State attorney general won’t defend gay marriage ban

[AGENT J]

1.)more unless information.
2.)i state clearly in my post ......the woman could lose her job
3.) and i stated firstly, that i thought she should lose her job....and stated that ...........it was opinion only!

1.) just facts that prove you wrong again and showing you are posting lies and making stuff up of course you call them useless though
2.) good thing thats not what we were discussing, everybody COULD lose thier job, meanignless
3.) no you did not

here is your first post

woman should be removed from her office, for her failure to enforce law.
as officials of a government you are given duties to uphold, if you refuse to do your duty you can be removed.
although his woman feels its wrong to enforce such a law, and i can understand that, she can removed it would to be the decision of the people above her.
her feelings do not keep her immune from losing her job.
when you take a stance on something, you better be prepared, for what may happen.

no where in there did you say that was opinion, then when i told you the bolded is false and the law doesnt support you, you told me i was wrong and thats only my personal opinion and theres nothign about law that supports you being false.

if you would now like to clarify and admit you misspoke, didnt speak clearly and or you only have the OPINION she didnt do her job and should be removed, that is fine.

I will simply tell you that you are entitled to your opinion but on this specific subject matter facts and law disagree with you, facts defeat you again.

 

[Master PO]

1.) just facts that prove you wrong again and showing you are posting lies and making stuff up of course you call them useless though
2.) good thing thats not what we were discussing, everybody COULD lose thier job, meanignless
3.) no you did not

here is your first post


no where in there did you say that was opinion, then when i told you the bolded is false and the law doesnt support you, you told me i was wrong and thats only my personal opinion and theres nothign about law that supports you being false.

if you would now like to clarify and admit you misspoke, didnt speak clearly and or you only have the OPINION she didnt do her job and should be removed, that is fine.

I will simply tell you that you are entitled to your opinion but on this specific subject matter facts and law disagree with you, facts defeat you again.

Really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
POST 40

woman should be removed from her office, for her failure to enforce law.

as officials of a government you are given duties to uphold, if you refuse to do your duty you can be removed.

although his woman feels its wrong to enforce such a law, and i can understand that, she can removed it would to be the decision of the people above her.

her feelings do not keep her immune from losing her job.

when you take a stance on something, you better be prepared, for what may happen.

POST42

1) this is a personal opinion.......nothing about law here.
2)wrong .....if you dont do your job...you CAN be removed from it..it going to depend on her boss, of if the people petition to have her removed
3)its simply means again, i understand her feelings, not wanting to do this, however her feelings to not keep her from losing her job, if the people above her choose to let her go.
4) again if the people above her, or the people in general want her gone becuase of her actions...she will not hold her position.
5)well she better know the climate for making this decision, becuase if she is crying about its later, she is the only one to blame.

WOMAN SHOULD ...............MEAN LOSE HER JOB,...... DOES NOT MEAN WILL


I CLEARLY POSTED "THIS IS A PERSONAL OPINION.


I HOPE YOU START WEARING GLASSES

 

[AGENT J]

really!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
POST 40


POST42



WOMAN SHOULD ...............MEAN LOSE HER JOB, DOES NOT NOT MEAN WILL


I CLEARLY POSTED "THIS IS A PERSONAL OPINION.


I HOPE YOU START WEARING GLASSES

yes really :shrug:
thank you for reposting the proof i already posted, some how you think its different lol
yes you said SHOULD and didnt mention it was just you opinion, thanks for provign that fact again
"would" doesnt mean opinion, your spin and dishonest fails again

if somebody commits murder and somebody says they should go to jail does that mean its just an opinion? lol nice try

and yes in post 42 you told me it was just my personal opinion, and thers nothign about law ther, you were wrong. facts defeat you again. I loved that you doubled down on your factually proven wrong statmenst and are trying to spin them now.

I repeat
if you would now like to clarify and admit you misspoke, didnt speak clearly and or you only have the OPINION she didnt do her job and should be removed, that is fine.

I will simply tell you that you are entitled to your opinion but on this specific subject matter facts and law disagree with you, facts defeat you again.

nothign has changed as you wrote that statement it was factually wrong :shrug:
next

 

[Master PO]

yes really :shrug:
thank you for reposting the proof i already posted, some how you think its different lol
yes you said SHOULD and didnt mention it was just you opinion, thanks for provign that fact again
"would" doesnt mean opinion, your spin and dishonest fails again

if somebody commits murder and somebody says they should go to jail does that mean its just an opinion? lol nice try

and yes in post 42 you told me it was just my personal opinion, and thers nothign about law ther, you were wrong. facts defeat you again. I loved that you doubled down on your factually proven wrong statmenst and are trying to spin them now.

I repeat
if you would now like to clarify and admit you misspoke, didnt speak clearly and or you only have the OPINION she didnt do her job and should be removed, that is fine.

I will simply tell you that you are entitled to your opinion but on this specific subject matter facts and law disagree with you, facts defeat you again.

nothign has changed as you wrote that statement it was factually wrong :shrug:
next

YOU STATED I NEVER SAID PERSONAL OPINION, AND I SHOWED YOU CLEARLY I DID,....NOW BACKTRACK FOR ME!




Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post
1.) just facts that prove you wrong again and showing you are posting lies and making stuff up of course you call them useless though
2.) good thing thats not what we were discussing, everybody COULD lose thier job, meanignless
3.) no you did not

here is your first post

no where in there did you say that was opinion, then when i told you the bolded is false and the law doesnt support you, you told me i was wrong and thats only my personal opinion and theres nothign about law that supports you being false.

if you would now like to clarify and admit you misspoke, didnt speak clearly and or you only have the OPINION she didnt do her job and should be removed, that is fine.

I will simply tell you that you are entitled to your opinion but on this specific subject matter facts and law disagree with you, facts defeat you again.

 

[AGENT J]

1.)YOU STATED I NEVER SAID PERSONAL OPINION, AND I SHOWED YOU CLEARLY I DID,....NOW BACKTRACK FOR ME!

1.) when i said you never mentions opinion it was about your original post, 42, which you factual did not mention opinion, thanks, facts prove you wrong again
when you did mention opnion you called MY response my personal opinion, lol nice try, its halarious watchign you make stuff up


if you would now like to clarify and admit you misspoke, didnt speak clearly and or you only have the OPINION she didnt do her job and should be removed, that is fine.

I will simply tell you that you are entitled to your opinion but on this specific subject matter facts and law disagree with you, facts defeat you again, they seem to be your kyrponite.

 

[Master PO]

1.) when i said you never mentions opinion it was about your original post, 42, which you factual did not mention opinion, thanks, facts prove you wrong again
when you did mention opnion you called my response my personal opinion, lol nice try, its halarious watchign you make stuff up


if you would now like to clarify and admit you misspoke, didnt speak clearly and or you only have the opinion she didnt do her job and should be removed, that is fine.

I will simply tell you that you are entitled to your opinion but on this specific subject matter facts and law disagree with you, facts defeat you again, they seem to be your kyrponite.

backtrack...come on you can do it...keep going!

Originally Posted by AGENT J View Post...........no where in there did you say that was opinion,

Quote Originally Posted by ernst barkmann View Post
1) this is a personal opinion.......nothing about law here.
2)wrong .....if you dont do your job...you CAN be removed from it..it going to depend on her boss, of if the people petition to have her removed
3)its simply means again, i understand her feelings, not wanting to do this, however her feelings to not keep her from losing her job, if the people above her choose to let her go.
4) again if the people above her, or the people in general want her gone becuase of her actions...she will not hold her position.
5)well she better know the climate for making this decision, becuase if she is crying about its later, she is the only one to blame.

 

[AGENT J]

backtrack...come on you can do it...keep going!

there is factually no back track at all, you posting lies wont change that i stand by everything i said
you never said in your original post it was just opinion, thats a lie that nobody falls for because your original post which was proven to be 100% wrong is stil here for everybody to read.
Its funny watching how emotional you get when you are proved wrong.

if you would now like to clarify and admit you misspoke, didnt speak clearly and or you only have the OPINION she didnt do her job and should be removed, that is fine.

I will simply tell you that you are entitled to your opinion but on this specific subject matter facts and law disagree with you, facts defeat you again, they seem to be your kryptonite.

 

[iacardsfan]

IT's not a difficult concept. No straight couple would get denied a marriage license, so why should a gay couple? You don't have to agree with it, but why does it affect you? Not ery difficult, if this country was based off the Bible then maybe I could see it, but it isn't. Equality needs to be unconditional.

 

[Master PO]

there is factually no back track at all, you posting lies wont change that i stand by everything i said
you never said in your original post it was just opinion, thats a lie that nobody falls for because your original post which was proven to be 100% wrong is stil here for everybody to read.
Its funny watching how emotional you get when you are proved wrong.

if you would now like to clarify and admit you misspoke, didnt speak clearly and or you only have the OPINION she didnt do her job and should be removed, that is fine.

I will simply tell you that you are entitled to your opinion but on this specific subject matter facts and law disagree with you, facts defeat you again, they seem to be your kryptonite.

in this whole thread I have made 2 points only..2 points

1 that this woman should be fired

2 that this woman can be fired

my first post #40

woman should be removed from her office, for her failure to enforce law.

as officials of a government you are given duties to uphold, if you refuse to do your duty you can be removed.

although his woman feels its wrong to enforce such a law, and i can understand that, she can removed it would to be the decision of the people above her.

her feelings do not keep her immune from losing her job.

when you take a stance on something, you better be prepared, for what may happen.

AGENT J reply to my post /#40, weith his post 41

1.) sorry this is false and the law doesnt support you
2.) this is true, good think she has upheld her duties
3.) dont know what this says
4.) no they do not but that has no impact here
5.) im sure she is prepared.

my next post #42 responding to his post #41



1) this is a personal opinion.......nothing about law here.
2)wrong .....if you dont do your job...you CAN be removed from it..it going to depend on her boss, of if the people petition to have her removed
3)its simply means again, i understand her feelings, not wanting to do this, however her feelings to not keep her from losing her job, if the people above her choose to let her go.
4) again if the people above her, or the people in general want her gone becuase of her actions...she will not hold her position.
5)well she better know the climate for making this decision, becuase if she is crying about its later, she is the only one to blame.


I CLEARLY STATE THAT THE WOMAN SHOULD BE REMOVED IS A PERSONAL OPINION OF MIND

AND I ALSO STATE THAT THE WOMAN CAN BE REMOVED BY PEOPLE ABOVE HER.

POST BY AGENT J#43... WHICH IS USELESS INFORMATION, AND WHERE HE STATES THAT I STATED NO OPINION OF MINE

1.) just facts that prove you wrong again and showing you are posting lies and making stuff up of course you call them useless though
2.) good thing thats not what we were discussing, everybody COULD lose thier job, meanignless
3.) no you did not

here is your first post


no where in there did you say that was opinion, then when i told you the bolded is false and the law doesnt support you, you told me i was wrong and thats only my personal opinion and theres nothign about law that supports you being false.

if you would now like to clarify and admit you misspoke, didnt speak clearly and or you only have the OPINION she didnt do her job and should be removed, that is fine.

I will simply tell you that you are entitled to your opinion but on this specific subject matter facts and law disagree with you, facts defeat you again.

AGAIN IN POST #42 I CLEARLY STATED THAT THE WOMAN SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE WAS MY OPINION.

AGENT J, HAS MADE A MISTAKE, AND WILL NOT ADMIT HIS ERROR INSTEAD HE CONTINUES TO THROW OUT MORE FALSE INFO, TO CONFUSE.

 

[Oftencold]

State attorney general won't defend gay marriage ban | TribLIVE



I very much respect this woman for standing up for her principles. I believe she should leave her job because it is her job to defend the state's laws. However, great to see her standing up for what she believes is right. Tough call on her part.

I believe she should be sent to prison.

I swear, I no longer believe that most people in America are averse to living in a dictatorship, so long as the dictatorship in question severely punishes their personal enemies, promises free stuff that no rational mind would think that they can deliver, and sanctifies their favorite form of sexual deviation.

 

[Gaius46]

in this whole thread I have made 2 points only..2 points

1 that this woman should be fired

2 that this woman can be fired

my first post #40



AGENT J reply to my post /#40, weith his post 41



my next post #42 responding to his post #41



1) this is a personal opinion.......nothing about law here.
2)wrong .....if you dont do your job...you CAN be removed from it..it going to depend on her boss, of if the people petition to have her removed
3)its simply means again, i understand her feelings, not wanting to do this, however her feelings to not keep her from losing her job, if the people above her choose to let her go.
4) again if the people above her, or the people in general want her gone becuase of her actions...she will not hold her position.
5)well she better know the climate for making this decision, becuase if she is crying about its later, she is the only one to blame.


I CLEARLY STATE THAT THE WOMAN SHOULD BE REMOVED IS A PERSONAL OPINION OF MIND

AND I ALSO STATE THAT THE WOMAN CAN BE REMOVED BY PEOPLE ABOVE HER.

POST BY AGENT J#43... WHICH IS USELESS INFORMATION, AND WHERE HE STATES THAT I STATED NO OPINION OF MINE





AGAIN IN POST #42 I CLEARLY STATED THAT THE WOMAN SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE WAS MY OPINION.

AGENT J, HAS MADE A MISTAKE, AND WILL NOT ADMIT HIS ERROR INSTEAD HE CONTINUES TO THROW OUT MORE FALSE INFO, TO CONFUSE.

Assuming she's an appointee and not elected she serves at the whim of her boss, presumably the governor and he could certainly fire her. That much should be obvious.

However, there's no reason to fire her. She has acted in accordance with law, the requirements of her oath of office and the dictates of conscious. I'd say that make her a rather good civil servant.

 

[Master PO]

Assuming she's an appointee and not elected she serves at the whim of her boss, presumably the governor and he could certainly fire her. That much should be obvious. You're stating the obvious.

However, there's no reason to fire her. She has acted in accordance with law, the requirements of her oath of office and the dictates of conscious. I'd say that make her a rather good civil servant.

I in no way disagree with you.

I stated two points...she should be fired.............which is my personal opinion.

I stated she can be fired, because she works at the behest of the governor, and he can fire her if he chooses, if he feels she is not exercising her duties properly, or if the people themselves petition the governor to fire her.

these have been my only points I have made.

 

[Gaius46]

I believe she should be sent to prison.

I swear, I no longer believe that most people in America are averse to living in a dictatorship, so long as the dictatorship in question severely punishes their personal enemies, promises free stuff that no rational mind would think that they can deliver, and sanctifies their favorite form of sexual deviation.

Considering no laws have been broken and intact it seems the woman's conscientiously discharged her responsibility it sounds very much like you're advocating for dictatorship.

Oh and by leaving defenses of the statute to someone who actually believes in it she's probably done those who believe as you a favor.

 

[AGENT J]

in this whole thread I have made 2 points only..2 points

1 that this woman should be fired

2 that this woman can be fired

my first post #40


AGENT J reply to my post /#40, weith his post 41



my next post #42 responding to his post #41



1) this is a personal opinion.......nothing about law here.
2)wrong .....if you dont do your job...you CAN be removed from it..it going to depend on her boss, of if the people petition to have her removed
3)its simply means again, i understand her feelings, not wanting to do this, however her feelings to not keep her from losing her job, if the people above her choose to let her go.
4) again if the people above her, or the people in general want her gone becuase of her actions...she will not hold her position.
5)well she better know the climate for making this decision, becuase if she is crying about its later, she is the only one to blame.


I CLEARLY STATE THAT THE WOMAN SHOULD BE REMOVED IS A PERSONAL OPINION OF MIND

AND I ALSO STATE THAT THE WOMAN CAN BE REMOVED BY PEOPLE ABOVE HER.

POST BY AGENT J#43... WHICH IS USELESS INFORMATION, AND WHERE HE STATES THAT I STATED NO OPINION OF MINE





AGAIN IN POST #42 I CLEARLY STATED THAT THE WOMAN SHOULD BE REMOVED FROM OFFICE WAS MY OPINION.

AGENT J, HAS MADE A MISTAKE, AND WILL NOT ADMIT HIS ERROR INSTEAD HE CONTINUES TO THROW OUT MORE FALSE INFO, TO CONFUSE.

wow, a nice long post and you changed nothign
yes you claimed she should be fired for failure to do her job in post 40 and said NOTHING about your opinion
i explained to you thats wrong and the laws disagrees with you

this fact has not changed and never will

after that you called what I SAID personal opinion, nice try but you were wrong twice

then when i said now where in THERE that meant post 40

then the ranting about she COULD be fired was you deflecting that nobody ever discussed

posting lies wont change these facts, the only one that made a mistake was you and the thread proves it, you can tell us what you meant to say and you can tell us what you really meant in your head but what you actually wrote and what i called wrong in post 40 is still 100% factually wrong

whaa whaaa whaaa whaaaaaaaaa
facts prove you wrong again and you lose again :laughat:
please let us know when these facts change and or when you would like to admit you misspoke and or were wrong :shrug:

 

[AGENT J]

I in no way disagree with you.

I stated two points...she should be fired.............which is my personal opinion.

I stated she can be fired, because she works at the behest of the governor, and he can fire her if he chooses, if he feels she is not exercising her duties properly, or if the people themselves petition the governor to fire her.

these have been my only points I have made.

thanks for the back pedal and clearing that up, im glad you admit thats all it is and in post 40 you should have said that, you factually 100% did not
and for the record your opinion is wrong because the law and facts disagree

 

[Oftencold]

Considering no laws have been broken and intact it seems the woman's conscientiously discharged her responsibility it sounds very much like you're advocating for dictatorship.

Oh and by leaving defenses of the statute to someone who actually believes in it she's probably done those who believe as you a favor.

Here's the Oath she took:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support,
obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge
the duties of my office with fidelity."

Note that nowhere does the phrase "if I feel like it," or even "if I agree with them" appear. And it certainly isn't her place tio decide upon the constitutionality of legally enacted law.


She's derelict in hr official duties and in my vastly superior opinion, should be prosecuted. I there is no law under which she can be prosecuted then that is a severe defect in the Pennsylvania State Law.

 

[Deuce]

Here's the Oath she took:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support,
obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge
the duties of my office with fidelity."

Note that nowhere does the phrase "if I feel like it," or even "if I agree with them" appear. And it certainly isn't her place tio decide upon the constitutionality of legally enacted law.


She's derelict in hr official duties and in my vastly superior opinion, should be prosecuted. I there is no law under which she can be prosecuted then that is a severe defect in the Pennsylvania State Law.

She is defending the constitution by not defending an unconstitutional law.

If she were refusing to defend a state-wide blanket ban on all firearms, would you still be whining about her being derelict in her duties?

 

[Gaius46]

Here's the Oath she took:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support,
obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge
the duties of my office with fidelity."

Note that nowhere does the phrase "if I feel like it," or even "if I agree with them" appear. And it certainly isn't her place tio decide upon the constitutionality of legally enacted law.


She's derelict in hr official duties and in my vastly superior opinion, should be prosecuted. I there is no law under which she can be prosecuted then that is a severe defect in the Pennsylvania State Law.

Not defending a law she feels is unconstitutional IS defending the Constitution of the United States. What do you think that phrase means?

 

[AGENT J]

Here's the Oath she took:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support,
obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the
Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge
the duties of my office with fidelity."

Note that nowhere does the phrase "if I feel like it," or even "if I agree with them" appear. And it certainly isn't her place tio decide upon the constitutionality of legally enacted law.


She's derelict in hr official duties and in my vastly superior opinion, should be prosecuted. I there is no law under which she can be prosecuted then that is a severe defect in the Pennsylvania State Law.

her oath proves you wrong, this is way it has been posted many times, she violated no oaths or laws your opinion is factually wrong

the oath and the law support her

 

[AGENT J]

one more time for people that missed it

the law says

attorney general may allow lawyers for the governor's office or executive-branch agencies to defend a lawsuit if it is more efficient or in the state's best interests.

the oath says:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of this Commonwealth and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity."

she says:

"I cannot ethically defend the constitutionality of Pennsylvania's version of DOMA, (law banning same-sex marriage), where I believe it to be wholly unconstitutional," Kathleen Kane told reporters at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia on Thursday

you can disagree with her position all day long but she broke no laws nor did she violate her oath.

 

[Cardinal]

Sweet Jebus, the attorney general is acting completely within the boundaries of her duties. What in holy tap dancing god is continuing to fuel this thread?

 

[AGENT J]

Sweet Jebus, the attorney general is acting completely within the boundaries of her duties. What in holy tap dancing god is continuing to fuel this thread?

comprehension skills?
dishonesty?
bigotry?
lack of education on the specific topic?
drugs?
hate?
anger?

 

[Paschendale]

What defense exactly is she supposed to put on? Gays are icky so it's okay to discriminate against them? God doesn't like it when people have sex unless they want babies? I'm not hearing any actual legal theories one could use to defend an SSM ban.

 

[wbcoleman]

Sweet Jebus, the attorney general is acting completely within the boundaries of her duties. What in holy tap dancing god is continuing to fuel this thread?

And no one else is supposed to have standing to defend the law, right?

 

[Cardinal]

And no one else is supposed to have standing to defend the law, right?

What are you talking about?