Scott Brown 1 of 5 Republicans to Vote for Jobs Bill... lulz follows

RAMSTORIA

RAMSTORIA

CAGiversary!
Feedback
34 (100%)
WASHINGTON, Feb 22 (Reuters) - A modest job-creation bill advanced in the U.S. Senate on Monday as the chamber's newest Republican bucked his party and sided with Democrats on a $15 billion package of tax cuts and highway spending.

Republican Scott Brown joined four other Republicans, 55 Democrats and two independents to overcome a procedural hurdle that sets up a final vote later this week.

Brown was widely hailed as a conservative hero after his surprise victory in Massachusetts last month gave Republicans enough seats to block most Democratic legislation.

His election prompted President Barack Obama and his fellow Democrats to call for increased bipartisanship, and an earlier version of the bill was written with Republican input.

But key Republicans withdrew their support after Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid scaled it back.

Brown said the bill was not perfect but would help put people back to work.

"I hope my vote today is a strong step toward restoring bipartisanship in Washington," he said in a statement.

The bill includes a tax credit for businesses that hire unemployed workers, subsidies for state and local construction bonds and $19.5 billion to shore up a highway-construction fund.

Much of the cost is offset by a crackdown on offshore tax shelters.

(Reporting by Andy Sullivan, editing by Philip Barbara)
Click to expand...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN2221899520100222

epic. you cant make this stuff up. after all that ruckus. the front page of drudge is pretty funny right now.
 
My bro said it best... There is a difference between a Mass republican and a repub elsewhere. (Except for that windsock Romney but even he governs differently than he campaigns)
 
scott-brown-rino.jpg


To be perfectly honest I would not be surprised if the Republican Leadership is telling Brown to be all mavericky on this one.

It would be stupid for Republicans to kill a jobs bill like this even by the standards of Republican stupidity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
If he doesn't vote as a moderate republican he probably doesn't have a chance in hell of getting elected in the actual elections. How conservative do people think Massachusetts really is?
 
They got behind Brown because they don't know what the hell they're talking about. They've proven they're just an anti-Democrat group and not a pro-anything group. They took every major Democrat platform (except abortion) and just said they're for the opposite.
 
Brown's vote is only considered necessary in the era where 60 votes is normalized as a response to Republicans filibustering. Now it's ok to filibuster for any reason at all. We blame both parties in the Senate for failing to get "anything" done (which isn't really true, but truth hasn't gotten in the way of outrage before), when one party has now decided they are going to filibuster anything and everything that comes into the Senate chamber.

And this is the same party you want more of in the Senate come November? The hell is the matter with people?
 
[quote name='depascal22']They got behind Brown because they don't know what the hell they're talking about. They've proven they're just an anti-Democrat group and not a pro-anything group. They took every major Democrat platform (except abortion) and just said they're for the opposite.[/QUOTE]

You consistently prove you don't know anything about the tea party movement.
 
The 'Baggers hardly know anything about the tea party movement.

They are incoherent on everything but their desire to see Obama's birth certificate.
 
Did you see that one Tennessee dude's campaign ad (set to Jewel's "hands")? He tries to turn around Sarah Palin's 'palm pilot' moment into a positive, as the ad features people showing words written on their hands.

But it's the same vapid philosophical nonsense. "We stand for liberty!" Who falls for that romance-novel crap? Who doesn't stand for liberty? How can someone get behind a candidate whose entire campaign premise is a strawman?

I support the candidate who stands for freedom. Because yeah.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=62zufrMneFw

EDIT: Was this posted around here? I can't remember.
 
God damn, it's like stupid Palin moment meets Blair Witch. Edit that shit.

I personally stand for freedom, integrity, and passive-aggressive behavior.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I want a candidate who will go to Washington, stand up, and say "I'M GONNA PROTECT STUFF FROM SHIT!"[/QUOTE]

I'll run for the House as a libertarian in neo-con's clothing, to turn the tables on them (also, trolling would be remarkably fun). My congressman is Darrell Issa - anyone wanna fund me?
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']I'll run for the House as a libertarian in neo-con's clothing, to turn the tables on them (also, trolling would be remarkably fun). My congressman is Darrell Issa - anyone wanna fund me?[/QUOTE]
Ask for a moneybomb. Put ads on Drudge.
 
Now that's it going to a vote, I absolutely cannot wait to see what the actual votes look like. I wonder if they're going to continue to toe the line. How hilarious would it be if suddenly 10-15 about faced and supported it when their names were actually attached to an up or down vote.

As with seemingly everything right now, the bill itself polls around 50%. When individual parts of the jobs bill are polled, support hits 70-80%.
Of course, one can reasonably ask why this bill -- which is supported by something like 70 and 80 percent of the public -- received only five Republican votes for cloture and not more.
Click to expand...
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/02/for-democrats-56-is-new-60.html
 
[quote name='thrustbucket']You consistently prove you don't know anything about the tea party movement.[/QUOTE]

You consistently prove you don't know anything about reality.

How about you name the Tea Party Platform for all us ignorant fools? Show me something other than lower taxes, smaller government, dramatically cutting social services, states' rights, etc. Please enlighten us with something of substance other than Obama is a dirty African.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']Ron Paul won the CPAC straw poll - do you really need to run as a neocon in disguise at this point?[/QUOTE]

If I really were to run for national office, yes. Here's the best example - the Massachusetts Senate election. Scott Brown won, with a libertarian candidate in the race. That candidate, Joe Kennedy, got 1% of the vote. While the young libertarian/kind of conservative movement is fairly large and still growing, it's not quite big time yet. Tea bagger angst is largely irrelevant, and will continue to elect neocons into Congress.

Paul's victory was a well planned infiltration of the CPAC event by his supporters, a plan of attack over a year in the making (don't wait for someone to admit to this. You won't get that admission). It was done to get more airtime for the ideas he represents; he's garnered numerous interviews discussing our imperialistic and dangerous foreign policy, and how it's difficult to be against government waste and spending while forking out $1 trillion a year supporting an empire.

While Fox and other neo-con outposts are trying their best to discredit the results of the straw poll, the plan has largely worked. Some neocons are starting to give Ron Paul lip service, and people who have heard his name but may not have heard the things he represents are starting to hear his message on TV. Neophytes who supported him in 2007/2008 are applying the lessons learned from that campaign into more effective advertising for raising awareness of philosophic ideas.

The trick, as Glenn Greenwald pointed out in a recent column, is to not bend to the neocons this time around, like libertarians did in 1980, 1994, and 2000. Judging by the effectiveness of the efforts that resulted in the CPAC straw poll result, there's a decent chance of this movement sticking.
 
If he wasn't from MA, I would say he's a damn good troll.... But come on, wtf do people expect out of a MA Republican? A MA Republican is a Democrat anywhere else.
 
[quote name='Feeding the Abscess']If I really were to run for national office, yes. Here's the best example - the Massachusetts Senate election. Scott Brown won, with a libertarian candidate in the race. That candidate, Joe Kennedy, got 1% of the vote. While the young libertarian/kind of conservative movement is fairly large and still growing, it's not quite big time yet. Tea bagger angst is largely irrelevant, and will continue to elect neocons into Congress.

Paul's victory was a well planned infiltration of the CPAC event by his supporters, a plan of attack over a year in the making (don't wait for someone to admit to this. You won't get that admission). It was done to get more airtime for the ideas he represents; he's garnered numerous interviews discussing our imperialistic and dangerous foreign policy, and how it's difficult to be against government waste and spending while forking out $1 trillion a year supporting an empire.

While Fox and other neo-con outposts are trying their best to discredit the results of the straw poll, the plan has largely worked. Some neocons are starting to give Ron Paul lip service, and people who have heard his name but may not have heard the things he represents are starting to hear his message on TV. Neophytes who supported him in 2007/2008 are applying the lessons learned from that campaign into more effective advertising for raising awareness of philosophic ideas.

The trick, as Glenn Greenwald pointed out in a recent column, is to not bend to the neocons this time around, like libertarians did in 1980, 1994, and 2000. Judging by the effectiveness of the efforts that resulted in the CPAC straw poll result, there's a decent chance of this movement sticking.[/QUOTE]

fair enough - fine points all around.
 
I do so love:

The bill includes a tax credit for businesses that hire unemployed workers, subsidies for state and local construction bonds and $19.5 billion to shore up a highway-construction fund.

Much of the cost is offset by a crackdown on offshore tax shelters.
Click to expand...

Yeah. That's something to get up in arms about.
 
@depascal22
I think you're onto something here. Brown ran on a pro-truck platform, so...

Anyway, I'm glad he's taking a sensible position when it comes to a small bill like this. Seriously, who wants to be voting against a JOBS bill? It's as crazy as voting against an anti-rape amendment...oh wait.
 
Color me shocked. 6 Republicans who felt the bill was so bad that they voted to filibuster flipped and voted in favor of it once it hit the floor. 2 more "missed" the filibuster vote then voted in favor, for a total of 8, plus the 5 that supported it out of the gate.

Your principled GOP.
 
[quote name='speedracer']Color me shocked. 6 Republicans who felt the bill was so bad that they voted to filibuster flipped and voted in favor of it once it hit the floor. 2 more "missed" the filibuster vote then voted in favor, for a total of 8, plus the 5 that supported it out of the gate.

Your principled GOP.[/QUOTE]
I couldn't agree more, and I'm not being sarcastic. The GOP, by and large, stands for absolutely nothing. There are some good republicans, but they're surrounded by a bunch of opportunists(the "I'm just like you" crowd)and progressives like Brown. People who thought Brown was the next Reagan were doing nothing but fooling themselves. Those "Brown for President" chants from after the victory are looking even more laughable now.

Speaking of principles, listen to this group you might recognize:
http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-...ogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/
The quotes just get more ridiculous as it goes on, in light of their current views. You'd think with the way they're talking about the constitution and the founders, they were a bunch of tea partiers. :p
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There are some good republicans, but they're surrounded by a bunch of opportunists(the "I'm just like you" crowd)and progressives like Brown.
Click to expand...

Sorry what's bad about being progressive? And what constitutes a 'good' republican? Examples too please.
 
I just read the jobs bill. It's a tax cut and highway bill (and not a particularly big highway spending bill). That's it.

The Republicans just attempted to filibuster a tax cut.

lolwut
 
The bill is comically tiny considering the problem.

Supposedly Reid has a plan to pass a bunch of smaller ones.

Seems to be working but as of right now a little nudge in the tax code is insulting.
 
Poor Scott Brown. Dude's like "yo, it's a tax cut. of course I support it." And he gets destroyed by the base as a RINO for it.

Those people can't find their ass with 2 hands and a flashlight. I'm just sitting here trying to rationalize how they could have not supported it other than just. saying. no. to Obama. I figured there was some little tidbit that the Repubs wouldn't like. It's not there. They just plain vote no and filibuster everything.

I knew this already and I'm still surprised.

edit: The nuts are posting shit on his daughter's facebook page.

http://gawker.com/5478186/which-enraged-scott-brown-facebook-fan-comment-is-your-favorite
 
[quote name='fatherofcaitlyn']If our highway system crumbles, wouldn't that make government smaller?[/QUOTE]

just harder to get do with pitchforks and torches
 
[quote name='RAMSTORIA']just harder to get do with pitchforks and torches[/QUOTE]

And harder for the tax collector to make rounds in his armored Humvee.

I suppose air superiority would help the government, but have you ever tried taking somebody's wallet while flying past them at 200mph?
 
[quote name='IRHari']Sorry what's bad about being progressive? And what constitutes a 'good' republican? Examples too please.[/QUOTE]

Modern day progressives aren't really that bad. They're made out to be boogeymen, but from the libertarian perspective, they largely agree with 2/3 of the social, foreign, and economic policy pie. Even with the economic policy issue, libertarians and progressives both agree that there's a massive problem with creating and/or protecting monopolies, subsidizing corporations and banks, etc.

As for good Republican: Ronald Reagan. Just don't bring up to any Republican that he was probably the biggest failure in our political history, when you match up rhetoric and policy. The response to letting Republicans into the know on that is lulzworthy.
 
Thanks FtA, but I was hoping deathscythehe would respond to my questions. Anyways, I think Republicans/Tea Partiers should get used to votes like his, if they want a Republican from New England. If not, yknow, have fun with the 41.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top