Then I conclude that you can't read.Originally Posted by Thumper
Here's a cut/paste of exactly what I DID say:
But she had a choice. Either do 100% of her job under the new law, or do 0% of her job under the new law. The latter would mean she resigned, I suppose.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
Bucky, that was point 2.
I responded to your post one point at a time in the order you made them. Sheeesh. I disagreed with post #1 ... I agreed with post #2. #2 SHOULD have been combined with #1 to make your point.
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness" - Mark Twain
They aren't separate points. They're just the way I think. Hypothesis, conclusion. You can't separate them, or any of them. My POST is my POST. Read it all.
I can't help the way you think. (I doubt anyone can@@!!!!)
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
Then why did you number each thought? I read #1 and responded ... then I moved to #2 and responded. YOU are the one who separated the thoughts. Here's number 1, how do YOU read this?
It sounds (to me) like you're agreeing with HER.1) She swore to uphold the law when she took office. HOWEVER, the law changed since then; it changed June 26, 2015 in KY. So she did not swear to uphold that new law. The oath should not be (although legally it might be, I'm simply not sure) "I will uphold all laws that might be passed in the future".
How do you read this?
1) Bucky is a curmudgeonly old dufus butt, sucks big weenies, smells like my 10 year old tennis shoes and I can't stand that poophead!
2) Bucky is the most intelligent, kind, understanding individual I've ever known and a true friend!
Now, do I like you ... or not?
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness" - Mark Twain
Sure. I don't need to read your stupid stuff to know that, man!!!
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
But that kind of analogy is invalid. I did not make two diametrically opposing statements. I didn't make ANY value statements in item #1. I just said that she swore to uphold the law and that the law changed. Those are two FACTS, not two value judgments of any kind. There's no conclusion to draw on my opinion based only on #1. If you did, that's on you, not me.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
To know what?
See how confusing you are?
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness" - Mark Twain
To know this: Now, do I like you ... or not? No. I really don't see it. I do see some confusion though!!!
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
I'm confused ....
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness" - Mark Twain
I see.
NEXT????
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
I too can see her being fired, however, I can not see her being persecuted and put in jail.
Jail does seem a bit harsh, but I think both sides are trying to make a point. The judge will not tolerate insubordination from an elected official, and I assume she's doing nothing but drawing attention and sympathy to her cause. She would be released the minute she resigns, but she refuses. Why should she be able to hold a job that she refuses to perform? The whole thing is a frigging circus.
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness" - Mark Twain
She's not being persecuted. She's being prosecuted. I've about had it with persecuted christians. The lady was elected to do a job and she's not in jail for not doing it herself, but for saying she'd prevent others in her department from doing their jobs too. Basically she thumbed the judge in his eye and she hired some slicky boy lawyer who's making big political statements in the media. If that ain't a definition of being contemptful of the law, then I don't know what is.
Of course Todd Starnes and his ilk think of it as persecution.
bKB
She was first persecuted and THEN prosecuted, make no mistakes about that ......
I'm sure the hazing she is getting from the media and public could be classified as persecution. But I was referring to what the law did to her.
And I think she's enjoying this limelight. Her fifteen minutes of fame, brought to you by none other than herself. No wonder she had four husbands.
BKB
I don't think she can be prosecuted. She has violated no statute (i.e. broken no law), so there is no reason to prosecute her. She DID disobey a Court Order, which is why she's in jail FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.
This is the same deal as the Teapot Dome scandal back in the 1920s. Harry Sinclair (Sinclair Oil) lent Albert Fall (Secretary of the Interior) $20,000 in war bonds right after Fall, acting as Secretary, gave Sinclair Oil, oil and gas leases covering the Teapot Dome in Wyoming. Some of the bonds were in Sinclair's name and some were in Sinclair Oil Company's name; Harry testified to Congress that he stored both his and his company's bonds in his safe and simply grabbed the wrong stack.
When he wouldn't "confess" to "wrongdoing" Congress cited him for contempt and he served six months in jail. Why wasn't he prosecuted? At the time, there was no legal prohibition against giving the Secretary of the Interior gifts of money or otherwise in exchange for official favors. Fall might have been chastised for appearance of a conflict, but they had precisely NOTHING on Sinclair.
This is what happened here. She violated no statute, simply a court order.
Last edited by Herb2; 09-07-2015 at 01:55 PM.
If your boss (in this case the Governor) tells you to do your job, and you refuse, that's insubordination IMO and grounds for dismissal. I'm not sure I understand why she still has a job in the first place.
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness" - Mark Twain
She does not serve at the pleasure of the Governor. She is an elected official, I believe.
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
She has no honour. The honourable thing to do would be to protest then resign. End of story.
The only complicating factor is that she is, in fact, and elected official. It should be simple enough to follow process and vote her ass out. It would be interesting if the populace voted to keep her in
If we all threw our problems in a pile, and you saw everyone else's problems-- you'd take yours back.
I'm too lazy to figure out the chain-of-command and ... to be honest, I could give a rat's ass!
She's defying Federal Law and I believe the judge who threw her in jail is a Federal Judge. I'd just assume when the Feds are dealing with a county employee, the Governor would be consulted/involved. Again, I'm simply not interested enough to study it all that closely.
She's a frigging, hypocritical dingbat anyway. I "think" I have this straight ... She was married to husband #1 and had twins 5 months after divorcing him. Ha! If my math is correct, there was a bit of adultery in there somewhere!
Then she married some other dude (husband #2) who adopted her "illegitimate" twins, divorced him ... THEN married the father of the already adopted twins (husband #3)! She later divorced him and re-married the dude who adopted her twins (husband #2)!
And she's causing all this stink because she's standing her religious grounds? Give me a frigging break!
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness" - Mark Twain
Any bets on race of the babies? Too soon?
If we all threw our problems in a pile, and you saw everyone else's problems-- you'd take yours back.
Eddie would. say they're democrats.
bKB
The County Clerk is certainly a Democrat.
Ha ha! Yep, but the N.Y. Times kinda wanted it to be the other way!
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/tom-...-editing-error
"Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry and narrow-mindedness" - Mark Twain
What a rag they are..............
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
If that had been the general case, there would have been no Civil War. Two Presidents that I can recall, did exactly the same thing, except that the "Court order" they ignored or disobeyed came from the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.
The first was Andrew Jackson, murderer, genocidal maniac and founder of the modern Democratic Party (notice how I put his crimes in increasing order of importance). When Chief justice Marshall ordered that Georgia could not remove the Cherokee Nation from Cherokee lands (essentially that Georgia could not steal property belonging to others. Andy is purported to have said "Marshall made the ruling; now let him enforce it".
The other President is also pretty well known: Abraham Lincoln; kidnapper and mass murderer and also first Republican President in history. Before the first shot was fired in the Civil War, Abe rounded up political leaders in Maryland and imprisoned them without trial for the duration of the War. Their crime? Opposing Lincoln politically.
Once again, Supreme Court Chief Justice Taney issued writs of habeas corpus, which were ignored by Lincoln for years.
If those two "dishonorable" presidents had resigned, I think we can at least entertain the notion that the Civil War would not have occurred; in Jackson's case because much of the "Deep South" would have been Indian Country (what wasn't Cherokee was Creek, Choctaw Chickasaw or Seminole) and thus NOT the Cotton Belt of plantations and southern wealth, and in Lincoln's case, HE was personally a trigger for much Southern anger; not Republicans, not Abolitionists (entirely) but LINCOLN.
Herb, I have missed you so very immensely!
WARNING - Due to the rising costs of ammunition, warning shots will no longer be given.
I'm likin it. Finally I can argue with someone that's as obstinate as me.
bKB
Don't care what so and so president did xx years ago. She has a decision to make right now. Either do your job or resign and let somebody else do it. She can protest and complain all she wants (go to court, sue, whatever) but in in the meantime she should resign. IMHO.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote