Hey, there! Log in / Register
Several Massachusetts reps join House sit-in over guns
By adamg on Wed, 06/22/2016 - 2:19pm
Very glad to see @RepMcGovern, @RepKClark, @RepJoeKennedy & @sethmoulton all joining the #NoBillNoBreak fight. #holdthefloor #goodtrouble
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) June 22, 2016
Topics:
Ad:
Support Universal Hub
Help keep Universal Hub going. If you like what we're up to and want to help out, please consider a (completely non-deductible) contribution.
Comments
Capuano
How hypocritical of them
This is a form of a Gov. shut down. Remind me what the headlines read last time that happened. They had 4 votes yesterday and have one scheduled coming up, this is nothing less than a childish antic and playing politics. They look like you average SJW college nut.
Two words: "Due Process"
GOP
I'm not sure if I agree with this gimmick but I think it's highly undemocratic and childish for the GOP to turn off the webcam feed to the chamber.
The party with a majority doesn't "own" the house.
Its the NRA's fault!!!
Its the NRA's fault!!!
Yup
The bloodiest hands in America. Directly responsible for thousands of lives lost every year. Maybe tens of thousands.
Zero-snark!
Nailed it, the NRA is
Nailed it, the NRA is literally pulling the trigger of these guns!
Following the Pulse nightclub slaughter, sources confirmed Mateen had been interviewed by the FBI in May of 2013 and May of 2014 concerning his connections to Hezbollah and Al Qaeda.
The FBI was also aware Mateen had traveled to Saudi Arabia on two separate occasions, made threatening remarks to co-workers and two weeks before the killings had visited a gun shop wanting to purchase body armor and bulk ammunition. When employees of the shop notified the FBI, officials called the store but failed to follow up.
Director Comey defended the FBI’s actions stating:
"I don’t see anything in reviewing our work that our agents should have done differently…Our work is very challenging, we are looking for needles in a nationwide haystack but we’re also called upon to figure out which pieces of hay might someday become needles."
In August 2013, during the Ft Hood shooter’s trial deliberations, outgoing FBI Director Robert Mueller also came under fire for dropping the ball.
It seems a year before Hasan's rampage in 2009, the FBI had intercepted a series of emails between Hasan and Anwar al-Awlaki, a radical Islamic cleric with ties to the 9/11 hijackers. When challenged about the FBI's knowledge of the emails, Mueller told a CBS interviewer:
"I think, given the context of the discussions and the situation that the agents and the analysts were looking at, they took appropriate steps."
In the case of the 2012 Boston Marathon murders, a House Committee on Homeland Security outlined the ways in which the FBI failed to detain Tamerlan Tsarnaev less than a year before, when he returned from a trip to Dagestan. The FBI said that in 2011 it had interviewed Tamerlan and family members but closed the case because they "did not find did not find any terrorism activity, domestic or foreign." During this time they also managed to miss Tamerlan's 2010 violent YouTube videos inspired by his globalist jihadist ideology.
The FBI's horrendous record of ignoring mountains of red flags when interviewing suspected Muslim terrorists on watch lists is as astounding as their excuses after much blood has been spilt. The investigations, they claimed, did not produce enough probable cause to detain the Islamic terrorists. The FBI's excuses do not hold up when reviewing the case of a Virginia veteran’s encounter with federal agents.
When FBI agents, Secret Service personnel and local police showed up on former Marine Brandon Raub's front porch to interview him in 2012, all they had was a Facebook page of rap song lyrics, political opinions on government cabals, talk of an impending revolution and what they said were "complaints" about his 'threatening posts." No jihad videos, no long list of warnings from co-workers, no threats to kill Americans, no domestic violence charges, no trips to Saudi Arabia or Moscow, no connections to Islamic fundamentalism and no mention of Allah Akbar.
Yet in Raub's case, the FBI acted swiftly to arrest, detain and send him to a mental ward 100 miles from his home for evaluation. In 2012, constitutional lawyer John Whitehead, forwarded me the timeline.
On August 16, 2012 federal and state officers questioned Raub for 15 minutes, handcuffed him, took him into custody and transported him to jail. The next day a Temporary Detention Order was issued allowing for the marine's commitment on the basis of dangerousness and mental illness. On August 20, the state filed a petition for involuntary admission for treatment asserting Raub was mentally ill. The petition was granted and Raub was transported to a medical center in Salem, Virginia. On August 22, legal counsel from Whitehead's Rutherford Institute filed an appeal on behalf of Raub. On August 23 the circuit court ruled that the original petition was "so devoid of factual allegations that it could not reasonably be expected to give rise to a case or controversy."
After Raub's release, an FBI spokesperson in Virginia was asked to comment on the blatant violation of Raub's civil rights, she offered this explanation:
"We received quite a few complaints about what were perceived as threatening posts. Given the circumstances with the things that have gone on in the country with some of these mass shootings, it would be horrible for law enforcement not to pay attention to complaints."
Funny how the FBI had no problem finding a non-Muslim, white veteran needle in a haystack within days of searching through his Facebook posts. Government agents paid such close attention to “complaints” about Raub that they detained, arrested and shipped him off to a psych hospital in record time.
EDIT: Sure, here is the link. http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/06/fbi_to_islamic_terrorists_we...
Yeah that's a pretty terrible
Yeah that's a pretty terrible record, though it certainly doesn't mean the NRA's hands are blood free.
Also could you link to the article you plagiarized there?
EDIT: Thanks! It's a little tough to take seriously an article saying things like "For eight years, the Obama administration has apologized for the United States, bowed down to terrorism-sponsoring nations, and publicly criticized our country as a hotbed of Islamophobia." However the point stands that the FBI (et al.) have some serious issues.
But an organization (NRA) that works so hard and spends so much money fighting any chance of any reasonable change to gun laws, and on top of that any research into gun violence in this country is also deeply flawed.
Probably a tea-wet dream fantasy story
Consider the source. Google it.
I did, and even though the
I did, and even though the source pretty out there it that doesn't invalidate every point it makes.
Be very afraid!
And even very afraider of your guns being taken from you!
Despite adequate evidence of mental illness, paranoia, and all that.
Did the FBI sell him the gun?
He was able to walk into a store and buy a weapon which can (and was) used to kill masses of people quickly. This wasn't a hunting rifle and he didn't need such a weapon for protection.
There is no reason for normal citizens to be able to own such a weapon, let alone buy one easily.
The framers of the constitution did not intend to make it easy for one individual to slaughter masses of people. The 2nd amendment needs to have limits applied just as the 1st amendment doesn't protect slander and threats.
THIS!
Everything else is irrelevant.
Freedom from tyranny.
Freedom from tyranny. Government with limited power. Both irrelevant.
Please Explain
Please explain how limiting the sale of certain types of firearms is tyranny.
yeah, your AR-15 is a great
yeah, your AR-15 is a great match against the tyrannical US government, and their billions and billions of missiles and heavy weaponry.
hurrrrrr
I dunno, some relatively
I dunno, some relatively untrained dudes with AKs and IEDs managed to keep the the better part of the U.S. army busy in Iraq and Afghanistan for a decade. Vietnam isn't a U.S. colony either.
Buddy if the US Government
Buddy if the US Government wants you dead, all the machine guns in the world aren't going to help. The idea of personal citizens maintaining firepower in case of government overreach was started when those citizens and the government had access to about the same level of weapons.
Nowadays the military has borderline invisible jets where they can sniper rifle you through your kitchen window from a mile in the air. The ability to track every cent you ever made, every phone call you've ever made, and every dirty website you've ever looked at. The usual citizen arsenal is barely competitive with whatever cast offs the local sheriff's department got sold on the cheap by the DoD; let alone if the whole of the federal government is *actually* looking for you.
wow
Take off the tin foil hat.
Read again
The poster you're accusing of being loose in the flue isn't talking crazy talk about the gummint coming to inspect your underwear, just about the relative capabilities of military hardware -- that which is currently in use by the military, and the still-considerable armaments that have been unloaded to police departments around the country -- and the would-be Defender Of Personal Liberty with an AR-15. That's a statement of fact, friend.
Oh really?
Sniping out of airplanes is a thing? Really? Might want to let the military know, as that would have been a lot safer than sending 50 commandos into Pakistan to kill OBL.
And buying one of those scary
And buying one of those scary "assault rifles" entails the same exact process for buying a handgun, hunting rifle, shotgun... its no easier or more difficult.
Meanwhile, FBI officials have said they have nearly 1,000 open investigations Involving the Islamic State in all 50 states. Even if only 10% of those are legitimate, surely this should be a cause for concern.
Umm, yeah
Yeah, that's exactly the point. I'm glad you agree.
Newsflash
A .22 pistol with high-capacity magazine is just as deadly as one of those scary black guns. Much deadlier, as a matter of fact, because you can carry more ammo and it's much easier to conceal so the victims won't spot you until it's too late.
And now they've lost track of
And now they've lost track of the wife of the killer. Lost track of her. It's just unbelievable to me that the FBI is this clueless. It can't be.
I don't get involved in certain arguments, like this gun debate. Personally, I don't like having a gun in my home and won't, but I can't speak for others.
I had an older sibling that belonged to the NRA. He loved to hunt and go to the shooting range. (We'd argue about the hunting) He left when they started supporting such weapons that was obvious overkill for hunting. He felt the organization was getting a bit too crazy for him at that time.
That being said, the No Fly list has been ruled unconstitutional so to use that list to ban weapon purchases could pose constitutional problems.
Yes, we need federal gun laws and hopefully a national database, but I fear this kind of nonsensical sit in does nothing. It's all for the cameras and is cheap. Why can't they revisit the "no fly" list? From what I understand now, if your name gets on it you will never know why. Isn't Rep. Lewis' name on it? And, I've heard you rarely ever get off the list. Having secret lists is very un american.
I have no faith in any of our politicians, the FBI and I don't see any improvement in the near future. I abhor these stupid displays
Question
Give me a logical reason to keep a gun in your house other than self defense ( which is not logical as previously discussed your gun is about 100 times more likey to kill you or someone else than to kill an intruder). So other than cloaking yourself in the second amendment, why do you need a gun in the house? And if it's illogical to have a gun in the house save for the second amendment, why do we have/need an inherently illogical amendment?
Most search warrants
are issued with probable cause. There for it is illogical to have an amendment requiring probable cause because it follows that most search warrants are upheld when challenged.
Most speech is inoffensive. Why have a 1st amendment?
Most people don't own slaves anymore, nor want to. Why bother with a 13th amendment?
That has nothing to do with the point
The exceptions are an amendment's reason for being in many cases.
However, when an amendment accomplishes the exact opposite of its intent, i.e. it makes us LESS safe by exposing us to the risks it's designed to protect us against,why does it exist?
I'm way more afraid of getting shot by some random person with a gun than I am of getting jailed or killed unjustly by the government.
I'm not anti gun. You can have as many as you want. I just think they should be stored in an appropriate secure facility, not your home.
You know that 100 times
You know that 100 times number is bogus, right? The actual NEJM study originally concluded 43 times, and then was corrected by the author in a follow-up to 2.7 times (95% CI 1.6-4.4). The original 43 times disingenuously included suicides (the rate is independent of the method -- taking away guns doesn't change the number of people who commit suicide) and did not control for a variety of non-gun related factors (like the fact that people killed by a gun at home are more likely to have a criminal record). The new revised ratio still includes deaths in gun-owning homes where the death is that of a criminal shot by police, and the control group is still composed of individuals matched for age, sex, and SES living in a 1 block radius who merely told the researchers they didn't have a gun (not the homes of homicide victims whose homes were searched for weapons by police).
No 100 times
10,000 murders, 500 accidental deaths and 20,000 suicides. 250 cases of self defense - which may include off duty law enforcement that will still have guns.
Ample evidence that a gun in the home significantly increases the likelihood of suicide.
You will never prevent all the carnage but getting guns out of homes would probably save thousands of lives maybe tens of thousanss every year.
The only logical reason to suggest having a gun in the home increases safety is self defense but the numbers don't even come close to justifying keeping it there.
Buy out the entire Chinese army for all I care, but keep your guns in a controlled facility with reasonable sign out for hunting, competition etc.
As always, not holding my breath.
I would think if you live out
I would think if you live out in the country there's a legitimate concern about coyotes, bobcats, whatever the local predatory species. Especially if you have livestock or outdoor pets.
Self-defense vs. every other use
I don't disagree with where I think you're trying to go with this, but I have many neighbors who have firearms in the house. It's a rural area and these firearms are used for hunting and sporting purposes (two distinct and non-overlapping categories, in this case). I don't know anyone here who keeps a firearm for self-defense. I don't think there are many options other than keeping the firearm in the house -- some of the folks who target-shoot might have the option to leave the firearm at the local gun and rod club (I don't know if that option exists), but for hunters and biathletes, they do need to keep them somewhere and that somewhere is the home.
Not meaning this as a derail, but this is something that everyone who sincerely wants a solution to this problem needs to realize: something that's self-evident common sense in Arlington is not necessarily so in Otis, because different situations. I realize that we've all got a lot of loud bullshit from the NRA lobby that's drowning out the sensible dialogue, but we are just going to have to learn to listen past the noise if we want a solution.
Reasonable solution
Private or public storage - gun club, private facility, shooting range, police station. That satisfies 99% of the people that are hunters and target shooters. Want to take your gun out - sure - sign out the ones you need - not an arsenal - and take them hunting shooting and say when they will be returned. Kind of like going to the library.
If you have a legit need (you are a rancher defending your cattle) reasonable exceptions can be made - kind of like LTC here.
I can't keep a propane tank in my house on the off chance there is ever a fire. But I can have an armory big enough to take out the whole neighborhood? Lunacy.
There are reasonable solutions and every solution has reasonable exceptions. The gun nuts just want to wave the second amendment so the guvmint can't tyrannize them - forgetting that the guvmint has drones and bombs and nukes and the most sophisticated Army Navy and Air Force in the world to deliver them if they want. If they really want to get you, that AR15 and your Glock won't do you much good. You'll never even see it coming to shoot back.
As I said - I'm WAY more afraid of the guy with the AR15 in his closet than I am even Donald Trump.
The NRA loves mass shootings.
The NRA loves mass shootings. Just follow the money. The mass shooters are good customers of theirs, after all. And after every mass shooting their sales and stock prices go through the roof. That is why they buy up republican politicians to keep the mass shootings going. They don't care about peoples rights or protection. They only care about protecting their own wallets.
Just like they love arming terrorists
The more terrorist and cartel and failed state mayhem there is in the world, the more the paranoid and terrified want them some GUNS to protect themselves from, oh, living children.
NRA?
National Recording Artists?
Well the DNC voted down 2 of
Well the DNC voted down 2 of the 4 bills on the grounds that they didn't like accused persons having due process before a judge.
They were offered a genuine compromise and threw it away in a tantrum.
That wasn't a compromise,
That wasn't a compromise, that was BS. Three days to find out someone wants to buy a gun, make a case, and get in front of a judge? Pretty much impossible.
Just like this sit in is BS.
Just like this sit in is BS.
I'm glad people are waking up.
If the feds haven't built a
If the feds haven't built a case yet then why is someone on a watch list denying them civil rights? People flagged either have evidence to show the start of a case to a judge or they don't and shouldn't be on a list.
Because they're being watched
Because they're being watched to see if there's enough evidence to build a case? Look, I'm not disputing the principle of going before a judge before denying someone a right- there's some sense there. But three days is crazy, and they knew that when they wrote the bill(s). What about a couple weeks. Is there any legitimate reason someone can't wait a week or two to get a gun?
And I'm not saying the Dems' proposal is sound either, basing it off a very flawed no-fly list of debatable legality is also crazy.
No, but yes
No there's no reason you can't wait a week.
Yes there's a reason because the same feds who once put Ted Kennedy on the no-fly list don't have the capacity or competence to screen every single application with any scrutiny beyond the "do you have a record" check they do now. Give 'em three days and they may prioritize. Give 'em however long it takes and everyone with a parking ticket will be waiting for months on end.
Which as much as the gun grabbers may like it, is more of that leftie passive aggressive government-by-inconvenice that might fly in Mass, but generally isn't compatible with the principle of limited, accountable, and responsible government we like to think we have in the US.
Dude I'm not arguing for some
Dude I'm not arguing for some kind of indefinite period where a parking ticket can sink you. There should be a strict time limit with a set, transparent process. My argument here was just that 3 days is way too short, and the Republicans know that. They've done a really good job in the last decade or so shifting the center of politics right, by taking positions farther and farther to the right and then complaining that Dems won't "compromise." And I mean that sincerely, credit where it's due, but often what they offer is not a real, honest compromise. As in this case.
Republicans shifting the
Republicans shifting the discussion right? Try Democrats shifting things completely to the Left. Many Democrats shave actually said we should jail or prosecute "hateful speech" as well as "climate change deniers." That's about as un-American and tyrannical as it gets. JFK would be considered and "moderate" Republican by today's standards...
Yet most "liberal" US
Yet most "liberal" US politicians now are actually center-right at best compared to much of the world.
Don't forget "Obamacare" was originally a Republican idea, but now it's "socialism."
It is socialism
and corporate welfare and a stupid Republican idea cooked up to line the pockets of their medical insurance buddies (even more than what came before) with taxpayer's money. There! I disagreed with the Republican party.
And for the record, Republicans and Democrats both have gone left on fiscal issues and separated wildly on social and cultural issues. Plenty of blame to go around.
I'll buy that three days is short. I'll also buy that there's a middle ground between "free guns for all no questions asked" and "if you've ever looked at a flight attendant funny you're blacklisted forever" but only if you acknowledge that finding that middle ground is not something that can happen with a feel-good, shoot-from-the-hip (pun intended) piece of legislation that's ramrodded through in a time of high emotions.
I will open the bidding at accepting the fact that because the "no fly list" is neither full-proof in flagging all the bad actors nor free of false alarms ensnaring innocent citizens, it is bad policy to write a law based on the no fly list as a starting point for telling good guys apart from bad guys.
Which civil rights?
Were you pounding on a table and asking this question when the civil right in question was the right to travel freely? Did you get equally het up about the creation of the no-fly list? About people being chucked off flights for Traveling While Muslim?
That Second Amendment
It doesn't mean what you think it means:
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/what-americas-gun-fanatics-wont-tell-yo...
Militia doesn't mean what
Militia doesn't mean what *you* think it means. It's all citizens of fighting age, in the colonial period and early republic, that was all men ages 18-60. Nearly every state *required* citizens to purchase and maintain their own working arms and ammunition and present themselves for service and training at regular intervals. If you want to argue that all citizens should be required to get training in how to use firearms, you'd have more of a case.
militias
*You* didn't read the article. Or you just think Hamilton was a putz.
Aww.
Those big meanies, turning off the camera.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/01/house.gop/
It Sounds like College Campus crybaby stunt.
A bunch of babies throwing a tantrum.They should all hold their breath until they get what they want.
Or perhaps wait
till the next mass shooting? Take yer pick.
Markey and Warren
Ahh yes Ed Markey, whose last
Ahh yes Ed Markey, whose last private sector job was... driving an ice cream truck!
Maybe he should stick to selling ice cream. He didnt do too well December hearing on Climate Change:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oh6zDbWMuP0&feature=youtu.be
When your kid is on the No Fly list
... and gets disappeared at an airport and interrogated, we'll talk.
My kid didn't, because Markey's office chewed out OHS for taking two years and still not taking him off the list, and we finally got a redress number.
Oh but FREEDOM EQUALS GUNS GUNS GUNS and "If a kid doesn't want to be strip searched, he shouldn't have a name on the no-fly list"!
And, that is why using the no
And, that is why using the no fly list for gun purchases is a bad idea.
Also, Markey is just doing his job for one of his constituents, no need to fall at his feet.
Ahh yes the seriously flawed
Ahh yes the seriously flawed and secretive government no fly list! That should do the trick. The same list where Ted Kennedy was mistakenly put on. Weekly Standard writer Steve Hayes also found himself on the list. Want to know how you can get on this list?
1. Being suspected of direct terrorist activity
"The man who tried to bomb a Northwest Airlines flight in 2009 and the man convicted of planting a car bomb in Times Square in 2010 both were on the no-fly list (they were able to board planes anyway). Last year, the Intercept obtained a secret document issued by the National Counterterrorism Center that details how the government puts people on the no-fly list as well as on terrorist databases. It lists people convicted of or arrested for acts of terrorism, bombers, hostage takers, assassins, associates of terror groups, and others. According to the document, federal agencies can nominate someone for a government blacklist if "an individual is known or suspected to be or has been knowingly engaged in conduct constituting, in preparation for, in aid of, or related to TERRORISM and/or TERRORIST ACTIVITIES."
2. Travel to certain countries
3. Something you said in the past
4. Have a similar name to someone on the no-fly list
"In 2007, “60 Minutes” famously brought together a group of people named Robert Johnson who experienced problems flying, likely because a man also named Robert Johnson had been convicted of plotting to bomb a Hindu temple and a movie theatre in Toronto."
5. Not becoming an informant
"According to a federal lawsuit heard in New York this summer(2015), four Muslims say they were put on the no-fly because they refused to spy for the FBI. The men’s names were removed from the list but they sued FBI agents for damages."
6. Clerical error
"According to a lawsuit detailed in Wired magazine, a Stanford University doctoral student was placed on the no-fly list in 2004. After seven years of federal lawsuits, it was determined she was unjustly put on the list because an FBI agent had checked the wrong box on a form."
7. Law enforcement issues
8. Controversial Tweets
Sure, some of these are valid but I think most will have little faith that the government will not abuse this "list" and act legally or ethical.
And ...
Guess who fought the stupidity of the No Fly list? Demanded that there be a process for removing names?
Markey.
Intro Poli Sci, final exam question #1
When in a political battle with someone who actually marched with Martin Luther King, and is one of the last surviving icons of the Civil Rights Era, should you or should you not reiterate the tactics of Southern politicians from 1962?
Way to turn off the cameras, Paul Ryan.
The KKK was formed to disarm blacks
Poli Sci W 2
Who was the target of Ronald Reagan's gun control laws?
Senator
This is great, but I wish Senator Warren would help out the middle class. .She told us a few years ago we're getting hammered and she's done nothing to help me. She's been in office 3.5 years now and is more into Twitter than actually helping MA residents out.
Has any senator done anything to help you?
Almost nothing has happened in the past two years. It's called gridlock. Both parties block anything the other proposes.
Anyway, what specific legislation do you want her writing? Should she give you a tax cut? Should she help you send out resumes? How are you getting hammered and what specifically do you want her to do about it?
If you want to complain, fine, but at least understand the basics of legislation.
Ever contact her office?
Ever contact her office? Constituency services would be a start...
She is so easily played, it's almost embarrassing.
Real brave of her, her twitter wars with Trump from her safe space. Lowering herself to his level, too funny!
(not a fan, you can tell )
You have to admit, we're used to Kennedy. He at least remembered the people in this state. warren is no Kennedy, that's for sure.
Yet no details
You don't have to like her. I'm not terribly impressed myself. But I ask again, give details of what you think she is or is not doing and examples of other senators which do not lack these problems.
I have never called my senator as I don't expect any senator to do anything for me personally. Sometimes I write them in support or opposition of a bill or issue but I hardly expect them to do me favors.
If you are asking for Pork (earmarks) to be sent to your district? Kennedy was too good at that.
She lost all credibility when
She lost all credibility when she claimed she was "Native America." But hey 1/32 park Cherokee counts right?
Yawn
But I'm sure had it not been for that checkbox you would have had all the respect in the world for her, eh?
She has been ineffective and hasn't proposed (let alone passed) bills which specifically limit predatory lending, pay-day loans, corporate tax loopholes, lax banking regulations, etc -- the sorts of positions she ran on.
THAT's why I am not a fan of her. Not because some meaningless Harvard HR form. But she's still vocally opposed to the sorts of policies Scott Brown campaigned on which is why I don't regret voting for her.
Senator Warren
"She has been ineffective and hasn't proposed (let alone passed) bills"
Agree with this. Senator Warren was all about fighting for the little guy in MA, but now it's like she wanted the job just for the glorification of her massive ego. She can't answer a straight question when interviewed and seems to care about raising her national profile, instead of fighting for her constituency. It's kind of disappointing. Senator Kennedy, for all his personal faults, fought for us and cared about Massachusetts. Our senior senator shouldn't be sending out unprofessional insulting tweets to Trump; how about instead helping out working on legislation to help small businesses or reducing taxes for the middle class for her Massachusetts residents.
I think warren is a very
I think warren is a very intelligent woman and has an important role to fill. She knows more about our current financial institutions, rules, regulations than most, but she's no business in the US Senate.
I have written her office in response to her discussions of college debt. I had questions. I got a form letter back that had nothing to do with anything. Pffffft.
I used to get personal letters back from Kennedy's office that addressed my concern/question.
She is being easily played by the DNC. Ever see her in person? If she's not on script, she's fumbling, nervous and obviously very uncomfortable. See her actually run away from the reporters a couple of weeks ago? She ran when asked a question. Remember when Patrick had to answer her questions at her press conference? She hasn't changed.
Like I said, she's got no business in the US Senate.
The hypocrisy of those that put up with her "high cheekbones" remarks is stunning.
I have seen
her speak in person in a smallish setting. I have met many office holders and candidates and I have never met and heard anyone as sincere and genuine as she is.
I am proud that she is our senator and hope she will continue in that position. She is a fearless defender for her beliefs.
Fearless?
Fearless? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Better than gutless
Like people who whine about people that aren't "ladylike" enough for them on the internet, but never bother running for office themselves.
Says the brave woman from behind her computer
You're such a blowhard, Patricia. Please tell us all about the ways that you're "fearless".
I actually agree Warren is fearless
Unfortunately, that's also what makes her useless. If you are trying to get to yes, you don't do it by publicly shaming your colleagues. Nor do you do it by emitting sound bites on TV. You do it by proposing legislation and negotiating hard but compromising. I don't see her proposing anything or compromising. I agree with her on a huge number of issues - I even wrote a book about the crap retail brokers pull on customers.
But she is a self-serving, self-aggrandizing egomaniac that will never get anything done (and why God needs to help us if she ever gets closer than a heartbeat from the presidency which is too close for comfort). We already know what you get when you vote for a first term senator with no leadership skills.
Take this discussion from another angle
Looking at this debate from another angle, I'm frustrated when Congressional leaders "refuse to allow a vote".
I saw a proposal - can't recall exactly where- that if a bill has X number of sponsors (100 for the House?) then it would be automatically put to a vote within 90 days, and not squashed by House/Senate leadership.
This would apply no matter which party is in charge. It would help break the log-jam for major bills that have wide-spread acceptance, even if they aren't favored by the President or majority party in that body.
I don't really care if a Senator/Rep votes for or against, but they can't hide behind a lack of a voting opportunity.
Now, does anyone know how to get common-sense rules like this into place? Or can tell me why it might not be as common-sense as I feel it is?
Sit-ins
Sen. Frank Niceley
@SenFrankNiceley
Previous #Democrat sit-ins. #GoodTimes
How the hell are they going
How the hell are they going to come up with legislation which will screen gang members before they swap stolen guns which are used to play Wild Wild West everyday? What a joke. Hell, how many of the shooting deaths in Dorchester alone this year (or last year) were made by someone who legally purchased that gun?
Yeah but
Dorchester is inner city, no claims it's terrorism, and most of the people killed are black and/or poor.
Hardly worth the media's concern.
Difficult concept
This is a difficult concept, I know, but try to follow along. It's not the goal of the legislature to create one single law that will solve all problems. Yes, I know it messes with your need for instant and total gratification, but Congress can, in fact, pass multiple laws that address different issues. They can even (wait for it!) pass different laws to address different aspects of the SAME issue. Your complaint is like whining about why doesn't Home Depot carry more flavors of ice cream.