# That Rainbow Whitehouse Light Display Took How Many Days To Set Up?



## Silhouette (Jun 29, 2015)

Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.

The trouble is, the equivalent would have been if the cult of LGBT lost 5-4 and instead of a rainbow, we had a huge Christian cross projected on the Whitehouse instead.  Think the LGBT folks would have had nothing to say about that?...  

But what's more disturbing about that perfect and large light display is the timing.  I doubt it was set up in three days.  But maybe it was.  Anyone see it being set up before that?  Do we have a Whitehouse log of when those workers appeared, when they set it up?  I'm interested in the dates..

Because if it was being set up before Friday, that means the outcome of the case was known or likely to have been known by the people involved.  One would assume that would include President Obama.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 29, 2015)

Something FISHEY about all that. I mean, how did they get that done in such a short time for one. And how much MONIES did that cost us for two. And all over some ruling by the Supreme court. he is offensive, arrogant, DISGUSTING  and told half the nation to go FXXK themselves...

the mans a puke


----------



## BullKurtz (Jun 29, 2015)

I thought that pic was a photoshop...figures though....The occupants are a fruitcake (Barry) married to a man (Michelle).  I'm surprised they haven't bathed the WH in black light yet or a strobe for all the dope being smoked in there.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 29, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.
> 
> The trouble is, the equivalent would have been if the cult of LGBT lost 5-4 and instead of a rainbow, we had a huge Christian cross projected on the Whitehouse instead.  Think the LGBT folks would have had nothing to say about that?...
> 
> ...



How the Hell do you figure the opposite of a rainbow is a cross?   

You must not have experience setting up staging.  That effect can _easily _be set up in a day.
It's a cool effect, sure beats white.  They should keep it permanently.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 30, 2015)

Pogo said:


> *How the Hell do you figure the opposite of a rainbow is a cross*?
> 
> You must not have experience setting up staging.  That effect can _easily _be set up in a day.
> It's a cool effect, sure beats white.  They should keep it permanently.


 
Because the majority of people opposed to gay marriage are Christians or Christian sympathetic. 

The Whitehouse logs will tell us when the people setting up the display arrived and set it up.  I know someone will find that out in the near future.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

Pogo said:


> How the Hell do you figure the opposite of a rainbow is a cross?


Because it's about acceptance or rejection of a specific behavior.


----------



## Nutz (Jun 30, 2015)

No true Christian will cheapen the cross by comparing it to a gay flag.  Holy fuck, God is going to smite you idiots.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2015)

Another thread about GOP butthurt.  Great


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

candycorn said:


> Another thread about GOP butthurt.  Great


No, it's about Americans being insulted.


----------



## mack20 (Jun 30, 2015)

It's a matter of changing the colored filters on previously existing lights. This isn't that fucking difficult to figure out.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 30, 2015)

mack20 said:


> It's a matter of changing the colored filters on previously existing lights. This isn't that fucking difficult to figure out.



well, we are so glad for your Vulgar lesson. DO You feel better now? good frikken grief.
so you are the expert of all things on the white house lighting I guess. when did you work for them? can you tell us how many light bulbs does it take? and how many times do they have to change them?


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 30, 2015)

I can't believe I'm going to the trouble to explain this, but I'm bored so here goes. Lighting at the white house has been in place for years. The lights are designed with easily changed filters to shine a wide range of colors. Similar to lights on a stage. It probably tool 30 minutes for maintenance workers to get the filters out of storage and install them. You're not really that dumb are you?


----------



## mack20 (Jun 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> mack20 said:
> 
> 
> > It's a matter of changing the colored filters on previously existing lights. This isn't that fucking difficult to figure out.
> ...



Oh no, I've offended poor Stephie by saying "fuck".

It doesn't take a fucking genius to figure out that the White House is lit from the front all the time, and that it sometimes is lit in colors.  Which means colored filters. Unless you think that they install brand new lights every time the building is lit differently?

Who am I kidding, you're 100% dumb enough to think that.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 30, 2015)

mack20 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > mack20 said:
> ...



sit down, if you haven't worked for the white house. Your opinion is fucking garbage just like you are


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 30, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Another thread about GOP butthurt.  Great
> ...




Not all Americans. Just the crazy right wing homophobes who can't take no for an answer. No, you can't continue denying them their rights. No, you can't use your religion to set federal law. No, you can't deny baking a cake if you are in business of baking cakes.


----------



## mack20 (Jun 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> mack20 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Oooohhh, I got Stephie to say "fuck" too!  I'm on a roll here.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Another thread about GOP butthurt.  Great
> ...


 
I'm an American.  I wasn't insulted. 
If you can be offended by a light show, perhaps you're too sensitive.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 30, 2015)

mack20 said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > mack20 said:
> ...




Not a big deal. She says it all the time. Unfortunately for her, word around the trailer park is she hasn't been able to get anybody to do it with her for years. And she's tried hard.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 30, 2015)

I wasn't offended, matter of fact, I was kind of heartened that the White House would take time to acknowledge such a large statement.

And you know................the White House looks good in rainbow colors.


----------



## rcfieldz (Jun 30, 2015)

Impeach Obama Now !


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 30, 2015)

rcfieldz said:


> Impeach Obama Now !




Oh shut up.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 30, 2015)

Well the clowns and the nasty people are here. so another thread is dead


----------



## Goddess_Ashtara (Jun 30, 2015)

It's simple mathematics.  The lights would not take long to set up at all.
​


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 30, 2015)

Yanno................I've spent over 20 years in the United States Navy, and I've seen not only buildings (although it seems to be those in Europe that light them from the ground up), but I've also seen ships that were able to change their lights in something around 6 hours.

I approve of Obama doing what he did, and I also think that those who scream that it cost a whole bunch of money are wrong.

If the U.S. Navy could do it, and Europeans could do it, why can't the White House?


----------



## NoNukes (Jun 30, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Another thread about GOP butthurt.  Great
> ...


Speak for yourself, good people are not insulted by this.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 30, 2015)

Yanno.....................I'm a 20 year U.S. Navy veteran and I was not insulted by the light display on the White House.

Matter of fact, I was proud that finally those who were my friends and served with distinction were finally recognized and allowed the same benefits as those who had hetero unions.

Good to see that the SCOTUS can still call for a good cause.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 30, 2015)

fine simple. and him doing it to our country was just fine too and simple mathematics .

lets end the conversation. and focus about lights. If not you'll be called stupid

so you all have at it


----------



## EverCurious (Jun 30, 2015)

Gotta agree with peeps on the time it took, those flood lights are already in place, color filters are easy.






Compare the "hot spots" (where the light hits the building) and I'm pretty sure they are just color filters on the existing floods.

Amazon.com Rosco Color Effects Filter Kit 12 x 12 Sheets Camera Photo or Amazon.com Rosco Color Effects Filter Kit 12 x 12 Sheets Camera Photo

So that $20-50 filter cost to tax payers, the electricity is a moot point cause they're on anyway, so that leaves the max few hours of pay for the what 3 people max to change the filters figure $300-$500 wages (and we get some taxes back from that income.)  And that's presuming some LGBT support group didn't pay for it.


Even if it isn't using the existing floods, you can set something like that up in a couple hours; event planners and concert stages do it all the time.


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 30, 2015)

no not offensive 

more then likely the lights had been set up to be used 

in the event of a loss at the SC


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 30, 2015)

maybe we can ask that Dear leader of ours to please light up our white house with this; it's so simple. all in favor. call, write. email


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Well the clowns and the nasty people are here. so another thread is dead




those avatars are one of the biggest leftist projections i have seen on this site 

--LOL


----------



## Pogo (Jun 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> mack20 said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Wow, really? _ Really? _ Lighting works the same everywhere, eeeeeven the White House.  It's not something The O'bama controls by telepathy through his magic teleprompter --- you just pull the clear gel out and drop the blue gel in.  Takes literally minutes.  Been done that way since electricity got here.

In other words the answer to the OP's question is maybe *0.2*, max.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> maybe we can ask that Dear leader of ours to please light up our white house with this; it's so simple. all in favor. call, write. email




NOW yer talkin' big bucks.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 30, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Well the clowns and the nasty people are here. so another thread is dead
> ...



And then they wonder why people call them sheep. that's Herd mentality.
beats me


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...




exactly a shining example of the sheeple 

--LOL


----------



## ninja007 (Jun 30, 2015)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yanno.....................I'm a 20 year U.S. Navy veteran and I was not insulted by the light display on the White House.
> 
> Matter of fact, I was proud that finally those who were my friends and served with distinction were finally recognized and allowed the same benefits as those who had hetero unions.
> 
> Good to see that the SCOTUS can still call for a good cause.



its not their job to make law for the states.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 30, 2015)

jon_berzerk said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > jon_berzerk said:
> ...



that's a crack up...lol

another I saved


----------



## jon_berzerk (Jun 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



--LOL


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


No, it's about Americans being insulted by homofascist coercion. Homophobia is a misnomer created by homofascists to try to stufle dissent and discussion. That's why they're homonazis. Taking their cue from 1930's nazi Germany.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 30, 2015)

Ummmmm..............hate to tell you RoshawnMarkwees...............but homosexuality was one of those things that the Nazis hated.

Matter of fact, the only thing the Nazis hated more than homosexuality was the crime of being a Jew.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

candycorn said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


You don't speak for all Americans and you certainly don't speak for American ideals of liberty and freedom if you agree with a fascist defacing of the White House.
I'm an American offended by displays of fascism defacing the White House.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

NoNukes said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Homonazis are not good people. People advocating fascist defacing of American landmarks are not good people. It's like swastika graffiti.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

ABikerSailor said:


> Ummmmm..............hate to tell you RoshawnMarkwees...............but homosexuality was one of those things that the Nazis hated.
> 
> Matter of fact, the only thing the Nazis hated more than homosexuality was the crime of being a Jew.


You're using weeds to confuse the essence of the comparison.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 30, 2015)

Yo......................hate to tell you Roshawn, but Obama isn't a fascist no matter how much FOX News tells you he is.

I actually spent the whole of my adult life (from 18 until I was 39) defending this country while serving in the U.S. Navy.

You may be an American, and you may be offended by the display of the White House being bathed in colors of the gay flag.

But...........it's not fascism, it's free speech.

And yeah................I spent my whole adult life defending it, whether it be your screed against the White House, or it being the White House's right to display their views.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yo......................hate to tell you Roshawn, but Obama isn't a fascist no matter how much FOX News tells you he is.
> 
> I actually spent the whole of my adult life (from 18 until I was 39) defending this country while serving in the U.S. Navy.
> 
> ...


The homo agenda that those colors represent is fascist. The decree by the SCOTUS forcing everyone to subsidize personal irrelevant behavior is a fascist decree. Lighting an American people's landmark with a fascist symbol is advocating for fascism. It's not free speech. It's the equivalent of establishing a state religion.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

BTW, your stupid Fox news comment betrays your own bias. I think for myself.


----------



## NoNukes (Jun 30, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


You were really desperate for a reply, it has nothing to do with what I said.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 30, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> I can't believe I'm going to the trouble to explain this, but I'm bored so here goes. Lighting at the white house has been in place for years. The lights are designed with easily changed filters to shine a wide range of colors. Similar to lights on a stage. It probably tool 30 minutes for maintenance workers to get the filters out of storage and install them. You're not really that dumb are you?


 Do we have the Whitehouse logs on when those lights were switched out? 

And the perfect line right in the center of the Whitehouse indicates there were some adjustments necessary to get that type of a color spread so even.  Just wondering when that work was going on.  Anyone see any test runs?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 30, 2015)

Interestingly enough, a decent U.S. Navy lead signalman and a crew of about 3 would be able to line up a light display like that in around 45 min to an hour.

But then again............U.S. Navy signalmen are pretty good at things like that, because they practice them on a regular basis.

I've seen light displays on the waterfront of Norfolk Va., by ships that asked their signalman to provide,  that would rival most Christmas displays ANYWHERE.


----------



## 007 (Jun 30, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.
> 
> The trouble is, the equivalent would have been if the cult of LGBT lost 5-4 and instead of a rainbow, we had a huge Christian cross projected on the Whitehouse instead.  Think the LGBT folks would have had nothing to say about that?...
> 
> ...


A HISTORIC display of BULL SHIT!

Leave it to the first ILLEGAL, KENYAN, MUSLIM, MARXIST, LOP EARED PILE OF DOG SHIT to do it.

So he has not only solidified his place in historty as the WORST PRESIDENT EVER, now he's added the worst case of FLIP FLOPPING in modern times. I'm sure his MUSLIM BROTHERS are REAL HAPPY to see him lighting up the white house like that. They KILL HOMOS.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


 
I tend to actually agree with you to an extent.  I wish the President hadn't authorized such a display.  It's not sick, perverted, twisted, or anything major.  It's something that I'd rather not had happened to the house.  Again, it's his house so he can do what he wants.  Don't like it; win an election. 

Also, I apologize for the comment I made earlier.  "I'm an american, I'm not offended".  It may have come off as insensitive.  Probably because it was.  I should have just stated that if you're offended by the color of lights hitting a house, you need to toughen yourself up a bit.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yo......................hate to tell you Roshawn, but Obama isn't a fascist no matter how much FOX News tells you he is.
> ...


 
Utter rubbish.  I'm surprised you crammed so much crap into just a few sentences.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 30, 2015)

Nice to see that you are very concerned with posting facts 007.

Obama hasn't been illegal (he was born in this country), he never went to Kenya until AFTER he was 18 (before that he was in Indonesia, which is a full continent away from Kenya), to this date I still can't think of a single Marxist thing he's done (I think that conservatives just like to throw around scary words to get people on their side of the thinking), and have yet to see where he's lop eared or a pile of dog shit.

If you want to know who the worst President ever was 007, look no farther than Bush Jr. or Reagan.

They were even worse than Nixon.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.
> ...


It would only take minutes. Just a matter of pushing a few buttons on the lighting board.


----------



## DigitalDrifter (Jun 30, 2015)

The lights were an "in yo face !" nose-thumbing from Obama to the 40% who disagree with Gay marriage.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jun 30, 2015)

Not only that, but the people against gay marriage think that it was a whole production that cost a lot of money to light up the White House in colors.

Nothing more than setting a couple of gels on the lights that normally light up the White House.

Probably nothing more than 30 min and a crew of 5 to complete.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 30, 2015)

Ravi said:


> It would only take minutes. Just a matter of pushing a few buttons on the lighting board.


 
I guess we'll find that out when Fox News or some such traces down the Whitehouse visitor and work logs to see exactly when that light display was altered and set up/tested for its final showing.  Can't wait to hear when Obama allowed folks on the place to set that up.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 30, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> BTW, your stupid Fox news comment betrays your own bias. I think for myself.




Right......It's just coincidence that your opinion is always the same as what you hear on fox.


----------



## rdean (Jun 30, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.
> 
> The trouble is, the equivalent would have been if the cult of LGBT lost 5-4 and instead of a rainbow, we had a huge Christian cross projected on the Whitehouse instead.  Think the LGBT folks would have had nothing to say about that?...
> 
> ...


We don't whine about all the federal government money it takes to keep broke Red States from default.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 30, 2015)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yanno.....................I'm a 20 year U.S. Navy veteran and I was not insulted by the light display on the White House.
> 
> Matter of fact, I was proud that finally those who were my friends and served with distinction were finally recognized and allowed the same benefits as those who had hetero unions.
> 
> Good to see that the SCOTUS can still call for a good cause.


Sounds like you and your bunk buddies got along just fine. But the point is half the country is not on board and a leader worth his salt wouldn't go out of his way to rub it in their face. obama is a petulant child enabled by agenda driven wackos.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 30, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, your stupid Fox news comment betrays your own bias. I think for myself.
> ...


How do you know so much about what's on FOX?


----------



## Roadrunner (Jun 30, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.
> 
> The trouble is, the equivalent would have been if the cult of LGBT lost 5-4 and instead of a rainbow, we had a huge Christian cross projected on the Whitehouse instead.  Think the LGBT folks would have had nothing to say about that?...
> 
> ...


The outcome was certain, there was never any doubt.

This is one sorry ass court.

They seem to think they exist to carry out the will of Obama, and correct the fuckups of a Congress that cannot clearly write a law.


----------



## Roadrunner (Jun 30, 2015)

candycorn said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


 If you can be offended by a historical flag, perhaps you are too sensitive too.


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 30, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



The right wing crazies on fox are almost as entertaining as the right wing crazies here.


----------



## jknowgood (Jun 30, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Wal mart refused to bake a rebel flag cake. Sue them.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 30, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.
> 
> The trouble is, the equivalent would have been if the cult of LGBT lost 5-4 and instead of a rainbow, we had a huge Christian cross projected on the Whitehouse instead.  Think the LGBT folks would have had nothing to say about that?...
> 
> ...



Back in the day, when I was doing theatrical lighting, I could have set up the colored lights in a couple of hours.  And that is working by myself.

But in this case, there is already lighting set up.  All they did was change the white bulbs to colored ones.


----------



## mdk (Jun 30, 2015)

Sil this display wasn't a sign of solidarity with gays and their allies but for Dylan Roof. lol


----------



## BULLDOG (Jun 30, 2015)

jknowgood said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Link?


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jun 30, 2015)

whats on the inside is still more offensive than whats on the outside.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jun 30, 2015)

mdk said:


> Sil this display wasn't a sign of solidarity with gays and their allies but for Dylan Roof. lol



Thats right!!    It was a sign of solidarity with the gay guy who is starting a race war.  How do we know he is gay?  Look at his haircut, watch and Gold's Gym t-shirt!


----------



## mdk (Jun 30, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Sil this display wasn't a sign of solidarity with gays and their allies but for Dylan Roof. lol
> ...



But..but...there was a black man on his shirt in a banana hammock. That proves he isn't a racist and proves he loves BBC or something. lol


----------



## jknowgood (Jun 30, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> jknowgood said:
> 
> 
> > BULLDOG said:
> ...


It was the wal mart in slidel la. They refused to bake a confederate cake, but did bake an issis cake.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > It would only take minutes. Just a matter of pushing a few buttons on the lighting board.
> ...


He's had it planned since he was 5. He's gay, you know.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> mack20 said:
> 
> 
> > It's a matter of changing the colored filters on previously existing lights. This isn't that fucking difficult to figure out.
> ...



How many liberals does it take to change a rainbow light bulb?


----------



## mudwhistle (Jun 30, 2015)

ABikerSailor said:


> I wasn't offended, matter of fact, I was kind of heartened that the White House would take time to acknowledge such a large statement.
> 
> And you know................the White House looks good in rainbow colors.


When Obama moves out he can paint his own house rainbow colors.


----------



## Freewill (Jun 30, 2015)

No matter the cost, it was a waste of our money especially from a president who ran for office opposing gay marriage.  Of course he said so many things back then that isn't so.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jun 30, 2015)

Freewill said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > mack20 said:
> ...


 none, they pass a law that forces other people to do it for them.


----------



## dilloduck (Jun 30, 2015)

The White House was originally planned this way so the sitting president could use it as a billboard on which to project his feelings on certain matters. It used to be used as a screen for movies but Hollywood producers got into such a squabble as to what movies would be shown that the practice was stopped some time ago.


----------



## AceRothstein (Jun 30, 2015)




----------



## bodecea (Jun 30, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.
> 
> The trouble is, the equivalent would have been if the cult of LGBT lost 5-4 and instead of a rainbow, we had a huge Christian cross projected on the Whitehouse instead.  Think the LGBT folks would have had nothing to say about that?...
> 
> ...


It's funny that you don't know that they have a lighting system already in place.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> maybe we can ask that Dear leader of ours to please light up our white house with this; it's so simple. all in favor. call, write. email


I'm sure that's what you would like to have seen, Stephanie.


----------



## TooTall (Jun 30, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.
> 
> The trouble is, the equivalent would have been if the cult of LGBT lost 5-4 and instead of a rainbow, we had a huge Christian cross projected on the Whitehouse instead.  Think the LGBT folks would have had nothing to say about that?...
> 
> ...



That was just another disgusting display of 'in your face' you lousy Christians by the asshole in the White House.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 30, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > mack20 said:
> ...


Well, you ARE talking about people who still think in the 19th century....you can't expect them to really understand electricity, let alone lighting.


----------



## TooTall (Jun 30, 2015)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yanno.....................I'm a 20 year U.S. Navy veteran and I was not insulted by the light display on the White House.
> 
> Matter of fact, I was proud that finally those who were my friends and served with distinction were finally recognized and allowed the same benefits as those who had hetero unions.
> 
> Good to see that the SCOTUS can still call for a good cause.



Now those sailors that were your friends can demand that the Captain marry them at sea and assign them adjoining bunks and a little privacy for their wedding night. If he doesn't marry them, Obama would demand the Captains resignation from the Navy for bigotry. Then every sailor should be able to take his wife to sea with him.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Jun 30, 2015)

Congratulations to all the happy couples. 

Its about time.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 30, 2015)

Freewill said:


> How many liberals does it take to change a rainbow light bulb?


One to read the instructions, one to call 80 private contractors, one to go with the highest bid, one to pay him after he has an illegal alien do the job and one to receive the 50% kickback.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.
> ...


He is a Christian, dummy.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 30, 2015)

DigitalDrifter said:


> The lights were an "in yo face !" nose-thumbing from Obama to the 40% who disagree with Gay marriage.


I agree....and it was delightful....absolutely delightful.


----------



## TooTall (Jun 30, 2015)

Ravi said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



He told you that and you believe him. That makes you the dummy.  I would give him another Lie of the Year award.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2015)

TooTall said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > TooTall said:
> ...


You aren't very bright, are you.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jun 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> well, we are so glad for your Vulgar lesson. DO You feel better now? good frikken grief.
> so you are the expert of all things on the white house lighting I guess. when did you work for them?* can you tell us how many light bulbs does it take?* and how many times do they have to change them?



Just enough to piss off you assholes, obviously.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 30, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > *How the Hell do you figure the opposite of a rainbow is a cross*?
> ...



Ah, so you're telling us that Christians are bigots?
Sounds like a blanket statement to me, but OK you run with that.


As regards the lighting, it's already been pointed out that the floodlights are already permanently installed and this effect is a simple matter of *changing the gels.*

*




*​Have any idea how easy it is to do that?  You can have your lighting/electrical guy do it in the course of his daily maintenance.  It takes literally minutes.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 30, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yanno.....................I'm a 20 year U.S. Navy veteran and I was not insulted by the light display on the White House.
> ...



--- say the petulant children imagining changing spotlight gels takes "days" because some agenda-driven wacko blog tells them to think that, in spite of the way stage lighting works....

Edit: after further review of the OP I am compelled to correct --- it wasn't some wacko blog that came up with this cockamamie conspiracy theory of the World's Most Incompetent Gel Changers -- it was the OP's own idea (the same wag who last week tried to tell us Dylann Roof gunned down nine people because he's "gay").   

Apparently not even the blogosphere is this stupid.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jun 30, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


I would think they would have color changing LEDs installed by now driven by computer software. I hope you are wrong.


----------



## depotoo (Jun 30, 2015)

I agree with your statement here, except it isn't his house it is America's house, just on loan  through each President's term.  It is a house of -all-  US citizens.





candycorn said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> The trouble is, the equivalent would have been if the cult of LGBT lost 5-4 and instead of a rainbow, we had a huge Christian cross projected on the Whitehouse instead.  Think the LGBT folks would have had nothing to say about that?...  .



And Day 5 of Silhouette's meltdown continues.....


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> I thought that pic was a photoshop...figures though....The occupants are a fruitcake (Barry) married to a man (Michelle).  I'm surprised they haven't bathed the WH in black light yet or a strobe for all the dope being smoked in there.



Thanks for the viewpoint of someone as nutty as Silhouette.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> BullKurtz said:
> 
> 
> > I thought that pic was a photoshop...figures though....The occupants are a fruitcake (Barry) married to a man (Michelle).  I'm surprised they haven't bathed the WH in black light yet or a strobe for all the dope being smoked in there.
> ...


 moochelle is a man, and barry does smoke weed. so, why is that so far fetched.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > BullKurtz said:
> ...



It doesn't seem far fetched to any nutjob that Michelle Obama is a man or that a man with a wife and 2 children must be a homosexual. 

To any rational person- yeah pretty stupid.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Hopefully they use LEDs at the White House. No gels required. Just push a few buttons and make the lights any color you please.


----------



## TooTall (Jun 30, 2015)

Ravi said:


> TooTall said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



I know better than to believe a proven liar.  That makes me a lot brighter than you.


----------



## TooTall (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > The trouble is, the equivalent would have been if the cult of LGBT lost 5-4 and instead of a rainbow, we had a huge Christian cross projected on the Whitehouse instead.  Think the LGBT folks would have had nothing to say about that?...  .
> ...



Can't answer the question can you?


----------



## Pogo (Jun 30, 2015)

Ravi said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...




This just in, Google being our occasional friend (that you don't turn your back on):  The White House lights are indeed LEDs, donated by a company called Musco, who also have lit up the Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore (here).

You guys remember LED lights?  Those nasty commie things the big bad eebil gummint is forcing down our throats while they "ban" incandescents that run so much cooler, last longer and take a fraction of the power consumption?

>>  Musco Lighting, based out of Oskaloosa since 1975, is known for its sports lighting and has worked on other major landmarks and events such as Mount Rushmore and several Olympic Games.

For Friday, Jason Van Wyk, a public relations officer for the company, said White House electricians likely inserted gels over the lighting fixtures.

"We believe that is what they did for the rainbow effect," Van Wyk said.

The lights at the White House are LED and are used for energy-efficiency and minimizing glare. <<   --- Des Moines Register​Know how long it takes to change a gel?
About 30 seconds, if you're really slow.
I mean hell, the lights are even sitting conveniently at ground level.  You don't even need a lift.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

NoNukes said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...


You framed people who accept fascist defacing of American landmarks as good people. I disagreed.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 30, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> The trouble is, the equivalent would have been if the cult of LGBT lost 5-4 and instead of a rainbow, we had a huge Christian cross projected on the Whitehouse instead.  Think the LGBT folks would have had nothing to say about that?...  .


 


Syriusly said:


> And Day 5 of Silhouette's meltdown continues.....


 


TooTall said:


> Can't answer the question can you?


You noticed that the various role playing LGBT payroll bloggers use ad hominem in no little measure to avoid answering questions and deflect the topic into oblivion because of their fear of investigation into what they're all about?  Me too.. 

Gonna answer the question Syriusly?

Also, does anyone have those Whitehouse logs to show when that display started getting setup, tested for accuracy etc?  Looking for dates before June 26, 2015.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

candycorn said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...


The display was divisive and it's not _his_ house. 
It's the people's house. He rents, *we're the landlords*. 
He knew it would disturb at least as many people as it would encourage and that is _*selfish and rude*_. For him it was just more _*divisive political opportunity*_.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

candycorn said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


Then explain how so. I gave specifics.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

BULLDOG said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > BTW, your stupid Fox news comment betrays your own bias. I think for myself.
> ...


First off, most of those who rag on Fox don't watch so you'd have no idea of what you are suggesting. Secondly, thanks to MSM being dominated by institutional left wing dogma, I have to vet all news through a variety of sources including Fox news. At least I get more than just what lefties use to brainwash.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> BULLDOG said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


I was on a gig in a lefty dominated neighborhood (and of course all of my band mates are hardcore lefties, too) and a well known left wing op-ed pundit and writer came into the club. She's written for USA Today, Daily Beast and several other rags so no doubt she's been read often by the people in this club. But not a single soul in the place besides me recognized her by her face because she appears regularly on Fox News.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

Roadrunner said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Could you imagine the uproar if the confederate flag had been displayed in lights on the White House.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2015)

depotoo said:


> I agree with your statement here, except it isn't his house it is America's house, just on loan  through each President's term.  It is a house of -all-  US citizens.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Of course it is but, historically, it is the purview of the first family to decorate it, accessorize it the way they want.  Eisenhower had a golf course installed. Other Presidents have had bowling allies installed, swimming pools, theaters; Michelle famously had a garden.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Nobody is forcing you to do anything; you're acting like a damn fool all on your own. 
As for establishment of a religion, that was an especially stupid comment.


----------



## BullKurtz (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> It doesn't seem far fetched to any nutjob that Michelle Obama is a man or that a man with a wife and 2 children must be a homosexual.
> 
> To any rational person- yeah pretty stupid.



I proved through accepted anatomy that Mooch is a man....the thread was dumped into Rubber Room and is still available if you have the sand to know the truth.


----------



## BullKurtz (Jun 30, 2015)

candycorn said:


> Of course it is but, historically, it is the purview of the first family to decorate it, accessorize it the way they want.  Eisenhower had a golf course installed. Other Presidents have had bowling allies installed, swimming pools, theaters; Michelle famously had a garden.



A golf course and bowling alley are hardly comparable to throwing queer lights on OUR White House.  As for Mooch's garden, that was a publicity stunt to launch her program  of ruining school kid's lunches by making them eat veggies with no salt or butter.  The vast majority of that produce ended up in the school dumpsters along with her program.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > It doesn't seem far fetched to any nutjob that Michelle Obama is a man or that a man with a wife and 2 children must be a homosexual.
> ...



Yeah- there is a reason your 'proved' is in the rubber room.

Like I said- to any rational person- yeah pretty stupid.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it is but, historically, it is the purview of the first family to decorate it, accessorize it the way they want.  Eisenhower had a golf course installed. Other Presidents have had bowling allies installed, swimming pools, theaters; Michelle famously had a garden.
> ...



Your idiotic and moronic opinion is noted.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > The trouble is, the equivalent would have been if the cult of LGBT lost 5-4 and instead of a rainbow, we had a huge Christian cross projected on the Whitehouse instead.  Think the LGBT folks would have had nothing to say about that?...  .
> ...



I will answer it- Yes your homophobic meltdown continues- 4 threads started by you yesterday.......


----------



## BullKurtz (Jun 30, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Yeah- there is a reason your 'proved' is in the rubber room.
> 
> Like I said- to any rational person- yeah pretty stupid.



No, most of what ends up in RR is from progs crying they're "offended" by Con truth and the mods (all leftists) comply.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

candycorn said:


> depotoo said:
> 
> 
> > I agree with your statement here, except it isn't his house it is America's house, just on loan  through each President's term.  It is a house of -all-  US citizens.
> ...


Privately, sure. But obama didn't just decorate the inside in homo colors. Neighborhoods have zoning laws that prevent over-the-top and disturbing displays. Obama violated the country's zoning laws.


----------



## BullKurtz (Jun 30, 2015)

candycorn said:


> Your idiotic and moronic opinion is noted.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

candycorn said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


Tax breaks and adoption privileges are coercion. Gov-mandated coercion. That is what legal marriage does.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > depotoo said:
> ...



The country has zoning laws?  

Ya know, you remind me of something my 7th grade teacher told us.  "It's better to have the world think you are a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt."


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Gee, you mean that Elizabeth Taylor and and Richard Burton were coercing me?  Who knew?


----------



## BullKurtz (Jun 30, 2015)

Somebody posted a story saying the queer bars are closing down now that on the down-low anal sodomy and the resulting AIDS have become ho-hum to the American public.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Of course it is but, historically, it is the purview of the first family to decorate it, accessorize it the way they want.  Eisenhower had a golf course installed. Other Presidents have had bowling allies installed, swimming pools, theaters; Michelle famously had a garden.
> ...


You're right, they cost a lot more money.


----------



## BullKurtz (Jun 30, 2015)

Ravi said:


> You're right, they cost a lot more money.



Golf and bowling are as American as apple pie....anal sodomy is something else entirely....not American.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 30, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > You're right, they cost a lot more money.
> ...



Golf is Scottish, laddie.

And they'll never live that down.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah- there is a reason your 'proved' is in the rubber room.
> ...



Actually, most Conservatives would treat your 'truth' and you like the ancient world treated Lepers. 

Your kind of craziness is not accepted by any rational person.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 30, 2015)

he can shove his lights where the sun doesn't shine and it stinks


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > You're right, they cost a lot more money.
> ...



Hmmmm interesting- 
46% of American women have tried anal intercourse.

Have 46% of American women tried bowling? Or Golf? 

I couldn't find the numbers though apparently the numbers for anal intercourse are on the rise, while bowling popularity is plummeting.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Tell me how adoption privileges are 'government mandated coercion'- that is fascinating.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> Somebody posted a story saying the queer bars are closing down now that on the down-low anal sodomy and the resulting AIDS have become ho-hum to the American public.



Someone- being you.


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > You're right, they cost a lot more money.
> ...


No?


----------



## ScienceRocks (Jun 30, 2015)

Gays are sick. How would you feel if the court want 5-4 forcing the gay community to read the bible?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> he can shove his lights where the sun doesn't shine and it stinks


Taft the champion of black people and immigrants?


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Gays are sick. How would you feel if the court want 5-4 forcing the gay community to read the bible?


Most gay people are Christian.

How does all this affect your life?


----------



## mdk (Jun 30, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Gays are sick. How would you feel if the court want 5-4 forcing the gay community to read the bible?



Are you being forced into a gay marriage? Gosh, I really really hope he is black.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 30, 2015)




----------



## J.E.D (Jun 30, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> I doubt it was set up in three days. But maybe it was. Anyone see it being set up before that? Do we have a Whitehouse log of when those workers appeared, when they set it up? I'm interested in the dates..



Not even a day. I have done stagehand work. I have helped set up entire stage shows for big bands like Bon Jovi and Mariah Carey. I have helped set up a video shoot for Alicia Keys. It took us an 8 to 10 our shift. Even less in some cases. And that was with stoned/high/hungover roadies. And you think it took 3 days or more to set up a few colored lights?



You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Seriously, you sound like an idiot.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 30, 2015)




----------



## J.E.D (Jun 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


>



Did you see the date on your little meme? Copyright 4/7/2012.....

I do believe Obama won reelection that year.


----------



## Stephanie (Jun 30, 2015)

We want no whining when a Republican is President and we the people demand they light it up with this.




Of course Obama didn't EVEN ask you the people, did he? He thinks it's HIS WHITE HOUSE and all you people out there can go to hell


----------



## Ravi (Jun 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> We want no whining when a Republican is President and we the people demand they light it up with this.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


That would be a great GOP platform.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

candycorn said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


I was being figurative. I'll have to remember to avoid creativity when responding to you.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

candycorn said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


If they're marriage was recognized by the US then, yes. But they could procreate which makes the tax breaks legit. Homos can't so it should be moot. But now the coercion forr no reason.


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Matthew said:


> Gays are sick. How would you feel if the court want 5-4 forcing the gay community to read the bible?



Wait- are you being forced into a gay marriage now?


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> We want no whining when a Republican is President and we the people demand they light it up with this.
> Of course Obama didn't EVEN ask you the people, did he? He thinks it's HIS WHITE HOUSE and all you people out there can go to hell



I truly hope that the next Republican President does exactly that.

What a better way could Republicans encourage African Americans to vote Democrat?


----------



## Syriusly (Jun 30, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Still waiting for your explanation of how adoption privilages are 'coercion'.

Tell us more about the coercion related to children abandoned by their biological parents.


----------



## Delta4Embassy (Jun 30, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.
> 
> The trouble is, the equivalent would have been if the cult of LGBT lost 5-4 and instead of a rainbow, we had a huge Christian cross projected on the Whitehouse instead.  Think the LGBT folks would have had nothing to say about that?...
> 
> ...



Uh ya, a religious symbol on the White House and color scheme indicating support for LGBT allowed to serve openly in the military but not get married in every state in the union is roughly the same issue.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 30, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


He really burned your butt, didn't he?   Good.


----------



## bodecea (Jun 30, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> Somebody posted a story saying the queer bars are closing down now that on the down-low anal sodomy and the resulting AIDS have become ho-hum to the American public.


I'm sure that's something you think about......a lot.


----------



## BullKurtz (Jun 30, 2015)

bodecea said:


> I'm sure that's something you think about......a lot.



What have you queers given us other than AIDS and disco?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

bodecea said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


No more than a Westboro Baptist Church demonstration. Except imagine Westboro using the White House for their display. But apparently partisanship is more important to you than courtesy or protocol.


----------



## Moonglow (Jun 30, 2015)

Change the light bulbs and people bitch......Well goodness.....


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jun 30, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Change the light bulbs and people bitch......Well goodness.....


It was probably just the gels and not any bulbs.


----------



## candycorn (Jun 30, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > You're right, they cost a lot more money.
> ...


 
Golf was invented in Scottland. Bowling, I believe, in Egypt.  Anal sodomy...well most places in the South have laws against it.  You tell me; why have laws against it unless it was taking place?


----------



## Pogo (Jun 30, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



"Partisanship" no longer applies.  It's the law of the land now.  Done deal.  Finito.  The End.  Waiter, check please.  Ain't no "sides" left.

Suppose it was 1964, the Civil Rights Act had just been passed, and the White House projected an image of a black hand and a white hand coming together....


----------



## Freewill (Jun 30, 2015)

bodecea said:


> DigitalDrifter said:
> 
> 
> > The lights were an "in yo face !" nose-thumbing from Obama to the 40% who disagree with Gay marriage.
> ...



And the sanctimonious liberals wonder why there are those who hate liberals.  What a fuking waste of tax payer' money.


----------



## Pogo (Jun 30, 2015)

Freewill said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > DigitalDrifter said:
> ...



Ummm... how much do you think a set of spotlight gels _costs??_

(Hell, I've got a stack of 'em right here.  What am I bid?)

That is, if anybody paid for them at all -- the lights themselves were free... I suspect the lighting company included a set of gels for various occasions.


----------



## Silhouette (Jun 30, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Ummm... how much do you think a set of spotlight gels _costs??_
> 
> (Hell, I've got a stack of 'em right here.  What am I bid?)
> 
> That is, if anybody paid for them at all -- the lights themselves were free... I suspect the lighting company included a set of gels for various occasions.


 And the electricity to run them was free too?

Hey, has anyone found out when this display was set up and tested?  Looking for Whitehouse logs showing this happened before June 26, 2015..


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Ummm... how much do you think a set of spotlight gels _costs??_
> ...



You have no clue what a spotlight gel is, do you?
It's a square piece of plastic, specially made to withstand intense heat that a spotlight produces, although LEDs don't produce much, which fits into a lightweight frame that holds it over the bulb so that the light projected comes out a nice green, or yellow, or whatever you want.  It takes _literally _seconds to do.  You could have thought of this idea at 4:30 and had the gels in by 5.  Although ideally you'd need darkness to tweak it.

The most incompetent, hung-over, inexperienced lighting tech apprentice, with both legs broken and wearing a blindfold, would not even need a half-day to do it.  That's how easy it is.

I'll go even farther --- even YOU could do it.  

As for the electricity, well those lights are on every night already, so this is just a matter of them being different colors this time.  Here again, LEDs use very little power compared to conventional incandescents, but they're the same lights that are already there, every night.  So the power differential is exactly zero.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 1, 2015)

Yanno...................the gels could cost 50 bucks each (meaning that the whole color scheme would only be 300 dollars), and the electricity could run for another 700 bucks for the night.

Yanno..................I'd be wiling to pay 1,000 dollars for that display.

I can afford it, and I also agree with, and support it.

Send me the bill Obama............I'll gladly pay for that display.


----------



## Preacher (Jul 1, 2015)

That place was destroyed when that ****** was "elected"


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 1, 2015)

ABikerSailor said:


> Yanno...................the gels could cost 50 bucks each (meaning that the whole color scheme would only be 300 dollars), and the electricity could run for another 700 bucks for the night.
> 
> Yanno..................I'd be wiling to pay 1,000 dollars for that display.
> 
> ...


 
And when was it set up and tested?  I need those dates.  Do you know anyone with access to the Whitehouse logs?  The taxpayers picking up that bill is a much less serious offense than it being set up and tested before Friday June 26th 2015...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 1, 2015)

Nice Odium.................you've pretty much encapsulated (look that word up if it's too much for you, cut and paste on Dictionary.com works well), what the whole rebel bullshit is.

Sorry...............but believing in a failed battle flag that lost the war is pretty stupid.

Instead of the battle flag, ever thought about flying the U.S. Flag?

But...........if you wish to speak for the losers, please............continue to display your stupidity.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 1, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yanno...................the gels could cost 50 bucks each (meaning that the whole color scheme would only be 300 dollars), and the electricity could run for another 700 bucks for the night.
> ...



Yanno................I don't care how much it cost..................I'm willing to help with the lighting.

Matter of fact, I might be willing to go to 2,000 if it cost that much.

Tell ya what.................check and see how much it really cost the taxpayers.

Like I said...........I'm willing to go up to 2,000.

Call me if you need me Obama.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yanno...................the gels could cost 50 bucks each (meaning that the whole color scheme would only be 300 dollars), and the electricity could run for another 700 bucks for the night.
> ...



THERE IS NO "BILL".  It's FUCKING SPOTLIGHT GELS.  It's not like "work".  A maintenance guy could do it in the same time it takes him to _*eat lunch*_.

Jesus Christ on a Comet, you're fucking obtuse.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> This just in, Google being our occasional friend (that you don't turn your back on):  The White House lights are indeed LEDs, donated by a company called Musco, who also have lit up the Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore (here).
> 
> You guys remember LED lights?  Those nasty commie things the big bad eebil gummint is forcing down our throats while they "ban" incandescents that run so much cooler, last longer and take a fraction of the power consumption?


The issue was CFLs, not LEDs. LEDS were not a viable option then and CFLs had a bunch of problems, slow to illuminate, dim in cold weather, weren't dimable and had a waste disposal problem. It was government over reach, as usual. Now that LEDs are cheap, dimable, produce no appreciable heat and are very energy efficient people are buying them. Technology and the marketplace is the answer not government. Hating all things conservative is a poor substitute for knowledge.


----------



## mdk (Jul 1, 2015)

It cost hundreds of millions of dollars and the display was in place weeks before the ruling but just never turned on. This is the only answer Sil will accept.


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 1, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > Yanno...................the gels could cost 50 bucks each (meaning that the whole color scheme would only be 300 dollars), and the electricity could run for another 700 bucks for the night.
> ...



The lights were there for security reasons (first & foremost).    Adding gels or changing bulbs is all that was needed to provide the rainbow display.

Your attempt at pushing this conspiracy theory is ridiculous.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

BullKurtz said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > I'm sure that's something you think about......a lot.
> ...


 I will never forgive them for the disco.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Read through this, seems to be some seriously passionate opinions on both sides of this discussion.
 I dont think it was appropriate to use the white house in that manner.
 that being said, why all of this hate for gays? Im a Bible clutching gun owning far right conservative. Im straight.
 but I will be damned if Im going to give someone a load of crap over their being gay. I dont care. I cant think of one time in my 50+ years on this earth that my life has been affected in a negative way because of a gay person. Actually, I went through some rough times a few years back and the only people that stepped in and went out of their way to help were my lesbian friends. Imagine that.
 I do however have to wonder what the hell is going through someones mind when they go for the anal sex... I aint putting my tool into anything that has a chance of it coming back out with a butterbean stuck to the end of it.
 but then, Ive never been approached by a gay to engage in such activities. ( should I be offended )?


----------



## Iceweasel (Jul 1, 2015)

Gays reap what they sow. They are calling anyone that doesn't agree that it's perfectly normal hateful, intolerant and phobic. I never thought much about them until they went militant.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Gays reap what they sow. They are calling anyone that doesn't agree that it's perfectly normal hateful, intolerant and phobic. I never thought much about them until they went militant.


 I agree, but on the other hand, until they were militant, nobody thought much about them, so would they have ever been allowed marriage otherwise?
 what came first, lack of equal treatment or a militant attitude.
 Was not that long ago that a guy could end up in jail for just blowing another guy. Or that a judge who's crank still had residue  on it from poking his mistress in the butt the night before, would sentence a guy to prison for the unatural act of doing the same exact thing to his same sex partner.
 To some extent there is usually a cause for a militant response.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Read through this, seems to be some seriously passionate opinions on both sides of this discussion.
> I dont think it was appropriate to use the white house in that manner.
> that being said,* why all of this hate for gays?* Im a Bible clutching gun owning far right conservative. Im straight.
> but I will be damned if Im going to give someone a load of crap over their being gay. I dont care. I cant think of one time in my 50+ years on this earth that my life has been affected in a negative way because of a gay person. Actually, I went through some rough times a few years back and the only people that stepped in and went out of their way to help were my lesbian friends. Imagine that.
> ...


 Nobody is giving anybody "crap" about being gay.  They're giving them crap about organizing their behaviors into a cult and then in a fascist manner, incrementally taking over our democratic rule.  Kind of like what Hitler & pals did in the 1930s.

If you've read your history books, you understand how dangerous cults can be.  They are currently 'legally' persecuting Christians.  You know, LGBTs, famous for their "tolerance".  The Ministry of Tolerance is the one that persecutes.  Same theme, different tyrants.  This time they wear rainbow colored jackboots.

BTW, your description of yourself as "bible-clutching"...no conservative would ever say that about themselves.  One of the worst features of the LGBT cult is their penchant for theater and role playing.  It makes their smoke and mirror campaign much more smooth than Hitler could've ever dreamed up.  But there are always little giveaways to the trained eye.  And it's about time people train their eyes.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 1, 2015)

Anyone come up with those Whitehouse logs showing when the light display was getting set up?


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

Freewill said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > DigitalDrifter said:
> ...



yep, truth be Obama isn't doing them any favors. but they are too thrilled and gloating with him shoving it in our faces to see it.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jul 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Gays reap what they sow. They are calling anyone that doesn't agree that it's perfectly normal hateful, intolerant and phobic. I never thought much about them until they went militant.
> ...


Gays have been getting married for some time. You have to go back many decades to find gays being thrown in jail so that's a poor excuse for militant behavior. The issue isn't equality, that's the lie and part of my objection. If a man can't marry his brother he can use the same stupid argument and pretend he's being treated unequally. 

States should be deciding on the definition of marriage, whether it allows first or second cousins. Only a complete and utter fool believes two like genders together is equal to opposite genders like nature intends. It's how we got here, along with the bunnies and birds, etc. The fact that the argument has been so bastardized is the effect of bullying and smearing people, so "they reap what they sow".


----------



## mdk (Jul 1, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Anyone come up with those Whitehouse logs showing when the light display was getting set up?



No, we are far too busy putting duct tape on windows since gays getting married has caused the terror alert level to rise.


----------



## mdk (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



Get off your high horse. Days before the ruling you said you hope gays would lose so you laugh in their face and watch the temper tantrums. Spare me.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Anyone come up with those Whitehouse logs showing when the light display was getting set up?
> ...


 windows were not my  first choice to duct tape if you know what I mean.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > This just in, Google being our occasional friend (that you don't turn your back on):  The White House lights are indeed LEDs, donated by a company called Musco, who also have lit up the Washington Monument and Mount Rushmore (here).
> ...



That was dripping sarcasm for the benefit of cretins who think it takes a fucking week to change a spotlight gel.  Wasn't supposed to be a treatise on lighting technology.  I know there wasn't a "ban" either.  It's simple mocking sarcasm.

Even _this _has to be explained...


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 what are you trying to say?


----------



## EverCurious (Jul 1, 2015)

No cost to taxpayers: Valerie Jarrett Organized White House Rainbow Lights - Breitbart
"According to the _Washington Post_, Jarrett worked with gay rights organizations to pay for the display to avoid using taxpayer money. The idea came from one of Jarrett’s aides who was also the LGBT liaison in the White House."

And closest "timeline" I can find: For Obama rainbow White House was a moment worth savoring - The Washington Post
"Aditi Hardikar, the LGBT liaison in the White House Office of Public Engagement, first floated the idea of lighting up the residence a few weeks ago, and White House senior advisers Valerie Jarrett and Tina Tchen worked with outside groups to pull off the move."


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Read through this, seems to be some seriously passionate opinions on both sides of this discussion.
> I dont think it was appropriate to use the white house in that manner.
> that being said, why all of this hate for gays? Im a Bible clutching gun owning far right conservative. Im straight.
> but I will be damned if Im going to give someone a load of crap over their being gay. I dont care. I cant think of one time in my 50+ years on this earth that my life has been affected in a negative way because of a gay person. Actually, I went through some rough times a few years back and the only people that stepped in and went out of their way to help were my lesbian friends. Imagine that.
> ...



Well said!!!    Thank you!


----------



## WinterBorn (Jul 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



I think Sil is trying to say you are a liberal, gay troll.    lol

Be careful, if you ever wear a Gold's Gym shirt or a thin watch, she will be sure of it.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

WinterBorn said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 Is Sil cute and does she like to have sex with gay guys?
 I can be celibate gay for a day.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

How about that? the *Homosexuals PAID to have YOUR white house* lit up for their cause.

"According to the _Washington Post_, Jarrett worked with gay rights organizations to pay for the display to avoid using taxpayer money. The idea came from one of Jarrett’s aides who was also the LGBT liaison in the White House."

IN YOUR face all the way

so go ahead, VOTE for these pukes in 2016 for more of this disgusting crap in your face


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> How about that? the Homosexuals PAID to have YOUR white house lit up for their cause.
> 
> "According to the _Washington Post_, Jarrett worked with gay rights organizations to pay for the display to avoid using taxpayer money. The idea came from one of Jarrett’s aides who was also the LGBT liaison in the White House."
> 
> ...


 thats why I said I dont agree with the white house being lit like that. it has the effect of alienating a large segment of the population.
 I think the white house should be neutral in situations like this.


----------



## EverCurious (Jul 1, 2015)

What were you expecting from a LGBT liaison at the White House?  To /not/ celebrate the momentous decision?  The White House celebrates lots of things, almost always the idea of some liaison.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> How about that? the Homosexuals PAID to have YOUR white house lit up for their cause.
> 
> "According to the _Washington Post_, Jarrett worked with gay rights organizations to pay for the display to avoid using taxpayer money. The idea came from one of Jarrett’s aides who was also the LGBT liaison in the White House."
> 
> ...



Soooooooo if the taxpayer paid for gels, that's wrong;
on the other hand if somebody else paid for the gels, that's wrong.

Thanks for clearing up that fine line of distinction, Steph.  You're like a joke of the day.  Never disappoints.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> How about that? the *Homosexuals PAID to have YOUR white house* lit up for their cause.
> 
> "According to the _Washington Post_, Jarrett worked with gay rights organizations to pay for the display to avoid using taxpayer money. The idea came from one of Jarrett’s aides who was also the LGBT liaison in the White House."
> 
> ...


Poor Stephanie....she's crying over this display not costing the tax payers' money.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > How about that? the Homosexuals PAID to have YOUR white house lit up for their cause.
> ...



"Neutral" was what it was before the ruling.
Some wags here don't seem to understand what a Supreme Court ruling is.  It's the law of the land now.  That means there are no more "sides".  You don't keep playing after the ball game's over.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > How about that? the Homosexuals PAID to have YOUR white house lit up for their cause.
> ...



You would have thought so. but not with this PUKE Obama and his Fascist bunch. the more they can shove in our face the better they feel. I heard Obama say, it was SO COOL
I think the KKK should petition to pay for lighting it up. think they'd go for that one?


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> What were you expecting from a LGBT liaison at the White House?  To /not/ celebrate the momentous decision?  The White House celebrates lots of things, almost always the idea of some liaison.



good first I ever heard of LIGHTING up for something besides 911 maybe. but We'll keep that in mind. Maybe get the KKK in there to petition for it

or let it scream this


----------



## EverCurious (Jul 1, 2015)

The White House has hosted thousands of prayer groups, is that also to be banned since rainbow lighting is now "wrong"?

Shall we stop celebrating the birth of Christ on the lawn every year, how about the white house easter egg hunt?


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > What were you expecting from a LGBT liaison at the White House?  To /not/ celebrate the momentous decision?  The White House celebrates lots of things, almost always the idea of some liaison.
> ...



What exactly is your hangup with the KKK?
Because they have a track record of killing black people?  Is that it?


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> The White House has hosted thousands of prayer groups, is that also to be banned since rainbow lighting is now "wrong"?
> 
> Shall we stop celebrating the birth of Christ on the lawn every year, how about the white house easter egg hunt?



Indeed.  Isn't the National Christmas Tree lighting an "in your face" to Jews, Muslims, Shintoists and the International Society of Aboriculture?


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...


 you have to understand that this ruling allows obama and his man beast micheal to come out of the closet and admit that he is a transvestite.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



oh my. that cracked me up...


----------



## EverCurious (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > The White House has hosted thousands of prayer groups, is that also to be banned since rainbow lighting is now "wrong"?
> ...



It's balanced by things like:

White House Hanukkah Party - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

Obama Celebrates Muslim Holiday of Ramadan in the White House


There's also stuff like:

Hispanic Heritage Month celebration at the White House with Ricky Martin Gloria Estefan others

STEM Competitions ~ President Barack Obama who was speaking in the East Room of the White House in Washington Monday March 23 2015 during the 2015 White House Science Fair jokingly gestures towards the exit doors after he smelled smoke during the event. The fair celebrated the student winners of a broad range of science technology engineering and math STEM competitions from across the country. This year s Science Fair has a specific focus on diversity and includes many students. AP Photo Susan Walsh View photo - Yahoo News

And hundreds of other things.  There's a tradition of having music concerts there, they do the "usual" holidays of course; Forth of July, Memorial Day, Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, Haukkah, Ramadan, etc. etc. etc. 

The rainbow is nothing new.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



was the OUTSIDE of the white house LIT up for all of those? good grief we all know what goes on the INSIDE for crying out loud

I want to see the outside lit up with this next.
it's only fair


----------



## Indomitable (Jul 1, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > *How the Hell do you figure the opposite of a rainbow is a cross*?
> ...


Argumentum ad populum, fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

Indomitable said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


You joined just to lay that on us?


----------



## EverCurious (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Give your "confederate flag liaison" a call, maybe it's a "southern heritage liaison" or some kind of history liaison.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Indomitable said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


 I feel as though Im a better man for the knowledge gained.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Indomitable said:
> ...


----------



## Indomitable (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Indomitable said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


Just testing mate.


----------



## August West (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Perhaps when you get your slaves back that will be done steph.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



oh, the FREEDOM thing works BOTH ways right? oh wait, I forget who I'm trying to reason with


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

August West said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...



did you stay up all night thinking that one up?
if so. zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
so much for FREEDOM for everyone eh. that didn't last long


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

Indomitable said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Indomitable said:
> ...



It was a good one. lol
welcome aboard.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...







​Truthfully Steph -- if five or six gels plunked into the White House spotlights is your idea of a news issue, you're in serious fucking need of a hobby.


----------



## EverCurious (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Oh quit yer bitching, I gave you three days to rage about it.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Gays reap what they sow. They are calling anyone that doesn't agree that it's perfectly normal hateful, intolerant and phobic. I never thought much about them until they went militant.


Now they no longer need to be militant. You should be happy.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Anyone come up with those Whitehouse logs showing when the light display was getting set up?


July 4, 1776


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > August West said:
> ...


 its not the thought of a few gels, its the meaning of and endorsment of an idea.
 but in that same light, I think those that are so butt hurt over the Ten Commandments being displayed in public places are more so in need of a hobby.


----------



## EverCurious (Jul 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> its not the thought of a few gels, its the meaning of and endorsment of an idea.
> but in that same light, I think those that are so butt hurt over the Ten Commandments being displayed in public places are more so in need of a hobby.



So no more "National" Christmas tree at the White House?  No more Easter at the White House?  No more White House prayer meetings? 

I'm actually okay with that, are you?


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > its not the thought of a few gels, its the meaning of and endorsment of an idea.
> ...


 Im good with it.
 and at the same time, no more misrepresentation of the constitution by the supreme court, and allow states to determine on their own how these things are viewed. 
 anyway, its been an insult to Christains to have the Muslim Kenyan guy with the man wife presiding over anything to do with religion for the last 6 years.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Again, for the umpteenth time --- it's DECIDED.  It's the law of the land.  It's OVER.  There is no "endorsement", there are no "sides".  There is no "debate" --- it's OVER.  The Fat Lady has _sung_.  The curtain has _drawn._  The house lights are _up_.  Elvis has _left the building_.  The clock has run _out_.  The game is _over_.  You don't keep running players out there for the fifth quarter; there is nothing to "take sides" over any more.  It's done, finished, completed, end of the line, last stop, stick a fork in it.



Maryland Patriot said:


> but in that same light, I think those that are so butt hurt over the Ten Commandments being displayed in public places are more so in need of a hobby.



Like where?


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

EverCurious said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > its not the thought of a few gels, its the meaning of and endorsment of an idea.
> ...



I could care less. As we saw with this DISGUSTING display put on by Jarrett,  who by the way isn't even an ELECTED official to be using OUR WHITE house for her own personal sick cause. but she's knows she'll have people like you defending it so she'll walk all over us like they been for Seven years now


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


  Wasnt it already decided before the decision and wasnt it already the law of the land that gays could not marry? Why wasnt it over for you then? why was there even debate? did the fat lady not sing loud enough? why did you keep running players out there for your fifth quarter?
 Because as long as there are people, there will be debate, and as long as there is debate there is always the room to change or repeal laws.
 Cant always just be done as soon as the verdict fits the side that we may or may not agree with. Not how it works.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



You see how it is with a Tyrant/Fascist/Liberal. they go on and the fight the good fight forever. but ONE ruling by a court, AND not *even A Unanimous* one and THAT'S ALL SHE WORTE. we now all just lay down, roll over, shut up or get called names like, drama queens. Liberals are so tolerant about the freedoms OF everyone,  aren't they?


----------



## Marianne (Jul 1, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.
> 
> The trouble is, the equivalent would have been if the cult of LGBT lost 5-4 and instead of a rainbow, we had a huge Christian cross projected on the Whitehouse instead.  Think the LGBT folks would have had nothing to say about that?...
> 
> ...




Not to mention how much of my money was spent to pay for the lights and time of employee's to set that up when we have a huge national deficit.  It was completely inappropriate. If Obama wants to show his support he can light up his own private residence in rainbow colors with this own cash as a private citizen. The president/government is supposed to represent all the people not one group while slapping another in the face. I agree if the issue had gone the other way would the LGBT been fine with religious symbols projected on the White House? Many see this as just a Christian thing but reality is Jews and Muslims don't agree with it either. That's a wide demographic to alienate with 2016 just around the corner. J/S


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



Fine, there are myriad SCOTUS decisions that may meet with disapproval or even need a Constitutional Amendment to set how We the People want it.  That's how the system works and how it's supposed to work.

Just don't come on a message board and insult everybody's intelligence pretending to be offended at half a dozen fucking spotlight gels as "taking sides" because that's dishonest fucking bullshit.  Doing it BEFORE the ruling -- _that_ would have been "taking sides".


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

Marianne said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.
> ...



this was just another way for Obama to tell us, FU. He never passed a chance for that


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Marianne said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.
> ...



Once again -- the lights are _already there_.  And once again, they're lit up _every night_; this was a simple matter of changing gels.  And once again, even the lights themselves were *donated *by a lighting company in Iowa.  So there is literally no expense.  How much of your money was spent on this?  I have your figure right here:

$0.00

Pay up.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...




Oh my!!  I'm being walked all over by colored spotlight gels!!!!  Gaaaaahhh!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	












​


----------



## EverCurious (Jul 1, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> EverCurious said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



Obama said "That's a good idea" so stuff it.



Maryland Patriot said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



Actually it was pretty much decided years ago, anyone with one iota of legal/constitutional understanding knew the writing was on the wall.  It's unconstitutional.


----------



## Marianne (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Marianne said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


Ok it was done for free, great because if it wasn't the Obama should get the bill. How about the inappropriateness of the gesture? +


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Marianne said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Marianne said:
> ...



How is it "inappropriate"?

When the WH celebrates the concept of America for the Fourth of July in a few days, will that be "inappropriate"?  After all, most of the world is not America.  Won't that be "taking sides"?


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > EverCurious said:
> ...


 If the presence of a flag can be offensive because of a percieved meaning, why can the display of lights be offensive due to a percieved meaning.
 why do liberals insist on it always being there way, even when there way is just as offensive as the things they argue about.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Marianne said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 do you not see a difference between "the rest of the world" and U.S citizens when it comes to these matters? Why would the Fourth of July offend anyone else in the world unless we dressed up their country and forced them to celebrate it.
 find another example, the one used is too weak to make an impact.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Marianne said:
> ...



Yeah that's the entire fucking point.  It's weak, it's irrational, it's stupid.
Same thing as having a hemorrhage over half a dozen spotlight gels.  No difference.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



And where did I indicate anything like that about the presence of a flag?

Link?
Quote?
Anything?

Careful what you wish for...


----------



## Marianne (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Marianne said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



The 4th of July is a celebration for the nation as a whole. Gay rights are a celebration for only one group that not all Americans agree with. Shouldn't the White House represent all the people all the time and not show favoritism toward one group? Isn't showing favoritism anti American? It's "We The People"  not we the Gay, we the Religious,we the Democrats, we the Republicans,we the Tea Party, we the North,we the South. The rest of the world isn't an American issue.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2015)

Marianne said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.
> ...


Read the thread. It didn't cost a nickle.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Marianne said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Marianne said:
> ...



I put this question out before and got no response, so here goes again ---

If this were 1964 and the Civil Rights Act had just been passed, would it be "inappropriate" for the White House to display, say, a white hand and a black hand coming together?  Would that be an "in your face" to racists?

More to your point here --- would you have to be black to appreciate the display?  Would you have to be "offended" if you're white?

I'm not gay, yet I'm not offended at all when my country lives up to its platform of "all men are created equal".  Weird, isn't it?  Do I _have to_ be gay?  Or can I get away with not being a bigot?


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 Sorry, I think I missed the posts where you were defending the Confederate flag. 
 not sure what Im wishing for but, whatever.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


 Im sure you would go along with the white house hanging signs embracing white pride, or straight pride. 
 If you honestly cant see where this could be construed as offensive to some, you have a bigger problem than your therapist is telling you.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...



I don't defend flags at all --- I think that sort of fetishism is stupid.  But I do attack dumbing-down, which is what the whole "Confederate flag equals racism" meme is about.  I am bilatitudinal, having grown up in both the North and South, ergo I understand that it's more complex than that.

Anyway I went to great lengths to point out that you can't project what somebody else's symbol means to them --- so you stepped in an assumption that has no basis.

I don't give a flying fuck about the Confederate flag or the SCOTUS ruling in themselves.  What I care about is honest debate using honest argument.  And wetting one's diapers over the Confederate flag ain't it, and neither is wetting one's diapers over half a dozen fucking spotlight gels.

Let alone the premise of this thread, which not only bizarrely imagines a rainbow is the opposite of a cross, but goes on to imagine conspiracy theories where it takes several days to change six fucking spotlight gels.  That's even LESS honest.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 1, 2015)

I don't find it offensive.  It really looks kind of pretty, but I wonder how much tax payer dollars went into something so stupid!!  Our government NEEDS to stop wasting our money on nonsensical things!


----------



## Marianne (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Marianne said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


The White House( as in the actual building) isn't there to make political statements for or against anyone or anything period unless it involves the nation as a whole like the fourth of July and with red white and blue lights the colors of our nation as a whole. Government Buildings should be impartial.State flag,government flag that's it. If private citizens want to make such displays they have the freedom to do it.


----------



## Marianne (Jul 1, 2015)

Ravi said:


> Marianne said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


Yup I stand corrected it was donated.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Marianne said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Marianne said:
> ...



Exactly.  And that's why I point out the SCOTUS ruling is the final say, and it's OVER.  That means it *DOES* involve the nation as a whole.

Get it now?

Again --- if this were still an issue on the table subject to sway either way and the WH put the lights up then, THAT would be taking sides.  But it isn't -- that period is _done _now.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> I don't find it offensive.  It really looks kind of pretty, but I wonder how much tax payer dollars went into something so stupid!!  Our government NEEDS to stop wasting our money on nonsensical things!



Zero.  We did that.

It's interesting how you can call it "kind of pretty" in one sentence and then "something so stupid" in the next.
Fascinating.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > I don't find it offensive.  It really looks kind of pretty, but I wonder how much tax payer dollars went into something so stupid!!  Our government NEEDS to stop wasting our money on nonsensical things!
> ...



Just because something is pretty doesn't mean it isn't stupid.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > I don't find it offensive.  It really looks kind of pretty, but I wonder how much tax payer dollars went into something so stupid!!  Our government NEEDS to stop wasting our money on nonsensical things!
> ...



It is a STUPID way to spend tax payer dollars, that is FOR SURE, along with things like funding studies for bunny massages, etc.  Our government spending is out of control!


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...







​


ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Really.

Tell me about these here bunny massages.  Where do I sign up to be a subject?


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 1, 2015)

anyone have the Whitehouse logs yet?  The timing of the assemblage and testing of that light display is very important..


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...


Apples and oranges. Ethnicity and skin color aren't behavior choices. Removing impediments to freedom is the opposite of applying fascist decree.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Exactly. And that's why I point out *the SCOTUS ruling is the final say, and it's OVER*. That means it *DOES* involve the nation as a whole.
> Get it now?
> Again --- *if this were still an issue on the table* subject to sway either way and the WH put the lights up then, THAT would be taking sides. But it isn't -- that period is _done _now.


You don't read the news much, do you? Check out the quote and link in this OP: Texas vs Gay Sex Marriage. Are Behaviors The Same As Race US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> "Partisanship" no longer applies.  It's the law of the land now.  Done deal.  Finito.  The End.  Waiter, check please.  Ain't no "sides" left.



Just like Dred Scott.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



Put your rabbit ears on and show up at Ohio State!  

Rabbits given Swedish massages at Ohio State in 387 000 taxpayer-funded study - The College Fix

Ohio State University used a $387,000 National Institutes of Health grant to study the benefits of Swedish massages on bunny rabbits.

No, this is not a joke.

This absurdly stupid waste of taxpayer dollars was brought to light by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn’s most recent “Wastebook” edition, where he and his staff every year chronicle the unethical and asinine ways in which our government blows taxpayers’ hard-earned cash.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

​


Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Exactly. And that's why I point out *the SCOTUS ruling is the final say, and it's OVER*. That means it *DOES* involve the nation as a whole.
> ...



I don't need a link to a board I'm already on.  Has nothing to do with the point.  That being, once SCOTUS rules, it's DONE.   And when it's done, "sides" cease to exist.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > "Partisanship" no longer applies.  It's the law of the land now.  Done deal.  Finito.  The End.  Waiter, check please.  Ain't no "sides" left.
> ...



And Dred Scott was dealt with via Constitutional Amendment.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 1, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> NoNukes said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


The same Right Wingers who display the Confederate Flag also display the Swastika.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Rabbits???  

This is not what I had in mind at all. 
What am I gonna do with these bunny ears and cottontail I bought you?


----------



## Marianne (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Marianne said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



So what your saying is when Illegals make a victory in the USA we should light up the government buildings in the color of the I.E. Mexican flag? How about the KKK or the Nazi's? Should we do it then?* Illegal Aliens* got the right in the state of CT to apply for college tuition assistance, lets light up Hartford and the White House with red green and white or maybe yellow blue and red or any other combo of an Illegals flag because I believe the new law goes in effect today! Yea us...

Senate House OK Education Bills For Undocumented Students - Hartford Courant


----------



## FJO (Jul 1, 2015)

candycorn said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...



If you can be offended by a word (choose one), perhaps you are too sensitive.


----------



## Political Junky (Jul 1, 2015)

That lighting system is most likely computerized, this is the 21st century.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Marianne said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Marianne said:
> ...









Noooo, I'm not saying anything remotely like that, and that's quite the safari you went on to make that stretch.  

I'm saying that pretending the insertion of half a dozen spotlight gels amounts to "taking sides" on a SCOTUS ruling that's already decided ---- is a dishonest argument.

That's IT.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


But you say it's all set in stone now.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 1, 2015)

Political Junky said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...


That's a totally bigoted statement. You should fly a swastika. It would be appropriate.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Aye, that it is.  As I also said, if we don't agree with the SCOTUS, the remedy is Constitutional Amendment.  Which is what we did after Dred Scott.

I'm pretty sure we didn't flock to message boards to whine about colored lights.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Whine? That's inconsistent criticism. If it was a Westboro light show you'd have none of it and wouldn't consider it whining.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 1, 2015)

That lighting at the (former) White House?

Took only a couple of hours.

Just had to remove the disused Christmas colours and substitute gay ones.  Simple job of unscrewing and (apparently the fun part) screwing.  Not just the lamps; the American people.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Yuh huh.
How exactly would the WBC set up a light show on the White House?  Is the Secret Service that bad?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


What if obama opposed the SC ruling and demonstrated his disapproval with a Westboro light show on the WH? Same damn thing.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



BFD.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




I wouldn't be running to a message board making dishonest arguments about it.


----------



## mdk (Jul 1, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Not hardly. You could fit the amount of people that support Westboro in conversion van. It would be insult to the vast and majority of Americans. Gay marriage however has large support across the country.

The endless whining about this is rather delightful to behold though.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 1, 2015)

Marianne said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Marianne said:
> ...


Civil rights aren't political. They are constitutional. There is nothing wrong with celebrating unconstitutional laws being overturned.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Right. Now you're being dishonest.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Explain.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 1, 2015)

mdk said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Homo marriage has a lot of opposition, too, and for good reason. Obama himself was against it as recently as the 2012 campaign.
Whining is what closeminded bigots call dissent.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Your alleged indifference.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



So you call this thread about conspiracy theories where changing spotlight gels takes several days "dissent"?

Interesting.

I call it "whining".  Albeit creative.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Excellent  -- the good old Speculation Fallacy train, right on time.

Whoot whooot.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


Now you're deflecting. The thread is more about the blatant in-your-face display by an obstinate, self-focused president. You selectively call it whining. I think your whining about what you call whining is more like whining.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


so you've met my ex wife?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


You said _BFD_, not I. Yet you post on this thread. Dishonest.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

Political Junky said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...


I have the confederate flag on my truck,
 I will not put the Swastika on it. 
 one is a symbol of states rights and freedom, the other a symbol of hate and repression


----------



## mdk (Jul 1, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...





So what? Loads of people have changed their minds on gay marriage in the last decade, including the President. No, dissent isn't whining and I never said it was. Whining is what you are doing by comparing this display to Westboro and the court's ruling akin to The Dred Scott decision. That isn't dissent, that is whiny and panty shitting hysterics.


----------



## Marianne (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Marianne said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Why is it a stretch? Now that the LGBT has lit up the White House don't you think other groups will want the same treatment?  Shouldn't they get the same treatment? Why should just the gays have the privilege of having the light house lit up with their victory?  Why not Illegal aliens who get to have the same assistance as legal residents. You keep bring up the 1964 civil rights act but many would argue that lighting up the white house with LGBT colors shows favoritism toward one group is a civil rights violation if the white House now isn't lit up with a Cross,Star of David, White Pride,Cresent Moon or Buddha,immigrants legal or illegal. It's a violation of the civil rights under said act as it outlaws* discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. *Failure to do so is discrimination. I say White Priders should get a lawyer and sue to have their symbol cast upon the White House for all to see. I wonder how hard it would to have the Neo Nazi's claim they are a religion to they can apply for their turn to light up the Swastika. Actually they can skip all that if they don't mind a slight variation and use the Diwali symbol which is already part of the Hindu faith. 





 I don't know that the 64 civil rights act talks specifically about lighting up government buildings.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



I post in this thread because the entire thread's premise is dishonest.

It's what I do -- I'm a rhetorical crime fighter.
Move along now, nothing to see here, show's over....


----------



## Marianne (Jul 1, 2015)

Ravi said:


> Marianne said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


And yet those laws against gay marriage have been in effect since the founding fathers who wrote the Constitution indicating that the Constitutionality of said laws has been in Question for over 200 years, and might be subject to interpretation by whichever supreme court is presiding in the past and future. None the less the SCOTUS has decided and celebrations are fine but should the celebrations be on government buildings? Confederate flag has a Constitutional right to exist and be flown, does that mean it should be broadcast on the white house? No of course not but neither should the Gay Pride Flag because it opens a door that will be hard to shut. If gays have that right so does everyone else wether you like what they stand for or not. You can't discriminate against race,creed,color,gender or nationality. That means those who advocate for white pride can demand that their flag be broadcast on the white house and if not, it's unconstitutional and a violation of law. Failure to do so would be discrimination against whites.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 1, 2015)

So how long DID it take to change the lighting at the (former) White House?

First you gotta figure out how long it takes Democrat serfs to screw in a lightbulb.  And that's a function of whether they're of the same or opposite sex.  The "sames" seem to get done a little more quickly.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 1, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> So how long DID it take to change the lighting at the (former) White House?
> 
> First you gotta figure out how long it takes Democrat serfs to screw in a lightbulb.  And that's a function of whether they're of the same or opposite sex.  The "sames" seem to get done a little more quickly.


 Since it would be a union job, we have to know if the task is a new job classification, how long will it take to hire only affirmative action employees that are only "trainable" then how long to train them before they are ready to change the colors.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> So how long DID it take to change the lighting at the (former) White House?
> 
> First you gotta figure out how long it takes Democrat serfs to screw in a lightbulb.  And that's a function of whether they're of the same or opposite sex.  The "sames" seem to get done a little more quickly.



You really would think somebody who claims to have a radio background would have at some point found himself at a live broadcast, perhaps a concert, maybe even on stage, where he'd have an available clue how spotlight gels work, and that they involve sliding, not "screwing".

Maybe not.



Maryland Patriot said:


> HenryBHough said:
> 
> 
> > So how long DID it take to change the lighting at the (former) White House?
> ...



It's a task you can assign to the regular maintenance guy that he can do literally in less time than it takes to eat lunch.  You don't need to "hire" anybody.  And it certainly requires no "training".


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> You really would think somebody who claims to have a radio background would have at some point found himself at a live broadcast, perhaps a concert, maybe even on stage, where he'd have an available clue how spotlight gels work, and that they involve sliding, not "screwing".



The math was too tough?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 1, 2015)

mdk said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


Th Westboro comparison is pure logic. It is intolerance on the same level as homo marriage is homofascist intolerance.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


That's right. Shut it down when you can't rebut.


----------



## mdk (Jul 1, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



No, it is pure bullshit but please carry on with your hissy fit. While you do, gays will continue to marry in all 50 states, despair in knowing that you can't do a damn thing about it, save whining on the Internet.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



I don't need to "rebut" a fallacy.  They carry their own suicide genes.
All I need to do is identify it.
Which I did.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jul 1, 2015)

Ravi said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Gays reap what they sow. They are calling anyone that doesn't agree that it's perfectly normal hateful, intolerant and phobic. I never thought much about them until they went militant.
> ...


I never was unhappy, ya'll talk a LOT of smack. But you're wrong about them, they are just getting started. Lawsuits will be much more prevalent now and churches will be under fire. Then who knows.


----------



## Iceweasel (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


You can't explain it away child. You said "You guys remember LED lights?"


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...



Jokes do not requre accuracy.  Welcome to Earth.



And PS, while you're here on this planet you may want to look into acquiring what we call "a life".


----------



## Iceweasel (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


In other words your words are meaningless. My life doesn't consist of flinging shit on a web forum that I'm unwilling to be accountable for.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 1, 2015)

mdk said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


Wrong. It's perfectly logical which is why you're having so much trouble grasping it.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


Troll on...


----------



## Iceweasel (Jul 1, 2015)

...like the Supreme court decision ended the abortion debate. LOL.


----------



## mdk (Jul 1, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Whatever you say, drama queen. Get over it.
Or don't. It doesn't really matter to me.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 1, 2015)

mdk said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


Then why do you keep posting?


----------



## mdk (Jul 1, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



I didn't say it wasn't entertaining. I find these bawl baby hissy fits are awesome to behold.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

Political Junky said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > NoNukes said:
> ...



what the? we are talking having the White house light up. It SHOULDN'T have been done OVER some court ruling when it wasn't even a unanimous decision. this was planned to say, UP YOURS and in your face if anyone Disagrees... stick to something that's true for a change


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 1, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Or don't. It doesn't really matter to me.
> ...


 
Great point.  He seems to post quite a lot for someone who assures all of us "this is all over, you have no chance".

Meanwhile, has anyone seen the Whitehouse logs of when this rainbow light display was getting set up and tested?  Looking for dates before June 26, 2015...


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 1, 2015)

The White House has been lit up pink for breast cancer awareness, has been lit up for Christmas and the 4th of July.

Me?  I didn't find anything wrong with the WH being lit up in rainbow colors.  I kinda thought it looked neat.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 1, 2015)

Let me just say to Jarrett and Obama. UP YOURS you classless scum occupying our white house. can't wait until you are GONE

SNIP:

*Rainbow White House*
Whatever your views, don’t treat the White House like a bumper sticker
by Glenn T. Stanton 7 . 1 . 15  
*I write this post not as a partisan, but as an American. The White House should not ever be used as an icon or celebration for any particular political or even social cause or purpose, regardless of our personal belief on the rightness of that cause.* It just shouldn't.

There are many reasons.

First there's whose house it is. It's the people's House which we happily and proudly present to every President to conduct his solemn business of leading our nation and for the protection, enjoyment, and relaxation of his family.

 It is not one person’s, administration’s, or particular group’s house to proclaim his or their particular views on any topic of social or public policy.

Second there's the nature of that great House itself. It is in itself—with no need for help or added flourish—an powerful icon of our nation and all it stands for. If you are proud of what happened on Friday, the White House itself, as well as the dignity of the Court's building, represents that simply because of the kind of government system each stands for. It's physicality and nobility should not be enlisted and used for other purposes.

 It is not a bumper sticker, banner, billboard, placard, or t-shirt and should not be used as one. This House is not our governmental equivalent of a google doodle.

This is not only true of the physical structure at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave itself, but its representation as well, such as in the current icon on the White House's twitter account.

ALL of it here:
Rainbow White House Glenn T. Stanton First Things


----------



## mdk (Jul 1, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



You misunderstand, I am here to watch you crybabies meltdown and craft wild assed conspiracies to buttress your anti-gay animus. I find it hysterical even though we predicted it months ago.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 1, 2015)

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


You did it again.


----------



## mdk (Jul 1, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Yes, I already told you I was going to keep posting here as I enjoy watching the hysterics. You've provided quite a bit today and for that I thank you.


----------



## Freewill (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > bodecea said:
> ...



A waste of money regardless of your excuses.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Freewill said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



There is no money involved.  None.

It's a waste of exactly $0.00.


----------



## Freewill (Jul 1, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Freewill said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...



No one works for nothing, prove you point with at least some sort of left wing link.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 1, 2015)

Freewill said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Freewill said:
> ...



Links are already all over the thread.

_Read _it.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 2, 2015)

Pogo said:


> There is no money involved.  None.
> 
> It's a waste of exactly $0.00.


 
So who paid for the electricity to run the light show?  Oh, that's right, that was ALL of us taxpayers..

And in case some of you may have missed the bigger point of this thread, if Whitehouse logs show that display getting set up and tested before June 26, 2015, there's a BIG problem of evident collusion between the Executive and Judical branches of government.  A conspiracy to remove democracy from the People.  Thought I'd just point out that elephant in the living room..


----------



## Pogo (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > There is no money involved.  None.
> ...



Find us a human being so incompetent that it takes more than a half-hour to change a couple of spotlight gels, and you'll have a start on that there theory.

Meanwhile, as regards the electricity, the lights are _already on_ every night.  They work the same whether there's colored gels or diffusion (clear) gels.  No difference.  _Literally _no difference.  As in $0.00

But congratulations on finding new levels of unspeakably stupid pettiness.  Even if it didn't pay off.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

Yeah, they prolly had the gels ready just in case. Had the decision gone the other way they just would have gone dark and declared a national day of mourning.


----------



## JoeMoma (Jul 2, 2015)

Forget the lights, I'm surprised we didn't get to see the big wet kiss Obama gave Biden when they heard the anouncement of the ruling.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


He isn't gay so how was the g display self focused?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


He isn't gay so how was the g display self focused?


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2015)

Marianne said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > Marianne said:
> ...


There were no laws in effect regarding SSM until recently, certainly not back in the FF's day.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 2, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Find us a human being so incompetent that it takes more than a half-hour to change a couple of spotlight gels, and you'll have a start on that there theory..


 
Given your confidence, will you search out the Whitehouse logs and tell me when the workers were on site installing the colored filters and testing them for an accurate display "when the decision comes down"?  Or does an investigation into those logs at that precise time rattle you a bit?  Maybe it might turn out this happened BEFORE the June 26, 2015 Ruling?


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Find us a human being so incompetent that it takes more than a half-hour to change a couple of spotlight gels, and you'll have a start on that there theory..
> ...



I know, it MUST be a conspiracy to ruin your life!  Damn those colored lights!


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Thanks for confirming your support of the KKK.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Find us a human being so incompetent that it takes more than a half-hour to change a couple of spotlight gels, and you'll have a start on that there theory..
> ...



Why would anyone other than a gay obsessed bigot like you care?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Iceweasel said:


> ...like the Supreme court decision ended the abortion debate. LOL.



Didn't end the debate- but it did ensure women were able to control their own bodies.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > There is no money involved.  None.
> ...



The bigger point being is Silhouette is really, really pissed about Friday's ruling and is going to start lots and lots of anti-gay threads in response.


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 2, 2015)

meanwhile, we have men in the military risking their lives for the US - and the County is more worried about doing the happy dance about "legal" gay marriage.  Some people fight for this Country, some fight against it... just sayin'......


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Iceweasel said:
> 
> 
> > ...like the Supreme court decision ended the abortion debate. LOL.
> ...


 ... and control the body (lives) of other living human beings.  Nice.  (that had no say so or choice in being in there in the 1st place, I might add... and are defenseless.. I might again again!)


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Find us a human being so incompetent that it takes more than a half-hour to change a couple of spotlight gels, and you'll have a start on that there theory..
> ...


O--M--G! Said with a heavy Chinese accent...


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


  If you cant see the value in  knowing the timeline, then you are obviously not concerned with the country.
 without any concern about the lights themselves, right or wrong, lets say that the lighting was changed before the supreme court ruled. This might indicate that the administration knew in advance how the ruling would go. That would be indication that the supreme court was ruling based on what the white house instructed them to do instead of what the Constitution instructed them to do. that would be a serious problem.
 what if the next time, whatever administration is in office tells the court to rule in favor of killing all illegals and shipping all blacks to Africa.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Iceweasel said:
> ...


So are dying folks, wanna give them the right to question the Original Sin?


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> meanwhile, we have men in the military risking their lives for the US - and the County is more worried about doing the happy dance about "legal" gay marriage.  Some people fight for this Country, some fight against it... just sayin'......


Again, giving liberty to Americans is what us veterans laid on the line in the first place....not segregation by sexual orientation...


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 2, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 
We have the opportunity to right the wrong here.
If you want to question The Creator, that is on you.


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 2, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > meanwhile, we have men in the military risking their lives for the US - and the County is more worried about doing the happy dance about "legal" gay marriage.  Some people fight for this Country, some fight against it... just sayin'......
> ...


 
You mean allowing our Country to condone perversity.  Ok.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Yeah- I see no value in coddling idiotic Conspiracy theorists.

When the San Francisco Giants made it to the World Series, the City started planning the victory celebration in advance.

To Conspiracy Theorists- this would mean that the City of San Francisco rigged the World Series.

To any rational person, it just shows people were preparing for a possible outcome.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



Yes- our Country should not be in the business of policing sexual behavior between consenting adults.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


The Creator said to love other humans...Just like God said he does..
yet you people, are transgressing his command..


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


 perversity would be gay guys going into a bath house and having unprotected sex with multible partners that they just met.
 maybe marriage will reduce this some. It wont stop it all but maybe it will decrease to a more acceptable level.
 its all how we look at it. Gay marriage could be a good thing for society. Gays are not going away, men are not going to stop having sex with other men. Maybe if it was more mainstream and more accepted, we could see a reduction in some of the STDs that are currently going around.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


truely, but the religious sects believe they own the American society..


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 What plans were made should the courts have decided the other way?
 Im sure those plans were also standing by just in case. I would be interested in knowing.


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


 
They never were.  Making it legal condones it (condoning a perversion). 
People have been practicing homosexuality for forever.


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 2, 2015)

Moonglow said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


 
Generalization and mostly not true (because there are some that may feel this way). 

Many people want what is best for our Country and society.  We just differ on what we think that is.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Moonglow said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 I disagree, most people now seem to want what is best for them, not society.


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 2, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


 
We wouldn't have to worry about (as much disease) in the first place, if people were either celibate or married the opposite sex.  But we live in a fallen world, and, as has been prophesied, is waxing worse and worse.   You can't tell people how to live, but you don't have to pass laws condoning behaviors and enabling people -

This all just shows that we have an over-emphasis on sex.  Like who you are horny for defines you.  And GOD FORBID you deny yourself your sexual desires!


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 2, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Moonglow said:
> ...


 
In discussions about things that impact our society and country, people that are worried only about themselves should be ignored.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


We all can't be ice cubes...


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


 I agree, however how do we shut up all liberals at once?


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 2, 2015)

So far all we've seen over this is up yours and in your face celebrating. Even from YOUR OWN white house. I found it offensive. but.
I ran across article written by a homosexual. We'll see IF they come down off their high horse and the fu's they've been tossing at us. THIS IS one reason a lot of people oppose this ruling and lifestyle. take it as you like

SNIP
What Gay Couples Should Do With Their Newfound Power
The Supreme Court handed the gay community tremendous power when it decreed same-sex couples have the legal right to form families. Now comes the responsibility.
By Paul Rosnick


By Paul Rosnick
July 2, 2015



wrote an opinion piece for _The Federalist_ explaining why I, as a gay man, opposed same-sex marriage. After last week’s Supreme Court ruling, I find myself on the “wrong side of history,” but the right side of the facts—an incredibly frustrating place to be.

I write now, not to defend the traditional institution of marriage, but to encourage my brothers and sisters in the LGBT community to step up to the great responsibility that is now before them.


The beloved Uncle Ben from Marvel’s “Spider Man” put it nicely when he said, “With great power comes great responsibility.” The Supreme Court handed the gay community a tremendous power when it decreed same-sex couples have the legal right to form families. Now comes the responsibility.

Unfortunately, I fear that the gay community at large is not ready to handle this responsibility. Contrary to what is often portrayed in the media and on television shows like “Modern Family,” LGBT culture is far from “family friendly.”

*Gay Culture Is Not Family-Friendly*
*
SNIP:
The Gay Community Openly Rejects Monogamy

SNIP:
Hedonism Is No Environment for a Child

ALL of it here:
What Gay Couples Should Do With Their Newfound Power*


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 2, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Maryland Patriot said:
> ...


 
I saw what you did there...


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Maryland Patriot said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...


So clever with civil discourse....


----------



## mdk (Jul 2, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> So far all we've seen over this is up yours and in your face celebrating. Even from YOUR OWN white house. I found it offensive. but.
> I ran across article written by a homosexual. We'll see IF they come down off their high horse and the fu's they've been tossing at us. THIS IS one reason a lot of people oppose this ruling and lifestyle. take it as you like
> 
> SNIP
> ...



The author this article stands by his views so much he didn't have the balls to sign his own name to his opinion piece. He used a pseudonym. Too funny.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 2, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Find us a human being so incompetent that it takes more than a half-hour to change a couple of spotlight gels, and you'll have a start on that there theory..


 


Silhouette said:


> Given your confidence, will you search out the Whitehouse logs and tell me when the workers were on site installing the colored filters and testing them for an accurate display "when the decision comes down"?  Or does an investigation into those logs at that precise time rattle you a bit?  Maybe it might turn out this happened BEFORE the June 26, 2015 Ruling?


 


Syriusly said:


> Why would anyone other than a gay obsessed bigot like you care?





Maryland Patriot said:


> *If you cant see the value in  knowing the timeline, then you are obviously not concerned with the country*.
> without any concern about the lights themselves, right or wrong, *lets say that the lighting was changed before the supreme court ruled. This might indicate that the administration knew in advance how the ruling would go. That would be indication that the supreme court was ruling based on what the white house instructed them to do instead of what the Constitution instructed them to do. that would be a serious problem*.
> what if the next time, whatever administration is in office tells the court to rule in favor of killing all illegals and shipping all blacks to Africa.


 


Syriusly said:


> Yeah- I see no value in coddling idiotic Conspiracy theorists.
> 
> When the San Francisco Giants made it to the World Series, the City started planning the victory celebration in advance.
> 
> ...





Maryland Patriot said:


> What plans were made should the courts have decided the other way?
> Im sure those plans were also standing by just in case. I would be interested in knowing.


 
There's really no demand to wonder.  The Whitehouse is required to keep logs of any and all visitors, work done, deliveries etc.  It'll be in the logs.  I'm sure someone is accessing those and we'll be hearing about it soon enough.  That doesn't bother you, right Syriusly?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> So far all we've seen over this is up yours and in your face celebrating. Even from YOUR OWN white house. I found it offensive. but.
> I ran across article written by a homosexual. We'll see IF they come down off their high horse and the fu's they've been tossing at us. THIS IS one reason a lot of people oppose this ruling and lifestyle. take it as you like
> 
> SNIP
> ...



Yes- legal marriage conveys rights and creates responsibilities.

Glad you finally figured out that anyone who gets married assumes responsibilities- regardless of the gender of the person that they marry.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Find us a human being so incompetent that it takes more than a half-hour to change a couple of spotlight gels, and you'll have a start on that there theory..
> ...



Why would what bother me? 

Your nutty conspiracy theories- no.
Someone looking at visitor log's- no.
Your homophobic obsession to attack homosexuals- yeah that bothers me.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



Christian activists have promoted the criminalization of homosexuality since the founding of the country- and not only homosexuality- but the kinds of sex that any consenting adults can have in private.

Only because of Supreme Court rulings have those laws been overturned. 

You call that condoning perversion- I call it getting Big Brother out of our bedrooms.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 2, 2015)

It must suck to be such a miserable fuck.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 2, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> It must suck to be such a miserable fuck.


Hoover or Dyson?


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 
and I call it the slow erosion of values for our society toward and "anything goes" and "everything is relative" thought process".  Time will tell.....  once you get a ball rolling it's hard to stop it.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



And right now the ball is rolling along the path of Equal Rights.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

Ravi said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Pogo said:
> ...


He was celebrating by using the people's house to make his statement in spite of the people.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



YEP. that's how I saw it. but what's new from the lowlife scum they're calling our President, and that Iranian midget, Jarrett.  evidently now RUNNING our white house. they posted how some HOMOSEXUAL GROUP paid to have it done...it was so IN OUR FACE FUCK YOU ALL if you Disagree.
I can't wait until he's frikken gone out of lives.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...



Thanks for that cogent presentation of the bigots point of view.


----------



## mdk (Jul 2, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...





Good grief, it has been almost a week and you still can't stop crying like a toddler about it. I am glad it pisses you and the rest of the anti-gay cranks off.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 2, 2015)




----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

mdk said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


You mean the way people keep suddenly reacting to the confederate flag? Difference is, the anti-CF cranks keep imposing their will everywhere and not just the WH. 
Imagine if that flag was raised at the WH instead of the homofascist colors.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



but but but, that's just DIFFERENT. as if no one should have been OFFENDED over the fact of using OUR WHITE HOUSE as some billboard on the side of a road for THEIR OWN cause/agenda


----------



## mdk (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Yes, that would be a fine example. Here is the inside scoop, I think the whole issue surrounding the Confederate Flag is totally ridiculous and is being blown way out of proportion.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


You mean because of the people.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


It's not surprising that you are more bent out of shape over this than you ever were about Bush's stupid wars, which killed actual Americans. Oh, but teh ghey!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

Ravi said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


No, in spite. Those who agree would be moot.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

Ravi said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


More deflection.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


We the people are free to not be discriminated against. The people includes gay people. No matter how much you cry, this is a victory for the civil rights of all Americans.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

Ravi said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


And then your asshole president goes and puts up that homofascist display, discriminating against dissenters.


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 
... will the next group of degenerates please stand in line ... the USA will gladly give you Equal Rights and further the moral decay of our society much to the pleasure of our enemies!


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Stephanie said:


>



Wow you must really admire what she said Stephanie.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



What you call 'degenerates' I call Americans. 

Glad we are keeping you from having the Government in our bedrooms.


----------



## mdk (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Discriminating against dissenters. lol. It must be awfully hard for you type with that cross on your back.


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 2, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 
they never were in our bedrooms.  that's just a line people like to say/ use to try to make others think they ever were.
it's just silly


----------



## mdk (Jul 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



Never you say? Miscegenation laws and Sodomy laws prove that not to be the case.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


How is equal rights fascist exactly?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

Ravi said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


It's not equal rights. It's coercive privilege. Homos already had the same right to marry a person of the opposite gender just as heteros do. Homos want privileges granted that involve others for no reason. That is coercion. Heteros can procreate, homos cannot. Not with each other. That is the very legit distinction. Why grant privileges that involve others for what is a completely personal and irrelevant behavior choice? Logically, that opens the door to anything.


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 2, 2015)

mdk said:


> Bonzi said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 
Again, who it deciding what is appropriate or acceptable sexual behavior or not?  We can go on ad infinitum about this - if I bring up children or animals, you will say they are defenseless, but if I bring up abortion, because the "defenseless" human has the unfortunate disadvantage of being in someone else's body, they do not have rights.

Sexually, people do what they want to do.  Unless the Government is LITERALLY in the bedroom, no one knows....


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Not this shit again.

Gay couples should be able to marry for love, just like straight couples.


----------



## Bonzi (Jul 2, 2015)

As with many groups, once they sense they have any kind of leverage, they abuse it.

And will continue to do so as long as the political machine (which includes the media) hangs around for the joy-ride.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Find us a human being so incompetent that it takes more than a half-hour to change a couple of spotlight gels, and you'll have a start on that there theory..
> ...



No.  I can't do anything that silly, because I know how spotlights and gels work, and there is simply no way it takes days, or even part of *one* day.  Nor does it take "worker*s*".  It takes one person, unskilled.  You could literally pull a random homeless drunk off the street and have it done in half an hour.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

Ravi said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


And the protection of legal marriage in case that love results in a baby is what legal marriage provides. Completely moot for homos. Instead, legal marriage for homos generates the excuse to contrive unstructured families. Empirically proven to be bad for society. Get with it. Come into the future and progress a little.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 2, 2015)

Maryland Patriot said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Given how spotlight gels work, setting these up before the Court ruling would be the equivalent waste of time as, say, putting fireworks in place now ---- for New Year's Eve.


----------



## mdk (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



There is a reason all of these arguments failed so miserably in almost every courthouse across the nation. It b/c they are outlandishly stupid. Your procreation standard for marriage doesn't exists and applies to no one and yet you insist it must apply for gays to get married. Yeah, no, we're not going to do that.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 2, 2015)

Anybody stop to think about how much Global Warming pollution was caused by running the generators to make electricity for Regime Obama's Little Light Show.

Where IS Algore's righteous religious wrath over this abuse of his planet?


----------



## mdk (Jul 2, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> Anybody stop to think about how much Global Warming pollution was caused by running the generators to make electricity fort Regime Obama's Little Light Show.
> 
> Where IS Algore's righteous religious wrath over this abuse of his planet?



Apparently you didn't stop and think of the fact that those lights are turned every single evening, regardless of what color they display.


----------



## Mr Natural (Jul 2, 2015)

The shit some people get worked up about . . .


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

mdk said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Ravi said:
> ...


The procreation argument is the foundation of marriage. It wasn't explained because, like the inventor of the glove, no one felt it needed to be.
This is why the homo agenda has kept the argument in the religious realm. To avoid an inevitable loss in the social science.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 2, 2015)

mdk said:


> Apparently you didn't stop and think of the fact that those lights are turned every single evening, regardless of what color they display.



Wow, the abuse of the planet is 365 times worse than I had thought.

Thank you for the new information on how America's Kenyan Emperor hates Earth, not just a single country!


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> Anybody stop to think about how much Global Warming pollution was caused by running the generators to make electricity for Regime Obama's Little Light Show.
> 
> Where IS Algore's righteous religious wrath over this abuse of his planet?


But one of the colors was green.


----------



## mdk (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Procreation isn't a standard in this nation to get married. If it was the state would take away all the marriages of those that cannot or will not have children. It doesn't exist and it applies to no one. It is a standard purely pulled out thin air in a lame attempt to deny gays access to marriage. The vast and overwhelming majority of the courts across the nation agreed as well.


----------



## mdk (Jul 2, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Apparently you didn't stop and think of the fact that those lights are turned every single evening, regardless of what color they display.
> ...



366 time worse that you thought when it is a leap year. lol.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

mdk said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...


Those who cannot procreate were afforded adoption privileges. Something homos should not be allowed (except in extenuating circumstances) because they don't provide a mother and a father. Current news. Get with it it. Come into the future and progress a little.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


You'd appear more intelligent if you didn't pull all your facts out of your ass.


----------



## mdk (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Not one thing you posted changes the fact that having children isn't a requirement for marriage in this nation.

Oh please, you wouldn't know progress if it fell out of the sky and hit you in the lap.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 2, 2015)

mdk said:


> Not one thing you posted changes the fact that having children isn't a requirement for marriage in this nation.
> 
> Oh please, you wouldn't know progress if it fell out of the sky and hit you in the lap.


 
mdk, how do you suppose it will matter if it is found through Whitehouse logs that this rainbow light display was being set up and tested before June 26, 2015?


----------



## mdk (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Not one thing you posted changes the fact that having children isn't a requirement for marriage in this nation.
> ...



I know you think there is some wild conspiracy of collusion between The White House and The Supreme Court; however, like all of your previous conspiracy theories you have jack and shit to back up your claims.


----------



## Maryland Patriot (Jul 2, 2015)

HenryBHough said:


> Anybody stop to think about how much Global Warming pollution was caused by running the generators to make electricity for Regime Obama's Little Light Show.
> 
> Where IS Algore's righteous religious wrath over this abuse of his planet?


As true as that may be, consider this, how much energy will be saved by gays being married and living in the same house vs maintaining two homes if single. and they will carpool to the store and other places. 
 Gay marriage is good for the environment.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 2, 2015)

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > mdk said:
> ...



And Jack didn't come to work today, or as we usually call it, "Jack off".


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.
> 
> The trouble is, the equivalent would have been if the cult of LGBT lost 5-4 and instead of a rainbow, we had a huge Christian cross projected on the Whitehouse instead.  Think the LGBT folks would have had nothing to say about that?...
> 
> ...


Lol.

Fun to watch the bellyaching.

How do you reckon that this is somehow a "middle finger" to more than half of the country? Or are you just grumpy and now you need your nappy time?

Lol...

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## EverCurious (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> And in case some of you may have missed the bigger point of this thread, if Whitehouse logs show that display getting set up and tested before June 26, 2015, there's a BIG problem of evident collusion between the Executive and Judical branches of government.  A conspiracy to remove democracy from the People.  Thought I'd just point out that elephant in the living room..





Silhouette said:


> Given your confidence, will you search out the Whitehouse logs and tell me when the workers were on site installing the colored filters and testing them for an accurate display "when the decision comes down"?  Or does an investigation into those logs at that precise time rattle you a bit?  Maybe it might turn out this happened BEFORE the June 26, 2015 Ruling?



I already answered your question in post 180-something:



EverCurious said:


> And closest "timeline" I can find: For Obama rainbow White House was a moment worth savoring - The Washington Post
> "Aditi Hardikar, the LGBT liaison in the White House Office of Public Engagement,_* first floated the idea of lighting up the residence a few weeks ago*_, and White House senior advisers Valerie Jarrett and Tina Tchen worked with outside groups to pull off the move."



That article was posted 6/30/2014, so Valerie and Tina likely started planning this around mid to late May, after they got the presidents approval.  Testing, max, one night; all they have to do is flip off every other light and check the alignment - they didn't even move any of the lights if you look at the light placement in other pictures; it's almost like it was meant to be...

There is no conspiracy here, ANYONE with an iota of legal sense knew how the SCOTUS was going to rule on this.  Plus even if they had the shit set up in advance and it went the other way, so what? They remove the gels/push "white" on the LED remote panel - 30minutes max - and colored lights don't happen.


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 2, 2015)

We only have a year and half left for these pukes to crap all over us.

please DON'T vote them for President come 2016 OR EVER again


----------



## OnePercenter (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> candycorn said:
> 
> 
> > Another thread about GOP butthurt.  Great
> ...



I'm not racist, sexist, or homophobic, so I'm not insulted.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Bonzi said:
> ...



Actually they were.

Read Lawrence v. Texas- it will help relieve your ignorance.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Legal marriage doesn't care whether there is any possibility of a baby being created or not. 

Matter of fact- Wisconsin required some couples to prove that they could not have a baby together before Wisconsin would allow them to legally married.

And you wouldn't know what was 'empirically proven' if it slapped you in the face.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

Bonzi said:


> As with many groups, once they sense they have any kind of leverage, they abuse it.
> 
> And will continue to do so as long as the political machine (which includes the media) hangs around for the joy-ride.



When did this discussion turn to the Tea Party?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Ravi said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Just like blacks in Virginia  had the same right to marry a person of the same color- just as whites did.
Homosexuals wanted to be able to marry the person they wanted to marry- just as my wife and I did, just as the Lovings did.
No one is coercing you to get 'gay married'- really you have an odd viewpoint of the word 'coercion' since the only ones who were being 'coerced' were same gender couples who were told they could not marry.

Now- no one is being coerced.

Life is good- well except for the bigots.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

OnePercenter said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > candycorn said:
> ...


You speak for everyone?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



You don't speak for "Americans", either - and this thread is most certainly about butthurt. 

The fact that you were "insulted" by the lights on the White House is your own issue to deal with, not mine.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

theDoctorisIn said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


I speak for Americans who were insulted and there are plenty of us.  Considering that the president is supposed to represent _all_ of the people his display was rude and in poor taste. Selfish homos who like to have their butts hurt can't get past their own agenda.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



"Plenty"?

How many is "plenty", exactly? Did they all vote to make you their spokesperson?

The fact that you were "insulted" by the White House sharing in celebration with millions of couples around the country who now have the ability to marry who they choose says much more about you than it does the President.

You guys lost, and most Americans are happy about it. 

Deal with your butthurt.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



What about selfish people who want to control everyone else's lives?


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 2, 2015)

theDoctorisIn said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...



How do you know most Americans are happy about it. You go take a poll or something? that is only your opinion like everyone else has one. so you deal with it


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

theDoctorisIn said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...


I'm sure quit a few sheeple not unlike yourself were excited by Dred Scott, too.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 2, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



I didn't have to take a poll on it - many professional polling companies have done so for me.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...


You mean like homofascists who want to force their irrelevant behavior on everyone?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...





How cute.

It's more like _Loving v. Virginia_.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...


And there are still lots who are opposed. 
Harry Powell wanted to kill children for money.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 2, 2015)

I see we've gotten WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY off topic.

Has anyone discovered yet whether or not these lights were set up or tested before June 26, 2015?  And if those Whitehouse logs aren't out yet, would any of you like to weigh in on the import if it's discovered this happened say up to a week before the Ruling was announced?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > Stephanie said:
> ...



Many people were opposed to Loving v. Virginia, too.

But eventually they all died, or got over their butthurt. Maybe you'll be one of the lucky ones.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



The non-racists, the non-sexists, and the non-homophobic.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> I speak for Americans who were insulted and there are plenty of us.  Considering that the president is supposed to represent _all_ of the people his display was rude and in poor taste. Selfish homos who like to have their butts hurt can't get past their own agenda.



Only the homophobic were insulted, which is OK in my book.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> I see we've gotten WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY off topic.
> 
> Has anyone discovered yet whether or not these lights were set up or tested before June 26, 2015?  And if those Whitehouse logs aren't out yet, would any of you like to weigh in on the import if it's discovered this happened say up to a week before the Ruling was announced?




It's called contingency preparation. An easy thing to do.  Really, do you see boogeymen under your bed at night as well?


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



What are they forcing on you?


----------



## mdk (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> I see we've gotten WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY off topic.
> 
> Has anyone discovered yet whether or not these lights were set up or tested before June 26, 2015?  And if those Whitehouse logs aren't out yet, would any of you like to weigh in on the import if it's discovered this happened say up to a week before the Ruling was announced?



Stop asking us to do your homework for you. It's your conspiracy theory, you prove it.


----------



## mdk (Jul 2, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Other than clutch his pearls? Nothing.


----------



## OnePercenter (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> You mean like homofascists who want to force their irrelevant behavior on everyone?



Don't worry, it won't effect your downloading of gay porn.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 2, 2015)

Statistikhengst said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > I see we've gotten WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY off topic.
> ...



It's like screaming _conspiracy_ because the team on TV are wearing t-shirts saying "World Champions" minutes after the World Series ends.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 2, 2015)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Yepp, that pretty much sums it up.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

theDoctorisIn said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...


You homonazis are dense. Race is not a behavioral choice. Interracial hetero couples can procreate. Homos cannot. 
Dred Scott was amended. That's why I mention it. It was a fascist decree like homo marriage and it didn't sustain. The hope is that logical people will prevail and this homofascism will be reversed, too.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

theDoctorisIn said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...


Harry Powell was a homo, too. A child abusing homo.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

OnePercenter said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > OnePercenter said:
> ...


What does racism and sexism have to do with this?
Again, homophobe is a misnomer. Those who use the term forfeit credibility and demonstrate intellectual deficiency.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Acquiescence, acknowledgment, adoption, subsidies, etc., all by government decree.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...





As I said, let the butthurt out. Nothing will be reversed. It's over, you lost. The tides have turned, there's no going back.

Hopefully you'll survive it, and be able to look back on how foolish you were (are).


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 2, 2015)

theDoctorisIn said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > theDoctorisIn said:
> ...


You can't deal with the logic. You are off to the troll bin.
And what is with the anal obsession you have anyway?


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Harry Powell is a _fictional character_.


----------



## theDoctorisIn (Jul 2, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Nothing you've said has the slightest bit to do with "logic".

As for the rest, I just think the term "butthurt" is funny.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> I see we've gotten WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY off topic.
> 
> Has anyone discovered yet whether or not these lights were set up or tested before June 26, 2015?  And if those Whitehouse logs aren't out yet, *would any of you like to weigh in on the import if it's discovered this happened say up to a week before the Ruling was announced*?


 



Statistikhengst said:


> *It's called contingency preparation*. An easy thing to do.  Really, do you see boogeymen under your bed at night as well?


 


theDoctorisIn said:


> It's like screaming _conspiracy_ because the team on TV are wearing t-shirts saying "World Champions" minutes after the World Series ends.


 
We'll let a Congressional committee look into it and see if it was contingency or an act of expectation.  These types of things don't just get ramrodded through on the last minute.  When someone comes to work on a display at the Whitehouse, it takes weeks of application, approval and red tape at a miniumum, unless it's emergency services.

So, where was the contingency preparation for if the cult of LGBT lost and the question was put back to the states (you know, where they say they have no fear of winning because "a majority of Americans now support gay marriage")? 

This isn't a team on TV.  This is our President giving the appearance of collusion with another branch of government to fix a certain outcome.  Big difference...


----------



## Pogo (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > I see we've gotten WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAYYYYY off topic.
> ...



Are you, like, mentally retarded?

The idea of it being necessary to "take weeks of application, approval and red tape" for the task of changing a few spotlight gels is like going to a résumé service and getting six letters of recommendation to land a paperboy route.  _There's no such thing.  *Spotlight gel-changer isn't even enough to create a job description. *_ ANYWHERE.

What exactly part of "it takes a few minutes, something the regular maintenance guy can do in less time than it takes to eat lunch" is sailing over your pointy head here?


----------



## Pogo (Jul 2, 2015)

theDoctorisIn said:


> Statistikhengst said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



It's exactly like that -- except it takes about ten times longer to print up T-shirts than to change spotlight gels.

Gelgate!!  Conspiracy!!  
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	





SMH


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 2, 2015)

Pogo said:


> The idea of it being necessary to "take weeks of application, approval and red tape" for the task of changing a few spotlight gels is like going to a résumé service and getting six letters of recommendation to land a paperboy route.  _There's no such thing.  *Spotlight gel-changer isn't even enough to create a job description. *_ ANYWHERE.
> 
> What exactly part of "it takes a few minutes, something the regular maintenance guy can do in less time than it takes to eat lunch" is sailing over your pointy head here?


 
Well clearly there seems to be a muddle.....that can be solved in one easy way.....the Whitehouse logs....


----------



## Pogo (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > The idea of it being necessary to "take weeks of application, approval and red tape" for the task of changing a few spotlight gels is like going to a résumé service and getting six letters of recommendation to land a paperboy route.  _There's no such thing.  *Spotlight gel-changer isn't even enough to create a job description. *_ ANYWHERE.
> ...



I have never in my life seen anybody "log" spotlight gel changing.  There's no such thing.

Do you "log" every time take a drink of water?


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 2, 2015)

Pogo said:


> I have never in my life seen anybody "log" spotlight gel changing.  There's no such thing.
> 
> Do you "log" every time take a drink of water?


 All work done at the Whitehouse is kept track of...for security reasons if nothing else.  There will be a paper trail and it will be found.  Does that bother you?


----------



## mdk (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > The idea of it being necessary to "take weeks of application, approval and red tape" for the task of changing a few spotlight gels is like going to a résumé service and getting six letters of recommendation to land a paperboy route.  _There's no such thing.  *Spotlight gel-changer isn't even enough to create a job description. *_ ANYWHERE.
> ...



Well...go find them and report back to us. It isn't our job to prove yourself bullshit.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > I have never in my life seen anybody "log" spotlight gel changing.  There's no such thing.
> ...



Then why don't you go look for it instead of whining delusionally on an internet message board?

I don't give a flying fuck where there might be a notation of gels being changed --- BECAUSE I KNOW HOW EASY IT IS TO DO.

"A clue" -- get one.


----------



## mdk (Jul 2, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > I have never in my life seen anybody "log" spotlight gel changing.  There's no such thing.
> ...



No, why would it? Your conspiracies are as laughable as they are desperate.


----------



## Statistikhengst (Jul 3, 2015)

What a fun thread. "The White House KNEW it would win the SSM thing, just KNEW it, cuz, cuz, cuz Beelzebub!!"

Gesendet von meinem GT-I9515 mit Tapatalk


----------



## Stephanie (Jul 3, 2015)

If that is what they are going to use OUR white house for WE THE PEOPLE pays for. For a Presidents own pleasure just over some freaking COURT RULING and a sign to tell others FU if you don't agree with this ruling. then I'd like it see torn down. He can go back and live in his shanty they own in Chicago. and take that Mother'in'law with them


----------



## mdk (Jul 3, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> If that is what they are going to use OUR white house for WE THE PEOPLE pays for. For a Presidents own pleasure just over some freaking COURT RULING and a sign to tell others FU if you don't agree with this ruling. then I'd like it see torn down. He can go back and live in his shanty they own in Chicago. and take that Mother'in'law with them



I am glad this display has pissed you off so much, you petty crybaby!


----------



## bodecea (Jul 3, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> If that is what they are going to use OUR white house for WE THE PEOPLE pays for. For a Presidents own pleasure just over some freaking COURT RULING and a sign to tell others FU if you don't agree with this ruling. then I'd like it see torn down. He can go back and live in his shanty they own in Chicago. and take that Mother'in'law with them


Poor Stephanie....looks like you need to call on all your American Spring millions to march on Washington....again....over this.   Let's ROLLLLLLLLLLL!


----------



## bodecea (Jul 3, 2015)

mdk said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > If that is what they are going to use OUR white house for WE THE PEOPLE pays for. For a Presidents own pleasure just over some freaking COURT RULING and a sign to tell others FU if you don't agree with this ruling. then I'd like it see torn down. He can go back and live in his shanty they own in Chicago. and take that Mother'in'law with them
> ...


It's been worth it...very worth it.......just like our clown avies.   Priceless in the RW butthurt.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Are you really this much of a baby?


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



What are you acquiescing?  What adoption?  What subsidies.  Be more specific please.  If you are going to bitch then you really should have SOMETHING concrete at which you are angry about.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 3, 2015)

This is a thread about the light display, not all the other topics you're trying to introduce to deflect..


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 3, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> If that is what they are going to use OUR white house for WE THE PEOPLE pays for. *For a Presidents own pleasure just over some freaking COURT RULING and a sign to tell others FU if you don't agree with this ruling*. then I'd like it see torn down. He can go back and live in his shanty they own in Chicago. and take that Mother'in'law with them


That display was as appropriate for this branch of government as it was for Justices Kagan and Ginsburg to have presided over gay weddings while the question of "should the fed preside over gay weddings" was pending in the appeal's system on its way up to their Court.

You don't practice tyranny and then flaunt it in the face of the People. In the old days they used to hang them for these types of offenses. And not without excellent reason too.

That's why I keep asking for the dates this light display was set up. Those dates area very important given the arrogance of the display. Because arrogance against the Governed + Foreknowledge of a Judicial Ruling by the Executive Branch = conspiracy & treason.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 3, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > If that is what they are going to use OUR white house for WE THE PEOPLE pays for. *For a Presidents own pleasure just over some freaking COURT RULING and a sign to tell others FU if you don't agree with this ruling*. then I'd like it see torn down. He can go back and live in his shanty they own in Chicago. and take that Mother'in'law with them
> ...



There ARE NO *"DATES*" necessary to set up.  It takes like fifteen minutes.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 3, 2015)

The rainbow lights won't be shifted back to traditional Christmas colours because that would take too long and cost too much.

At least that'll be the excuse.....


----------



## mdk (Jul 3, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > If that is what they are going to use OUR white house for WE THE PEOPLE pays for. *For a Presidents own pleasure just over some freaking COURT RULING and a sign to tell others FU if you don't agree with this ruling*. then I'd like it see torn down. He can go back and live in his shanty they own in Chicago. and take that Mother'in'law with them
> ...



That wasn't the two question before the courts but whatever. Keep crying though, your tears taste marvelously.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Sieg heil!


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Tax breaks and adoption rights for homos. Acquiescence to forced recognition of a legal marriage based on an irrelevant personal behavior.
Sieg heil!


----------



## mdk (Jul 3, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 3, 2015)

mdk said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Sieg heil!


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



I'm sorry, but forcing your personal beliefs on someone else is more a form of tyranny.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Sieg heil!


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Yup, that's all you've got left, right?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Sieg heil!


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

Gay people here in America work, pay taxes, contribute to the economy and are Americans.  They deserve the same rights and privileges as anyone else and should not be discriminated against because of what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.  That is just silly.  Not to mention, mean spirited.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Gay people here in America work, pay taxes, contribute to the economy and are Americans.  They deserve the same rights and privileges as anyone else and should not be discriminated against because of what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.  That is just silly.  Not to mention, mean spirited.


Who is coming into their bedrooms and discriminating against them? They are bringing their bedrooms out to everyone and forcing concessions.
Sieg heil!


----------



## Nutz (Jul 3, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> maybe we can ask that Dear leader of ours to please light up our white house with this; it's so simple. all in favor. call, write. email


Yeah....let's roll!


----------



## Pogo (Jul 3, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Gay people here in America work, pay taxes, contribute to the economy and are Americans.  They deserve the same rights and privileges as anyone else and should not be discriminated against because of what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.  That is just silly.  Not to mention, mean spirited.
> ...



I know, right?  Just today I've had 23 gay people at my door looking for sex, depravity and of course children to molest.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Gay people here in America work, pay taxes, contribute to the economy and are Americans.  They deserve the same rights and privileges as anyone else and should not be discriminated against because of what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.  That is just silly.  Not to mention, mean spirited.
> ...



Not really.  Before this ruling, if two men went to get a marriage license, chances are they could be denied just because they are two men.  Same goes for two women.  I think you people are so worried unnecessarily.  These people already exist and they aren't going to disappear.  It's not like people are suddenly going to "turn gay" you know.  You are either gay or you are not gay.  The less than 10% of people who may be gay and may get married are not going to affect anything in your life.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 3, 2015)

I wish Congress would get off their asses and impeach Obama over this.


----------



## mdk (Jul 3, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


----------



## mdk (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Don't bother, my friend. Roshawn is an unreasonable crybaby. You would have better luck trying to discuss this issue with a cat or houseplant. lol.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

mdk said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



That seems to be the case with a LOT of the "people" on here.    They are SO damn ignorant.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 3, 2015)

mdk said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...


Sieg heil!


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Gay people here in America work, pay taxes, contribute to the economy and are Americans.  They deserve the same rights and privileges as anyone else and should not be discriminated against because of what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.  That is just silly.  Not to mention, mean spirited.


There's no such thing as "gay people" anymore than there are "bulimic people".  A sexual or eating orientation doesn't make an identity.  And if it does, then all sorts of behavioral orientations make equally legally-potent "identities".

And that's going to cause a whole rat's nest of legal problems.

And speaking of problems...anyone see a problem with the Whitehouse being all set up and ready to flaunt this arrogant light show ahead of the Supreme Court Ruling?  I do...


----------



## mdk (Jul 3, 2015)

We've reduced Roshawn to a mindlessly spamming hissy fit. Too funny.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Gay people here in America work, pay taxes, contribute to the economy and are Americans.  They deserve the same rights and privileges as anyone else and should not be discriminated against because of what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.  That is just silly.  Not to mention, mean spirited.
> ...



You are a nut job.


----------



## mdk (Jul 3, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Gay people here in America work, pay taxes, contribute to the economy and are Americans.  They deserve the same rights and privileges as anyone else and should not be discriminated against because of what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.  That is just silly.  Not to mention, mean spirited.
> ...



Everyday you prove how unhinged you are becoming over this issue. Get a grip Sil!


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 3, 2015)




----------



## mdk (Jul 3, 2015)

Vigilante said:


>



Okay, that is pretty funny.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

mdk said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



They act as if it gives them an ouchie.


----------



## mdk (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Right! They are so bored they have to invite things to bitch about. lol.


----------



## Vigilante (Jul 3, 2015)




----------



## mdk (Jul 3, 2015)

Vigilante said:


>



Though I disagree with public accommodation laws, if you can't tell the difference between a church and a public businesses then you are far too gone to even help.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 3, 2015)

mdk said:


> Though I disagree with public accommodation laws, if you can't tell the difference between a church and a public businesses then you are far too gone to even help.


 
Can you tell the difference between an individual's right to exercise of their religion vs a church?  Check up on the 1st Amendment's language and see if the word "church" is in there anywhere.  Oh, and while you're brushing up on the Constitution, give the 9th Amendment a good read too; you know, when you're claiming that PA laws are dominant to freedom of religion...


----------



## mdk (Jul 3, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Though I disagree with public accommodation laws, if you can't tell the difference between a church and a public businesses then you are far too gone to even help.
> ...



Yay! Another lame brained claim of sovereign citizenship from you. The day I take any legal advice or schooling in the Constitution from you is the day hell freezes over.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 3, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.
> 
> The trouble is, the equivalent would have been if the cult of LGBT lost 5-4 and instead of a rainbow, we had a huge Christian cross projected on the Whitehouse instead.  Think the LGBT folks would have had nothing to say about that?...
> 
> ...



Remember it is not OK to display the Confederate flag or have the ten commandments on tax payer property, but this is ok.

Yes the hypocrisy of the far left is on full display here!


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

Kosh said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Well the big middle finger to more than half the country was a very fancy and huge rainbow light display on our public Whitehouse.  The electricity to run it was paid for by taxpayers, all of us.  But you have to admit, it was big, the colors quite perfectly aligned.  Quite a fancy display indeed.
> ...



I am also PRO flying the southern flag.  People need to have their freedom without the government interfering.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 3, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Gay people here in America work, pay taxes, contribute to the economy and are Americans.  They deserve the same rights and privileges as anyone else and should not be discriminated against because of what they do in the privacy of their own bedrooms.  That is just silly.  Not to mention, mean spirited.
> ...


As long as left wing nazis prevail, law and logic are paradoxical.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Sorry, but you religious weirdos are more like the Nazis, trying to force your beliefs on others.  America is not a theocracy.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

It's ironic that the ones FOR freedom are being called "nazis."  Lol.  How stupid and ignorant can one be?


----------



## Kosh (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



It does not matter to me, but to outlaw one flag and claim it is not allowed on tax payer property, then to do what the far left did at the WH, just shows their hypocrisy.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

Kosh said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



I agree.  I am totally against the flag situation.  However, that is less serious than denying people the right to their happiness and to marry the person they love.  

What if things were reversed?  Try putting yourself in that situation, and you can see how unfair it is.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Yet "marriage" is not a "right"..

And "marriage" is not always happy. A piece of paper can not create the happiness, anyone believing a piece of paper equals happiness, then they are definitely not one to understand the situation.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

Kosh said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Well then, I suppose you should get divorced.    What difference does it make?


----------



## Kosh (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Again a piece of paper did not bring any happiness, it is just a piece of paper. Although from some a lot of pieces of paper with numbers on them also thinks that will bring happiness as they dig for gold. If someone needs a piece of paper to be happy then their priorities are all mixed up..


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

Kosh said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



So?  What if they are?  What difference does it make to you?


----------



## Kosh (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Just pointing out that the happi9ness has to be there before that piece of paper, if not a piece of paper is not going to make them happy and thus dispelling the myth that it will.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

Kosh said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Well, I don't see how this argument is effective against SSM, since the same can be the case for heterosexual couples.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



Not claiming it was against SSM (you assumed it was), just pointing out that a piece paper can not make one happy. If it does then their priorities are all out of whack. And it applies to everyone thinking that a piece of paper brings happiness.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 3, 2015)

Kosh said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



Okay . . .


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 3, 2015)

Chasing strawmen again eh?...


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 3, 2015)

It seems as if posters here are incapable (on purpose?) of visiting the subject of this thread.

Hey Chris, do you think it matters if Obama's Whitehouse had that rainbow light display in place and tested out before June 26, 2015?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 3, 2015)

Granted................if you're not happy with your significant other before you get married, a piece of paper saying you are married won't make you happier.

However......................almost all of the gay people that I saw on the news that were getting married looked pretty happy with each other.

No, that piece of paper won't make you happy, but it WILL give you security in case your significant other dies, it WILL get you into their hospital room if they are hurt or sick because you will be considered immediate family, and that piece of paper WILL get you tax breaks that are given to all married Americans.

Besides....................most gay couples that I've known have been together LONGER than most hetero couples that I've known.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...


So you advocate forcing irrelevant personal sexual acts into others. You advocate for what you object to.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 3, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



How is legalizing gay marriage "forcing irrelevant personal sexual acts into others".

Gays being allowed to marry DOES NOT mean that straights are going to have to perform irrelevant sexual acts.


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 3, 2015)

ABikerSailor said:


> RoshawnMarkwees said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


Legal marriage involves everyone from acknowledgment to subsidies to adoption, etc.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 3, 2015)

Hey Wee-Wee Boy Roshawn....................how is allowing gays to marry going to affect YOUR own marriage?

It won't.


----------



## mdk (Jul 3, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> It seems as if posters here are incapable (on purpose?) of visiting the subject of this thread.
> 
> Hey Chris, do you think it matters if Obama's Whitehouse had that rainbow light display in place and tested out before June 26, 2015?



What is there to focus on? You have not produced a shred of evidence to support your assertion. Instead, you demand others to find it for you. When they don't, you pretend it further supports your assertion. Hint: it doesn't. Show us what you got!


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 3, 2015)

Yanno................any halfway decent roadie from just about any halfway decent band could fix that light display in probably less than an hour, because it only requires 6 different colored gels be placed on the EXISTING lights that already light up the place.

When the WH heard about the SC ruling THAT MORNING, I'm sure that in the 10 or so hours of daylight left, they could get it completed before nightfall.

Test run my ass........................because if there WERE a test run, don't you think that the hundreds of tourists (as well as the locals) that pass in front of it every night would have noticed and posted pics on Instagram?


----------



## RoshawnMarkwees (Jul 3, 2015)

ABikerSailor said:


> Hey Wee-Wee Boy Roshawn....................how is allowing gays to marry going to affect YOUR own marriage?
> 
> It won't.


Homos adopting children contributes to the social problems caused by kids missing a parent.
Sieg heil.


----------



## bodecea (Jul 3, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Kosh said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...


No...I'm sure Kosh never got legally married.  After all "a piece of paper can not create" happiness.


----------



## Kosh (Jul 3, 2015)

bodecea said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Kosh said:
> ...



No such thing as illegal marriage, but the far left drones still think it exists..

Yes the far left thinks that one piece of paper can bring happiness where none exited before that piece of paper, thus this far left drone proves my comments!


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 4, 2015)

Hey Kosh, your thoughts on the light display?  Was it set up before or after the Ruling on June 26, 2015?


----------



## August West (Jul 4, 2015)

I think the light display was Obama`s way of gloating and taunting and I approve that message. He`s saying fuck you to the racist birthers and the "he`s a secret Muslim" halfwits. I`d like to see 2 more years of this sort of thing


----------



## Pogo (Jul 4, 2015)

So dig this ----

I went to watch fireworks last night and one of them blew up rainbow colors all over the sky!  

WHEN WERE THOSE FIREWORKS DESIGNED???  Factory logs!!

Conspiracy!!  Impeach O'bama!!!


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 4, 2015)

August West said:


> I think the light display was Obama`s way of gloating and taunting and I approve that message. He`s saying fuck you to the racist birthers and the "he`s a secret Muslim" halfwits. I`d like to see 2 more years of this sort of thing


 Any words about WHEN the light display was set up and tested?  Y'all keep dodging that one.  Yeah, I noticed.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 4, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> > I think the light display was Obama`s way of gloating and taunting and I approve that message. He`s saying fuck you to the racist birthers and the "he`s a secret Muslim" halfwits. I`d like to see 2 more years of this sort of thing
> ...



Actually that was answered as long ago as *post 4*.  And dozens of times since.  But there's nothing smarter than asking the same stoopid question over and over and over after it's already been answered.  When you can't find your keys, and then you find them, do you keep on looking?

Perhaps you're looking in the wrong place...


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 4, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Actually that was answered as long ago as *post 4*.  And dozens of times since.  But there's nothing smarter than asking the same stoopid question over and over and over after it's already been answered.


 



Pogo said:


> How the Hell do you figure the opposite of a rainbow is a cross?
> You must not have experience setting up staging. That effect can _easily _be set up in a day.
> It's a cool effect, sure beats white. They should keep it permanently.


 
That's what you said in post #4.  However, we know that things at the Whitehouse don't work that quickly.  And the display was too perfect, the lights were trained too well and the division of color took some doing, adjustments.  The logs will show it.

Let me put the question to you another way then: If the Whitehouse logs show that the display was set up in advance of the Court Ruling, is that a problem for Obama's image as a fascist leader that seems to be an emerging phenomenon?


----------



## mdk (Jul 4, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Actually that was answered as long ago as *post 4*.  And dozens of times since.  But there's nothing smarter than asking the same stoopid question over and over and over after it's already been answered.
> ...



Do you have any proof? What am I saying, of course you don't have any. Another one of Sil's batshit conspiracy theories goes up in smoke. 

I hear this display was funded by Gold's Gym and Dylan Roof.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 4, 2015)

mdk said:


> Do you have any proof? What am I saying, of course you don't have any.


Let Pogo answer.  That's why you interjected.  So he would have an exuse not to by your strawman.


----------



## mdk (Jul 4, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have any proof? What am I saying, of course you don't have any.
> ...


I'll interject in any thread as I see fit. Tough shit if you don't like it. 

Got any proof for you assertion?


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 4, 2015)

Kosh said:


> bodecea said:
> 
> 
> > ChrisL said:
> ...



It is not up to you to determine what should or should not bring happiness to other people.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 4, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> mdk said:
> 
> 
> > Do you have any proof? What am I saying, of course you don't have any.
> ...



You are posting on a discussion board.  Anyone can answer your silly posts.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 4, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Actually that was answered as long ago as *post 4*.  And dozens of times since.  But there's nothing smarter than asking the same stoopid question over and over and over after it's already been answered.
> ...



You are a nut job, plain and simple.    It must be really suck to live your life in fear of homosexuals.


----------



## farmer (Jul 4, 2015)

He'll I was the sound man and I could change the gels in under 2 minutes when the light guy got to drunk.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 4, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> > I think the light display was Obama`s way of gloating and taunting and I approve that message. He`s saying fuck you to the racist birthers and the "he`s a secret Muslim" halfwits. I`d like to see 2 more years of this sort of thing
> ...



OMG!  The light display.  This is just SOOOO concerning.  Get a grip on yourself.  If you have some kind of documentation to prove any of your silly assertions, then please post it.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 4, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Actually that was answered as long ago as *post 4*.  And dozens of times since.  But there's nothing smarter than asking the same stoopid question over and over and over after it's already been answered.
> ...



They're LED lights.  They focus very easily.  Doesn't take "doing".  Actually getting this simple idea through your dense cranium takes a lot more "doing".

And again, changing spotlight gels is not something anyone anywhere has ever taken the time to "log".  It would be like logging the time you picked up your pencil.

See that post from Farmer about changing gels in two minutes?  That's accurate.  I've done the same thing.


----------



## farmer (Jul 4, 2015)

If a rainbow  display gets her this worked up I wonder if a mass Gay wedding  ceremony on the White House  lawn would  make  her head  explode.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 4, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Actually that was answered as long ago as *post 4*.  And dozens of times since.  But there's nothing smarter than asking the same stoopid question over and over and over after it's already been answered.


 



Pogo said:


> How the Hell do you figure the opposite of a rainbow is a cross?
> You must not have experience setting up staging. That effect can _easily _be set up in a day.
> It's a cool effect, sure beats white. They should keep it permanently.


 


Silhouette said:


> That's what you said in post #4.  However, we know that things at the Whitehouse don't work that quickly.  And the display was too perfect, the lights were trained too well and the division of color took some doing, adjustments.  The logs will show it.
> 
> Let me put the question to you another way then: If the Whitehouse logs show that the display was set up in advance of the Court Ruling, is that a problem for Obama's image as a fascist leader that seems to be an emerging phenomenon?


 


Pogo said:


> They're LED lights.  They focus very easily.  Doesn't take "doing".  Actually getting this simple idea through your dense cranium takes a lot more "doing"....And again, changing spotlight gels is not something anyone anywhere has ever taken the time to "log".  It would be like logging the time you picked up your pencil...See that post from Farmer about changing gels in two minutes?  That's accurate.  I've done the same thing.


 
That's not what I asked. What I asked is IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE DISPLAY WAS SET UP AND TESTED *BEFORE THE RULING*, would that be a terrible argument in favor of Obama's (and the Court's) manifesting fascism?


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 4, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> August West said:
> 
> 
> > I think the light display was Obama`s way of gloating and taunting and I approve that message. He`s saying fuck you to the racist birthers and the "he`s a secret Muslim" halfwits. I`d like to see 2 more years of this sort of thing
> ...



Nobody has dodged anything, you repetitive half-wit.  The question has been addressed multiple times by different posters.  You simply choose to ignore both that it wouldn't require extensive preparation or testing and that, even should it have been set up before the ruling, it is basically meaningless.

Pretend you haven't been answered and keep asking the question, though, that's what you do.  In every one of your many, many, many anti-gay threads.


----------



## mdk (Jul 4, 2015)

What if it is found that this was set up by the ghost of Harvey Milk!?


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 4, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Actually that was answered as long ago as *post 4*.  And dozens of times since.  But there's nothing smarter than asking the same stoopid question over and over and over after it's already been answered.
> ...



Holy shit.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 4, 2015)

Oh the hypocrisy of the illumination, burning precious electricity; flooding the atmosphere with carbon.  Where_ IS_ Algore when he should be running around unplugging the lights to save the planet?


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 4, 2015)

Pogo said:


> They're LED lights.  They focus very easily.  Doesn't take "doing".  Actually getting this simple idea through your dense cranium takes a lot more "doing"....And again, changing spotlight gels is not something anyone anywhere has ever taken the time to "log".  It would be like logging the time you picked up your pencil...See that post from Farmer about changing gels in two minutes?  That's accurate.  I've done the same thing.


 


Silhouette said:


> That's not what I asked. What I asked is IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE DISPLAY WAS SET UP AND TESTED *BEFORE THE RULING*, would that be a terrible argument in favor of Obama's (and the Court's) manifesting fascism?


 


ChrisL said:


> Holy shit.


 
So you agree if they set it up before the Ruling came down that it's alarming?  Good. Glad one of your fold has come around to their senses..


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 4, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > They're LED lights.  They focus very easily.  Doesn't take "doing".  Actually getting this simple idea through your dense cranium takes a lot more "doing"....And again, changing spotlight gels is not something anyone anywhere has ever taken the time to "log".  It would be like logging the time you picked up your pencil...See that post from Farmer about changing gels in two minutes?  That's accurate.  I've done the same thing.
> ...



I'm pretty sure you've had only one person agree that your deluded conspiracy theory is alarming at all and it's not ChrisL.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 4, 2015)

Like I said before...................the SC ruling was handed out that MORNING, meaning there were still a full 10 hours or so of daylight to set up the display before sunset.

2 min to change a gel?  There were six colors on the side, so 6 x 2 = 12, meaning 12 min. of actual time changing the gels, and probably another 10 or 15 min. walking back and forth and checking the alignment.

At the max?  Maybe a 30 min job for one person.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 4, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I'm pretty sure you've had only one person agree that your deluded conspiracy theory is alarming at all and it's not ChrisL.


Well technically 56% voted it's offensive so it's safe to say that those folks if they found out these lights were set up and tested before the Ruling came down, would find that equally offensive.  The Whitehouse logs will prove it out.  There's probably a conservative somewhere looking into that.  An excuse to out Obama possibly having foreknowledge of the Ruling would not be missed by them I think.  We'll see...


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 4, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



And when did they authorize you to speak for them?

LOL.....you speak for yourself- and no one else. 

Which is okay- I speak for myself- and I certainly am not insulted- most everyone I know was delighted by the lights.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 4, 2015)

RoshawnMarkwees said:


> theDoctorisIn said:
> 
> 
> > RoshawnMarkwees said:
> ...



Did the White House have rainbow flags for Dred Scott?

LOL........

I am sure that quite a few sheeple like yourself were upset when the Courts told States that yes we can use contraceptives and no- the State doesn't have the authority to police how we have sex with another consenting adult and no- States can't ban guns(oh wait- Supreme Court good if it rules for guns....bad if it rules for homosexual rights.....lol)


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 4, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure you've had only one person agree that your deluded conspiracy theory is alarming at all and it's not ChrisL.
> ...



Always good to see Silhouette wearing her KONSPIRACY CAP!


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 4, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > I'm pretty sure you've had only one person agree that your deluded conspiracy theory is alarming at all and it's not ChrisL.
> ...



Why do you think that is 'safe to say'?  Just because someone is offended by the rainbow lights doesn't mean they are going to agree with your whacky conspiracy theory that testing those lights early means the administration somehow rigged the decision.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 4, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> I'm pretty sure you've had only one person agree that your deluded conspiracy theory is alarming at all and it's not ChrisL.





Silhouette said:


> Well technically 56% voted it's offensive so it's safe to say that those folks if they found out these lights were set up and tested before the Ruling came down, would find that equally offensive.  The Whitehouse logs will prove it out.  There's probably a conservative somewhere looking into that.  An excuse to out Obama possibly having foreknowledge of the Ruling would not be missed by them I think.  We'll see...


 


Montrovant said:


> Why do you think that is 'safe to say'?  Just because someone is offended by the rainbow lights doesn't mean they are going to agree with your whacky conspiracy theory that testing those lights early means the administration somehow rigged the decision.


 
So when you failed basic logic in high school, did they make you take Summer school that year?


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 4, 2015)

You have an hilarious idea of logic, Sil.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 4, 2015)

ABikerSailor said:


> Like I said before...................the SC ruling was handed out that MORNING, meaning there were still a full 10 hours or so of daylight to set up the display before sunset.
> 
> 2 min to change a gel?  There were six colors on the side, so 6 x 2 = 12, meaning 12 min. of actual time changing the gels, and probably another 10 or 15 min. walking back and forth and checking the alignment.
> 
> At the max?  Maybe a 30 min job for one person.



Ah, but we're talking about a union employee, his/her/its helper, two levels of supervisor and a DC electrical inspector.  Plus, of course, the permits and environmental impact statements that should have been required.  Those take people to process.......lots and lots of people....and their supervisors.....


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 5, 2015)

Okay.............there's a lot of bureaucracy.............but it still wouldn't take all day to complete.

With all the red tape and other crap?  Probably about 4 hours, 7 if they take a lunch break.

Still enough time to change the gels and paint the WH in colors.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 5, 2015)

By the way- San Francisco City Hall was lit up with wonderful Red White and Blue lights tonight.

Probably took an hour or two to set that up.

I am sure Silhouette can find some way to blame homosexuals for that too.


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 5, 2015)

Of course Silhouette can find a way to blame the homosexuals............

I mean..........the gays are trying to co-opt the colors of the United States by showing them on a building in San Francisco (the known start of the gay movement).

Gays are trying to take over America by showing red white and blue colors on a building.

Sneaky gays.............they'll do anything............................


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 5, 2015)

COME ON people!  WE have bigger fish to fry!  This is absolutely ridiculous.  It looked pretty.  It harmed no one.  I do wish they would have done a red, white and blue display for Independence Day though.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 5, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> COME ON people!  WE have bigger fish to fry!  This is absolutely ridiculous.  It looked pretty.  It harmed no one.  I do wish they would have done a red, white and blue display for Independence Day though.


 Yes, there are MUCH bigger fish to fry than mere lights in rainbow colors.

Number one example of a much bigger fish to fry...  Why were those lights set up and tested BEFORE the SCOTUS Ruling on gay-sex marriage was handed down?  That's a very big fish indeed..


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 5, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > COME ON people!  WE have bigger fish to fry!  This is absolutely ridiculous.  It looked pretty.  It harmed no one.  I do wish they would have done a red, white and blue display for Independence Day though.
> ...



Yes!!!!  Because preparation = nefarious intent!!!!  

It looks like you've decided your timeline is true rather than simply questioning it, huh?


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 5, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Yes!!!!  Because preparation = nefarious intent!!!!
> 
> It looks like you've decided your timeline is true rather than simply questioning it, huh?


 Did they have a cross light display ready to go in the case the Ruling didn't go in the cult's favor?


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 5, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Yes!!!!  Because preparation = nefarious intent!!!!
> ...



Haven't you been over this whole idiocy that a cross is the opposite of a rainbow already?

Why don't you explain why, if preparations for this light display were set up prior to the ruling, it is somehow evidence of foreknowledge based on a corrupted decision rather than simply hoping or expecting for a particular decision?  Particularly with a close 5-4 ruling like this one?

You might also explain why you seem to have transitioned from questioning the timing of the display to making statements that the lights were set up prior to the ruling.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 6, 2015)

Might I suggest that any criminal investigation into this matter include interviewing the following poster?

From post #12: here: Gay-Sex Marriage Settled ..Who Decides Polygamy Polyamory Next Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum



Skylar said:


> It is the court's job to determine constitutionality. Which they did in the Obergefell ruling.
> And *we told you they were going to do. We told you the split, the precedent that would be cited, the legal principles that would be employed, the amendments that would be used, we even told you who would write the ruling*.
> But you insisted that you and your pseudo-legal gibberish knew better.
> How'd that work out for you?


----------



## Faun (Jul 6, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> Something FISHEY about all that. I mean, how did they get that done in such a short time for one. And how much MONIES did that cost us for two. And all over some ruling by the Supreme court. he is offensive, arrogant, DISGUSTING  and told half the nation to go FXXK themselves...
> 
> the mans a puke


Who didn't know the Supreme Court was going to rule in favor of equal protection??


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Might I suggest that any criminal investigation into this matter include interviewing the following poster?
> 
> From post #12: here: Gay-Sex Marriage Settled ..Who Decides Polygamy Polyamory Next Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> ...



A criminal investigation, huh? And what crime are you claiming was committed?

And does it involve running mascara and a fainting couch?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Faun said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > Something FISHEY about all that. I mean, how did they get that done in such a short time for one. And how much MONIES did that cost us for two. And all over some ruling by the Supreme court. he is offensive, arrogant, DISGUSTING  and told half the nation to go FXXK themselves...
> ...



Sil, apparently.


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 6, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Might I suggest that any criminal investigation into this matter include interviewing the following poster?
> 
> From post #12: here: Gay-Sex Marriage Settled ..Who Decides Polygamy Polyamory Next Page 2 US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
> 
> ...



Who are you suggesting this to?  Do you think there are some sort of law enforcement officials reading this thread who are just waiting for someone to provide a suggestion before they pounce?  

I'd also like to know just what crime(s) you think were committed.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > COME ON people!  WE have bigger fish to fry!  This is absolutely ridiculous.  It looked pretty.  It harmed no one.  I do wish they would have done a red, white and blue display for Independence Day though.
> ...



First, you don't know that is the case. You assume it is. 

Second, even assuming it is.....so what? The Supreme Court was widely expected to uphold same sex marriage. The White House may have merely planned accordingly.

You're insinuating yet another batshit conspiracy, like you did when you insisted that Gallup polling had been 'infiltrated by homosexuals' and was now falsely reporting support for same sex marriage.

You're quite mad.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Might I suggest that any criminal investigation into this matter include interviewing the following poster?
> ...



Sil is just working through his grief by inventing insane conspiracy theories.


----------



## Moonglow (Jul 6, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> COME ON people!  WE have bigger fish to fry!  This is absolutely ridiculous.  It looked pretty.  It harmed no one.  I do wish they would have done a red, white and blue display for Independence Day though.


Where did you get your fish?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 6, 2015)

Like I said.................it takes a short time to change 6 gels on lights that already exist.

The WH has a large staff dedicated to maintaining the grounds and fixing or changing what the President wants done.

In the 10 or so hours of daylight left after the announcement of the SCOTUS decision, I'm pretty sure they could have made the light display happen before sunset.

Sheesh..................some people are acting like the WH has only 1 groundskeeper who is ancient and can't get around very fast.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 6, 2015)

ABikerSailor said:


> Like I said.................it takes a short time to change 6 gels on lights that already exist.
> 
> The WH has a large staff dedicated to maintaining the grounds and fixing or changing what the President wants done.
> 
> ...



To swap out gels? Minutes.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 6, 2015)

ABikerSailor said:


> In the 10 or so hours of daylight left after the announcement of the SCOTUS decision, I'm pretty sure they could have made the light display happen before sunset.
> 
> Sheesh..................some people are acting like the WH has only 1 groundskeeper who is ancient and can't get around very fast.


 


Skylar said:


> To swap out gels? Minutes.


 
And to test the display before it was lit?


----------



## Faun (Jul 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > In the 10 or so hours of daylight left after the announcement of the SCOTUS decision, I'm pretty sure they could have made the light display happen before sunset.
> ...


How long does it take to flip a switch??


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > In the 10 or so hours of daylight left after the announcement of the SCOTUS decision, I'm pretty sure they could have made the light display happen before sunset.
> ...



How fast does light travel again?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Sigh....this has to be the low point in Sil's journey to the center of batshit island.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Jul 7, 2015)

"That Rainbow Whitehouse Light Display Took How Many Days To Set Up?"

What's remarkable is that you and others on the right are still whining about this non-issue.


----------



## mudwhistle (Jul 7, 2015)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "That Rainbow Whitehouse Light Display Took How Many Days To Set Up?"
> 
> What's remarkable is that you and others on the right are still whining about this non-issue.


I noticed that they didn't light up the Whitehouse Red White & Blue for the 4th.

Shows everyone what Obama thinks is important. 

If the left figures it wasn't hard to light it up with rainbow colors, why couldn't they be patriotic?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

mudwhistle said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> > "That Rainbow Whitehouse Light Display Took How Many Days To Set Up?"
> ...



Perhaps they limit the gels for once in a life time events. While there is a 4th every year.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > In the 10 or so hours of daylight left after the announcement of the SCOTUS decision, I'm pretty sure they could have made the light display happen before sunset.
> ...



I thought this issue was put to bed already?  What in the hell are you complaining about now?  

Iowa lights help bathe White House in rainbow colors

Lights that were donated from an Oskaloosa company in 2008 helped illuminate the White House in rainbow colors following the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling on same-sex marriage Friday.


----------



## mdk (Jul 7, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...



Sil will ignore anything and everything that doesn't support her rabidly anti-gay narrative. In her narrow mind this display costs millions of dollars and has been place long before the ruling. These conspiracy theories are just a way for her to feel better about her life's work being an abject failure.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...




All that means is that this conspiracy goes all the way back to 2008. BEFORE Obama was president. So not only did they know in advance of the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in 2008, they knew Obama was going to be sitting in the White House when it happened. This before the election!

The entire system is rigged! Where's my fainting couch?!


----------



## G.T. (Jul 7, 2015)

Stephanie said:


> maybe we can ask that Dear leader of ours to please light up our white house with this; it's so simple. all in favor. call, write. email


Why would the u.s. who won the civil war display the confederate flag who lost the civil war and were disbanded?

What a weirdo suggestion


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> All that means is that this conspiracy goes all the way back to 2008. BEFORE Obama was president. So not only did they know in advance of the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in 2008, they knew Obama was going to be sitting in the White House when it happened. This before the election!
> 
> The entire system is rigged! Where's my fainting couch?!


 
It isn't a conspiracy theory to notice that within hours of the Supreme Court Ruling, a perfectly adjusted/tested rainbow light display blazes across the Whitehouse in a massive "fuck you" to the majority and the governed who lost their voice in the crucial debate of "should we make an institution out of fatherless or motherless marriages where children are the main focus?". 

I know it was there and set up the day before.  The Whitehouse logs are available to the public, no?


----------



## Pogo (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



And it's done by _electric lights_!  Thomas Edison's in on it too!!


----------



## Pogo (Jul 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > All that means is that this conspiracy goes all the way back to 2008. BEFORE Obama was president. So not only did they know in advance of the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in 2008, they knew Obama was going to be sitting in the White House when it happened. This before the election!
> ...



Uh, yyyyyyeah, because when I see a rainbow, the first thing I think is .... "fuck you".


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > All that means is that this conspiracy goes all the way back to 2008. BEFORE Obama was president. So not only did they know in advance of the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in 2008, they knew Obama was going to be sitting in the White House when it happened. This before the election!
> ...



Oh, those damn lights.  They are out to get you!  Everyone is out to get you.  You should probably just go hide somewhere and lay low for a while.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 7, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > maybe we can ask that Dear leader of ours to please light up our white house with this; it's so simple. all in favor. call, write. email
> ...




Requires one _hell_ of a gobo design too.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> *I know it was there and set up the day before.*  The Whitehouse logs are available to the public, no?




How do you know?


>>>>


----------



## Ravi (Jul 7, 2015)

G.T. said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> > maybe we can ask that Dear leader of ours to please light up our white house with this; it's so simple. all in favor. call, write. email
> ...


No idea but I've written to the Floriduh presidential candidates (Rubio, Bush) and asked them to suggest doing this. I think it would be totally sweet.


----------



## Ravi (Jul 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> ABikerSailor said:
> 
> 
> > In the 10 or so hours of daylight left after the announcement of the SCOTUS decision, I'm pretty sure they could have made the light display happen before sunset.
> ...


Seconds.


----------



## farmer (Jul 7, 2015)

WorldWatcher said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > *I know it was there and set up the day before.*  The Whitehouse logs are available to the public, no?
> ...


The voices in her head told her.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 7, 2015)

Pogo said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



Next time some ass cuts me off in traffic, I'm gonna get 'em told.  I'll flip a switch and my whole front bumper will light up in a rainbow.  Because nothing says "fuck you" like a rainbow light display, except maybe a li'l unicorn with a daisy in its mouth.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > All that means is that this conspiracy goes all the way back to 2008. BEFORE Obama was president. So not only did they know in advance of the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in 2008, they knew Obama was going to be sitting in the White House when it happened. This before the election!
> ...



The majority support same sex marriage. And the batshit conspiracy is this: 



			
				Silhouette said:
			
		

> Because if it was being set up before Friday, that means the outcome of the case was known or likely to have been known by the people involved. One would assume that would include President Obama.



Or......the lights had been given to the White House more than half a decade earlier. 

Remember Sil, and this point is fundamental: you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## Faun (Jul 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > All that means is that this conspiracy goes all the way back to 2008. BEFORE Obama was president. So not only did they know in advance of the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in 2008, they knew Obama was going to be sitting in the White House when it happened. This before the election!
> ...


What "majority?" Most people agree with the Supreme Court decision.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Skylar said:
> ...



You forget the other hopelessly batshit conspiracy theories that clutter Sil's worldview: that Gallup and every other polling agency that shows majority support for same sex marriage has been 'infiltrated by homosexuals' and is offering false polling data.

For Sil, its a conspiracy based on a conspiracy based on a conspiracy ad infinitum. The rhetorical equivalent of 'turtles all the way down'.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 7, 2015)

Faun said:


> What "majority?" Most people agree with the Supreme Court decision.


 
Justice Scalia doesn't:



> Justice Antonin Scalia is chastising the Supreme Court’s landmark decision legalizing same-sex marriage on Friday as an affront to the principle of democratic rule...Scalia argues in his opinion that the court is increasingly creating policy rather than serving as a neutral arbiter...“Today’s decree says that my Ruler, and the Ruler of 320 million Americans coast-to-coast, is a majority of the nine lawyers on the Supreme Court,” he writes...“This practice of constitutional revision by an unelected committee of nine, always accompanied (as it is today) by extravagant praise of liberty, robs the People of the most important liberty they asserted in the Declaration of Independence and won in the Revolution of 1776: the freedom to govern themselves.”.. ..But he wrote that he views the opinion as an overreach by the court, and chides the justices as “hardly a cross-section of America.”..He notes that all the justices graduated from Harvard or Yale Law School, eight grew up on the coasts, and that not one is an evangelical Christian or a Protestant, religions that make up significant chunks of the American population. ..“To allow the policy question of same-sex marriage to be considered and resolved by a select, patrician, highly unrepresentative panel of nine is to violate a principle even more fundamental than no taxation without representation: no social transformation without representation,” he writes.


 

Faun, would it be a problem for you from a Constitutional separation of powers viewpoint to learn that the rainbow lights were set up and tested at the Whitehouse before the Ruling came down from the Supreme Court?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > What "majority?" Most people agree with the Supreme Court decision.
> ...



Justice Scalia isn't the majority. Not of the people and not of the courts.

Perhaps 'majority' doesn't mean what you think it means. As you seem to be equating the term with whatever you already believe.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > What "majority?" Most people agree with the Supreme Court decision.
> ...



It _would _be a problem from the viewpoint of *knowing how fucking spotlight gels work.*


----------



## farmer (Jul 7, 2015)

In a perfect  world  we would have  9 neutral  justieces (sp) who would not let personal  opinion  sway their votes. Robots who only look at case law and the constitution. A robot court  would have voted 9-0 in favor  of  SSM.


----------



## HenryBHough (Jul 7, 2015)

Pogo said:


> It _would _be a problem from the viewpoint of *knowing how fucking spotlight gels work.*



Oh, they _*WORK*_!

Goodie, that means Obama can count them as being _employed_!


----------



## Faun (Jul 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > What "majority?" Most people agree with the Supreme Court decision.
> ...



So? He was not in the majority.



Silhouette said:


> Faun, would it be a problem for you from a Constitutional separation of powers viewpoint to learn that the rainbow lights were set up and tested at the Whitehouse before the Ruling came down from the Supreme Court?


Only if you can prove the White House influenced the decision. Can you?


----------



## ABikerSailor (Jul 7, 2015)

Hey Sil..................if the lighting schedules are public record, you should be able to find where they spent days testing the lighting.

The reason you can't, is because it wasn't set up days before, it was set up THAT DAY.

But.............if the conspiracy is what helps you sleep at night......................


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> ChrisL said:
> 
> 
> > COME ON people!  WE have bigger fish to fry!  This is absolutely ridiculous.  It looked pretty.  It harmed no one.  I do wish they would have done a red, white and blue display for Independence Day though.
> ...



Yeah- clearly your Konspiracy Kookiness is a Big Fish now.

LOL.......


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Might I suggest that any criminal investigation into this matter include interviewing the following poster?
> ]



You suggest all sorts of Konspiracy Krap.

No one is stopping you.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 7, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > ABikerSailor said:
> ...


OH MY GOD- this just shows that the KONSPIRACY goes all the way back to 2008!


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > What "majority?" Most people agree with the Supreme Court decision.
> ...



Why would it be?

I have pointed it out again- San Francisco started planning for a possible World Series win weeks before the series started. 

Yes- even before the first pitch was thrown in the World Series, San Francisco had on how to handle the celebrations- including lighting up City Hall with Giants colors. 

To Silhouette this would mean there was a Konspiracy(probably involving gays and Harvey Milk), but to anyone else it just means prior planning


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 7, 2015)

Skylar said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Wait- wait- you forget that Silhouette also believes that Gays forced last the Pope to retire! 

Because well- you know he retired.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 7, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Skylar said:
> 
> 
> > All that means is that this conspiracy goes all the way back to 2008. BEFORE Obama was president. So not only did they know in advance of the 2015 Supreme Court ruling in 2008, they knew Obama was going to be sitting in the White House when it happened. This before the election!
> ...



Feel free to find out- though it would be a first for you to actually make the effort to check the facts before making your batshit crazy claims.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Faun said:
> ...



Because you KNOW you are carrying Harvey Milk stamps around with you!!!    You are just another part of the evil Konspiracy to take over the world!


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Might I suggest that any criminal investigation into this matter include interviewing the following poster?
> ...


 
We have

1. Two US Supreme Court Justices who were performing gay marriages while the question of "should the fed preside over all 50 states, approving gay marriage without states' consent?" was pending.  There is now serious talk of impeaching them and retrying the case.  If there ever was a case for impeaching a Justice, Ginsburg and Kagan have made that case for Congress.

2.  A Whitehouse rainbow light display, perfectly aligned and tested, fully lit just hours after the Ruling saying "the fed is forcing all 50 states to recognize gay marriages".

3. A blogger named "Skylar" (the same one who was bragging how orphanages should have their funding cut off if they refuse to adopt out to gay men or women coming to get little boys or little girls to bring home) saying he knew exactly how the Ruling was going to come down, months in advance of it even being Heard, down to the exact case laws they'd cite and who would author the Opinion.  Which is pretty creepy if you think about it.

Put all three of them together and you have what on its face appears to be treachery and contempt for the US Constitution, its bylaws, the description of the separation of powers and the required decorum for both the SCOTUS and the POTUS.  In other words you have a group of people who just a hundred years or so ago would've been wearing braided rope neckties.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 8, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Two Justices performed legal marriages where there was no question of their legality.

There is no 'serious' talk of impeaching them- and there is no 'do-overs'.

The case has been decided and your melt down continues.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 8, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



There is no ruling that says the fed is forcing all 50 states to recognize gay marriage. The Supreme Court recognized that Americans have the right to marry, regardless of the gender of their spouse. 

And yes- the Whitehouse had lights- which you take to be part of some vast Gay Konspiracy. 

Because you are a loon.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 8, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



A blogger named Silhouette told us she knew exactly how the Ruling was going to come down- months in advance.

She of course was pulling all of her reasoning out of her ass, and of course the Court didn't do any of what she predicted- so when someone actually correctly interprets the law- she presumes it is 'creepy'.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 8, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Once again- Silhouette demonstrates that when she hears hoofbeats- she assumes that it must be gay unicorns attempting to molest little boys rather than horses.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 8, 2015)

The whole world knows who the loons are. And it isn't the people who are disgusted by the queer president or the minority of homonazis he's set against the majority.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 8, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



In the wasteland of cognitive dissonance, being completely wrong_ is actually a virtue_. As it demonstrates that you had no foreknowledge. 

And that you didn't have the slightest clue what you were talking about.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> The whole world knows who the loons are. And it isn't the people who are disgusted by the queer president or the minority of homonazis he's set against the majority.



Huh. I wasn't aware that 37% was the 'majority'. 






I could have sworn that 60% was though.


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 8, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Syriusly said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



This is the best post you have ever done!  OMG!

 



Skylar is the secret master behind the gay conspiracy in this country!  Thank you for ferreting his true identity out, Sil!


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...


 
Must you queers ALWAYS screech?


----------



## guno (Jul 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> The whole world knows who the loons are. And it isn't the people who are disgusted by the queer president or the minority of homonazis he's set against the majority.


Still in the anger phase of your grieving


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Did my use of exclamation points bother you?  And now I'm queer?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 8, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Syriusly said:
> ...



Kneel! Bow!

Bwahahahahaha!

(sigh....if only I had a well oiled mustache to twirl....or a blonde to lash to rail road tracks)


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Must you bigots always embrace the Nazi's?


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 8, 2015)

koshergrl said:


> The whole world knows who the loons are. And it isn't the people who are disgusted by the queer president or the minority of homonazis he's set against the majority.



Ah yes the loony pro-Nazi homophobes like you- who think that a man who has two children, has been married over 20 years- and has always dated women- well he must be a 'queer'.

Of course you also probably think he is a Muslim too- since he eats pork, drinks alcohol, was married in a Christian church, and had his children baptized.

Did you by anychance get born on Bizarro world?


----------



## mdk (Jul 8, 2015)

There really isn't any end to the amount of people involved in Sil's vast and far reaching conspiracy. All the polling agencies, all the courts that didn't rule the way she wished, a majority of the Justices, the White House, every study that doesn't ft her narrative, Dylan Roof, Oprah, Terror Alerts, and now...Skylar. lol.

We predicted Sil would lose her shit after this ruling but I didn't anticipate it going to such extremes. She is becoming more delirious by the day.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 8, 2015)

In Sil's world......being completely clueless and utterly wrong on every point is actually a virtue. A demonstration that you aren't part of the imaginary 'conspiracy' and had no foreknowledge of the ruling. 

The 'incompetence is integrity' motif is a new one.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 8, 2015)

What do you know?  Another page buried by the usual crowd employing ad hominems and diversion to get people to forget we are talking about the POTUS having foreknowledge (setting up the rainbow lights and testing them in advance) of how the gay marriage Ruling was going to go.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 8, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> What do you know?  Another page buried by the usual crowd employing ad hominems and diversion to get people to forget we are talking about the POTUS having foreknowledge (setting up the rainbow lights and testing them in advance) of how the gay marriage Ruling was going to go.



Says the guy that folded me into another batshit conspiracy theory.

By name.


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 8, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> What do you know?  Another page buried by the usual crowd employing ad hominems and diversion to get people to forget we are talking about the POTUS having foreknowledge (setting up the rainbow lights and testing them in advance) of how the gay marriage Ruling was going to go.



Yes, we are all diverting away from the topic that has already been addressed on multiple occasions by different posters.  It would not take long to set up the colored lights.  There is no need for it to have been done prior to the ruling.  Even if it was done prior, all that indications is preparation.  As has been pointed out with various examples, people and organizations often set things up, including celebrations, prior to the outcome of an event being known.  

There is no reason to think this had to be set up prior to the ruling because adding color to the White House spotlights is a trivial procedure.  Even if it were not, or if the bureaucracy involved made it take longer than it should, and the lighting was set up prior to the ruling, only in your gay-hating, conspiracy creating mind is that indicative of some sort of collusion in the USSC voting.  Had the ruling gone the other way the colors could simply have been removed.

You incredibly obtuse, repetitive Chicken Little.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 9, 2015)

Did they have a cross light display on hand in case the Ruling went the other way?


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 9, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> It would not take long to set up the colored lights. There is no need for it to have been done prior to the ruling. Even if it was done prior, all that indications is preparation. As has been pointed out with various examples, people and organizations often set things up, including celebrations, prior to the outcome of an event being known.
> There is no reason to think this had to be set up prior to the ruling because adding color to the White House spotlights is a trivial procedure. Even if it were not, or if the bureaucracy involved made it take longer than it should, and the lighting was set up prior to the ruling, only in your gay-hating, conspiracy creating mind is that indicative of some sort of collusion in the USSC voting. Had the ruling gone the other way the colors could simply have been removed...


The arrogance of setting up and testing the lighting before the Ruling would be beyond the pale. Add to that the insult of actually displaying it. Not to mention the danger to national security given that the number one complaint of terrorist muslims citing their main beef with the US is that we are the infidels, depraved, immoral etc. For simple reasons of keeping Americans safe, the proper thing to do would be to have a muted response.

And what does the idiot in the Whitehouse do? Approves of a reckless display of arrogance...as if all Americans support gay marriage. The lie is that a majority of Americans do. And that's why they battled so friggin' hard to keep it from a popular vote.

This was a act of facism. That display might as well have been the nazi flag, for how it represented true democracy. He should just paint a hammer and sickle on the front of the Whitehouse and be done with the formalities.


----------



## koshergrl (Jul 9, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > It would not take long to set up the colored lights. There is no need for it to have been done prior to the ruling. Even if it was done prior, all that indications is preparation. As has been pointed out with various examples, people and organizations often set things up, including celebrations, prior to the outcome of an event being known.
> ...


Yup.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 9, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> What do you know?  Another page buried by the usual crowd employing ad hominems and diversion to get people to forget we are talking about the POTUS having foreknowledge (setting up the rainbow lights and testing them in advance) of how the gay marriage Ruling was going to go.



Another page buried by sane people pointing out your insane Konspiracy theories.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 9, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > It would not take long to set up the colored lights. There is no need for it to have been done prior to the ruling. Even if it was done prior, all that indications is preparation. As has been pointed out with various examples, people and organizations often set things up, including celebrations, prior to the outcome of an event being known.
> ...



Actually just good planning- as I pointed out before- San Francisco planned for the World Series win actually in advance of the win.

In your world that would mean a Konspiracy to rig the World Series.

In anyone else's world, it just means good contingency planning.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 9, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > It would not take long to set up the colored lights. There is no need for it to have been done prior to the ruling. Even if it was done prior, all that indications is preparation. As has been pointed out with various examples, people and organizations often set things up, including celebrations, prior to the outcome of an event being known.
> ...



Nope. You're simply offering hysteric overreaction as your argument. And your ability to assess 'arrogance' is about as useful as your ability to assess the law. Namely, non-existent.

Do you have anything beyond emotion based conspiracy batshit to offer us here?


----------



## Skylar (Jul 9, 2015)

Syriusly said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



And the outcome of the World Series was a literal toss up. Whereas this ruling came down as it was widely expected it would by legal experts across the country.


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 9, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Did they have a cross light display on hand in case the Ruling went the other way?



I can't imagine there would be.  Not only because a different ruling would not be a victory for Christian rights in the way the actual ruling was for gay rights; not only because the opposite of gay rights isn't Christianity; not only because the administration and Democrat part in general seem to be on the side of same sex marriage; but also because unlike the rainbow colors, a cross actually might take the kind of work and time you keep thinking the rainbow took.  The White House doesn't have lights set up in a cross pattern already.


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 9, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > It would not take long to set up the colored lights. There is no need for it to have been done prior to the ruling. Even if it was done prior, all that indications is preparation. As has been pointed out with various examples, people and organizations often set things up, including celebrations, prior to the outcome of an event being known.
> ...



How would setting up and testing the lights before the ruling be 'arrogance beyond the pale'?  Do you not understand the concept of preparation?  Do you not understand the idea of setting something up in case an event happens?

You hate gay marriage, anyone who reads your threads understands that.  Trying to spin this into some grand conspiracy in which the USSC ruled based on some kind of.....pressure?  bribes?  blackmail?  from the current administration is just asinine.  You regularly attempt to bolster your points through imagination.  Why can't you just say you think gay marriage is bad?  Why make up this kind of silliness?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Did they have a cross light display on hand in case the Ruling went the other way?


Why would they?   Are you trying to say that the cross is the symbol of all gay haters?  Is that how we are supposed to look at it?


----------



## bodecea (Jul 9, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > It would not take long to set up the colored lights. There is no need for it to have been done prior to the ruling. Even if it was done prior, all that indications is preparation. As has been pointed out with various examples, people and organizations often set things up, including celebrations, prior to the outcome of an event being known.
> ...


What is the real point of having discussions with you when you choose to completely ignore facts?


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 9, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> It would not take long to set up the colored lights. There is no need for it to have been done prior to the ruling. Even if it was done prior, all that indications is preparation. As has been pointed out with various examples, people and organizations often set things up, including celebrations, prior to the outcome of an event being known.
> There is no reason to think this had to be set up prior to the ruling because adding color to the White House spotlights is a trivial procedure. Even if it were not, or if the bureaucracy involved made it take longer than it should, and the lighting was set up prior to the ruling, only in your gay-hating, conspiracy creating mind is that indicative of some sort of collusion in the USSC voting. Had the ruling gone the other way the colors could simply have been removed...





Silhouette said:


> The arrogance of setting up and testing the lighting before the Ruling would be beyond the pale. Add to that the insult of actually displaying it. Not to mention the danger to national security given that the number one complaint of terrorist muslims citing their main beef with the US is that we are the infidels, depraved, immoral etc. For simple reasons of keeping Americans safe, the proper thing to do would be to have a muted response.....And what does the idiot in the Whitehouse do? Approves of a reckless display of arrogance...as if all Americans support gay marriage. The lie is that a majority of Americans do. And that's why they battled so friggin' hard to keep it from a popular vote.....This was a act of facism. That display might as well have been the nazi flag, for how it represented true democracy. He should just paint a hammer and sickle on the front of the Whitehouse and be done with the formalities.





koshergrl said:


> Yup.


 
It was touching how POTUS acted first to distance the majority of Americans opposed to gay marriage (polls at this site consistently run close to or at 80% opposed) from their own Whitehouse; and then to portray (falsely) to our sworn enemies (muslim extremists) "that all Americans are supporting this"...when POTUS knows that the major thorn these extremists cite over and over again...willing to blow themselves up for actually ....is that "the infidels" are depraved as a soceity.

Way to go president Dumbfuck.

I want to see those Whitehouse logs.  I want to see when this display first got launched off the ground.  We may have an impeachment proceeding.  I voted for him twice too.  But enough is enough.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 9, 2015)

"Muslim extremists" don't give a flying fuck who gets married here.  Domestic partisan hack extremists, that's another story.

Even Muslim extremists know how friggin' spotlight gels work though.

Now me, I want to see the "White House logs" of when the air conditioning went on.  Because if it went on _*before *_a heat wave, well that shows collusion with the meteorological extremists and demands impeachment.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 9, 2015)

bodecea said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > Montrovant said:
> ...



Silhouette always ignores the facts- it is one of her trademarks. 

And there is no real discussion with her- she just makes up some bizarre batshit crazy claim and then pretends it is true. 

Such as

Declaring that the shooter of the black church is gay- and the reason for the shooting was gay marriage
That the last Pope was blackmailed to resign by gays
And of course- that there was some sort of Konspiracy between the White House, the Supreme Court- and Skylar......
I am sure others can contribute their own favorite Silhouette Konspiracy Kraziness- but those were the first that came to mind.


----------



## WorldWatcher (Jul 9, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> It was touching how POTUS acted first to distance the majority of Americans opposed to gay marriage (polls at this site consistently run close to or at 80% opposed)



You are lying.

The poll did not ask if same sex couples should have equal access to Civil Marriage law.  The poll asked if Churches should be forced by law to perform religious wedding ceremonies.


>>>>


----------



## mdk (Jul 9, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > It would not take long to set up the colored lights. There is no need for it to have been done prior to the ruling. Even if it was done prior, all that indications is preparation. As has been pointed out with various examples, people and organizations often set things up, including celebrations, prior to the outcome of an event being known.
> ...



You are sill lying about about that poll? The one that doesn't say what you claim it does? Too funny.

You lied yesterday as well when you claimed you were not a Christian despite your home site stating you were and it being riddled with crosses. You are only claiming you are not so you can pretend that your arguments are not Biblical based. They clearly are but you have to lie about it.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 9, 2015)

And in rolls the choir...

You know the old nursery rhyme though... "...all the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put Humpty together again.."

Neo nursery rhyme:

"The Whitehouse Logs"

Humpy-Dummy rainbow-ed a wall
Humpy-Dummy knew the Court's call
all that was whitewashed, all that was bleached
Couldn't keep Humpy from being impeached.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 9, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > It would not take long to set up the colored lights. There is no need for it to have been done prior to the ruling. Even if it was done prior, all that indications is preparation. As has been pointed out with various examples, people and organizations often set things up, including celebrations, prior to the outcome of an event being known.
> ...



If those lights really were the President saying 'fuck you' to violent Muslim extremists- well I would be all for that.


----------



## Syriusly (Jul 9, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> And in rolls the choir...
> 
> You know the old nursery rhyme though... "...all the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put Humpty together again.."
> 
> ...



Silhouette

If you want to see the White House logs- request them.

Humpty Dumpty is not going to magically deliver them to you. 

Not a person here would object to you looking at any White House records normally available to the public to pursue whatever batshit Krazy theory you want to pursue.

And just think- if you have the actual logs- you can cite them- and then lie about what they say!


----------



## Pogo (Jul 9, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> And in rolls the choir...
> 
> You know the old nursery rhyme though... "...all the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put Humpty together again.."
> 
> ...



Dumb-tee Humptee sat on the forum,
Ignoring the rigors of factual decorum
All the king's horses and all the king's men
Couldn't redefine the fact that it takes fucking twenty minutes to change a half-dozen spotlight gels on lights that are already in place and running every night anyway
..... again.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 9, 2015)

C'mon, it was a funny and accurate rhyme and you know it.  Just admit it.


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 9, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> C'mon, it was a funny and accurate rhyme and you know it.  Just admit it.



Yeah, accurate.....get back to us after the impeachment.


----------



## Silhouette (Jul 10, 2015)

Montrovant said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > C'mon, it was a funny and accurate rhyme and you know it.  Just admit it.
> ...


 Tell you what...we'll both be debating this after the Whitehouse logs are on display showing when this was set up and tested.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 10, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Given that your batshit preceded the logs, clearly its not the content of the logs that spawned the batshit. 

But hey, give us a few more meaningless predictions about a topic you know nothing about. That's kind of your bread and butter.


----------



## ChrisL (Jul 10, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> And in rolls the choir...
> 
> You know the old nursery rhyme though... "...all the kings horses and all the kings men, couldn't put Humpty together again.."
> 
> ...



Not a big fan of President Obama myself, but do you think this is an impeachable offense?  Lol.  Truly, you have gone off the deep end.


----------



## Skylar (Jul 10, 2015)

ChrisL said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > And in rolls the choir...
> ...



Sil called the USSC denial of stay to Alabama and act of 'treason' and 'tyranny'. 

So yup. He considers that an impeachable offense. There's nothing too batshit on this topic.


----------



## Pogo (Jul 10, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Yeah umm... those "logs" are being flown in from Planet Ycoga4b.  You know, the place where it actually takes a week to change a friggin' spotlight gel.


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 10, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> Montrovant said:
> 
> 
> > Silhouette said:
> ...



Maybe you are right.  Maybe you are just as right as you were that the USSC would take the Prince's Trust Index into account in their ruling on same sex marriage......


----------



## Faun (Jul 10, 2015)

Silhouette said:


> What do you know?  Another page buried by the usual crowd employing ad hominems and diversion to get people to forget we are talking about the POTUS having foreknowledge (setting up the rainbow lights and testing them in advance) of how the gay marriage Ruling was going to go.


Ya know, Sil, you might be onto something. For the same reason, I suspected the Super Bowl was fixed. I mean, how else could Patriots have been brandishing caps declaring New England, Super Bowl champs, within minutes of the final whistle??? 

What is stupid, however, is your tagine ... Umm ... "homosexuality"...? It's a noun, not a verb. 

Homosexuality Definition of homosexuality by Merriam-Webster


----------



## Montrovant (Jul 10, 2015)

Faun said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > What do you know?  Another page buried by the usual crowd employing ad hominems and diversion to get people to forget we are talking about the POTUS having foreknowledge (setting up the rainbow lights and testing them in advance) of how the gay marriage Ruling was going to go.
> ...



Hah!  I hadn't even noticed that.  Be careful Sil or someone might homosexuality you all over the place!  Are you uncomfortable when someone is homosexualitying around you?


----------



## Pogo (Jul 10, 2015)

Faun said:


> Silhouette said:
> 
> 
> > What do you know?  Another page buried by the usual crowd employing ad hominems and diversion to get people to forget we are talking about the POTUS having foreknowledge (setting up the rainbow lights and testing them in advance) of how the gay marriage Ruling was going to go.
> ...



And for that matter --  "race" *is* a verb too.


----------

