Dr. Coburn....

[aoxamaxoa]

OK. Don't all you small minded republicans get your bowels in an uproar at the same time....


Editorial NYT
Locked, Loaded and Looney

Published: August 30, 2007

As the Army's suicide rate hits record levels in the Iraq war, there's small wonder practically everyone in Congress wants to deal with the parallel emerging crisis of depressed veterans tempted to take their own lives. Everyone, that is, except Senator Tom Coburn, Republican of Oklahoma. He stands alone in blocking final passage of a suicide prevention bill in fear that the government's record-keeping on troubled vets might somehow crimp their ability to purchase handguns.

Even the craven gun lobby should manage some shame over this absurd example of Second Amendment idolatry.

The House has unanimously approved a measure mandating the screening of all veterans for suicide risk, but Senator Coburn worries that veterans' medical data might be appropriated by other agencies to deny that all-encompassing right to wield arms on the domestic front.

The senator's office points to another bill near passage — prompted by the Virginia Tech gun massacre — that would encourage states to do a better job of listing mentally troubled individuals on the federal roll of risky gun purchasers. But tying these two measures together is itself evidence of defective reasoning, or at least scurrilous politicking. The Virginia Tech measure has nothing to do with veterans and affects only those Americans formally judged by a court to be mentally disturbed.

It is an eminently good thing that the anti-suicide measure would require medical specialists to keep track of veterans found to be high risks for suicide. But that's to care for them as human beings, under that other constitutional right — to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Respect for the grave sacrifices by veterans requires the Senate to strike down the Coburn ploy and hurry this vital measure to President Bush.

[iplaw]

Move along

[iplaw]

Move along

[cannon_fodder]

Wow, I usually do not read NYT editorials, are they all as bad as this and the previous one? It is written nearly as well as a post I take 30 seconds to put together.

I haven't read this bill, I'm guessing you haven't either since there is no link.  I will reserve judgment until such time as a Bill can be read many ways.  Seems a bit off the wall to me too, but I can at least understand his angle.  After all, how many soldiers want a mental profile done?

[Breadburner]

Move along

[Hometown]

Has Coburn ever obtained any federal funding for Oklahoma?  All I read is the World but I've never seen any reference to Coburn obtaining federal money for Oklahoma.

[cannon_fodder]

He is against pork barreling.  So an absence of ear marks, while to our detriment, is to his credit I suppose.  I hate ear marks too, but it sure does suck when everyone else plays ball.

[Renaissance]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

Wow, I usually do not read NYT editorials, are they all as bad as this and the previous one? It is written nearly as well as a post I take 30 seconds to put together.

I haven't read this bill, I'm guessing you haven't either since there is no link.  I will reserve judgment until such time as a Bill can be read many ways.  Seems a bit off the wall to me too, but I can at least understand his angle.  After all, how many soldiers want a mental profile done?

Yeah, they're all as bad as this.  The editorial page of the NYT is one of the most horribly slanted and partisan that you'll read.  The WSJ has a similar slant in the other direction, but at least its commentary is well written.  

In its defense, the NYT editorial page staff is completely separate from the main paper, and is a last vestige of local flavor in an otherwise "national" newspaper.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

He is against pork barreling.  So an absence of ear marks, while to our detriment, is to his credit I suppose.  I hate ear marks too, but it sure does suck when everyone else plays ball.

Senator Coburn is adamantly against the $50 billion in annual earmarks, i.e. PORK.

Oink, Oink, Oink.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Senator Coburn is adamantly against the $50 billion in annual earmarks, i.e. PORK.

Oink, Oink, Oink.

Sure.  But why does he hate veterans?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Senator Coburn is adamantly against the $50 billion in annual earmarks, i.e. PORK.

Oink, Oink, Oink.

Sure.  But why does he hate veterans?

Because he's an evil repugnocrat.  You can't be evil and like people at the same time....duh!

[Townsend]

Dang...I've gotta be quicker to read these posts.  They're edited fast.

[Friendly Bear]

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Senator Coburn is adamantly against the $50 billion in annual earmarks, i.e. PORK.

Oink, Oink, Oink.

Sure.  But why does he hate veterans?

His actions exhibit hatred for Veterans?  How?

[iplaw]

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

quote:Originally posted by Chicken Little

quote:Originally posted by Friendly Bear

Senator Coburn is adamantly against the $50 billion in annual earmarks, i.e. PORK.

Oink, Oink, Oink.

Sure.  But why does he hate veterans?

His actions exhibit hatred for Veterans?  How?

I think his post smelled of a little sarcasm...but I could be wrong.

[Chicken Little]

quote:Originally posted by iplawI think his post smelled of a little sarcasm...but I could be wrong.

35% of vets returning from Iraq are requesting mental health assistance within a year.  These guys are the lucky ones.  This is a critical issue.  People's lives hang in the balance and timing is essential.  

Does any real person believe that this bill should be tied up by some doctrinal minutia from the gun lobby?  Coburn's a zealot.