POLL: Kim Davis arrest predictions

[mdk]

Really Mac? This is a persons life you are playing with. I had you being more sensitive to other people struggles.

I'm just looking at the facts and wondering.

She has already declared that she's going to continue down this road; I'd be very surprised if there were not at least one gay couple waiting for the doors to open so that they can apply; no doubt the press will be there, and no doubt the judge will have to back up what he said as well.
.

And so will the Oath Keepers...ya know those folks that actually SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

Davis and The Liberty Counsel have declined Oath Keepers offer of protection. They do not want to share the spotlight with another group of self-serving attention whores. They want it all to themselves.

And none of them compare to Huckabee and his shameless "send me to jail instead" silliness.

Good gawd, I was embarrassed for him.
.

Obvious grandingstanding but funny in a cringe worthy kind of way.

Watching Cruz get handled by Huckabee's aid was priceless. How is Cruz going to handle ISIS when he can't even handle an aid!? lol.

 

[mdk]

Really Mac? This is a persons life you are playing with. I had you being more sensitive to other people struggles.

I'm just looking at the facts and wondering.

She has already declared that she's going to continue down this road; I'd be very surprised if there were not at least one gay couple waiting for the doors to open so that they can apply; no doubt the press will be there, and no doubt the judge will have to back up what he said as well.
.

And so will the Oath Keepers...ya know those folks that actually SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

Davis and The Liberty Counsel have declined Oath Keepers offer of protection. They do not want to share the spotlight with another group of self-serving attention whores. They want it all to themselves.

Doesn't mean they won't be there. No need for a spotlight had the faggots and the thug in the robe not violated the constitutional rights of this woman then tried making her out to be the bad person by throwing her in jail

I am sure they will show up regardless. How else are they going to get on camera?

Oh, It wasn't just faggots as Davis was sued by two straight couples as well.

 

[Preacher]

Really Mac? This is a persons life you are playing with. I had you being more sensitive to other people struggles.

I'm just looking at the facts and wondering.

She has already declared that she's going to continue down this road; I'd be very surprised if there were not at least one gay couple waiting for the doors to open so that they can apply; no doubt the press will be there, and no doubt the judge will have to back up what he said as well.
.

And so will the Oath Keepers...ya know those folks that actually SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

Davis and The Liberty Counsel have declined Oath Keepers offer of protection. They do not want to share the spotlight with another group of self-serving attention whores. They want it all to themselves.

Doesn't mean they won't be there. No need for a spotlight had the faggots and the thug in the robe not violated the constitutional rights of this woman then tried making her out to be the bad person by throwing her in jail

I am sure they will show up regardless. How else are they going to get on camera?

Oh, It wasn't just faggots as Davis was sued by two straight couples as well.

Eh just shows stupidity crosses all boundaries doesn't it.

 

[Freewill]

Shenanigans like refusing to do the work that The People are paying her to do? I agree.

really all that is up to the people who VOTED for her . Isn't that what we are told? you don't like them then you can vote them out.

I seriously doubt that refusing to enforce marriage freedom laws when they inevitably changed was a highlighted part of her campaign profile.

I'm sure that they voted for the same thing I vote for - hope in a smooth running bureaucracy.

When what laws were changed?

 

[mdk]

I'm just looking at the facts and wondering.

She has already declared that she's going to continue down this road; I'd be very surprised if there were not at least one gay couple waiting for the doors to open so that they can apply; no doubt the press will be there, and no doubt the judge will have to back up what he said as well.
.

And so will the Oath Keepers...ya know those folks that actually SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

Davis and The Liberty Counsel have declined Oath Keepers offer of protection. They do not want to share the spotlight with another group of self-serving attention whores. They want it all to themselves.

Doesn't mean they won't be there. No need for a spotlight had the faggots and the thug in the robe not violated the constitutional rights of this woman then tried making her out to be the bad person by throwing her in jail

I am sure they will show up regardless. How else are they going to get on camera?

Oh, It wasn't just faggots as Davis was sued by two straight couples as well.

Eh just shows stupidity crosses all boundaries doesn't it.

Your post history proves that point rather elegantly. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

 

[Preacher]

And so will the Oath Keepers...ya know those folks that actually SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

Davis and The Liberty Counsel have declined Oath Keepers offer of protection. They do not want to share the spotlight with another group of self-serving attention whores. They want it all to themselves.

Doesn't mean they won't be there. No need for a spotlight had the faggots and the thug in the robe not violated the constitutional rights of this woman then tried making her out to be the bad person by throwing her in jail

I am sure they will show up regardless. How else are they going to get on camera?

Oh, It wasn't just faggots as Davis was sued by two straight couples as well.

Eh just shows stupidity crosses all boundaries doesn't it.

Your post history proves that point rather elegantly. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

We all have our opinions. At least when we disagree we can do it in a way that's funny etc...some of these idiots I can't stand.

 

[Care4all]

I checked out the Rowan County site and they open at 8:00am Monday: Rowan County Kentucky Clerk

Any guesses on whether she'll be arrested, and if so, when?

I'll go with yes and 8:30am.
.

she will be arrested first thing, IF HER LAWYERS want her to be....she is following their advice now...

 

[Preacher]

I checked out the Rowan County site and they open at 8:00am Monday: Rowan County Kentucky Clerk

Any guesses on whether she'll be arrested, and if so, when?

I'll go with yes and 8:30am.
.

she will be arrested first thing, IF HER LAWYERS want her to be....she is following their advice now...

Eh the righteous have always been persecuted for their beliefs. Nothing new here.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What if all the Christian soldiers in America decided that killing people and blowing up their stuff ran counter to what their faith teaches?

Christians are against any injury to the innocent. But that has nothing to do with the individuals who are taught to reject Christian principles... such as these few, but otherwise typical examples:

(Tip of the Hat to Ted Nugent... )

In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States - who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen , TX.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US ...
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown , CT.
As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

So, we find that the evidence seems to indicate that "THE PROBLEM" rests within the cult which advocates for Foreign Ideas Hostile to Christian (which is to say "American") principles... . FTR: That's the same cult that advocates for the RIGHT to murder the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, while they rest helpless in their mother's womb.

 

[Carla_Danger]

What if all the Christian soldiers in America decided that killing people and blowing up their stuff ran counter to what their faith teaches?

Christians are against any injury to the innocent. But that has nothing to do with the individuals who are taught to reject Christian principles... such as these few, but otherwise typical examples:

(Tip of the Hat to Ted Nugent... )

In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States - who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen , TX.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US ...
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown , CT.
As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

So, we find that the evidence seems to indicate that "THE PROBLEM" rests within the cult which advocates for Foreign Ideas Hostile to Christian (which is to say "American") principles... . FTR: That's the same cult that advocates for the RIGHT to murder the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, while they rest helpless in their mother's womb.

Surely you don't expect anyone to believe that ridiculous list. And you found that on idiot Ted Nugent's web site? Figures.

 

[AVG-JOE]

And so will the Oath Keepers...ya know those folks that actually SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

What the fuck part of the US Constitution says that The Peoples bureaucracy can define marriage based on a religious dogma?

The Republicans prosecuted a civil war to establish the duty of the federal government to protect the rights of the individual described in The Constitution over those of the state. The Constitution requires that the government either extend marriage benefits to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is the definition of discrimination.

Did you know that under certain circumstances you can get a higher Social Security benefit in retirement because you were married?

The question has never been about redefining marriage or religion, the problem has been the bureaucracy discriminating against some tax-payers at the profit of others.

`​

 

[AVG-JOE]

What if all the Christian soldiers in America decided that killing people and blowing up their stuff ran counter to what their faith teaches?

Christians are against any injury to the innocent. But that has nothing to do with the individuals who are taught to reject Christian principles... such as these few, but otherwise typical examples:

(Tip of the Hat to Ted Nugent... )

In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States - who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen , TX.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US ...
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown , CT.
As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

So, we find that the evidence seems to indicate that "THE PROBLEM" rests within the cult which advocates for Foreign Ideas Hostile to Christian (which is to say "American") principles... . FTR: That's the same cult that advocates for the RIGHT to murder the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, while they rest helpless in their mother's womb.

And your point in the context of this thread would be.....?

​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What if all the Christian soldiers in America decided that killing people and blowing up their stuff ran counter to what their faith teaches?

Christians are against any injury to the innocent. But that has nothing to do with the individuals who are taught to reject Christian principles... such as these few, but otherwise typical examples:

(Tip of the Hat to Ted Nugent... )

In 1865 a Democrat shot and killed Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States.
In 1881 a left wing radical Democrat shot James Garfield, President of the United States - who later died from the wound.
In 1963 a radical left wing socialist shot and killed John F. Kennedy, President of the United States.
In 1975 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at Gerald Ford, President of the United States.
In 1983 a registered Democrat shot and wounded Ronald Reagan, President of the United States.
In 1984 James Hubert, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 22 people in a McDonalds restaurant.
In 1986 Patrick Sherrill, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 15 people in an Oklahoma post office.
In 1990 James Pough, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 10 people at a GMAC office.
In 1991 George Hennard, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 23 people in a Luby's cafeteria in Killeen , TX.
In 1995 James Daniel Simpson, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 5 coworkers in a Texas laboratory.
In 1999 Larry Asbrook, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 8 people at a church service.
In 2001 a left wing radical Democrat fired shots at the White House in a failed attempt to kill George W. Bush, President of the US ...
In 2003 Douglas Williams, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people at a Lockheed Martin plant.
In 2007 a registered Democrat named Seung - Hui Cho, shot and killed 32 people in Virginia Tech.
In 2010 a mentally ill registered Democrat named Jared Lee Loughner, shot Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and killed 6 others.
In 2011 a registered Democrat named James Holmes, went into a movie theater and shot and killed 12 people.
In 2012 Andrew Engeldinger, a disgruntled Democrat, shot and killed 7 people in Minneapolis.
In 2013 a registered Democrat named Adam Lanza, shot and killed 26 people in a school in Newtown , CT.
As recently as Sept 2013, an angry Democrat shot 12 at a Navy ship yard.

So, we find that the evidence seems to indicate that "THE PROBLEM" rests within the cult which advocates for Foreign Ideas Hostile to Christian (which is to say "American") principles... . FTR: That's the same cult that advocates for the RIGHT to murder the most innocent and defenseless of all human beings, while they rest helpless in their mother's womb.

Surely you don't expect anyone to believe that ridiculous list. And you found that on idiot Ted Nugent's web site? Figures.

I don't expect idiots to do anything, outside of idiocy.

The fact is that the Ideological Left teaches that God does not exist, that there are no individual responsibilities and that they're victims, who are being unjustly treated AND that it is their RIGHT to murder the innocent who are found to be an inconvenience to them. Thus absent any sense of accountability, it follows that such people would be found murdering the innocent and that list shows such people murdering the innocent.

Now you 'feel' that the reasoning is flawed, so it falls to you to identify the specific flaw in that specific reasoning.

 

[Preacher]

And so will the Oath Keepers...ya know those folks that actually SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

What the fuck part of the US Constitution says that The Peoples bureaucracy can define marriage based on a religious dogma?

The Republicans prosecuted a civil war to establish the duty of the federal government to protect the rights of the individual described in The Constitution over those of the state. The Constitution requires that the government either extend marriage benefits to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is the definition of discrimination.

Did you know that under certain circumstances you can get a higher Social Security benefit in retirement because you were married?

The question has never been about redefining marriage or religion, the problem has been the bureaucracy discriminating against some tax-payers at the profit of others.

`​

They are defending her first amendment rights and the right not to be tossed in jail because some butt fucker approving judge thinks he has the right to persecute her for her beliefs.

 

[AVG-JOE]

Shenanigans like refusing to do the work that The People are paying her to do? I agree.

really all that is up to the people who VOTED for her . Isn't that what we are told? you don't like them then you can vote them out.

I seriously doubt that refusing to enforce marriage freedom laws when they inevitably changed was a highlighted part of her campaign profile.

I'm sure that they voted for the same thing I vote for - hope in a smooth running bureaucracy.

When what laws were changed?

The US Supreme Court Decision that discriminating against some two person partnerships with documentation was no longer allowed.

Summer, 2015, Bro. Try to keep up, eh?

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And so will the Oath Keepers...ya know those folks that actually SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

What the fuck part of the US Constitution says that The Peoples bureaucracy can define marriage based on a religious dogma?

Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Now the taint that is implied through the 'dogma' concept, is that the 'authority' does not exist, thus there is no authority, thus the principle is irrelevant.

Sadly; for your argument, Nature does exist... and as a result the authority intrinsic to nature, also exists.

Therefore, where Nature's design of the human species SPECIFICALLY provides TWO distinct but complimenting genders, each SPECIFICALLY designed to join with the other... Nature, through that design DEFINES THAT THE TWO DISTINCT GENDERS WILL BE JOINED, CREATING ONE SUSTAINABLE BODY, FROM TWO. That being the irrefutable elements which DEFINE MARRIAGE.

Therein establishing the principles as IRREFUTABLE... thus failing the test which established such as: dogma.

 

[AVG-JOE]

And so will the Oath Keepers...ya know those folks that actually SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

What the fuck part of the US Constitution says that The Peoples bureaucracy can define marriage based on a religious dogma?

The Republicans prosecuted a civil war to establish the duty of the federal government to protect the rights of the individual described in The Constitution over those of the state. The Constitution requires that the government either extend marriage benefits to ALL two-person partnerships with proper documentation, or to none of them. Anything else is the definition of discrimination.

Did you know that under certain circumstances you can get a higher Social Security benefit in retirement because you were married?

The question has never been about redefining marriage or religion, the problem has been the bureaucracy discriminating against some tax-payers at the profit of others.

`​

They are defending her first amendment rights and the right not to be tossed in jail because some butt fucker approving judge thinks he has the right to persecute her for her beliefs.

She has no first amendment rights when it comes to doing her government job. She can do the work as described in the law that she swore to uphold or she can move it on down the road in favor of someone more competent and/or willing.

Those are the choices.

And I for one am one offended citizen at the way she is using her government position of power to grand-stand her faith.

This is total bullshit and a waste of The People's time and resources.

 

[AVG-JOE]

And so will the Oath Keepers...ya know those folks that actually SUPPORT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.

What the fuck part of the US Constitution says that The Peoples bureaucracy can define marriage based on a religious dogma?

Dogma: a principle or set of principles laid down by an authority as incontrovertibly true.

Now the taint that is implied through the 'dogma' concept, is that the 'authority' does not exist, thus there is no authority, thus the principle is irrelevant.

Sadly; for your argument, Nature does exist... and as a result the authority intrinsic to nature, also exists.

Therefore, where Nature's design of the human species SPECIFICALLY provides TWO distinct but complimenting genders, each SPECIFICALLY designed to join with the other... Nature, through that design DEFINES THAT THE TWO DISTINCT GENDERS WILL BE JOINED, CREATING ONE SUSTAINABLE BODY, FROM TWO. That being the irrefutable elements which DEFINE MARRIAGE.

Therein establishing the principles as IRREFUTABLE... thus failing the test which established such as: dogma.

And your point in the context of this thread would be.....?

​

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Shenanigans like refusing to do the work that The People are paying her to do? I agree.

really all that is up to the people who VOTED for her . Isn't that what we are told? you don't like them then you can vote them out.

I seriously doubt that refusing to enforce marriage freedom laws when they inevitably changed was a highlighted part of her campaign profile.

I'm sure that they voted for the same thing I vote for - hope in a smooth running bureaucracy.

When what laws were changed?

The US Supreme Court Decision that discriminating against some two person partnerships with documentation was no longer allowed.

Summer, 2015, Bro. Try to keep up, eh?

The would-be 'decision', was not based upon sound legal grounds. It therefore has no legal bearing and stands as nothing more than the personal feelings of the five prevailing 'Justices', who were attempting create law in the absence of a legal principle, sound precedent or recognized sound principle on which to otherwise base such.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where_r_my_Keys is trying to assert he is the authority by insisting that he is the authority, a circular argument. He cites himself. Show me where he is authorized to cite himself. Show anybody.

His rationalziation of the SCOTUS decision he does not like is a super example of his inability to contribute logically.

He is an imbecilicly immature, an example of the classic narcissist.

I don't like putting a person on ignore, but when someone like Keys simply cannot contribute logically or emotionally or metaphysically at leat 5% of the time on the Board, that person wastes good peoples' time, energy, and emotion.

He is not worth it.