Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

He joined Snowe, Collins, Bond and Voinovich in joing Dems in a vote on the jobs bill.

A question though. What does the other 36 conks and Ben Nelson have against job creation>?

If unemployment rises or stays the same... Republicans win elections. If unemployment declines... Republicans lose. And they can rationalize their vote because of their newfound "fiscal conservatism."

UNHWildCats wrote:He joined Snowe, Collins, Bond and Voinovich in joing Dems in a vote on the jobs bill.

A question though. What does the other 36 conks and Ben Nelson have against job creation>?

From what I hear, the "jobs" bill isn't really much of a jobs bill. It is more along the lines of a second stimulus, and we all saw how well the first stimulated the economy.

In regards to Brown pissing off the Right. Some on the Right need to listen. I distinctly heard Brown say he would vote with the liberals when it suited his state. Whether that applies in this situation, I don't know, but I did hear him say he wasn't going to tow the party line.

SeattleGriz wrote:I distinctly heard Brown say he would vote with the liberals when it suited his state. Whether that applies in this situation, I don't know, but I did hear him say he wasn't going to tow the party line.

holy crap! a politician who actually does what he is SUPPOSED to do!
(okay, I don't really pay attention enough to know if he actually DOES things that way, or just SAYS he is going to do it that way. But anyway)

party ties should never trump your actual constituancy.

Most of the country wouldn't describe themselves as far left/right, but more moderate. If the right is upset then good - partisanship is killing the country right now and completely hamstringing any forward progress. The left with a supermajority couldn't quit the friendly fire long enough to enact anything and they're paying the price now with public discontent and a lot of potential shakeup on the horizon in November. I applaud Brown for at least voting his conscience instead of towing the tired party line. God knows what we're capable of becoming if there was a bit more meeting in the middle.

$15 billion is like pissing in the ocean to increase the amount of water.
and giving a tax credit to hire new employees is simply giving money to someone that would have hired a new employee anyway.

OL FU wrote:$15 billion is like pissing in the ocean to increase the amount of water.
and giving a tax credit to hire new employees is simply giving money to someone that would have hired a new employee anyway.

True. No one hires an employee for fun or a tax break. They are too much of a pain in the ass.

Kind of refreshing. Voting for vote he thinks is the best for his state, not what the Party office wants him to vote.

I think he should take this partisianship platform to the next level and distribute copies of JFK's Profiles in Courage to all the Senators in the next session. Maybe then people will realize what they're supposed to be doing.

danefan wrote:Kind of refreshing. Voting for vote he thinks is the best for his state, not what the Party office wants him to vote.

I think he should take this partisianship platform to the next level and distribute copies of JFK's Profiles in Courage to all the Senators in the next session. Maybe then people will realize what they're supposed to be doing.

I do agree that Brown should vote for the people of Mass. I think it is stupid to make senators vote on this trash period.

I just think arguing over bills that do nothing just shows how stupid the process is now. A $15B jobs bill is inconsequential to start. So why do it other than to say we did something. We just had a $800 billion jobs bill that created somewhere between zero and 2M jobs depending on which bullshit you believe. and even if it really did create 2m jobs with only 300B spent it is $150,000 per job. At that rate 15B should give us about another 10,000 jobs (which of course it won't give us anywhere near that amount just something for the politicians to say lookie we did something)

I agree with OL FU - this bill is a bunch of nothing really. It sounds good to have passed a "jobs bill" but at the end of the day it does next to nothing in terms of creating jobs.

As for Brown voting for it, good for him - Congress needs more independent minds like him. Both parties are terrible when it comes to hearing the other side and actually compromising, so it's good to actually see some people do so, even if at the end of the day what they are compromising on does precious little in terms of creating jobs.

Good for Scott, now only if those arrogant, narrow minded liberal POS, on the left will follow suit, I won't hold my breath, the left will not cross the isle.

mass fan wrote:Good for Scott, now only if those arrogant, narrow minded liberal POS, on the left will follow suit, I won't hold my breath, the left will not cross the isle.

So 1 guy on the supposed "right" crosses the isle and all of a sudden all the other staunch partisianship of the Republican members of Congress is excused?

Patrisianship is bad for this country no doubt, but its not limited to one party here.

GannonFan wrote:I agree with OL FU - this bill is a bunch of nothing really. It sounds good to have passed a "jobs bill" but at the end of the day it does next to nothing in terms of creating jobs.

As for Brown voting for it, good for him - Congress needs more independent minds like him. Both parties are terrible when it comes to hearing the other side and actually compromising, so it's good to actually see some people do so, even if at the end of the day what they are compromising on does precious little in terms of creating jobs.

Agreed - I think in this case it's more the example it sets - a freshman Senator already moving toward the center and toward compromise as opposed to immediately painting himself into a partisan corner. The magnitude of this bill isn't really material, but Brown is doing the right thing by at least maintaining some objectivity.

ASUG8 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I agree with OL FU - this bill is a bunch of nothing really. It sounds good to have passed a "jobs bill" but at the end of the day it does next to nothing in terms of creating jobs.

As for Brown voting for it, good for him - Congress needs more independent minds like him. Both parties are terrible when it comes to hearing the other side and actually compromising, so it's good to actually see some people do so, even if at the end of the day what they are compromising on does precious little in terms of creating jobs.

Agreed - I think in this case it's more the example it sets - a freshman Senator already moving toward the center and toward compromise as opposed to immediately painting himself into a partisan corner. The magnitude of this bill isn't really material, but Brown is doing the right thing by at least maintaining some objectivity.

He's going to hold to the center because he is running for President.

UNHWildCats wrote:He joined Snowe, Collins, Bond and Voinovich in joing Dems in a vote on the jobs bill.

A question though. What does the other 36 conks and Ben Nelson have against job creation>?

Why are donks voting for it when the renewal of the Patriot Act is buried in it?

ASUG8 wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I agree with OL FU - this bill is a bunch of nothing really. It sounds good to have passed a "jobs bill" but at the end of the day it does next to nothing in terms of creating jobs.

As for Brown voting for it, good for him - Congress needs more independent minds like him. Both parties are terrible when it comes to hearing the other side and actually compromising, so it's good to actually see some people do so, even if at the end of the day what they are compromising on does precious little in terms of creating jobs.

Agreed - I think in this case it's more the example it sets - a freshman Senator already moving toward the center and toward compromise as opposed to immediately painting himself into a partisan corner. The magnitude of this bill isn't really material, but Brown is doing the right thing by at least maintaining some objectivity.

And actually, Brown's move gives the GOP some cover when they vote against the Health Care fiasco. It's hard to say the GOP won't let anything through when they try to stand in the way of the health care thing when just a few days ago they compromised on the jobs bill.

houndawg wrote:

ASUG8 wrote:
Agreed - I think in this case it's more the example it sets - a freshman Senator already moving toward the center and toward compromise as opposed to immediately painting himself into a partisan corner. The magnitude of this bill isn't really material, but Brown is doing the right thing by at least maintaining some objectivity.

He's going to hold to the center because he is running for President.

No because he would like to be re-elected in Mass in four years

OL FU wrote:

houndawg wrote:

He's going to hold to the center because he is running for President.

No because he would like to be re-elected in Mass in four years

I think his sights are higher, and he has the example of the current Prez to show just how meteoric a personable fellow's rise can be. He needs to move on asap, imo, because that seat is going back to the Kennedys if they have to hock the spare tire to help pay for the campaign.

Of ccourse, it's unlikely that his next opponent will be hampered by a wife-pimping scandal like Jack Ryan was.

houndawg wrote:

OL FU wrote:
No because he would like to be re-elected in Mass in four years

I think his sights are higher, and he has the example of the current Prez to show just how meteoric a personable fellow's rise can be. He needs to move on asap, imo, because that seat is going back to the Kennedys if they have to hock the spare tire to help pay for the campaign.

Of ccourse, it's unlikely that his next opponent will be hampered by a wife-pimping scandal like Jack Ryan was.

All his opponent needs to do is memorize the Red Sox' line up for the last 50 years

GannonFan wrote:I agree with OL FU - this bill is a bunch of nothing really. It sounds good to have passed a "jobs bill" but at the end of the day it does next to nothing in terms of creating jobs.

As for Brown voting for it, good for him - Congress needs more independent minds like him. Both parties are terrible when it comes to hearing the other side and actually compromising, so it's good to actually see some people do so, even if at the end of the day what they are compromising on does precious little in terms of creating jobs.

I don't get this at all.

You don't like the bill... but, you applaud Brown for voting for it because it shows his independence. I'm sure you applaud the other Republicans for voting for it because of their independence, right?

So, in summary:

Democrats voting for the bill = BAD! Terrible bill! Accomplishes little!
Republicans voting for the bill = GOOD! Independents willing to negotiate! True statesmen!
Republicans voting for the bill = GOOD! Terrible bill! Accomplishes little!

Convenient.

Skjellyfetti wrote:

GannonFan wrote:I agree with OL FU - this bill is a bunch of nothing really. It sounds good to have passed a "jobs bill" but at the end of the day it does next to nothing in terms of creating jobs.

As for Brown voting for it, good for him - Congress needs more independent minds like him. Both parties are terrible when it comes to hearing the other side and actually compromising, so it's good to actually see some people do so, even if at the end of the day what they are compromising on does precious little in terms of creating jobs.

I don't get this at all.

You don't like the bill... but, you applaud Brown for voting for it because it shows his independence. I'm sure you applaud the other Republicans for voting for it because of their independence, right?

So, in summary:

Democrats voting for the bill = BAD! Terrible bill! Accomplishes little!
Republicans voting for the bill = GOOD! Independents willing to negotiate! True statesmen!
Republicans voting for the bill = GOOD! Terrible bill! Accomplishes little!

Convenient.

You're reading what you what into what I said. I like people being independent of party affiliation - I think the adherence to parties on both sides has been ruinous. And yes, I think the jobs bill is bad, but in the grand scheme of things, harmless. So yes, I can applaud him for being independent of the Republican establishment while at the same time drubbing him for supporting a bill that is basically window dressing. I can do something similar for a Democrat that broke with that party's establishment and voted against this bill, although then I would also applaud them for voting against a bill I don't like.

That's the beauty of being non-partisan - I can speak my conscience without having to worry about how I fit into either party's entrenched ideas.

GannonFan wrote: You're reading what you what into what I said. I like people being independent of party affiliation - I think the adherence to parties on both sides has been ruinous. And yes, I think the jobs bill is bad, but in the grand scheme of things, harmless. So yes, I can applaud him for being independent of the Republican establishment while at the same time drubbing him for supporting a bill that is basically window dressing. I can do something similar for a Democrat that broke with that party's establishment and voted against this bill, although then I would also applaud them for voting against a bill I don't like.

That's the beauty of being non-partisan - I can speak my conscience without having to worry about how I fit into either party's entrenched ideas.

But being "independent" solely for the sake of independence is a good thing? Being independent regardless of the whether the bill one votes for or against is a positive quality?

So a retarded monkey flipping a coin on every bill would do a better job than any elected representative because he would be free of any bias?





Also, since I was reading what I wanted into what you said... please inform me if any of this is wrong:

Skjellyfetti wrote: Democrats voting for the bill = BAD! Terrible bill! Accomplishes little!
Republicans voting for the bill = GOOD! Independents willing to negotiate! True statesmen!
Republicans voting for the bill = GOOD! Terrible bill! Accomplishes little!

Do you approve of the Democrats that voted for the bill?
Do you approve of the Republicans that voted for the bill?
Do you approve of the Republicans that voted against the bill?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

GannonFan wrote: You're reading what you what into what I said. I like people being independent of party affiliation - I think the adherence to parties on both sides has been ruinous. And yes, I think the jobs bill is bad, but in the grand scheme of things, harmless. So yes, I can applaud him for being independent of the Republican establishment while at the same time drubbing him for supporting a bill that is basically window dressing. I can do something similar for a Democrat that broke with that party's establishment and voted against this bill, although then I would also applaud them for voting against a bill I don't like.

That's the beauty of being non-partisan - I can speak my conscience without having to worry about how I fit into either party's entrenched ideas.

But being "independent" solely for the sake of independence is a good thing? Being independent regardless of the whether the bill one votes for or against is a positive quality?

So a retarded monkey flipping a coin on every bill would do a better job as any elected representative because he would be free of any bias?





Also, since I was reading what I wanted into what I said... please inform me if any of this is wrong:

Skjellyfetti wrote: Democrats voting for the bill = BAD! Terrible bill! Accomplishes little!
Republicans voting for the bill = GOOD! Independents willing to negotiate! True statesmen!
Republicans voting for the bill = GOOD! Terrible bill! Accomplishes little!

Do you approve of the Democrats that voted for the bill?
Do you approve of the Republicans that voted for the bill?
Do you approve of the Republicans that voted against the bill?

Well, the retarded monkey couldn't do any worse........and think what we save on Congressional healthcare.

UNHWildCats wrote:He joined Snowe, Collins, Bond and Voinovich in joing Dems in a vote on the jobs bill.

A question though. What does the other 36 conks and Ben Nelson have against job creation>?

I am quite sure that they have nothing against job creation. What do you have against unloaded questions?

Skjellyfetti wrote:

GannonFan wrote: You're reading what you what into what I said. I like people being independent of party affiliation - I think the adherence to parties on both sides has been ruinous. And yes, I think the jobs bill is bad, but in the grand scheme of things, harmless. So yes, I can applaud him for being independent of the Republican establishment while at the same time drubbing him for supporting a bill that is basically window dressing. I can do something similar for a Democrat that broke with that party's establishment and voted against this bill, although then I would also applaud them for voting against a bill I don't like.

That's the beauty of being non-partisan - I can speak my conscience without having to worry about how I fit into either party's entrenched ideas.

But being "independent" solely for the sake of independence is a good thing? Being independent regardless of the whether the bill one votes for or against is a positive quality?

So a retarded monkey flipping a coin on every bill would do a better job than any elected representative because he would be free of any bias?





Also, since I was reading what I wanted into what you said... please inform me if any of this is wrong:

Skjellyfetti wrote: Democrats voting for the bill = BAD! Terrible bill! Accomplishes little!
Republicans voting for the bill = GOOD! Independents willing to negotiate! True statesmen!
Republicans voting for the bill = GOOD! Terrible bill! Accomplishes little!

Do you approve of the Democrats that voted for the bill?
Do you approve of the Republicans that voted for the bill?
Do you approve of the Republicans that voted against the bill?

Seriously, are you this dense or are you trying to be this way?

Being independent of one's party is good. Voting for a bad bill is bad. Why is that so hard to understand? Ideally, I'd like the independent thinker who picks the right way to vote on a bill. In this case, it would be Democrats who voted against the bill.

I'd rip your analogy of the retarded monkey, but somehow I think that would hit too close to home for you.