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

[Pogo]

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.

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]

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]

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?

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]

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.

Yup I stand corrected it was donated.

 

[Pogo]

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?

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.

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]

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]

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.

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

 

[ChrisL]

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.

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]

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.

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

​

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.

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!

Really.

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

 

[Silhouette]

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

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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

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.

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.

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

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.

"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....

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

 

[Silhouette]

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]

"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]

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.

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

​

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.

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!

Really.

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

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]

​

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

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]

"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.

And Dred Scott was dealt with via Constitutional Amendment.

 

[Political Junky]

Another thread about GOP butthurt. Great

No, it's about Americans being insulted.

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

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

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

 

[Pogo]

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.

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

​

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.

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!

Really.

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

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.

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]

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?

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.

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.

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]

Another thread about GOP butthurt. Great

No, it's about Americans being insulted.

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

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