Search forums

Forums

Export thread

Guess when Kim Davis relents and leaves prison!

Sep 3, 2015#1

Dave

I'm doing this here and on my Facebook page.

Rules:

Pick the date that Kim Davis recants and gets to leave prison. (This would be the date she hits the news as saying she will comply with the order, not the date she leaves.)
Closest to the date without going over wins.
No doubles on dates. First come first served.

Prize:

$25 donated to the LGBT charity of your choice, either in your name or anonymously.

I have Tuesday, September 8.

Sep 3, 2015#2

HCGLNS

September 10th 2015.

Remember to include the year folks.

Sep 3, 2015#3

Dei

I'm taking tomorrow. [emoji14]

Sep 3, 2015#4

PatrThom

Sept 23
Just in time for Eid al-Adha, the Festival of the Sacrifice.

--Patrick

Sep 3, 2015#5

Gruebeard

I'm taking today.

Sep 3, 2015#6

Dave

Gruebeard said:
I'm taking today.

That's a bold move, Cotton!

You think after all her underlings go, "Naw, we'll do it now that she's gone." she'll relent?

As I said on Facebook, if she does anything but die of old age in prison she is stating that she's putting her own comfort above that of her loyalty to god. :devil:

Sep 3, 2015#7

Gruebeard

Dave said:
That's a bold move, Cotton!

You think after all her underlings go, "Naw, we'll do it now that she's gone." she'll relent?

Actually, I was just going for the joke . . . that @Dei already made. :whistling:

Sep 3, 2015#8

Terrik

Dave said:
That's a bold move, Cotton!

You think after all her underlings go, "Naw, we'll do it now that she's gone." she'll relent?

As I said on Facebook, if she does anything but die of old age in prison she is stating that she's putting her own comfort above that of her loyalty to god.

I doubt you'd respect her even if she did.

I think this woman should leave her job. I think she isn't following the law of the land. I think she was wrong to not issue marriage certificates and should be replaced with someone who will--but that's about as far as it goes. This glee over a woman being thrown into prison over it strikes me in a bad way, but it's about what I've come to expect from religion being talked about on the internet.

Sep 3, 2015#9

Dave

It's not that I want a religious person thrown in jail. You're religious? Go nuts. Worship to your heart's content. Just don't use your religion as a crutch to justify your prejudiced or illegal views or acts. I love seeing hypocritical criminals getting their comeuppance.

Additionally, she's only in jail as long as she wants. She can leave at any time simply by following the rule of law she swore (on the bible no less!) to uphold. She needs to render unto Caesar like some hippie told her to.

Sep 3, 2015#10

PatrThom

At its heart, this is a separation of Church and State issue. If Kim and her ilk want to deny a couple the right to wed in their Church, that's perfectly legit. But she has no standing to deny a State wedding because of what her Church says.

--Patrick

Sep 3, 2015#11

Hylian

~~I am going with September 11th~~

*edit*

It looks like someone on Facebook chose that date already.

So my new guess will be September 14th

Sep 3, 2015#12

PatrThom

Hylian said:
I am going with September 11th

Ooo, going with the sentimental favorite.

--Patrick

Sep 3, 2015#13

Dave

Changed mine to September 8. I forgot Monday was a holiday.

Sep 3, 2015#14

evilmike

I'll go for the long play -- she doesn't back down and spends the rest of her term in jail.

Dave said:
Pick the date that Kim Davis recants and gets to leave prison.

Small nitpick -- The government can not force her to recant as that would actually be a violation of the first amendment. She can relent and comply with the order.

Sep 3, 2015#15

Gruebeard

I was just thinking if the honorable Harold T. Stone was presiding, she'd relent within half an hour, there'd be laughs, a magic trick, Mel Torme, and she'd be be relentlessly hit on by her public defender.

Sep 3, 2015#16

WasabiPoptart

Thursday September 10

Sep 3, 2015#17

HCGLNS

Dave said:
if she does anything but die of old age in prison she is stating that she's putting her own comfort above that of her loyalty to god.

I'm got my cow patty on God visits her and tells her she has suffered enough and she needs to leave and look after her babies.

Praise be!

Sep 3, 2015#18

PatrThom

WasabiPoptart said:
Friday Sept 4

@Dei already took that one.

--Patrick

Sep 3, 2015#19

evilmike

Gruebeard said:
I was just thinking if the honorable Harold T. Stone was presiding, she'd relent within half an hour, there'd be laughs, a magic trick, Mel Torme, and she'd be be relentlessly hit on by her public defender.

I never understood what Brent Spiner saw in her in the first place.

Sep 3, 2015#20

Thread Necromancer

Where's the option for she'll resign her post thereby relieving her from obeying the court order and in the end still claim to hold the moral high ground but yet still get out of prison?

cause that's what how I suspect it'll play out. She'll do a token time and then come foreword and say "I won't do it, but I will resign because I miss my family/I miss my church/God told me to/etc."

Sep 3, 2015#21

WasabiPoptart

PatrThom said:
@Dei already took that one.

--Patrick

Ack! I was thinking today is Wednesday.

I'll fix it in my original post.

Sep 3, 2015#22

AshburnerX

Thread Necromancer said:
Where's the option for she'll resign her post thereby relieving her from obeying the court order and in the end still claim to hold the moral high ground but yet still get out of prison?

cause that's what how I suspect it'll play out. She'll do a token time and then come foreword and say "I won't do it, but I will resign because I miss my family/I miss my church/God told me to/etc."

This is basically my guess too. She doesn't have what it takes to make it in the pokey.

Sep 3, 2015#23

jwhouk

January 14, 2016 for me.

Sep 3, 2015#24

Dave

The contest is what day it's announced that she'll leave jail, regardless of the reasons.

Sep 3, 2015#25

Sara_2814

October 1

Sep 3, 2015#26

ThatNickGuy

Who's Kim Davis?

Sep 3, 2015#27

WasabiPoptart

ThatNickGuy said:
Who's Kim Davis?

Read this. Basically she is a county clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples on religious grounds. She was thrown in jail for contempt of court when ordered to issue them. It's part of her job. She is an elected official, too.

Sep 3, 2015#28

AshburnerX

WasabiPoptart said:
Read this. Basically she is a county clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples on religious grounds. She was thrown in jail for contempt of court when ordered to issue them. It's part of her job. She is an elected official, too.

I'm pretty sure she's just appointed, but the board that can remove her basically agrees with her.

Sep 3, 2015#29

ThatNickGuy

WasabiPoptart said:
Read this. Basically she is a county clerk who refuses to issue marriage licenses to same sex couples on religious grounds. She was thrown in jail for contempt of court when ordered to issue them. It's part of her job. She is an elected official, too.

Ah. Then I'd bet she's nutty enough to ride out the sentence. I know that's already been called, but that's okay. That's the only prediction I want to make.

Sep 3, 2015#30

WasabiPoptart

AshburnerX said:
I'm pretty sure she's just appointed, but the board that can remove her basically agrees with her.

Could be. I thought I read some place that she was elected in her county. Regardless she took an oath to uphold the law and she isn't doing that.

Sep 3, 2015#31

bhamv3

I predict a posse will break her out of jail.

Sep 3, 2015#32

Cajungal

bhamv3 said:
I predict a posse will break her out of jail.

A lot of people on her side are actually excited that she's in prison. Now she's a martyr to her cause.

Sep 3, 2015#33

Hailey Knight

September 15, 2015.

Sep 3, 2015#34

Tinwhistler

The day after she experiences sweet woman-on-woman love in prison and realizes it's awesome.

Sep 3, 2015#35

jwhouk

Sep 4, 2015#36

fade

Sep 4, 2015#37

drawn_inward

My mom used to work in the court clerk office in their county. What a bunch of miserable power-tripping chumps. She looks sounds like she is just like them.
How it works in that county: the head court clerk is elected by the public in that county then the clerk has the power to hire all of the staff for the clerk office and then like-minded nepotistic bullshit ensues!

I hope this power-tripping creep learns her lesson. Probably won't. And, the effed up thing is that she'll probably get a flippin' Christian book deal out of it.

Oh, and she's been married like four times or something. Hypocritical c#nt. Sanctity of marriage, indeed.

Sep 4, 2015#38

Thread Necromancer

ThatNickGuy said:
Ah. Then I'd bet she's nutty enough to ride out the sentence. I know that's already been called, but that's okay. That's the only prediction I want to make.

I'm not positive on this but I believe the order is until she complies. It could be possible to serve "until end of term" and then someone takes her place, but I don't know. This is the best, imo, test of America's standpoint of no matter what religion and separation of church and state. We are founded on Freedom of Religion but far to many people are ignorant and do not realize that does not imply your freedom to choose a Christian religion. I don't care if you worship Christ, Buddha, the Tao, Hindu, or anything else! If you are elected, chosen, appointed, fall into a government position, obey the law of the land! if that is counter to your own beliefs, either do your job anyhow or... get the fuck out.

Sep 4, 2015#39

DarkAudit

fade said:

Nope.

Sep 4, 2015#40

Tinwhistler

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/05/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html

MOREHEAD, Ky. — A same-sex couple received a marriage license here on Friday, the first such couple to get one a day after the county clerk, Kim Davis, was jailed by a federal judge for refusing court orders to issue the licenses.

Good on her deputies.

Sep 4, 2015#41

Dave

Except her 21 year old son who HAPPENS to work there and refuses as well.

Sep 4, 2015#42

Denbrought

Dave said:
Except her 21 year old son who HAPPENS to work there and refuses as well.

Nepotism in local government? No waaaay

Sep 4, 2015#43

Terrik

Depends what his job is. Working for the clerk of the circuit court isn't exactly a difficult job to get. Hell, it was my first full time job. They take temp workers, students, and low experience workers. File management even took high school kids (but they couldn't file juvenile cases unless they were 18).

Sep 4, 2015#44

HCGLNS

I miss three days of work in a row my employer can assume I have abandoned my job. Can her employer do the same?

Sep 4, 2015#45

fade

http://www.shewired.com/entertainment/2015/09/03/17-genius-tweets-person-who-allegedly-sits-next-kim-davis

Sep 4, 2015#46

General Specific

I saw something saying that her mother was County Clerk before her and that she had worked in the office for 20 years before her mom retired and she got elected to take over. Now her son works in the same office. Guess nepotism runs in the family.

Also, for my guess, I am going to say Sept. 25th. She will be in there long enough for her to come up with a really good title for the inevitable book deal and to be interviewed by all the Christian/Anti-Secular/Fox News radio/tv/newspapers.

Sep 4, 2015#47

Frank

Her husband called upon the governor to release her or step down for not doing his job. The statement was said without one shred of irony. Apparently she's also the first American to be jailed for following her conscious.

Sep 4, 2015#48

Jay

Don't you get stoned in the bible if you get divorced?

Sep 4, 2015#49

grub

That's the theory, but for John 8:1-11 where Jesus does not condemn an adulteress but tells her to leave her life of sin.

Sep 4, 2015#50

Frank

Oh, so is that the singular part of the New Testament they're allowed to follow?

Sep 4, 2015#51

AshburnerX

Frank said:
Her husband called upon the governor to release her or step down for not doing his job. The statement was said without one shred of irony. Apparently she's also the first American to be jailed for following her conscious.

I don't think the Governor can actually DO anything. She's guilty of contempt of court... it's an ongoing crime that she is actively participating in. Even if the Governor COULD pardon her, doing so could bring federal charges against them for actively participating in the denial of a gay couple's constitutional right to be married. He'd be in the same boat she is.

Sep 4, 2015#52

grub

Frank said:
Oh, so is that the singular part of the New Testament they're allowed to follow?

Many "christians" like to pick and chose. I go for the love approach. I try to love everybody and treat others respectfully. I find it is the easiest way to live. Hating is so self-destructive.

1 John 4:7-12
New International Version (NIV)
7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

Seems fairly simple.

Sep 5, 2015#53

Chad Sexington

grub said:
Many "christians" like to pick and chose. I go for the love approach. I try to love everybody and treat others respectfully. I find it is the easiest way to live. Hating is so self-destructive.

1 John 4:7-12
New International Version (NIV)
7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

Seems fairly simple.

Sure, but isn't that picking and choosing to ignore the parts where it's all like "He that believeth not is condemned already."?

Sep 5, 2015#54

DarkAudit

Frank said:
Her husband called upon the governor to release her or step down for not doing his job. The statement was said without one shred of irony. Apparently she's also the first American to be jailed for following her conscious.

Which husband? The current one, or one of the multiple exes?

Sep 5, 2015#55

grub

Chad Sexington said:
Sure, but isn't that picking and choosing to ignore the parts where it's all like "He that believeth not is condemned already."?

Maybe but I don't think that my part is condemning (Matthew 7:2 For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you.) but loving others as I love myself. I can only control what I do. I prefer to try to make friends and hopefully shine light into the dark and maybe some will ask about what I believe, and why I act the way I do.

I do have a job where sometimes I must do things I don't believe are right. I am in many houses in a day and many people in my town are gangsters, if I see something illegal/immoral I cannot report it, it would risk not only me but every employee of my company. I have seen houses where it is not safe for anybody and could not do anything about it, every time I drive past a certain house I hope the crossbow above the baby crib is no longer there.

I believe it is supreme arrogance to think that I have all the answers or the only interpretation. At the end of the day I cannot control what others believe or do, I don't believe I have any credibility to do so. I know I am fallible and don't give advice easily. I find that the Greatest commandment of loving God and the second of loving others to be of the utmost importance, the rest is just details.

Sep 5, 2015#56

grub

Back to OP I think she might just try for the long haul, but will probably flake out on Nov 23rd, just in time for Thanksgiving.

Sep 5, 2015#57

jwhouk

grub said:
Many "christians" like to pick and chose. I go for the love approach. I try to love everybody and treat others respectfully. I find it is the easiest way to live. Hating is so self-destructive.

1 John 4:7-12
New International Version (NIV)
7 Dear friends, let us love one another, for love comes from God. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Whoever does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 This is how God showed his love among us: He sent his one and only Son into the world that we might live through him. 10 This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins. 11 Dear friends, since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; but if we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us.

Seems fairly simple.

Ah, but: "If we claim we have no sin, we are only fooling ourselves and not living in the truth."

Sep 5, 2015#58

HCGLNS

Oooooh! What if Jesus visits her on Christmas! and says "You have proven your resolve and suffered enough. Comply with Ceasar and you shall be rewarded with my favour. PS: put a cap in Santa Claus for me."

Sep 5, 2015#59

Gruebeard

grub said:
I know I am infallible

Well, look who thinks he's so perfect!

Sep 5, 2015#60

grub

Gruebeard said:
Well, look who thinks he's so perfect!

I knew I should have checked it again. That's what I get for typing so late.

Sep 6, 2015#61

Hailey Knight

Apparently Mike Huckabee will be paying her a visit in prison.

Now, no report has said this is a conjugal visit, but neither have they said it's not a conjugal visit, so I think one can draw obvious conclusions.

Sep 6, 2015#62

DarkAudit

Zero Esc said:
Apparently Mike Huckabee will be paying her a visit in prison.

Now, no report has said this is a conjugal visit, but neither have they said it's not a conjugal visit, so I think one can draw obvious conclusions.

So will this become TWO supreme court decisions that he disagrees with where he'll use the military to enforce his personal beliefs?

Sep 6, 2015#63

Dave

http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/

So is Huckabee going to help this woman as well? A muslim woman suspended from her job because her religion prevented her from serving alcohol as a stewardess.

Sep 6, 2015#64

Hailey Knight

Dave said:
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/05/travel/muslim-flight-attendant-feat/

So is Huckabee going to help this woman as well? A muslim woman suspended from her job because her religion prevented her from serving alcohol as a stewardess.

It's like some Jesus warriors' views on Al-Qaeda: their actions would be fine if in the name of Christianity.

I have never heard of Muslims being forbidden from even serving alcohol. In fact, even consuming it as taboo is a point of debate. Certainly during Ramadan, but at other times less that it's forbidden and more that it's frowned upon.

Sep 6, 2015#65

PatrThom

Zero Esc said:
I have never heard of Muslims being forbidden from even serving alcohol. In fact, even consuming it as taboo is a point of debate. Certainly during Ramadan, but at other times less that it's forbidden and more that it's frowned upon.

Under Sharia Law consumption of alcohol (or any other intoxicant) is forbidden, punishable by flogging (with hanging considered for repeat offenders). No idea how "aiding and abetting" works, though.

--Patrick

Sep 7, 2015#66

Officer_Charon

It doesn't, but it makes for a convenient straw to grasp.

When you sign on to get a job, most will have a list of expectations and requirements. If you work in a service industry where alcohol is served, then it follows that you, at some point, might be expected to serve alcohol. Or pork. Or something else that is forbidden, depending on your religious views.

You have to weigh your need for a job against your need to be strictly "orthodox" in your religious views.

Crap like this makes me glad that I don't drink from THAT particular jug of Kool-Aid. I don't push my shit on you, you don't push yours on me, and everything will be fine.

Sep 7, 2015#67

DarkAudit

It's funny as hell that Westboro is picketing *against* her thanks to her three divorces. :rofl:

Sep 7, 2015#68

Cajungal

DarkAudit said:
It's funny as hell that Westboro is picketing *against* her thanks to her three divorces.

I hope that some of them exploded like robots trying to deal with a logical fallacy.

Sep 7, 2015#69

Piotyr

I wish some of the more hateful, judgmental Christians would actually read John 3:17 instead of just stopping after 16.

Sep 7, 2015#70

GasBandit

Piotyr said:
I wish some of the more hateful, judgmental Christians would actually read John 3:17 instead of just stopping after 16.

Is that the part that says, "but that doth be, verily, thine own opinion, man?"

Sep 7, 2015#71

CrimsonSoul

Piotyr said:
I wish some of the more hateful, judgmental Christians would actually read John 3:17 instead of just stopping after 16.

I thought the Bible ended at John 3:16?

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

Sep 7, 2015#72

Gruebeard

All I know about the bible comes from WWE, and I don't even remember what Austin 3:16 says. Something about drinking lots of beer I think.

Sep 7, 2015#73

Tinwhistler

CrimsonSoul said:
I thought the Bible ended at John 3:16?

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+3:17

For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.

One of the really well known bible quotes.

Sep 8, 2015#74

WasabiPoptart

Latest in my local paper. The bolded part is mine.

...
"The motion requests an injunction pending appeal for an exemption from the Governor's mandate that all county clerks issue marriage licenses," said the statement by Liberty Counsel, which is representing Davis...
Davis could be released from jail immediately if the motion were granted by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ordering Beshear to issue Davis an "accommodation" — allowing her to remove her name and title from official marriage certificates issued in Rowan County...
(Davis) has said she will not issue marriage licenses until the state legislature changes the law so the licenses can be issued under someone else's authority.
The state legislature is not scheduled to meet again until January and Beshear has refused to call a special session. Davis has refused to resign her $80,000-a-year job. As an elected official the only way she could lose her job is to lose an election or have the state legislature impeach her, which is unlikely given the conservative nature of the state General Assembly.

Sep 8, 2015#75

GasBandit

So she's still pulling in 80k/annum while she's in prison?

Sep 8, 2015#76

WasabiPoptart

That I'm not sure of. It just mentions that 80k is her salary.

Sep 8, 2015#77

Officer_Charon

Well, she's apparently doing no LESS work in jail than she was OUT of it, so...

Sep 8, 2015#78

jwhouk

Well, that January of 2016 date's looking good right about now...

Sep 8, 2015#79

Dave

I know, right? I love how her husband is all like, "She will never give up! She'll stay in jail forever!"

He's just glad she's gone.

Sep 8, 2015#80

Gruebeard

Dave said:
I know, right? I love how her husband is all like, "She will never give up! She'll stay in jail forever!"

He's just glad she's gone.

Would be schadenfreuderific if he's caught sleeping around on her during this time.

Sep 8, 2015#81

Dave

Gruebeard said:
Would be schadenfreuderific if he's caught sleeping around on her during this time.

With Mike Huckabee.

Sep 8, 2015#82

Dave

And the winning date is....TODAY!! Tuesday, September 8. So...I win!

Not sure what changed in the mind of the judge. She's still unrepentant and will continue to fail to do her job. In my opinion, she should have stayed there until SHE said she was ready to leave.

Sep 8, 2015#83

Gared

Dave said:
And the winning date is....TODAY!! Tuesday, September 8. So...I win!

Not sure what changed in the mind of the judge. She's still unrepentant and will continue to fail to do her job. In my opinion, she should have stayed there until SHE said she was ready to leave.

According to the ABC article, the judge is releasing her because the court is of the opinion that the clerks office is doing its duty - because while Davis was in jail, her assistants issued marriage licenses to all eligible parties. How they think that isn't going to change when they put her back in charge, I don't know.

Sep 8, 2015#84

WasabiPoptart

Dave said:
She's still unrepentant and will continue to fail to do her job. In my opinion, she should have stayed there until SHE said she was ready to leave.

Unfortunately, that would be a waste of tax payer money. Unless there is a way to use her salary to pay for her incarceration...which is probably illegal and unethical.

Sep 8, 2015#85

Gruebeard

I don't think you win, Dave:

After all you said:
Pick the date that Kim Davis recants and gets to leave prison. (This would be the date she hits the news as saying she will comply with the order, not the date she leaves.)

Sep 8, 2015#86

Dave

Gruebeard said:
I don't think you win, Dave:

That was under the assumption that she would have to recant. I guess I should have said, "The date that she is announced to leave jail."[DOUBLEPOST=1441739163,1441739146][/DOUBLEPOST]In any event, I now have to choose a charity to donate $25.

Sep 8, 2015#87

HCGLNS

Dave said:
That was under the assumption that she would have to recant. I guess I should have said, "The date that she is announced to leave jail."[DOUBLEPOST=1441739163,1441739146][/DOUBLEPOST]In any event, I now have to choose a charity to donate $25.

Send your seed to Our Lady of Perpetual Exemption

Sep 8, 2015#88

Tinwhistler

Dave said:
That was under the assumption that she would have to recant. I guess I should have said, "The date that she is announced to leave jail."[DOUBLEPOST=1441739163,1441739146][/DOUBLEPOST]In any event, I now have to choose a charity to donate $25.

http://www.hrc.org/
http://www.massequality.org/ourwork

Sep 8, 2015#89

CrimsonSoul

Dave said:
That was under the assumption that she would have to recant. I guess I should have said, "The date that she is announced to leave jail."[DOUBLEPOST=1441739163,1441739146][/DOUBLEPOST]In any event, I now have to choose a charity to donate $25.

Donate to a LGBT charity in Kim Davis name

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

Sep 8, 2015#90

Bubble181

PatrThom said:
Under Sharia Law consumption of alcohol (or any other intoxicant) is forbidden, punishable by flogging (with hanging considered for repeat offenders). No idea how "aiding and abetting" works, though.

--Patrick

Only some interpretations of Sharia - notably Wahabist and another one I'm forgetting the name of.
The Quran states it's wrong to cloud your senses, because you're still responsible for what actions you performed or sins you committed while inebriated - be it drugs, alcohol, painkillers, whatever. Anything that can alter or cloud your (moral) judgement is wrong. Basically, "drinking and driving is wrong" and "if you get drunk and sleep with an ugly woman, it's your own damn fault".

It's a similar reasoning that leads some Christian denominations to refuse full sedation (Jehova's Witnesses for example).

The more "average" interpretation is that it is wrong to get drunk/high/wasted/whatever. Some more liberal forms take it to "drink if you want to, but not to excess, and be prepared to accept the consequences".

Sep 8, 2015#91

WasabiPoptart

Dave said:
In any event, I now have to choose a charity to donate $25.

http://www.thetrevorproject.org/pages/make-a-gift

Sep 8, 2015#92

Dave

And we may be doing this again. She said she'll start blocking them again.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kim-davis-release-federal-custody

Sep 8, 2015#93

General Specific

Argh, well her release is contingent on her not interfering with the marriage licenses, so if she does block them again, she will be sent right back for contempt. This time she probably wouldn't be let out again.

Sep 8, 2015#94

blotsfan

Obviously she's trash and it sucks that this is starting again, but at least I'd bet most of the huge backlog of gay people waiting forever has been taken care of.

Sep 8, 2015#95

redthirtyone

And I'm assuming this was the same type of thinking that got her released from jail. They're figuring that all those icky homosexuals that needed a marriage license now have what they need, and there won't be any more problems from here on out.

But now the fun begins. Rowan County is now going to become a hotspot for gay couples to come get their licenses.

1) Couples who come because they want to prove a point
2) Similar couples who want to force her to relent - revenge. Similar to the type of couples who want to force the bakery to make their cake just because fuck them/
3) Couples who want the prestige of a license from Rowan County KY.

Sep 8, 2015#96

Hailey Knight

blotsfan said:
Obviously she's trash and it sucks that this is starting again, but at least I'd bet most of the huge backlog of gay people waiting forever has been taken care of.

Considering the speed of our government, that's optimistic.

Sep 9, 2015#97

Ravenpoe

redthirtyone said:
2) Similar couples who want to force her to relent - revenge. Similar to the type of couples who want to force the bakery to make their cake just because fuck them/

I don't think those are really all that similar.

Sep 9, 2015#98

DarkAudit

Ravenpoe said:
I don't think those are really all that similar.

They aren't. Bakers don't take an oath to uphold the Creaming Method against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

Sep 9, 2015#99

redthirtyone

Ravenpoe said:
I don't think those are really all that similar.

Similar in the fact that there are currently 117 out of 120 counties in the state of KY that will issue the marriage license, not to mention the rest of the US. Just go to one of those places. It's much easier here in Lexington to spend 15 minutes to go downtown for a license than to drive an hour away to get one from Rowan County. Unless you live in Rowan County, you're actually making it harder on yourself if you go there for a license.

Likewise there are literally dozens of bakeries that will make a cake for a gay wedding, but you* want one from the one bakery 200 miles away that won't make it for religious objections. Just go to the bakery down the street & get your cake.

Look, I get it. She is being used as a guinea pig here. There are quite a few county clerks here in KY (& I'm sure the rest of the country) who are watching with interest hoping this is their loophole to still refuse gay marriages. Which is why the hammer needs to come down hard here. The appeals process would appear to have run it's course & there is nothing left but stall tactics & willful contempt of court. So drop the hammer & let her rot in jail. Impose some serious fines too, enough to put a dent in the donation coffers.

Point being, there are attention seekers on both sides of the fence here, and they are feeding off each other.

*no one in particular

Sep 9, 2015#100

Sara_2814

redthirtyone said:
2) Similar couples who want to force her to relent - revenge. Similar to the type of couples who want to force the bakery to make their cake just because fuck them/
.

Or similar to the type of black person who forces Woolworths to let them sit at a whites-only lunch counter just because fuck them?

Fuck those guys, amirite? They should have just gone to the designated black service counter Woolworths already provided for them! Or another business! But instead they demanded the owners of Woolworths go against their beliefs in racial segregation and serve them equally. I bet they didn't even want that sandwich, they just wanted attention!

:rolleyes:

Sep 9, 2015#101

Thread Necromancer

You know, I believe in the rights this country was founded upon. Freedom of religion etc etc, separation of church and state etc etc.
Hit her with a brick. and in this case I mean a brick of "you were elected to a post where your religious beliefs mean jack shit all because as a government official you must uphold the government's laws which are none bias toward religion, do your got or get hit in the head with a brick"

Sep 9, 2015#102

fade

DarkAudit said:
They aren't. Bakers don't take an oath to uphold the Creaming Method against all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[DOUBLEPOST=1441806618,1441806509][/DOUBLEPOST]HOLY shit, is that SeraRelm?

Sep 9, 2015#103

Dave

fade said:
View attachment 19147[DOUBLEPOST=1441806618,1441806509][/DOUBLEPOST]HOLY shit, is that SeraRelm?

Nope. That's a completely different Sara.

Sep 9, 2015#104

jwhouk

You sit at the lunch counter in Selma, not Saint Paul.

Sep 9, 2015#105

Sara_2814

Dave said:
Nope. That's a completely different Sara.

I'm just a grouchy old lady who crawls out of the lurker cave every once in a while.

:hide:

Sep 9, 2015#106

fade

Dave said:
Nope. That's a completely different Sara.

Ah, interesting. I though Sera used Slappy as an avatar occasionally, too. Maybe I just always mixed them up.

Sep 9, 2015#107

Dave

Sara_2814 said:
I'm just a grouchy old lady who crawls out of the lurker cave every once in a while.

But you are from Bellevue, which makes you cool. (For the record, I'm in Bellevue right now - I work at Bellevue University.)

Sep 9, 2015#108

GasBandit

The real kicker of it is, as others have said, if she really had a valid religious/moral objection, the proper response would have been to resign her position. But, of course, as we all know, the triple-divorcee adulterous bastard factory doesn't actually have any convictions about the sacred nature of marriage.

Sep 9, 2015#109

fade

Sep 9, 2015#110

Frank

Rad.

Sep 9, 2015#111

Sara_2814

Dave said:
But you are from Bellevue, which makes you cool. (For the record, I'm in Bellevue right now - I work at Bellevue University.)

I am near Bellevue University. :ninja:

Sep 9, 2015#112

Bubble181

Sara_2814 said:
a grouchy old lady

Watch out or we'll set you up on a blind date with @Grytpipe-Thynne .... Or even older, like @Dave

Sep 9, 2015#113

Sara_2814

GasBandit said:
The real kicker of it is, as others have said, if she really had a valid religious/moral objection, the proper response would have been to resign her position. But, of course, as we all know, the triple-divorcee adulterous bastard factory doesn't actually have any convictions about the sacred nature of marriage.

But they're violating her religious freedom to deny other people their constitutional rights! This is apparently a tenet of her religion and must be protected at all costs! Even the cost of other people's constitutional rights!

I do wonder if Mike Huckabee would be rushing to the side of a Christian sheriff who strongly believes in "thou shalt not kill" and therefore refuses to issue handgun permits. Would he still defend a public servant's deeply held religious beliefs overriding the constitutional rights of others? Or would he demand the sheriff resign?

Sep 9, 2015#114

GasBandit

Sara_2814 said:
But they're violating her religious freedom to deny other people their constitutional rights! This is apparently a tenet of her religion and must be protected at all costs! Even the cost of other people's constitutional rights!

I do wonder if Mike Huckabee would be rushing to the side of a Christian sheriff who strongly believes in "thou shalt not kill" and therefore refuses to issue handgun permits. Would he still defend a public servant's deeply held religious beliefs overriding the constitutional rights of others? Or would he demand the sheriff resign?

I know you and I are in agreement and you were being sarcastic, but I feel compelled to clarify for the audience at home and for the sake of rhetorical continuity/thoroughness that, even apart from Davis' personal hypocrisy in the matter:

1) The rights of one person end where the rights of another begin.
2) Employment is not a constitutional right, government employment even less so, when you consider the constitution was drafted from a position of distrust of government power. The job is to issue documentation according to the law, not according to your personal beliefs, so if there is a conflict between the job and your beliefs, you quit the job. You don't get to take a job in a supermarket's meat department and then claim religious objections to handling pork.
3) The first amendment does not actually grant license to do whatever one wants so long as it is cloaked in the pretense of "religious practice," civil and criminal law still supercede. Also see George Takei's facebook post above.
4) For the purposes of government involvement, marriage is a secular institution. Biblical definitions of marriage are irrelevant to issuing marriage licenses. Plenty of straight people get married without any religious trappings at all.

Sep 9, 2015#115

MindDetective

GasBandit said:
The real kicker of it is, as others have said, if she really had a valid religious/moral objection, the proper response would have been to resign her position. But, of course, as we all know, the triple-divorcee adulterous bastard factory doesn't actually have any convictions about the sacred nature of marriage.

Well, she is supposedly born-again, which I guess is supposed to nullify any inconsistencies in her past behavior with her current expressed beliefs.

Sep 9, 2015#116

drawn_inward

I don't know if anyone mentioned the technicality that Kim Davis never actually went to prison. :cool:

Sep 9, 2015#117

Terrik

Shepard Smith of Fox News apparently criticized Kim Davis during the press conference.

Skip ahead to 35 seconds in to hear it.

Sep 9, 2015#118

CrimsonSoul

fade said:

I saw that yesterday. It was amazing

Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk

Sep 9, 2015#119

Hylian

Someone on Reddit made this re-election campaign poster for Kim Davis

Sep 10, 2015#120

fade

Sep 10, 2015#121

GasBandit

Sep 10, 2015#122

fade

Yeah, I saw a lot of those, but Fabio stood out because of the clever play on the product name.

Sep 10, 2015#123

GasBandit

One more -

Sep 10, 2015#124

Ravenpoe

GasBandit said:
One more -

Yet another reminder I'm going to hell...

Have your damn like.

Sep 10, 2015#125

WasabiPoptart

Ravenpoe said:
Yet another reminder I'm going to hell...

Have your damn like.

Save me a seat.

Too bad you didn't wait until tomorrow to post that, @GasBandit!

Sep 11, 2015#126

Bubble181

Who's the girl in the fourth picture?

Sep 11, 2015#127

Hailey Knight

Terrik said:
Shepard Smith of Fox News apparently criticized Kim Davis during the press conference.

Skip ahead to 35 seconds in to hear it.

My first reaction to that was "by accident?" But nope, Fox News actually came down on this bullshit. Color me surprised.

Sep 11, 2015#128

Ravenpoe

Bubble181 said:
Who's the girl in the fourth picture?

That's Sasha Grey, a famous former porn st-

I mean, I don't know, I certainly don't recognize her...

Sep 11, 2015#129

Bubble181

Ravenpoe said:
That's Sasha Grey, a famous former porn st-

I mean, I don't know, I certainly don't recognize her...

Ahhh, I knew I recognized h...I mean, still no clue, sorry. Ahem.

Sep 11, 2015#130

Dei

This is my new favorite meme.

Sep 11, 2015#131

Gruebeard

How about a picture of our former Prime Minister, Jean Chretien, who ignored the Pope's threat of excommunication when dealing with - I think it was actually gay marriage - and the caption "Believes in God. Still did his fucking job."

Sep 11, 2015#132

Cheesy1

"Oath Keepers" offer Kim Davis protection from being "illegally detained" again.

Sep 11, 2015#133

WasabiPoptart

Cheesy1 said:
"Oath Keepers" offer Kim Davis protection from being "illegally detained" again.

Since when is going to jail for breaking a law "illegally detained"? I guess you can only go to jail for breaking laws you agree with now?

Sep 11, 2015#134

GasBandit

I blame the anti-iraq war rhetoric for getting the ball rolling on this whole inane thing where you call something you don't agree with "illegal."

Sep 11, 2015#135

AshburnerX

GasBandit said:
I blame the anti-iraq war rhetoric for getting the ball rolling on this whole inane thing where you call something you don't agree with "illegal."

It's been going a lot longer than that, with stuff like the Sovereign Citizen movement and the anti-income tax people being the first ones that come to mind. Really, this kind of stuff has been going on since the country was founded, starting all the way with the Whiskey Rebellion.

Sep 11, 2015#136

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
It's been going a lot longer than that, with stuff like the Sovereign Citizen movement and the anti-income tax people being the first ones that come to mind. Really, this kind of stuff has been going on since the country was founded, starting all the way with the Whiskey Rebellion.

Well, yeah, and people have been flavoring things with pumpkin for hundreds of years, too, but there's been a recent resurgence, and I'm of the opinion that it was this particular instance that thrust the practice back to the forefront.

Sep 11, 2015#137

Gruebeard

GasBandit said:
Well, yeah, and people have been flavoring things with pumpkin for hundreds of years, too, but there's been a recent resurgence, and I'm of the opinion that it was this particular instance that thrust the practice back to the forefront.

Or it's just the instance that made you aware of all the other ones that have always been around, like after I took that Subaru for a test drive I started noticing all the other Subarus on the road. I didn't think anybody around here owned one.

Sep 11, 2015#138

GasBandit

Sep 12, 2015#139

Hailey Knight

Cheesy1 said:
"Oath Keepers" offer Kim Davis protection from being "illegally detained" again.

Oh for fuck's sake, is this going to be Southern integration again?

Sep 12, 2015#140

jwhouk

Yep.

Sep 13, 2015#141

Dei

Sep 13, 2015#142

bhamv3

Ravenpoe said:
That's Sasha Grey, a famous former porn st-

I mean, I don't know, I certainly don't recognize her...

Oooohhh... does her fucking job! I get it now!

Sep 14, 2015#143

Mathias

She's not even following her own damn religion right.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, yadda yadda.

The Man himself you need to obey the law of the land.

Sep 15, 2015#144

drawn_inward

Mathias said:
She's not even following her own damn religion right.

Truly. Since there are around 600 "commandments" I am sure she is falling short in a number of ways. She has a hunk of wood in her eye that she needs to deal with first. I am sort of tired of the hide-behind-religion shtick.

Sep 15, 2015#145

figmentPez

Thought this one was particularly fitting:

Sep 15, 2015#146

Dave

But he did like to ride his bicycle.

Sep 15, 2015#147

sixpackshaker

Man, I was going to post the Freddie one here.

Sep 15, 2015#148

PatrThom

source

--Patrick

Sep 15, 2015#149

bhamv3

PatrThom said:
View attachment 19165
source

--Patrick

Sometimes I wonder what percentage of clergy no longer believe, but still preach because they know it gives their congregation comfort and hope.

Sep 15, 2015#150

PatrThom

bhamv3 said:
Sometimes I wonder what percentage of clergy no longer believe, but still preach because they know it gives their congregation comfort and hope.

That's not limited to clergy, you know. There are also teachers, life counselors, medical professionals, public servants, and so on.

--Patrick

Sep 18, 2015#151

ScytheRexx

Looks like someone needed to take it to the next level. She isn't blocking them from getting the licenses, she just deletes her name and the county after the fact, making them (possibly) worthless.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b552...torney-kentucky-clerk-interfered-judges-order

Sep 18, 2015#152

AshburnerX

ScytheRexx said:
Looks like someone needed to take it to the next level. She isn't blocking them from getting the licenses, she just deletes her name and the county after the fact, making them worthless.

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/b552...torney-kentucky-clerk-interfered-judges-order

And that's a lawsuit waiting to happen. If she's purposefully altering these to make them worthless, she's still violating the rights of the gay couples that want to be married.

LEt's bet on how long until she's back in jail.

Sep 18, 2015#153

Hailey Knight

Denying same-sex couples marriage has become like reality TV--an easy way for jerks to get their 15 minutes.

Sep 18, 2015#154

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
And that's a lawsuit waiting to happen. If she's purposefully altering these to make them worthless, she's still violating the rights of the gay couples that want to be married.

LEt's bet on how long until she's back in jail.

I think that's what she wants.

Zero Esc said:
Denying same-sex couples marriage has become like reality TV--an easy way for jerks to get their 15 minutes.

Exactly.

Sep 18, 2015#155

ScytheRexx

I decided to add to my other post that they are "possibly" worthless. The govener says they will still honor all altered licenses, but federal judges say they may not be valid due to state law that requires the county clerk and county name on all licenses, which she has been removing.

Sep 18, 2015#156

Dave

Isn't there a law about altering legal documents after they have been signed? This now goes above the initial charges into more criminal territory, I think.

Sep 18, 2015#157

PatrThom

Dave said:
Isn't there a law about altering legal documents after they have been signed? This now goes above the initial charges into more criminal territory, I think.

I assume there is.

--Patrick

Sep 19, 2015#158

Ravenpoe

Dave said:
Isn't there a law about altering legal documents after they have been signed? This now goes above the initial charges into more criminal territory, I think.

Doesn't matter, any legal action taken against her will just be further proof of the "criminalization of christianity." Or at least that's what Mike Huckabee said.

Sep 19, 2015#159

Bowielee

Y'know, if you're going to be a biggot, you could at least be upfront about it. I'm sick of the "deeply held religious beliefs" being brought up as a reason someone is against gay marriage. Have the balls to admit that you just think it's icky and you don't like it.

I'll believe it's due to your religious convictions when you start advocating for slavery, polygamy, and against shellfish and women being on their period being allowed to touch people with the same fervor.

Sep 19, 2015#160

Dave

Sep 19, 2015#161

PatrThom

Bowielee said:
if you're going to be a biggot,

You know, I might start deliberately misspelling it this way just to make it more pejorative.

--Patrick

Sep 20, 2015#162

ThatNickGuy

We have a winner!

Sep 20, 2015#163

Bowielee

ThatNickGuy said:
We have a winner!

Would have been better if it were Carrie Fisher. She HAAAAAAAATES Star Wars.

Sep 20, 2015#164

ThatNickGuy

Bowielee said:
Would have been better if it were Carrie Fisher. She HAAAAAAAATES Star Wars.

Really? I didn't know that. I swear, the only person who actually likes it is Mark Hamil.

Sep 20, 2015#165

Ravenpoe

ThatNickGuy said:
Really? I didn't know that. I swear, the only person who actually likes it is Mark Hamil.

I wonder how much of it is hating the super popularity that sealed them into those roles, and how much is just not liking George Lucas. Because they didn't come back until Lucas was gone.

Sep 20, 2015#166

Gruebeard

ThatNickGuy said:
I swear, the only person who actually likes it is Mark Hamil.

Probably because nobody would know who he was beyond Batman fans who read credits.

Sep 20, 2015#167

Ravenpoe

Gruebeard said:
Probably because nobody would know who he was beyond Batman fans who read credits.

And Avatar fans that read credits.

Sep 20, 2015#168

Bubble181

Gruebeard said:
Probably because nobody would know who he was beyond Batman fans who read credits.

...As opposed to Carrie Fisher?

Sep 20, 2015#169

Gruebeard

Bubble181 said:
...As opposed to Carrie Fisher?

I know her for a sort of mental meltdown . . . I think. I might be thinking of Margot Kidder.

Sep 20, 2015#170

jwhouk

I think her dad might have been someone famous, too...

Sep 20, 2015#171

Bowielee

jwhouk said:
I think her dad might have been someone famous, too...

Her dad was Eddie Fisher who was marginally famous, but her mother was Debbie Reynolds.

Basically Carrie Fisher wasn't even that interested in acting, but kind of had it forced on her by her mother.

Sep 20, 2015#172

AshburnerX

Gruebeard said:
Probably because nobody would know who he was beyond Batman fans who read credits.

Ravenpoe said:
And Avatar fans that read credits.

Mark Hamill is actually VERY prolific. He's most known for his villain roles (The Joker, Emperor Ozai, Skeleton King in Super Robot Monkey Team Hyper Force GO!, Mr. Salacia in Metalocalypse, etc) but he's also Skips on Regular Show, the Fear Feaster on Adventure Time, Turtle on My Friends Tigger and Poo, Stickybeard on Codename: Kids Next Door, Larry 3000 on Time Squad... he's been in damn near everything and virtually all of his acting work since 1992 has been as a voice actor. Mark Hamill gets SERIOUS work.[DOUBLEPOST=1442769893,1442769730][/DOUBLEPOST]

Bowielee said:
Her dad was Eddie Fisher who was marginally famous, but her mother was Debbie Reynolds.

Basically Carrie Fisher wasn't even that interested in acting, but kind of had it forced on her by her mother.

On the plus side, Carrie Fisher knows script writing and is a excellent script doctor for Hollywood.

Via Wikipedia said:
Besides acting and writing original works, Fisher was one of the top script doctors in Hollywood, working on the screenplays of other writers.[11][12] She did uncredited polishes on movies in a 15-year stretch from 1991 to 2005,[11] and was hired by the creator of Star Wars, George Lucas, to polish scripts for his 1992 TV series The Young Indiana Jones Chronicles, as well as the dialogue for the Star Wars prequel scripts.[11] Her expertise in this area was the reason she was chosen as one of the interviewers for the screenwriting documentary Dreams on Spec in 2007. However, during an interview in 2004, she said that she no longer did much script doctoring.[12] However during the height of her career as a script doctor and rewriter, Fisher worked on Hook in 1991, Lethal Weapon 3 and Sister Act (1992), Made in America, Last Action Hero and So I Married an Axe Murderer (1993), My Girl 2, Milk Money, The River Wild and Love Affair (1994), Outbreak (1995), The Mirror Has Two Faces (1996), The Wedding Singer (1998), The Out-of-Towners and Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999), Coyote Ugly and Scream 3(2000), Kate & Leopold (2001), Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002), Intolerable Cruelty (2003), which she did a rewrite of back in 1994 (although it's not known if any of her work remained after the Coen Brothers rewrote it years later), Mr. and Mrs. Smith (2005 film),[13] and finally Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith in that same year.

Sep 20, 2015#173

Gruebeard

AshburnerX said:
Mark Hamill is actually VERY prolific. He's most known for his villain roles (The Joker, Emperor Ozai, Skeleton King in Super Robot Monkey Team Hyper Force GO!, Mr. Salacia in Metalocalypse, etc) but he's also Skips on Regular Show, the Fear Feaster on Adventure Time, Turtle on My Friends Tigger and Poo, Stickybeard on Codename: Kids Next Door, Larry 3000 on Time Squad... he's been in damn near everything and virtually all of his acting work since 1992 has been as a voice actor. Mark Hamill gets SERIOUS work.

Yes, he works in show business. I wasn't saying he doesn't. But nobody (yes, that's an exaggeration) watches anything that you just listed.

Even a Batman cartoon is niche, as far as celebrity goes. So really, only @Ravenpoe is right.

. . . wait. This is James Cameron's Avatar, right?

Sep 20, 2015#174

Ravenpoe

Gruebeard said:
Yes, he works in show business. I wasn't saying he doesn't. But nobody (yes, that's an exaggeration) watches anything that you just listed.

Even a Batman cartoon is niche, as far as celebrity goes. So really, only @Ravenpoe is right.

. . . wait. This is James Cameron's Avatar, right?

Sep 20, 2015#175

Gruebeard

So yeah. Mark Hamill likes Star Wars.

Sep 20, 2015#176

ThatNickGuy

I don't remember Mark Hamil painted blue wearing a loincloth.

And you're welcome for that mental image.

Sep 20, 2015#177

PatrThom

Gruebeard said:
I know her for a sort of mental meltdown . . . I think. I might be thinking of Margot Kidder.

Margot Kidder's meltdown was rather public when it happened.

--Patrick

Sep 20, 2015#178

Bowielee

AshburnerX said:
Mark Hamill is actually VERY prolific. He's most known for his villain roles (The Joker, Emperor Ozai, Skeleton King in Super Robot Monkey Team Hyper Force GO!, Mr. Salacia in Metalocalypse, etc) but he's also Skips on Regular Show, the Fear Feaster on Adventure Time, Turtle on My Friends Tigger and Poo, Stickybeard on Codename: Kids Next Door, Larry 3000 on Time Squad... he's been in damn near everything and virtually all of his acting work since 1992 has been as a voice actor. Mark Hamill gets SERIOUS work.[DOUBLEPOST=1442769893,1442769730][/DOUBLEPOST]

On the plus side, Carrie Fisher knows script writing and is a excellent script doctor for Hollywood.

I'm very familiar with her writing.

She is a great novelist as well.

Sep 20, 2015#179

bhamv3

Alec Guinness.

Sep 20, 2015#180

WasabiPoptart

AshburnerX said:
Mark Hamill is actually... Stickybeard on Codename: Kids Next Door

Sep 21, 2015#181

Bowielee

Wow, Steinman disagrees with me, but of course not with Dave.

Sep 22, 2015#182

SpecialKO

Welp, that didn't take long.

Anyone feel like acting surprised, for the record?

Sep 22, 2015#183

Frank

She's not through being in the spotlight.

Sep 22, 2015#184

ThatNickGuy

SpecialKO said:
Welp, that didn't take long.

Anyone feel like acting surprised, for the record?

Sep 30, 2015#185

DarkAudit

Now her lawyers are claiming she had a secret meeting with the Pope. Vatican will neither confirm nor deny. I call bullshit.

Sep 30, 2015#186

jwhouk

He probably said, "Yeah, yeah, I've gotta go give a homily at a correctional facility in Pennsylvania, tell her to go talk to her local priest."

Sep 30, 2015#187

SpecialKO

You know, even it is is true, I wouldn't be surprised. He's still the pope of the Catholic Church, and has been opposed to same-sex marriage in the recent past. He's also the titular ruler of an actual theocracy whose laws only change as said theological doctrine is updated/reformed.

I know many of us like the idea of "Pope Lefty", but he's still the Pope.

Sep 30, 2015#188

AshburnerX

SpecialKO said:
You know, even it is is true, I wouldn't be surprised. He's still the pope of the Catholic Church, and has been opposed to same-sex marriage in the recent past. He's also the titular ruler of an actual theocracy whose laws only change as said theological doctrine is updated/reformed.

I know many of us like the idea of "Pope Lefty", but he's still the Pope.

Possibly, but it's also possible that he admonished her. We already know that he met with Boehner too and it basically made him quit politics....

Sep 30, 2015#189

SpecialKO

AshburnerX said:
Possibly, but it's also possible that he admonished her. We already know that he met with Boehner too and it basically made him quit politics....

For all we know, they just had a regular, completely non-consequential conversation about day-to-day life at the Vatican, and Boehner realized that he deals with religion in government more than Pope does in his religious government, and said, "Fuck this. I'm out!"

Sep 30, 2015#190

fade

AshburnerX said:
Possibly, but it's also possible that he admonished her. We already know that he met with Boehner too and it basically made him quit politics....

The Force can have a strong influence on the weak-minded.

Sep 30, 2015#191

Dave

The Vatican has said they told her to "Stay strong."

That's all this delusional bigoted bitch needs - more validation.

Sep 30, 2015#192

PatrThom

Dave said:
The Vatican has said they told her to "Stay strong."

That's all this delusional bigoted bitch needs - more validation.

The Vatican officially said:
"I cannot not deny the meeting took place but I have no comments to add," Vatican spokesman Father Federico Lombardi said in Italian Wednesday.

Meeting = confirmed.
Content = not confirmed.

--Patrick

Sep 30, 2015#193

Dave

Wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/30/us/county-clerk-kim-davis-who-denied-gay-couples-visited-pope.html

Sep 30, 2015#194

PatrThom

Dave said:
Wrong.

...if you believe Kim and her lawyer's statements are unadulterated truth, perhaps.

--Patrick

Sep 30, 2015#195

Dave

PatrThom said:
...if you believe Kim and her lawyer's statements are unadulterated truth, perhaps.

--Patrick

Or the Vatican.

http://insidethevatican.com/news/letter-38-2015-kim-and-francis

Why are you trying so hard to disprove this?

Sep 30, 2015#196

Denbrought

Dave said:
Or the Vatican.

http://insidethevatican.com/news/letter-38-2015-kim-and-francis

Why are you trying so hard to disprove this?

Why are you trying so hard to prove it?

It's not so hard to wait for further developments.

The article you linked uses Kim Davis as its sole source about the content of the meeting (as far as my reading comprehension shows me). It is truthful, as of right now and to the best of my knowledge, that there is no published account or comment about this event that doesn't come from her or her lawyer/representative/entourage (except for the Vatican confirming that it happened).

Inside the Vatican is not an official Holy See publication, last I checked.

Sep 30, 2015#197

Dave

I'm not trying hard to prove it. I'm linking reputable sources with the information. But believe what you will, of course. The meeting happened and he supported her. Argue the minutia all you want.

Sep 30, 2015#198

Terrik

Dave said:
I'm not trying hard to prove it. I'm linking reputable sources with the information. But believe what you will, of course. The meeting happened and he supported her. Argue the minutia all you want.

Not at all surprising, really.

Sep 30, 2015#199

Frank

Don't Evangelicals usually believe that Catholics are demon agents of Satan?

Sep 30, 2015#200

Denbrought

@Dave: I believe that the Pope met with her, and probably (95%+) gave her encouraging words, possibly (5%+) high-five'd her for her bigotry, maybe (40%+) gave her a hug.
I don't, however, know that as a matter of fact. Pretending otherwise is an exercise in truthiness. Kim Davis is not trustworthy as far as I'm concerned.

Frank said:
Don't Evangelicals usually believe that Catholics are demon agents of Satan?

These days it's only relevant when they're not in agreement with whatever the topic of discussion is. The perceived War on Christianity has helped to close the ranks, IMO.

Sep 30, 2015#201

Bubble181

Denbrought said:
The perceived War on Christianity

Insofar there is a War on Christianity, it's in Europe, not in the USA. Anyone who actually manages to convince themselves that there is, is an idiot. It's one of those cases where "check your privilege" may actually apply. All of them are welcome to stay in the German Syriah refugee camps, though. Enjoy.

(I do not think there's an actual War on Christianity going on here or that there's a Muslim Invasion or any of the other shit extreme right is peddling these days. This doesn't mean we don't have to be vigilante against a small percentage of people coming in, though, as evidenced by what's been going on in those camps)

Sep 30, 2015#202

PatrThom

Dave said:
Why are you trying so hard to disprove this?

I'm not trying to disprove.
I'm reminding everyone that the only public accounts we have of what was discussed at this meeting come from people who have a history of twisting things to their own ends.
I'm not attempting to suggest it couldn't happen, I'm just saying we can't prove that it did, since the only public statements come from people who have a history of being unreliable.

It is easy, but dangerous, to give assumptions the power of fact.
Every article I've seen represents her statements as fact, but none of them make any effort to warrant it.

--Patrick

Sep 30, 2015#203

Frank

Hey Dave, this is a good one for you to read.

http://papalvisit.americamedia.org/2015/09/30/the-pope-and-kim-davis-seven-points-to-keep-in-mind/

Sep 30, 2015#204

ThatNickGuy

Frank said:
Hey Dave, this is a good one for you to read.

http://papalvisit.americamedia.org/2015/09/30/the-pope-and-kim-davis-seven-points-to-keep-in-mind/

Pope Francis also met Mark Wahlberg, and that does not mean that he liked “Ted.”

Oct 1, 2015#205

WasabiPoptart

Frank said:
Don't Evangelicals usually believe that Catholics are demon agents of Satan?

I attended an evangelical college (it was not a good choice, but I have a degree so...). In religion classes I was taught that Catholics are not Christian. I forget the reason, but Catholicism was considered a separate religion. Since it was not part of Christianity, then Catholics were blasphemous and profane.

Oct 1, 2015#206

Frank

As someone who grew up Catholic, that kind of thinking can fuck itself. I have a few friends who are religious of the Pentacostal variety and they usually refer to Catholics as separate than Christians and I usually have to remind them that they're both Christians.

Difference is Catholics don't claim that protestants aren't Christians.

Oct 1, 2015#207

jwhouk

"Catholic" is a term coined around the 3rd/4th century to indicate "universal" or "united". Its meaning went down the drain slowly until Luther threw his Theses up on the Door of a chapel in Germany.

Oct 1, 2015#208

Dei

Frank said:
As someone who grew up Catholic, that kind of thinking can fuck itself. I have a few friends who are religious of the Pentacostal variety and they usually refer to Catholics as separate than Christians and I usually have to remind them that they're both Christians.

Difference is Catholics don't claim that protestants aren't Christians.

Sure, but they still say that if you aren't Catholic Christian you aren't worthy to get communion during Mass.

Oct 1, 2015#209

Frank

Dei said:
Sure, but they still say that if you aren't Catholic Christian you aren't worthy to get communion during Mass.

Man you can't even have communion if you are Catholic and haven't done the whole shebang with first communion and such.

Oct 1, 2015#210

Dei

I was raised Catholic and have since basically declared myself agnostic. My mother still attempts to use how cute my daughter would look in a First Communion gown as a guilt trip.

Oct 1, 2015#211

GasBandit

I was a military brat, and my folks generally just picked out whichever protestant church was closest/most convenient with a preacher they liked, so as a result we bounced between being Lutheran, Presbyterian, Baptist and Methodist.

I gotta say, it seemed to me that the biggest difference between them all was whether we wanted to be forgiven our debts, or our trespasses.

Anyway, now I'm just boringly agnostic. Some say that's just being an athiest without conviction, but I just say nothing's been proven to me either way.

Oct 1, 2015#212

AshburnerX

There's an old saying: The easiest way to make someone become an Agnostic/Atheist is to force them into Catholic School/religious education. I did the whole CCD (Catholic Church Dogma) education from 5-10 and recieved my first communion... and then we promptly never went to church again, except for funerals and SOMETIMES Christmas and Easter. As I kid, I didn't understand any of this, except that if I didn't do it that I would get the snot beaten out of me by my father. As a teenager, I finally realized what it was they had made me do and grew to hate the Church. These days I'm much more mellow about it.

Oct 1, 2015#213

Cog

Even if I consider myself agnostic, I don't hate the church or religion in general. I guess many of you had bad experiences with religious people, but in my case the best people in my life, people who I literally own my life, are very religious.

Oct 1, 2015#214

Dei

I don't hate religion, I just hate hypocrisy, and that is something American Catholics are FULL of.

Oct 1, 2015#215

WasabiPoptart

AshburnerX said:
There's an old saying: The easiest way to make someone become an Agnostic/Atheist is to force them into Catholic School/religious education.

That's what happened to me by going to an evangelical college. Obviously I wasn't forced into it, but I thought a religious college would help me get back in touch with my Christian roots. I felt like needed that "meaning" in my life again. Instead, I learned more about why I had lost those beliefs in the first place.
Now I consider myself atheist. I don't hate anyone. I don't care what religion you choose to practice. I don't think believers are stupid for practicing a religion. People on both sides of the issue do and say ignorant things. I look at religion as a personal choice. If you choose to go to church or align yourself with a certain denomination, go for it. I choose not to associate myself with it.

Oct 1, 2015#216

drawn_inward

There are some thoughtful and compassionate religious folks. However, there seems to be very few of them.

Like @Dei, I dislike the hypocrisy (sanctity of marriage comes to mind), but it's the arrogance that I despise. I was taught that Christians are good and everyone else is bad. Hell, I was taught that Protestants were good and Catholics worshiped saints and Mary (false idols).

I used to have fairly strong convictions about religion, but I have become much more agnosticky. I am quite prejudiced against non-thinking zealots and fundamentalists. I don't know if I will ever make the leap to atheism for the same reason as @GasBandit though.

I don't debate people on this. I don't really care what someone believes as long as it's not harming others.

I agree with @WasabiPoptart that (just like politics) it's all personal decisions that are shaped by ones' life.

Oct 1, 2015#217

Dei

I hate people who say shit like "The world is getting worse because people are turning their back on God," or what have you. My kids have NEVER been raised with religion of any kind. They are two of the nicest kids you will ever meet... as long as you don't count the ever traditional mother/daughter fighting that happens the world over. [emoji14]

Oct 1, 2015#218

Frank

But where's your moral barometer?

That's just me talking. You can believe whatchu wanna believe.

Oct 1, 2015#219

ScytheRexx

I consider myself an agnostic, and I don't have any issues with people that follow religion, I even have my son enrolled in an Episcopal Church pre-school, but I feel that religion has always been a double edged sword. On the one hand, religion is a strong force for the development of community and can bring great values when open and fair, however, on the other hand that insular sense of community and extreme faith can bring horrible things, like bigotry, hate, and murder.

The sad thing is that the "religion" itself is not usually at fault, just the people who stand at the top of their specific sects and twist the words of God to push their own selfish ends. You can make people often do anything, or believe any stupid belief, whether it's true or not, by invoking the word of whatever being from beyond they stock that faith in. Faith is good when humanity still carries with it the ability to reason, but blind faith can harm more then it helps, because it's less about understanding our world and more about following an instructional manual as read and interpreted by someone else.

Oct 1, 2015#220

Cog

Like patriotism?

Oct 1, 2015#221

fade

My favorite anthropology professor used to say that there is a big detriment to the fading of religion. It's not godlessness, it's the lack of a regular neighborhood social gathering. As he argued it, this was probably how religious gatherings started anyway, and without church, there's less cohesiveness in a community.

Oct 1, 2015#222

Denbrought

fade said:
My favorite anthropology professor used to say that there is a big detriment to the fading of religion. It's not godlessness, it's the lack of a regular neighborhood social gathering. As he argued it, this was probably how religious gatherings started anyway, and without church, there's less cohesiveness in a community.

That's partly why I have a soft spot for UU's, along with any atheist/agnostic organization that goes beyond the anti-religious rahrah and into the "how do we make better communities?"

Oct 1, 2015#223

Ravenpoe

fade said:
My favorite anthropology professor used to say that there is a big detriment to the fading of religion. It's not godlessness, it's the lack of a regular neighborhood social gathering. As he argued it, this was probably how religious gatherings started anyway, and without church, there's less cohesiveness in a community.

Does this mean God could be replaced with board games?

Oct 1, 2015#224

Dei

No wonder religious types were so opposed to D&D!

Oct 1, 2015#225

fade

Denbrought said:
That's partly why I have a soft spot for UU's, along with any atheist/agnostic organization that goes beyond the anti-religious rahrah and into the "how do we make better communities?"

Okay I give up. What's a UU?

Oct 1, 2015#226

Denbrought

fade said:
Okay I give up. What's a UU?

Sorry. Just like the babyfur thing, I forget what is and isn't common knowledge. Unitarian Universalism.

Oct 1, 2015#227

fade

Denbrought said:
Sorry. Just like the babyfur thing, I forget what is and isn't common knowledge. Unitarian Universalism.

I thought that might've been what you meant, but wasn't sure.

Oct 1, 2015#228

ScytheRexx

Cog said:
Like patriotism?

Yes, but I don't think patriotism has as much gravity. Patriotism still falls under our tribal need to be a part of something bigger, but policies change, laws change, the world changes. The USA that existed two hundred years ago was nothing like the one that existed 100 years ago, and in turn nothing like what exists now. We were once great enemies with some countries that an old patriot may have hated, but who are now some of our largest allies and friends (Japan, etc). As generations move on they adapt and grow.

I feel that religion holds more gravity because, at the core, it tries to soften our biggest fear in life, that being what happens after we die. To be in Heaven is to adhere to what God has willed, without swaying, for swaying from the path is sin, and sin takes you from Heaven and throws you for eternity into Hell. It has no room to evolve from that basic outlook and so the core has been the same for thousands of years. If the government says "We think this is wrong!", even those that consider themselves Patriots may disagree, but if the Pope said "God said this is wrong!" then what devout Catholic is going to risk their very soul to disagree? The few that do disagree usually break off and form their own religious sects that carry with it the same problems, just with a different coat of paint.

This is why I love faith, but I dislike most organized religion, because faith can be such a powerful thing to bring people together, but when you organize it under a clergy/leadership that twists doctrine to their own interests and opinions and lock it in a box, it can reverberate and cause a bunch of crap that can last for generations. Oddly enough, I was okay having my son going to an Episcopal pre-school, because I researched into it and learned Episcopal parishes try to compromise between various Protestant and Catholic faiths, while promoting intellectual freedom and individual conscience in matters of faith. That was downright mind-blowing to me, and honestly the only glimmer of hope that the way we treat religion as a whole may finally evolve for the better.

Oct 1, 2015#229

Cajungal

Ravenpoe said:
Does this mean God could be replaced with board games?

Let us proclaim the mystery of Monopoly.

Christ has gone to jail.

Christ has passed go.

Christ has collected 200 dollars.

Oct 1, 2015#230

Cheesy1

And has TWO hotels on Boardwalk

Oct 1, 2015#231

PatrThom

Cajungal said:
Let us proclaim the mystery of Monopoly.

Christ has gone to jail.

Christ has passed go.

Christ has collected 200 dollars.

Hallelujah!

Cheesy1 said:
And has TWO hotels on Boardwalk

The kingdom, power, and glory are His, and you best remember that should you end up in His neighborhood.

--Patrick

Oct 2, 2015#232

Shakey

Pope's meeting with Kim Davis not an endorsement - Vatican

The Rev Federico Lombardi said the Pope met "several dozen" people at the Vatican's embassy in Washington just before leaving for New York last week.

"The Pope did not enter into the details of the situation of Mrs Davis and his meeting with her should not be considered a form of support of her position in all of its particular and complex aspects," Rev Lombardi said.

Oct 2, 2015#233

fade

Oct 2, 2015#234

Frank

Shakey said:
Pope's meeting with Kim Davis not an endorsement - Vatican

So, either the Pope is lying or Kim Davis' lawyer is lying.

I WONDER WHICH?

Oct 2, 2015#235

Dei

Why can't it be both?!

Oct 2, 2015#236

PatrThom

Dei said:
Why can't it be both?!

This is the most correct answer. It could indeed be both.
Please note that I am not stating that "both" is my belief, just that I acknowledge it as a possibility.

--Patrick

Oct 2, 2015#237

Bubble181

PatrThom said:
This is the most correct answer. It could indeed be both.
Please note that I am not stating that "both" is my belief, just that I acknowledge it as a possibility.

--Patrick

Please acknowledge "neither" as well, then.

Oct 2, 2015#238

Dave

http://www.salon.com/2015/10/02/the..._francis_was_ratfcked_into_meeting_kim_davis/

Oct 2, 2015#239

GasBandit

Huh. How bout that. You don't often see the word "ratfucked" in a news periodical. Especially when it's talking about the Pope.

Oct 2, 2015#240

fade

It seems weird how insistent people are that he didn't support her.

Oct 2, 2015#241

Terrik

fade said:
It seems weird how insistent people are that he didn't support her.

My take on it is a result of people truly wishing to hell (lawl) that this pope is some new kind of super-leftist-'agrees with all in spirit if not in practice- pope and a show of support for Kim Davis from this generally well-liked personality would shatter that image.

Oct 2, 2015#242

Frank

Look, I'm sure that the pope doesn't support gay marriage, he is the pope. What I am sure of about him is he doesn't see it as the big issue that christians in the US do. He's much more about income inequalities and such and helping the poor.

Oct 2, 2015#243

PatrThom

Bubble181 said:
Please acknowledge "neither" as well, then.

Of course.
00
01
10
11

--Patrick

Oct 2, 2015#244

PatrThom

Terrik said:
My take on it is a result of people truly wishing to hell (lawl) that this pope is some new kind of super-leftist-'agrees with all in spirit if not in practice- pope and a show of support for Kim Davis from this generally well-liked personality would shatter that image.

Or that they had hoped the Pope would treat Kim Davis the same way the technomage treated Londo.

--Patrick

Oct 2, 2015#245

Terrik

PatrThom said:
Or that they had hoped the Pope would treat Kim Davis the same way the technomage treated Londo.

--Patrick

Sorry, I was a Deep Space 9 fan.

Oct 2, 2015#246

PatrThom

Terrik said:
Sorry, I was a Deep Space 9 fan.

Nothing to be sorry about. DS9 doesn't suck.

--Patrick

Oct 2, 2015#247

Bubble181

I liked both DS9 and B5. As long as you won't claim Voyager was the best Star Trek, we can be friends.

Oct 2, 2015#248

GasBandit

Bubble181 said:
I liked both DS9 and B5. As long as you won't claim Voyager was the best Star Trek, we can be friends.

Voyager was garbage, but Enterprise was halfway watchable sometimes.

SOMETIMES.

Oct 2, 2015#249

SpecialKO

-starts to get "steak discussion" vibes-
-backs away slowly from thread-

Oct 2, 2015#250

Bubble181

SpecialKO said:
-starts to get "steak discussion" vibes-
-backs away slowly from thread-

As if that's a reason to back away. Stay and fend for your conviction, you worm! RARE OR MEDIUM RARE! FOR THE HORDE!

Oct 2, 2015#251

SpecialKO

Bubble181 said:
As if that's a reason to back away. Stay and fend for your conviction, you worm! RARE OR MEDIUM RARE! FOR THE HORDE!

No, no, I like my steaks bloody, but I prefer my space-station operas to be well done.

Oct 2, 2015#252

fade

SpecialKO said:
No, no, I like my steaks bloody, but I prefer my space-station operas to be well done.

Oct 2, 2015#253

Bubble181

Yet another account and more

Oct 2, 2015#254

Gruebeard

PatrThom said:
Nothing to be sorry about. DS9 doesn't suck.

--Patrick

Oi, I recently went through all the Star Trek on DVD. My opinions:

DS9 was nowhere near as enjoyable as I had remembered.
Voyager was better (though Kes was as irritating as ever).
TNG was still mostly good.
Enterprise's theme was just as catchy and non Star Trekky
TOS was still corny but good.

And the Search for Spock outgoods any of the TNG movies. Who'd've thunk?

Oct 2, 2015#255

AshburnerX

Gruebeard said:
Oi, I recently went through all the Star Trek on DVD. My opinions:

DS9 was nowhere near as enjoyable as I had remembered.
Voyager was better (though Kes was as irritating as ever).
TNG was still mostly good.
Enterprise's theme was just as catchy and non Star Trekky
TOS was still corny but good.

And the Search for Spock outgoods any of the TNG movies. Who'd've thunk?

See, I did the same thing...

DS9 was by far the best because of it's focus on character arcs and long form stories.
Voyager is much, much worse. Janeway is flipping on her positions week to week and Chakotay was still a sniveling token.
TNG... doesn't hold up as well as it used to. It feels a lot more preachy than it did in the 90's and is still somewhat backwards at times.
Enterprise picks up in the last few seasons. It could have been great but it suffered the same problems as Voyager in the early seasons and paid for it later.
TOS is still pretty good.

Oct 2, 2015#256

GasBandit

AshburnerX said:
Enterprise picks up in the last few seasons. It could have been great but it suffered the same problems as Voyager in the early seasons and paid for it later.

One night in sickbay and your show gets cancelled. The fans are trekkies but their praise ain't free. There's fan service in every other teaser. And if you're lucky it's Tucker-free. I can see a vulcan sliding up to me.

Oct 2, 2015#257

Bubble181

DS9 has fairly weak earlier seasons, and only really gets going later.
Voyager has some really cool ideas, but the way they're worked out is a mess, tonally and as far as consistency goes.
TNG...I agree with Ash. I really loved it back when it aired, but, well, I was 10 at the time. It's probably one of my most formative shows...But it really doesn't hold up all that well, and it shows its age - what was "modern" or "enlightened" in the '90s isn't anymore.
Enterprise, honestly, never watched beyond the first season. Maybe I should give it a new try.
TOS actually does hold up better. When I first watched it (again, as a kid) I didn't like it much - TNG was so much "better". In retrospect, though, TOS manages to talk about more lasting issues, where TNG liked to shove your face in progressiveness that wasn't. I dunno.

Oct 2, 2015#258

GasBandit

Oct 2, 2015#259

PatrThom

GasBandit said:

Five, if one of them is the inner light.

--Patrick

Oct 2, 2015#260

Gruebeard

AshburnerX said:
TNG... doesn't hold up as well as it used to. It feels a lot more preachy than it did in the 90's and is still somewhat backwards at times.

It felt preachy to me back then. Especially near the end. It also seemed far too Troi/Worf heavy at that point, but my re-watch showed that to be only a couple episodes. Huh.

I also wonder if DS9 getting so Worf heavy turned me off this second time.[DOUBLEPOST=1443832198,1443832074][/DOUBLEPOST]

GasBandit said:

Oh yes. The out-of-left-field 1984 reference. Well, maybe if I think of it as a parody?

Oct 2, 2015#261

AshburnerX

Gruebeard said:
It felt preachy to me back then. Especially near the end. It also seemed far too Troi/Worf heavy at that point, but my re-watch showed that to be only a couple episodes. Huh.

I also wonder if DS9 getting so Worf heavy turned me off this second time.?

I feel the Worf bits are actually really strong once the Klingons join the Alliance, as it lets us explore Klingon culture in a way we really hadn't yet... and it's not until this stuff happens and Worf is forced into Klingon politics (which, to be fair, started in TNG) that we really begin to understand that Worf is both nothing like his own kind and embodies the virtues that make the Empire worth saving. It's really some of the best stuff, if watched as a whole.

Oct 2, 2015#262

Bubble181

PatrThom said:
Five, if one of them is the inner light.

--Patrick

Six, if you check the slo-mo HD screencaps.

Oct 2, 2015#263

jwhouk

How did we go from Kim Davis to Captain Picard?

Oct 2, 2015#264

GasBandit

jwhouk said:
How did we go from Kim Davis to Captain Picard?

Halforums!

Oct 2, 2015#265

Bubble181

jwhouk said:
How did we go from Kim Davis to Captain Picard?

From the lowest reaches of mankind to its highest pinnacle.

Oct 2, 2015#266

Terrik

Bubble181 said:
From the lowest reaches of mankind to its highest pinnacle.

....eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh.

Oct 2, 2015#267

Bubble181

Terrik said:
....eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh.

View attachment 19276

Yes, but he's not 100% human, is he? He's infused with Prophet DNA and so forth.

Oct 2, 2015#268

drifter

Terrik said:
....eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh.

Oct 3, 2015#269

fade

GasBandit said:
One night in sickbay and your show gets cancelled. The fans are trekkies but their praise ain't free. There's fan service in every other teaser. And if you're lucky it's Tucker-free. I can see a vulcan sliding up to me.

This guy has a serious misremembering of TOS. TOS was fun, but at what point did Kirk have "command presence". I also agree that Archer was poorly written, but not that he was poorly cast. Even he can't really badmouth Bakula who has shown he could play serious in other works.

Oct 3, 2015#270

jwhouk

For all the crap Shatner gets, he could play serious too. It was just very hard to do with the budget and such that DesiLu gave Roddenberry and company.

Oct 3, 2015#271

Celt Z

jwhouk said:
For all the crap Shatner gets, he could play serious too. It was just very hard to do with the budget and such that DesiLu gave Roddenberry and company.

But Hammy Shatner is the best Shatner. I doubt he would have left as big an impression if he played it straight.

Oct 3, 2015#272

jwhouk

I don't know if Shatner could not play not-hammy if he wanted to.

Oct 4, 2015#273

bhamv3

Didn't a director once have to physically exhaust Shatner with take after take, to stop him from hamming it up?

Oct 5, 2015#274

Gruebeard

bhamv3 said:
Didn't a director once have to physically exhaust Shatner with take after take, to stop him from hamming it up?

That's what the director of Wrath of Khan said in the commentary, yeah.

Oct 5, 2015#275

Jax

All we need now is for Kim Davis to play a part in the newest Star Trek movie and we'll bring this thread full circle.

Oct 5, 2015#276

Gruebeard

Jax said:
All we need now is for Kim Davis to play a part in the newest Star Trek movie and we'll bring this thread full circle.

She can play a Romulan who refuses to let two Remans marry.

Oct 7, 2015#277

GasBandit

Terrik and I were talking last night (and boring Dei) and an interesting point came up... Kim Davis is refusing to enforce federal law, despite it being part of her job to do so. The local government officials of the so-called "sanctuary cities" such as San Francisco are doing the same thing when it comes to immigration. Should not the same charges of contempt be applied to them?

Oct 7, 2015#278

Tinwhistler

GasBandit said:
Terrik and I were talking last night (and boring Dei) and an interesting point came up... Kim Davis is refusing to enforce federal law, despite it being part of her job to do so. The local government officials of the so-called "sanctuary cities" such as San Francisco are doing the same thing when it comes to immigration. Should not the same charges of contempt be applied to them?

I think, if you get down to the nitpicks, the violation is similar.

However, I think that denying people something that the government has held out as a right (such as, say, free speech) is a totally different animal than allowing something that the government has held out as a violation.

While both may be contrary to federal law, the first example is far more repressive to liberty.

To spin it another way, it seems a lot more repressive for a cop to ticket you for doing 45 in a 55 than for a cop to clock you going 65 in a 55 and not pull you over--though they both seemingly involve a misapplication of the same law (but not necessarily in Texas, because of the "unsafe and imprudent speed" clause in the law. You really can get legally ticketed for 45 in a 55).

Now, that's not to say that I'm totally hunky-dory with the whole idea of "sanctuary cities". I'm not. I think that a number of illegal aliens totally take advantage of the system here to their benefit and to our (meaning taxpaying citizens) harm. But I don't think it incites the same level of outrage that occurs when the government blatantly represses and prevents the free exercise of our rights and privileges.

Oct 7, 2015#279

GasBandit

Tinwhistler said:
I think, if you get down to the nitpicks, the violation is similar.

However, I think that denying people something that the government has held out as a right (such as, say, free speech) is a totally different animal than allowing something that the government has held out as a violation.

While both may be contrary to federal law, the first example is far more repressive to liberty.

To spin it another way, it seems a lot more repressive for a cop to ticket you for doing 45 in a 55 than for a cop to clock you going 65 in a 55 and not pull you over--though they both seemingly involve a misapplication of the same law (but not necessarily in Texas, because of the "unsafe and imprudent speed" clause in the law)

I'd say Kim Steinle's liberty was violated in the most complete way possible as a direct result of San Francisco's sanctuary city policy.

Oct 7, 2015#280

Dei

Well,

GasBandit said:
Terrik and I were talking last night (and boring Dei) and an interesting point came up... Kim Davis is refusing to enforce federal law, despite it being part of her job to do so. The local government officials of the so-called "sanctuary cities" such as San Francisco are doing the same thing when it comes to immigration. Should not the same charges of contempt be applied to them?

I'd like to point out that I actually pointed out how pot legalizing states were also defying federal law during this conversation, and it was at least three tangents after this that I started getting really bored.

Oct 7, 2015#281

Terrik

Dei said:
Well,

I'd like to point out that I actually pointed out how pot legalizing states were also defying federal law during this conversation, and it was at least three tangents after this that I started getting really bored.

We sure do love our tangents.

Oct 7, 2015#282

Tinwhistler

GasBandit said:
I'd say Kim Steinle's liberty was violated in the most complete way possible as a direct result of San Francisco's sanctuary city policy.

Isn't that kind of like saying that murders are caused by lax gun control?

Oct 7, 2015#283

GasBandit

Dei said:
Well,

I'd like to point out that I actually pointed out how pot legalizing states were also defying federal law during this conversation, and it was at least three tangents after this that I started getting really bored.

That's true, you said that, and that led to a discussion about the perspectives of those participating in civil disobedience, and how no matter who they are, they consider themselves to be resisting an unjust governmental act, and at this rate we're going to end up transcribing the entire night's conversation

[DOUBLEPOST=1444236582,1444236456][/DOUBLEPOST]

Tinwhistler said:
Isn't that kind of like saying that murders are caused by lax gun control?

San Francisco explicitly released him to thumb their nose at the ICE and DEA, because they were a sanctuary city. He was a 5 time felon. It's a little different than that.

Oct 7, 2015#284

Dei

GasBandit said:
That's true, you said that, and that led to a discussion about the perspectives of those participating in civil disobedience, and how no matter who they are, they consider themselves to be resisting an unjust governmental act, and at this rate we're going to end up transcribing the entire night's conversation

Oct 7, 2015#285

GasBandit

Dei said:

Oh, don't worry, not THAT part of the conversation.

Oct 7, 2015#286

Tinwhistler

GasBandit said:
San Francisco explicitly released him to thumb their nose at the ICE and DEA, because they were a sanctuary city. He was a 5 time felon. It's a little different than that.

I think it's a closer argument than you're comfortable admitting.

You can't on the one hand say lax immigration policies are responsible for murder but on the other hand say lax gun control isn't. It's the same argument--either you more tightly control a potentially dangerous element, or you don't. Now, granted, there's no pesky badly worded constitutional amendment to muddy the waters with the immigration issue. But they boil down to the same fundamental issue.

Either a murderer is responsible for their own actions, or they aren't. Only one guy pulled the trigger that day, and I don't think it was the mayor of San Francisco.

Oct 7, 2015#287

GasBandit

Tinwhistler said:
I think it's a closer argument than you're comfortable admitting.

You can't on the one hand say lax immigration policies are responsible for murder but on the other hand say lax gun control isn't. It's the same argument--either you more tightly control a potentially dangerous element, or you don't. Now, granted, there's no pesky badly worded constitutional amendment to muddy the waters with the immigration issue. But they boil down to the same fundamental issue.

Either a murderer is responsible for their own actions, or they aren't. Only one guy pulled the trigger that day, and I don't think it was the mayor of San Francisco.

Not lax immigration policies, refusal to enforce existing immigration policies. I'd say it's closer to cities who refuse to respect the second amendment and do their own draconian gun control laws - and yet are still the areas of highest gun crime in the nation.

Oct 7, 2015#288

DarkAudit

GasBandit said:
Oh, don't worry, not THAT part of the conversation.

Not without a hefty bribe.

(which I don't have funds for...)

Oct 15, 2015#289

Bones

IT IS DONE.

Oct 15, 2015#290

ThatNickGuy

I assume she keeps her job, then?

Because if so, I get the feeling this ain't over.

Oct 15, 2015#291

evilmike

I think somebody divided by zero...

Oct 15, 2015#292

Tress

The snake is eating itself!

Oct 16, 2015#293

fade

So basically Darth Vader choking one of his own imperials because he wasn't up to snuff.

Aug 19, 2016#294

strawman

Not only did the state rewrite the laws so the county clerks no longer have to sign marriage certificates but a federal judge dismissed the three remaining cases, indicating “In light of these proceedings, and in view of the fact that the marriage licenses continue to be issued without incident, there no longer remains a case or controversy before the court.”

http://www.kentucky.com/news/politics-government/article96670002.html

I'm not aware of the exact nature of those suits, but given that elected public officials have an amount of discretion in how to execute their duties, the law provides some small amount of qualified immunity from lawsuits, which means the plaintiffs have a higher bar to clear in proving their case:

http://federalpracticemanual.org/chapter8/section2

Since the judge dismissed them just today it'll probably be days or weeks before we hear whether any or all of the plaintiffs will appeal.

Given that the legislature acted quickly to resolve the problem so both same sex couples may exercise their new rights and elected officials may exercise their religious liberty, it wouldn't surprise me if the courts simply took the view that the sudden change in the law nationally simply took some time to resolve at the local level, and that the delays were not significant enough to warrant damages or criminal charges.

Aug 19, 2016#295

Dave

So knowingly breaking the law is cool as long as you're a bigot in a bigoted state. Got it.

Aug 19, 2016#296

blotsfan

stienman said:
Given that the legislature acted quickly to resolve the problem so both same sex couples may exercise their new rights and elected officials may exercise their religious liberty, it wouldn't surprise me if the courts simply took the view that the sudden change in the law nationally simply took some time to resolve at the local level, and that the delays were not significant enough to warrant damages or criminal charges.

Nope. If giving gay people wedding licenses was something she couldn't bring herself to do, she could've quit.

Aug 19, 2016#297

strawman

I know you, like many, are disappointed in the way some things are turning out, but in this case both sides gets what they want. That's rare when two rights conflict for the legislature and the courts to choose a path that allows both sides to exercise their rights.

Making sure that Kim Davis "gets hers" isn't justice, it's vengeance, particularly when it's possible for both sides to get what they need.

I know divisiveness is the plan for the future, but it really only ends in bitterness and resentment.

Aug 19, 2016#298

Bubble181

stienman said:
the delays were not significant enough to warrant damages

These people's wedding day was unjustly, unfairly, and against the law, ruined by someone overzealously forcing their beliefs on others, forcing them to go to court and spend hundreds of dollars, as well as becoming the center of attention. Screw that. My religion forbids interracial marriage, I won't give this black-and-white couple a wedding license. Let's see if that'll get cleared up as easily and without reparations. Hah!

Aug 19, 2016#299

Frank

I'm sure the people who's rights she stepped on because she believed it was her right to deny others their's are just pleased as punch that a year later, something has been done.

Aug 19, 2016#300

blotsfan

stienman said:
I know you, like many, are disappointed in the way some things are turning out, but in this case both sides gets what they want. That's rare when two rights conflict for the legislature and the courts to choose a path that allows both sides to exercise their rights.

Making sure that Kim Davis "gets hers" isn't justice, it's vengeance, particularly when it's possible for both sides to get what they need.

I know divisiveness is the plan for the future, but it really only ends in bitterness and resentment.

Its almost like I want to set a precedent that bigotry and shittiness is not something we will compromise with.

Aug 19, 2016#301

MindDetective

I actually agree with @stienman in that the law was problematic and society needed a workaround. We seek to punish people inconsistently (marijuana use also breaks the law) that it clearly becomes personal or ideological at the cost of pragmatism.

Aug 19, 2016#302

DarkAudit

Don't tell me we're back to debating her "rights" to defy the oath she took to uphold the constitution of the Commonwealth of Kentucky and deny other people *their* constitutionally protected rights.

Aug 19, 2016#303

strawman

blotsfan said:
Its almost like I want to set a precedent that bigotry and shittiness is not something we will compromise with.

So you're saying that the legislature shouldn't have changed the rules, and that the other states who never did require their Clerk's to sign the certificates should reverse and force them to sign them? Why stop there? Why not legislate that the entire Clerk's office have to cosign them?

Just because it's he first amendment doesn't make it better than the other amendments, but it certainly isn't less important than the others. When we can satisfy both sets of human rights then we are better off than when one side demands and succeeds in stripping rights from the other side.

Aug 19, 2016#304

IronBrig4

stienman said:
Making sure that Kim Davis "gets hers" isn't justice, it's vengeance, particularly when it's possible for both sides to get what they need.

No, not vengeance. PUNISHMENT.

Anyways, I'm glad it's over so we don't have to see her ugly mug anymore.

Aug 19, 2016#305

blotsfan

The right to discriminate because of religion doesn't exist.

Aug 19, 2016#306

Bubble181

Philosophically: JS Mill: her freedom ends where their freedom starts. She can't limit their rights and freedom because she wants to.
Politically: separation of Church and State means what she hands them isn't - and can't be - a religious sacrament. It may bear the same name, but a marriage license is NOT a sacrament. Nowhere does her religion say gay couples can't get a legal contract between them.

Aug 19, 2016#307

strawman

blotsfan said:
The right to discriminate because of religion doesn't exist.

We will have to agree to disagree on this issue, because it's obvious you are not interested in opening your mind to the idea that we can have both rights without depriving anyone of either right.

Aug 19, 2016#308

blotsfan

And you're not interested in opening your mind to the idea that all men are created equal.

Aug 19, 2016#309

Bubble181

stienman said:
We will have to agree to disagree on this issue, because it's obvious you are not interested in opening your mind to the idea that we can have both rights without depriving anyone of either right.

Sure, and black people can have the right to be free, while southern gentlemen can have the right to keep slaves. Some interpretations of some rights are flat out wrong.
"My religion says...." isn't a free card for any kind of crap. There are religions out there that say marriage between castes isn't permitted. There are religions that say you need to cut off a woman's genitals. There are religions that say you must kill a man if he violates the purity of your sister. Religious freedom means you can believe what you want, not that you can act the way you want. As has been proven - in the USA - by Rastafarians being arrested and tried for smoking weed where it's illegal, even though that is, really and actually, a sacrament for them.

Aug 19, 2016#310

strawman

Bubble181 said:
Philosophically: JS Mill: her freedom ends where their freedom starts. She can't limit their rights and freedom because she wants to.
Politically: separation of Church and State means what she hands them isn't - and can't be - a religious sacrament. It may bear the same name, but a marriage license is NOT a sacrament. Nowhere does her religion say gay couples can't get a legal contract between them.

Philosophically you subscribe to one variation of humanism. Perhaps you want to restructure society and justice to follow your brand of humanism, but it would take significant effort to do so. Regardless, we aren't very close to it now, so I'm not sure it applies well to this case.

Regarding your interpretation of her religion, it's possible that you don't understand her religion very well. Regardless, she disagrees with you and is exercising her human right of free conscience. Whether the law allows her to exercise that right in this case is what was being argued in the court cases, however the situation has been resolved so both parties can exercise their rights without restricting each other's expression or practice of their rights. Therefore the lawsuits attempt to resolve a moot point.

Aug 19, 2016#311

MindDetective

blotsfan said:
And you're not interested in opening your mind to the idea that all men are created equal.

That's not what this was really about. It was about a centralized authority using her power in a way that was very personal. People are allowed to be bigots. We are not about to start imprisoning people for that.

Aug 19, 2016#312

blotsfan

MindDetective said:
That's not what this was really about. It was about a centralized authority using her power in a way that was very personal. People are allowed to be bigots. We are not about to start imprisoning people for that.

People are allowed to be bigots. People can not act like bigots when they are representing the government.

Aug 19, 2016#313

IronBrig4

Actually, it's good that Kim Davis didn't get more punishment, because then her butthurt fans would have screamed bloody murder and tried to imitate her by engaging in more overt acts of discrimination. Evangelical Christians in the rural US are one of the most prickly, delusional communities who see persecution around every corner. Wish them happy holidays instead of Merry Christmas and they start shrieking that there's a "War on Christmas." If they freaked out so badly last year when Starbucks unveiled a new red cup for the holidays, imagine how they would have reacted if Davis really did get a harsh sentence.

Aug 19, 2016#314

strawman

Bubble181 said:
Sure, and black people can have the right to be free, while southern gentlemen can have the right to keep slaves. Some interpretations of some rights are flat out wrong.
"My religion says...." isn't a free card for any kind of crap. There are religions out there that say marriage between castes isn't permitted. There are religions that say you need to cut off a woman's genitals. There are religions that say you must kill a man if he violates the purity of your sister. Religious freedom means you can believe what you want, not that you can act the way you want. As has been proven - in the USA - by Rastafarians being arrested and tried for smoking weed where it's illegal, even though that is, really and actually, a sacrament for them.

Many of those are great examples where two rights cannot be resolved with both parties allowed to exercise their rights. In those cases we must weight the rights and choose one over the other.

In cases like this where both parties can exercise their rights without conflict, do you suggest that we still remove rights from one party because you disagree with them?

Aug 19, 2016#315

MindDetective

blotsfan said:
People are allowed to be bigots. People can not act like bigots when they are representing the government.

And that was a problem with the government. Otherwise you lock up one person and another comes along to do something similar. I prefer the pragmatic solution to the clearly vengeful one.

Aug 19, 2016#316

Bubble181

stienman said:
do you suggest that we still remove rights from one party because you disagree with them?

Hmm. I don't mind that the law has been changed so that she's no longer confronted with the dilemma - that's clearly better than forcing her to do something against her will or having to give up her job. However, that doesn't mean she didn't actively cause harm to those people whose marriages she refused in the past. I do, honestly, believe those people deserve compensation for having been dragged through all kinds of crap.

Aug 19, 2016#317

strawman

Bubble181 said:
I do, honestly, believe those people deserve compensation for having been dragged through all kinds of crap.

As a public official, though, she is shielded somewhat from such legal action, whether she was carrying out her duty or choosing not to, that is a benefit of holding public office.

But on the flip side as a public official she may not be reelected, or if the law allows, she can be removed from office. That is one of the few ways a public can punish public officials for making decisions the public disagrees with.

For reparations the affected plaintiffs would simply sue the county directly, not its officer. The county would then have to settle or go to court.

So the lawsuits may have been dropped against her directly, but similar suits can be filed against the county.

Forums