The Tea Party doesn't care about social issues with the exception of the real wacky ones like Chistine O'Donnell

In Massachusetts ? The most Republicans could hope for is a moderate like Brown. All 10 congressional districts are represented by democrats, and will remain that way in the new congress. The democratic governor just got re-elected. Brown's vote to repeal, while admirable, played into local politics

The "wacky ones"? Seriously? Which ones aren't wacky? Bachmann, DeMint, Angle, O'Donnell, Palin?

"only when the battle effectiveness of the forces is assured and proper preparations have been completed"

proper preparations? What the hell is that supposed to mean?

Uh, oh. Scott Brown is going to get t-bagged come next election.

Uh, oh, people on the left STILL don't know what the Tea Party members stand for or think is important and are still name calling like children to drive away the independant and undecided voters. That's going to hurt the left again in the next election.

You don't follow the news much either, do you? The Log Cabin Republicans got it repealed and the Obama administration appealed the decision.

Senator Brown's doing just fine.

Hasn't he accomplished the most truly amazing feat? He's a Republican, AND the most popular elected official in the state of Massachusetts, for heavenssakes!

Let's show a little respect for that achievement, First Readers.

As a conservative, I'm also a "big-tent" guy...like Newt Gingrich, who suggested that, since Colin Powell clearly doesn't want to be a Democrat (however much pride he justifiably shows in the election of President Obama) and has (thus far, at least) resisted all efforts to convert him, I'm glad that Scott Brown is the Republican Senator from the Bay State.

I may not support his position on every issue, but the day he called himself the 41st vote in the Senate against Obamacare, well...it's all good, isn't it?

Besides...First Readers seem to love Scott Brown almost as much as his constituents do!

I can't stop smiling about that.

Well, Allen, it is difficult for liberals to know exactly what the "real" Tea Party stands for because look at some of the candidates they selected--hardly representative of what it claims to be about. If Tea Partyers don't want to be lumped into one group, they shouldn't allow those who do not represent their ideology to be front and center candidates. It is pretty hard to tell the real TPers in those rallies from the others who just liked the idea of being anti-democrat and anti-government.

Mixed Bag ... with all due respect, Obama was said to be the greatest "uniter" this nation has ever known, and is the only human on earth who can fix the American economy, if we'd just give him a chance. 2 years later, I don't feel we've EVER been more engaged in class warfare then we are today. (directed mostly by the administration and it's rhetoric and implemented policies)

Well, I think we can all agree that no one can be trusted in this political environment we have evolved into. Everything is back-asswards, and I suspect Brown and most of the recently elected 'conservatives' will also prove to be yet another bait and switch tactic. Bribes, money, and power changes people, and it don't take long, especially if you have no or little character and no moral compass.

STexan

The lack of unity is clearly the result of the Republican political strategy to oppose everything proposed by the current administration, including their own ideas. Unity requires cooperation from both sides. Instead we listen for the sound of one hand clapping.

With all due respect, STexan...

Senator Brown has already done more to live up to his billing than President Obama ever will.

"...This was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow, and our planet began to heal."

-Senator Barack Obama, after clinching the nomination as Democratic presidential candidate, June 2008-

It was tough to listen to then...

But now...?

don97524,

Obama is the most polarizing Preisdent in Gallup history. Fact.

That is not the American people's fault, not the Republicans fault - It's Obama fault.

Plain and simple.

bob

Perhaps you should look up "fact" and "opinion" in the dictionary. Clearly you are expressing an opinion and choose to call it a fact.

Yeah I'd say that you are simple.

Bob-

That would be Palin's fault!

Plain and simple.

Ok Mixed Bag, so when Mitt Romney proposes a similarly designed government run health care reform in the state of Massachussets, its all fine and well, Obama does it for the nation, and its rampant socialism? Would you rather the goverment at least put forth an effor to ensure you have health insurance, and financially aid you in that endevor, and ensure you are not arbitrarily removed from said insurance because you are becoming too expensive, or experience something akin to what is currently going on in Arizona(removed transplant, and insert some other medical issue that is terminal without medical intervention, like, say cancer, autoimmune diseases, AIDS.)?

No don, it is a fact that Obama is the most polarizing President in Gallup history. (Gallup's history of taking polls on presidential polarization.)

Got a problem with it - take it up with Gallup.

Good, now stop holding up the unemployment benefits.

S Texan - it's easy to create propaganda by just dropping a portion of a factual piece of information and then in commentary twist its meaning. You did that in reference to the Administration's defense of DADT in court.

In fact, the President specifically asked the Attorney General to defend the law so that a Congressional action repealing it, rather than a court order, would take place. It is a strategy intended to put more public support behind the repeal rather than once again allow a court decision to divide and polarize, and cause more problems than it resolves. By statutory action, all the parties involved have an opportunity, as they are this very moment, to discuss and debate the policy and then resolve the best means of adopting and implementing it. That represents good principles of governance.

Oh, and by the way, this is yet another example of how Obama goes about seeking to avoid polarization. He is not the polarizing figure - rather it is the ultra-right and GOPTP that has deliberately created polarization with propagand, lies, deception and fear tactics.

bob

Continue the argument if you must but we are talking about Gallup OPINION Polls and that, my friend, is a fact.

No don, it is a fact that Obama is the most polarizing President in Gallup history

That wouldn't be because of republicans saying he isn't really a citizen of the United States. Couldn't be because of republicans saying he is a communist/socialist/marxist trying to destroy America....and these are just a few examples :)

Duh - don,

That's what Gallup does. Gallup takes opinion polls and Gallup found that Americans consider, their opinion, is that Obama is the most polarizing President.

Geez

So, Bob, are you kind of starting to understand the difference between fact and opinion now. Opinions can change, have changed, will change ...... that is a fact. Facts, on the other hand, do not change. For instance, it is a fact that many ignorant people have the opinion that President Obama was not born in the US and/or he is a Muslim .... or a socialist ..... or a Marxist .... or a communist ..... but those are opinions of ignorant people who, surprisingly enough, have the opinion that their opinions are as good as the opinions of people who have actual facts on their side. Go figure. ;)

Eric - time to stop kidding ourselves, jobs are not coming and we have to find something other than more debt to fix it, we can't just keep borrowing from China. And Obama has not kept his campaign promises, health care is a sham - no it's not like Mass. There's too much pork in it and no way to pay for the health care benefits! I like Brown - he seems like he actually listens to constituents and actually isn't afraid to get it done!

Are you this obtuse, or are you just messing with me?

Good for senator Brown, and good for the Republicans to allow one of their own to have a different opinion.

Don - not sure why you're arguing about Bob's statement...seems clear to me that Bob is just stating numbers from the Gallup poll. He didn't say it was an overall fact (after all, polls are just opinions) - it's just the results from Gallup. I realize you may disagree with the sentiment expressed in the polls, but that's a different issue altogether.

bob

President Obama's "divisiveness" is an opinion, as measured by an opinion poll. That does not, however mean that it is a fact that President Obama is divisive any more than it would mean that Obama is not a citizen just because there are those ignorant people whose opinion it is that he was not born in this country. Are you starting to catch on now? Am I still going to fast for you?

In the words of that great philosopher Foghorn Leghorn, "Son, you're standing too low. This is going right over your head."

Yes, but the poll numbers are a fact. What they measure is an opinion, but the numbers themselves are facts.

For example, if you ask 20 people if the earth is flat and 10 of them say yes, then it is a fact that 50% of the people in your poll think the earth is flat. This doesn't mean the earth is actually flat or that everyone thinks it's flat...it just means that 50% of the people asked thought it was flat.

If Don had stated that the Gallup poll proves that Obama is the most divisive president ever, then yes, that statement would be incorrect because it's stating the opinions expressed in the poll are facts and not opinions.

Yep Brown was history befire this, he has already played footsies with the inept lying quasi socialist in the white house one time too many, We may loose the seat but we will have conservatives when we are done.

He and Collins can both run on write in campaigns, they won't be republicans.

He and Collins can both run on write in campaigns, they won't be republicans.

John,

Maybe you could get Christine (the teen-age witch) McConnell to run against him in the primary...

Rumor has it she's not doing anything these days...

Just a thought! ;0)

Personally, I think it's good to have Brown in the GOP - he brings a different viewpoint. I'd also like to see more GOP people like Chris Christie - financially conservative, but stays away from moral issues.

Scott Brown is the most popular elected official in MA currently, and this will only increase his reputation here.

You have to understand local politics. This State's Democrats are very far left, they make up about 33% of the electorate. Republicans here make up about 13% of the electorate, there's only a very small number of them that are hard core right wing, more of them tend to be moderate or even libertarian in their politics like Senator Brown. 54% of the electorate are "Unenrolled", our version of Independent. About 5% of that are progressives or socialists that don't think the far left Democrats are far left enough. The rest lie somewhere in between, with the bulk of it leaning Libertarian (social liberal, fiscal conservative) without subscribing to the label.

This is how Scott Brown got elected to start, and how Mitt Romney won the Governor's position a few years back (and Charlie Baker would have won without Tim Cahill making it a 3-way race this year and splitting the fiscal conservative vote).

Senator Brown is popular, and most of this State, including it's Republicans are socially moderate if not liberal, and this will serve him well. In fact, there's little worse he could have done for his career than having come out against repeal of DADT after the Pentagon's report. There was room for him to say, "lets wait for the report from the military leaders", there's no longer room for him to oppose this here without damaging his re-election chances. And that's even with a small contingent of hard core conservatives which will try to sink him because of it in the primary. The State Republican party is reasonable enough to know this State will not elect a strong social conservative in the general election. And there are enough moderates to support a big tent approach to the national party's platform. Scott Brown in fact ran as an independent voice for MA, because the actual Republican party isn't much liked here - and it's because of the social conservative movement.

ucg, the wackiest bagger of them all (Sarah) cares a lot about social issues including opposition to anything that is considered to be pro-equality for gays. And, I seriously doubt if she is standing on that corner all by herself. What about the wacko from Nevada and the one in Alaska and the one from Florida, etc. etc.?

good news. I hope John McCain will go home and look himself at the mirror and see the evil jack wagon he's become.

McCain died after the 2008 election and some imposter took over his body

Why even bring up McCain? It's Clinton's DADT policy they're talking about. McCain can believe what he wants and Obama can challenge rulings to stop the repeal all they want as long as they are representing who they're supposed to.

Allen

it still takes us to one point, which is correcting the mistake of the past. Mccain's role in this is so pathetic. the way he's gone about it is just very very wrong. just see the way he addressed the generals (mullin) even the president of the U.S.A as if he's Mr. know all McCain. a very arrogant and ignorant failure he is. anyone, whether gay or straight, should be able to serve in the military openly.

We bring up McCain because he is someone who said "I will believe what the Pentagon tells me" and then he backs away from that statement. We bring up McCain because he says soldiers will quit their jobs because they will be forced to serve with gay people, when McCain works with openly gay people and hasn't quit HIS job. We bring up McCain because he campaigned as a maverick, one who had an open mind and was willing/able to work across party lines, and ever since the election he has been so conservative it makes us laugh. We bring up McCain because he is a hypocrite and should be called out as one.

You bring up McCain because he's the guy who keeps kicking the can down the road by demanding that those who wish to repeal DADT jump through more and more hoops.

"The day that the leadership of the military comes to me and says, 'Senator, we ought to change the policy,' then I think we ought to consider seriously changing it." - Sen. John McCain, October 2006

In February of this year, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Admiral Mike Mullen, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said EXACTLY that...it was time to repeal DADT. Senator McCain said that we needed a study to determine what the effects of repeal would be.

Now we have the study and he claimed he need time to review the study while simultaneously claiming that the study we had was flawed and we need a new study. Well, if you need time to review the study how can you already claim it's flawed?

McCain is simply trying to stall and delay and obstruct to whatever degree is possible. The candidate that he was in 2000 would be ashamed of what he has now become.

Jay

for days, I got so sick of McCain's bullish, arrogant, selfish and idiotic bigotry thinking that he's Americans military knowledge bank. He should called as a failed killer of DADT

It is sad for me to see what's happened with McCain. He's someone I used to respect because he seemed to care more about the country than the party. But, then he took the hard right turn to win the Republican nomination in 2008 and he's turned into just another a regular politician now.

MCCain is doing exactly what his constituency elected him to do.

Any of you that don't like it, move to Arizona, vote against him in the next election.

He wasn't elected by the United States he was elected by the citizens of Arizona.

So you are saying that the people of Arizona elected McCain to be a close minded, do nothing, stall machine just because you do not like a particular lifestyle? That my friend goes against everything this country stands for. I too had much respect for Sen McCain. There was a time it seemed he cared more about the United States than his political party. We need to just repeal DADT. We are the only military in the world that does this and it violates basic anti-discrimination laws.

MCCain is doing exactly what his constituency elected him to do.

So, the people of Arizona elected him to go back on his word?

You are talking about John Kerry aren't you? Who voted for it (the $84 billion in war funding) before he voted it against it?

Of course then he went off on a nice tax evading cruise in his yacht.

"McGeezer!!!!" That is both apt and dead on correct!

No Kirby. This discusion is about DADT (was that not clear to you?), not some election over 6 years ago, one which most Americans wish could be done over given the disaster that was King George the 43rd. And even if we were talking about flipping on Iraq war funding, I think you could say the same thing about roughly half the American people, who were also before it before they were against it (after they found out about W's treasonous lies). And if we were talking about flipping in general, I guess you don't see any of that with repugnuts do you? Like being for earmarks, before being against earmarks, before being for them again, which is a bit more recent than 6 years ago in case you didn't notice, and a bit more topical now too.

But as I said, this is about DADT, and this part of the vine is about McGeezer flipping on that issue. Please try to focus if you want to participate.

Educated, he was referring to the "voted for it before I voted against it" comment that Kerry is famous for. Just like if someone were trying to apply the "we have to pass it before you can read the bill" crap to a Republican, someone will ALWAYS bring up that was Pelosi's dumbest/most arrogant comment ever.

Feisty was just being herself. Name calling and spreading hate.

Feisty

He's sure gonna p!ss off McGeezer... you know the guy who was FOR it before he's AGAINST it!

They call him Flipper... Flipper...

Girl Friend too funny. McGeezer can flip all he likes he. He's too old to do anything else except kick the bucket. I hope he doesn't it's fun watching him flip.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
kirby in idaho

You are talking about John Kerry aren't you? Who voted for it (the $84 billion in war funding) before he voted it against it?

Do you know why? The Congress discovered it was a lie. Don't give funding for lies.

Of course then he went off on a nice tax evading cruise in his yacht.

Where do you park your boat, if you have one? Would it be for convience?

Well done, Educated Thinker.

Anything Brown is going to do, has be done in the next two years, he will be history in two years.

Anything Brown is going to do, has be done in the next two years, he will be history in two years.

Where did you purchase your crystal ball?

Or is tea leaves you're reading?'

Ouija Board?

So why are we even wasting time on this social issue during a time of war? Just because some gay fools want to wear their sexual orientation on their forehead? Never cared if one of my troops were gay or not as long as they could do their job. But never ask any of them if they were gay or not either.

stormer - Rather than repeat my comments like you have, please see my response below at 20.1

Thank you SamIAm. It's sad that people today forget about the freedom of religion in our country. It means I am constitutionally obliged to have my own beliefs and not be held to someone else's. It means hating gays because the bible says so is not a constitutionally valid argument. Most importantly, you are right, we are all created equal; no human is inherently better than another.

pfm-1052427

Thank you Senator Brown for showing a sense of reason in the Republican Party.

I agree. Now, if Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins could do that then we'll have equality and the right to die in dignity for the LBGT warriors.

Those two broom riders from Maine are too afraid to go up against Grand Wizard McConnell.

They caan both go ahead and do anything they want to, they will not have the suopport oof the republican part, in 2012.

They have played footsies with Obama one time too many.

D. Smith-2752285

Finally, a Republican who has made a sound decision, and not one based upon party partisanship. McCain should take note, instead of back-pedaling. Wasn't McCain the one who said no one should rush into a decision until the Pentagon report is complete? Well, not it is, and he doesn't like the finding, so therefore, it is a "flawed study". He needs to retire.

McGeezer is "flawed " just like the rest of the GOP/TEA BAGGERS. They keep moving the goal post. Obstructionism is being noticed little to these greedy and clueless legislators knowledge.

i used to be the same way. i used to think that democrats had a hold on social policies, and that republicans had a grasp in economic and foreign policies. like so many people, i considered myself a fiscal conservative and a social liberal.

after bush however, it is clear to me that republicans have a grasp on neither.

It used to be that way but it isn't any more. The left just went so far left that they make statements like upholding the constitution as written by both parties is "extremist".

I am a fiscal conservative who votes Democrat because Republicans have continued to stand for bigotry.

Um, DADT was a Clinton law. If you really think it's bigotry, think about that. Nobody on the right was concerned about having Condi Rice or Colin Powell in the positions they were in because of the color of their skin. The left are the ones pushing for intollerance of Christianity. Come to think of it, do you know what bigotry means even?

Definition of BIGOT

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

Look at comments about the Tea Party, Bush, Christianity, taxes, etc and tell me the left doesn't show intolerance to those points of views or treat them with hatred.

Allen -- DADT was a compromise on what Clinton actually wanted to do; he was trying to work with the bigotted Republicans even while extending LGBT rights. If you've read any of his statement concerning DADT, he has condemned what it has come to represent.

How is he being fiscally conservative when he wants to add 700 billion dollars to the debt through tax cuts for the wealthiest 2% without paying for it?

Allan. Has anyone denied your right to practice your religion as you choose? No, they haven't because the first amendment guarantees you can believe as, or if you, choose without the government telling you how or if you believe. DADT declares people can serve in the military, risk their lives but they must lie in order to do so. You, on the other hand, can tell anyone and everyone your religious beliefs without losing the job you chose.

He can have that tattooed on his forehead after he is thrown out of office.

General Colin Powell assured President Clinton that the military would not ask, that it would not act on rumors or consider what people did when not in uniform. Powell meant it but over the years, that promise to Clinton was broken many times.

Pat, Boston, MA

A Little Background on DADT

Thanks for enlightening them. It's time to evolve.

Our Cubbie Bears Ron Santos died. May he RIP in Cubbie Bear heaven.

Dear Beverly, I hadn't heard about Ron Santo. So so sorry. Yes, indeed Ron, RIP.

Just because you say it's so doesn't make it true. I know alot of Republicans who support decisions made by Brown. Despite what liberal media tells you, the right isn't sitting around doing *insert every single bad thing you can imagine here* and the left isn't doing *insert every good thing that ever happened - if it was a Republican, claim the parties switched stances in that era - if it conflicts with another decision made that year, forget you said that in that instance*.

Allen you are right. Just because you say it's so doesn't make it true. Including some of your statements. BTW. Most people that are on the far left are extremely upset about the direction of our country. Most people like me who are true progressives find themselves in a dilemna. President Obama has not been standing up for what he said he would. I find it hard to vote for him after all the caving he has done. But can I really sit back and let Christianity take over my life? That's what will happen if Republicans are in power. It's no longer a free country. So I'm not just over here saying Republicans are all wrong and Democrats are all right! No. But on this issue it's pretty clear. Republicans do not stand for the First Amendment or Equality for ALL citizens.

Jay - count me among the disappointed Progressives. I'd much rather see Obama go down fighting for what he believes than surviving by caving in to Republicans. Most of us on the (relatively) far Left feel he has abandoned his principles for the sake of political expediency. I can't imagine voting for a Republican in 2012, but if the President doesn't begin to make his way back to his base between now and then, I can almost imagine not voting at all, for the first time in my adult life.

I'd hate to do it, and of course, it would depend upon who was running against him, but I don't know how else to deliver the message to Obama that he cannot, and must continue to forsake those whose hopes and ideals put him into office.

Has President Obama "caved" or has he been forced to compromise to get anything done because of the Senate GOP blockade? Add the blue dog dems into the mix and there has not been 60 votes without a lot of "caving" by all democrats not just the President. Don't blame President Obama, blame the Senate and the abuse of the filibuster giving power to the minority and not the majority.

Scott Brown has a potful of shameful anti-gay statements in his voting record in Massachusetts. He once referred to another state senator's lesbian relationship as "wierd". Anyone who wishes to research his public statements will see what he really is. SCOTT BROWN STOOD UP FOR HIS OWN JOB SECURITY AND NOT FOR HIS COUNTRY!!

So he is following the will of the people of his state...I thought he was elected to do that?

Don, are you really reaching that far to try and find something evil about a Republican agreeing with a stance you have an opinion on? I tried looking up the Scott Brown stuff and it turns out that was an opinion column on a Boston website and the editors refused to reply when asked how they came to the opinion he was "anti-gay". http://www.gaypatriot.net/2010/01/07/dishonestly-tarring-scott-brown-with-the-anti-gay-slur/

If you have anything to the contrary to link, feel free. I don't take people at their word without something to back it up. You hear alot of made up "facts" or outright lies on newsvine.

You really get that worked up over someone saying something is 'weird'? No wonder you guys don't understand what true racism is these days.

Yes, out with the "bigotted" Clinton policies. Out with the fog of controversy! We have to repeal it to see who's gay! They're only voting the way they do because of the economic situation!

Did I miss any leftisms?

Seriously though, name calling still? Get some real data if you want to debate.

So the teabaggers were for him before they were against him? I see.

Sorry, still for him. Don't knock the guy because he's representing his contituents.

Keep making crap up though when you don't have any facts. You're just pushing more people towards the center and right who don't like to be in the company of childish behavior.

Tea Partier and Childish Behavior. Synonomous.

Make up what facts?

Allen you are seriously misguided. The majority of comments on here have been thanking Senator Brown for being reasonable, open-minded, and not-hypocritical. Most people are knocking on the conservative movement and what their reaction is sure to be. I, as well as thousands of gay Americans woke up to see this statement and rejoiced. It is nice to have a Republican Ally. You keep saying we are close-minded, but you are just as much. As much as you are fighting with people, if you look at the facts and what people are ACTUALLY saying, we can agree on so many issues.

Nah we are going to attack him, we are going to kick back, wait for 2012, and remove him.

He can play footsies with Obama if he wants to, he can't hurt anything now, he is dead in the water right now.

He might as well go ahead and have a good time, he has played with Obama one time to many now.

FAIL

So what if he is, he is going to vote the will of his constituents which is really what he is supposed to do. It would be nice if all politicians could remember this.

THANK YOU JODY! I think us Iowans have a calm about us that let's us see both sides of any issue. You are so right, it is about what is best for EVERYONE. Not just the "majority" or those polled as the majority.

DOMA is a social issue. DADT is a military issue. And many have testified credibly that it reduces our troops' morale, fosters dishonesty throughout the ranks, and impedes many capable and talented gays and lesbians from joining our armed forces when we most need them. Moreover, DADT is going to end soon. If Congress doesn't do it, the courts will because it is blatantly unconstitutional, as several courts have already ruled. And it makes far more sense to do this legislatively rather than judicially. No stormer, this is not a waste of time.

But I do agree with the "damn the social issues" comment - Damn Prop 8 in CA, damn a proposed federal Constitutional amendment banning gay marriage, and damn Terry Schiavo type situations.

So it would be OK to kick you out of the military for ever mentioning your wife or girlfriend to anyone?

Having to hide things and lie about yourself is not compatible with military service.

Having to hide things and lie about yourself

"Don't ask" - translation: they don't ask about it so you don't "have" to lie
"Don't tell" - translation: they don't have to tell anyone and shouldn't even if someone asks

I didn't ask you about your sexual orientation. Do you somehow feel like you're pushed into hiding it or lying because I never brought it up?

I'm against DADT and have been since Clinton enacted it, but your reasoning isn't very logical.

You're right allen. The whole dont ask don't tell thing means people won't ask and gays won't have to tell. But that is not reality. The reality is there are people in the military who out people they think are gay whether they have any proof or not. If I joined the army, I would do an outstanding job. I have a high IQ, I am very fit, I can run forever, and I'm small and can fit into cool places. But I would last about all of 2 days there. People would just know I'm gay and would kick me out of the military, regardless of whether I had actually engaged in homosexual conduct while being enlisted or not.

So you are COMPLETELY right about what DADT stands for, but you are absolutely wrong in your perception on how it is implemented.

Okay, it's fair to homosexuals to repeal DADT, to be fair to the heterosexuals those who entered into the all volunteer military have to be given the opportunity to leave the military, without prejudice.

They entered an all volunteer military under one set of basics and the military is changing the basics, they have to be given the opportunity to leave the military, without prejudice.

I have written to my elected reps and told them that that has to be part of the act that repeals DADT.

We can hold them over for say, 6 months while the draft is reinstituted, to help train the influx of draftees.

Perhaps it will be good for the country to reinstitute the draft requiring every abled bodied man and woman to serve a minimum one year military service.

That will give the entire country a fresh new view on the military and stop the constant posturing by people who, have no knowledge of how the military operates.

I am sure the message you are sending to your Fatherland type, listeners is "Crucify him", referring to Republican Senator Scott Brown from Massachussetts.

Well, that's the difference between the left and the right. The left THINKS they know what the other side is saying, but refuses to listen to it, so they just make it up. I have heard NOTHING of the sort on right wing talk radio, there isn't even a story on it on Rush Limbaugh's site, hannity.com has no stories on it, and I'm not even going to keep checking the rest. You do it. Find one and prove you aren't just spreading baseless hate speech.

Or could it be the liberal media TOLD you to think like this and you did it without even thinking twice?

Personally I don't listen to any of those you listed so I had to go look it up. But I do listen to/read both left and right media sources and I can say the left has quite a few people like you who have no clue what the right is saying. Hint: They're talking about Rangel mostly today and how arrogant he was after all his convictions.

They don't to tell us anything Brown has already voted with the Democratic Parasitical Party, one time too many.

TexasLiberal??? ya gotta be in Austin, right?

Right on Texas liberal !

TEXAS-------- How soon you libbies forget, it has been a month since you libbies had your fanny handed to you.

Today, here you are spouting the same drivel.

I do wonder just how smart, you folks are.

Dear Texas,

The good ole boys are representing their constituents. Get over yourself.

Personally, I like Scott Brown and as a Tea Party supporter, I would vote for him. I was hoping Scott Brown would step up to the plate for gay rights as Obama and the Dems have not.

Scott Brown has a potful of shameful anti-gay statements in his voting record in Massachusetts. He once referred to another state senator's lesbian relationship as "wierd". Anyone who wishes to research his public statements will see what he really is. SCOTT BROWN STOOD UP FOR HIS OWN JOB SECURITY AND NOT BECAUSE HE'S COURAGOUS!!

Massachusetts would not have tolerated a vote against repeal of DADT.

Lesbians aren't wierd, they are weird. I would have to agree at least 70% of lesbians are weird. Then again 30% of all people are weird and another 40% have something in the closet. So it's a tie.

bh-455602

Lesbians aren't wierd, they are weird. I would have to agree at least 70% of lesbians are weird. Then again 30% of all people are weird and another 40% have something in the closet. So it's a tie.

I don't think you are; just a homophone.

If you do the math Beverly I said lesbian 70% - (30%+40%) everyone else = 0. Which my meaning was lesbians are no different than any one else.

(And I have no phobias) Maybe Chicagophobia.

bh, please excuse bev. shes from chicago

don - he is courageous in that he represents the people of Mass. Not just his own personal goals. I wish my Senators and Representatives would have those guts

herb, i know you probably cried not being able to write teabagger, your tiny brain would have exploded.

Scott Brown serves his constituents not himself. If that's what Massachusetts wants, that's what Massachusetts gets.