Let's set aside trojan horses, shall we? Let's also set aside the "your side" guilt-by-association remarks along with them.Look at this thread, or any other on PBA and/or this legislation. Have I said anything critical of any Republican in this regard?
All I've tried to do here is get a handle on the practical application of this legislation. Is that somehow out of bounds?
Your nobility is scaring the animals.
I have yet to see you and your little crowd avoid any anti-Bush, anti-GOP, uncle bill induced pile-on.
The "practical application" of the PBA ban is a start. Including the Democrat ammendment re-affirming Roe vs. Wade so the bill would stand a chance against a filabuster is politics. It's a game the Republicans hate, but they have to play.
I believe that if GW, Santorum and the rest of the GOP congressmen could wave their hands, abortion, illegal immigration, welfare, the department of education, the ACLU and lots of other abominations would be no more.
They can't.
The bad guys control information to the masses and they know every trick in the Senate, so the good guys are contrained to play the game and get what they can. If you can't recognize that, how did you get this far in life? Trustfund?
Funny how your searches for those "practical applications" always take the same form.
This sounds reasonable, but says very little. One can bash Republicans on the 99.857% of FR threads other than the ones you carved out and still meet this standard. Or Kevin Curry might say:
"Look at this thread, or any other on PBA and/or this legislation. Have I said anything critical of homosexuals in this regard?"
BTW, what do you call a paleo-con who limits Bush/Republican/neo-con bashing to 99.857% of FR threads?
A moderate.