(09-01-2015 11:30 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(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:  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.

Yep, I'm the loser. You're the one incapable of admitting the fact your characterization of liberals is at the very least, lazy. Because that would require intelligence and introspection on your part.

(09-01-2015 11:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(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

Again, she's not risking jailtime for not doing her job, she risking jailtime for ignoring a court order. There is a significant difference between the two.

Job description changed. And in a monumental way. Not the oath she took.

Going forward, it's part of the job. Either publicly run on a platform to not issue licenses to gays (or blacks or Jews or Muslims) and take your chances with the voters or do the job. If you agree and take an oath, then do the job you agree to do.

But again, how about we start with far more serious matters being ignored. If you aren't calling for a President or candidates for that office to uphold their oaths and follow the laws they are required to follow but refuse, then it's silly to pick on a lowly clerk who doesn't have the power and money to get away with this for as long as she chooses to fight.

And they can all still get their little state issued piece of paper.

(09-02-2015 07:46 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Job description changed. And in a monumental way. Not the oath she took.

Going forward, it's part of the job. Either publicly run on a platform to not issue licenses to gays (or blacks or Jews or Muslims) and take your chances with the voters or do the job. If you agree and take an oath, then do the job you agree to do.

But again, how about we start with far more serious matters being ignored. If you aren't calling for a President or candidates for that office to uphold their oaths and follow the laws they are required to follow but refuse, then it's silly to pick on a lowly clerk who doesn't have the power and money to get away with this for as long as she chooses to fight.

And they can all still get their little state issued piece of paper.

That's not how this works. You don't get to run on the platform that you'll ignore judicial rulings unless you want to end up facing jailtime, like this woman is, for contempt of court.

And again, you act as if a judge ordering her to do this somehow precludes us as a nation also focusing on things you find more important, as if that makes logical sense in any way. It doesn't. We are very well capable of doing many things at once, and the fact that other wrongs are occurring elsewhere is not a defense to allow this wrong to continue here.

(09-02-2015 05:16 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(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 !

Why would you think I'm supporting a Democrat?

(09-02-2015 07:54 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  I thinking calling her to be jailed is a bit excessive. What's she doing is completely wrong and it's a stupid fight she's putting up, but it's not deserving of jail time.

She's ignoring a court order, and judges tend to not like that. Personally, I'd rather she be fined exorbitant amounts for each day she refuses, but it's up to the judge.

(09-02-2015 07:54 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  I thinking calling her to be jailed is a bit excessive. What's she doing is completely wrong and it's a stupid fight she's putting up, but it's not deserving of jail time.

a fine would be fine.

(09-02-2015 07:56 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 07:54 AM)smudge12 Wrote:  I thinking calling her to be jailed is a bit excessive. What's she doing is completely wrong and it's a stupid fight she's putting up, but it's not deserving of jail time.

She's ignoring a court order, and judges tend to not like that. Personally, I'd rather she be fined exorbitant amounts for each day she refuses, but it's up to the judge.

Can we charge Obama for refusing to enforce immigration laws? His flunkie, Loretta Lynch has already come out and said she supports him, so, no.

(09-02-2015 07:45 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 11:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(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

Again, she's not risking jailtime for not doing her job, she risking jailtime for ignoring a court order. There is a significant difference between the two.

As if you would know. The fact you are even making that argument is pathetic. You don't know what you are talking about.

(09-02-2015 07:43 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 11:30 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

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

(09-01-2015 05:19 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

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

Yep, I'm the loser. You're the one incapable of admitting the fact your characterization of liberals is at the very least, lazy. Because that would require intelligence and introspection on your part.

How ironic coming from the likes of you.

As I said, no poster on this board has constantly showed a level of outright stupidity or outright ignorance of just about every topic in which he engages than you. You haven't made a post in some time that wasn't purely argumentative or that carried any value whatsoever. It's tiresome and pathetic. Honestly, you've really shown you have nothing to add to any topic because you aren't equipped to discuss it either from a depth of knowledge perspective or a maturity level. You devolve everything into little pissing matches where you rant about your "simplistic points." I agree; they are simplistic, so simplistic as to not be worth any person on this forum's time, or mine.

Keep hanging on to those imaginary points in arguments; they won't get you far, as they haven't here or in life.

Welcome to ignore.

The End

Still don't know why people are in a rush to jail this lady for what amounts to an ant in a barn and are fine with extremely important things like national security issues being flagrantly violated and are content to allow such things to play out till people are out of office and memories fade.

(09-02-2015 09:07 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Still don't know why people are in a rush to jail this lady for what amounts to an ant in a barn and are fine with extremely important things like national security issues being flagrantly violated and are content to allow such things to play out till people are out of office and memories fade.

Hypocrisy

(09-02-2015 08:50 AM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 07:45 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 11:25 PM)HeartOfDixie Wrote:  

(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

Again, she's not risking jailtime for not doing her job, she risking jailtime for ignoring a court order. There is a significant difference between the two.

As if you would know. The fact you are even making that argument is pathetic. You don't know what you are talking about.

Just stating I'm wrong without an explanation isn't really an example of an argument, and in all honesty, is indicative of the type of behavior you claim you hate so much. But, I suppose you got your last word in and have me on ignore, so I doubt you'll see this either way, but if not, how exactly am I wrong here?

(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.

If you're doing it publicly...with cameras rolling for the whole country to see...mere minutes after the SCOTUS told you not to...then yeah...you're going to be thrown to the front of the line.

(09-02-2015 07:55 AM)ark30inf Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 05:16 AM)CardFan1 Wrote:  

(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 !

Why would you think I'm supporting a Democrat?

It really wasn't directed at You, Just a generalization of Hypocrisy where Hillary and others like Her and Bill get a pass on disregarding laws. but want Her to face punishment over something far less offensive.

(09-01-2015 09:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Hasn't she supposedly been married 3 or 4 times herself?

Four times. This obviously has nothing to do with gayness: she's hoarding all the marriage licenses for her own use.

(09-02-2015 07:46 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Job description changed. And in a monumental way. Not the oath she took.

Going forward, it's part of the job. Either publicly run on a platform to not issue licenses to gays (or blacks or Jews or Muslims) and take your chances with the voters or do the job. If you agree and take an oath, then do the job you agree to do.

But again, how about we start with far more serious matters being ignored. If you aren't calling for a President or candidates for that office to uphold their oaths and follow the laws they are required to follow but refuse, then it's silly to pick on a lowly clerk who doesn't have the power and money to get away with this for as long as she chooses to fight.

And they can all still get their little state issued piece of paper.

How did her job description change? She was always issuing marriage licenses and still is supposed to.

(09-02-2015 10:02 PM)58-56 Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 09:48 AM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Hasn't she supposedly been married 3 or 4 times herself?

Four times. This obviously has nothing to do with gayness: she's hoarding all the marriage licenses for her own use.

Normally a persons private life is their business unless they want to pimp their version of Family Values as a reason you are bad.

She got divorced in 1994 (I think) and was 5 months pregnant. She married her second husband who adopted the children. (The second husband is now also her current 4th husband - they remarried after she divorced her third husband.

She divorced her second husband and married her third husband (who is the biological father of her kids). After they got divorced she remarried her second husband as stated above.

(09-03-2015 05:14 AM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 07:46 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Job description changed. And in a monumental way. Not the oath she took.

Going forward, it's part of the job. Either publicly run on a platform to not issue licenses to gays (or blacks or Jews or Muslims) and take your chances with the voters or do the job. If you agree and take an oath, then do the job you agree to do.

But again, how about we start with far more serious matters being ignored. If you aren't calling for a President or candidates for that office to uphold their oaths and follow the laws they are required to follow but refuse, then it's silly to pick on a lowly clerk who doesn't have the power and money to get away with this for as long as she chooses to fight.

And they can all still get their little state issued piece of paper.

How did her job description change? She was always issuing marriage licenses and still is supposed to.

Can you be any sillier?

(09-02-2015 07:50 AM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-02-2015 07:46 AM)Paul M Wrote:  Job description changed. And in a monumental way. Not the oath she took.

Going forward, it's part of the job. Either publicly run on a platform to not issue licenses to gays (or blacks or Jews or Muslims) and take your chances with the voters or do the job. If you agree and take an oath, then do the job you agree to do.

But again, how about we start with far more serious matters being ignored. If you aren't calling for a President or candidates for that office to uphold their oaths and follow the laws they are required to follow but refuse, then it's silly to pick on a lowly clerk who doesn't have the power and money to get away with this for as long as she chooses to fight.

And they can all still get their little state issued piece of paper.

That's not how this works. You don't get to run on the platform that you'll ignore judicial rulings unless you want to end up facing jailtime, like this woman is, for contempt of court.

And again, you act as if a judge ordering her to do this somehow precludes us as a nation also focusing on things you find more important, as if that makes logical sense in any way. It doesn't. We are very well capable of doing many things at once, and the fact that other wrongs are occurring elsewhere is not a defense to allow this wrong to continue here.

Paraphrasing Obama's campaign: "Not gonna do it."