(09-01-2015 05:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 03:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 03:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 03:03 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Was I talking to you? Did I address that to you?

Take a look and let me know.

No, you addressed it to all Liberals, and as I've shown, that's simply not accurate. Stop lazily grouping people together unfairly.

EDIT: I've bolded the pertinent portion for you.

Stop acting so self important; you aren't.

That's not acting self-important, that's holding you to your word. Do you admit your post is not true? Or are you going to argue that I am either not a liberal or are arguing what you propose?

I wasn't talking to you little boy, so what are you talking about?

I never stated you were talking to me, I stated you described all liberals in a manner that, had you read the thread, is blatantly dishonest. If you consider me a liberal, which I am, your statement is factually inaccurate and you should not make such lazy generalizations.

The fact this has gone on for 3 replies, and I've had to repeat my extremely simplistic point is just embarassing on your part. Let me break it down for you like you incorrectly broke is down earlier this thread.

A = I am a liberal
B = I do not think she should be jailed for breaking federal law, but instead jailed for ignoring a court order

Therefore your statement was patently untrue. There's no arguing here. Just admit you were wrong and go on with your day.

She isn't a high enough elected official to get away with defying the SC.

If you can't (or won't) do your job, find another job.

"Ain't nobody getting gay married today!"

She took an oath. If she can't follow it the the only alternatives are to resign, or be jailed for contempt, followed by impeachment, followed by giving gay people her savings after lawsuits.

(09-01-2015 05:19 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 03:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 03:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, you addressed it to all Liberals, and as I've shown, that's simply not accurate. Stop lazily grouping people together unfairly.

EDIT: I've bolded the pertinent portion for you.

Stop acting so self important; you aren't.

That's not acting self-important, that's holding you to your word. Do you admit your post is not true? Or are you going to argue that I am either not a liberal or are arguing what you propose?

I wasn't talking to you little boy, so what are you talking about?

I never stated you were talking to me, I stated you described all liberals in a manner that, had you read the thread, is blatantly dishonest. If you consider me a liberal, which I am, your statement is factually inaccurate and you should not make such lazy generalizations.

The fact this has gone on for 3 replies, and I've had to repeat my extremely simplistic point is just embarassing on your part. Let me break it down for you like you incorrectly broke is down earlier this thread.

A = I am a liberal
B = I do not think she should be jailed for breaking federal law, but instead jailed for ignoring a court order

Therefore your statement was patently untrue. There's no arguing here. Just admit you were wrong and go on with your day.

Bless your heart

I feel bad for you.

The End.

(09-01-2015 07:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:19 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 03:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Stop acting so self important; you aren't.

That's not acting self-important, that's holding you to your word. Do you admit your post is not true? Or are you going to argue that I am either not a liberal or are arguing what you propose?

I wasn't talking to you little boy, so what are you talking about?

I never stated you were talking to me, I stated you described all liberals in a manner that, had you read the thread, is blatantly dishonest. If you consider me a liberal, which I am, your statement is factually inaccurate and you should not make such lazy generalizations.

The fact this has gone on for 3 replies, and I've had to repeat my extremely simplistic point is just embarassing on your part. Let me break it down for you like you incorrectly broke is down earlier this thread.

A = I am a liberal
B = I do not think she should be jailed for breaking federal law, but instead jailed for ignoring a court order

Therefore your statement was patently untrue. There's no arguing here. Just admit you were wrong and go on with your day.

Bless your heart

I feel bad for you.

The End.

So you're incapable of admitting a silly statement like yours was just a simplistic characterization and not meant to be taken literally? Congrats on lowering the bar, and here I thought you were one of the more reasonable people on this messageboard.

(09-01-2015 06:23 PM)Smaug Wrote:  If you can't (or won't) do your job, find another job.

Yes. She should resign and go find another occupation. I suggest Walmart.

Do we hold all the other elected officials to this? I mean, there were a hell of a lot of 'em refusing to do their jobs before this woman. Maybe go in order. Get to her in due time.

(09-01-2015 08:31 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Do we hold all the other elected officials to this? I mean, there were a hell of a lot of 'em refusing to do their jobs before this woman. Maybe go in order. Get to her in due time.

You don't refuse a court order without ending up in jail for contempt of court.

(09-01-2015 08:17 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 07:00 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:19 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  That's not acting self-important, that's holding you to your word. Do you admit your post is not true? Or are you going to argue that I am either not a liberal or are arguing what you propose?

I wasn't talking to you little boy, so what are you talking about?

I never stated you were talking to me, I stated you described all liberals in a manner that, had you read the thread, is blatantly dishonest. If you consider me a liberal, which I am, your statement is factually inaccurate and you should not make such lazy generalizations.

The fact this has gone on for 3 replies, and I've had to repeat my extremely simplistic point is just embarassing on your part. Let me break it down for you like you incorrectly broke is down earlier this thread.

A = I am a liberal
B = I do not think she should be jailed for breaking federal law, but instead jailed for ignoring a court order

Therefore your statement was patently untrue. There's no arguing here. Just admit you were wrong and go on with your day.

Bless your heart

I feel bad for you.

The End.

So you're incapable of admitting a silly statement like yours was just a simplistic characterization and not meant to be taken literally? Congrats on lowering the bar, and here I thought you were one of the more reasonable people on this messageboard.

You liberals need to get a room.

(09-01-2015 05:19 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 03:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 03:23 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, you addressed it to all Liberals, and as I've shown, that's simply not accurate. Stop lazily grouping people together unfairly.

EDIT: I've bolded the pertinent portion for you.

Stop acting so self important; you aren't.

That's not acting self-important, that's holding you to your word. Do you admit your post is not true? Or are you going to argue that I am either not a liberal or are arguing what you propose?

I wasn't talking to you little boy, so what are you talking about?

I never stated you were talking to me, I stated you described all liberals in a manner that, had you read the thread, is blatantly dishonest. If you consider me a liberal, which I am, your statement is factually inaccurate and you should not make such lazy generalizations.

The fact this has gone on for 3 replies, and I've had to repeat my extremely simplistic point is just embarassing on your part. Let me break it down for you like you incorrectly broke is down earlier this thread.

A = I am a liberal
B = I do not think she should be jailed for breaking federal law, but instead jailed for ignoring a court order

Therefore your statement was patently untrue. There's no arguing here. Just admit you were wrong and go on with your day.

Dude, he said "Liberals", as in typical liberal or liberals in general. You said all liberals. He didn't say every single batshit crazy liberal or every white-guilt ridden liberal. He never implied liberals without a single exception. Be proud that you aren't one of the crazies, at least relatively.

(09-01-2015 08:31 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Do we hold all the other elected officials to this? I mean, there were a hell of a lot of 'em refusing to do their jobs before this woman. Maybe go in order. Get to her in due time.

This

(09-01-2015 10:47 PM)BatonRougeEscapee Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:19 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:10 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 05:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 03:39 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  Stop acting so self important; you aren't.

That's not acting self-important, that's holding you to your word. Do you admit your post is not true? Or are you going to argue that I am either not a liberal or are arguing what you propose?

I wasn't talking to you little boy, so what are you talking about?

I never stated you were talking to me, I stated you described all liberals in a manner that, had you read the thread, is blatantly dishonest. If you consider me a liberal, which I am, your statement is factually inaccurate and you should not make such lazy generalizations.

The fact this has gone on for 3 replies, and I've had to repeat my extremely simplistic point is just embarassing on your part. Let me break it down for you like you incorrectly broke is down earlier this thread.

A = I am a liberal
B = I do not think she should be jailed for breaking federal law, but instead jailed for ignoring a court order

Therefore your statement was patently untrue. There's no arguing here. Just admit you were wrong and go on with your day.

Dude, he said "Liberals", as in typical liberal or liberals in general. You said all liberals. He didn't say every single batshit crazy liberal or every white-guilt ridden liberal. He never implied liberals without a single exception. Be proud that you aren't one of the crazies, at least relatively.

That's well above him. In fact, he's now going to jump you and go on and on about how you just aren't getting it. That's a pattern for that loser.

He's been popping off and throwing around negative rep. all because that simple fact you pointed out is completely beyond his comprehension.

(09-01-2015 10:36 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:09 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 09:46 AM)Hitch Wrote:  http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-...rt-ruling/

Quote:Citing “God’s authority,” Kim Davis, the elected clerk of Kentucky’s Rowan County, refused to issue marriage licenses to several same-sex couples Tuesday — just hours after the Supreme Court ruled against her request to be excused from issuing such licenses.

Just fire her for insubordination and move on.

I don't think anyone can fire a Clerk of Courts, they are elected.

I would think there would be a procedure to remove them from office if they weren't doing their duty.

The only loons are the ones wanting to throw her in jail. Tells a lot about the state of mind of progressives in this country. The left has become very totalitarian.

And She is a Democrat that was overwhelmingly re elected in a very Republican county. She has a right to stand up for what She Believes in. The Far left Gay couples that were screaming "there is No God" at Her should think first about Why They need a Marriage licence to get married by a priest in a Church anyway.

(09-01-2015 06:40 PM)ark30inf Wrote:  She took an oath. If she can't follow it the the only alternatives are to resign, or be jailed for contempt, followed by impeachment, followed by giving gay people her savings after lawsuits.

Kind of Like Hillary when She couldn't Follow orders either when She was Sec. of state.And That Lawyer can't even Follow the Law. Good luck Supporting that Liar running for Commander in Chief !

(09-01-2015 12:43 PM)fsquid Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 11:31 AM)GrayBeard Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 11:06 AM)fsquid Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 10:05 AM)ECUGrad07 Wrote:  Good for her. She'll pay for it, but it's refreshing to see people putting up a fight. We need much more of that.

really? She put up her fight legally, which I respect, but she's lost. Now she just looks like a toddler who isn't getting her way.

I applaud her for being unwilling to move on this, no matter the consequences.

If she has been married 3 or 4 times as someone above mentioned, then she really is nothing more than another Christian hypocrite picking and choosing what she "feels" to be the right thing to do.

please, the old hag is simply throwing herself on an unwinnable situation so she can start a kickstarter campaign that people will foolishly donate to.

^ this. She wants her 15 minutes and a pay day...

So I wonder if people would feel the same way if elected officials started discriminating against other races or religions. Maybe some official will start to refuse to issue marriage licenses to black couples, or Jewish couples or Muslim couples.

This could start a dangerous trend. I hope not. We could find ourselves right back in the 1950's with restrooms in the back of filling stations for straight people and gay people.

I wonder what would happen if a Quaker clerk refused to issue gun licenses on account of his/her religious convictions.

(09-02-2015 06:45 AM)Smaug Wrote:  I wonder what would happen if a Quaker clerk refused to issue gun licenses on account of his/her religious convictions.

What about an Amish Person issuing Automobile Licenses ?