Posted: September 4, 2010 at 6:32 am
Roy Brown makes nationwide list of worst state legislators
When the national League of Conservation Voters, which works to turn environmental values into national priorities, announced their list of the dirtiest state legislators in America, why are we not surprised that State Sen. Roy Brown (R-Billings) was on it.
This means he’s one of the worst state legislators out of the thousands around the country.
For several years, the league has had a “Dirty Dozen” list mainly made up of members of Congress, and its smart that they are now tracking local legislators, as this is where so many of these decisions are made. Local conservation supporters say Brown is on the list because he consistently votes with Big Oil interests and corporate polluters and against clean energy legislation.
In short, he’s completely out of touch with the issues facing the modern world.
Montana Conservation voters details a selection of his worst votes here. The full list of state-level Dirty Dozen candidates can be found at www.lcv.org/statedirtydozen.
Be careful here reader, as voting records are in the eye of the beholder.
I lost faith in the LCC back in the 1990′s – they used to drum up fake “important issues” so as to make Baucus look like he had a good environmental record. Something like three of the eight votes they counted one year, two of which were procedural, had to do with the Joshua Tree monument, not unimportant, but a bill that passed with such a large margin that Baucus’s vote did not matter. It could have been cosmetic. Very deceitful.
I would urge anyone reading this post to dig a little deeper, see which issues they chose, and judge not according to the accusations of this post, but according to the merits of the issues involved and the legislative nature of the vote that is counted (i.e.-was it procedural?)
Doubt anyone is trying to make Baucus’ record anything other than the disappointment it is these days.
It is true that he is close to the end of his usefulness. Where were you when we needed you? Voting for him?
But that is not the issue – you put up this post, so please elucidate, Lucy. What were the issues and votes on which Roy Brown is being panned?
Oh no!!! I have not only risen to defend a Republican, but was disrespectful not only of Baucus, but also of Lucille Ball. I know you’re a Democrat, but please don’t ban me! Please don’t ban me!
I didn’t even ban Hakon : )
Here are what I believe to be some of his worst offenses: He voted to gut MT’s public participation and environmental protection law in every session in his ten-year career. In 2001 alone, he voted three times to strip the Montana Environmental Policy Act.
Also, in 1999 he voted to give oil and gas operations a big tax holiday (SB 530, 1999), essentially resulting in a gift to Big Oil of a multi-year, multi-million dollar handout, and reducing revenue to our schools, roads and firefighters by hundreds of millions of dollars.
Thank you! Those are substantive votes with real consequences, and he should be publicly asked to defend them on a debate forum. He won’t, as professional journalists will run those debates, but he should be.
I went to school with Roy Brown. He’s a very honest and sincere man, and a politician (they are not mutually exclusive), so take him at face, please.
And you, Cowgirl … you can edit this comment if you like, but who woulda thunk three months ago that I would end up knowing that of all the Montana blogsters, you were the one with the largest onions. We may never agree on much, you may not like the things I say, but you defend my ability to say it on a blog. Kudos.
Also this, in the feminist community we call this attribute ‘having a backbone’. This way, it can apply to gals as well as guys.
Why? Because you wanted to go to the prom with him? This is the second (actually third) time you’ve defended a wingnut ass with the “I know him and (s)he’s GOOD” defense. You know what? Adolph had dude-bros too. So what? Brown is not honest, or very sincere or really very good for those around him. That was the point of the post. You can’t take him at “face value”, nor can one ignore the fact that he is awful for most of those good folk making the decision. Mark, you’ve just begged, (pathetically I might add), for people to value your opinion over objective fact. Knock it off. ‘Cause your opinion kinda sucks rocks.
I interviewed him too. Very hard to get him to say anything of substance. Very cagey, which is part of the business of being a politician, and his views are too right wing for my taste.
Please understand sir that people of honor view the world in different ways.
And again, I was minding my business here. Now, scurry along. Don’t you have people you want to f-bomb today?
Link or GTFO.
Considering your lack of such, please define “honor”, Mark. And quit the whole bullshit about commenting at the website of another as somehow “minding my business”. It isn’t your business; never has been. Cowgirl wouldn’t have posted it if it were only your business. You made it ‘your bidness’ by claiming that another can’t judge Roy Brown without considering your opinion of him. Your opinion sucks. That’s my ‘bidness’, and every bit applicable to comments on this website given the post as presented.
Now you’re getting angry. Pretty soon come the f-bombs. Do you see this? You have emotional control issues, and I bring them out without even trying. Simmer down, take a pill, hit the Schmitties or whatever you do.
I did a free cable TV show down in Billings in the early 2000′s, hour-long interviews with various people. Probably did fifty shows, and Roy was one of them. Very tough interview, as I say, because he could not be nailed down. They have to be careful.
But take my word for it. Roy is genuine, smart, capable, honest, successful and right wing.
Link or GTFO!
I will not take your word for anything. You are obviously wrong about me. Why should I think you other than a sycophant? I shouldn’t.
You’ll notice I don’t rise to defend my Dad very often. He generally doesn’t need my help and I probably don’t agree with him half of the time anyways. :-P
But I’ll vouch for him that he had the show on Montana PBS. In fact, I believe it had the same name as our website.
What do you want him to do, livestream it? It was Montana PBS, for chrissake.
So that’s it, no good gossip on Brown? This is a gossip blog! Spill the beans please.
Banning people who disagree with you implies that one lacks any other ability to refute their arguments…
Not always, but you’ll learn that.
you could be right : ) This blog is so new and small and that probably protects it from some of the problems others face.
It’s not as small as you think. In less than 3 months, you’ve already attracted comment from more state politicians or political players than websites you consider much larger have since the beginning of the calender year. I’d bet a roast beef po’boy that you get more unique hits a day than both Mark and I combined. The real question with a weblog is never what kind of problems you face, but rather what the blogger is convinced is a problem. Those are different things, and significant to the discussion.
In my tenure, I’ve banned four people. The first was an unrepentant racist. He was tricky because he was using an IP redirect. The second was actually one of the fixtures in the Montana web-o-sphere who was simply (almost lovably) out of control. When he started attacking my friends personally, I’d had enough of him. I relented and reinstated him almost immediately. (Hi, Larry.) The third only commented to attack me, in the most juvenile manner possible. I simply didn’t have the time or concern to put up with him. He’s the reason I posted my set of website rules. The last I should have banned when he trolled my website, and then insulted my intelligence (as well as directly accusing one of my friends while insulting his intelligence) by claiming that he was the victim of the magic computing conspiracy. Someone had STOLEN his IP, stolen I tell you. When I finally did ban him was when every comment he left was a personal attack against me, and my commenters (including you when he attempted a sock puppet.)
The people we ban we always refer to as “trolls”, not because it’s a meaningful term, but because it is a catch-all term for those who add nothing and demand everything. Trolls come in many many flavors. The one thing they all have in common is their last line of defense. ‘Don’t taze me, bro’. They all play on the moral sense that dampening behavior on your property is somehow wrong, and that you are weakened because banning “implies that one lacks any other ability to refute their arguments”. No, no it really doesn’t imply that at all, when the ‘argument’ is personal attack against your character or property. That’s the same as a mugger telling you that your punch to his face was unfair because you were violent and not like JEEZUZ. ‘JEEZUZ wouldn’t have wanted you to punch me!’
So be very very careful when some commenter insults you with praise about how manly your are (largest onions?) after they’ve just insulted you the first time, “Lucy”. Sexism isn’t a buzz word, it’s a life style. So is trolling. I’m just concerned that you keep that in mind.
I think the tendency is to ban people who threaten in some manner, because I was rude to you, CG. I was and apologized afterward when you made it plain that I really had hurt your feelings at times.
But Jay could have said as much, but likely he has happy to get rid of my anti-Democrat rants, and I merely facilitated by being mean to you.
Fleischman is harder to figure, as that was all pretty innocuous. Hard to know what is up, as people are not honest with themselves muchh less anyone else.
Anyway, Kailey, you are not a nice person, in person, as I know, and in writing too, as I know. And I only bother you because I don’t buy into you as you present yourself. I think that second-layer person, the guy with the primitive brain, is very close to the surface with you. You’re a little creepy.
Nice to you? No.
Troll. Liar. Pansy. That’s why you bother me. I am creepy to you because you are terrified of anything that challenges your delusions. That’s why you’re so ball sucked up about the fact that I just informed MT Cowgirl about your manipulation and bullshit. You actually think you’re smarter than she is, and you can steer her away from the obvious truth. You don’t control her website, maggot. But you certainly think you do.
You insult Cowgirl. You apologize. You insult her again and then again you apologize. You display sexist crap and adore her for her male attributes (large onions?) Are you a fricking moron, Mark?) and apologize if your obvious insult was obvious. You have nothing of value to add Mark. Nothing. So why shouldn’t she ban those who offer nothing? She should, and that is your greatest terror. You weep and wail that once again, Mark
You’re losing it, which is why this is creepy. You are barely under control.
You are still a liar, and scared because I pointed out exactly how. Night night, kitten.
Passing out early this evening?
Oh yeah, and one time I pretended to be Larry Krajl because he more or less dared me to, long before I learned that that kind of behavior was really sucky. I did use a fake name after you started editing my comments at your arid little blog to say what you wanted them to say. But who cares. And I did sneak into LITW after being banned, pretending to be a guy (Demsinten!) who always sucked up to Jay. Good times, easily uncovered. You’re much too pompous.
But I don’t know what to tell you about the IP that turned up under my name way back when. It wasn’t me. The best I could ever figure was it was the Last Best Place guy, as he was a computer geek and he did regard me as an anti-semite for saying bad stuff about Israel. That’s my guess.
Anyway, we should have this discussion somewhere else, but since you have “banned” me from your little blog, it’s kind of hard. But given that, don’t you really think you just ought to leave me alone, period? You’re creeping me out the way you follow me around. I’m thinking obsession, and that creeps me even more.
Fucking liar. You didn’t accuse Mike Harris. You accused Craig Sprout. I will post on this presently, and no one will be able to deny your obvious bullshit trolling assholishness.
No, that’s not a lie. But thanks for the f-bomb.
You did lie, Mark. Read those comments. It’s on the web, for all to see. Craig and I discussed it, and you directly accused him of your bullshit. You didn’t accuse Harris; you accused Craig. These were your words, Mark:
I don’t accuse anyone of lying lightly. But with you, it’s all too easy because you do it with casual abandon. You are a liar, regardless of your dreaded and ever feared “f bombs”. Which is more important, Mark? That I write “Fuck” or that you lie with complete impunity?
So what? It wasn’t Craig, and I was wrong. I just know it wasn’t me.
I’ll admit to anything bad that I have done that I have done. But I won’t admit to that post, as I didn’t do it.
This is so oppressive, dealing with you. Go away.
So what? You are a liar.
You’ve lied right here. And where is your admission? Nonexistent. Another lie, Mark.
Truth hurts, don’t it? You don’t have to deal with me, but you have to deal with the truth. You’re obviously incapable of that very thing. So don’t tell me to go away. Like your own shadow, the truth will follow you, and I will offer it up in contrast to your lies at every opportunity.
Geez, not only does the awful truth follow me, but Rod does too!
I am human! I do bad things! I have a conscience, and I regret doing bad things! I even say that I am sorry. But I did not leave that comment at your stupid blog. I don’t know who did. Accusing Craig was really bad, and it hurts to think that I did that to him. He’s a decent guy.
You’re not.
Now, go away.
You guys are talking about 4&20? I only read that blog for Pete Talbot and he doesn’t post much anymore. Who cares who they ban.
since i banned mark t from our site everyone is relieved. i invited j-girl, pete, cfs, jc and everyone else on our site to allow mark to comment if they wish. but no-one seems to want him back.
it isn’t so much what he says as the repetitiveness with which he says it. and when someone gets that boring and doesn’t offer anything new to a discussion except the same old stuff, and he continues to badger everyone with dozens of comments for no apparent reason other than self-aggrandizement, it tends to kill threads and dissuade readership.
if others over at 4 & 20 want to reinstate him they are welcome to it, but i and apparently the entire state do not seem so inclined. the experience of banning mark t has been like the absence of a toothache. you don’t really know the full measure of pleasure until it goes away.
Interesting. None of that is true. Mr. Fleischman banned me for reasons that have nothing to do with anything he said above.
Think about it:
1) Repetitiveness.
2) Does not offer anything new to a discussion
3)”Badgers” with dozens of comments
4) Kills threads
5) Dissuades readership
#1 may have some merit, bit I challenge anyone to have anything different to say. Cowgirl – I can predict that your next post will criticize a Republican. I predict that Kailey willf-bomb someone. I predict that Fleischman will get all wispy about his hopes for the progressive movement. I predict that JC will … well, maybe not so much JC.
#2: Repeats first,and adds nothing new to discussion.
#3: The particular thread that so inflamed Fleischman as to ban me has a total of 80 comments, 19 of which are mine. That’s an unusual number, and I do not normally put up that many posts. But at various times I had to answer JC,Lizard, J-whatever, Duganz, the other Kailey and Kailey. So I put up more posts in that thread than normal.
4. Since the thread that I killed had 80 comments at then end, I think it safe to say i did not kill it.
5. Dissuades readership: I think it safe to say that most threads at that place die a worthy death without some interesting commentary, which is not easy to come by.
So what are we left with: All that can be said is that I am predictable, as is virtually everyone on the blogs, from Cowgirl to Budge to Black Flag … we all have our things.
So that’s not it, and it comes back to this: Fleischman, when he wrote the above words, had to lie, both to himself and to you. So he reached, came up with five reasons, none of which are true.
So I ask you, why was I banned? It’s easy. It doesn’t even require thought. Content. As Kailey proves again and again, manners are not important. Repetition is everyone’s game. Readership follows controversy – people like give and take, and not ho-hum, and so are drawn to places where there is controversy.
So Fleischman lied. To himself first. Then to the rest of us. He’s a stoneless man of mild temperament with very little grasp of politics, and so is boring. But for that, I would not ban him.
I, for one, am glad that Mark T was banned over there. It makes it easier to have substansive conversations with people that, while I might not agree with thier biases, I certainly respect and want thier input. I have pretty much stopped commenting here because of the incessant flames from Mark (since I am “the other Kailey”). Mark is out of control and will, eventually, curtail many from commmenting here.
Careful here, Kailey. Take a look at what happened above. Cowgirl put up a post talking about how Roy Brown had been dissed by a professional Democratic-leaning voting analysis group. I suggested to her that she give the specifics.
What changed about this thread was the entry of your brother. He didn’t come here for any other reason than to attack me. I don’t do that to him. I avoid him. He was rude, vile, coarse, and took the thread in a completely new direction.
I take a lot of heat because of him, his ugly nature. There’s no humor in that man, and an exchange leaves that not-so-fresh feeling, and then I get hammered for being in the debate.
I could have a good go-round with you, and you would not like it, as you would feel that your mode of assimilating information was under attack, and that would annoy you. Everyone wants their ego stroked. That’s all this is about.
No, Mark, you really couldn’t have “a good go around” with me because I refuse to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person. I would simply stop commenting. You seem to need the continual dissension and argument you so fervently instigate. I, on the other hand, read blogs to see what others are thinking about the issue that I am interested in. I was merely making the observation that the conversations over at 4 and 20 are better now that you are absent.
In truth, that’s been Mark’s latest tear. He wails at Budge and Craig Moore that they get tired and won’t engage him. Now, he will include you.
What remains unexplained is why anyone, anyhow, should engage him other than that he cries they must!
And just a comedic observation. Isn’t it unique that he will demean others for not wanting to put up with his crap, and (sorry, I’m starting to laugh here) yet my greatest crime is that I won’t let him write without directly engaging him.
It’s easy to hide on the porch and bark at the big dogs, until one comes loping towards you …
sorry p-bear. I shouldn’t have spoken for you. Thanks for sharing your reasons.
BTW – Kailey has been rude, vulgar, repetitive, and is trying to dissuade readership and kill this thread. In addition, he wants to practice witchcraft, destroy capitalism and become a lesbian.
Ban him!
Gosh, and here I was looking for a substantive discussion of issues. Apparently you folks are more interested in rehashing a bunch of he said/she said bullshit. I’m not interested in your verbal masturbation. Bye.
Dontcha just love a good old storm-out-of-the-room?
Why does this guy keep running for legislature after losing a statewide race. That’s a little weird. His ego must be smarting something terrible.
Cowgirl: I will post at this thread no more, but I do ask that you look at what happened here with an objective eye. This will be comment #39. People will say that it is a distraction, and that I caused it. I only ask that you follow the direction of the thread, and see where the tenor changed: When Kailey entered and went after me.
I did not ruin this thread. Please don’t say I did.
That’s a nice re-write of history, Mark, but anyone can check a time stamp. My first two comments in this thread were meta-comments about blogging, that referenced you only in the abstract, after you rather cravenly attempted to manipulate the blog-host. My first comment directed at you was disagreement with your opinion and directly to the topic at hand. But as we’ve learned, the sure fire way to send Mark T over the edge is to disagree with him. You started with the personal attacks, Mark, not me, against the rest of the Montana blog-o-sphere, against gender identity and against any who have a differing opinion of Roy Brown. I simply respond in kind. So quit with the whining. You can’t run with the big dogs if you still pee like a puppy.
There is something off about this man. Isn’t he the guy whose mansion was profiled in Montana Magazine or House and Home a while back. I don’t see how he is going to be able to understand the needs of people trying to cope in a down economy.
I was considering sending Mr. Brown a check after reading your site I think I’ll double it!!
“You started with the personal attacks, Mark, not me…”
- Wulftroll
“Mrs. Smith, Johnny started it, he (fill in the blank) first!!”
- Little Billy cry-babying to the fourth grade teacher after getting in trouble.
Hey not to set off topic but can anyone give me overview of. New York Car Insurance Reform 295 Greenwich St, New York, NY 10007 (646) 351-0824 They are down the block from me. I was wondering if they were a good insurance company. I need to acquire coverage, it is regulations you know, but I need to have a good price price plus I want friendly service.
Your giving an address that can be easily looked up on google you know????
The address you gave was for a takeout restaurant called the “Little Pie Company,” who’s been in that location since 1985, Not an auto insurance place. Give it a rest whoever you are, Obviously, if you lived down the block,, as a real New Yorker, you would have known that!!!!
The average Montanan is a little brighter then you!