Posted on 02/01/2010 7:04:06 PM PST by SeekAndFind
Scott Brown of Massachusetts may have taken away the Democrats’ filibuster-proof Senate majority, but the Republican senator-elect isn’t your typical conservative.
“I am a fiscal conservative. And when it comes to issues affecting people's pockets, and pocketbooks, and wallets, I'll be with the Republicans if they are in fact pushing those initiatives," Brown said in an interview set to air Sunday on ABC’s “This Week.”
But there are issues on which he might break with his party – most notably, abortion.
“You are pro-choice, yes?” Barbara Walters asked Brown in the interview.
“Yes,” Brown replied, explaining later that he feels the issue “is best handled between a woman and her doctor and her family.”
But Brown isn’t your typical pro-choice politician either.
“Roe v. Wade is the law of the land, but I think we need to do more to reduce the amount of abortions,” he stated. “And the difference between me and maybe others is that I'm very – I'm against partial-birth abortions. I'm against federal funding of abortions. And I believe in a strong parental consent notification law.”
Last week, Brown became the first Republican to win a Senate race in Massachusetts since 1972, defeating the state’s attorney general, Martha Coakley, with 52 percent of the votes. His win gives the GOP enough members to block legislation, including the current health care reform bill, in the Senate.
In his interview with Walters, Brown said, “Everyone really is the 41st senator.”
“And what it means is that now there will be full and fair debate. And there will be no more closed – behind closed doors actions,” he added.
Brown had expected to be sworn in sometime this past week, but the timing of his swearing-in still remains in question.
The waiting period for the arrival of absentee ballots has not yet been waived despite the five-point margin with which Brown won.
Massachusetts Secretary of State William Galvin has sent a letter to the Senate clerk declaring Brown the unofficial winner of the seat.
Meaning devoid of all logic and principle.
I think we had a more accurate view of it back when you and I were lads
It certainly bears no comparison to true holocausts....maybe if one concentrated strictly on the Brasilian or Haitian trade where treatment and disease and so forth was much worse than here then one could stretch it.
Life expectancy in the American south was comparable to whites... and even better in more tropical areas some have argued.
Not that taking one’s liberty is not an issue but folks should remember that liberty in 1830 was a very new and unpracticed concept for folks.
And yes a slaveowner has a much higher investment in a slave than in a Chinese railroad worker or Irish factory worker or Polish coal miner.
I actually own two extensive WPA slave journal compositions...the incidence of slave killing or brutality beyond corporal punishment was very rare due to cultural, economic and religious considerations....but they did on occasion whip but so did our Navy and others...as you know.
As long as we accept the few morsels thrown to us from the Leftist bastion the only thing we will move on to is utter defeat.
___________
No one is more ideological, more dedicated to principle, than I am. In many places around the country, we can afford ideological rigidity. My home state of South Carolina is one of them. In places like New England, to insist they elect a DeMint immediately is either a pipedream or a deathwish for the Republic.
It took decades — over a century-and-a-half for New England to become SO completely messed up and Leftist. UNdoing that will take decades as well. I would look upon a Scott Brown as a good first step. But ONLY a first step. In areas like New England, the journey will be LONG — IF the nation is to survive intact. And California may need to collapse under it’s own weight and pay for it’s own sins in order to ever change.
It’s a cinch we can’t do this overnight. As I said, take what we can get from Liberal bastions NOW, and advance. Tomorrow, another step — one step at a time.
All true, all true.
BULL! Man's inhumanity to his fellow man has come about in many different ways throughout the history of civilized society. Slavery existed throughout the world for thousands of years and for thousands of years it was morally wrong. Slavery existed in the American colonies and the newly formed Republic for hundreds of years and for hundreds of years, it too, was morally wrong. Some would even say, it was a greater moral wrong considering what America actually stood for and the "Life & Liberty" aspects found in the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution. For 90 years the slavery issue tore apart America. Finally, the Civil War was over and the 13th amendment was enacted, officially ended its practice within the USA.
>>>>>Now to take what was arguably the most benign practice of it ever... ~snip~ It's very easy to argue that taking someones liberty is wrong but that was a fact of life for as long as there has been organized humanity till the late 19th century.
This is 2010, not 1865! You're justifying slavery's existence and one human being owning another human being, as a part of American society and culture and saying since it was so widely accepted for so long and part of daily life in the USA, that somehow slavery was NOT one example of man's inhumane treatment of his fellow man. That is truly mind-boggling, but not unexpected.
I noticed the southern flag on your FR homepage, among other things. From my many years on FR that sends a direct message consistent with a Dixiecrat/Slavocrat mindset. Look, the Civil War has been over for 145 years, time to move on!
Quotations from Lincoln on slavery are numerous, but they should not be used to justify slavery at any time in US history. Besides, there was two exective orders handed down by President Lincoln in 1863. Together they make up what is known as, the Emancipation Proclamation and that document speaks for itself.
Scott Brown is not pro-life and it past time anyone that is pro-life stopped making a hero out of the guy.
Please explain how voting for the lesser of two evils is not voting for evil.
No, pro-choice is a liberal position. Pro-life is the conservative position.
The conservative position is that people take responsibility for the lives they bring into this world, even if it means giving the baby up for adoption after it's born.
The liberal position is that it is a lump of flesh that can be disposed of according to the choice of the parents.
Is a fetus a lump of flesh or an unborn human being?
Actually he is quite typical. He bemoans abortion but then believes that women should have the right to abort their children. He recognizes that abortion is murder, yet he believes that people should have the CONSTITUTIONAL right to murder their unborn children.
His position is no different than 99% of the Pro-Abortion democrats.
FWIW, anyone who is not firmly in favor of overturning Roe v. Wade is PRO-ABORTION.
Scott Brown is not in favor of overturning the worst Supreme Court decision of all time. He is solidly in the Pro-Abortion camp. IMHO, he is therefore not worthy of the office to which he was elected.
BTTT
Scott Brown, abortion man.
Life is the premier right. Without it all the others are of no consequence.
ANY politician who doesn’t understand that is unfit to lead people. Their lives will mean nothing to him....they will be a “constituency”.
Typical south basher...I knew it. Nothing new there.
Thanks for playing.
Note I never attacked you personally. Not once.
You guys can’t help yourself.
It either makes you feel righteous or it’s getback with skin in the game. Some conservatives wake up sad every morning that the backbone of social conservatism in this country is the White South.
Without us, you’re outta gas.
So sorry.
And quit putting words in my mouth. Just like the rest of the little south bashers here you make up crap and attribute it to me.
Looks like I struck paydirt. My original post that got you so agitated was nothing more then to mention the historic truth concerning man's inhumane and immoral acts, like slavery, the WWII Holocaust and Roe's advocacy for abortion on demand. Why you decided to take exception to my post was not clear at first, but became crystal clear soon enough.
Truth is, you weren't looking to play, you were looking for a fight, and you got one. What you do in your private life is no business of mine and your southern heritage is of no interest to me. You choose to take an innocuous remark and blow it all out of proportion. All of a sudden slavery turned into "North American slavery". That was your doing, not mine. I chose to respond the way I did and get in your face because you purposely twisted what I posted.
If you don't want folks to comment on your core values and beliefs, then don't post them on the forum. You have an agenda and that agenda is designed to lessen the impact of human slavery on the history of the Confederate States of America. Sorry, I'm not playing along. I took the opportunity to challenge you and that got you ticked off. Good!
I wouldn't put this in racial terms, since the Black South probably shares many of the social conservative values of the White South, despite the tendency of most black Southerners to vote Democratic. Nonetheless, where would the conservative movement be without the South? Minus the Southern states, the conservative heartland would be restricted primarily to the Western Plains and Intermountain West and would be unable to counterbalance the "blue" states of the East, Midwest, and Far West. In terms of its politics, the US would resemble Canada.
Been out of touch long? ;^)
That's very funny you making that claim given I've seen you South bash before.
All of a sudden slavery turned into "North American slavery"
So you do lie awake at night biting your nails over Spartacus and his little briefs. Good for you. I figured slavery for you was only useful as a wedge if the slave was of the appropriate color.
Earlier in our pleasant exchange you alluded to the founders and their documents The Declaration of Independence and Constitution to bolster your tirade on slavery. All well and good but while you are lumping slavery in with abortion and Nazis do you also lump the slaveowner founders in there too.....Jefferson and Madison just for starters.
Do Jefferson and Madison and other slave owning founders deserve to be mentioned in the same breath with Nazism and Abortion. That is a simple question.
Lincoln. I'm ambivalent about Abe. I look at him in his context as a bigot who desired to keep the Union intact and took measures that today would have folks calling for his head. But I understand why he did it and would have appreciated his terms had he lived. You apparently are willing to use Lincoln where it suits you and discount his shortcomings. In other words, to see him in the context of his day. Well if you can do that with Lincoln then why not the South? It's all part of the same equation.
Anytime someone here lumps my noble ancestors whom I cherish in with Nazis then they can expect to hear from me and you did just that. Meanwhile as a typical Yankee you are blissfully ignorant of skeletons in your own ancestral pantry.
that is an excellent moniker...
>>>>>That's very funny you making that claim given I've seen you South bash before.
Bashing a dead ideology and the leaders of a dead uprising or insurrection against America, is more like it. Fact is, that only came about in the last month. Never commented on the topic before some recent threads were posted about Robert E. Lee's birthday celebration... or maybe we should call it, Lee's B-Day bash. LOL
In this case, you do have an agenda associated with Civil War Era events. You want to bait people into arguing 145 year old issues on your terms, so you can defend your so-called "southern heritage". But when someone does offer opposing viewpoints you get upset and start whining. Face it. A major part of the Civil War was the issue of slavery and that is obviously a deep wound for you. However, that is a problem you need to deal with. My agenda is simple. I want to advance the truth concerning all issues.
Are we having fun yet?
Again, my original post that got you so riled up was harmless. Slavery is a general term and different from the specific slogan you posted, "North American slavery". Also, I never mentioned "nazi". You mentioned that first in your last reply to me. My simple remark saying, "The American Holocaust continues", in reference to abortion and naming several historic examples of man's inhumane treatment of his fellow man, was enough to immediately got all bent out of shape. Prompting you to drag out all sorts of red herrings and canards. Enough already.
One thing is true. I don't like Dixiecrat antagonists.
If Scott Brown had a "D" after his name NOBODY would be debating whether or not he was pro-abortion. For some absurd reason, people seem to think that his actual record should be covered up because of party affiliation.
Here is where Scott Brown stands on abortion: - He believes that abortion should ultimately be decided by a woman and her doctor. This is PRO-ABORTION. His statement is no different from the "personally opposed, but" rhetoric that we've been hearing from Democrats for decades.
- He supports the Partial Birth Abortion Ban. That sounds significant, but it really isn't (keep in mind that Harry Reid and Tom Daschle both voted for the PBA Ban); the PBA Ban was passed in 2003 and upheld by the Supreme Court in 2007, but partial birth abortions are still being performed. This was George Tiller's specialty and it's still Leroy Carhart's specialty. The law is full of loopholes and there's no reason to believe that it has actually saved lived. And ultimately, all Brown is doing is showing support for something that is already the law and nobody has suggested revoking it.
- He supports parental notification laws. Again, that sounds significant, but it's ultimately meaningless. The presumption is that a girl's parents will prevent her from having an abortion, but this simply isn't true. Many parents WANT their daughter to have an abortion and all abortionists have lists of activist judges who are all too happy to sign an order exempting a girl if it looks like her parents will cause problems.
In short, Scott Brown desires to preserve the status quo EXACTLY the way it is now and that means that he is okay with an INNOCENT AMERICAN BABY BEING MURDERED EVERY 24 SECONDS.
And you're the Queen of England, right?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.