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

[Stephanie]

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?

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]

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

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

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

​

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.

its not the thought of a few gels, its the meaning of and endorsment of an idea.

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.

?

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]

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

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

​

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.

its not the thought of a few gels, its the meaning of and endorsment of an idea.

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.

?

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.

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]

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.

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]

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

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

​

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.

its not the thought of a few gels, its the meaning of and endorsment of an idea.

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.

?

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.

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]

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.

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

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

 

[Pogo]

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.

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

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]

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?

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

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

​

 

[EverCurious]

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?

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

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

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

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

​

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.

its not the thought of a few gels, its the meaning of and endorsment of an idea.

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.

?

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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]

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.

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

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.

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? +

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]

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?

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

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

​

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]

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.

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

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.

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? +

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"?

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]

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.

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

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.

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? +

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"?

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.

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]

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?

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

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

​

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.

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

Link?
Quote?
Anything?

Careful what you wish for...

 

[Marianne]

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.

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

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.

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? +

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"?

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]

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.

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

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

 

[Pogo]

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.

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

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.

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? +

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"?

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.

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]

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?

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

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

​

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.

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

Link?
Quote?
Anything?

Careful what you wish for...

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

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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

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.

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? +

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"?

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.

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.

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.