Damn, look how long this thread is and all the arguments about this lowly clerk and an relatively insignificant issue. And all the while... OBAMA... and the same defiance for doing what he took the oath of office to do and the national security implications and a seeming total lack of interest from the same posters riled up over gays not getting any paper in 1 county.

People need to have their photos taken, lunch at Chick-fil-A and eat some cake then check their priorities.

(09-03-2015 03:18 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Here is her oath she pledged before taking office.

Quote:“I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

She is lying the second she denied those marriage licenses.

Seems she does have a little wiggle room in this matter after all.

(09-01-2015 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't think you understand what nuanced means.

Oh I do, I just don't care. I just like showing the hypocrisy of you leftists. Y'all are all about "Link?" and "Proof?" but have to put all kinds of conditions when you are asked to provide them, or in your case refuse to provide them.


And I'm not going to say I am wrong if commietom posts one or two anecdotal examples of a post where he mildly criticizes a leftist. If he were truly bipartisan he would post examples of threads he created bashing the left like he does constantly for the right.

First, you just moved the goal posts. You first said comments and now you're demanding threads started.

Anyway, where did I say that I was a bipartisan? I only said that I was independent and not beholden to either party. It's no secret that most of my positions are liberal and lean towards the democrats.

This idiotic notion that us liberals have to apologize and show how many conservative principles we have and how many democrats we disagree with, but the cons don't have to apologize for anything or be neutral on positions themselves.

Thankfully not all of the cons here fall into that category.

Here's a few for you:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-720376-post-116...id11612402
http://csnbbs.com/thread-686260-post-106...id10669985
http://csnbbs.com/thread-579617-post-810...pid8104610
http://csnbbs.com/thread-650281-post-974...pid9742057
http://csnbbs.com/thread-685363-post-106...id10649546
http://csnbbs.com/thread-679949-post-105...id10501591

(09-03-2015 09:22 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 12:36 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 11:12 AM)Paul M Wrote:  We are once more at loggerheads. I'm repeating myself, you're repeating yourself. I've not attempted to address your questions. I reject your premise. I say the job changed... simply for the obvious fact it did... you say it hasn't.

I'm not going in circles as I've addressed your issues, thoroughly. They're baseless, poorly constructed, and indicative of someone who is simply struggling to find any possible reason to believe what they wish to believe. By your own standards, she has just cause to refuse handing out marriage licenses if there is any change in any aspect of the process itself. That argument is simply untenable, unrealistic, and wholly without merit. What if she disagreed with a font change on the licenses themselves, should she then be able to deny every person marriage licenses? Of course not.

At any point, did her position ever allow her the ability to make moral or religious judgments and withhold government licenses because of it? Of course not. So in fact she is the one attempting to change her own job description, not the government nor any judge. Her job was to issue marriage licenses pursuant to the legally defined requirements, she is trying to change that.

Just admit it, you have absolutely no argument here. You'd actually garner a little respect from me for doing so.

Some reason this was edited out of my above post and just keeps on and keeps on being ignored?

AND OBAMAS JOB DESCRIPTION, THE JOB HE ASKED FOR AND TOOK, HAS NOT CHANGED AND HE REFUSES TO DO SOME OF IT.

FFS, your question has only been ignored because it is irrelevant to the topic. If you think he has broken the law or not lived up to his oath of office, then file a complaint and take it to court. If you win and he refuses to comply with a court order, send him to jail and have a ******* party! Until then. Get over it!

It is my opinion that if he farted in the wrong direction the RNC would spend billions to create a scandal, so I have to assume, that for now, he is in the clear. If you have a problem with him not being in jail, take that **** up with your representative and give the rest of us a break.

Obama is a constitutional scholar. I'm just going to go out on a limb and trust his judgement over yours when it comes to weather or not he is breaking the law.

(09-03-2015 09:38 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Damn, look how long this thread is and all the arguments about this lowly clerk and an relatively insignificant issue. And all the while... OBAMA... and the same defiance for doing what he took the oath of office to do and the national security implications and a seeming total lack of interest from the same posters riled up over gays not getting any paper in 1 county.

People need to have their photos taken, lunch at Chick-fil-A and eat some cake then check their priorities.

I agree with your views on Obama. He sucks as a president. So, why is the GOP sitting on their dead asses and not drawing up the bill to impeach the president? Why won't the GOP reverse the legislative acts that Obama got passed when the Dems were in charge? And why did Obama get elected to a 2nd term instead of being held accountable for what he did?

Why are you pushing the argument of a child? It sounds like people are saying "Well, if Obama can pick and choose which laws to enforce, then why can't this clerk of courts do the same"? I fail to see why this is a 'gotcha' statement. Just because Obama can get away with it because BOTH PARTIES refuse to hold him to task, it doesn't mean that the clerk of courts should get a free pass to do whatever she wants to do.

(09-03-2015 09:44 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  Some reason this was edited out of my above post and just keeps on and keeps on being ignored?

AND OBAMAS JOB DESCRIPTION, THE JOB HE ASKED FOR AND TOOK, HAS NOT CHANGED AND HE REFUSES TO DO SOME OF IT.

FFS, your question has only been ignored because it is irrelevant to the topic. If you think he has broken the law or not lived up to his oath of office, then file a complaint and take it to court. If you win and he refuses to comply with a court order, send him to jail and have a ******* party! Until then. Get over it!

It is my opinion that if he farted in the wrong direction the RNC would spend billions to create a scandal, so I have to assume, that for now, he is in the clear. If you have a problem with him not being in jail, take that **** up with your representative and give the rest of us a break.

Obama is a constitutional scholar. I'm just going to go out on a limb and trust his judgement over yours when it comes to weather or not he is breaking the law.
[/quote]



Damn, that's some serious denial.

Paul M Wrote:Damn, that's some serious denial.

Damn, that's some serious lack of quoting ability.

But, whatever. Question asked and answered. Now, please get back to the subject of the post and/or start your own on a new subject.

(09-03-2015 09:57 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 09:38 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Damn, look how long this thread is and all the arguments about this lowly clerk and an relatively insignificant issue. And all the while... OBAMA... and the same defiance for doing what he took the oath of office to do and the national security implications and a seeming total lack of interest from the same posters riled up over gays not getting any paper in 1 county.

People need to have their photos taken, lunch at Chick-fil-A and eat some cake then check their priorities.

I agree with your views on Obama. He sucks as a president. So, why is the GOP sitting on their dead asses and not drawing up the bill to impeach the president? Why won't the GOP reverse the legislative acts that Obama got passed when the Dems were in charge? And why did Obama get elected to a 2nd term instead of being held accountable for what he did?

Why are you pushing the argument of a child? It sounds like people are saying "Well, if Obama can pick and choose which laws to enforce, then why can't this clerk of courts do the same"? I fail to see why this is a 'gotcha' statement. Just because Obama can get away with it because BOTH PARTIES refuse to hold him to task, it doesn't mean that the clerk of courts should get a free pass to do whatever she wants to do.

These people should be holding Obama to the same standard they are holding this woman. They aren't. I'm pointing the hypocrisy out for them. You seemed to agree in the first paragraph. Then you had to go off the rails for some odd reason.

(09-03-2015 09:44 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 02:07 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:53 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-01-2015 01:46 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't think you understand what nuanced means.

Oh I do, I just don't care. I just like showing the hypocrisy of you leftists. Y'all are all about "Link?" and "Proof?" but have to put all kinds of conditions when you are asked to provide them, or in your case refuse to provide them.


And I'm not going to say I am wrong if commietom posts one or two anecdotal examples of a post where he mildly criticizes a leftist. If he were truly bipartisan he would post examples of threads he created bashing the left like he does constantly for the right.

First, you just moved the goal posts. You first said comments and now you're demanding threads started.

Anyway, where did I say that I was a bipartisan? I only said that I was independent and not beholden to either party. It's no secret that most of my positions are liberal and lean towards the democrats.

This idiotic notion that us liberals have to apologize and show how many conservative principles we have and how many democrats we disagree with, but the cons don't have to apologize for anything or be neutral on positions themselves.

Thankfully not all of the cons here fall into that category.

Here's a few for you:
http://csnbbs.com/thread-720376-post-116...id11612402
http://csnbbs.com/thread-686260-post-106...id10669985
http://csnbbs.com/thread-579617-post-810...pid8104610
http://csnbbs.com/thread-650281-post-974...pid9742057
http://csnbbs.com/thread-685363-post-106...id10649546
http://csnbbs.com/thread-679949-post-105...id10501591

(09-03-2015 09:22 PM)Paul M Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 12:36 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 11:12 AM)Paul M Wrote:  We are once more at loggerheads. I'm repeating myself, you're repeating yourself. I've not attempted to address your questions. I reject your premise. I say the job changed... simply for the obvious fact it did... you say it hasn't.

I'm not going in circles as I've addressed your issues, thoroughly. They're baseless, poorly constructed, and indicative of someone who is simply struggling to find any possible reason to believe what they wish to believe. By your own standards, she has just cause to refuse handing out marriage licenses if there is any change in any aspect of the process itself. That argument is simply untenable, unrealistic, and wholly without merit. What if she disagreed with a font change on the licenses themselves, should she then be able to deny every person marriage licenses? Of course not.

At any point, did her position ever allow her the ability to make moral or religious judgments and withhold government licenses because of it? Of course not. So in fact she is the one attempting to change her own job description, not the government nor any judge. Her job was to issue marriage licenses pursuant to the legally defined requirements, she is trying to change that.

Just admit it, you have absolutely no argument here. You'd actually garner a little respect from me for doing so.

Some reason this was edited out of my above post and just keeps on and keeps on being ignored?

AND OBAMAS JOB DESCRIPTION, THE JOB HE ASKED FOR AND TOOK, HAS NOT CHANGED AND HE REFUSES TO DO SOME OF IT.

FFS, your question has only been ignored because it is irrelevant to the topic. If you think he has broken the law or not lived up to his oath of office, then file a complaint and take it to court. If you win and he refuses to comply with a court order, send him to jail and have a ******* party! Until then. Get over it!

It is my opinion that if he farted in the wrong direction the RNC would spend billions to create a scandal, so I have to assume, that for now, he is in the clear. If you have a problem with him not being in jail, take that **** up with your representative and give the rest of us a break.

Obama is a constitutional scholar. I'm just going to go out on a limb and trust his judgement over yours when it comes to weather or not he is breaking the law.

Constitutional scholar......


Bwahaha

I just spit my good whiskey out laughing.

(09-03-2015 09:44 PM)Leargh! Wrote:  Obama is a constitutional scholar.

Obama taught constitutional law as an adjunct. So have I. That doesn't make me a constitutional scholar, and it didn't make him one either.

Constitutional scholars are people who have practiced before the supreme court or have much more impressive scholarly paper trails in the constitutional law area than does Obama. I have helped prepare an amicus brief before the court. The side we were supporting won, by the way, and our argument was a creative and unprecedented one. That puts me higher up the constitutional law scholar totem pole than Obama. And I'm not very high.

Maximus Wrote:Bwahaha

I just spit my good whiskey out laughing.

Quote:From 1992 until his election to the U.S. Senate in 2004, Barack Obama served as a professor in the Law School. He was a Lecturer from 1992 to 1996. He was a Senior Lecturer from 1996 to 2004, during which time he taught three courses per year. Senior Lecturers are considered to be members of the Law School faculty and are regarded as professors, although not full-time or tenure-track. The title of Senior Lecturer is distinct from the title of Lecturer, which signifies adjunct status. Like Obama, each of the Law School's Senior Lecturers has high-demand careers in politics or public service, which prevent full-time teaching. Several times during his 12 years as a professor in the Law School, Obama was invited to join the faculty in a full-time tenure-track position, but he declined.

http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media

Maybe not a "Scholar," but judging by your juvenile posts, I'm guessing more knowledgeable that yourself.

'Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:Constitutional scholars are people who have practiced before the supreme court or have much more impressive scholarly paper trails in the constitutional law area than does Obama. I have helped prepare an amicus brief before the court. The side we were supporting won, by the way, and our argument was a creative and unprecedented one. That puts me higher up the constitutional law scholar totem pole than Obama. And I'm not very high.

Good. Hopefully you can explain to Paul why Obama is not in jail for defying a court order. Or if you agree that Obama should be jailed, lead the charge.

That would be helpful, thanks.

He's higher up the ladder than a lowly clerk. Dur.

As was said 7892 pages back, if this woman had the power and money of say an Obama or Clinton, she could play this thing out, in office, out of jail, for as long as she so desired.

(09-03-2015 08:25 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 07:08 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:49 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:17 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Because she took an oath...

Of course the Supreme Court dramatically changed the law from when she took that oath.

And that matters because?????

If you can't understand that, you're beyond hope.

I guess that means you do not understand why it matters either.

No, you're just too close-minded to explain it to.

(09-03-2015 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:17 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  And why is she refusing a court order?

And why didn't she simply resign and make a statement about why she resigned to the press?

Why should she have to give up her livelihood

Because she took an oath...

Of course the Supreme Court dramatically changed the law from when she took that oath.

That is their right...don't like it? Take it up with our founding fathers

(09-03-2015 09:38 PM)Paul M Wrote:  Damn, look how long this thread is and all the arguments about this lowly clerk and an relatively insignificant issue. And all the while... OBAMA... and the same defiance for doing what he took the oath of office to do and the national security implications and a seeming total lack of interest from the same posters riled up over gays not getting any paper in 1 county.

People need to have their photos taken, lunch at Chick-fil-A and eat some cake then check their priorities.

If it bothers you so...hire a lawyer and sue Obama...good luck with that, lol

Quote:“I, _____, do swear that I will well and truly discharge the duties of the office of _____ County Circuit Court clerk, according to the best of my skill and judgment, making the due entries and records of all orders, judgments, decrees, opinions and proceedings of the court, and carefully filing and preserving in my office all books and papers which come to my possession by virtue of my office; and that I will not knowingly or willingly commit any malfeasance of office, and will faithfully execute the duties of my office without favor, affection or partiality, so help me God.”

Wiggle wiggle.

(09-01-2015 10:31 AM)Redwingtom 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.

So, we get to pick and choose which laws we follow...which SCOTUS decisions we need to honor?

There is no law that she broke. The supreme court ruling (this is a ruling, not a law) declared the marriage law unconstitutional. It did not address individual religious liberty. Granted, with the supreme court stacked with 3 lesbians and 3 #cuckservatives, she will lose this case, but the fact remains that she didn't break any laws. The fact that she is elected and can't be fired only highlights the fact that this was an issue that is constitutionally a state issue.

Just another Major reason to make sure No Leftwing Liberal gets elected for another 4 years of this Gay driven Agenda that smacks in the face of the majority of Americans that are Straight.

This is a win-win. She gets to be a martyr like she wants and couples get to enjoy the equal rule of law.

Time to move on.

(09-03-2015 04:50 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:08 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:04 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 03:01 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 02:56 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  For refusing a court order. She could either resign, do her job, or go to jail. In no way, shape, or form was she ever forced to go against her religious beliefs. If she didn't want to do the job of the office for which she was elected because she felt as though it would go against her religion, she should resign.

Do you understand the difference there? Because acting as if she's actually being jailed for her religious beliefs does a disservice to those who are actually persecuted for their religious beliefs.

And why is she refusing a court order?

And why didn't she simply resign and make a statement about why she resigned to the press?

Why should she have to give up her livelihood just so some degenerates can commit sin?

**** YOU *******. I AM NOT A DEGENERATE.

People like you, and Davis, are the scum of the earth. You and your type of no place in the United States. The USA is NOT a ******* Theocracy.

If you are so high and mighty about being a Christian, then ban divorce and a multitude of other things that Jesus actually preached about.

If not, STFU about calling AMERICANS and Humans degenerates.

You should put some soothing salve on that ass.

Oh the hypocrisy

Quote:In 2004, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom unleashed a national political and legal tempest when he issued about 4,000 marriage licenses to same-sex couples. At a time when gay marriage was expressly prohibited by California law