Sex criminals to get Viagra?

[buckman]

Originally Posted by spence

You could certainly argue that reproduction is a natural human function, and that some conditions would make a drug medically necessary for the person to operate as if under nominal parameters.

-spence

I don't think they are reproducing in there. unless prisons under the new Obama Prison Reform are coed.

[justplugit]

Are vasectomies covered?

[Nebe]

Is this what it means to serve "hard time". Hmmmm
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[The Dad Fisherman]

Never Mind...I'm arguing with a %$%$%$%$ing Moron

[scottw]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

Never Mind...I'm arguing with a %$%$%$%$ing Moron

see...you sound like an ungrateful welfare recipient

you demand that I provide you free education, you don't pay attention...and then you complain about the quality of that free education and insult the system, what more can I do for you?

it was a perfectly legitimate and sensible ammendment, and incidentally, that's what the process is for....perhaps if the dems were not shoving huge legislation through and saying things like "we need to pass it so that you can find out what's in it" Nazi Pelosi...it would all make much more sense to you

I forgive you for the moron insult...

[spence]

The amendment is sensible only if your intent is to impede the entire legislation. Leave it to a conservative to propose additional useless legislation while at the very same time demonizing the expansion of government!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

The amendment is sensible only if your intent is to impede the entire legislation. Leave it to a conservative to propose additional useless legislation while at the very same time demonizing the expansion of government!
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Is the baby on the way thing affecting your judgement even more than usual, Spence? There are ammendments like this put in every big bill by both parties. The Dems have filled this 2700 page bill with more pork that a redneck 4th of July pig roast, yet you find fault with one conservative ammendment which most people here seem to be in agreement with? To quote a wise man, your post is "Lame".

[scottw]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Is the baby on the way thing affecting your judgement even more than usual, Spence? There are ammendments like this put in every big bill by both parties. The Dems have filled this 2700 page bill with more pork that a redneck 4th of July pig roast, yet you find fault with one conservative ammendment which most people here seem to be in agreement with? To quote a wise man, your post is "Lame".

be nice to Spence, he's probably suffering terribly from sympathy pain/cramping and morning sickness

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

Is the baby on the way thing affecting your judgement even more than usual, Spence? There are ammendments like this put in every big bill by both parties. The Dems have filled this 2700 page bill with more pork that a redneck 4th of July pig roast, yet you find fault with one conservative ammendment which most people here seem to be in agreement with? To quote a wise man, your post is "Lame".

Yet again, you're completely missing the point.

-spence

[fishbones]

Originally Posted by spence

Yet again, you're completely missing the point.

-spence

No, you're wrong. I got the point. He's slowing down a bill that he doesn't like by picking out one amendment in it. It's not a new concept in politics. Dems and Repubs have been doing it for years. I'm suprised you're have trouble understanding it in this instance, though. I figured you to be bright enough to pick up on that.

[spence]

Originally Posted by fishbones

No, you're wrong. I got the point. He's slowing down a bill that he doesn't like by picking out one amendment in it. It's not a new concept in politics. Dems and Repubs have been doing it for years. I'm suprised you're have trouble understanding it in this instance, though. I figured you to be bright enough to pick up on that.

I think we moved past your point above on page 1.

The issue isn't about the amendment, it's the irony that a "conservative" would propose additional and unnecessary legislation to create more government...

But I know you know that and are just being a pain, sort of like Coburn.

-spence

[Nebe]

It looks like everyone is really hard up for something to complain about

[detbuch]

Spence, the irony is not in Coburn's amendment, which you say is more government that would cost more (as I said previously in this thread--"conservatives" are not perfect--they will also stoop to procedural tricks), but that you would point his amendment out as ironic but not complain about the cost of the HC bill. His amendment, which you say would, in contradiction to "conservative" tendency, cost money, was a procedural trick to impede the bill, to help pave a way to defeat it, which would SAVE money.

The great argument between "conservatives" and "progressives" is not about procedural tricks. It is about the struggle between the individual versus collective authority. The purpose in founding this country was to retain the power of individuals to seek their own "happiness" versus the power of the State to dictate how and what that happiness would be. It is an age-old struggle in which the State seems always to eventually win--perhaps, because most are too weak to resist it or perceive themselves as too weak to succeed on their own. Statists understand that weakness and win power because of it. I believe that the vast majority do have the ability to be self-sufficient, and are weakened to the extent that they are persuaded that they can't. The temptation to giver over the difficult portion of existence to a protecting power is great. But if it is resisted, one will be stonger. A nation of strong, self-directing citizens is a strong, free nation. The change in the 200 years, to which you refer, is a change towards weakness, of acceptance of social power over individual power. The "health care" bill is another step in that direction. The creation of this nation and its Constitution were the foundation from which movements, right and left diverged. The foundation was freedom. A move to the "right" from that foundation would be to even more personal freedom than the Constitution provided--a move toward anarchy. A move to the left of that foundation would be to less personal freedom and more power to the State. The move has constantly been to the left. And any "centrist" stance would be, always, in the middle of what remains of original intent and what has shifted to the left. So "centrism" is merely a middle aquiesence to whatever shift has occured. "Centrists" are leftists light.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

"Centrists" are leftists light.

I prefer to call them..."Limp Leftists"

[spence]

Can't read all this crap on a BBery. I'll be back later this week.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device