Bush finally concerned about Bin Laden.

[Larry Gude]

The story goes...

Yeah why did he do that? Let him get away, I mean?

...that Rumsfeld was not happy with CIA running the show in Afghanistan and when they wanted 10th Mountain at Tora Bora to seal the deal, he drug his feet. CIA used local assets. The 'Sheik' slipped/was allowed through. Opportunity lost.

Add to this preparations for Iraq, loss of focus, etc. Lot's of room for mistakes, goof ups, eye off the ball, easy to avoid blame with so much going on, ya da ya da ya.

Whatever happened, it was a towering mistake.

 

[Ken King]

It would behoove you to seek out a dictionary.

Oh.


I guess if you don't know what "whimpering" means, "behoove" is way out of your reach.


Get a dictionary. Look up words. Learn.

Same to you fellow, Bush hasn't said much about the gay marriage issue since 2004 and you dragging it back up is whimpering (a petulant complaint or protest). It looks like you should take your own advice.

Oh yeah, happy birthday.

 

[Kerad]

...

If the President has not passed a legislative proposal to Congress, how can you say he has taken any action to make the law?

Bush sad:

“I believed it was important to act because the institution of marriage was being changed by the courts,”..."“It’s an issue that’s very sensitive, and the voice of the people needed to be heard. And the constitutional process was the best way to do such.”

He said this because....why? What action does he think is important? What constitutional process is he referring to? Exactly what do you think he's discussing here?


You Righties are trying to find a way out of this one and it's not going to work. Bush has publicly supported a constitutional ban on gay marriage, which is obvious to everybody who isn't trying to be a .

The End.

 

[Larry Gude]

The present...

Bush sure does give crappy presents!

...is me, as a 'rightie', conceding your point.

 

[Kerad]

Same to you fellow, Bush hasn't said much about the gay marriage issue since 2004 and you dragging it back up is whimpering (a petulant complaint or protest). It looks like you should take your own advice.

Oh yeah, happy birthday.

Good! So now it should be obvious to you that "whimpering" is an incorrect choice of word for the context in which you applied it.


Next up...History.


Who brought up the gay marriage issue in this thread? And who and what was I responding to in my first post on the subject?

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

H.J. Res. 64

Whereas, on September 11, 2001, acts of treacherous violence were committed against the United States and its citizens; and

Whereas, such acts render it both necessary and appropriate that the United States exercise its rights to self-defense and to protect United States citizens both at home and abroad; and

Whereas, in light of the threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States posed by these grave acts of violence; and

Whereas, such acts continue to pose an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States; and

Whereas, the President has authority under the Constitution to take action to deter and prevent acts of international terrorism against the United States: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

IN GENERAL.--That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any further acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.

Appears that the President has accomplished EXACTLY what Congress empowered him to do.

Good, you have Google. Now, show me the declaration of war.

Good! So now it should be obvious to you that "whimpering" is an incorrect choice of word for the context in which you applied it.


Next up...History.


Who brought up the gay marriage issue in this thread? And who and what was I responding to in my first post on the subject?

Oh, I know I know, pick me.

 

[Kerad]

...is me, as a 'rightie', conceding your point.

Oh....gotcha. Thanks! Much better than Bush's "presents".

 

[Ken King]

Good! So now it should be obvious to you that "whimpering" is an incorrect choice of word for the context in which you applied it.


Next up...History.


Who brought up the gay marriage issue in this thread? And who and what was I responding to in my first post on the subject?

As to the context of use, it was appropriate. Bringing up an out of date fact to support your position against what Bush is thinking about to me is rude and boorish (in other words, petulant). While true that he once sought an action, 4 years ago, seeking an amendment to clarify the intent of the DMA. Now does thinking about something 4 years ago mean that he is still doing so? I don't think so, but you can go ahead and try to prove your point by providing current or at least recent comments that he has made. I'll read and weigh them if you can find any. I'll even say that I was wrong if you do.

History - who brought it up in this thread? BOP
Who were you responding to? This person.
What were you responding to? A claim of no evidence that Bush is thinking about gay marriages.

 

[Kerad]

As to the context of use, it was appropriate. Bringing up an out of date fact to support your position against what Bush is thinking about to me is rude and boorish (in other words, petulant). While true that he once sought an action, 4 years ago, seeking an amendment to clarify the intent of the DMA. Now does thinking about something 4 years ago mean that he is still doing so? I don't think so, but you can go ahead and try to prove your point by providing current or at least recent comments that he has made. I'll read and weigh them if you can find any. I'll even say that I was wrong if you do.

History - who brought it up in this thread? BOP
Who were you responding to? This person.
What were you responding to? A claim of no evidence that Bush is thinking about gay marriages.

Since when is the time frame of "since 2004" a parameter? This_person posted this:

I haven't seen any evidence he even considers homosexual marriage more than the moment he's asked something about it. Have you?

My response to that question was/is "Yes, I have."

So now you want to change the nature of the conversation to, "Well, since 2004 ..."

I have presented irrefutable proof that Bush has actively supported an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriages, and your counter is that since he hasn't done so since 2004, he may have changed his position?

Really???

Unless you can provide proof showing that he has in fact changed his position, we're stuck with his last public statements as our basis of his views on the subject.

 

[chernmax]

It appears The Commander Guy finally found his motivation.

Get Osama Bin Laden before I leave office, orders George W Bush - Times Online


Looks like the task of polishing up that turd of a legacy has recaptured our President's attention. Regardless of the reasons...let's just hope it helps to get the job done.

Maybe because he's concerned if NObama takes office he'll invite Bin Ladin to the White House for a chit chat and offer to let him sleep in the Lincoln bedroom until NObama agrees to his demands!!!

 

[Xaquin44]

Maybe because he's concerned if NObama takes office he'll invite Bin Ladin to the White House for a chit chat and offer to let him sleep in the Lincoln bedroom until NObama agrees to his demands!!!

I rather doubt that would happen.

 

[Ken King]

Since when is the time frame of "since 2004" a parameter? This_person posted this: My response to that question was/is "Yes, I have."

So now you want to change the nature of the conversation to, "Well, since 2004 ..."

I have presented irrefutable proof that Bush has actively supported an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriages, and your counter is that since he hasn't done so since 2004, he may have changed his position?

Really???

Unless you can provide proof showing that he has in fact changed his position, we're stuck with his last public statements as our basis of his views on the subject.

So you are saying that you can't find anything to support the claim that he is thinking about gay marriage but you can where he has in the past thought about it, okay.

Keep polishing that turd.

 

[Xaquin44]

So you are saying that you can't find anything to support the claim that he is thinking about gay marriage but you can where he has in the past thought about it, okay.

Keep polishing that turd.

your arguments kind of fall flat when you ignore context.

 

[chernmax]

Since when is the time frame of "since 2004" a parameter? This_person posted this: My response to that question was/is "Yes, I have."

So now you want to change the nature of the conversation to, "Well, since 2004 ..."

I have presented irrefutable proof that Bush has actively supported an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriages, and your counter is that since he hasn't done so since 2004, he may have changed his position?

Really???

Unless you can provide proof showing that he has in fact changed his position, we're stuck with his last public statements as our basis of his views on the subject.

Why don't you post you B/S gay agenda in some Montgomery Co forum. Who cares if 2 guys want to sleep together and all night. Or what a set of lezbo's do. I could give a sh!t less except when people keep trying to throw it in our faces like it's something we should all be fighting for. On gay marraige I'll vote like NObama "PRESENT!!!"

 

[Kerad]

So you are saying that you can't find anything to support the claim that he is thinking about gay marriage but you can where he has in the past thought about it, okay.

Keep polishing that turd.

Honestly, I can't find anything that proves he's thinking of anything other than "Heh. I love me some Power Rangers. I'm Commander Power Ranger Guy!!!" until he says something unrelated.

And you can't, either.

 

[Ken King]

Since when is the time frame of "since 2004" a parameter? This_person posted this: My response to that question was/is "Yes, I have."

So now you want to change the nature of the conversation to, "Well, since 2004 ..."

I have presented irrefutable proof that Bush has actively supported an amendment to the constitution banning gay marriages, and your counter is that since he hasn't done so since 2004, he may have changed his position?

Really???

Unless you can provide proof showing that he has in fact changed his position, we're stuck with his last public statements as our basis of his views on the subject.

Where have I said he has changed position? I just don't think it's on his mind at the present time nor has it been since shortly after his request for an amendment was not acted upon.

Do you invision him fuming over not being able to get it done resulting in his allowing other more pressing issues to go untended? That was stupid of me, of course you do.

 

[This_person]

And then there's this:
Bush defends call for gay marriage ban - Same-Sex Marriage - MSNBC.com



Along with this, from the same article:



So, yes...Bush considers it his job to drive this policy of restricting marriage to heterosexual couples only.


Somebody better call and tell him that's not on the list of his responsibilities.

Yep, answered questions on it four years ago. Done nothing about it, because it's not in his agenda. Answered questions. As of yet, you've produced nothing different.

 

[This_person]

Bush sad:



He said this because....why? What action does he think is important? What constitutional process is he referring to? Exactly what do you think he's discussing here?


You Righties are trying to find a way out of this one and it's not going to work. Bush has publicly supported a constitutional ban on gay marriage, which is obvious to everybody who isn't trying to be a .

The End.

Yep, answered questions, gave his opinion. Good job scoping that out for us.

 

[This_person]

I rather doubt that would happen.

Me too. He wouldn't put OBL out like that, he'd go to him.

 

[This_person]

your arguments kind of fall flat when you ignore context.

Show it to us then in the context of the proposed amendment, or the campaigning that he's done, or the bills introduced through friendly Senators - SOMETHING.