Elizabeth Warren Leading Scott Brown In Two New Polls

[MassRuss]

They made an ad attacking warren on the Native American issue? Did the Brown camp consult with a certain JUB poster?

I think the above post answers your question....

 

[rareboy]

It is amazing that even the Brown campaign is so bereft of issues of substance to attack an opponent with that they are still snivelling in the dirt with this non-issue.

Sad.

I always expected more and better from Brown.

 

[maxpowr9]

It is amazing that even the Brown campaign is so bereft of issues of substance to attack an opponent with that they are still snivelling in the dirt with this non-issue.

Sad.

I always expected more and better from Brown.

He wasn't bad in the 2010 campaign but now, he has been drinking far too much tea if you know what I mean.

 

[Jack Springer]

It is amazing that even the Brown campaign is so bereft of issues of substance to attack an opponent with that they are still snivelling in the dirt with this non-issue.

Sad.

I always expected more and better from Brown.

Talking about how Warren practiced law without a license and getting jobs posing as a minority is a non-issue?

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

Talking about how Warren practiced law without a license and getting jobs posing as a minority is a non-issue?

It's a non-issue because the case she worked on was in federal court and she is not required to have a MA license

The post indicates that this is a federal case. You do not need to be licensed to practice law in Massachusetts to practice law in federal courts located in Massachusetts or anywhere else. Federal courts decide who can practice before them, and individual states can’t tell federal courts that an attorney cannot practice before them. It’s that whole supremacy clause thing. Constitution 101 and all that.

It is really well established that a federal district court can admit an attorney to practice before it even if the attorney is not licensed in that state. You most certainly do not need to be licensed in the state where a federal court of appeals sits to appear before the federal court of appeals. I am clearly practicing law when I argue before the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati. It does not matter that I am not licensed in Ohio.

The blurb also mentions taking the case to the US Supreme Court. I have submitted an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on a case that originated in West Virginia state courts even though I am not licensed to practice there. I was not practicing law without a license when I did so because I was admitted to practice before the Supreme Court.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/pro...rren-practiced-law-in-mass-without-a-license/

AND it's another dirty mud-slinging trick because Professor Jacobsen (who 'broke' the story) should already have known that. He also most likely knew that his readers WOULDN'T know that and that they would just run with his original premise. It's both cynical and desperate. The opposition keeps trying to make some mud stick because they have nothing else.

Not that anything that deviates from your serial attacks will matter to you, anyhow. Jack, I am really starting to despair over you. You post attacks one after another and then, when they are debunked or answered, you just abandon them for new and unrelated attacks without ever conceding that you were wrong.

Look at the "flag" thread. You abandoned it when you were proven wrong and just moved on to the next "bad liberal" talking point.

I'm extremely close to giving up on you altogether because this is neither reasoned nor reasonable.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

BEST of luck with your "new" campaign strategy there, Scotty!

 

[chance1]

Brown has served Massachusetts well but frankly he shouldn't have won in the first place - he was handed the seat by the shit for brains massholes who put up that train wreck of a candidate

so it's likely one and out for scotty

even though he's a thoughtful and excellent representative

Elizabeth Warren whom I liked early on - had seen her on MJ a couple times early in the campaign

she's a typical limousine lib who wants to have it both ways with donors and demagoguing

and her convention speech was us vs. them and boring

sorry luv but your technical defense of warren above leaves me cold - seems very i did not have sex with that woman

 

[JayHawk]

Andy, So far I have blocked all the other "conservative" viewpoints except the Jacks because they are irrational and ignorant viewpoints that are rarely based in fact. I have noticed the same thing BUT Jack Springer doesnt hardly ever attack anyone. SO I let him go off. Usually I can listen to right wing radio and know what it is he is gonna post about anyways.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

I have noticed the same thing BUT Jack Springer doesnt hardly ever attack anyone.

Sorry, maybe I was being unclear. I didn't mean he attacked other posters (I don't think he does) I meant he attacks liberal political targets and then bolts after the discussion doesn't bear out his original claim and then he just moves on to the next.

And I like Jack, which is why this bothers me.

 

[chance1]

Andy, So far I have blocked all the other "conservative" viewpoints except the Jacks because they are irrational and ignorant viewpoints that are rarely based in fact. I have noticed the same thing BUT Jack Springer doesnt hardly ever attack anyone. SO I let him go off. Usually I can listen to right wing radio and know what it is he is gonna post about anyways.

all other "conservative viewpoints"

all 2 or 3 of them

must be quite a chore to listen to opposing viewpoints instead of monologuing

 

[Centexfarmer]

^ I'm sorry. I keep forgetting that you can't post in this forum whenever you want.

When I read your posts I read them as if you just posted them.

But then I get to see more than others here.

 

[LuvFindsAndyHardy]

sorry luv but your technical defense of warren above leaves me cold - seems very i did not have sex with that woman

Sorry, it's not a "technical" defense at all. A law professor made a claim he (most likely) knew or should have known was way off base in order to sling some more mud at Elizabeth Warren. I'm not saying she didn't "technically" do anything wrong, I'm saying she unequivocally didn't do anything wrong. I am further INSINUATING that Jacobsen already knew it didn't care. He cynically put it out there anyway.

 

[Centexfarmer]

Clearly! Who amongst us wouldn't fuck Scott Brown over Elizabeth Warren?

 

[maxpowr9]

@ Luv

It's the same case with the asbestos victims. Warren got the victims their money from Traveller's Insurance but it didn't pay out because they wanted to reduce the amount of compensation so it got tied up in the court systems and victims went penniless.

It's this seed planting in the rocky soil that the GOP does to get people riled up but nothing ever comes of it.

Still I am quite surprised how many Scott Brown signs I've seen when I went home for my dad's birthday.

 

[chance1]

^ I'm sorry. I keep forgetting that you can't post in this forum whenever you want.

When I read your posts I read them as if you just posted them.

But then I get to see more than others here.

i actually thought my response was quite "elegant" unlike mittens

and restrained

he deserved much worse

 

[chance1]

Sorry, it's not a "technical" defense at all. A law professor made a claim he (most likely) knew or should have known was way off base in order to sling some more mud at Elizabeth Warren. I'm not saying she didn't "technically" do anything wrong, I'm saying she unequivocally didn't do anything wrong. I am further INSINUATING that Jacobsen already knew it didn't care. He cynically put it out there anyway.

perhaps it was your snarky presentation that threw me

fair enough

i owe you one "you're dishonest"

 

[Centexfarmer]

i actually thought my response was quite "elegant" unlike mittens

and restrained

he deserved much worse

Well who in the hell approved that post?

 

[chance1]

Well who in the hell approved that post?

i just spit up my water - happy ?

i do need to work on my elegance

did anyone hear that joe biden is a cheapo on his charitable contributions? only 1.5% of his earnings

cheap joe

i like the sound of that

 

[Centexfarmer]

i just spit up my water - happy ?

i do need to work on my elegance

did anyone hear that joe biden is a cheapo on his charitable contributions? only 1.5% of his earnings

cheap joe

i like the sound of that

I hope no one compares my charitable corporate contributions to my yearly income.

There's a lot of charitable deductions that I don't don't take, or declare.

So maybe "Cheap Joe" is just being modest.

 

[chance1]

Even with that candidate, wasn't the election real close? Scott Brown is vulnerable against a stronger candidate.

He didn't win that much against Coakley.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate_special_election_in_Massachusetts,_2010


52-47%.

yep - it's massachusetts - luv and max can tell u more about it than me but ...........

ted kennedy could've run as a dead guy and won

they need not have a presidential election in the state as they reflexively go dem

so that was my point

scotty was on the clock the day he was sworn in

liz warren is no prize of a candidate - and she looks like that awful teacher i had in grade school

but compared to martha, she's hillary clinton-esque