Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/20/2012 6:02:39 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
I especially liked how in the "Do you believe global warming is real?" question she closed with her points about if the Republicans get control of the Senate the person in charge of overseeing the EPA will be Sen. Inhofe who has written a book about global warming called "The Greatest Hoax."

/shudder/

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/20/1134579/-Warren-Brown-Debate-LIVE-THREAD

We have the good fortune to watch the first Brown / Warren debate on TV and its just starting. For those watching along (or who wish they could be) thought I'd start this thread.

IN SUMMARY - Good debate. Good questions. The format allowed for back and forth. Brown did better than I expected, given my low expectations, but boy did all the catty comments only come from one side! Warren did fantastic for her first debate ever. Both were well-prepped but Warren knew Brown's record and hit him over the head with it again and again.

Brown would side-step by going after her and obfuscating on his record. He tried to appear as bipartisan as possible. Warren had a great close - she just kept going back to that this was a critical election for the direction of the Senate. She was solid and absolutely terrific.

Details of the live debate: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/09/20/1134579/-Warren-Brown-Debate-LIVE-THREAD

_____________________________

Curious about the "Sluts Vote" avatars? See http://www.collarchat.com/m_4133036/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#4133036
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/20/2012 6:55:16 PM   
Lucylastic


Posts: 40310
Status: offline
heh watching it on cspan:)

_____________________________

(•_•)
<) )╯SUCH
/ \

\(•_•)
( (> A NASTY
/ \

(•_•)
<) )> WOMAN
/ \

Duchess Of Dissent
Dont Hate Love

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/20/2012 11:30:46 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
Was she wearing war paint? Or, did she just figure that the "high cheek bones" and blue eyes would suffice?
You can't believe anything she says, she's a pathological liar. Maybe a sociopath, who knows.
And, I don't want my government getting involved in that "global warming" crap in any way, shape or form.
It's just another money scam.
Want to cool the earth? Figure out a way to stop all those explosions on the sun.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/21/2012 12:14:52 AM   
graceadieu


Posts: 1518
Joined: 3/20/2008
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
And, I don't want my government getting involved in that "global warming" crap in any way, shape or form.


Well, the government's got two choices: they can spend a bunch of money now to try to stop it, or they can spend a bunch of money down the line when either the entire coastline of the United States needs to be fortified to keep the ocean out or it's population relocated further inland. (Well, people will probably relocate themselves as their communities are gradually flooded over the next century, but where in the US has the housing stock and infrastructure and job market to accomodate the entire population of, say, Miami?)

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/21/2012 12:34:19 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
And, I don't want my government getting involved in that "global warming" crap in any way, shape or form.


Well, the government's got two choices: they can spend a bunch of money now to try to stop it, or they can spend a bunch of money down the line when either the entire coastline of the United States needs to be fortified to keep the ocean out or it's population relocated further inland. (Well, people will probably relocate themselves as their communities are gradually flooded over the next century, but where in the US has the housing stock and infrastructure and job market to accomodate the entire population of, say, Miami?)



Grace, you know who sees U.F.O's?

People who *believe* in UFO's!

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to graceadieu)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/21/2012 1:31:41 AM   
epiphiny43


Posts: 688
Joined: 10/20/2006
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250


quote:

ORIGINAL: graceadieu


quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250
And, I don't want my government getting involved in that "global warming" crap in any way, shape or form.


Well, the government's got two choices: they can spend a bunch of money now to try to stop it, or they can spend a bunch of money down the line when either the entire coastline of the United States needs to be fortified to keep the ocean out or it's population relocated further inland. (Well, people will probably relocate themselves as their communities are gradually flooded over the next century, but where in the US has the housing stock and infrastructure and job market to accomodate the entire population of, say, Miami?)



Grace, you know who sees U.F.O's?

People who *believe* in UFO's!

Just checking to see where this discussion might be headed. You Have made peace with the idea the Earth is round? Though I'm sure that you can't really see any evidence from your county. As long as you have decided not to.
It's the same with global warming. Having decided it's a scam (Suspicion of others is largely knowledge of oneself?) all contrary evidence is invisible? Prejudging evidence works both ways.
People like you are deeply disturbing to those with open minds. You're at least as dangerous to the future of the Republic as any foreign religious fanatic. We have a chance to defend against outside threats. Insanity within that prevents effective collective action against the most transformative threats humanity faces paralyzes the nation precisely when unprecedented action is necessary for survival.
Just in case somewhere deep within you there Might be the slightest doubt that you have been blessed by the Almighty with the superpower to judge truth and falsehood before even understanding the questions, you might read Richard Muller's piece on why he moved from being one of the most prominent scientific skeptics on global warming to issuing a full declaration of conversion to accepting it as fact and that human activities are one of if not the most powerful drivers of the change.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/21/2012 4:32:52 AM   
FreeFromSin


Posts: 38
Joined: 8/3/2012
Status: offline
I support Brown, all the way.

_____________________________

The Cat's Meow.

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/21/2012 4:46:53 AM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
Scott Brown-Elizabeth Warren Debate: Candidates Clash In First Massachusetts Senate Debate

The matchup between Sen. Scott Brown (R-Mass.) and Harvard Law Professor Elizabeth Warren has been discussed for more than a year, and the first exchange in their debate Thursday focused on the issue of Warren's claimed Native American heritage.

"Professor Warren claimed that she's a Native American and a person of color, and she's not," Brown said. "But the fact is she checked a box."

Warren responded, "I think that Senator Brown is a nice guy, and this race is about the issues." She said those who hired her said she never gained a benefit from it and didn't know about it. "I never asked anyone about any documentation," she said.

"You're an excellent woman too," Brown responded, then implored her to "release the personnel records."

"This is about family. I can't -- and won't -- change who I am," shot back Warren.

The sharp exchange, minor in comparison to the economic crisis and ongoing war in Afghanistan, set the tone for the debate, with both candidates disagreeing substantively over the issues in a state where the political debate runs from left to slightly right-of-center. Jon Keller, a longtime local political commentator, moderated the debate in a Boston television studio with aplomb, and generally stayed out and let the candidates spar.

The next fight came over tax cuts, and the difference was clear. Brown painted Warren as a tax-and-spend liberal, while Warren cited Brown's votes against Democratic jobs bills in the Senate.

"When I talk about how people who are really struggling, I don't know how Senator Brown can vote against them. but Senator Brown is lining up with the Republicans to vote no," said Warren.

"The criticism you're hearing is that I don't want to raise taxes -- guilty as charged," Brown said. "I don't want to raise taxes." He then said, "The only person who's hurting the middle class and raising taxes is you!"

Warren said that Brown would hold "98 percent of families hostage" if the Senate did not vote to extend the Bush-era tax cuts for all earners. "We can't do that to hard-working, middle-class families," she said.

Warren's job heading into the debate was to counter charges that she was too extreme, or too partisan, and would only lead to more gridlock in Washington. The Brown campaign has also tried to paint her as an inflexible schoolmarm and a scold. She acquitted herself well of both charges, coming off as warm and thoughtful, without being overbearing. She spoke in paragraphs, while Brown bounced around from half-sentence to half-sentence, though as Al Gore will tell you, that means less than one might think to some voters.

Warren regularly returned to the theme of control of the Senate, a topic Brown worked hard to avoid, arguing that Warren was not running against the GOP at large but Brown specifically. But the logic of Warren's argument is unavoidable -- and, as Warren noted, one that Brown makes to national GOP donors. Control of the Senate may, indeed, hinge on Massachusetts.

Warren's ultimate goal, reflected in her recent campaign strategy, was to highlight Brown's conservative voting record, which doesn't match his moderate image. Warren hit Brown hard for votes that protected tax breaks for the rich, gave billions in subsidies to big oil, and restricted access to birth control. At one point, Warren had Brown defending tax breaks for oil companies, a moment likely to be repeated in campaign ads to come.

Brown is personally popular in the state, and came into the debate trying to preserve a homegrown, just-a-regular-truck-driving guy image amid a tough race, as the incumbent in comparison to his underdog 2010 run. He emphasized that image at times, and generally came across likeable and moderate, but he went right for an attack on Warren's heritage and referred to her as "Professor Warren" throughout the debate. Those attacks threaten to undermine that nice-guy image, especially as the charges often seemed to come out of the blue.

Brown's famous truck made an appearance in a clash over oil subsidies. "I'm no friend of big oil, I'm a friend of the motorist," Brown said. "It cost about 70 dollars to fill up the truck the other day." He charged that Warren was "obsessed" with raising taxes.

"I'm concerned with how the senator has voted," Warren said. "He's voted to allow billions of your tax dollars to go to the oil industry. This is a real difference between the senator and me. This is about whose side you are on."

The two candidates, who describe themselves "pro-choice" like most Massachusetts voters, also sparred over women's rights. Warren cited Brown's votes against an equal pay for equal work bill and his vote for the Blunt Amendment, which would have allowed employers to make a moral or religious exemption over insurance coverage for contraception.

"You should stop scaring women, Professor," Brown retorted. "I've been fighting for women since I've been 6 years old," shot back Brown. "I want people to have contraceptive care." He then said he had "the same position" as the late Sen. Ted Kennedy, whose seat he succeeded, in supporting a conscience exemption in health care. (Kennedy's son, former Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-R.I., called Brown's citing of Kennedy "misleading" and told him to stop doing it.)

"I don't think that's what Senator Kennedy fought for and i think it's inappropriate to characterize Senator Kennedy in that way," Warren said.

In a debate over foreign policy, both candidates praised President Barack Obama, and Warren made the distinction that she supports his re-election while Brown does not.

"Obama's drawing a harder line and that's a good thing," said Brown on Iran.

Warren agreed. "I think with Iran, it's very clear, we cannot have a nuclear Iran," she said. "President Obama's done a really great job." She pivoted, "I'm still working to have President Obama be the commander in chief, not Mitt Romney."

Brown quietly support's Romney, who is unpopular in Massachusetts after his one-term governorship and will likely lose his state by double digits. He did not mention him in the debate.

"I agree with you again, I think Secretary Clinton's doing a great job," said Brown, before adding a slight criticism of Obama to meet with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

One of the more aggressive charges from Brown came when he accused Warren of taking the side of a giant insurance company against asbestos victims. It's true that Warren worked as an expert for Travelers Insurance in a major asbestos case, but she was working to create a $500 million trust for current and future victims, as well as to preserve a key element of the bankruptcy code, the Boston Globe has reported. She and Travelers were successful in that effort, but after Warren left the case, Travelers managed to wriggle out of its $500 million payment, hurting victims desperately.

Toward the end of the one-hour debate, Warren tied another Republican senator to Brown, saying that Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), who denies global warming, could be the ranking member of the Senate Energy and Commerce Committee if Brown's victory leads Republicans to win control of the Senate.

"You're not running against Jim Inhofe, You're running against me," shot back Brown, who touts his independence from national Republicans.

Warren stayed with the attack. "This really may be the race for control of the United States Senate, not just about Senator Brown's vote -- it's about all the Republicans."

Brown cast himself as "the second-most bipartisan senator" and called Warren the "founder of the radical Occupy protest movement." "Can you imagine 100 Professor Warrens down there placing blame and raising taxes?" he asked.

She responded, "I think it's clear, this race is about whose side you stand on."

_____________________________

Curious about the "Sluts Vote" avatars? See http://www.collarchat.com/m_4133036/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#4133036

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/21/2012 6:06:13 AM   
Aswad


Posts: 9374
Joined: 4/4/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

And, I don't want my government getting involved in that "global warming" crap in any way, shape or form.


I don't want your government involved in any of that "gravity" crap, but it doesn't seem like I'll have my way.

Failing that, it would be nice if they stopped being involved in global warming, for instance by cutting emissions that are involved in global warming. There's not a whole lot you can do about the sun, but if/when it becomes a problem, we'll just have to deal with it. For now, we can concentrate on dealing with the problem of emissions and energy consumption. It will have other side benefits, too, so I fail to see a major problem in the long run.

Reducing the use of oil, coal, helium and phosphorous would be pretty nice, as well, but that is a semiseperate debate.

IWYW,
— Aswad.


_____________________________

"If God saw what any of us did that night, he didn't seem to mind.
From then on I knew: God doesn't make the world this way.
We do.
" -- Rorschack, Watchmen.


(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/21/2012 6:47:02 AM   
Fellow


Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
Looking at their positions in two major issues war and economy both candidates look very bad.
Warren says right thing about wars quoting Ron Paul basically ("We must be careful when we ask the military to go overseas for us.  Must be a plan to go in, and exit strategy to get out") but then pays lip service to double disaster H. Clinton and Obama.
Regarding the economic issues both demonstrate lack of understanding of the current situation. Who pays or who doesn't pay taxes seems to be their main concern. Warren wants excessive student lending to continue (creates lifetime serfs and pushes up tuition).

(in reply to kalikshama)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/21/2012 8:48:03 AM   
papassion


Posts: 487
Joined: 3/28/2012
Status: offline

Global warming is real. It goes in cycles. Colder, warmer. has been for millions of years. Nothing new here. I am not a weather scientist but I do know the tempeture of space is damm cold. Like close to absolute zero. The only thing between that crazy cold and my ass is, what, 20 miles of AIR? Well, gases. We have mountain ranges that are permanently covered with snow and ice. Just 60,000 feet up abve you, the temp is 50 below zero.

My point is, if the temp would drop to where crops won't grow well, we would be in deep shit. Worry more about something happening to our "atmosphere" and getting COLD, than something that is natural and has been happening for millions of years.

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/21/2012 10:57:38 AM   
FMRFGOPGAL


Posts: 763
Joined: 9/1/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250

Was she wearing war paint? Or, did she just figure that the "high cheek bones" and blue eyes would suffice?
You can't believe anything she says, she's a pathological liar. Maybe a sociopath, who knows.
And, I don't want my government getting involved in that "global warming" crap in any way, shape or form.
It's just another money scam.
Want to cool the earth? Figure out a way to stop all those explosions on the sun.


You know what? I'm of course not real shocked you have issues with a successful Attorney/Educator yet live in the dichotomy that if she were "Duh Donald" who made his bones displacing poor people in crooked real estate deals. I don't expect you to see the difference.
  But beyond that, did it ever occur to you that a native American with some interest and appreciation might see your remarks about "warpaint" as offensive?
  You are I suppose that a lot of women simply were raised with stories of pride or whatever within their families that they found romantic and embraced. And I would go so far as o say that probably a VERY significant percentage of these women's reality is that the connection was weak to non-existent. So I presume you would hold every woman to this high standard you SUPPOSEDLY maintain. We haven't seen ONE representation by the Brown camp that this woman has received ANY benefit from from checking a box on paperwork. No, what THEY do (and you as well by being their blind follower) is raise an IMPLICATION. and why? Because Scott Brown has this phony Tom Sawyer act he foists on voters. He says "I'm nobody's Senator but yours". But here's a couple HARD FACTS my friend, Scott Brown has Karl Rove (Compass Point GPS, EXCLUSIVE PR agency of his campaign). when this all started, back when Ted Kennedy died and the special election Scott Brown faced the Mass Atty General, Martha Coakley, Brown using expensive out of state resources and the vast resources of the Koch Brothers Trusts. Now, because of this grotesque interference in the political process THAT BELONGS to the people of the Commonwealth Of Massachusetts, the cost of a Senate Race is now FAR BEYOND the means of any other party or individual to run for the office.
   Did you know that during this election cycle that there were two very sound viable candidates who left their day jobs to come forward and represent the people? One was a democrat named Marisa DeFranco, a tough smart atty with no debt to anyone but the voters who supported her. The other was a man named Bill Cimbrelo, who, in my opinion, would have been equivalent to Bernie Sanders, who is one of the few calling out both parties with factual, sensible arguments and policies.
   Marisa was simply unable to get past the enormous funding clout of the two leaders (ran only 1/2 a dozen TV commercials), even though she ran a strong enough performance to come within a very few votes of forcing a Democratic Primary race at the state convention. Cimbrelo on the other hand was not only out gunned financially, Brown's people engaged (successfully) in quashing his getting on the ballot through challenges. And bumping many of his attempts to speak at public events. It's truly tragic that Brown lets his deeply rooted FEAR of a real independent coming along to knock him off his phony Independent horse. no one who works for Karl Rove and the Koch Brothers. They calculate what votes will have no bearing on the republican desired outcome and tell him "Time for a f aux Indie vote". That's how things are working in the Brown senate office. No and ifs or buts.
  But please, lose this racist "warpaint" crap and shots at the culture caught in the middle.Neither they nor this bogus ethics issue Brown spent a few hundred grand to "uncover" have ANYTHING to do with the real issues voters in the Bay State are concerned with.
   And by the way, Scott Brown has spent over an estimated $4 Million on a very fresh ad campaign subtly distancing himself from Mitt Romney since the 'Vulture Gate" tape was released. Prior to that he was only maintaining distance from discussing Paul Ryan. Sorry, Scott Brown is as fake as anything that has come along. he can't really even campaign on the principals the rest of his party hold as their own.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/21/2012 11:20:08 AM   
VideoAdminGamma


Posts: 2233
Status: offline
Fast reply

There have been some posts removed for violations - Per Alpha . The replies to those posts have been removed as well.

Thank you for being a part of CollarMe,
Gamma

_____________________________

"The administration has the authority to handle situations in whatever manner they feel to be in the best interests of the forum, at that moment, in response to that event. "

http://www.collarchat.com/m_72/tm.htm

(in reply to FMRFGOPGAL)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/21/2012 1:56:20 PM   
FMRFGOPGAL


Posts: 763
Joined: 9/1/2012
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

Looking at their positions in two major issues war and economy both candidates look very bad.
Warren says right thing about wars quoting Ron Paul basically ("We must be careful when we ask the military to go overseas for us.  Must be a plan to go in, and exit strategy to get out") but then pays lip service to double disaster H. Clinton and Obama.
Regarding the economic issues both demonstrate lack of understanding of the current situation. Who pays or who doesn't pay taxes seems to be their main concern. Warren wants excessive student lending to continue (creates lifetime serfs and pushes up tuition).



=hasn't read Warren's plaform

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/22/2012 1:03:40 AM   
joether


Posts: 5195
Joined: 7/24/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: FMRFGOPGAL
quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow
Looking at their positions in two major issues war and economy both candidates look very bad.
Warren says right thing about wars quoting Ron Paul basically ("We must be careful when we ask the military to go overseas for us.  Must be a plan to go in, and exit strategy to get out") but then pays lip service to double disaster H. Clinton and Obama.
Regarding the economic issues both demonstrate lack of understanding of the current situation. Who pays or who doesn't pay taxes seems to be their main concern. Warren wants excessive student lending to continue (creates lifetime serfs and pushes up tuition).

=hasn't read Warren's plaform


He's a pretty conservatived minded fellow. Do not expect him to sit down, and understand how badly he failed at understanding Mrs Warren's view, background and desires for public office. Mr. Brown should simply pack his bags and leave the office; cus the majority of folks are going to vote the Democrat into office.

Yeah, I've gotten a few of the 'independent Scott Brown' letters. He is about as independent of a Republican as he is purple skin with orange hair. He votes as the GOP dictates, NOT, as US Citizens of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts desire.

(in reply to FMRFGOPGAL)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/22/2012 2:17:30 AM   
MAc0ck


Posts: 9
Joined: 2/12/2007
Status: offline
About Warren and her "platform".

I have seen a bit about her and I am convinced she will say or do anything to win the election.

I do no think she cares one bit about anone in the state other than herself and her friends.

To bad, I had wished she would be a little more compassionate in reality and not just in talk.

My own basic philosophy is that government "hand-outs" just do not work.

In my investigations so far I find a trend that seems to be very disturbing.

Within the "Democratice" Party (which is by now almost completely against the principles Jefferson founded it on as the Democratic Republican Party) it seems there are more people that have a great deal of disposable cash than within the Republican Party. I thought the "fat cats" were supposed to be the Republicans, but when I talk with folks that say they are "Republicans" I find hard working "middle class" people that might own small businesses or otherwise earn the money to pay their bills and stay within their economic means.

I hve long ago come to the conclusion that this country is moving towards and almost always elects people, based upon emotions and what we hear as opposed to what someone actually does.

I just, no longer believe the party of slavery, can't do it.

Probably what is needed is a party run by the people and not political bosses.

If I had my way there would be a random selection computer program and the selected person would get a letter that they had been selected to serve as senator with about 15 pages of the things they had to do if they wanted to get out of that assigment.

We might have them, if they opted to do so, be in that job for a second term. But after that it would be a new person.

I have been an intern in DC and the government works just fine with the workers tha are hired to "do the job" and all the senatos an representatives do is give direction as to which way things should go. In that respect, a computer program that contsantly kept new faces in goverment would most probably be the better deal and it would bring our country back to its original intentions.

But that is to gusty for most political people. It also destroys the myth that a senator or representative is so essential for the welbeing of his/her electorate.

Yup, let the program select the elected officials, and also require them to get out after two terms or one.

Much cleaner that way.


(in reply to joether)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/22/2012 10:38:27 AM   
Fellow


Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
quote:

=hasn't read Warren's platform


Yes it is true, I have not read her platform. Platforms are baloney anyway, pandering to the likely voters. My response was solely based on the debate that was the issue here. I have seen some Warren's TV appearances and my impression of her as a person is mostly positive. She was pulled out of her academic life to be TARP regulator. She was not very active, and she showed some lack of spine. It was probably expected from her (as TARP was a crony scam anyway). So, she has the most important characteristics to be a successful member of the club.

(in reply to FMRFGOPGAL)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/22/2012 5:36:38 PM   
kalikshama


Posts: 14805
Joined: 8/8/2010
Status: offline
I read earlier today that Warren didn't realize she was being taped when she made these remarks last September. I wish I could verify that just now; what a striking contrast to what Romney says when he doesn't realize the cameras are rolling:

http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/scarce/elizabeth-warren-myth-class-warfare

I hear all this, you know, “Well, this is class warfare, this is whatever.”—No!

There is nobody in this country who got rich on his own. Nobody.

You built a factory out there—good for you! But I want to be clear.

You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for.

You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate.

You were safe in your factory because of police forces and fire forces that the rest of us paid for.

You didn’t have to worry that maurauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory, and hire someone to protect against this, because of the work the rest of us did.

Now look, you built a factory and it turned into something terrific, or a great idea—God bless. Keep a big hunk of it.

But part of the underlying social contract is you take a hunk of that and pay forward for the next kid who comes along.

_____________________________

Curious about the "Sluts Vote" avatars? See http://www.collarchat.com/m_4133036/mpage_1/key_/tm.htm#4133036

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/22/2012 5:37:26 PM   
graceadieu


Posts: 1518
Joined: 3/20/2008
From: Maryland
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fellow

quote:

=hasn't read Warren's platform


Yes it is true, I have not read her platform. Platforms are baloney anyway, pandering to the likely voters. My response was solely based on the debate that was the issue here. I have seen some Warren's TV appearances and my impression of her as a person is mostly positive. She was pulled out of her academic life to be TARP regulator. She was not very active, and she showed some lack of spine. It was probably expected from her (as TARP was a crony scam anyway). So, she has the most important characteristics to be a successful member of the club.



I know that TARP seems like a bunch of cronyism, and I frankly think that all those bankers who's negligence got us into this mess should've faced legal consequences. That being said, TARP 1) saved us from another Great Depression and 2) has mostly been paid back. Out of the original $700 billion (a little more than the yearly budget of the US military), there's "only", let me check, $130 billion left to pay back, with an estimated net final cost of about $30-40 billion. Which still seems like a lot to most of us, but the military wastes that kind of money all the time.

(in reply to Fellow)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate - 9/22/2012 6:16:26 PM   
Fellow


Posts: 1486
Joined: 9/21/2009
Status: offline
It is quite intuitive the TARP being paid back story is a myth. No need to spread it here.
Here is some info:
http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2012-17-25/tarp-overseer-debunks-bailout-myths-big-companies-haven%E2%80%99t-repaid-tarp-funds-%E2%80%A6

Of course Warren has no responsibility about it. Only negative moment I remember was when she was a guest at Maher show and she told public (as a joking matter) she has no idea where half of the funds went (THEY simply do not tell her). She had very powerful position, how was it possible?
Paying lip service to Obama supporting his criminal perpetual war policies is also very negative. She does not need Obama support, and a senator's job is not support for the president. After all, Obama did not give her the position she was supposed to get as the bankers did not want her.
Supporting Obama war crimes seems rather strange on this background.
She is smart and she has deep knowledge about the financial matters, if she gets to the Congress she could be somehow a little bit useful.
I do not advise anybody to vote for her, of course. She is a Democrat. I am with Jesse Ventura: nobody should vote for the Democrats or for the Republicans. If you vote for these people you will be disappointed,  you will get the same business as usual, no change.

(in reply to graceadieu)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> First Elizabeth Warren v Scott Brown Debate Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109