Think McConnell (we have one agenda-to defeat the president) being in charge of the senate again....think he works across the aisle?

Elizabeth Warren is absolutely right; Sending Brown back to the Senate risks giving control of the Senate to the Republicans. Given the disasters that we've all witnessed from Republican control of the House, turning over the Senate to them as well would be a horrendous mistake. Brown may be occasionally "bipartisan" when it doesn't really matter, but his party is extreme on every issue, and he would have (and has had) no effect whatsoever on his party's regressive policies and actions. Elizabeth Warren will be a great senator... I hope Massachusetts does the right thing by sending her to the Senate, both because of her own abilities and perspectives, and because electing her makes the Republican takeover less likely.

Bipartisan? Is that how you viewed his up-front racist attack on Warren, by inviting the viewer to determine her race by the color of her skin?

According to MA's largest pro-life organization, it is supporting Brown because -- quote:

"He says he's pro-choice, but he always votes pro-life."

Your kind of liar?

I disagree, Mr. Rose. Warren seems quite sincere at trying to reach common ground with the other side. Look back at her work in chairing TARP. That was a crisis that required bipartisan work. Whatever you think of that program, she did play well with the other side in that (doesn't mean they always agreed, but they all got it done).

Also, Brown's voting record leaves much to be desired by way of bipartisanship. Just look at the jobs bills. On very important items like this, he's fallen in lock-step with party politics and the "one term president" leadership of Mitch McConnell.

If Scott Brown's voting record showed that he ACTUALLY was bipartisan, I might agree with you. However, he is very much a straight-party voter. He TALKS bipartisan, but votes Republican.

I would think that given the irresponsible behavior of Republicans in Congress that you would not make such a comment--Republicans in Congress rejected almost every effort President Obama made to work with them to solve the problems they created when they controlled the executive and congress. The President was naive in thinking that those who bought down the economy would be willing to work in a bi-partisan manner to fix it--they made it worse and added insult to injury by creating an unprecedented congress defined by its refusal to work corporate. He ironically created doubt in the minds of many by the debacle he allowed Republicans to create in his efforts to forge a “bi-partisan” Congress. Republicans never did for those 8 years under the leadership of President G.W Bush.
Ms. Warren needs to go on the attack and play Chess, like a Republican, be Machiavellian, how many Republicans do you know that win by being intellectually astute, charming and genteel? It is not they modus operandi. Put on your battle armor Elizabeth and win this one for us, it is your legacy.

I think part of the reason Obama isn't more popular because of how far he was willing to go to make deals with the republicans, it was unbelievable! But the republicans wouldn't deal. They could've played Obama like a violin but they were too damn insecure, how much Obama was willing to be give away was again unbelievable, but the republicans could not do it. Any real politicians have got to be turning in there grave, any real politicians would've taken all Obama gave then took the credit for themselves. But those infants were too insecure or just not politicians. Make no mistake Obama's a moderate republican, Obamacare is a republican health care plan born and bred, a big payday for private insurance. But he's a hell of alot better than the other option. To get an idea of how insane this all is, think of George H W Bush, whose mother was the head( like chairperson of the board or something) of planned parenthood in Conn., (that means G W Bush's grand ma) they nick named H W "rubbers' remember? In the primary race against Reagan? H W was all pro-birth control, pro-choice, moderate republican? Un-fricken-believable. He could barely be a democrat now.

I'm a lifelong independent and as soon as Scott Brown named Antony Scalia as his judicial role model, my vote went to Warren. Antony Scalia-if he has his way, women would still be clerks doing the bidding of men.

Brown's first move was to invite you to determine Warren's race based upon her skin color.

So, let's get it straight: Brown "schooled" the professor on how to use divisive racist politics for political advantage?

JNagarya,
Warren used race for her political advantage. Brown called her out on it.

Ajax

JNagarya,
Warren used race for her political advantage.
_____

Substantiate that refuted slander, crackpot.

Brown is independent of independent thinking. And dependent on Wall St.

Negative ads? Atr the very beginning of the debate, right out of the box, and repeatedly, Brown invited you to determine Warren's race by the color of her skin.

Most view racism -- and his couldn't have been more blatant and obvious -- as despicable and unacceptable. But there is a small minority that views racism as a compliement to the target of it.

Come on Peter. Consensus among the pundits has been pretty clear, as have all of the polls about the debate. Your comments clearly reflect the level of thought you are bringing to the table here. Bi-partisanship is a virtue and the way this country has governed itself for most of the 236 years of its existence, save for maybe the last 15 years. Your comments about his role as the representative of the National Guard make no sense at all. He is a Colonel in the National Guard. Who better to represent them in Washington. Are the issues of national defense not a matter of importance to a U.S. Senator? Really?

Brown, out of the gate, was brazenly racist, in effect saying: "Look at her. You can determine her race by the color of her skin."

The low-information teanuts will eat it up. But the MA electorate that is Republican is 11 per cent.

Congratulations on reiterating Warren's talking points. Too bad that's all she has.

Sheep.

Warren didn't seem to understand that was a debate, not just an opportunity to say "Big Oil!" "Millionaires and Billionaires" every time the camera was pointed her way.

Dan Brunelle

With all due respect, the fact that she won't release those records is clear indication that she is caught in a lie.
_____

1. Personnel records are protected by privacy laws, and for good reason: they can contain information that is both non-controversial and none of your business.

2. That such records are not released does not mean there is something nefarious in that fact; and it is intellectually dishonest to insist that there is, especially in view of the fact that you don't know that there is.

3. Objective investigators with no interest in the issue have refuted the speculative allegations about the contents of those records.

4. Tax returns _are_ relevant to the evaluation of a candidate for public office. I'm sure you're all up in arms about Mitt "Offshore Banker" Romney's refusal to release his tax returns -- especially in view of the fact that his wife _publicly admits_ they contain information that would be embarrassing to Mitt "Offshore Banker" Romney.

Mark

Congratulations on reiterating Warren's talking points. Too bad that's all she has.
_____

I see you've memorized the empty rhetoric that says nothing fed you by the entertainers in the FOX sewer.

"Many say" that watching the FOX sewer destroys brain cells, lowers IQ, and causes Alzheimer's. You've obviously achieved the first two milestones.

Congratulations.

Dan Brunelle

"Bi-partisanship is a virtue . . . ."

Standing one's ground and constantly repeating the one word mantra "NO!" as have the Republicans in Congress since That black Guy got elected is not bipartisanship. It is holding the economy hostage.

If it were bipartisanship, Brown would have hyped the REPUBLICAN jobs bill. He didn't because there is no Republican jobs bill. Perhaps there would be if they weren't so busy sitting on those submitted by President Obama.

"Your comments about his role as the representative of the National Guard make no sense at all."

G. DUI Bush was in the National Guard (during the 1960s it was a way to avoid the draft and overseas service). But that didn't affect his patriotic loyalty: he illegally invaded and occupied non-threatening Iraq on lies, and cut VA funding during wartime in order NOT to support the troops.

Brown's opening -- his repeated _ad hominem_ attack on Warren, both ignoring the fact that the "basis" of his attack has been entirely refuted, and inviting the viewer -- "Look at her" -- to determine Warren's race based upon the color of her skin -- was about as bottom-of-the-barrel, classless, and partisn as one could be.

His racism is not moderate or anywhere near centrist; and his use of it to dogwhistle his estremist Teanut base was unmistakable.

"Consensus among the pundits" is irrelevant when they fail to distinguish between fact and fiction, truth and lie. And how many of those pundits cited and condemned Brown's blatantly overt racism? Is the blatant, overt use of racism acceptable to those pundits?

Bipartisanship is not a virtue when one of the two parties have been deliberately holding the gov't hostage, and underming the economy, with the sole purpose of blaming the consequences on President Obama in pursuit of their declared goal -- their only goal: to limit President Obama to a single term.

And the proof of that refusal to be bipartisan is the lack of answer to this question:

Where is the REPUBLICAN jobs bill?

With all due respect, the fact that she won't release those records is clear indication that she is caught in a lie. This issue could have been put to rest months ago - its very simple. Let's see, if I am any one of the individuals named by Ms. Warren as backing up her story, would it be in my best interest to acknowledge that I approved an affirmative action hire that was inappropriate? There is one simple document that can prove the point. Sure seems that when it came time for Harvard to list their affirmative action statistics that this information was readily available. I wonder where they might have obtained that data? Perhaps its personnel records. Occam's razor: The simplest explanation is usually the right one.

Out of the gate, first up, Brown did the predictable: personal attack, which is a revelation of HIS character.

Worse, that attack was blatantly racist: he in effect said, "Look at her. You can determine her race by her skin color."

That will work with the 11 per cent of the MA electorate that is Republican -- especially the 101st Chairborne Teanut Brigade. But the polls show that the majority don't consider her heritage -- which has been thoroughly vetted -- an issue.

No it is not. It's not at all an indication that she's caught in a lie. Personnel records are extremely detailed and would by their very nature include all sorts of fodder for petty attacks. There's too much risk inherent in releasing them and no upside. Harvard and U. Penn have already refuted the veracity of her employment having anything to do with her Native American heritage. There's no need for any more proof than that. This has already been investigated (http://articles.boston.com/2012-09-16/news-politics-senate/33864132_1_native-american-elizabeth-warren-cousins/3). There's no need for her to show her damn birth certificate either.

These kind of attacks are meant to distract from things that actually matter. It's a shame they work. Just do this simple thought experiment - if it were Brown, would you care about this? I sure wouldn't.

"These kind of attacks [on Warren's racial heritage] are meant to distract from things that actually matter."

More important than their use to distract is their use to pander to the racist core of the Republican Party. And Brown consciously implemented that practice when he reatedly and blatantly invited the viewer to determine her race by looking at her skin color.

At the same time as he was attacking her over that which the majority of those polled viuew as irrelevant, he was omitting mention of the fact that Mitt "Offshore Banker" Romney is refusing to release his tax returns -- which is relevant -- and has defended Romney's refusal to do so.

Racists will reveal who they are by perpetuating that attack upon the irrelevant.

When all is said and done, strength of character is the one thing you can rely upon. A candidate either has it or she doesn't. We already know Warren misrepresented her minority status to obtain favorable treatment, to suggest she was innocent in the fabrication is disingenuous at best, she is a highly trained lawyer. She knew what she was doing and why.
She who rails against the high cost of college and the burden it puts on kids today while she cashes her $350,000 for teaching a few hours a week - and doesn't see any connection between the two? Seriously?
Brown may not represent me on all the issues, but Warren is a hypocrite and is clear about that right up front.

"John

"When all is said and done . . . [w]e already know Warren misrepresented her minority status to obtain favorable treatment . . . ."

Except that we don't know, which is why Brown --

1. Ignored the fact that we know, from independent investigation, that she did not; and,

2. Demands that she prove she didn't by releasing records which are none of his business,

3. Despite the fact that polls show that the majority of the electorate don't care about the issue.

And as I demonstrated -- using Brown's invitation to determine Warren's race based upon her skin color -- only racists are concerned with this non-issue, therefore -- as do you yet again -- belabor an issue that is a red herring, an ad hominem, settled, and irrlevant.

What does matter, John, is Mitt "Offshore Banker" Romney's refusal to release his tax returns -- his own wife admits they contain information that would be embarrassing to him -- especially as one must wonder what sort of faith in America he has, and how well founded his attacks on those who don't pay taxes are, in view of the established fact that he avoids paying taxes by hiding his money in the Caymans and Swiss banks.

If he has nothing to hide, why then is he hiding it?

We don't need bipartisanship in Washington on "my way or the highway" Nitfch McConnel's terms. We need a Democratic party that remains centrist against the extremist right-wing Republicans.

As for Warren's racial heritage, who cares? Only racists concern themselves with that non-issue.

Meanwhile, Mitt "Offshore Banker" Romney refuses to release his tax returns, and the Republicans are defending that. Let's turn it around, hypocritical puppies:

If Romney has nothing to hide, then why is he hiding it?

And the 47 per cent of the electorate he rejects and insults? It obviously includes corporations, such as General Electric, that pay zero taxes.

Absolutely. I knew warren would just spew the unrelenting, hateful rhetoric that the extreme, collectivist, redistributionist, big State Marxists always use. Their methods are easily found in Saul Alinsky's book," Rules for Radicals".
We need less big government taxes and regulations that stifle innovation and growth.
Warren's entire argument is "he's for the millionaires and billionaires and i'm for the middle class". What a load of crap. She, obama and the dems have been hammering the middle class for decades by enslaving us on the government plantation of promised freebies, handouts and the bigotry of low expectations.

"ann merritt .

"Absolutely. I knew warren would just spew the unrelenting, hateful rhetoric that the extreme, collectivist, redistributionist, big State Marxists always use." -- blah, blah, blah.

Name-calling doesn't rise to argument. It does achieve a childishness of approximately 3 1/2 years old, though. You sould be proud -- but don't stop now: you could achieve 4 by next August.

But tell us: how do you know so much about Marxism? By being a Marxist?

Meanwhile: Economics IS redistribution. Here's how it works:

If I give a dollar to a "Libertarian," it is "economic growrth."

If a "Libertarian" gives me a dollar, it is "redistribution".

Of course, a "Libertarian" wouldn't give anyone anything -- at least not without usurious markeup -- so I'll put it this way:

If you buy a candybar from a retailer for a dollar, you are redistributing your dollar from your purse to the retailer's cash register.

Economic activity IS redistribution. No redistribution, no economy.

". . . . does not believe in global warming . . . ."

"Religion" is an issue of belief; science, and the science of global warming, is not.

. . . .brown is a Catholic and has been pro choice and a moderate republican his entire life. . . ."

When the largest pro-life organization in Massachusetts endorsed Brown, it gave as its reason -- verbatim quote:

"He says he's pro-choice, bur he always votes pro-life."

You tell me: In view of the fact that pro-lifers keep obsessively close tabs on who votes how on their issue,

Who is lying?

Brown was condescending and overly agressive -- especially with his first move, which was _ad hominem_, personal attack, which is revelatory of HIS character: guttersnipe.

And the substance of that attack -- and he repeated and repeated it again and again -- was to invite the viewer to look at Warren, and thereby determine her race based upon her skin color.

By contrast, Warren was calm and assertive, making her points without calling Brown that he made clear about himself: racist, and basing his racist dogwhistles to his racist Teanut base on a refuted lie.

Really? Interesting. If Scott Brown ever held himself up to be a minority and arguably may have used that to benefit his professional career but could present no proof, this race would have been over months and months ago. The media in this state and the democrats who have crucified him. His question is absolutely valid. She didn't just offend conservative Indians.

Only racists are concerned with "provong" one's race. So they support Brown's blatantly racist attack: "Look at her. You can determine her race by the color of her skin."

Meanwhile, Mitt "Offshore Banker" refuses to release his tax returns.

If Romney has nothing to hide, then why is he hiding it?"

Dan Brunelle

". . . . If Scott Brown ever held himself up to be a minority and arguably may have used that to benefit his professional career but could present no proof, this race would have been over months and months ago."

There is no "arguably" about it: the ALLEGATIN that she used a minority status to get ahead was thoroughly investigated by those who don't have skin in the game and REFUTED.

"The media in this state and the democrats who have crucified him."

Did Brown tell you he's a multi-millionaire while attacking Warren's financial success -- an attack Brown's political party disavows even when that isn't being done by Democrats?

"His question is absolutely valid."

Her race is irrelvant -- except to racists. The polls find that the majority of the electorate views it as irrelevant.

"She didn't just offend conservative Indians."

Correct: she offended those who determine the relevance of political issues based upon racism.

"we have too many Harvard types in the public arena" = There are too many educated people in the Democratic party.

I was insulted by his inviting you to judge her race by her skin color.

And am not amused that you fell for that blatant pandering to racism.

Brown attacked Warren's economic success -- but omitted stating the fact that he's a multi-millionaire as proof of his competence.

And his racism: the polls show that the majority don't require either religious or racial tests of politicians. His blatant racism -- "You can determine her race by looking at her skin color" -- is worse than a non-starter.

Not merely cheap and irrelevant; blatantly racist.

Can one, in reality, determine a person's race by looking at their skin color, as he said we should do?

JN - Wasn't it Liz who based her claim of Native American heritage on her family's observations of her "high cheekbones" - which she said "proved" the heritage her grandmother denied?

"John

"JN - Wasn't it Liz who based her claim of Native American heritage on her family's observations of her 'high cheekbones' - which she said 'proved' the heritage her grandmother denied?"

So you didn't watch the debate, despite your having dishonestly implied that you did.

I'm not going to entertain your race-basd confabulations.

The debate is probably available online -- youtube, whatever. Let us know what she actually said after you've actually watched it.

The largest anti-choice organization endorsed Brown within the last two weeks, sayi they do becasue --

"He says he's pro-choice, but he always votes pro-life."

My only disappointment with non-politician Warren is that she didn't put that in his face -- and in front of the viewers.

Lack of integrity? You must mean Brown's racist comments that one can determine a person's race by looking at their skin color.

Well, informedly, and objectively stated.

Many people have looked at Brown's voting record, but apparently YOU have not. He's ranked as the 2nd most bi-partisan in the senate, and the Maine delegation might as well have D after their names.

"Mark

"[Brown is] ranked [by whom besides Brown?] as the 2nd most bi-partisan in the senate . . . ."

Exactly: he has cooperated with the obstructionist Republicans and anti-compromise Teanuts in their continuing to hold the economy hostage in hopes of blaming President While Black Obama for the consequences.
.
Luckily the Congress hasn't toal control over the economy, so it is recovering despite their efforts, though more slowly than it would were they not anti-American zealots who put their Party of Treason before the interests of country and reason.
____

". . . and the Maine delegation might as well have D after their names."

You mean they are _actually_ bipartison, not instead constantly obstructionist behind the smokescreen that is your disingenuous rhetoric on the point?

Is the condition of your stomach a legitimate, objective political issue? Or is it subjective excuse to engage in personal attack?

Warren is not responsible for Harry Reid's behavior. Neither is Warren -- or Reid -- responsible for Brown's blatantly racist personal on Warren by inviting you to determine her race by her skin color.

Meanwhile, Romney continues to refuse to release his tax returns, even though the demands that he do so aren't racist.

You clearly are one of the 47%. Why don't you stop reading these comments and go get a job.

"John Adams

"You clearly are one of the 47%. Why don't you stop reading these comments and go get a job."

Not-so-by-the-way: John Adams was OPPOSED to racism and slavery. You sully his name.

The 47 per cent _Mitt "Offhsore Banker" Romney_ is not about the unemployed -- though he was doing his Republican dogwhistle racism with the intent that it meant that, and therefore meant "insuffiicently white". (It's so easy to ferret out racists: just point to an instance of it, and one or more will come out guns a'blazin' in denial/defense of it.)

The 47 per cent is those who don't pay Federal (income) taxes -- which is the only part Romney got right. Those included in that percentage are corporations such as General Electric. And active duty military in such as Afghanistan. And elderly retirees who paid taxes all their working life. And working poor who fall below the Federal poverty line -- and who pay taxes other than Federal income tax.

And it is legitimate to suspect that Mitt "Offshore Banker" Romney refuses to release his tax returns because they show that HE pays no taxes.

Tip: Know what you're talking about before popping off.

And leave out John Adams: I don't appreciate gratuitous insults against my heroes by the history-illiterate.

The point of having affirmative action standards is to alleviate the damage done to minorities by prejudiced individuals or groups. In order to suffer this discrimination someone must make a judgement about you based on how you look - You may look like a woman; a jew; an Asian; etc. Clearly the only thing you could discriminate against Warren for is being a woman. There are American Indians out there who have suffered negatively because of their heritage. Warren dishonors all who support civil rights by taking a spot meant to ameliorate real suffering. It doesn't matter if she has native American blood or not. Clearly being native American has never been a drawback for her.

I only saw part of this debate, so I didn't see this particular exchange. However, I get his point. She does not deserve to refer to herself as a "Woman of color"

As far as past employers saying that her alleged heritage had nothing to do with her hiring......how could the say otherwise?

Brown brings it up because it illustrates a sneakiness that some of us find offensive. It may not be a big deal to you that she checked that box, but it's a big deal to me.

The "only" problem with the following is that there is absolutely no substantiation for the smear against Elziabeth Warren, but there is refutation of it by those who know the record and Warren:

BostonMaggie

"The point of having affirmative action standards is to alleviate the damage done to minorities by prejudiced individuals or groups. In order to suffer this discrimination someone must make a judgement about you based on how you look - You may look like a woman; a jew; an Asian; etc. Clearly the only thing you could discriminate against Warren for is being a woman. There are American Indians out there who have suffered negatively because of their heritage. Warren dishonors all who support civil rights by taking a spot meant to ameliorate real suffering. It doesn't matter if she has native American blood or not. Clearly being native American has never been a drawback for her. I only saw part of this debate, so I didn't see this particular exchange. However, I get his point. She does not deserve to refer to herself as a "Woman of color" As far as past employers saying that her alleged heritage had nothing to do with her hiring......how could the say otherwise? Brown brings it up because it illustrates a sneakiness that some of us find offensive. It may not be a big deal to you that she checked that box, but it's a big deal to me."

You only saw part of the debate -- so don't know what you're talking about. Brown showed he is overtly racist.

"Vincent Caristo

"Whether or not Ms Warren has Native American ancestry is not the real issue."

Correct: that's why Brown made it an issue in order to pander to his racist base.

Now let's critically evaluate your irrationality:

"The issue is Afirmative Action. Giving anyone special benefits based upon racial heritage is racist by definition."

Actually it isn't, per the conservative majority on the US Supreme Court.

"To accept the benefits that were in place to help those who were discriminated against is as bad or worse."

There's your irrational contradition -- and negation of your own assertion:

First you falsely assert that Affirmative Action is racist -- contrary to the Law of the Land -- and therefore wrong. Then you pretend a sympathy for an hypothetical individual who was "discriminated against" by not being given his due in accordance with Affirmative Action law.

". . . . I wish Senator Brown had spent more time focusing on . . . Ms Warren's salary of 325, 000 . . . ."

You have no problem with Brown omitting the fact that he's been in politics for most of his adult life, and as result is a multi-millionaire, while at the same time he is attacking Warren's relatively modest financial success?

"David Costello

"JNagarya...Once again you are wrong but truly showing your Ultra left wing colors."

This is not "Ultra left colors," or ideology. It is law, in the Constitution:

Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress [not private citizen gun-nuts] shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.

". . . . I am a Veteran of the US Army and true believer of our Constitution and Bill of Rights" -- yada-yada-hogwash. Art. I., S. 8., Cs. 15 and 16 are law, not "Ultra left color," or ideology; and "true believing" is for "religion," not rule of law.

"the insurrections spoken of were the fear they had of the British and German citizens that decided to stay here in this country."

Was Daniel Shays British? or German? His rebellion was suppressed by the Massachusetts-Bay militia directed by the legislature and Sam Adams.

And the Whiskey Rebels, suppressed by Federalized militia lead by George Washington were British? or German?

You are illiterate in the actual history of the era, and the Founders views. But tell us anyway: where was and by whom was the Bill of Rights written?

Because America needs to realise that the Federal Government is becomming more of an over-reaching strong armed "neighborhood" bully.

First the Patriot Act then the clandestine signing of the NDAA with its new and undefined "verbage". When will the rape of our freedom end. Thank God the UN Small Arms Treaty failed!

I cringed every time I heard our Madame Secretary lauded.

Another gun-nut who hates Constitution and laws, his ignorance of which demolishes any claim to be a "responsible gun owner:

"David Costello

". . . the Federal Government is becomming more of an over-reaching strong armed 'neighborhood' bully. . . . . Thank God the UN Small Arms Treaty failed! . . . ."

US Constitution, Art. I., S. 8., C. 15. The Congress shall have Power To provide for calling forth the Militia to . . . SUPPRESS INSURRECTIONS.

Your fantasy about the purpose of gun ownership was criminalized by the Founders as being TREASON.

Otherwise, "God" had nothing to do with the alleged defeat of the Small Arms Treaty; it was the out-of-control gun industry that is only about selling more guns this year than last, and more next year than this. It's all about THE MONEY.

The purpose of that "Treaty" is to prevent clandestine arming of dictators, criminal regimes, terrorists and other criminals. Within the year, Al Qaeda issued a video instructing would-be terrorists in the US to exploit the Gun Show Loophole because it eliminates paper trails, and is a conduit for selling guns to criminals.

JNagarya...Once again you are wrong but truly showing your Ultra left wing colors.

I am an American.

I am a Husband and Dad.

I am a Veteran of the US Army and true believer of our Constitution and Bill of Rights such as many of our Veterans are. I have seen combat and have put my life on the line so that people like you can spin your views and speak out loud without fear of reprisal.

I don't hate the Constitution, I cherish it. I am saddened as I see a President who takes pleasure in shredding our rights. Yes, I thank God that the treaty failed. Have you read it?

Our Gun laws would be stricter, at a civillian level, than those applied in England or Canada. The purpose of the proposed treaty was to also disarm the American people. This is not fantasy...our military personnel are and have been training for this sceniro for 20+ years now.

I'm a "gun-nut"? Why? Because I feel I can defend my family and property? Because I feel that by NOT exercising my Second Amentment right makes me "little better than a common criminal"?

Oh, btw, the insurrections spoken of were the fear they had of the British and German citizens that decided to stay here in this country. They were afraid of an attempted coup. I take personal offense to your last post. Your left-wing ranting leaves me filled with the urge to deifcate and wondering if I spent my time in the service to this country all for not.

The "voucher" proposal concenring Medicare -- the honest word being "privatization" -- would bankrupt Medicare before we got to the "vouchers".

The Republicans have opposed the existence of Medicare, and have continuously attacked it, for at least the last thirty years. Now they want us to believe they are about saving it?

I have a collection of bridges for sale. Anyone who believes that those who hate Medicare are instead about saving it, are offered a special deal on their choice from among those bridges (first come, first served!).

I'll even be "Libertarian"/Republican/Teanut in my dealings on this specific offer by ignoring all moral, ethical, and theological admonitions against and condemnations of greed and usury.

You mean registered as an independent? From your other comments it doesn't look like you vote that way.

I agree that it was brilliant that his very first move was to both reveal his character by engaging in personal attack -- the most successful means by which to convince sports metaphor morons that one is a winner -- and immediately suck in the racists by issuing his invitation to determine Warren's race based upon the color of her skin.

He obviously captured your support on both points.

Scott Brown: 1
Timothy Crawford: 0.

Heh. Agree. I find it amusing. Also, why don't you wake up JNagarya?!

Because were I to wake up it would get EXTREMELY hot for Republican'ts, Teanuts, "Libertarians," gun-nuts, racists, white supremacists, neo-Nazis, John Birch fringers, Paulists, LaRouchites -- etc.

I'd rather treat them with understanding, compassion (but as conservatively -- parsimoniously -- as possible), and the tender kindness one extends to neglected children and orphans as I've so far been doing.

Taxmageddon! Don't worry Joseph, all you good conservatives will be raptured. It's us liberals that are 'left behind' that should be worried.

It's unfortunate Jay that you don't realize it's about the economy. Everyone should concern themselves about fiscal responsibility. As an individual, we're not allowed to get into debt beyond our means, why should our governing body be allowed to do the same? That's all I'm saying.

Get the economy fixed, then address social programs. Social programs were addressed, and look where that got us. Some debt is good. Trillions of dollars of debt is not good!!

It's unfortunate that I don't realize it's about the economy? What else don't I know Joseph? I should take a class from you. Oh what I could learn from your acerbic regurgitations of Fox News.

I've stated several times Jay, I get my news from multiple services. As should everyone!! I don't bother with FoxNews, so please, enough of that lame come back. Is "FoxNews" all you can say when I bring up the broken US economy? It's unfortunate that people can't see the trouble we're in.

My point is simple - the economy of the United States is in trouble. Nobody wants to accept that. Nothing to do with right or left or middle. Until the economy is fixed, we're all screwed.

I don't recall ever having said that to you before, but apparently it irritates you. My apologies. I wouldn't want someone accusing me of watching MSNBC, so I take it back. The counterpoint I was making (via sarcasm, in response to your pretense that you possess some superior knowledge), was also simple - I have heard of the economy. That's the thing where you can tell someones future based on what month they were born in.

"Joseph

"Everyone should concern themselves about fiscal responsibility. As an individual, we're not allowed to get into debt beyond our means, why should our governing body be allowed to do the same? . . . . Get the economy fixed, then address social programs. Social programs were addressed, and look where that got us."

The Buh tax cuts are not social programs; rrather, they are deliberately intended to starve and destroy the social programs -- inclluding Social Security and Medicare.

You'd know that if you didn't swalllow the sewerage fed you by the pro-corporate NON-economists in the FOX sewer.

Repeal the Bush tax cuts and in very short order a significant percentage of the debt/deficit vanishes -- anti-tax FOX sewer propaganda notwithstanding.

I've stated several times Jay, I get my news from multiple services. As should everyone!! I don't bother with FoxNews, so please, enough of that lame come back. Is "FoxNews" all you can say when I bring up the broken US economy? It's unfortunate that people can't see the trouble we're in. My point is simple - the economy of the United States is in trouble. Nobody wants to accept that. Nothing to do with right or left or middle. Until the economy is fixed, we're all screwed."

Except that your rhetoric is obviously wingnut:

You omit the cause of the fiscal crisis -- Bush tax cuts, and deregulation of Wall St. -- the result being that you offer no solutions. To offer solutions would require that you identify the casuses -- but you won't do that. Better to blame Democrats than admit that the "job creators" are sitting on trillions -- raked in as result of those tax cuts -- but NOT hiring.

Wingnuts, i love it. Again, someone who isn't liberal is a wingnut.

Lawyers shouldn't be running the country, businessmen/women should. It's a business. I think politicians on all sides can't put their ego in check to represent the people, not themselves.

Don't forget, Warren is worth over $14MM, yet doesn't consider herself a 1%, doesn't consider herself wealthy, nor do her little indian princesses. That's always confused me.

How many billions has the auto industry paid the government back? I know Wall Street paid back their loans. Auto industry? Airlines? Hmm...Union chiefs still getting paid.

Deregulation of Wall Street was during the Clinton era, or so I recall. You need to blame the regulators, not a particular party.

Tax code is flawed. Double taxation on investments. Ridiculously high corp tax rates. Why hire a lazy work force that feels entitled to big money jobs without having to work for it? I know several people getting jobs. I'm guessing, if you don't have a job, you bring nothing to the table, your act is as transparent as your posts, or you blow at interviewing.

You remind me of the character in Good Will Hunting, you know, the hipster pony tail wearing doosh that spews regurgitated thoughts of others. I don't mind the criticism for my somewhat shallow posts, but what exactly are your bringing to this conversation, other than negatively commenting on every single post that supported Brown? You sound angry.

"Joseph

"Joseph

"Wingnuts, i love it."

Yes: the ego-centric love to be the center of attention.

" Again, someone who isn't liberal is a wingnut."

That's the wingnut view: that there are only two opijnions: "liberal" and "wingnut". Thank you for substantiating my statement of the fact.

"Lawyers shouldn't be running the country,"

Right: that's the wingnut view: non-lawyers who don't know how the gov't functions -- wingnuts -- and don't know anything about law -- wingnuts -- should make the laws.

That's smart. To wingnuts.

"businessmen/women should. It's a business."

Gov't is not a business, because gov't isn't only about economics and budgets. It's also about quality of life -- the General Welfare -- which falls outside the pathological and monomanic obsession with money and greed.

But tell us: how's it workin' out for that theory that Harvard MBA G. DUI Bush crashed the economy as result of treating gov't as exclusively a business?

A simple Google search of your screen name tells me your a "Progressive Liberal". Allow me to correct my statement, Democrats that are closed minded to other points of view call those with different POVs wingnuts. Did you work for Chuck Turner? I bet you thought he was innocent.

It's obvious, your book smarts puts blinders on your forward thinking. I would have assumed, based on you being a lawyer, you watched some hearings discussing the financial collapse of US markets. I did. Daily. You're right, the government isn't a business. But I say, it should be run as a business, especially when we're in the hole $16TR+. Big difference.

You have lawyer types (you), writing laws about the financial industry, an industry that they have NO IDEA how it works, dictating how financial markets should operate. You ever listen to these politicians (lawyers)? I'm guessing no, because as an educated man, you would agree with me. They BELIEVE they are smart enough to run a country, but they aren't. Lawyers are here to practice law, not balance a budget.

Clinton=NAFTA=loss of American jobs.
Clinton=deregulation=financial collapse.
Regulators=lawyers=no clue what they are overseeing=financial collapse.
Auto Industry=Where's all the money?

General Welfare. Ok. I counter by saying the general welfare for those willing to work, retired, elderly.

You're an angry lawyer and judging by your repetitive posts about racism, a racist as well. G'day angry lawyer racist man.

Yes: he pursuaded those who (1) already vote wingnut, and (2) are copacetic with his blatant racist invitation to determine Warren's race based upon the color of her skin.

And that -- the latter especially -- was obvious regardless whether one watched the debate, or listened to it on Wingnut Radio.

Let's be not only clear but intelligent and psychologically mature:

If you haven't seen a record, regardless the record, then you don't know what is in the reocrd. FULL STOP.

That being objective fact, it is obviously intellectually dishonest -- or simply low-IQ unintelligent -- to pretend one does know.

As for the "Travelers" case: Tell us how it works that you, not having an eduction in law, know better how law works than those who do have such education.

Or tell us why you believe a multi-millionaire who doesn't know the case, over the person he has a biased interest in both accusing, and attacking for her financial success.

Right: Brown invited you to determine her race based upon the color of her skin, and you jumped at the opportunity to do so.

A hammer has utility. Alas, so does Brown's blatant pandering to the basest of his base: the proud racists.

"Joseph

"You are SOOOOO angry dude!!"

I'm not the issue, Mr. Ad Hominem.

"And what exactly is the problem with being an opportunist?"

Those ignorant of moral and ethical limits see no problem with being an opportunist. Pickpockets are opportunists. Picking pockets is illegal -- except among pickpockets.

"Working hard for something and achieving a goal feels great!!"

As indicated, opportunists are cheats. Cheating is immoral, and often illegal.

"Life to short to be so angry dude."

You're projecting. And I won't make-friendly based upon your offer of a corrupt set of "rules" premised upon illiterate's personal attack.

"Patriotic" wingnuts -- identifiable because they invoke the Constitution so often they haven't time to read it -- have no problem with elected officials putting their oath of loyalty to unelected private citizen Norquist ahead of their oath to support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States, so long as they "win" by uncompromisingly undermining the Constitution and laws.

Bill, I hate Grover. I've also been reading and watching several that have signed that BS are backing away. I could honestly see Brown saying, "Hey, I agree Grover, but right now, we need to fix these problems."

". . . . I could honestly see Brown saying, 'Hey, I agree Grover, but right now, we need to fix these problems.'"

Are you paid to be stupid -- and oblivious? Or are you stupid for free?

Is it you -- or Brown -- you are suggesting is honest?

The very first debate move by "congenial nice-guy" Brown was to invite the viewer -- _you_ -- to determine Warren's race based upon the color of her skin.

And you want to pretend the guy isn't a Republican, therefore an opportunist, just like Romney, who deliberately uses -- just like Romney -- dogwhistle pandering to his racist base?

And we're to believe your silence on and avoidance of those facts aren't result of your confining your media consumption to Wingnut Radio and the FOX sewer -- both of which reek of unavoidably obvious racism?

You are SOOOOO angry dude!! And what exactly is the problem with being an opportunist? You should try it. Working hard for something and achieving a goal feels great!! Life to short to be so angry dude.

She would also be correct and wise to point to the fact that the biggest pro-life organization in Massachusetts endorses Brown because -- quote --

"He says he's pro-choice, but he always votes pro-life."

The Tea Party -- which has the facts of that event wrong -- was formed by the Koch Brothers and Dick Army -- the _only_ issue getting extremist wingnuts elected -- and then orgainzed by the FOX sewer. Then the FOX sewer reported on it as if it were an independent phenomenon.

The Teanuts are exactly that I said: political illiterates. The "Party" didn't exist until and in reaction to President Obama being elected. And only two sorts of persons deny their overt racism: the blind, and the racist. Carrying placards with an illustration of President Obama with a bone thorugh his nose is racism straight out of 1950s "Jim Crow" South KKK rallies. To not know that is extraordinarily stupid. To know it and deny it is to lie.

Who, pray tell, do the Teanuts want to "take the country back" from? The MAJORITY who elected President Obama? That position would be anti-American: the US is MAJORITY-rule, not dictatorship by minority. Or from the insufficiently white guy who is being President While Black? We get it.

The Tea Party is a classic astroturf front, made up of dirt-stupid pawns -- "Keep the gov't's hands off my gov't program"!? -- and manipulated by, as said, the Koch Brothers and Dick Army for extremist anti-democratic ends.

I see that in your rant that you failed to mention anything about the "New Black Panthers" and their voter intimidation charges levied against them by the DOJ. Or how about BHO and Holder along with other high level presidentially apointed goons getting caught with their pants down with "Fast and Furious" deacle that ended the life of a law abiding American.

Yup, we certainly need a change

The Tea Party is not even on the same level as those nefarious individuals

"David Costello

"I see that in your rant that you failed to mention anything about the 'New Black Panthers' and their voter intimidation charges levied against them by the DOJ. Or how about BHO and Holder along with other high level presidentially apointed goons getting caught with their pants down with "Fast and Furious" deacle that ended the life of a law abiding American."
_____

This topic of this article is the Brown-Warren debate. But it doesn't surprise that you'd endeavor to avoid the issue -- as defense of it -- of Brown's blatant pandering to his racist base by desperately changing the subject.

Nor does it surprise that in your desperation you would dive headlong into the very cesspool of racism you wish we wouldmn't identify.

The "New Black Panthers" allegations were investigated. There was no there there.

"Fast and Furious": Begun under Bush. Investigative report released yesterday: found no basis for the allegations made by REPUBLICAN Issa against the DOJ that inherited that Bush boondoggle.

The Tea Party is, as said, comprised of political illiterates who, being racist, are easily lead around by the nose by those who use race to divide.

Only in the eyes of those sucked in by Brown's smiley-face racism.

Hmm, that's kind of funny...seeing as Scott was the one who requested the Volcker rule to be strengthened...

David Costello

Hmm, that's kind of funny...seeing as Scott was the one who requested the Volcker rule to be strengthened...
_____

The Volker rule hasn't been implemented because doing so is opposed by the Republican't party. So, if Brown requested that the Volker rule "be strengthened," it was meaningless waste of time -- except as fake cap-feather to tout as "evidence" that he's "independent" without having to worry about actually being that.

The largest pro-life organization in Massachusetts endorsed Brown because,

"He says he's pro-choice, but he always votes pro-life."

Do you also view his lying on that point as "kind of funny"?

I didn't say anything about your education, or claim to know anything about it.

What I did say is that your ignorance of law is so glaringly obvious to those who do have an education in law as almost to be a boast of chest-thumpingly proud ignorance.

And that's a new one: a person speaks to the value of education, and the necessity of knowing what one is talking about before mouthing off, and the reactionary "response" is to challenge the person's citizenship and or immigration status based upon the obvious assumption that an educated person must be insufficiently white.

Simple: in a fee-generating case the lawyer earns -- yes: _EARNS_ -- his fee regardless the ruling by the court or jury.

And: Brown failed to show how such case is relevant to the price of frozen marshmallows in Tahiti.

Stupid is so easy for the predictagbly racist.

^agreed.

That's pigment challenged Richard!! Come on man! HA!!

It's almost fun to watch those who endeavor to defend racism, based upon total ignorance of what it is, entwined with their denial of their own obvious racism, twist themselves into G. DUI Bush-like pretzels in effort to justify their indefensible defense of racism.

JNagarya
3:59 pm on Friday, September 21, 2012

"It's almost fun to watch those who endeavor to defend racism, based upon total ignorance of what it is, entwined with their denial of their own obvious racism, twist themselves into G. DUI Bush-like pretzels in effort to justify their indefensible defense of racism."
What's with this guy?He calls everyone a racist and worse names. He sounds whacked.

BARACK OBAMA CAMPAIGN CALLS BILL CLINTON A RACIST

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPNdIrnwyfE

Just a reminder

JNagarya 3:59 pm on Friday, September 21, 2012 "It's almost fun to watch those who endeavor to defend racism, based upon total ignorance of what it is, entwined with their denial of their own obvious racism, twist themselves into G. DUI Bush-like pretzels in effort to justify their indefensible defense of racism."
_____

"What's with this guy?He calls everyone a racist and worse names. He sounds whacked."

Oh -- the Marxist expert on Marxism deigns to speak to her intellectual superior!

No, sweety child, I don't call everyone a racist ("and worse names"). I've been a civil rights activist for over fifty years, so only call racist those who are racist.

As is Brown -- which statement of fact I substantiate with the cited example of his opening move: inviting the viewer to determine Warren's race based upon her skin color.

That is undeniably racist -- except to those who know it but deny it because they are racists who support racist Brown over the person against whom he revealed his racist bigotry.

Is that sufficiently clear for you, Ms. Marxist Know-it-All and Lying Mud Slinger?

Another instance of the extraordinary stupidity of teanuts as concerns racism -- beginning with their own.

Until the 1964 Civil Rights Act, and the 1965 Voting Rights Act, put a stop to "Jim Crow," in the South a person with the merest drop of "black" in him was classified, IN LAW as black, one result being denied one's right to vote. It made no difference how one looked, or the actual color of one's skin.

So yes: when Brown invited the viewer to look at Warren and determine her race based upon her skin color, he was being flatly, overtly, blatantly racist, especially but not only because he was using that -- color -- against her.

If teanuts didn't spend so much time denying the reality of racism, in order to accuse the victims of racism of being racist, they might instead learn what it is and how to recognize it -- instead of parroting the racism being fed them by far-right white supremacists.

Affirmative Action is not racist; all it does is establish protections of the equality of those who've been historically denied equality. Student selection at universities relies on a whole range of criteria, including grades and assessed potential, which are primary.

But tell us: Not having been to university, how then are you an expert on the reality of academe -- over against those who have been to univerity? THINK about it.

I agree!

Three cheers for mediocrity and deceit.

1. Placing responsibility where it belongs -- the Republican policies of massive tax cuts for those who don't need them, and deregulating Wall St. -- for the debt/deficit and economic crash is responsible, not "blaming".

2. The Bush tax cuts were premised upon the hypothesis (a theory is based on evidence, and hypothesis is not) that they would result in "job creation" by the wealthy who benefited from those tax cuts.

As result of those tax cuts, the private corporate sector is istting upon trillions -- but NOT creating jobs.

It's easy to memorize and parrot the bogus doctrinaire economics of the far-right. The problem with that practice is that it has no connection with fact or reality.

You forgot redistribution of wealth and collectivism.

You know that dynamo combination that produces high debt, low growth and poverty.

Substantiate that refuted slander, crackpot.

Name-calling is not argument. But it does reveal the character of the name-caller.

I'll assume you are a senior, and therefore a receipient of Social Security and Medicare. Therefore, according to Mitt "Offshore Banker" Romney, you pay no Federal income tax, so are one of the 47 per cent he classifies as a moocher.

In view of those facts, your defense of him proves his insult that you are a victim -- and prefer insult to respect.

JNungabunga's identity revealed:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxoWto09Oyg

1. I did a Google search for polls on the Brown-Warren debate.

2. Among the hits was "Patch," which I'd never heard of, but I noted it is local.

3. So I clicked on the link specifically to see the "poll" it carried.

4. I then began reading the comments, and saw the usual Teanut range of name-callings and assertions of unsubstantiated nonsense.

Is there something of which I should be supicious based upon those facts? How, that is, does the empty comment about "coincidental" have any relevance to anything? It would seem such apparent "suspicion," related to nothing objective or relevant, is the view of a paranoid.

And here we have a name-caller who is also a stalker --

TheMaskedTruthsayer

JNungabunga's identity revealed:
_____

Your time would be more productively spent informing yourself of the Rupert "I Illegally Hack the Private Voicemail of Murdered Children" Murdoch. That, and the huge scandal arising from it, expose the character of the sleazy foreign tabloidist Murdoch as having the ethics as a "journalist" of a guttersnipe.

Brown is bipartisan -- in word.

As the largest anti-abortion organization in Massachusetts said, when it announced its endorsement of Brown,

"He says he's pro-choice, but he always votes pro-life."

Beyond that I could point to the fundamental contradiction in "values" -- hypocrisy -- of a "Christian" organization endorsing an obvious liar, in violation of the Commandment (not "Request," not "Suggestion") authored by "God," "Thou shalt not lie," but that's already obvious to the psychologically and philosophically mature adult.

He was condescending; and that is crass and rude. And those who reject civility -- basic manners and decency -- approve it. But it isn't illegal.

What IS prohibited by law is his blatantly racist invitation to the viewer to determine Warren's race by looking at the color of her skin.

One would think that the Teanuts would defend Warren against Brown's racism based upon their constant screaming that it is WHITE people who are the actual VICTIMS of racism?

Alas, it doesn't surprise that a mediocrity such as Brown would dogwhistle his Teanut base, or that they -- as predictable as Pavlov -- would jump on and perpetuate his and their talismanic racism?

Their passionately irrational racism is the equivalent of the "Precious" with which Gollum was so monomanically obsessed. And it makes them as ugly as Gollum.

It's not only "brilliant" the way Wingnu Radio, the FOX sewer, and the politicians who crawl out of that sewer so easily play their "base"; it is also evil and destructive.

Tip to Teanuts: Hate -- you HATE alleged "Liberals" and "Leftists" -- is immoral.

Immorality is not moral superiority.

Lying is immoral. Immorality is not moral superiority.

You seem to have severe mental problems. Do they let you out by yourself?

Also. In the real world it is called deferred compensation.

"Richard McCabe

"You seem to have severe mental problems. Do they let you out by yourself?"

Personal attack noted, which is not argument, and which reveals the unseemly character of the person engaging in said attack.

"Richard McCabe

". . . . In the real world it is called deferred compensation."

Among the 47 per cent that Rmoney contemptibly insulted are retired elderly who receive their "deferred compensation" in the forms of Social Security and MEdicare _which they paid for while engaged in actual work_.

Also among that 47 per cent that Rmoney contemptibly insulted are active duty troops in Afghanistan.

Baseless hateful insult is acceptable to wingnuts because they have no respect for others, and reject every opportunity to be civil and mature in manners. For wingnuts -- "educated" in sophistic stupidity by Wingnut Radio and FOX sewer -- it's all about hate and name-calling.

Before Hitler went after the Jews, he went after and exterminated, among others, LIBERALS. Wingnut Radio and the FOX sewer's purpose is to teach their ignorant listeners to hate "Liberals". What does that tell you about those sources?

Contrasted with that is this history:

The Liberals in the Continental Congress, lead by Liberal John Adams of Massachusetts-Bay, pushed the Congress to declare independence from Britain.

Opposed were the Conservatives -- who condescendingly scoffed about and ridiculed the "radicals of Boston" and called Adams a "traitor" -- until they successfully manipulated the rules in order to get what they wanted in exchange for their support:

Preservation of slavery.

"Conservatism" surely has a proud tradition . . .

You mean calling a spade a spade, instead of politely tolerating the hateful, illiterate sewerage spewing by Wingnut Radio, the FOX sewer, and the illiterate bigots who hang on their every smear and lie?

"No, all Warren supporters are definitely NOT like JNagarya."

And how is that?

1. The name-calling and mud-slinging is all the extreme right wing ever does. If my direct and unequivocal confrontation of their constant hate-speech makes you uncomfortable, then you have problem facing those facts.

You have same option as they: attempting to refute the facts -- beginning with Brown's obvious, overt racism; or you can pretend it doesn't exist. Note that your not confronting it has not put a stop to it.

2. As a legal professional, I've been dealing directly with the swill-slinging far-right for over twenty years. Pretending they aren't what they obviously are does not pursuade them to adopt the manners of the civil. The only thing that gets their attention is being responded to in the same way they attack others -- with the exception of including the facts which refute their hateful lunatic fringe* gibberish. In so doing, I act in accordance with the Golden Rule: They do unto others as they want to be done unto. Some of us aren't afraid to take them on, expose them for what they are, and shut them up by stuffing their mouths with fact.
_____

*The traditional name for that factless faction is "lunatic fringe" -- and it is not new. That is the name for it because they are two thing: lunatic, and fringe.

You're welcome to be dainty. Knowing better, I refuse to pretend the constant foul sociopathy from that fringe will go away if ignored.

Well said. The lunatic fringe will ignore that they are consumers in order to defend the array of enemies against their interests, and reject all proof of that fact.

That extremist minority cannot be allowed to dominate, control, subvert, and pollute the mainstream discourse of the majority. I can tell you from experience that it was the ignoring of these anti-American nuts -- that is what they are -- by the majority that allowed the OK City bombing to occur. The majority had no taste for getting its hands dirty by confronting the dirty reality they are; instead they preached politeness -- and attacked those refuting the lies which were relied upon to justify and carry out that mass murder.

It's time the majority woke up -- and this includes "ann" in JP -- and stopped being morally complicit doormats for undisguised thugs who have no use for facts and truth, no use for civility, and no respect for those who -- in their view -- "wimp out" when attacked and abused by them

Note reality: those who defended Brown, and attacked Warren with racist and other unacceptable lies, began -- when their crap was exposed for what it is and refuted --to attack the messenger _because they knew they could not defend Brown, their lies in defense of him being consistently exposed and refuted_.

They must be directly confronted, their factless trash exposed for what it is, and refuted. By contrast, oblivious silence is exploited by them as agreement with them.

Personal attack noted. That I pointed out as concerns Brown's personal attacks on Warren applies also to you: it says nothing about the person attacked and everything about the person engaging in the attack.

I'm not running for office; I'm not the issue; Brown and his character and racism are the issue.

See the name "breitbart"? Had he been honest, he would have spelled it "LIAR".

Even teanuts know he was a fraud.

JNagarya,
This is not a Breitbart accusation. Elizabeth Warren admitted not having a license on the radio this morning.

Bob Samson,
When I heard this all I could do was laugh. It's surreal.

actually, your political philosophy is a progressive liberal, and a highly opinionated, closed minded one at that Mr. Angry

BUMP
A simple Google search of your screen name tells me your a "Progressive Liberal". Allow me to correct my statement, Democrats that are closed minded to other points of view call those with different POVs wingnuts. Did you work for Chuck Turner? I bet you thought he was innocent.

It's obvious, your book smarts puts blinders on your forward thinking. I would have assumed, based on you being a lawyer, you watched some hearings discussing the financial collapse of US markets. I did. Daily. You're right, the government isn't a business. But I say, it should be run as a business, especially when we're in the hole $16TR+. Big difference.

You have lawyer types (you), writing laws about the financial industry, an industry that they have NO IDEA how it works, dictating how financial markets should operate. You ever listen to these politicians (lawyers)? I'm guessing no, because as an educated man, you would agree with me. They BELIEVE they are smart enough to run a country, but they aren't. Lawyers are here to practice law, not balance a budget.

Clinton=NAFTA=loss of American jobs.
Clinton=deregulation=financial collapse.
Regulators=lawyers=no clue what they are overseeing=financial collapse.
Auto Industry=Where's all the money?

General Welfare. Ok. I counter by saying the general welfare for those willing to work, retired, or the elderly.

Mike... go ahead and do the right thing voting for Elizabeth... she does not think or sound at all like JN.... put him on ignore

"Mike Johnson

"I was going to vote for Warren until reading JNagarya comments."

No, you were not. And you admit why:

"Reminds me of the same libtard, back room theorists who brought us forced busing."

You're a racist.

"This guy makes himself look stupid by trying to sound smart,"

How about addressing the issues? You know, try to sound smart by attempting to refute the fact that Brown is overtly a racist, and a liar on his pro-life voting record?

"and then insults everyone who disagrees with him, but states someone who uses insults is showing their true character. What an IDIOT."

I don't insult everyone who disagrees with me. I do unto wingnuts as wingnuts do unto others, because wingnuts want done to them that they do to others. If you consider that insulting, then check yourself out: "libtard" is intended to be a compliment?

But tell us: how many accounts do you have here so you can pretend you have freinds?

"ann

"Mike... go ahead and do the right thing voting for Elizabeth... she does not think or sound at all like JN.... put him on ignore"

Why not lecture me on how to do law? Or how to deal with right-wing extremist thugs?

I dare you to try that libel on Warren's site.

http://www.newstalk969.com/podcast/Episodes.aspx?PID=1466

Above is the link to the Jim & Margery podcast. right now it's the top choice. In the future, look for the 9/24/12 interview w/Elizabeth Warren (44 minutes long).

Are you proud of your racism?

There's no such thing as "reverse racism".

So you oppose "race-based" laws. You'd oppose anti-lynching law based upon that premise? Do you have the slightest idea what you're talking about?

"Warren abused that racist program to get several jobs to include the one at Harvard,"

That lie has been totally refuted by those who know the facts and have nothing to gain from the issue, which is why you fail to substantiate that lie.

". . . she never would have gotten hired on her credentials as a white woman"

If being white is a "credential," then that would be racist -- correct?

Or are you challenging her credentials as lawyer and academic -- credentials you are not qualified to evaluate?

"(doesn't she look like a white woman)"

I explained this in terms of history and law: because one appears to be white is not proof one is white, or "pure" white. But hard core racists such as you aren't concerned with fact and truth. Go back to "Stormfront" where your statistically insignifant crop of crackpots can spew your baseless racist hate undisturbed by fact and truth.

And I hope "ann" can tolerate your unmitigated racism as somehow non-"rude".

Calling a person a racist who isn't a racist is name-calling. Calling a person who is obviously a racist a racist is stating a fact.

Racism is hatred.

The FOX sewer should be renamed "Republican Central".

Not-so-by-the-way: Heard about the huge scandal in Britain engulfing Rupert "I Illegally Hack the Private Voicemail of Murdered Children" Murdoch?

That's the source of the sleazy tabloid trash pumped out by the FOX sewer.

Did you not hear Reaganite Roger Ailes, who runs the FOX sewer day-to-day, wouldn't watch the FOX sewer?

What does that tell you of his opinion of FOX viewers?