Recommended: 0 times
Posts | Comments
Lyons (1 Reply)
Clearly Rep Lyons had business issues back in the day based on the documentation you provided. Story also says the liens have been lifted, so he apparently made good on his obligations. Does not say he was ever criminally charged.
In general, I would agree that not paying on payroll taxes in a timely fashion can open oneself up to a whole range of issues with the feds.
But we should be careful not to criminalize failure in business.
And the NYT is not exactly a conservative outlet:
The diary put forth a theory that the headline was referencing GI’s. I did not see the headline having anything to do with GIs but had everything to do with The Great Great Great Grandma’s Marriage Licence.
Great, Great Great (2 Replies)
Clearly refers to the Great, Great Great Grandmother, and the Escape is the fact that she found (or someone found for her?) a shred of evidence supporting her family lore.
Still raises the question of why would she self identify as a Native American in a law directory, when clearly she had not done the research on the family lore to support the claim (and does 3% really support the assertion of NA identity?)
BMG community has been trying to spin this as a non-story…… but stories on the topic keep popping up all over the place.
Delinquent yes... (1 Reply)
but the article does not support the “tax cheat” moniker that you are trying to label him with.
why doesn't this guy (0 Replies)
What is Citizen's Enterprises for profit business? I do see that it is a clearly marked as for profit, but I am curious as to what business they are in.
If team Warren is really responsible for the pledge..... (1 Reply)
then they got the political optics all wrong when it became the “People’s Pledge”. The tie in to Scott’s “People’s Seat” from the special election is perfect.
Brown proposed the pledge (1 Reply)
The fact that the Warren team drafted some rewrites during the negotiations does not take away from Brown that he proposed the framework to keep 3rd party Ads out.
I would also submit that there has been no violation of the pledge. A 3rd Party (not a party to the pledge) ran Ads that the pledge considered out of bounds. Scott honored the pledge (and then some) by making the donation.
The only people who can violate the pledge are the people who signed it: Brown and Warren.
Don't disagree (1 Reply)
that there is something wrong with being partisan.
Petr is attempting to make the case that Scott Brown is strictly a GOP partisan. Where I believe that Scott has the most bi-partisan voting record of the MA delegation.
You can try to diminish his record by claiming his votes against GOP leadership were inconsequential. But I don’t see it that way. He was a crucial vote in getting Dodd/Frank passed. He did get some concessions to remove provisions that would have been harsh on the Massachusetts Financial sector companies and cost us jobs. You know – compromise.
That is your very subjective opinion. (1 Reply)
The thrust of this diary was that Scott did not mention his party affiliation on his website and that he must be doing something dastardly in hiding the party affiliation.
That argument came crashing down when it was pointed out that Ms Warren also doesn’t talk about party affiliation. (I will go one better – neither does Barack Obama)
The first argument having collapsed, you are off on a new tangent, arguing that Scott Brown does not have the right to claim a Moderate and Independent record. An argument that you make, without proffering any evidence other than your own opinion.
You are very quick with applying labels, referring to Scott as “partisan”, while blind to the fact you make a better case for Ms Warren being a “partisan” by your argument the she herself is so indistinguishable from “democratic rhetoric” that it must be a given that she is a democrat.
If Scott Brown's positions (1 Reply)
are so decidedly Republican then why is the label necessary? Her bona fides can be assumed but his must be labeled?
When is the last time anyone other than Scott Brown in the MA delegation bucked party leadership?
Your entitled to your view that Scott is neither moderate or independent. Scott is also entitled to make his case to the voters. My view is Scott is both independent and moderate – and he has a voting record that supports that conclusion.
Both Candidates (1 Reply)
employ the same tactic and you see virtue in one and villainy in the other? Time to remove the rose colored lenses.
I will let you in on the super secret website: (1 Reply)
Or if you want to know more about his life and times:
Ms Warren can't think of single thing (1 Reply)
on which she disagrees with the President on.
Scott Brown has crossed the aisle on a number of pieces of legislation that republicans weren’t happy about (Dodd/Frank for example).
She must be ashamed.... (1 Reply)
or both candidates are pushing individual records and not party affiliation.
Real Estate Attorney (2 Replies)
Scott Brown was a practicing real estate attorney. Pretty sure that qualifies as private sector.
Supporting Industry against overzealous regulators (0 Replies)
I would think the fishermen would appreciate Mr Brown’s efforts on their behalf with respect NOAA.
Repeal? (1 Reply)
Why do you think Mr Santorum wants to repeal the protection against religious tests?
While I agree that Mr Santorum has stated the President is unfit for the job due to his philosophies – I think it may be a leap too far to suggest that he wants to alter the constitution to allow him to inject his personal views into law. I have not heard any statements from him or read anything about him that would substantiate that conclusion.
Mr Santorum is (0 Replies)
trying to disqualify the president on the basis on not having that positive quality. But as long as the mechanism is persuading voters, I still don’t see an issue. Conversely, Santorum can be attacked for having his political philosophy too intertwined with his religious views.
As long as we don’t bar either from participating, I think we are good.
How is this a constitutional question? (2 Replies)
The constitution places limits on government and laws, not individuals.
If Mr Santorum was attempting to pass a law codifying that one’s philosophy needs to be rooted in the Bible as a qualification to serve – then I would agree that that action would be unconstitutional.
Mr Santorum is making an appeal to voters. He is attempting to make the case that having one’s philosophy rooted in the bible is a positive quality in someone elected to public service. He is entitled to that opinion (and to speak it under the 1st Amendment). Voters can and will accept or reject the argument.
Comments from the previous version of Blue Mass Group are not yet available on this page. We will let you know when that changes.
RSS - Front Page
RSS - Latest Posts
RSS - Latest Comments
ADVERTISE ON THE BLUE MASS GROUP NETWORK