General Chat (Non-Music-Related)

It's just another stupid comment against the intelligence of Ted. It is NOT SO BE IT! You are definitely sleeping or just going along with what you suppose is mob rule.

It would be nice of you to re-think your position in a positive manner instead of skirting around and pulling a P.G.

I'm happy to see politicians step up to support this ugly hate-filled (calling it 'religious belief) government worker. Makes it much easier to see who I will NOT vote for!

It's not a debate. It's just a hate fest.

Holding Reagan accountable for his illegal actions and his lies about them is not "cover for Obama" .. it is taking a good look at how this level of corruption manifests.



Comparison? I made no comparison, they are two flavors of the same schit as far as I am concerned.
Both members of the kakistocracy.
You cannot face the fact that your sacred cow Ronald Reagan was a fraud ... so you claim I am a brain dead partisan hack.

Don't know where you got that Reagan is my "sacred cow". You brought the dead guy into this conversation. Changing the topic doesn't change anything. You are still a hypocrite of the lowest order if you give O a pass, while saying this woman should be in jail.

Let me help you comprehend what the topic is. HYPOCRITES say this lady should go to jail for being in contempt of a Judge's order that she obey a law that doesn't actually exist. Yet these same HYPOCRITES never raise a peep about the destruction being done daily by the Traitor in Chief. Your only response is "so-n-so broke the law 30 years ago"

Really? The logic is astoundingly empty....yet typical.



.

I think it's great that bat sh*t crazy nutbag is the face of those against gay marriage!

Hey Kim ...if it goes against your "religious beliefs" to do your job there's a simple solution...QUIT!

I bet ya can get a gig w The Church of Westboro Wackos.

One thing for sure. She couldn't get near Rev. Jeremiah Wright's Down Low Club at the Trinity United Church to complain to ombama.

Hey Kim ...if it goes against your "religious beliefs" to do your job there's a simple solution...QUIT!

Freedom of Religion was considered as important as Freedom of Speech or Freedom of the Press, so in essence you're saying that the First Amendment should be done away with.

Why is destroying the first Amendment your answer? The solution is simple: Pass the law in the way that the Constitution allows for laws to be passed and there will be no problem.

Of course, we know that liberals won't attempt to follow the law in the way they expect everyone else to do. No, their "civil rights" are greater than everyone else's civil rights; so they have to cheat, or lie, or go through the back door (not talking about gay sex here) or bribe, or intimidate to get their way

Kim Davis has broken no law on the books. She is upholding her office and an election is the only way to push her out....legally. But we know that the law doesn't apply to any situation where the Left is wrong.

.

Kim Davis has broken no law on the books.

http://www.aclu-ky.org/wp-content/uploa ... plaint.pdf

42 U.S. Code § 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.
(R.S. § 1979; Pub. L. 96–170, § 1, Dec. 29, 1979, 93 Stat. 1284; Pub. L. 104–317, title III, § 309(c), Oct. 19, 1996, 110 Stat. 3853.)


If Davis was a Muslim, and upheld her interpretation of sharia law above the local, state and federal laws, in discharging her duties as clerk ... same folks supporting her now, would be storming the courthouse with pitch forks to lynch her!

There is nothing in that paragraph which she has broken. It should be simple if there were a law. Show me the law that Kim Davis broke. You can't because it doesn't exist. Want to try again?




Here are some other Supreme Court decisions that were also "simple to understand".

Dred Scott v. Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1857). Black people cannot be citizens. It was from this decision that the current problematic ruling comes from.

Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U.S. 537 (1896). Jim Crow and "separate but equal" are constitutional.

Buck v. Bell, 274 U.S. 200 (1927). Mentally disabled people can be involuntarily sterilized.

Ex parte Quirin, 317 U.S. 1 (1942). US citizens accused of collaborating with an enemy can be sentenced to death by a military tribunal with none of the protections in the Bill of Rights.

Korematsu v. United States, 323 U.S. 214 (1944). Japanese-American citizens can be imprisoned and have their property confiscated without due process of law.


Simple to understand and dead wrong. The fight against judicial usurpation continues.

2 % of the population should have all the same protections under the LAW. The thing that is causing a problem is the term "MARRIAGE" VS "CIVIL UNION"... I really don't care where they stick it. Marriage is a religious term. Civil union is a governmental, man made term. Simple except to a few assholes that won't get it.

It's the same thing with abortion... If you want to kill your baby... LEAVE ME OUT OF IT. The normal boundaries of common decency are GONE.

Only God is wise enough to figure this sh8t out.