Scott Brown denies drunk tweeting Bqhatevwr

February 19, 2013
Btw I reblogged this from Jessica on my Samsung Gallaxy Camera.
Pretty good… right?
Bqhatevwr
Scott Brown denies drunk tweeting ‘Bqhatevwr’ – Washington Times
Sen. Scott Brown, R-Mass. blames pocket-dialing for his late-night, and later deleted, tweet in January.
“Anyone ever hear of pocket tweet, pocket dial?” Brown asked, during an interview with FOX 25 Tuesday. “I mean it was pretty simple. I have an iPhone 5. If anyone has iPhone 5, the keys are small. It’s very, very sensitive.”
The senator gained Twitter amusement after his infamous “Bqhatevwr” tweet that later became a hashtag and trended worldwide. Brown had also tweeted “whatever” at several followers, The Washington Examiner reports.
“Ayla was teaching me how to get on Facebook and Twitter, and there were some areas I didn’t really understand,” he added. “So after her concert, we were here in the living room and responded to a couple of people and then put it in my pocket.”
“I rarely drink,” he said. “The last time I was ever drunk was my bachelor party; that was 28 years ago, 27 years ago? So I guess no one ever pocket dialed or tweeted before.”

nothing wrong with a little family incest?

January 26, 2010
…let me think about it… I’m just not sure if it is right or wrong.
I noticed this post is trending. please forgive me. I really don’t think there is any incest… I thought this was just kind of a funny moment. My apologies if anyone takes this seriously. I didn’t come up with this idea. I saw other bloggers posting about it.
…ahem we had some people complain that we were being a bit prude on this post:

Michelle Glover:
First of all you’re sick for imposing that he is having an incestuous affair with his daughters from this pick. You should get sued. You’re the sick one for even suggesting this or even having these sick thoughts. You wouldn’t like it if you went to the beach with your kids and someone said you were sleeping with them because they wore a bathing suit to the beach.
…I just wanted to let all those guys out there know that my daughter is single.
narf!

It_isn’t the bikini that is the problem. It is that Scott Brown is their father. This is incestuous exhibitionism. I would also like to criticize other “fathers” that do this to their daughters. I understand that your daughters do like it… and it makes Daddy feel like the Alpha Male he might feel he never was, but there is something incestuous about it. There is something that needs to be ironed out here. I don’t think he is sleeping with his daughters… but this is inappropriate. People might say this is no big deal, but only because our culture does the father, daughter kinky social pose too often. It needs to stop. I understand that a lot of fathers do this… and this is why we need to say it isn’t cool. forgivable… yes. I understand our culture thinks this isn’t weird. Would You Pose w/ Your Daughters Like This?


Would You Pose w/ Your Daughters Like This?

January 26, 2010

It isn’t the bikini that is the problem. It is that Scott Brown is their father. This is incestuous exhibitionism. I would also like to criticize other “fathers” that do this to their daughters. I understand that your daughters do like it… and it makes Daddy feel like the Alpha Male he might feel he never was, but there is something incestuous about it. There is something that needs to be ironed out here. I don’t think he is sleeping with his daughters… but this is inappropriate. People might say this is no big deal, but only because our culture does the father, daughter kinky social pose too often. It needs to stop. I understand that a lot of fathers do this… and this is why we need to say it isn’t cool. forgivable… yes. I understand our culture thinks this isn’t weird, but it is very brave of Debbie Schlussel to say something:

As readers know, I’m happy Scott Brown was elected as the new U.S. Senator from Massachusetts and I criticized Glenn Beck for his unhinged comments about Brown joking about his daughters being available. His comment that this is all going to end “with a dead intern” was ridiculous.

Still, some readers noted this photo, below, of Brown posing with his daughters, one of them in clam shells, which–if she weren’t flat-chested–wouldn’t cover much, and barely do, as it is. I gotta say, the picture looks like a tourist guy posing with waitresses at Honolulu Hooters. It appears they’re posing at some Hawaiian-themed luau-style party at their home.

Still, I can’t imagine most sane, protective fathers allowing their daughters to wear that kind of get-up, much less posing proudly with her in it. There’s something weird about it. It’s hardly a bikini. A certain “conservative” columnist–her name is Fraudkin–thinks it’s no big deal, while she’s made a career of attacking left-wing celebs who wear far more, but are still dressed immodestly (including Billy Ray Cyrus who posed in photos with daughter Miley). Hey, double-standards are under-rated, right? Yes, I didn’t have much of a problem with Brown’s posing nearly naked in Cosmopolitan magazine in 1982, which was 28 years ago. But it’s a different standard for guys (who pose shirtless all the time, etc. ), and he wasn’t exactly posing with his mother.

Let’s hope that in the future, Brown uses a little more fatherly and personal discretion. And also keep in mind, on the other hand, that if this were Ted Kennedy, he wouldn’t just be posing with them, he’d be forcing himself on top of them in a drunken stupor in the middle of a restaurant at lunchtime (or driving them into a river to die).

I’m sure he’ll be the best U.S. Senator we could imagine (and better) from Massachusetts. What do you think of the photos? Would you let your daughter or grand-daughter wear the clam shell pasties look?


National Security is IMPORTANT! Brown proves it

January 23, 2010

As I was saying on YouTube. This is not just a Tea Party win.

He also won big on national security: 67 percent to Coakley’s 29 percent. Two themes stand out. One is that President Obama’s efforts to befriend old enemies yielded little and conveyed a sense of weakness and equivocation. Iran is still building its nuclear capacity, insulting the U.S. and killing protesters. Venezuela is still nationalizing its economy and rallying the Latin American left. Russia is still bullying its neighbors and declining into a thuggish autocracy. North Korea is still North Korea. Obama’s biggest foreign policy initiative, his conciliatory speech in Cairo, had little impact in the Muslim world.

With so few successes, the Obama administration must now re-evaluate its generous, multilateral diplomacy toward adversaries. That, at least, is one message from Massachusetts.

Another is that voters are unhappy with the administration’s approach to terrorism, which downplays the threat and treats it mainly as a law-enforcement issue. The key officials here are Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, and Attorney General Eric Holder. They have failed to convince the public that their approach is effective, or well executed.

Again, Brown capitalized.

In her initial testimony before Congress, Napolitano refused even to utter the word “terrorism.” Instead, she used the Orwellian term “man-made disaster.” Her response to the attempted Christmas Day bombing was a man-made disaster of its own. The president had to take back her inane statement that the airline safety system had worked well. Equally disturbing, congressional testimony this week showed that, eight years after 9/11, the U.S. still has no procedures to deal with a failed bomber. All the intelligence agencies say they were ignored when the Northwest Airlines flight landed in Detroit, even though it was clear the bomber was a foreign national bent on mass murder. The Justice Department won’t say who decided to treat him like an ordinary criminal, or why. The choice was similar to Holder’s decision on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an al-Qaida leader captured on a foreign battlefield. In a fumbling appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the attorney general could cite no precedent for granting him a jury trial.

Scott Brown saw no precedent, and no excuse, either. “Our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation,” he said bluntly during a campaign appearance. “They do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.”

Brown won convincingly on that, and on pledges to lower taxes and restrain Washington’s grand plans. All these are national issues. That should deeply worry Democrats.

Charles Lipson teaches political science at the University of Chicago.


National Security is IMPORTANT! Brown proves it

January 23, 2010

As I was saying on YouTube. This is not just a Tea Party win.

He also won big on national security: 67 percent to Coakley’s 29 percent. Two themes stand out. One is that President Obama’s efforts to befriend old enemies yielded little and conveyed a sense of weakness and equivocation. Iran is still building its nuclear capacity, insulting the U.S. and killing protesters. Venezuela is still nationalizing its economy and rallying the Latin American left. Russia is still bullying its neighbors and declining into a thuggish autocracy. North Korea is still North Korea. Obama’s biggest foreign policy initiative, his conciliatory speech in Cairo, had little impact in the Muslim world.
With so few successes, the Obama administration must now re-evaluate its generous, multilateral diplomacy toward adversaries. That, at least, is one message from Massachusetts.
Another is that voters are unhappy with the administration’s approach to terrorism, which downplays the threat and treats it mainly as a law-enforcement issue. The key officials here are Janet Napolitano, secretary of Homeland Security, and Attorney General Eric Holder. They have failed to convince the public that their approach is effective, or well executed.
Again, Brown capitalized.
In her initial testimony before Congress, Napolitano refused even to utter the word “terrorism.” Instead, she used the Orwellian term “man-made disaster.” Her response to the attempted Christmas Day bombing was a man-made disaster of its own. The president had to take back her inane statement that the airline safety system had worked well. Equally disturbing, congressional testimony this week showed that, eight years after 9/11, the U.S. still has no procedures to deal with a failed bomber. All the intelligence agencies say they were ignored when the Northwest Airlines flight landed in Detroit, even though it was clear the bomber was a foreign national bent on mass murder. The Justice Department won’t say who decided to treat him like an ordinary criminal, or why. The choice was similar to Holder’s decision on Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, an al-Qaida leader captured on a foreign battlefield. In a fumbling appearance before the Senate Judiciary Committee, the attorney general could cite no precedent for granting him a jury trial.
Scott Brown saw no precedent, and no excuse, either. “Our Constitution and laws exist to protect this nation,” he said bluntly during a campaign appearance. “They do not grant rights and privileges to enemies in wartime. In dealing with terrorists, our tax dollars should pay for weapons to stop them, not lawyers to defend them.”
Brown won convincingly on that, and on pledges to lower taxes and restrain Washington’s grand plans. All these are national issues. That should deeply worry Democrats.
Charles Lipson teaches political science at the University of Chicago.


JOBS B4 SENSITIVITY TRAINING

January 20, 2010


TIME 2 BOMB IRAN. – Voters SPEAKING in Massachusetts.


JOBS B4 SENSITIVITY TRAINING

January 20, 2010
TIME 2 BOMB IRAN. – Voters SPEAKING in Massachusetts.