(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:  

(09-04-2015 11:24 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  Yes...She violated her oath of office. She is also a white trash hypocrite. Her personal life reads like something from redneck joke book. She is the LAST person to get on a religious high horse. Fck her.

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.

Sure it did, she issued every marriage license to anyone with the parts she agreed with, certainly there is more to marriage in the Bible than ***** + ****** = valid marriage, which at the time was the basic legal requirement. She had no problem separating those issues then, when she took the oath.

Furthermore, that's entirely irrelevant to the issue being raised. She swore an oath to uphold the law, and now she is refusing to do so. She is a liar. If the law changed and she doesn't feel comfortable executing that law, she should resign, as then she wouldn't be a liar and wouldn't be going against her religious convictions. She didn't choose to do that, and instead, chose to knowingly lie. Why do you excuse this behavior?

(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.

Okay. So now gays are hateful, intolerant, melodramatic, drama queens.


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

(09-04-2015 12:55 PM)bullet Wrote:  

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

(09-04-2015 11:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 11:24 AM)Fo Shizzle Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:16 PM)UofMemphis Wrote:  Why doesn't matter...she violated a court order...that's all it takes to go to jail.

Yes...She violated her oath of office. She is also a white trash hypocrite. Her personal life reads like something from redneck joke book. She is the LAST person to get on a religious high horse. Fck her.

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.

I'm not endorsing sinful behavior...I'm not condoning it...and I'm not participating in it.

It makes no sense whatsoever.

Sounds like you believe Pontius Pilate did nothing wrong. He didn't condemn Jesus to death. He just washed his hands of it.

With your name on the document, you are endorsing it.

That is complete nonsense. There is no requirement for people holding a marriage license to get married. It's just a license.

(09-04-2015 12:52 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 12:48 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  OOOOOOOOOO, someone felt the guilty stick rap their face...

You did a fine job proving his point. I knew your intolerance and hatred would come out.

The only thing that I, like any REAL American, is intolerant of, is people that deny equality to other Americans, and hide behind their interpretation of a fairytale to belittle and discriminate against other Americans.

But you are too ignorant to see that. Pathetic, really.

Still proving him right




If you want to look impressive and not desperate or melodramatic and whiny, try responding without calling someone else ignorant, intolerant, or a bigot because your hypocrisy doesn't resonate well within the bbs community.

(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.

I mean holy hell, reading that post just makes me embarrassed for you.

(09-04-2015 02:00 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 12:52 PM)dbackjon Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 12:48 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  OOOOOOOOOO, someone felt the guilty stick rap their face...

You did a fine job proving his point. I knew your intolerance and hatred would come out.

The only thing that I, like any REAL American, is intolerant of, is people that deny equality to other Americans, and hide behind their interpretation of a fairytale to belittle and discriminate against other Americans.

But you are too ignorant to see that. Pathetic, really.

Still proving him right


If you want to look impressive and not desperate or melodramatic and whiny, try responding without calling someone else ignorant, intolerant, or a bigot because your hypocrisy doesn't resonate well within the bbs community.

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.

(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.

(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.

(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/

(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.

(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.

(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.

He did not say they could issue marriage license if they were against the law in that state which is what you said he said.

(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.

(09-04-2015 01:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:05 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:49 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  Of course the Supreme Court dramatically changed the law from when she took that oath.

And that matters because?????

Because she didn't swear under oath to issue special privilege marriage licenses.

Yes she did, she swore to uphold the law. You really look foolish arguing this.

I suppose a police officer can just not enforce any changes in the law if, in the time since they've become an officer, those laws have changed? Your position is downright stupid, wholly unrealistic, and it's clear to anyone even interested in reading your drivel that you have nothing backing up your claims except for the fact you agree with her in principle.

You're a progressive. God knows I would never expect you to understand where I'm coming from. I would expect the same snarky, childish insults that all progressives pull out of their garbage mouths, and that's exactly what I've gotten from you.

Did all the police in Arizona start profiling Mexicans to check for legal status when SB 1070 was passed?

(09-04-2015 01:20 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  LOL the guy in this thread who just labelled the majority of all gay people as hateful and intolerant beings is calling other people bigots. Mind blowing the lack of self awareness in that.

They are bigots. So are you, and so am I. Is there a problem? Are you not a bigot? I'm honest enough to admit that I'm one, are you? If we weren't bigots, we wouldn't be political. As far as a lack of self awareness goes, you could use a mirror.

(09-04-2015 02:29 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:10 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:05 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:49 PM)dcCid Wrote:  

(09-03-2015 06:35 PM)bullet Wrote:  Of course the Supreme Court dramatically changed the law from when she took that oath.

And that matters because?????

Because she didn't swear under oath to issue special privilege marriage licenses.

Yes she did, she swore to uphold the law. You really look foolish arguing this.

I suppose a police officer can just not enforce any changes in the law if, in the time since they've become an officer, those laws have changed? Your position is downright stupid, wholly unrealistic, and it's clear to anyone even interested in reading your drivel that you have nothing backing up your claims except for the fact you agree with her in principle.

You're a progressive. God knows I would never expect you to understand where I'm coming from. I would expect the same snarky, childish insults that all progressives pull out of their garbage mouths, and that's exactly what I've gotten from you.

Did all the police in Arizona start profiling Mexicans to check for legal status when SB 1070 was passed?

LSU, look at this thread, you've not made a single cogent point, and instead have made bigoted claims, illogical assertions, and still continue to address the point multiple people have raised multiple times. It's not because you're a conservative though, I don't need labels in order to characterize you, it's because you simply don't know how to have a proper argument. You don't know how to respond to peoples claims, and you don't know how to stay on topic.

It's a running theme with a select few posters around here, and you're at the top of the list. So congrats at being the best at something I suppose.

(09-04-2015 02:34 PM)LSU04_08 Wrote:  

(09-04-2015 01:20 PM)JDTulane Wrote:  LOL the guy in this thread who just labelled the majority of all gay people as hateful and intolerant beings is calling other people bigots. Mind blowing the lack of self awareness in that.

They are bigots. So are you, and so am I. Is there a problem? Are you not a bigot? I'm honest enough to admit that I'm one, are you? If we weren't bigots, we wouldn't be political. As far as a lack of self awareness goes, you could use a mirror.

Being a bigot is not a requirement for being political, and I don't even begin to know how you got that impression.

(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.

(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.