(09-04-2015 02:36 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:22 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  No, it's bigotry when unfairly people characterize groups he identifies with, it's just the truth when people unfairly characterize groups he doesn't like.

No, for the millionth time, it's only bigotry when you're intolerant to those holding different opinions. Try using it according to the definition of the word and not what Mother Jones tells you.

I'm not intolerant of those holding different opinions. I might think they are wrong and certainly don't think they should be able to use those opinions to limit access to government services, but that's not intolerance. Maybe that's where your issue is here.

(09-04-2015 02:39 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:27 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 08:32 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  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

Good find... Bet nobody said a word about ol Gayvin in San Fran.

If a judge ordered him to stop, and he defied the order, then he should have suffered the same consequences. That being said, the comparison isn't exactly valid as he wasn't negatively affecting american citizens handing out marriage licenses like this woman is by refusing to do so.

Oh ok, I didn't know it only counted if it involved not handing out marriage licenses to gays.

Not at all what I said.

(09-04-2015 01:30 PM)dcCid Wrote:  Thanks for answering. On a couple of conservative boards I read they were saying this in the comments & it was not logical.

1 It is a "marriage license" not a "special privilege marriage licenses".

2 They need to follow current law which may be different than what the laws were when they were sworn in. Laws change all the time & people are not re sworn in every time there is a change.

Tomato, tomahto.

(09-04-2015 01:33 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:11 PM)miko33 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:08 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 09:57 PM)miko33 Wrote:  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.

Because as it's been said hundreds of times, look who would be taking his place... Biden is just as bad as obama, if not worse.

That's not a valid reason. By doing nothing, the GOP sanctions Obama's refusal to enforce laws. IMHO, they are simply using this as a reference point and will do the same things once they regain the WH. Therein lies your true hypocrisy.

I think the primary reason is because there are no grounds for impeachment other than the BS axel that the republicans wrap them selves around.

As if Benghazi and the IRS scandal weren't enough... Like I said, it's better than having Biden in there.

(09-04-2015 01:35 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:30 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 11:41 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 10:33 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 10:20 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Submission to Civil Authorities (1 Peter 2:13-17)
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
16 [Act] as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but [use it] as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

So civil disobedience by a Christian is never allowed?

Oh so now we get to cherry pick which scriptures we follow? Typical. Convenient.

You picked and chose.

I choose to follow none of them. Call me a purist.

If you insist.

(09-04-2015 02:41 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:30 PM)dcCid Wrote:  Thanks for answering. On a couple of conservative boards I read they were saying this in the comments & it was not logical.

1 It is a "marriage license" not a "special privilege marriage licenses".

2 They need to follow current law which may be different than what the laws were when they were sworn in. Laws change all the time & people are not re sworn in every time there is a change.

Tomato, tomahto.

Then why say it at all?

(09-04-2015 01:36 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:32 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 12:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 12:17 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 11:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  She's not on a religious high horse. She just doesn't want her name on their certificate because she thinks its wrong.

This argument is completely off the rails. I'm a Christian. There is no way in the world that God would hold an ounce of disdain for me if I opposed gay marriage but still had my name on a piece of paper that allowed a gay couple to be considered married by a government.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

More importantly, he would certainly not look kindly on her breaking her oath she took.

Either she does the job, as the oath states or she resigns, those are the only options she has to prevent her from breaking a commandment. She wasn't interested in that though and willingly broke that commandment, because she isn't really concerned with her religious beliefs, she simply wants attention.

That oath she took didn't involve something that goes directly against God, genius.

The oath was not to uphold her religious beliefs. And her god may be different than someone else's god. She is not even a real Christian. The Pope has said that Catholic Church is the one true church. Any non Catholic who claims to be a Christian is worshiping a false god.

LULZ

(09-04-2015 01:56 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

(09-04-2015 01:27 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 08:32 AM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  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

Good find... Bet nobody said a word about ol Gayvin in San Fran.

bet somebody didn't actually read the article. Half of it is discussing the complaints from the left.

Ok, off topic question... Why do you keep quoting RWT, Kaplony, and UCF08 in all your posts?

(09-04-2015 01:35 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:30 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 11:41 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 10:33 AM)Bull_In_Exile Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 10:20 AM)JDTulane Wrote:  Submission to Civil Authorities (1 Peter 2:13-17)
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human institution, whether to a king as the one in authority, 14 or to governors as sent by him for the punishment of evildoers and the praise of those who do right.
15 For such is the will of God that by doing right you may silence the ignorance of foolish men.
16 [Act] as free men, and do not use your freedom as a covering for evil, but [use it] as bondslaves of God. 17 Honor all men; love the brotherhood, fear God, honor the king.

So civil disobedience by a Christian is never allowed?

Oh so now we get to cherry pick which scriptures we follow? Typical. Convenient.

You picked and chose.

I choose to follow none of them. Call me a purist.

So were supposed to trust someone who (1) has a pre set agenda (2) does not believe the Bible is at all authoritative to use a holistic approach to scripture.

(09-04-2015 01:57 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Okay. So now gays are hateful, intolerant, melodramatic, drama queens.


Keep the hate train rollin' LSU. Really reppin' rural Louisiana well here.

All activists are... Would you like to be tossed in the mix too? I didn't know truth equaled hate. Oh, that's right, it's my opinion you can't tolerate. Know what that means don't ya. EH HEH, bigot.

(09-04-2015 02:03 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Not liking intolerance isn't intolerance, I don't know where people got the notion it was but it's not logically sound in the least.

No idea... That's the first time I've heard someone state it, UCF08.

(09-04-2015 02:22 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  My religious beliefs could not be any less relevant to this issue, and the fact you even bring them up raises serious doubts in your ability to have adult conversations.

As for your second comment, she didn't take an oath to uphold the law as it was currently written, she took an oath to uphold the law. If the law changes and she has religious issues with upholding those changes, she needs to resign because refusing to do so means she lied to take the office. She is a liar, period, and she lied while placing her hand on a Bible and stating 'so help me god'.

So basically, anytime someone disagrees with you, you claim they can't have an adult conversation. Check yourself bruh.

What did you expect? She's a democrat.

registered democrat, probably votes republican in state and federal

(09-04-2015 02:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:47 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 12:42 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Oh really now. Did you actually just post this? The majority of gays are hateful and intolerant...? And you claim to not be a bigot how?

Don't be weird on me. I'm one of the few posters that has stated several times that we're all bigots, including myself.

Anyways, go and tell a gay no and see what kind of response you get as opposed to the response you get for telling a normal guy no. One will call the media and all his pals to come protest, one will walk away and go elsewhere. Yes, most gays are intolerant and hateful. If not, then they're melodramatic drama queens.

Won't issue me a license? Ok, I'll go get the news media.



21 miles west is another clerk of court that can issue a special privilege marriage license. Some came all the way from Ohio to cry about this, surely they could have gone 21 miles west. Too much to ask though I guess. That's a long haul.

Again, it has nothing to do with whether or not they could drive elsewhere to get a license and everything to do with holding the government responsible to uphold the law. It doesn't matter if a law states they only had to wait 5 seconds longer or that their marriage license must be printed in a different font, it is unconstitutional to do so, and any good American would make an issue out of it. Why? Because any infringement upon the rights of any citizen, no matter how small, is an infringement upon the rights of us all.

Are you telling me that you don't understand the concept of going somewhere else instead of being a drama queen and calling up the media for national attention purposes? If they were truly concerned and not seeking attention, this would have been either handled quietly or they would have gone and gotten their piece of paper 21 miles west.

(09-04-2015 02:12 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:06 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  Raising a stink when a government office treats you unfairly is what any good American would do, because by doing so, you are protecting the rights of every American. But what you're doing, blaming the person holding the government accountable, is the opposite of this.

And lets not even start on the idiotic bigotry and lack of critical thinking you espouse in that last post, either. You're an embarrassment.

So you think those girls came all the way from Ohio just to get a license from that particular place after they found out they weren't giving out licenses?

The embarrassment is falling for the farce that they had a purpose other than squealing.

I bolded the relevant portion for you, because nothing you said even begins to address the factual basis of my post. Address, or admit you're just another thoughtless bigot who doesn't comprehend basic concepts like the above.

Man, it's too bad you can't comprehend when you don't want to. I figured you were smarter than that.

(09-04-2015 02:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:19 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:03 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 12:44 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  The precedent was set when Eric Holder told all state AGs that if they want to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples then they could do so if it was still banned in their state. Why wasn't he jailed? Or fined? Or even frowned upon? The constitution is the constitution and the law is the law, no? Why is it ok for one to break them both, but not the other?

One reason may be because Eric Holder never said that. So how is that a precedent?

Try making sure I'm wrong before you make yourself look like a fool.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said today that state attorneys general are not forced to defend laws in their states that ban same-sex marriage if they believe it to be unconstitutional.

In 2011, Holder and Obama decided that DOJ employees would no longer defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, arguing that the act was unconstitutional discrimination.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...riage-ban/

It was unconstitutional discrimination, and all sorts of laws that are unconstitutional aren't enforced.

So you support him breaking the law, and others when it's being broken for something you support. I didn't think it'd be that easy to get you to admit your hypocrisy but oddly enough, I'm not shocked. You're an embarrassment.

(09-04-2015 01:27 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  Ok, off topic question... Why do you keep quoting RWT, Kaplony, and UCF08 in all your posts?

Damn! That is a VERY god question. Even when I hit reply to this, all of the extra was there WITH it being repeated AGAIN! There must be a glitch in my system. I think I just assumed all the extra crap was there from the start.

Thanks for pointing it out. I will try to delete in the future.

(09-04-2015 02:58 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:20 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:19 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:03 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 12:44 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  The precedent was set when Eric Holder told all state AGs that if they want to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples then they could do so if it was still banned in their state. Why wasn't he jailed? Or fined? Or even frowned upon? The constitution is the constitution and the law is the law, no? Why is it ok for one to break them both, but not the other?

One reason may be because Eric Holder never said that. So how is that a precedent?

Try making sure I'm wrong before you make yourself look like a fool.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said today that state attorneys general are not forced to defend laws in their states that ban same-sex marriage if they believe it to be unconstitutional.

In 2011, Holder and Obama decided that DOJ employees would no longer defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, arguing that the act was unconstitutional discrimination.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...riage-ban/

It was unconstitutional discrimination, and all sorts of laws that are unconstitutional aren't enforced.

So you support him breaking the law, and others when it's being broken for something you support. I didn't think it'd be that easy to get you to admit your hypocrisy but oddly enough, I'm not shocked. You're an embarrassment.

It has nothing to do with my 'support' and everything to do with the constitutionality of the laws themselves. There are plenty of state laws which still ban all sorts of sexual acts, but those laws are unconstitutional and therefore aren't enforced. You don't seem to understand that the final arbiter of what is 'law' in this nation isn't legislation, it's the constitution. This issue has been ruled on, and Holder was correct in his description of that legislation as unconstitutional.

(09-04-2015 02:26 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:19 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:03 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 12:44 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  The precedent was set when Eric Holder told all state AGs that if they want to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples then they could do so if it was still banned in their state. Why wasn't he jailed? Or fined? Or even frowned upon? The constitution is the constitution and the law is the law, no? Why is it ok for one to break them both, but not the other?

One reason may be because Eric Holder never said that. So how is that a precedent?

Try making sure I'm wrong before you make yourself look like a fool.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said today that state attorneys general are not forced to defend laws in their states that ban same-sex marriage if they believe it to be unconstitutional.

In 2011, Holder and Obama decided that DOJ employees would no longer defend the constitutionality of Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act, or DOMA, arguing that the act was unconstitutional discrimination.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/201...riage-ban/

I knew he said that and I agree with him.

Of course you do.

(09-04-2015 02:27 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:22 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:08 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  My religious beliefs could not be any less relevant to this issue, and the fact you even bring them up raises serious doubts in your ability to have adult conversations.

As for your second comment, she didn't take an oath to uphold the law as it was currently written, she took an oath to uphold the law. If the law changes and she has religious issues with upholding those changes, she needs to resign because refusing to do so means she lied to take the office. She is a liar, period, and she lied while placing her hand on a Bible and stating 'so help me god'.

So basically, anytime someone disagrees with you, you claim they can't have an adult conversation. Check yourself bruh.

What did you expect? She's a democrat.

No, I claim people can't have an adult conversation when the continuously evade responding to claims of those who have a different viewpoint than their own. Like you just did, and have done this entire thread. You continue to make the same comments over and over without at all addressing the critiques others have on those comments, and ignore the clear facts that go against your viewpoint.

I've addressed everything, you've failed to comprehend it. The fault isn't with me.

(09-04-2015 02:54 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 02:01 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:47 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 12:42 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  Oh really now. Did you actually just post this? The majority of gays are hateful and intolerant...? And you claim to not be a bigot how?

Don't be weird on me. I'm one of the few posters that has stated several times that we're all bigots, including myself.

Anyways, go and tell a gay no and see what kind of response you get as opposed to the response you get for telling a normal guy no. One will call the media and all his pals to come protest, one will walk away and go elsewhere. Yes, most gays are intolerant and hateful. If not, then they're melodramatic drama queens.

Won't issue me a license? Ok, I'll go get the news media.

21 miles west is another clerk of court that can issue a special privilege marriage license. Some came all the way from Ohio to cry about this, surely they could have gone 21 miles west. Too much to ask though I guess. That's a long haul.

Again, it has nothing to do with whether or not they could drive elsewhere to get a license and everything to do with holding the government responsible to uphold the law. It doesn't matter if a law states they only had to wait 5 seconds longer or that their marriage license must be printed in a different font, it is unconstitutional to do so, and any good American would make an issue out of it. Why? Because any infringement upon the rights of any citizen, no matter how small, is an infringement upon the rights of us all.

Are you telling me that you don't understand the concept of going somewhere else instead of being a drama queen and calling up the media for national attention purposes? If they were truly concerned and not seeking attention, this would have been either handled quietly or they would have gone and gotten their piece of paper 21 miles west.

No, the fact they were truly concerned with asserting their constitutionally protected rights is why they refused to go elsewhere. It would be easier for them to go elsewhere and get on with their lives, but that would send the message that they won't stand up for their rights. It would have been easier for the founders of our nation to just pay the taxes, but that would have sent the message that they won't stand up for their rights. Do you see why your statement is so painfully embarrassing?