#Bqhatevwr: Scott Brown’s Twitter account goes haywire; Update: Tweets deleted

https://twitter.com/ScottBrownMA/status/295044919775612929

https://twitter.com/ScottBrownMA/status/295045108301176833

https://twitter.com/ScottBrownMA/status/295045554575122432

Oooookay. The official, verified Twitter account of former GOP Sen. Scott Brown of Massachusetts took a strange turn tonight. Maybe someone else got a hold of Scott Brown’s cell phone. Or perhaps a hacker got into the account. Or perhaps something got into Scott Brown.

https://twitter.com/ScottBrownMA/status/294991132151132160

https://twitter.com/ScottBrownMA/status/295044590174621696

https://twitter.com/ScottBrownMA/status/295044752657747968

“Whatever” it was, hilarity ensued.

Ouch:

***

Update: Yes, #Bqhatevwr is trending! Bqhatevwr…

bh

Update:

BuzzFeed reports, “A source within the Senator’s inner circle has confirmed with Buzzfeed that it was Brown personally tweeting.”

Brown deleted his tweets on Saturday without offering any explanation. Bqhatevwr.

  • FreedomFighter

    Look at the time stamp

    • misstripleem

      Thanks. Timestamps are appearing in Greenwich time. Tech team working to fix that.

    • misstripleem

      Thanks. Timestamps are appearing in Greenwich time. Tech team working to fix that.

  • FreedomFighter

    Look at the time stamp

  • CatHerder

    He’s not as think as you drunk he is.

  • CatHerder

    He’s not as think as you drunk he is.

  • BeeKaaay

    Drunk politician fail.

    • http://twitter.com/Sincerly_oo Sincerely —

      No, I think it was just a mistype of “Whatever” An example of the perils of a virtual keyboard.

      He should get a Blackberry.

  • http://Twitter.com/jkerrysforehead John Kerry’s Forehead

    Tgat is gunnt as vtap.

  • $30158943

    Just like his campaign, his career, and the Republican agenda.

    • CatHerder

      He, like everyone who has held any degree of power in D.C., will never miss any meals. If he fails of re-election, there’s always lobbying. Or other such.

      Before you wax too smug about ‘Republican agendas’ disappearing, reflect on how many times since Eisenhower the country has changed it’s collective mind about which way we should go. Just a thought.

    • BeyondPolls

      Liberals are bqhatevwr when it comes to unborn equality.

      • $30158943

        The unborn are equal…to other unborn.

        • BeyondPolls

          ALL humans are created equal. Life begins at conception. It is immoral to have different classes of humans like abortion allows.

          • $30158943

            Life does not begin at conception, neither under the law or as determined by science. Just because you say it does not make it true.

          • BeyondPolls

            Science says that life begins at conception because new DNA is created after the sperm and egg unite. The fetus theory is thoroughly debunked junk science. Even the liberal side is coming to their senses on this.

          • $30158943

            Myth 1: “Prolifers claim that the abortion of a human embryo or a human fetus is wrong because it destroys human life. But human sperms and human ova are human life, too. So prolifers would also have to agree that the destruction of human sperms and human ova are no different from abortions — and that is ridiculous!”

            Fact 1: There is a radical difference, scientifically, between parts of a human being that only possess “human life” and a human embryo or human fetus that is an actual “human being.” Abortion is the destruction of a human being. Destroying a human sperm or a human oocyte would not constitute abortion, since neither are human beings. The issue is not when does human life begin, but rather when does the life of every human being begin. A human kidney or liver, a human skin cell, a sperm or an oocyte all possess human life, but they are not human beings — they are only parts of a human being. If a single sperm or a single oocyte were implanted into a woman’s uterus, they would not grow; they would simply disintegrate.

            Myth 2: “The product of fertilization is simply a ‘blob,’ a ‘bunch of cells’, a ‘piece of the mother’s tissues’.”

            Fact 2: As demonstrated above, the human embryonic organism formed at fertilization is a whole human being, and therefore it is not just a “blob” or a “bunch of cells.” This new human individual also has a mixture of both the mother’s and the father’s chromosomes, and therefore it is not just a “piece of the mother’s tissues”. Quoting Carlson:

            “… [T]hrough the mingling of maternal and paternal chromosomes, the zygote is a genetically unique product of chromosomal reassortment, which is important for the viability of any species.” 15 (Emphasis added.)

            Myth 3: “The immediate product of fertilization is just a ‘potential’ or a ‘possible’ human being — not a real existing human being.”

            Fact 3: As demonstrated above, scientifically there is absolutely no question whatsoever that the immediate product of fertilization is a newly existing human being. A human zygote is a human being. It is not a “potential” or a “possible” human being. It’s an actual human being — with the potential to grow bigger and develop its capacities.

            Myth 4: “A single-cell human zygote, or embryo, or fetus are not human beings, because they do not look like human beings.”

            Fact 4: As all human embryologists know, a single-cell human zygote, or a more developed human embryo, or human fetus is a human being — and that that’s the way they are supposed to look at those particular periods of development.

            Myth 5: “The immediate product of fertilization is just an ‘it’ — it is neither a girl nor a boy.”

            Fact 5: The immediate product of fertilization is genetically already a girl or a boy — determined by the kind of sperm that fertilizes the oocyte. Quoting Carlson again:

            “…”3. The sex of the future embryo is determined by the chromosomal complement of the spermatozoon. (If the sperm contains 22 autosomes and an X chromosome, the embryo will be a genetic female, and if it contains 22 autosomes and a Y chromosome, the embryo will be a male.” 16

            Myth 6: “The embryo and the embryonic period begin at implantation.” (Alternative myths claim 14 days, or 3 weeks.)

            Fact 6: These are a few of the most common myths perpetuated sometimes even within quasi-scientific articles — especially within the bioethics literature. As demonstrated above, the human embryo, who is a human being, begins at fertilization — not at implantation (about 5-7 days), 14-days, or 3 weeks. Thus the embryonic period also begins at fertilization, and ends by the end of the eighth week, when the fetal period begins. Quoting O’Rahilly:

            “Prenatal life is conveniently divided into two phases: the embryonic and the fetal. The embryonic period proper during which the vast majority of the named structures of the body appear, occupies the first 8 postovulatory weeks. … [T]he fetal period extends from 8 weeks to birth …”17 (Emphasis added.)

            Myth 7: “The product of fertilization, up to 14-days, is not an embryo; it is just a ‘pre-embryo’ — and therefore it can be used in experimental research, aborted, or donated.”

            Fact 7: This “scientific” myth is perhaps the most common error that pervades the current literature. The term “pre-embryo” has quite a long and interesting history. (See Irving and Kischer, The Human Development Hoax: Time To Tell The Truth!, for extensive details and references.) But it roughly goes back to at least 1979 in the bioethics writings of Jesuit theologian Richard McCormick in his work with the Ethics Advisory Board to the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare,18 and those of frog developmental biologist Dr. Clifford Grobstein in a 1979 article in Scientific American,19 and most notably in his classic book,Science and the Unborn: Choosing Human Futures (1988).20 Both McCormick and Grobstein subsequently continued propagating this scientific myth as members of the Ethics Committee of the American Fertility Society, and in numerous influential bioethics articles, leading to its common use in bioethics, theological, and public policy literature to this day.

          • Snap N McGarrett

            TLDR: You lost me at the “Jerking off is genocide” argument cut and pasted from another moral relativist.

          • $30158943

            If you think an unborn fetus is human than so is sperm, trying to draw the line any where before birth leaves you grasping at illogical inventions.

          • Snap N McGarrett

            On my planet, we call it “biology”. That which you cut and past above is just another attempt to clear the conscience of abortionists.

          • $30158943

            Then you should return to your planet and leave this one alone.

          • Snap N McGarrett

            and there we have it. you win the argument. how’s it feel?

          • Guest

            I prefer to call it “Biology”.

          • BeyondPolls

            The typical anti-life strawman argument is that a fertilized egg is no different than a sperm or egg cell. This is absolutely junk science because a fertilized egg has a new set of DNA, half from the sperm and half from the egg. This is why a fertilized egg is completely different from other body parts: it is a brand new life and therefore a human.
            You go on to demonstrate and prove that abortion has nothing to do with women’s health (it’s a very dangerous procedure for the mother’s health), but that it is about humans desiring power over other humans. This struggled has gone on since the dawn of time and has manifested itself in such atrocities as the Holocaust and the worldwide slave trade.
            Now I am extremely confused as to whether or not you are actually pro-abortion. You sound like you are pro-life to me.

          • $30158943

            Bqhatevwr! Fortunately not true under the law. You can believe what you want but science does not support your claims. The life is not a life without the mother, so its the mother’s choice and NOT yours!

          • BeyondPolls

            So to heck with science now, eh? All it’s really about is humans having power over other humans based on appearance.

          • Snap N McGarrett

            So an amoeba is alive, but a fetus isn’t. Would you say that is true?

          • $30158943

            neither is a person.

          • Snap N McGarrett

            If a human fetus isn’t a person, then what is it?

          • $30158943

            its a fetus, post embryonic, pre human, unborn. But then you know that, just unwilling to accept it.

          • Snap N McGarrett

            At conception, there is a unique human life form. An individual unlike any other. Where we differ is just a matter of the amount of regard we have for human life at that stage. You may resolve the cognitive dissonance of a person unborn not being a person, but you’ll never escape the reality that taking a human life is taking a human life.

          • $30158943

            only unique to you and not a life without the Mother. What is your problem trying to enforce your morals on other people. What you do for yourself is fine but stop trying to impose your illogical morals on the rest of the world.

          • Snap N McGarrett

            On my planet, we call it discussion. You have your morals and I have mine. Tha’ts cool. I’m a libertarian. But when you feel you’re losing the argument, agree to disagree and walk away, don’t just accuse me of forcing anything on anyone. Got it?

          • $30158943

            Great, than stop trying to ban abortion.

          • Snap N McGarrett

            Might sensitive, aren’t we? Or insecure? I would never ban abortion. I’d support the overturn of Roe v. Wade because it is jurisprudence built on false premises and then throw the issue to the states where it belongs. That won’t happen.

            What is most offensive aside from the practice itself, is the industry that abortionists have created around it and the use of tax money to fund it. So no to an outright ban, that of course didn’t work, never would as you can’t abolish anything that people can do. But I can argue that my money not be used to pay for it, right?

          • $30158943

            Aren’t you enlightened, you would never ban it just overturn RvW. Same damn difference. You pretend that you know what you are talking about but then claim that tax dollars fund abortions which is outright lie. Look up the Hyde Amendment, it has banned federal funding for abortion for almost 40 years except in the case of rape, incest or life of the mother. There is no industry around abortion other than health care because it is a health care procedure. So once again, Mr Libertarian, it is none of your god damn business. I’m sure you could expend your energies educating yourself rather than imposing your morals on others.

          • Snap N McGarrett

            OK, then the morals of Margret Sanger prevail. congratulations. But Planned Parenthood does take my money, so that does make it my business. good night.

          • $30158943

            You don’t know when to stop digging do you? PP spends less than 3% of its funds on abortions and none if from the Feds, because let me say it again because this seems to be a shock to you, but no federal funds are spent on abortions.

            PS its Margaret Sanger

          • $22800265

            hey dumbazzz, money is FUNGIBLE…duhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh

          • SophieCT

            And I’d just say it’s a medical procedure that has no business being legislated.

      • $30158943

        The unborn are equal…to other unborn.

    • BeyondPolls

      Liberals are bqhatevwr when it comes to unborn equality.

  • CatHerder

    It’s a Massachusetts thing, no worries.

  • BeeKaaay

    He’s drunk, and trying to emulate his hero: Ted Kennedy.

    Even accepted the cool-aid of Marxism too.

  • grais

    I’m beginning to understand how even Princess Lying Bobblehead could beat him.

  • grais

    I’m beginning to understand how even Princess Lying Bobblehead could beat him.

  • Finrod Felagund

    Enh, that’s nothing. A friend of mine online drunk said the following single word:

    “iufubke”

    None of us could figure out what he was saying and the next day he didn’t remember any of it and couldn’t figure it out either.