It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Did the whitehouse and others already know the scotus decisions beforehand?

page: 2
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 05:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Wetpaint72

and costs nothing.

You have some good points in your post, but I doubt that anything can be accomplished at the White House for free.
Even if you had volunteers come in to accomplish whatever task.... they would have to be cleared and vetted. I don't think the FBI and Secret Service come cheap.




posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 06:58 AM
link   
a reply to: proob4

No conspiracy here.

All of these structures have been illuminating events of significance for years. Many like the niagara falls are being updated with the newest lighting technologies. Instantly, any color sequence can be created. Haven't you noticed since 2008, the white house turns pink every year for breast cancer month? I am sure they are using the latest in illuminating technology. No one is running around having to manually change the lights with the exception of routine maintenance issues.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 07:10 AM
link   
a reply to: proob4

I'm guessing that you don't live in a big city with landmark buildings. It is customary to change the lighting on landmarks to reflect holidays, winning sports teams, etc. It's Gay Pride month, so naturally big cities (which generally have large gay communities) trot out the rainbow lighting. Was it a coincidence that the ruling came when it did? Maybe not... despite religious fanatics claiming they would move to Canada or set themselves on fire, the decision was inevitable: the Federal government exists to facilitate interstate trade, and the differing approaches to marriage across the states was leading to inconsistency in financial and insurance transactions. Fiscal conservatives are pleased to drop this one in the "out" basket.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:24 AM
link   
a reply to: proob4 IMHO I believe someone, hint hint wink wink, the POTUS at the White House decided before hand to set this up just in case it did pass. All that had to be done was change a few light bulbs. So he just had to do was to wait until the lights came on automatically at night. Poof a multicolored White House.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 08:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Wetpaint72

and costs nothing.

You have some good points in your post, but I doubt that anything can be accomplished at the White House for free.
Even if you had volunteers come in to accomplish whatever task.... they would have to be cleared and vetted. I don't think the FBI and Secret Service come cheap.


They probably have a go to lighting designer who has already been vetted. So to change to this, as opposed to say...pink for breast cancer awareness....the cost was no more or less.

Not like they set up a whole new lighting system, hired and vetted all necessary staff etc.

Eviden in the very quick change.
And really, it's so easy after it has been set up, even joe Biden could do it, literally in seconds.
edit on 28-6-2015 by Wetpaint72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 09:21 AM
link   
a reply to: proob4

Most of the landmark buildings in every city keep a permanent lighting display, so it takes very little effort to just change the colors on them for the appropriate occasion. It is just a coincidence that this ruling came out during Gay Pride month. The SCOTUS always releases their decisions in June every year when the session ends.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 09:27 AM
link   
a reply to: proob4

Yeah, they just change the filters. They're usually white or clear (google white house at night). They change to pink for breast cancer awareness month, too.




posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 10:29 AM
link   
I did not hear that Scotus was deciding on this case beforehand. To me, it was pretty shocking to see the white house lit up right after the ruling.

It was obnoxious and prideful to me. I would have rather seen this ruling regarded in a more adult way. Honestly I feel like the rainbow thing is childish anyway.

And I am not opposed to gay marriage, but I think we as a country look ridiculous with all this. Should have been legal ages ago and without the hubbub.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 10:41 AM
link   
IMO, the President knew about the SCOTUS ObamaCare ruling way ahead of time. That's why he chastised them in public in early June, saying, "They never should have taken on a frivolous case like this in the first place!"



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 10:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Wetpaint72



They probably have a go to lighting designer who has already been vetted. So to change to this,

A lighting designer that works for free?
Already vetted means that the taxpayers paid to have them vetted.

And I shudder to think what the government pays just for the gels.

In the end, it is a shallow gesture by the Executive Branch that is headed by a man that said this while running for offices-
He said this to a gay newspaper in 1996:

“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,”

Then in 2004, he said this:

“I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation.

2006, in his book:

“I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided,”

2008:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

On MTV, in 2008:

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about.”

2012:

“I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

2010:

“I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.”

At an LGBT Pride Month Reception in 2009:

“I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country. Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides. And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law. I’ve made that clear.

Clear as mud.
He has been all over the place on the issue. I rack it up to being a political whore.

I agree with gay marriage being legal.
I agree that LGBT community has a reason to celebrate.

I think we need to urge the Federal Government to stop spending so much money. I would be happy to see an end to the costly fireworks for the Independence Day Celebrations at the National Mall. It is a farce anyway, we are not free.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
And I shudder to think what the government pays just for the gels.


OMG! $1.46 each for these lenses! And what? 6-7 colors??? No wonder we're going broke!

And these gels are almost $1 per color!!! Oh, the waste!!!



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

but I bet the government pays $150 each




posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Wetpaint72



They probably have a go to lighting designer who has already been vetted. So to change to this,

A lighting designer that works for free?
Already vetted means that the taxpayers paid to have them vetted.

And I shudder to think what the government pays just for the gels.

In the end, it is a shallow gesture by the Executive Branch that is headed by a man that said this while running for offices-
He said this to a gay newspaper in 1996:

“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,”

Then in 2004, he said this:

“I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation.

2006, in his book:

“I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided,”

2008:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

On MTV, in 2008:

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about.”

2012:

“I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

2010:

“I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.”

At an LGBT Pride Month Reception in 2009:

“I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country. Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides. And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law. I’ve made that clear.

Clear as mud.
He has been all over the place on the issue. I rack it up to being a political whore.

I agree with gay marriage being legal.
I agree that LGBT community has a reason to celebrate.

I think we need to urge the Federal Government to stop spending so much money. I would be happy to see an end to the costly fireworks for the Independence Day Celebrations at the National Mall. It is a farce anyway, we are not free.


Hold your gaskets...this wasn't a gay marriage debate thread...it's a lighting logistics thread. Just thought I'd chime in given I have a BFA In theatrical design and production.

I love you have a great Sunday.

edit on 28-6-2015 by Wetpaint72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Chuckle, chuckle.
I am sure the government buys the White House supplies on eBay.
Money spent on crap.... Even pennies... is money that should be used to pay down the debt.
Especially when it is money spent on hollow BS gestures.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:24 PM
link   
a reply to: proob4

YES.......I believe they did. The entire system is rigged......Media,government,courts,Auto industry,AG industry,Health Industry,Insurance industry......ETC.



Sadly the constitution is all but null and void at this point. I agree with this ruling but overall I believe the system is no longer functioning as a constitutional government.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Wetpaint72

I was just telling how I felt about the whole thing.
I wasn't on an angry rant, or I would have typed in capital letters.


Believe it or not, I love you too and hope that the rest of you day is beautiful!



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 02:46 PM
link   
Well it would not be hard to guess the Gay Marriage ban was going to be lifted. It has in every court and their is not a logical argument against it. Nobody was surprised by that ruling.



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 03:04 PM
link   
a reply to: butcherguy
Thanks!

I don't think you are wrong btw.

edit on 28-6-2015 by Wetpaint72 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 09:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: Wetpaint72



They probably have a go to lighting designer who has already been vetted. So to change to this,

A lighting designer that works for free?
Already vetted means that the taxpayers paid to have them vetted.

And I shudder to think what the government pays just for the gels.

In the end, it is a shallow gesture by the Executive Branch that is headed by a man that said this while running for offices-
He said this to a gay newspaper in 1996:

“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,”

Then in 2004, he said this:

“I am a fierce supporter of domestic-partnership and civil-union laws. I am not a supporter of gay marriage as it has been thrown about, primarily just as a strategic issue. I think that marriage, in the minds of a lot of voters, has a religious connotation.

2006, in his book:

“I was reminded that it is my obligation not only as an elected official in a pluralistic society, but also as a Christian, to remain open to the possibility that my unwillingness to support gay marriage is misguided,”

2008:

“I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix.”

On MTV, in 2008:

“I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about.”

2012:

“I’ve just concluded that for me personally it is important for me to go ahead and affirm that I think same-sex couples should be able to get married.”

2010:

“I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you’re right that attitudes evolve, including mine.”

At an LGBT Pride Month Reception in 2009:

“I’ve called on Congress to repeal the so-called Defense of Marriage Act to help end discrimination to help end discrimination against same-sex couples in this country. Now, I want to add we have a duty to uphold existing law, but I believe we must do so in a way that does not exacerbate old divides. And fulfilling this duty in upholding the law in no way lessens my commitment to reversing this law. I’ve made that clear.

Clear as mud.
He has been all over the place on the issue. I rack it up to being a political whore.

I agree with gay marriage being legal.
I agree that LGBT community has a reason to celebrate.

I think we need to urge the Federal Government to stop spending so much money. I would be happy to see an end to the costly fireworks for the Independence Day Celebrations at the National Mall. It is a farce anyway, we are not free.
Thanks for your post, and yes i agree with the whole Political Whore concept, totally!



posted on Jun, 28 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   
a reply to: proob4


Chief of SCROTUM and POTUS are great friends.




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join