Clerk jailed over marriage licenses loses re-election bid

Via:  tessylo  •  2 weeks ago  •  100 comments

 Clerk jailed over marriage licenses loses re-election bid

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



U.S.

Clerk jailed over marriage licenses loses re-election bid



image001-png_162613.png.cf.jpg BRUCE SCHREINER,Associated Press 5 hours ago 




0a49ccc711264937869b0dd7c7d178a7.jpg

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (AP) — The Kentucky clerk who went to jail in 2015 for refusing to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples lost her bid for a second term on Tuesday.

Kim Davis, the Republican incumbent, was defeated by Democrat Elwood Caudill Jr . in the election for clerk of Rowan County in northeastern Kentucky. Caudill won with 4,210 votes, or 54 percent, to 3,566, or 46 percent, for Davis.

"I believe that as a community we must continue to work together toward a more prosperous and cohesive Rowan County," Caudill said after his win, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader.

Davis became a national figure when she stopped issuing marriage licenses days after the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the U.S. Constitution guarantees same-sex couples the right to marry. The ruling overturned same-sex marriage bans nationwide.

Davis cited her religious beliefs, saying she was acting under "God's authority."

She was released from jail when her staff issued licenses in her absence.

Rowan County voters denied Davis another term to a job that pays about $80,000 a year. She was elected to the clerk's job as a Democrat in 2014, but later switched parties because she said the Democratic Party "abandoned her."

She didn't back away from her stand, saying at a fall campaign debate that she didn't treat anyone unfairly, and that she took an oath to uphold the constitution. She said she treated everyone equally because she quit issuing marriage licenses altogether.

At the same debate, Caudill said if elected he would treat everyone equally because he took an oath to uphold the law.

Caudill criticized Davis for hiring her son to work for her. Davis defended the hiring, saying her son is someone she can trust to oversee human resources and handle the office computers.

Kentucky voters in 2004 overwhelmingly approved an amendment to the state Constitution defining marriage as between one man and one woman. But in June 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the 14th amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees same-sex couples have the right to marry. The ruling overturned same-sex marriage bans nationwide.

Days after the ruling, Davis stopped issuing marriage licenses.

She was sued by gay and straight couples, and a federal judge ordered Davis to issue the licenses. She refused and spent five days in jail.

She was released only after her staff issued the licenses on her behalf but removed her name from the form. The state legislature later enacted a law removing the names of all county clerks from state marriage licenses.

A federal judge later ruled Kentucky taxpayers must pay the couples' legal fees of about $225,000.


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
Tessylo
1  seeder  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

Ha ha!  Stupid cow!

 
 
lennylynx
1.1  lennylynx  replied to  Tessylo @1    2 weeks ago

Closet lesbian. jrSmiley_2_smiley_image.png

 
 
Tessylo
1.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  lennylynx @1.1    2 weeks ago

That's an insult to self-respecting lesbians everywhere Lenny my dear!

 
 
MUVA
1.1.2  MUVA  replied to  lennylynx @1.1    2 weeks ago

[deleted]

 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  MUVA @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

Lenny looks like a guy to me. Maybe it's time for you to invest in Lasik?

 
 
Galen Marvin Ross
1.2  Galen Marvin Ross  replied to  Tessylo @1    2 weeks ago
Ha ha!  Stupid cow!

Now, now, Tessy, that's insulting cows.

 
 
cms5
2  cms5    2 weeks ago

I'm surprised she didn't lose her 'job' immediately after being jailed.

 
 
Hal A. Lujah
3  Hal A. Lujah    2 weeks ago

Why would Jesus let this happen?!  No worries, I’m sure Mike Huckabee is setting up a gofundme account for her as we speak.  

 
 
devangelical
3.1  devangelical  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @3    one week ago

with a couple of save me geebus' uttered, she's first in line to be his Kentucky thumper pumpkin fuck on the side.

 
 
Trout Giggles
4  Trout Giggles    2 weeks ago

Doesn't Kentucky have nepotism laws? (hired son to work for her)

Glad she went down in flames. Married 4 times and she's gonna tell us what God says about marriage?

Excuse me:

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Tessylo
4.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @4    2 weeks ago

She's such a skank ho - spreads her legs for anyone.  When married to one she was cheating with a former husband and got knocked up while screwing around.  

Fine family values there.  

 
 
devangelical
4.2  devangelical  replied to  Trout Giggles @4    one week ago

enforcing nepotism laws in the south is almost impossible

 
 
Trout Giggles
4.2.1  Trout Giggles  replied to  devangelical @4.2    one week ago

Tell me about it. I see it all the time where I work

 
 
Paula Bartholomew
5  Paula Bartholomew    2 weeks ago

One more homophobic bitch bites the dust.

 
 
epistte
5.1  epistte  replied to  Paula Bartholomew @5    2 weeks ago
One more homophobic bitch bites the dust.

Now that she has spare time on her hands, maybe she will have another affair.

 
 
Phoenyx13
6  Phoenyx13    2 weeks ago
Davis cited her religious beliefs, saying she was acting under "God's authority."

either she wasn't really acting under "God's authority" or maybe God changed his mind and decided it was ok for same sex marriage to happen after all - because she lost jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
SteevieGee
6.1  SteevieGee  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6    2 weeks ago

Looks like God voted for Elwood.

 
 
JBB
6.2  JBB  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6    2 weeks ago

Ever notice how many losing politicians claim God told them to run?

2012 the entire field of gop candidates claimed God's endorsement...

 
 
TᵢG
6.2.1  TᵢG  replied to  JBB @6.2    2 weeks ago

The Lord works in mysterious ways.

 
 
epistte
6.2.2  epistte  replied to  JBB @6.2    2 weeks ago
2012 the entire field of gop candidates claimed God's endorsement...

Apparently, they were endorsed by the wrong god, or their god has a twisted sense of humor. 

"two men say that they're Jesus, so one of them must be wrong......."

 
 
Phoenyx13
6.2.3  Phoenyx13  replied to  JBB @6.2    one week ago
Ever notice how many losing politicians claim God told them to run?

well if they lost then i guess the reason could be - "Satan interfered ! it's all Satan's fault ! God was thwarted again !jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Tessylo
6.2.4  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.2.3    one week ago

jrSmiley_78_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Trout Giggles
6.2.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.2.3    one week ago
it's all Satan's fault !

I didn't have a goddamned thing to do with it

 
 
Phoenyx13
6.2.6  Phoenyx13  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.5    one week ago
I didn't have a goddamned thing to do with it

i don't believe you - i'm told you lie all the time and for being a creation of God you sure seem crafty enough to keep thwarting his plans and he never seems to be able to defeat you. You've definitely got some power ! now, if you only had free peanut butter cookies and free rainbow cakes - i might consider joining you jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Trout Giggles
6.2.7  Trout Giggles  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.2.6    one week ago

Free peanut butter cookies? That's all it would take?

I make a mean peanut butter cookie. I'll get baking

 
 
sandy-2021492
6.2.8  sandy-2021492  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.7    one week ago

Need my address for delivery?

 
 
Phoenyx13
6.2.9  Phoenyx13  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.7    6 days ago
Free peanut butter cookies? That's all it would take? I make a mean peanut butter cookie. I'll get baking

don't forget the rainbow cake too !

 
 
Trout Giggles
6.2.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.2.8    6 days ago

You have to promise to join the dark side

 
 
Trout Giggles
6.2.11  Trout Giggles  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.2.9    6 days ago

I'm sorry, but I'm really bad at cakes. I really only do cookies.

 
 
sandy-2021492
6.2.12  sandy-2021492  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.10    6 days ago

Again?

 
 
Trout Giggles
6.2.13  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @6.2.12    6 days ago

I lost your membership form

 
 
Phoenyx13
6.2.14  Phoenyx13  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.11    5 days ago
I'm sorry, but I'm really bad at cakes. I really only do cookies.

well they better be excellent cookies - i think a taste test is in order.

 
 
epistte
6.2.15  epistte  replied to  Trout Giggles @6.2.11    5 days ago
I'm sorry, but I'm really bad at cakes. I really only do cookies.

I like to create cakes, except for fussy, tiered wedding cakes. They are an absolute PITA.   You make the cookies and I'll bake 5-6 cakes and we'll all meet somewhere and indulge.

 
 
Tessylo
6.2.16  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Phoenyx13 @6.2.14    5 days ago

I'm sure they're excellent cookies.  I'll give you my shipping address and confirm for you TG.  

 
 
Phoenyx13
6.2.17  Phoenyx13  replied to  Tessylo @6.2.16    4 days ago
I'm sure they're excellent cookies.  I'll give you my shipping address and confirm for you TG

oh no - they are peanut butter cookies - i'm taste testing them myselfjrSmiley_36_smiley_image.gif

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
7  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη    2 weeks ago

I'm glad liberals finally decided halfway through Obama's term to support gay marriage. I've been a supporter my entire adult life. I want to abolish the unnecessary step of asking government to condone our marriages.

Why do we feel it necessary to ask government permission to love another citizen? Always seemed ridiculous to me. Where in the constitution does it say who and who I cannot marry or that I have to get permission from some creep in an office somewhere?

 
 
Tessylo
7.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7    2 weeks ago

We've always supported gay marriage.  Us open minded folk.  We democrats.  We liberals.  We progressives.  

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
7.1.1  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Tessylo @7.1    2 weeks ago

Come on Tessy in all fairness Obama had to evolve on the topic as did many. My point is i always felt like the appropriate approach wasn't to grant rights to marry but take government out of the equation entirely and truly support our freedom of choice.

 
 
arkpdx
7.1.2  arkpdx  replied to  Tessylo @7.1    2 weeks ago
Us open minded folk.  We democrats.  We liberals.  We progressives.  

Open minded as long as the ideas and opinions match yours exactly. Any deviation and you will condemn them outright

 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7.1.1    2 weeks ago

Obama did evolve on the topic. I know lots of people who did. My own spouse did. He wasn't too keen on it at first but I convinced him to change his mind

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
7.1.4  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.3    2 weeks ago

Obama did oppose gay marriage in 2008.

Politifact:

Our ruling

Obama, a consistent supporter of civil rights for gay couples, nevertheless said as early as 2004 and through 2008 that he didn’t support same-sex marriage. He had written that he believed "that American society can choose to carve out a special place for the union of a man and a woman." In 2010, he said he wasn’t prepared to reverse himself. This week, the president said he thinks same-sex couples should be able to get married. On the Flip-O-Meter, he earns a Full Flop.

https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2012/may/11/barack-obama/president-barack-obamas-shift-gay-marriage/

 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7.1.4    2 weeks ago

And I'm glad he flipped on the issue. People are allowed to change their minds

 
 
Tessylo
7.1.6  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.5    2 weeks ago
'And I'm glad he flipped on the issue. People are allowed to change their minds'

Nah, only the gop or republicans are allowed to do that hon!

 
 
Ed-NavDoc
7.1.7  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.2    2 weeks ago

Bingo!

 
 
Tessylo
7.1.8  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.7    2 weeks ago

Incorrect Doc.  

 
 
Ed-NavDoc
7.1.9  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.8    one week ago

Why? Simply because you did not like my answer to somebody else's comment.

 
 
Tessylo
7.1.10  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @7.1.9    one week ago

Your answer was incorrect.  

 
 
Ed-NavDoc
7.1.11  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Tessylo @7.1.10    one week ago

Please be so kind as to tell me why you think my answer was incorrect.

 
 
Phoenyx13
7.1.12  Phoenyx13  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.2    one week ago
Open minded as long as the ideas and opinions match yours exactly. Any deviation and you will condemn them outright

that sounds a lot like the conservative minded (especially the conservative minded religious) who overwhelmingly opposed same sex marriage.

 
 
Gordy327
7.1.13  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.2    one week ago
Open minded as long as the ideas and opinions match yours exactly. Any deviation and you will condemn them outright

How is denying gays the right to marry "open-minded" exactly?

 
 
epistte
7.1.14  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.13    one week ago
How is denying gays the right to marry "open-minded" exactly?

I'd also like to know this answer.

 
 
arkpdx
7.1.15  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.13    one week ago

What has that gotta do with my comment?  Besides that when have I ever claimed to be either open minded or tolerant as the liberals do

 
 
Gordy327
7.1.16  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.15    one week ago
What has that gotta do with my comment? 

You seem to think opinions which deviate from "progressive" ideas like same sex marriage rights (as Tessylo alluded to) is being open minded. It is not.

Besides that when have I ever claimed to be either open minded or tolerant as the liberals do

We know you're not and your posts makes that abundantly clear. That's not exactly something I would be proud of.

 
 
arkpdx
7.1.17  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.16    one week ago

At least I'm honest and consistant with my positions and opinions. I don't claim to be open minded on some issues than attempt to trash and democrats those that deviate from my thoughts. Can you really say the same? 

 
 
Gordy327
7.1.18  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.17    one week ago
At least I'm honest and consistant with my positions and opinions.

I never implied otherwise.

I don't claim to be open minded on some issues than attempt to trash and democrats those that deviate from my thoughts.

You've already said you're close minded and/or intolerant.

Can you really say the same? 

Yes! My positions on certain issues are very clear, and I'd wager much more open-minded than some.

 
 
epistte
7.1.19  epistte  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.17    6 days ago
At least I'm honest and consistant with my positions and opinions. I don't claim to be open minded on some issues than attempt to trash and democrats those that deviate from my thoughts. Can you really say the same? 

How is denying two consenting adults the right to marry being open-minded? In what way does their marrying a partner of the same sex matter to you from a heterosexual marrying someone of the opposite physical gender or sex? 

 
 
arkpdx
7.1.20  arkpdx  replied to  epistte @7.1.19    6 days ago
How is denying two consenting adults the right to marry being open-minded?

I never claimed to be open minded on that topic now did I. 

 
 
Eagle Averro
7.1.21  Eagle Averro  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.20    6 days ago
I never claimed to be open minded on that topic now did I. 

E.A  Question::

 Is that so Open minded NO Brain Needed?

skull-collection-007.jpg

 
 
epistte
7.1.22  epistte  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.20    6 days ago
I never claimed to be open minded on that topic now did I. 

Thank you for that admission.

Since you admit to not being open-minded then next logical question is, how does their marriage affect you in any way?

 
 
Gordy327
7.1.23  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.20    6 days ago
I never claimed to be open minded on that topic now did I.

Well, that speaks volumes about you, doesn't it!

 
 
Gordy327
7.1.24  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @7.1.22    6 days ago
next logical question is, how does their marriage affect you in any way?

The logical answer is, it doesn't. What is illogical are some peoples (close minded) opposition to SSM, especially when they have no good logical reason. I suspect any reason is more emotionally and/or ignorantly based.

 
 
epistte
7.1.25  epistte  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.24    6 days ago
The logical answer is, it doesn't. What is illogical are some peoples (close minded) opposition to SSM, especially when they have no good logical reason. I suspect any reason is more emotionally and/or ignorantly based.

It's based on emotion and fear, in the very same way that racism and xenophobia are. 

 
 
arkpdx
7.1.26  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.23    6 days ago

Yes it does. It shows that I am honest an upfront about my feelings and opinions [deleted]

 
 
Gordy327
7.1.27  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @7.1.26    6 days ago
removed for context

Among other things, regardless of your ad hom attack.

 
 
Gordy327
7.1.28  Gordy327  replied to  epistte @7.1.25    6 days ago
It's based on emotion and fear, in the very same way that racism and xenophobia are

Indeed. 

 
 
sandy-2021492
7.2  sandy-2021492  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7    2 weeks ago
Why do we feel it necessary to ask government permission to love another citizen?

That's a good question for conservatives like Kim Davis.

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
7.2.1  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  sandy-2021492 @7.2    2 weeks ago

I don't want the Kim Davis's of the world or any other bureaucrat to interfere in my life.

 
 
Dulay
7.3  Dulay  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7    2 weeks ago
Where in the constitution does it say who and who I cannot marry or that I have to get permission from some creep in an office somewhere?

That would be the 10th Amendment...

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
7.3.1  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Dulay @7.3    2 weeks ago

Well then my issue is with the states, excellent point.

 
 
Trout Giggles
7.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7    2 weeks ago

When marriage is no longer treated like a contract then we can get government out of it. Until then you're stuck with a contract between you and your spouse. Should we just hire attorneys to draw up contracts for marriage?

 
 
Dulay
7.4.1  Dulay  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.4    2 weeks ago
Should we just hire attorneys to draw up contracts for marriage?

That wouldn't get the government out of marriage. Unless the dissolution of that contract was perfectly amicable, the court, and therefor the government becomes a part of the process.

Hell, most contracts are notarized, BOOM, government involvement.  

 
 
Trout Giggles
7.4.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dulay @7.4.1    2 weeks ago

Of course <slaps forehead>

What was I thinking?

 
 
badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη
7.4.3  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη  replied to  Dulay @7.4.1    2 weeks ago

The issue I have with asking government to issue a license is it opens the door for them to tell us who we can marry.

When it comes to consenting adults, it's just none of their business.

 
 
Dulay
7.4.4  Dulay  replied to  badfish hαηd ⊕ƒ †hε Ωuεεη @7.4.3    2 weeks ago
When it comes to consenting adults, it's just none of their business.

Ironically, the government sets the age of consent...

 
 
epistte
7.4.5  epistte  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.4    2 weeks ago
When marriage is no longer treated like a contract then we can get government out of it. Until then you're stuck with a contract between you and your spouse. Should we just hire attorneys to draw up contracts for marriage?

The cornerstone of law is the government enforcing a contract between two people, so marriage will always be under the purview of the government, especially when there are legal rights and privileges involved in the marriage. 

 
 
Freefaller
8  Freefaller    2 weeks ago

Good, she proved she was unfit to hold that office with the first licence she refused to sign.

 
 
epistte
8.1  epistte  replied to  Freefaller @8    one week ago
Good, she proved she was unfit to hold that office with the first licence she refused to sign.

Is there a Hobby Lobby or Chick-Fil-A in her area that is hiring? Alternatively, she could open a bakery or a flower shop? 

 
 
Freefaller
8.1.1  Freefaller  replied to  epistte @8.1    one week ago

I don't know, I'm not at all familiar with that area. Sorry

 
 
epistte
8.1.2  epistte  replied to  Freefaller @8.1.1    one week ago
I don't know, I'm not at all familiar with that area. Sorry

My reply didn't need an answer because it was both sarcastic and rhetorical. 

 
 
Freefaller
8.1.3  Freefaller  replied to  epistte @8.1.2    one week ago

Lol obviously I know that, but I felt like having a little fun with itjrSmiley_68_smiley_image.png

 
 
JBB
9  JBB    2 weeks ago

What did she expect? A parade? A bouquet of roses? "BYE BYE"...

 
 
Raven Wing
10  Raven Wing    2 weeks ago

I have no problem with anyone practicing their own personal religious beliefs. But, I do have a problem with them doing so on the taxpayers dime, especially, when they may not speak for every taxpayer who pays their salary. 

And her 'it's all about me' attitude when reprimanded over her actions did not serve her well either. 

So now she can practice her religious beliefs to her hearts content as she will now have a lot more time on her hands.

 
 
Nowhere Man
10.1  Nowhere Man  replied to  Raven Wing @10    2 weeks ago

Thank you sweets for the most reasonable comment here.

Yes she is absolutely entitled to her beliefs, her beliefs were not a reason for her to not do her elected job....

There is no place for religion in the running of government.

 
 
Raven Wing
10.1.1  Raven Wing  replied to  Nowhere Man @10.1    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Trout Giggles
10.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Raven Wing @10    2 weeks ago

Now she has time to go find husband number 5. Or is it 6?

 
 
PJ
10.2.1  PJ  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.2    2 weeks ago

It depends on whether the previous husband is free to marry again.  She seems to want to go back and repeat her mistakes time and time again.  She's like the sequential example of ground hog day of marriages.  You know what they say about repeating the same thing over and over and expecting different results......

 
 
Trout Giggles
10.2.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  PJ @10.2.1    2 weeks ago

LOL!

On a more serious note, it is my personal opinion that anyone who fails at marriage twice should take a good long look in the mirror and ask themselves "What's wrong with me?"

 
 
Tessylo
10.2.3  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Trout Giggles @10.2    2 weeks ago

She was screwing around on number whoever with a prior husband and then remarried number whoever.  She spreads her legs for every Tom, Dick, and Harry in the county.  

 
 
sandy-2021492
10.2.4  sandy-2021492  replied to  Tessylo @10.2.3    2 weeks ago

queertykimdavisflowchart-517x670.jpg

 
 
Trout Giggles
10.2.5  Trout Giggles  replied to  sandy-2021492 @10.2.4    6 days ago

That's one complicated flow chart.

 
 
Tessylo
11  seeder  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

She basically couldn't be fired either and was getting paid for not doing her job.  No more job you dumb bitch!  Buh-bye Felicia 

 
 
Phoenyx13
11.1  Phoenyx13  replied to  Tessylo @11    one week ago
She basically couldn't be fired either and was getting paid for not doing her job

oddly enough - she was still supported by many of the conservative minded who didn't care that she was just living off the government's dime while not doing her job..... i thought they were all about personal responsibility, not living off the government's dime and doing your job ?

 
 
Tessylo
11.1.1  seeder  Tessylo  replied to  Phoenyx13 @11.1    one week ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Trout Giggles
11.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  Phoenyx13 @11.1    one week ago

That's a good point. I never would have thought of that

 
 
TᵢG
12  TᵢG    2 weeks ago

Given she is a hypocritical bigot I think Kentucky could do better.

 
 
Gordy327
12.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @12    one week ago
Given she is a hypocritical bigot I think Kentucky could do better.

Given that it's Kentucky, I'm not so sure. But Davis losing her post in an election does seem to be an improvement.

 
 
TᵢG
12.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @12.1    one week ago

Yes, Ken Ham country.   But then again I cannot dismiss the fact that our own Dowser (geological scientist) lives there.   Brains do exist in the state.

 
 
Gordy327
12.1.2  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.1    one week ago

Unfortunately, that is the exception rather than the rule.

 
 
Dulay
12.1.3  Dulay  replied to  TᵢG @12.1.1    one week ago
Brains do exist in the state.

Yep. I have a buddy near Bowling Green who set up a self sufficient homestead. Very innovative and creative. 

 
 
Eagle Averro
13  Eagle Averro    one week ago

                               90% Sarcasm 10% Idiocy?

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online

ArkansasHermit-too
Galen Marvin Ross
arkpdx
TTGA


58 visitors