Comments on: Brown on Braude to Defend Support of Blunt Amendment

By: christopher

christopher — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 19:03:53 +0000

…of exactly what it is called to do in the world, such as you know, healing the sick? Let’s stick with the argument that if you take federal money you play by federal rules; that argument is much stronger.

By: lynne

lynne — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:17:07 +0000

The question that NEEDS to be put to Brown:

The Catholic takeover of hospitals, among other important services they are taking over, employ AND SERVE many non-Catholics. Should the Catholic Church be able to determine the access to birth control or other coverage of their non-Catholic employees? What if the only major hospital in an area is a Catholic-run one? (Certainly this is the case in some areas of the country.) Are you telling doctors, nurses, orderlies and admin staff that if they want fair and equal access to necessary health care coverage, to go find work elsewhere? Especially when that hospital takes government money to provide services??

I think the Catholic Church should be forced out of the whole business of providing hospital care among other things. But if they are going to be employers of necessary services, then they need to play by the rules that all other employers play by.

By: lynne

lynne — Thu, 23 Feb 2012 18:08:02 +0000

He insists the entire time to ignore the vagueness of the amendment’s language, then when Braude (thank goodness!) pushes him and pushes him on that point, says that oh, but your scenarios would NEVER happen, there’d be outcry! Well, gee, I don’t think I want to effing have my health care coverage HINGING on whether or not there’s an outcry. I want the LAW to protect me. Asshat.

By: demeter11

demeter11 — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 21:08:05 +0000

Anyone remember Brown’s outrageous commercial in his last campaign that had John Kennedy morphing into Brown? (I never understood why Coakley didn’t laugh him out of the room for that.)
So here we go again. Now he’s telling us he (Brown) stands with Ted Kennedy. And twice compares that great oppressor Elizabeth Warren (even though she never held office) with Martha Coakley.
Will he dust off the old video morph technology again?
The debates can’t start soon enough.

By: SomervilleTom

SomervilleTom — Thu, 16 Feb 2012 19:37:53 +0000

The willingness of Scott Brown to simply lie is astounding.

I found his comment: “Professor Warren, quite frankly, I’m shocked that she would be so divisive as to pit women against their faith and their church” (2:36) particularly offensive. What an outrageous LIE! It is the Church itself, aided and abetted by Mr. Brown, that exacerbates this “divisive” conflict. How dare he so patronizingly speak for women, while so dishonestly characterizing the position of “Professor” Warren.

This guy epitomizes the dangerous, sleazy, and dishonest misogynists who have done so much harm to so many women throughout history. His stance on this issue aligns perfectly with his past stances against the victim of his endorsee Jeff Perry and even his own daughters in his victory press conference.

Scott Brown needs to be removed from public office. Period.