Sanders explains what democratic socialism is

[Red1966]

Her job is to issue marriage certificates in accordance with law and she refused to follow the law.

It's literally that fucking simple.

Pot growing is against the law.
It's literally that fucking simple.

 

[Harrekin]

Pot growing is against the law.
It's literally that fucking simple.

Did we take an oath to uphold the law?

I didn't.

 

[ChesusRice]

To nothing? "nothing" is not the alternative. Not wrong, and you know it. Liar

The majority of those who oppose Obamacare actually want universal healthcare.
Get your talking points right

 

[Harrekin]

The majority of those who oppose Obamacare actually want universal healthcare.
Get your talking points right

It's up to 4x cheaper per capita too...

 

[Red1966]

Did we take an oath to uphold the law?

I didn't.

Did she? You made the claim. Show us the exact wording of this oath you claim she made. She's not a member of law enforcement, her duties don't include "upholding the law". You were silent when "lil peons" in San Francisco illegally issued marriage licenses. Let's not pretend this is about upholding the law. This is about you wanting to punish those who resist your will.

 

[Red1966]

The majority of those who oppose Obamacare actually want universal healthcare.
Get your talking points right

So now you admit your claim that the majority DID want Obamacare was a lie? Doubt there is any more truth in this new attempt to divert attention from your previous obvious lie than there was in that one.

 

[Harrekin]

Did she? You made the claim. Show us the exact wording of this oath you claim she made. She's not a member of law enforcement, her duties don't include "upholding the law". You were silent when "lil peons" in San Francisco illegally issued marriage licenses. Let's not pretend this is about upholding the law. This is about you wanting to punish those who resist your will.

“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.”

 

[Red1966]

“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.”

So nothing about "upholding the law"? Note she was a COUNTY clerk in a state that still had prohibition of same-sex marriage on the books. Your premise that she was disobeying the law is false. No source for this "citation", leading me to believe there's a good chance you just made it up. Well that and your reputation.

 

[ttystikk]

AFAIK she is not legally obligated to sign but she is legally obligated to not block others from doing so. There may very well have been a legitimate reason for a lawsuit over tying your shoes. Courts do not hear every case. People laugh about the hot coffee lawsuit but it was way more than legitimate.

I already stated she went too far with her case, but it doesn't change the fact she still has a point. I haven't done anything but be respectful to you. So you know, the same would be appreciated.

It isn't much different than Niqab case in Canada. A lot of people think it's wrong to wear it in a number of settings. The court opted to protect the minorities rights to religious freedom - even though you can actually make a reasonable case that it isn't that appropriate for all settings or jobs.

I could use the same argument you're using against the Niqab case in Canada... that they should just suck it up and deal with it because it's the way we want to do things now. But the courts protected their right to wear it in all situations.

I'm not calling you names, I'm describing your intransigence.

The ni'qab case in Canada is UNRELATED. Those women were not in official positions, their rights were being infringed because of what they were forced to do in public. NO CHOICE.

KENTUCKY COUNTY CLERK CAN QUIT. SHE HAS A CHOICE.

Your logic has more twists and turns than a plateful of spaghetti. Why are you so concerned about the clerk's rights OVER everyone else's?!

Why is there never a peep outta you about the civil rights of those gay couples who want to get married? Theirs count as much as the clerk's, yours or mine. No one's supersedes anyone else's... we fought a civil war over that one.

 

[Uncle Ben]

Why is there never a peep outta you about the civil rights of those gay couples who want to get married? Theirs count as much as the clerk's, yours or mine. No one's supersedes anyone else's... we fought a civil war over that one.

Gay marriage is not natural and the govt. needs to stay out of such unnatural acts.

 

[Harrekin]

Gay marriage is not natural and the govt. needs to stay out of such unnatural acts.

View attachment 3553442

*insert wanker gif here*

 

[UncleBuck]

They are my own positions. Thanks.

then why were they first articultaed nearly verbatim by rawn pawl, not you?

 

[UncleBuck]

Again, you just don't like her.

cry some more.

 

[UncleBuck]

Now you're lying to support your politics. The majority of Americans have been, and still are, opposed to the ACA.

NOPE!

you are lying.

 

[UncleBuck]

So nothing about "upholding the law"? Note she was a COUNTY clerk in a state that still had prohibition of same-sex marriage on the books. Your premise that she was disobeying the law is false.

that changed when the SCOTUS made marriage equality the law.

 

[UncleBuck]

Gay marriage is not natural and the govt. needs to stay out of such unnatural acts.

using multiple prescription pills to keep you alive isn't natural either, but you keep cashing those checks i send ya.

 

[OGEvilgenius]

I'm not calling you names, I'm describing your intransigence.

The ni'qab case in Canada is UNRELATED. Those women were not in official positions, their rights were being infringed because of what they were forced to do in public. NO CHOICE.

KENTUCKY COUNTY CLERK CAN QUIT. SHE HAS A CHOICE.

Your logic has more twists and turns than a plateful of spaghetti. Why are you so concerned about the clerk's rights OVER everyone else's?!

Why is there never a peep outta you about the civil rights of those gay couples who want to get married? Theirs count as much as the clerk's, yours or mine. No one's supersedes anyone else's... we fought a civil war over that one.

I already said the gay couple had the right to get married as well. YOUR logic is taking more twists and turns. You simply do not care about this persons right. By your logic the gay couple didn't have to get married. As much as the clerk didn't have to work. You claim she should just shut up and take it. I already stated that government involvement leads to a) Authoritarianism or b) Conflict between groups who disagree with government policy or c) both. As you can see, b is clearly happening. Which already makes my argument very sound whether you agree or not. This debate is proof enough.

I've already won this argument by having it in the first place. You simply cannot acknowledge her position. She can't acknowledge yours. This is why government shouldn't have been involved in the first place. You can cry about it all you want, you'll never be correct here.

In fact if we want to compare optional things people can do... not having a job hurts a lot more than not being able to get married. And I'd argue having a job is actually pretty important to living. But you know...

I could go further and say the Niqab wearing women didn't really have to go through the citizenship ceremony either using the same exact logic but I hope you're getting my point by now.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I already said the gay couple had the right to get married as well. YOUR logic is taking more twists and turns. You simply do not care about this persons right. By your logic the gay couple didn't have to get married. As much as the clerk didn't have to work. You claim she should just shut up and take it. I already stated that government involvement leads to a) Authoritarianism or b) Conflict between groups who disagree with government policy or c) both. As you can see, b is clearly happening. Which already makes my argument very sound whether you agree or not. This debate is proof enough.

I've already won this argument by having it in the first place. You simply cannot acknowledge her position. She can't acknowledge yours. This is why government shouldn't have been involved in the first place. You can cry about it all you want, you'll never be correct here.

In fact if we want to compare optional things people can do... not having a job hurts a lot more than not being able to get married. And I'd argue having a job is actually pretty important to living. But you know...

Are you nuts?

Let's use your exact same logic on a different issue, civil rights, and see how well the "government shouldn't get involved!" argument plays out...

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed segregation in the United States. Without government action, you get Jim Crow and separate but equal facilities, and what do you end up with? B; conflict between groups who disagree. In regards to segregation after 1964, would you classify the United States as "Authoritarian"? No, you wouldn't.

So without the government, we still end up with hypothetical scenario B in your example, and using the government to enact equal civil rights, we don't end up with hypothetical scenario A; Authoritarianism, in your example.

Extrapolating from that, if we use the government to enact equal civil rights for homosexuals, it is not authorizing an authoritarian regime

 

[ttystikk]

I already said the gay couple had the right to get married as well. YOUR logic is taking more twists and turns. You simply do not care about this persons right. By your logic the gay couple didn't have to get married. As much as the clerk didn't have to work. You claim she should just shut up and take it. I already stated that government involvement leads to a) Authoritarianism or b) Conflict between groups who disagree with government policy or c) both. As you can see, b is clearly happening. Which already makes my argument very sound whether you agree or not. This debate is proof enough.

I've already won this argument by having it in the first place. You simply cannot acknowledge her position. She can't acknowledge yours. This is why government shouldn't have been involved in the first place. You can cry about it all you want, you'll never be correct here.

In fact if we want to compare optional things people can do... not having a job hurts a lot more than not being able to get married. And I'd argue having a job is actually pretty important to living. But you know...

I could go further and say the Niqab wearing women didn't really have to go through the citizenship ceremony either using the same exact logic but I hope you're getting my point by now.

I'm not dumb. I got your point three pages ago. No matter how many times you repeat the same invalid arguments, they're STILL WRONG.

 

[UncleBuck]

I've already won this argument

no you didn't.

your argument, parroted nearly verbatim from rawn pawl, is that government should get out of marriage altogether (LOL, pipe dream) instead of simply legislating marriage equality.

you lost the ever living shit out of that one. proof: gays can now get married ya fucking racist bigot douche.

to you i say LOL.