Name:   architect - Subject:   Kim Davis Date:   9/7/2015 4:12:57 PM (updated 9/7/2015 5:13:51 PM)

1/   "Fighting this issue in court" is not the same thing as refusing to issue permits as ordered by the courts.  If they are refusing to do so without getting a court to say they can do so pending hearing of their appeal then that is not acceptable.  It was told by a Baltimore resident that DC was reluctantly issuing permits.

2/   Kim Davis was granted a stay of the original ruling during which she did not have to issue lic pending disposition of her appeal.. The appeal went against her and she continued to refuse.  She appealed to the Supremes and they refused to hear it...cased closed. The CO pot law is under appeal to the federal courts.  The feds have "selectively" decided not to expend resources on demanding that CO obey federal law instaed of state law until a Fed court issues a definitive ruling...a damn wise decision IMHO! As a conservative and state's rights supporter shouldn't you feel the same?

3/   I agree, they were breaking election law.  The question is was it worthy of spending money to charge them since there is no substantive proof that they caused anyone not to vote.  Now if you say yes throw them in the klink, then will you accompany me to the Cross Keys High School precinct next November and assist in my citizens arrest of that poll worker who at least as of 6 or 8 years ago continued to break election law by parking her partisan bumper stickers directly beside the door to the polls?  See what I mean by selective inforcement making some degree of sense?

4/   Newsome knew that the law was under appeal and chose to it ignore pending a decision. (If I recall correctly his actions were themselves challanged in court but the court refused to intervene).  Kim Davis did the same thing but when the appeal went against her she still refused to abide by the law.  Frankly, if the final prop 8 ruling had gone the other way in CA l seriously doubt the mayor would have exercised the same defiance Ms Davis did, but if he did he too should have been held in contemp.

5/   So now we are going to hold Hillary responsible for the financial indescretions of a consultant?  Who with any authority to do so has already decreed Hillary set up an "illegal" server...isn't that what is trying to decided?  I know you, Breitbart and Ted Cruz have so decreed, but, thankfully for America, niether of you will make the final decision!

6/   Several ststes have claimed that laws are being broken...again can we simply wait until the courts decide before we pass sentences.

Yes, I know that Reagan was "exonerated" by a commission, but if you believe he had no knowledge of what was going on then I hope you will admit he was not as on top of what was going on as a great a leader, which I'm sure consider him to have been, should be.  He was also came very close to being named an "unindicted co-conspirator" by the federal prosecutors but in the final charges he was not so named.  My gripe is that at the time our national policy was not to negotiate with terrorists for hostages or any other reason and it was against federal statute to give support to the Contras...The RR administration did both!  Perhaps nothing done by the president  was determined to be illegal, but he was sure sailing close to the wind...in fact a lot closer than Obama ever has.  At least Obama has an explanation that makes some legal sense whether or not the right wing agrees.  There were not any serious legal explanation even attempted regarding Iran / Contra.

Many people think Armitage outed Plame.  Many people think he did so by being careless.  More people think Dick Cheney also outed her.  More people think he did it out of malice to get back at her husband who offered evidence that was in fact true but not what Cheney wanted the world to see.

Here is the ultimate difference between you and me...you are convinced you have all the answers and are ready to act...I am willing to admit I do not have nearly all the answers and am willing to wait!