Bush finally concerned about Bin Laden.

[itsbob]

oh I don't know about his actual speech, I was just talking in the context of the article.

although, "An amendment to the constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice" sounds pretty straight forward.

I think California is a good example of what he is suggesting..

The people voted on a statewide referendum, they didn't want it. The MAJORITY said no.. Someone goes to an acitivist judge who rules in favor of gay marriage and supercedes the majority. Even the supreme court of CA rules against the majority of the state population(liberal panel of judges I'm assuming, who didn't care WHAT the people said). How can you protect the MAJORITY if all anyone has to do is find ONE judge that sympathizes with your cause?



Kind of flies in the face of the way our country is supposed to be run.

I don't care about gay marriages, i could careless what two adults do behind closed doors, but the implications are far reaching as to how they went about it.

What if the majority of people don't care if you own a gun, but an activist judge sides with the anti-gunners and makes ALL gun ownership illegal?

Think about any freedom, or right you have, and try to think.. Is it possible that there may be ONE judge out there that could decide to take that right or freedom away? Do you think the "pants judge" couldn't be convinced ($$$$) (if he had the power) to enact law that would prohibit free speech, freedom to assemble.. religion.. or anything else the MAJORITY wanted, and desired?

 

[Kerad]

He did call for an ammendment to the constitution ....

just because it never got anywhere doesn't mean he didn't try.

But...but...but he didn't call for that TODAY! So it doesn't count.
hewthatwasclose:



He knows that. He just doesn't want to believe it....so he doesn't. Life on Right-Wing World is made much easier by ignoring undesirable information.

It's often a waste of time and effort attempting to have productive conversations with some of these types. The only benefit I get is the humor of watching them wrestle with their cognitive dissonance. The spastic changing of subject and/or parameters...the constant moving of the goalposts as their argument falters...the flat out refusal to accept which has been clearly shown to them. It can be quite entertaining.

Well...up to a point, anyways.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

I think California is a good example of what he is suggesting..

The people voted on a statewide referendum, they didn't want it. The MAJORITY said no.. Someone goes to an acitivist judge who rules in favor of gay marriage and supercedes the majority. Even the supreme court of CA rules against the majority of the state population(liberal panel of judges I'm assuming, who didn't care WHAT the people said). How can you protect the MAJORITY if all anyone has to do is find ONE judge that sympathizes with your cause?



Kind of flies in the face of the way our country is supposed to be run.

I don't care about gay marriages, i could careless what two adults do behind closed doors, but the implications are far reaching as to how they went about it.

What if the majority of people don't care if you own a gun, but an activist judge sides with the anti-gunners and makes ALL gun ownership illegal?

Think about any freedom, or right you have, and try to think.. Is it possible that there may be ONE judge out there that could decide to take that right or freedom away? Do you think the "pants judge" couldn't be convinced ($$$$) (if he had the power) to enact law that would prohibit free speech, freedom to assemble.. religion.. or anything else the MAJORITY wanted, and desired?

THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION! The majority of Americans CANNOT FORCE THEIR WILL on a minority when it comes to government entities.

That's just like the majority of Marylanders voting that everybody except black Americans are eligible for welfare. Blacks cannot get welfare because the MAJORITY voted that they shouldn't be eligible because of their race. It's UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

But...but...but he didn't call for that TODAY! So it doesn't count.
hewthatwasclose:



He knows that. He just doesn't want to believe it....so he doesn't. Life on Right-Wing World is made much easier by ignoring undesirable information.

It's often a waste of time and effort attempting to have productive conversations with some of these types. The only benefit I get is the humor of watching them wrestle with their cognitive dissonance. The spastic changing of subject and/or parameters...the constant moving of the goalposts as their argument falters...the flat out refusal to accept which has been clearly shown to them. It can be quite entertaining.

Well...up to a point, anyways.

I'm very conservative ... these people on here are just WAY OUT THERE. Effing religious extremist far-right wing nuts.

Liberal, socialist = the SOMD Forums term for anyone who is not a moral majority religious extremist far-right fanatical neocon that doesn't agree with Rush Limbaugh.

 

[BOP]

Are you referring to the fact that al-Jazeera is censored in Canada?
Can you name the cable and satellite outlets in THIS country that allow it at all?

The fact that discussing the threat that Islamofacism presents to western civilization is all but prohibited.

Hate speech or free speech? What much of West bans is protected in U.S. - International Herald Tribune

 

[itsbob]

THE CONSTITUTION PROHIBITS GOVERNMENT DISCRIMINATION! The majority of Americans CANNOT FORCE THEIR WILL on a minority when it comes to government entities.

Show me where the Constitution covers discrimination concerning Gays or others based on their sexual preferences..

It has NOTHING to do with the Constitution.

 

[Bann]

Show me where the Constitution covers discrimination concerning Gays or others based on their sexual preferences..

It has NOTHING to do with the Constitution.

He can't.

But here's a link to it if he wants to try. []


U.S.Constitution

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Show me where the Constitution covers discrimination concerning Gays or others based on their sexual preferences..

It has NOTHING to do with the Constitution.

He can't.

But here's a link to it if he wants to try. []


U.S.Constitution

Wow, you guys are stupider than I originally gave you credit for.

ALL CITIZENS ARE GUARANTEED EQUAL RIGHTS. If this isn't common sense to you, and you can't figure it out on your own, me holding your hand reading the Constitution aloud to you isn't going to help.

Congratulations bob and Bann, you have managed to make yourselves look dumberthan Bruzilla, Kerad and forestal.

Effing psychos.

 

[Kerad]

...

Congratulations bob and Bann, you have managed to make yourselves look dumberthan Bruzilla, Kerad and forestal.

Effing psychos.

HEY!





Silly biotch.

 

[Ken King]

Wow Kerad, you guys are so right. What have I been doing with my head buried in the sand? The marriage dilemma has totally consumed George Bush during the last 7+ years, nothing has been more important to him.

Now in the context of what started a change of direction in the thread, that being a statement saying “Bush has had more important things to worry about...like whether a certain percentage of 3 percent of the overall population getting married is going to destroy the institution of marriage, and with it, all of western civilization.” I find that absurd.

You’ve asked for proof of what he does think about and a source I find adequate, though you probably will not, are his weekly radio addresses. So, let’s see what has been on his mind.

Mother’s Day – once
Father’s Day – once
NATO – once
FISA – 2 times
Presidential nominees – 2 times
Marriage Amendment – 2 times
Trade – 3 times
Congress – 4 times
Drugs (both prescription and illicit) – 5 times
Independence Day – 5 times
Memorial Day – 6 times
Social Security – 6 times
Supreme Court – 6 times
Easter – 6 times
Christmas – 7 times
His trips abroad – 7 times
Education – 8 times
Thanksgiving’s Day – 8 times
Budget – 9 Times
Medicare – 10 times
Immigration – 10 times
Middle East – 11 times
Taxes – 13 times
War on Terror – 23 times
Iraq – 42 times
Economy – 44 times

So what can be inferred from this list? Hmm, he likes to eat turkey, talks about his travel, enjoys presents, is fond of the Easter Bunny (probably the chocolate), and since he only mentioned Father’s Day and Mother’s Day once each he must have been an abused child. Does that about cover it for you?

 

[Kerad]

Wow Kerad, you guys are so right. What have I been doing with my head buried in the sand? The marriage dilemma has totally consumed George Bush during the last 7+ years, nothing has been more important to him.

...


Now in the context of what started a change of direction in the thread, that being a statement saying “Bush has had more important things to worry about...like whether a certain percentage of 3 percent of the overall population getting married is going to destroy the institution of marriage, and with it, all of western civilization.” I find that absurd.

:sigh:

Nobody has said that his support of a gay marriage ban has consumed his presidency. You're just resorting to overblown hyperbole at this point....moving the goalposts yet again.

Someone asked for proof showing that Dubya was concerned about gay marriage. I provided irrefutable proof.

Then, you wanted additional proof that he was concerned about it after 2004...because you weren't happy with the proof I showed.

Xaquin44 provided proof of him expressing the same concern in 2006.

NOW you're demanding proof that this has been Dubya's #1, all consuming mission of his entire presidency.




You just can't admit it...can you? As if admitting you may have been mistaken on this one issue would invalidate your existence.

You guys really need to get over yourselves.

 

[Ken King]

:sigh:

Nobody has said that his support of a gay marriage ban has consumed his presidency. You're just resorting to overblown hyperbole at this point....moving the goalposts yet again.

Who is moving the goal posts? I provided the quote where it was said that gay marriage is what he is worried about versus other matters.

Someone asked for proof showing that Dubya was concerned about gay marriage. I provided irrefutable proof.

I don't think I challenged that, I just said it wasn't recent, nothing but old news.

Then, you wanted additional proof that he was concerned about it after 2004...because you weren't happy with the proof I showed.

Xaquin44 provided proof of him expressing the same concern in 2006.

Again all I said was that I didn't think it was a recent concern of the President.

NOW you're demanding proof that this has been Dubya's #1, all consuming mission of his entire presidency.

I haven't demanded a thing from you or anyone else, what I did show is that it doesn't seem to be all that important to him based on the other topics that he has spoken of far more frequently.

You just can't admit it...can you? As if admitting you may have been mistaken on this one issue would invalidate your existence.

Admit what, I never denied he asked for the amendment, I just knew that it was a while ago and nothing recent that I could remember. Also don't fret yourself as I certainly don't need validation from you or anyone else on these boards as it causes me no more worry than a pimple on my backside whether you or anyone else agrees with what I have to say, I'm going to say it regardless of what others might think of me. I am in touch with reality and realize that while there is ample discussion, agreement, discourse and shear hatred for the sake of being hateful on here it won't stop the sun from rising or impact my life in any way.

You guys really need to get over yourselves.

Finally, I'm not "you guys" I am me and only me. I speak for no one else though at times I might express agreement with what others post, which even includes you on a rare occassion or two.

 

[Kerad]

....

Also don't fret yourself as I certainly don't need validation from you or anyone else on these boards as it causes me no more worry than a pimple on my backside whether you or anyone else agrees with what I have to say, I'm going to say it regardless of what others might think of me. I am in touch with reality and realize that while there is ample discussion, agreement, discourse and shear hatred for the sake of being hateful on here it won't stop the sun from rising or impact my life in any way.

Finally, I'm not "you guys" I am me and only me. I speak for no one else though at times I might express agreement with what others post, which even includes you on a rare occassion or two.

Ahhhh...there it is! Our common ground! I would've been disappointed if we didn't find it, sooner or later.

Semantics? Possibly.

 

[Larry Gude]

No...

I think California is a good example of what he is suggesting..

The people voted on a statewide referendum, they didn't want it. The MAJORITY said no.. Someone goes to an acitivist judge who rules in favor of gay marriage and supercedes the majority. Even the supreme court of CA rules against the majority of the state population(liberal panel of judges I'm assuming, who didn't care WHAT the people said). How can you protect the MAJORITY if all anyone has to do is find ONE judge that sympathizes with your cause?



Kind of flies in the face of the way our country is supposed to be run.

I don't care about gay marriages, i could careless what two adults do behind closed doors, but the implications are far reaching as to how they went about it.

What if the majority of people don't care if you own a gun, but an activist judge sides with the anti-gunners and makes ALL gun ownership illegal?

Think about any freedom, or right you have, and try to think.. Is it possible that there may be ONE judge out there that could decide to take that right or freedom away? Do you think the "pants judge" couldn't be convinced ($$$$) (if he had the power) to enact law that would prohibit free speech, freedom to assemble.. religion.. or anything else the MAJORITY wanted, and desired?

Bob, you got a contradictory argument going on there; On the one hand you're saying Californians should be able to vote individual rights; gays can or can't get married and that judges are shoving it down their throats and on the other, people should be able to vote for or against guns and judges are imposing their will there.

The right to keep and bear arms is a constitutional right. When people vote against that, or for that, judges are supposed to step in and say 'the will of the people does not matter as regards fundamental rights.'

Same thing for gay marriage. There is no constitutional basis for denying the right to marry. If there is, then there is also the right to deny them to enter into any other contract be it buying a car, a home or a job based on what we refer to as sexual preference. That is, clearly, unconstitutional, same as a ban on the right to keep and bear arms.

The community majority may want, or not want, a right to keep and bear. The community may want, or not want, limits on free political speech. The community may want, or not want, to let women vote. The community does not get to decide the bill of rights or the federal constitution.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

HEY!





Silly biotch.

You're alright for a leftist.

 

[This_person]

Here is one from 2006

BBC NEWS | Americas | Bush calls for gay marriage ban

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.

Yep, talk talk talk

 

[This_person]

oh I don't know about his actual speech, I was just talking in the context of the article.

although, "An amendment to the constitution is necessary because activist courts have left our nation with no other choice" sounds pretty straight forward.

Yep, it's a straight-forward speech (radio address, in the case of your link). He's also said that he'd like hydrogen powered cars, and and Congress to stop putting pork in spending bills. Has he vetoed a bill for pork? No, therefore he's done nothing he can do about it. Just like he's done nothing about gay marriage.

 

[This_person]

You righties are s. Y'all go out of your way to defend this stool of a President we have.

we just have a realistic view. As has been said repeatedly, most conservatives and most Republicans are very against a huge portion of what Bush has done, and have no blind love for his actions. But, we don't denounce him out of hand for EVERYTHING in the world as forestal, kerad, you, etc., have done.

 

[Bann]

Wow, you guys are stupider than I originally gave you credit for.

ALL CITIZENS ARE GUARANTEED EQUAL RIGHTS. If this isn't common sense to you, and you can't figure it out on your own, me holding your hand reading the Constitution aloud to you isn't going to help.

Congratulations bob and Bann, you have managed to make yourselves look dumberthan Bruzilla, Kerad and forestal.

Effing psychos.

Where in the Constitution does it say there are guaranteed rights to a sexual preference? That is what I was replying to.

It's a pity that nearly all of your postings lately include derogatory remarks and smiley/graphics making fun of special education and/or mental challenges. Don't you work at a school? I'm glad you don't work with my chld.

The negative & insulting tone of your posts have escalated in recent days, maybe you would benefit from some time out to relax and get a grip.

 

[This_person]

But...but...but he didn't call for that TODAY! So it doesn't count.
hewthatwasclose:



He knows that. He just doesn't want to believe it....so he doesn't. Life on Right-Wing World is made much easier by ignoring undesirable information.

It's often a waste of time and effort attempting to have productive conversations with some of these types. The only benefit I get is the humor of watching them wrestle with their cognitive dissonance. The spastic changing of subject and/or parameters...the constant moving of the goalposts as their argument falters...the flat out refusal to accept which has been clearly shown to them. It can be quite entertaining.

Well...up to a point, anyways.

Personally, my argument has not changed. Bush doesn't care enough about gay marrige to have done anything but talk about it here and there. It continues to be true.