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

[RoshawnMarkwees]

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

BFD.

Right. Now you're being dishonest.

Explain.

Your alleged indifference.

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

Whoot whooot.

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

 

[Maryland Patriot]

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.

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]

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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]

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

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.

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]

BFD.

Right. Now you're being dishonest.

Explain.

Your alleged indifference.

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

Whoot whooot.

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

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]

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.

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

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]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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]

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]

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Right. Now you're being dishonest.

Explain.

Your alleged indifference.

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

Whoot whooot.

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

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....

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

 

[mdk]

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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]

Explain.

Your alleged indifference.

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

Whoot whooot.

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

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....

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

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...

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

 

[Pogo]

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.

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...

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

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]

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.

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...

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

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".

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]

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Your alleged indifference.

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

Whoot whooot.

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

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....

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

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.

Troll on...