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.
and costs nothing.
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,
“I favor legalizing same-sex marriages, and would fight efforts to prohibit such marriages,”
“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.
“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,”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
originally posted by: butcherguy
And I shudder to think what the government pays just for the gels.
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!
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.