Sex criminals to get Viagra?

[detbuch]

[QUOTE=spence;757699]I believe I simply found it ironic.


You "believe" you "simply" found it ironic? So you're not sure? And "simply" is disingenuous.

Your irony is founded on the false premise that to be "conservative" means to be be perfectly and slavishly bound by some narrow perception of "conservative" philosopy. And anyone who doesn't strictly follow the cookie-cutter mold is in conflict with the "guidelines." Since, in reality, everyone is unique, it would be difficult , if not impossible, to fit a large constituency into one mold. The basic tenet that binds most "conservatives" is adherence to, and preservation of, the Constitution and its original intent. "Conservatives," within whatever tent that label encompasses, argue with each other about all issues, economic, social, policy, the one common bond is the Constitution. Coburn did not violate that bond with his amendment.

Now, it is not ironic that, though you find irony in Coburn's amendment, you don't muster any objection to the sneaky way the Dems passed the bill. It is taken for granted that such would be. One cannot complain to a rattlesnake if it bites you and injects its venom in your veins. That is its nature. That is what it does. And it is the nature of the left to succeed by any means necessary. That is what they do.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You "believe" you "simply" found it ironic? So you're not sure? And "simply" is disingenuous.

Attacking my method of speech? I say believe because it sounds more pretentious. As for simply, you're coming to quick conclusions for someone who doesn't know what I was thinking.

Your irony is founded on the false premise that to be "conservative" means to be be perfectly and slavishly bound by some narrow perception of "conservative" philosopy. And anyone who doesn't strictly follow the cookie-cutter mold is in conflict with the "guidelines." Since, in reality, everyone is unique, it would be difficult , if not impossible, to fit a large constituency into one mold. The basic tenet that binds most "conservatives" is adherence to, and preservation of, the Constitution and its original intent. "Conservatives," within whatever tent that label encompasses, argue with each other about all issues, economic, social, policy, the one common bond is the Constitution. Coburn did not violate that bond with his amendment.

Conservatives also tend to oppose unnecessary Federal legislation, of which this amendment certainly is...

Now, it is not ironic that, though you find irony in Coburn's amendment, you don't muster any objection to the sneaky way the Dems passed the bill. It is taken for granted that such would be. One cannot complain to a rattlesnake if it bites you and injects its venom in your veins. That is its nature. That is what it does. And it is the nature of the left to succeed by any means necessary. That is what they do. [/COLOR]

I don't think it was necessarily sneaky, they simply used whatever means were necessary to do what they believed was necessary, everything was done in public.

Bush did what he thought was necessary when the Administration misrepresented the case for the Iraq war...they did what they believed was necessary...although in the case of the health care bill the facts were on the table. That it didn't paint a clear picture is the reason for the lack of public enthusiasm, and the opening for the GOP to could the water with disinformation.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Attacking my method of speech? I say believe because it sounds more pretentious. As for simply, you're coming to quick conclusions for someone who doesn't know what I was thinking.


I apologize for not knowing what is lurking, unexpressed, in your mind.

Conservatives also tend to oppose unnecessary Federal legislation, of which this amendment certainly is...

Again, all so-called "conservatives" do not think in lockstep. Some are called Neo-cons, some are called Rinos, some are "hard core," some hate John McCain, some hate Rush Limbaugh. Again, the only bond that holds them together, insofar as they are together, is the Constitution and original intent.

I don't think it was necessarily sneaky, they simply used whatever means were necessary to do what they believed was necessary, everything was done in public.

Not everything was done in public. Some things were exposed. And promises were made and broken. Reps were bought and abandoned. Special exemptions were promised. Procedures that they denounced were threatened to be used. An unrelated Education bill was inserted. Yes, not all was sneaky. Some was just blatant force to further the power of Federal Government. Of course, if you favor what they did, objection is not welcomed

Bush did what he thought was necessary when the Administration misrepresented the case for the Iraq war...they did what they believed was necessary...

Ah, the Bush card. I guess it's alright to trash what he did and how he did it, but then say it's ok if your guy does it, since Bush did it.

although in the case of the health care bill the facts were on the table. That it didn't paint a clear picture is the reason for the lack of public enthusiasm, and the opening for the GOP to could the water with disinformation.

-spence

If the facts were on the table, the picture should have been clear. The lack of public enthusiasm is not as simplistic as you portray. Much of the displeasure is a response to what is now clear.