Skip to comments.Scott Brown Doesn’t Rule Out 2012 Presidential Bid (WTH??)
Posted on 01/31/2010 11:39:15 AM PST by pissant
Scott Brown Doesnt Rule Out 2012 Presidential Bid
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.tv ...
I just told you that Reagan and Bush and Bush II were all pro-life. Why haven’t their Judicial nominees voided Roe V. Wade???
Reagan even nominated Sandra Day O Connor who was pro=choice.
Please answer my question . . do not avoid it.
Likely more than two. I’m already sick of it.
I was being kind :)
I’ve already answered your dumb question once, newbie.
It takes five justices, four won’t do it!
You’re right. No candidate gets a pass. There’s always “something” and several someone’s to remind us of that particular candidate’s short comings, however small, large or rumored.
Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito . That adds up to five.
Even if Roe v. Wade is overturned (which any legal expert will tell you is very unlikely), how will that effect anything? A woman would just have to go across the state line to a pro-choice state.
Yes, I know. You’re always kind.
Follow the thread and pay attention.
Kennedy is pro-abortion and has been for years. The objective is to overturn Roe, return the issue back to the states and work at getting passage of a Human Life or personhood amendment to the Constitution.
I don’t think you’re a serious poster when it comes to the discussion of Roe v Wade or you would know that Justice Roberts signaled earlier that week that he is not necessarily driven by stare decisis.
Did you not post that if we elect “pro-life” Presidents, we will thus have Roe v. Wade overturned? Reagan nominated pro-choice O’Conner and Kennedy. Bush I nominated Souter. And Bush II tried to nominated Harriet Myers, who is pro-choice.
I will take my chances with Scott Brown- Michelle Bachmann ticket.
Bunch of red herrings. O’Conner and Souter are no longer on the high court and Myers never made it. Kennedy was pro-life when Reagan appointed him but since then has shifted to pro-abort. We need one more conservative on the SCOTUS to overturn Roe. Wake up!
Scott Brown is an abortion proponent and supports Roe. I seriously doubt Michelle Bachman would run with Brown and if she did, they would not get my vote.
Pay attention, please!
Neither Scott Brown, nor Michelle Bachmann are running for the nomination and for that matter, nobody else is either!
Not yet, anyway.
“Souter is no longer on the High Court.”
Yes he is . His name is now Sotomyer . . that is who replaced him.
Souter deliberately waited until Obama was inaugurated before resigning his seat.
I also like the McDonnell-Brown ticket. McDonnel is the Virginia Governor.
Gov Bob McDonnell is a staunch pro-life conservative and man of integrity. I doubt he would team up with anyone who does not believe in the sanctity of unborn life.
Why did you ping me with this when I didn’t say anything bad about him and don’t need to be reprimanded like a child?
Note: Conservative talkers who are true blue and not RINOs. Rush, Savage, Levin (I think), Hannity (I think), Liddy, Savage, Malzberg, Cunningham, Dennis Miller (I think) and a few others who are not making fun of birthers.
I agree on both points...
Yup... same here! ;-)
Yeah, FR has sure been having problems lately... it's been down quite a bit in the past few days.
I watched the tape and felt the title was misleading at best. The fact he said he didnt even have a business card yet subtly told Walters how preposterous the supposition was IMHO.
Thanks, tioga. Here's a more detailed "after action report" of those 3 rallies, if you're interested:
...and another very cool "after action report" by my FRiend RaceBannon:
Again, I DO want to stress that I don't know Scott Brown personally, just met him at these rallies. He seems like the Real Deal to me, and was humbled by the thousands of supporters that came out to participate in his rallies on election eve.
We'll have to see how he does in DC. And - yes - like all of the other elected officials - we should hold his feet to the fire.
I'm sorry, Jedidah... we are in full agreement here. I didn't intend to "reprimand" you at all... I was just trying to include you in the discussion on this thread. :o)
Great post in #153, onyx... thanks for the transcript.
I totally agree... like every elected official, I think we should hold Brown's feet to the fire.
I just don't see why everyone is so concerned that Brown might someday consider running for president (which he does NOT say in the 1:26 minute video clip at the top of this thread). He's not even sworn in as Senator from Massachusetts yet. We'll have to wait and see how he does as senator...
I'm sorry, Chris... I didn't intend to reprimand you at all. I was repeating another poster's words and just trying to include you in the discussion.
Whats the matter with you guys? was NOT directed at you. Again, I'm really sorry if my post offended you in any way. :o)
I love being included. Thanks!
(Maybe we should start a Common Sense Coalition on FR.)
It is because of his liberal tendencies. He may turn out to be a RINO like Bush!
Sounds good to me, FRiend... :o)
I do get that and hope that doesn't happen. We'll have to keep an eye on him and see what he does as Senator from Massachusetts...
Baby steps, Mr. Brown.
Besides, you may not even have been seated in your senate seat by 2012 if the Dems can help it (and it looks like NOBODY is forcing them to seat you)!
All of what you wrote sounds good. Personal experience is the most authentic information. However, I would prefer he had not honored Walters with an interview. It puts him more in the celebrity category, than the humble public servant category.
I believe your post was meant for “nutmeg”.
What does F. U. stand for?
No, I was responding to your #75... it says so on the line at bottom of post. You recounted your experience of campaigning with Scott Brown.
Don’t understand your hostility, little enchilada. I was agreeing with your post in 72.
Now, if you have other issues, speak freely.
The only words I wrote in #75 were, “Good post, nutmeg. Well done.”
I had copied and pasted what NUTMEG wrote in her post #71. I also put Nutmeg’s words in quotation marks. Hope this clears up the confusion for you.
Just eff off and stay that way. I never posted to you before this thread. Last week, you posted to me and about me on a thread which didn’t concern you and I chose to ignore you. Likewise, on a thread following that where you carried over your ankle-biting. Now, on this thread, you talk about me, once again belittling my user name. You can stop your stalking game and your ankle-biting. I ignored you twice and that should have been clear: No means No means “Knock it off.”
You have been signed up on FR since 1998 and yet have never posted an article, never started a topic, but post your little snarks on threads others have started. Yeah, I could play the game, little girl norgie-porgie, but you interest me not at all. You can stop and consider this a warning.
Last, I don’t need your permission to “speak freely.”
Just to set the record straight.
1. I simply asked why you would post an “ankle-biting” response to Ansel for posting a Meg Whitman video which to me, as a Californian, was very revealing. Your response to Ansel was, to say the least, dismissive. As you correctly noted, you did not respond, which, of course is your choice, and I would think it is my choice to point that out in conversation with Ansel.
2. My latest post to you was, in fact, supportive of your comments, re the originator of the post in question.
3. I never demeaned you in any post, and, in fact, do my best not to demean any poster. I may respond, at times, with remarks could be somewhat pointed, but I do try to stay away from anything personal...unless it is so obvious that it can’t go without comment. In many posts here, over time, I would guess that I have violated my personal rules with regard to that, and when I have, I regret it.
4. I disagree with many posters at FR, but I always try to be civil about it.
5. La Enchiladita would mean, I presume, “little enchilada” which is how I referred to you. If you take offense, I’m sorry.
6. I have never said to anyone on this forum or anywhere else, “F.U.”, nor have I ever told anyone to “eff off”...ever!!
7. I have also read I Corinthians 13, and do my best to apply it to my life.
8. You are correct. I have been here since 1998 and have never posted an article. For a very personal reason...I don’t know how. Nor have I started a topic, again, for a reason. I don’t know that anyone would be interested in my vanity post.
I find it much easier to respond to posts and comments...I love the back and forth, and isn’t that what Free Republic is all about? In addition, I do learn things from posters, and it challenges me to think. That’s why I would like to have heard why you dismissed so curtly Ansel’s Whitman video. Your response was not very enlightening. My question to you was not combative, but rather, to learn more about Whitman...It does, after all, pertain to my vote, and at this point, I have not made a decision.
9. My user name is just that...a user name. Play with it any way you like. After all, it could be a refrigerator.