custody after a divorce, so he isn't beholden to NOW.
• He opposes cap-and-trade.
• He believes that cutting taxes and govt spending is a better way to generate jobs than taxing and "stimulating".

He won't be the most conservative member of Congress, but he is far better than the alternative. Are you actually for accepting only perfect candidates? If so, then you are no friend of those that want to increase conservative/libertarian values in Congress. There is a reason that politics is called the "art of the possible". Scott Brown was a total win for conservative/tea party values. May we have many more such victories in November.

 

[SavageEagle]

Almost all the republicans are for healthcare reform. Just not the Dems version. Take out gov. funded abortion, keep the medicare the same, lower the tax hike or even it out amongst all citizens and they're on board. Yep, that's really the options I was rooting for...

We'd be better off if the government left it alone PERIOD.

 

[HICKMAN]

We'd be better off if the government left it alone PERIOD.

I wouldn't say that. Insurance companies are playing dirty and the requirement for Dr.'s to have crazy amounts of coverage for bogus lawsuits can be fixed. Defensive medicine sucks as well, Dr's shouldn't have to give 50 tests to protect themselves.

Insurance Co's should not be able to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition.

 

[SavageEagle]

I wouldn't say that. Insurance companies are playing dirty and the requirement for Dr.'s to have crazy amounts of coverage for bogus lawsuits can be fixed. Defensive medicine sucks as well, Dr's shouldn't have to give 50 tests to protect themselves.

Insurance Co's should not be able to deny coverage to someone with prior coverage on the basis of a pre-existing condition.

Well, for one, if the government didn't have so many laws that brought about successful lawsuits, that would take care of that problem.

Then, if people stopped buying insurance from companies that made poor decisions like you describe, that would force insurance companies to rethink such things.

The unregulated free market can be a very powerful and fair thing.

However, the way it sits now, sure, things could be changed. But not like this. Not with this train wreck they call reform. But is the answer really going to be more laws and regulation? Honestly, I'm not sure. All indicators point to no. That less laws are the answer. But that's just my humble opinion.

 

[CVictor]

He's for healthcare reform, not national healthcare. Start with tort reform and go from there, good thing in my opinion. His victory in Massachusetts likely saved our country, and also came at the perfect time and has [hopefully] opened Obama's eyes. This was a clear "*%^& you" to the current administration, and it came from the very people that were most likely to support our theiving, overpowered dem leaders. Now they know, change your ways or we will kick you out in a heartbeat.

 

[rambone]

Lesser of 2 evils... better than Ted Kennedy.

Baby steps............

 

[schafe]

Lesser of 2 evils... .

Is that like the Cream of the crap?

 

[littletommy]

Lesser of 2 evils... better than Ted Kennedy.

Baby steps............

+1 most definately!

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

A lesson learned from California - politics can make partners out of the darndest folks...

For part of my VERY early childhood, I lived in Bishop, CA. on the Eastern side of the Sierras. It's a rugged and beautiful area. There were folks there that were extremely conservative that had grazed cattle on the land and settled it. There were also a bunch of hippies and environmentalists and conservationists. Most of the time, one would expect these two groups to disagree. And they did - big time.

Then came LA Water and Power. They built pipelines and literally sucked the Owens Valley dry. In the middle of the last century, water wars and other skirmishes happened. And hippies, environmentalists and ranchers worked together in the face of the greater threat from LAWP. In the end, the LAWP won, but the lesson on who fought together has stuck with me.

In the face of the greater threat from the idiots currently in power - we would do well to work together with allies of the moment. We may not always agree with them, but on TODAY's issues (fiscal conservatism and less government) we do. Rather than calling them names (like RINO) we would do well to accumulate friends. If we wind up disagreeing on how FAR to go, then so be it. At least we got closer to a smaller gubbamint than it is headed for today.

 

[rambone]

In the face of the greater threat from the idiots currently in power - we would do well to work together with allies of the moment. We may not always agree with them, but on TODAY's issues (fiscal conservatism and less government) we do. Rather than calling them names (like RINO) we would do well to accumulate friends. If we wind up disagreeing on how FAR to go, then so be it. At least we got closer to a smaller gubbamint than it is headed for today.

We will take whatever friends we can get in order to stop Obamacare and Cap & Trade. We allied with the Soviets in order to stop the Nazis. At the time, Stalin was the lesser of two threats we faced.

 

[SavageEagle]

We will take whatever friends we can get in order to stop Obamacare and Cap & Trade. We allied with the Soviets in order to stop the Nazis. At the time, Stalin was the lesser of two threats we faced.

Be careful what you wish for. You might vote in someone that is completely against the HCB and C&T, but also be extremely anti-gun, religion, whatever.

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

SE - That's the point - WE didn't vote him in... Massa-freaking-chusetts did... and that's a VERY different place than Cornfield, Indiana!

Our choice is limited to this: Do we make friends with him? Or call him a RINO and alienate him.

I would argue that sometimes you have to call 'em tough. I wouldn't trust Obama or Rahm or Harry Reid at ALL... They have their motives and they are snakes in the grass. They can respectfully go shove as far as I'm concerned.

That said, the Senator-Elect from Mass. does not appear to be that to me... While I would likely go further than he might in many areas (and may flat out vehemently disagree in some areas...) we're at least going in _roughly_ the same direction, for now. And that's sufficient - FOR NOW....

If I insisted that everyone had to agree even 90% with me (or SCREW 'em!), my world would be a lonely place...

 

[SavageEagle]

I know, but I'm just saying be careful what you wish for. They campaign on a lot of things and then never deliver.