Elizabeth Warren: “Whose side do you stand on?”

(It’s pretty simple Elizabeth Warren stands for division, Scott Brown stands for inclusion.   – promoted by Rob “EaBo Clipper” Eno)

It was subtle, very subtle indeed.  Once again Elizabeth Warren used those very subtle words “Whose side do you stand on?”.  She did it this morning on the 100th birthday of Fenway Park, when most baseball fans are thinking fondly of the great history of our beloved park.  

Asked to explain why she might be a better pick than Scott Brown for the US Senate seat Brown now holds, she responded:

Speaking on the field in a red windbreaker, Warren offered why she was a better pick for the seat than Brown. “I think this is about whose side you stand on!

In Elizabeth Warren’s world there are two sides and you are on one side or the other – you can’t be on both.  It’s subtle alright, but it clearly is the language of divisiveness.  Its ‘Us or Them’ or maybe its the ‘99% vs the 1%’, or maybe its the ‘Richest among us vs the middle class’.  In Elizabeth Warren’s world there is no overlap, no working together, no diplomacy, no unity – only division.  And if you are not on her side then you must be wrong!

US Senator Scott Brown has taken a decidely different road in his political life – a road where everyone can travel – together.  It was even apparant in his response to Warren at Fenway Park: (Regarding finance reform in Capital Hill)

“The only reason that we’re getting things done is because I’m there and we’re working hard across the aisle finding people of goodwill to solve problems,” he said.

Today was not the first time Elizabeth Warren used that phrase.  No, indeed she uses it almost everywhere she goes.  She used it in her argument about birth control, and about working families, and about job creation, and about financial reform.  In fact, everything Elizabeth Warren talks about during this election seemingly has 2 sides and you will be asked to stand on one side or the other.  You can not stand with someone who disagrees and work out a solution.  Nope!  you have to chose sides and dig in your heels and fight against your neighbors, your siblings, your employers, your government, your coworkers, your church and whomever else you disagree with in life.  

Isn’t this part of the ugliness of politics today?  Congress has perhaps the lowest favorability polling in history and for good reason – they can’t seem to play together nicely in the sandbox.  Scott Brown wants to go back to Washington to continue his work as a US Senator that is going to find good, common-sense agreement on how to make government better, fairer, dare I say ‘more favorable’.  It seems from her divisive language and harsh rhetoric that Elizabeth Warren wants to go to Washington to see who is standing on her side. The other side can stay away – your ideas are not welcome!

I predict that Elizabeth Warren will continue this slogan ‘Whose side do you stand on?’ because it rallies her base.  It ties in perfectly with Obama’s class warfare campaign.  It divides people into groups of manageable voters.  Us versus them.  Me vs You.  

Isn’t it time to stop the splintering of voters into groups and pitting them against each other like desperate children in ‘The Hunger Games’?  This nation needs someone in Washington that can unite Americans and work hard to forge progress.  Someone that can make us proud again of who we are and what we can accomplish.  We don’t need more of this hate and hostility toward people that see the world a little differently.  Stand with Scott Brown.

About Vote3rdpartynow


  1. Republican Ram Rod Radio

    Um, we’re all on the same side Elizabeth, I mean we are still all Americans after all (nervous laugh), now put those rocks down . . .  

    This woman has no idea how to carry herself in public.  Brown is going to mop the floor with her.

  2. Check your bumper:

  3. Mr. Now –

    America is currently in decline. With enormous debt, promises to every group everywhere, a population addicted to government handouts, and weak prospects for growth – this is the politics we have earned.

    Realizing that the tide will no longer rise and lift all boats and redeem all political promises, we will now see a grubby battle for resources between groups.

    The left will advocate for those addicted to government, the right will advocate for those who will be looted to pay for all that. We are getting closer to the world of Atlas Shrugged.  

  4. who exactly is the “them” in your pathetic retort???

    Ooopsie…your uber-brain didn’t go that far…did it?

    Hint:  the “us” is the People of the Commonwealth.  Not some subdivided group.  There is no “them.”

    Keep dividing the People….it will fail.

  5. We’ve been over this before, but a Senator is not supposed to be “for” the “People of the Commonwealth” he is supposed to be “for” the Union, and is merely “from” a state. The Senate is “the living symbol of our union of states. We should object to earmarks and states wheeling and dealing to bring home the bacon, that is a perversion of justice and the constitutional role of the Senate.

    There was a time when the Republican candidate would have been the one for the Union, while the Democrat would have put their “state’s rights” first.

    I don’t think Warren is “against us” though, though she is surely more pro-Union but not in a good way. I think she is against us if “us” is free men of liberty, though, because she is “for” big government Harvard moonbat Transgenderism top-down elitist eugenic engineering and stripping reproductive rights from marriage. Hopefully Brown is for us beleaguered imperfect men, all created equal with full natural marriage rights.

  6. stupidity is forever.

    Senators represent the interests of the People and states they were elected to represent…..in the Senate.  It’s nothing more than the higher house of the legislature, but the representatives sent there by the People are there to represent the interests of the People that sent them there.

    Your ignorance says that State Senator Hedlund represents the State in the State Senate…..and not the interests of the People in his state senate district.

    Remain ignorant…you can stop pretending to understand the Constitution.


  7. Even before, when they were appointed, they were the choice of the state and lived in the state, so of course they would be very sensitive to their state and be expected to know more about issues that effect their state. They can’t help representing their state, they just do because they are from there, and therefore bias is expected.

    But Senators should shed as much of their bias toward their home state as possible when they go to Washington; it should be seen as corruption to put their state ahead of the country, along with nepotism or cronyism.  

  8. They should not run on the theme that they will be for the residents of their state. That should be seen as corruption, pandering for votes, and anti-Union. If that’s the intent, he should have put the Confederate flag on too.

    I want the believe “us” refers to normal people, as opposed to being for the Transhumanists of the Harvard intellectual elite, who look at “us” as breeders and trailer trash, as uneducable loons who need experts to fix their genes for them.

    But maybe I’m wrong. What do you think, is Brown someone you trust to oppose laws against genetic engineering and sperm donation? Is Warren more likely to oppose them?

  9. loony world you live in.

    Still incorrect and uneducable.  I expect Senator Brown to ignore you and conduct his Senatorial duties with the interests of the Commonwealth in mind.

    Sperm donation is of no concern of the federal government…they have no business empowering themselves to tell me what I can and cannot do with my sperm….we all know how much you want to control what men do with their sperm.

  10. loony world you live in.

    Still incorrect and uneducable.  I expect Senator Brown to ignore you and conduct his Senatorial duties with the interests of the Commonwealth in mind.

    Sperm donation is of no concern of the federal government…they have no business empowering themselves to tell me what I can and cannot do with my sperm….we all know how much you want to control what men do with their sperm.

  11. Do you agree that states can tell you what you can and can’t do with your sperm? They can say you can’t marry sister, your mother, etc? And they can say you can’t have sex with someone you aren’t married to? Or do you think that those state laws are unconstitutional? Do you think a state cannot prohibit sperm donation? Do you agree it would be pretty fruitless, given how easy it is to go to another state? Do you think Missouri’s Amendment 2 is unconstitutional?

    States can give people more rights but they can’t take away any rights that all Americans enjoy. So if a state can prohibit something, then it isn’t a right. If a state can tell you what you can do with your sperm, then so can the federal government.

    Sperm can make human beings, and those human beings are our posterity, and the Constitution exists to secure their liberty too.

  12. 2). States define marriage through state 10th amendment powers.

    3). No…Lawrence v Texas took care of private acts between consenting adults.

    4). No government has a say in what I may do with my sperm.

    I neither wish to read the Missouri Amendmet 2, nor wish to read your likely false interpretation of it.  I live in Massachusetts.

    Your understanding or lack thereof or state, federal, and individual “rights” and how they intermingle is ludicrously incorrect, as always.

    The Consitution does not protect sperm or hypothetical future created sperm-egg constructs of any kind.  It protects citizens and non-citizens under the jurisdiction of…….not precursors of potential sperm-egg constructs.

    Look!!!  A shiny object!!!

  13. States perform the legal act of marriage, but the federal government has the duty to define the proof and effect of state marriages, so that all states can give full faith and credit to any state’s marriage.

    When states prohibit marriage and sex between siblings, or first cousins (to use an example that varies by state), they are prohibiting joining your sperm to a sibling’s or cousin’s egg. They clearly have a right to prohibit sex and marriage, it’s been a function of every government since Hammurabi, no government has ever said people can do what they want with their sperm, so to claim it is a right is ludicrous. You are merely noting that the letter of the law has not caught up with the new practice of artificial insemination, but it could if we wanted to. There is no basic right or human right or civil right or constitutional right to create people outside of marriage or by any means other than sex.

    The Constitution does secure liberty for posterity, which means our progeny, future children before they are conceived.

  14. You just want to make sure genetic engineering stays legal, and you use the state’s rights argument to distract from the fact that you would have the federal government come in and invalidate any state laws that stopped sperm donation or prohibited genetic engineering or tampering with your sperm or creating people however you wanted.

    YOU won;t even look at Missouri’s law because you don’t want to admit that A) you oppose even state laws against genetic engineering and same-sex procreation, and B) that state laws don’t matter because you would just go to a different state that allowed it.

  15. counting the lies after 3.

    This prickish rant said nothing true or coherent.

    …a shiny object!!!

  16. You think government cannot prohibit having a baby with your sister? That’s freakin insane, dude.

  17. You want genetic engineering of human beings to be legal. You oppose state laws against it, you oppose federal laws against it, you oppose international treaties against it. Why don’t you just say what you believe instead of cowardly hiding your views behind false claims of victimhood.

  18. did I say “the government” cannot outlaw incest?

    Hint:  nowhere, lying prick.

  19. …lying prick.

    The more you lie, the more of a loon you become.

  20. I’ve never seen you propose or agree to any law that would make genetic engineering of human beings illegal. You even objected to a federal Constitutional amendment when I tried to get you on board supporting that.

  21. “Lawrence v Texas took care of private acts between consenting adults.” And, you’ve said the government can’t tell you what to do with your sperm.

  22. “Lawrence v Texas took care of private acts between consenting adults.” And, you’ve said the government can’t tell you what to do with your sperm.

  23. I won’t normally moment once the thread leaves the sidebar, but this batch of bullshit is worthy.

    You are a liar and a lunatic.

  24. a positive does not support a negative, you lying prick.

  25. Are you OK with the government prohibiting incest, or not? If you are OK with it, how do you reconcile that with your claim that the government may not tell you what you can do with your sperm?

  26. you go with that mouse in your pocket again…or is it a gerbil?  Who’s this “us”?

    The lying prick John Howard and his friend John Howard the racist, sexist, classist, anti-homosexual bigot?

    Your a lunatic, nothing more.

  27. the incest thing, eh?

    How many times did you commit incest with your brother?

    Hint:  incest laws have nothing to do with what I do with my sperm.  Incest is an action.

    Double hint:  that there are incest laws does not negate that Lawrence v Texas did in fact affirm the rights of consenting adults to have sex in private.

    Triple hint:  you’re a lying loon with some incest obsession.  There may be a pill to cure that along with your obvious racism, sexism, classism, and bigotry.

  28. So you think Lawrence invalidated incest laws between adults, huh? You really think they ruled that there is a right to have sex with a sibling? That’s ridiculous. And you also seem to be claiming a right to procreate with a sibling too?

    There is no right to create people intentionally at all, and Congress has the power to regulate the creation of American citizens, after the twenty-five year window expired during which states had the power to import persons as they saw fit. That power is now explicitly under Congress’s control.

    There is a right to marry and a right of marriage to have sex and procreate together, but no right to create people any other way.

  29. I should have been more specific, not that it matters since you will misconstrue what I say anyhow. When Congress gained the power to control the importation of persons from the states, that means adding to the population by means other than procreation. Obviously procreation by people already in the US was not “importation of persons” but just as obviously, they did not intend to leave a loophole by which states could still have control of raising population by creating people as embryos and mass producing slaves by artificial means like cloning.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *