triple post

YOu put in too many words.  It should read.

The masses do, but the leadership counts on it.

To get back to my original point.

This is a pattern with Obama.  From the history that we can veryify and find, he has surrounded himself around marxists, communists, and other shady people.  Why?

Because that's how he was raised. He was raised by typically radical 1960s leftist idealists, to hate this country and distrust what it stands for.

In one of his books, he called his mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, "Frank the poet" who "gave me whiskey", when Obie was a young child. Frank Marshall Davis was a journalist, poet and political and labor activist. He was also an avowed communist, and a homosexual and child molester with a preference for young "brown" boys. Add the whiskey thing to that equation, and see what result you get. I'll wait.

Anyway; Obama is the perfect Manchurian Candidate. Brainwashed from birth, probably literally, to do exactly what he's doing....to weaken and destroy the USA.

And again, in my opinion, I think you're reading way too much into this I would say it is largely due to your bias against Obama and liberals/democrats. Flat out, you don't like him/them, and never have. You've implied that you want to see him fail at what he does (Whether or not he is socialist - which is ironic because: 1) He's actually pushing a bill that gives insurance companies a lot of help. -AND- 2) The US has always been socialistic to one degree or another, whether republicans or democrats are in power).

You conservatives seem to forget that our nation was primarily founded on what was then considered liberal principles. (Do you honestly believe a conservative colinist, i.e. Tory, would have joined us?) I do agree though that modern liberalism has become corrupt, but that doesn't mean that liberalism - at its core - doesn't have its merits. Conservatism does also; but, what we see today with our politicians and other...pieces of work, is not true conservatism.

A few points...

Minority rights. No, I'm not talking about the more common definition. I'm talking about the individual rights of those not representative of the majority (i.e. Athiests, homosexuals, etc. ). We're not just a democracy/republic – wea are a constitutional one.

What that means is that our government is designed to express not only the will of the majority (democracy), but also to simultaneously protect the unalienable rights of minorities and the powerless. It's in our constitution RW.

As such, our government has the duty to protect (and grant all that is granted to the majority) the minority groups. In this case, due to the majority, it means minority races, homosexuals, etc.

That said, the majority is not always right, as history has shown us (Ex: Slavery, illegal relocation of the indians based on Manifest Destiney, and so on). Sometimes the majority, whether in America or not, supports the most horrible things imaginable (See: Holocaust, genocide, aggressive wars, etc.).

The majority may say that homosexuality is wrong - but - how about the minority? First, are they being represented as the constitution says the should be? Secondly, are they given the same rights?

The government is a tool of the people, subject to their whim. Sometimes, like in the case of Black rights, the government must - through the actions of the people - take charge and finally say, enough is enough. We are a nation where ALL people are supposed to be equal under the law.

Such is the political reality RW; in fact, your own right wing, christians, neocons, and so on - use the exact same tactics as others do. As I call it, the concept of "Mine or I will whine," is not just a liberal modus operandi, it's a people one. Ex: Conservative doesn't like an atheist conducting a business deal and expressing themselves? (i.e. putting up a billboard that claims there is not god, or whatever) They whine and complain, and claim that their rights are infringed. They use the system we have to take it down.

Uh, what gives?

Likewise, liberals have done it as well. Both sides do.

People don't think of others, they think of themselves, period. That is largely why I identify as a liberal (albeit, perhaps an old fashioned one), because at its core - it is about living and let live, respecting each others to live life, however we want to. Christians, athiests, homosexuals, and straight people included.

Bullshit. Unless you can show me - cumulative effect or not - evidence that suggests that Obama knew about it, I have to call bullshit. It isn't because of my beliefs or bias, but because it just is to big of a leap, damn near conspiracy theoryesque - to consider that he is involved in some communist plot to overthrough our country.

I'm sorry, but I just can't make that huge a leap. I'm willing listen and to be open to it, but you're gonna have to bring me some solid, unbiased evidence...and I'm not talking about "evidence" from Hannity, Beck, FoxNews, etc. I've tried, out of fairness and balance, to listen to them...but they raise my blood pressure with their "news." (Like that devious lie about the base closing threat... )

1. "Our"?

I'm sure you mean your own personal beliefs, because frankly, you don't have any right to intervene in what anyone else celebrates, even if it is - as you say - undermining to "our" beliefs and tradition. You sure as hell do not speak for me.

Such is our nation, god love it; people can do, say, and believe damn near anything they want.

2. This is entirely your opinion, but thankfully, it doesn't make it fact, or law. Yeah, you may not agree with it, and it may conjure up nightmares of some manchurian candidate in your mind, but you know...oh well. You have no real proof other than your bias.

I think this whole ornament deal is overblown honestly. I mean come on, it was brought to light be one of the more biased, anti-obama, we-hate-progressives/liberals-and-will-do-anything-to-destroy-them "news" sites (biggovernment). Really? You're willing to buy their pulitzer prize winning journalism?

If so, then you deserve what you get - vitrol, hate, venom, lies, etc. NOT - critical, investigative, unbiased (as possible), fact based news.

Why not try pbs, eh?

On the contrary, everything I've read points to my being a liberal. Perhaps, like I believe I mentioned earlier - I'm just an old fashioned liberal.

ID...I was being intentionally facetious; it's my style of writing. More often than not I will use sarcasm to get a point across, often because I feel the otherside of the argument is being overly dramatic, pretentious, ignorant, etc. The list goes on.

On the topic though - "Christmas" (from Christ's Mass, circa 1050 AD) - the modern version at least, is actually a corruption of the winter solstice. The early church decided, for various reasons, to change the date, from the 21st, to the 25th, to correspond with the roman festival of Sol Invictus and the solstice - thereby establishing a dominance over the other faiths (as all early religions have done). In fact, hilariously, there is evidence to suggest that Jesus' birth was not December 25th, but March. This doesn't even go into the fact that the Bible doesn't mention that one is to set that date as one to celebrate (or a date period). Go figure, the church doing its own thing for its own agenda, and not what the bible says.

Additionally, pretty much every "Christmas" (or Christian/Jesus) tradition is drawn for early pagan rituals (as well as other customs, nonchristian). Ironic? Definitely.

Yeah well sometimes the majority sucks - badly. I find it interesting though, that all this comes down to is intention, albeit "good" intentions. (Ironic? Perhaps. Hilarious? Indeed)

Neither is religion, yet it is made such by those pushing their beliefs onto those who don't agree with them. The religious right is just as responsible for politicizing christmas (and other subjects) as the left is, perhaps even more since they're so passionate.

How old are you again? Geesh.

Nite, ~AJ

Btw,  I'm sure you and I (RW) can agree about one thing - that there are way too many people (left, right, centrist, or purple...) concerned about what others do. It's ironic really, given that it is - in some cases - an overstep of what could be termed as compassion. (Ex: Religionists concerned about others souls, thusly pushing so that everyone does the "proper" things...and vice versa.)

It reminds me of a political cartoon that was in my Mass Media and Society course textbook, in the television section. It shows a couple watching tv and they're turned towards the front of the cartoon and are saying, "It isn't our morals we're concerned about, it's theirs." (Not verbatum)

Go figure...

~AJ

~~~"Minority rights. No, I'm not talking about the more common definition. I'm talking about the individual rights of those not representative of the majority (i.e. Athiests, homosexuals, etc. ). We're not just a democracy/republic – wea are a constitutional one. What that means is that our government is designed to express not only the will of the majority (democracy), but also to simultaneously protect the unalienable rights of minorities and the powerless. It's in our constitution RW."----AJ~~~

Unless I'm wrong, you seem to be implying, in so many words, that we (the majority) are somehow infringing upon your right to happiness, with our traditions and their trappings.

If that's the case, I point out that the Constitution only guarantees Life and Liberty (things which are infringed upon, I might add, by that favorite of all liberals, Roe v. Wade). It only guarantees the PURSUIT of happiness. What you--personally and for whatever petty reasons--may allow to infringe upon that pursuit is on you, not us.

~~~"As such, our government has the duty to protect (and grant all that is granted to the majority) the minority groups. In this case, due to the majority, it means minority races, homosexuals, etc. That said, the majority is not always right, as history has shown us (Ex: Slavery, illegal relocation of the indians based on Manifest Destiney, and so on). Sometimes the majority, whether in America or not, supports the most horrible things imaginable (See: Holocaust, genocide, aggressive wars, etc.)."---AJ~~~

I'm sorry AJ, but it's a  twisted mindset that could, even remotely, equate such a wonderful thing as Christmas with horrors like the Holocaust and slavery. Here, I'll add that, unless otherwise proven by the cold, unbiased (Climategate) Science liberals revere, Homosexuality is still a sexual preference, not a fact of biology, like race.

~~~"The majority may say that homosexuality is wrong - but - how about the minority? First, are they being represented as the constitution says the should be? Secondly, are they given the same rights?"----AJ~~~

For myself, I don't care who screws who, or who worships what, as long, as Jefferson said, it "neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my arm." i will dmit that I don't like gay PDA...for that matter, I don't much care for hetero PDA, either, but....many gays seem to do it not out of affection, but out of defiance. They brandish it.

Under the US Constitution, gays have exactly the same rights as anyone else; in fact, more. If I get fired from my job, i can't lie and say it was because I like to screw men, rather than the fact that I simply screwed-up. How they go about exercising those rights is up to them.

You complain, more or less, that we're stepping on your rights by shoving our beliefs and lifestyles in other's faces. Somehow, this was never an issue in the past. Why is that? And why is it such an issue now? Does it really affect you (generally speaking) so terribly, that we have our beliefs? No; not at all.

But, if gays get enough numbers/political power through pressure groups and leverage, it will affect the entitlements they're able to recieve, which "picks my pocket", in tax increases to pay for them. See KFC's post above, about the tax codes; it's happening already.....incrementally. A little at a time.

~~~"The government is a tool of the people, subject to their whim"---AJ~~~

Unless said government imposes itself forcefully on them, as they do in China and Cuba. They rule by fear, not by justice, or law. That, by the by, is the kind of government for which many of Obama's disciples have expressed admiration.

Two more before I go:

~~~"The problem is that Hitler actively sought to expand his boundaries, A (for short) has not, so far as I know. Granted, he has threatened, but that's all he has done. He has yet to show any backbone to his resolve - he's hot air. I'm not saying we should turn a blind eye, but the whole idea that we have to be tough and aggressive is bullshit. Why? Because we've been that way for how long, and how far have we gotten? Right, not far. A is going to bullshit us no matter what. Just look at his trend over the last year. We act tough, and we get nowhere - he acts all willing to work - we bite - he pulls our chain. Time, and time again we look like idiots."---AJ~~~

Hitler didn't have the ability to vaporize tens of millions in half an hour or less. Unless something done, "A" will have that ability.

~~~"and I'm not talking about "evidence" from Hannity, Beck, FoxNews, etc. I've tried, out of fairness and balance, to listen to them...but they raise my blood pressure with their "news." "---AJ

Unfortunately, however, these are the only places you'll find any of that evidence at all; you sure won't get it in the MSM.

I have to end this for now; I'll finish up later.

I don't think I have implied I want him to fail, I hoped I made it loud and clear that I want him to fail.

Once again, it's not about a single ornament, it's about the pattern of behavior from Obama.  It's a fact he has surrounded himself with marxists and communists nearly his whole life?  Unfortunately, we have a media that has no desire at all to call out the truth.  If anybody does, they are labeled as a racist.  This is the real Obama.

NOt to those too blind to see a false messiah and a media made emperor.

~~~“Sometimes, like in the case of Black rights, the government must - through the actions of the people - take charge and finally say, enough is enough. We are a nation where ALL people are supposed to be equal under the law.”---AJ~~~

Agreed, to a point. Again, however, gays already have the same rights as anyone else.

　~~~“Such is the political reality RW; in fact, your own right wing, christians, neocons, and so on - use the exact same tactics as others do. As I call it, the concept of "Mine or I will whine," is not just a liberal modus operandi, it's a people one. Ex: Conservative doesn't like an atheist conducting a business deal and expressing themselves? (i.e. putting up a billboard that claims there is not god, or whatever) They whine and complain, and claim that their rights are infringed. They use the system we have to take it down.

Uh, what gives?

Likewise, liberals have done it as well. Both sides do.

People don't think of others, they think of themselves, period. That is largely why I identify as a liberal (albeit, perhaps an old fashioned one), because at its core - it is about living and let live, respecting each others to live life, however we want to. Christians, athiests, homosexuals, and straight people included.”---AJ~~~

As to “living and let live”, that sounds great; in fact, it’s a very conservative notion.

However, how often, really, do you hear of conservatives actually going to court, and firing the first volley, in such cases? Usually, it’s the intolerant Left, which initially opens the court dockets for some petty nonsense, such as a Nativity within 1500 miles of a school, and the Right which must, in turn, defend itself.

If we’ve “shown” you, why do you fight us on it? Does that mean you see what we mean, and now agree?

He’s stacked his cabinet and staff with far-leftist ideologues and radicals of all stripes, at least one of which, White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, publicly expressed a personal admiration for Mao. Richard Holbrooke is an anti-gun zealot, strongly pro-abortion, and favors drug legalization. Kevin Jennings is a radical gay, who favors sexualizing children and (ahem) inserting pro-gay, anti-hetero propaganda into curriculum. Just go here:

http://www.rense.com/general88/czars.htm

At any rate, he’s certainly gone a good distance toward stocking the pond with the right kinds of people to undermine and take down the system they work under, and the country along with it.

　~~~“Btw, Iran-Contra and Reagan. Normally, yes, the president is always advised and expected to be aware of all that goes on, but like anyone - even the archangel Reagan - they are human and sometimes they trust people with tasks or positions, and those people abuse them.”---AJ~~~

Good point. Very true; but if that’s the case, then virtually every single one of the ideologues Obama trusted is abusing his faith in them. I think that’s highly unlikely, myself. I mean, if that's the case, what does that say about his judgement of people and character? He can't even trust the people who decorated his freakin' Christmas tree?

Kudos, AJ….you are one of the only of your kind I’ve ever encountered, who is willing to say Reagan wasn’t at fault for Iran-Contra.

~~~“Yeah well sometimes the majority sucks - badly. I find it interesting though, that all this comes down to is intention, albeit "good" intentions. (Ironic? Perhaps. Hilarious? Indeed)

And that says it all....Christmas is not political, yet folks like yourself insist on either turning it into a political statement or worse yet looking the other way. Quite self serving.

Neither is religion, yet it is made such by those pushing their beliefs onto those who don't agree with them. The religious right is just as responsible for politicizing christmas (and other subjects) as the left is, perhaps even more since they're so passionate.”---AJ~~~

“(F)olks like yourself”….when was the last time I sued someone for having a position contrary to my own, in an attempt to coerce them into seeing things my way? Never….and very seldom does that happen from the general direction in which my politics reside. From the other side, however…..well, happens all the time.

Christmas gets politicized because leftist political pressure and advocacy groups make it political. I’d be overjoyed to just let Joseph, Mary, Baby Jesus and Santa have the whole season to themselves. Your side just can’t let that happen.

“Chains shall He break, for the slave is our brother;

And in His name, all oppression shall cease.”---“O Holy Night”

Oppression isn’t in His name; it’s in names like Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Guevara, Chavez and, increasingly…..Obama.

Yes, there are; but again, my side seldom uses the courts to impose its will on those others. Neither does it have the advantage of having virtually the whole of the media, in all its myraid facets, at its disposal. Your side does, and uses it.

Exactly.

Your traditions are only relevant to your kind, not any of those who hold other traditions. If someone doesn't want to follow what you believe, then so be it. The problem is though, is that that view isn't held by all. (Either side) In the case of your people, they have consistantly pushed. Take KFC for example. God love her, she's a great woman, but in my opinion, he is misguided and fooled by the chain of the bible and human foible. She has consistantly said that she supports the amendments and laws that have implied clearly, "Homosexuals cannot marry." That isn't living her life, and letting others live theirs.

The constitution guarantees:

Mmm, until I can see the mind of said people, I remain unconvinced by your alleged stories.

They are the main stream media RW, they are it. Take it from a communications major who has had to read many books on the topic, it doesn't matter what the news channel - all serve to sell, whether it is via one slant or another. They are first and foremost corporations (which = capitalism, which = profit), and secondly they are corporations that provide entertainment.

Your point fails because at the time, no one (until '45,  had that means either; Still though, Hitler had a gigantic war machine that, as history has shown, was vast and unwavering. Weapons are as powerful as the people that use them. Besides, how do you know that RW? Do you really trust the government and its intelligence?

First off...for the love of all that is good...get it through your head - it is not about sex. Homosexuality doesn't mean you're any more or less of a horndog than your average hetero. It merely means that you are attracted, not just physically but in every other way, to someone who is of the same sex. 

That said, Like with every movement, there are those who out of spite, anger, and (largely) resentment at treatment - intentionally provoke others. Are you really going to judge an entire movement by the actions of a few?

That's the thing RW. You and others like you just don't seem to understand. The founders were not aware of homosexuality, as such they didn't have the foresight to include it verbatum. That said - in the constitution - it explicitly states that all people are to be equal under the law (under their own terms). So, if the entire world was hetero - then there would be no problem, and people could marry. However, because not all people are hetero - thusly they cannot be seen equal under the law.

Equality doesn't mean that they are necessarily bound by the SAME law, but that the law systems treats them equally, through the laws. The laws are meant to make it so that each person, no matter what their case (black, white, hindu, french, hetero or gay...) are equal under law - as such that demands that in the case of homosexuals, that it is acknowledged that for them to be treated equally and to pursue their happiness (life/liberty, etc.) - they must have the access to marriage - under their own terms. (i.e. hetero people can marry, because the law states that they are allowed to marry who they want...another person of the same sex) Because marriage is being defined as man/woman, homosexuals are not being treated equitably under the law because they are not hetero.

"...secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity."

There is a right for every american citizen to be seen as an equal among all others in the court and in the legal system; Laws, cannot by principle, be discriminatory - majority rule or not. That is the law RW, period. It isn't happening because homosexuals are not given the same due access given others. Can heterosexuals pursue their happines, by way of marring WHO THEY CHOOSE (with free will, liberity, life, etc.) and raise a family? Yes.

Can homosexuals? No. They are unable (in the majority of the US), to marry the persont he want.

Example: Your religion is not biological, it is a choice. As such, by your logic, does that mean you deserve any special consideration? No. In fact, by your logic, the part of the first amendment that covers the free exercise of religion would be special rights. Again, by your logic.

However, given what the constitution implies/means - it is accepted that religion is a part of life. It is in of itself, the concept and/or awe of the supernatural and subsequent explination of it (in basic terms), natural (so stated by the constitution).  

Another example/attempt:

Heterosexual peoples' access to the law (marrioage) is granted to them because through their circumstances and nature they are straight. Homosexuals however, are not; Thus, it is paramount that the government give them equal access under the law (as well as view them equally).

Additionally - the actions of Doma and other laws - subsequently violate the first amendment, culture or not. The first amendment, it seems I need to remind you, states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

That means quite clearly that the congress shall not give favor or exclusive anything toward ANY particular religion. Unfortunately, there is a failure in that area when it comes to the concept of homosexuality being wrong. Namely, because of the arguments that it is: 1) Deviant (according to the bible = religion) 2) unethical (bible = religion) 3) Sodomy (Religion) (The list goes on.

As such, the government is allowing (even by the will of the people), the favoring of religion (in this case, it seems damn near all). That is unconstitutional. Also, the states are bound, by laws and contract, to follow federal law. (Hence, the constitution)

DOMA, the grand piece of shit it is, grossly violates the constitution because it slaps the first amendment in the face. So, do we go with the constitution...or do we go with DOMA? Constitution - our founding document - OR - Doma, federal law.

For me...the constitution.

Additionally:

Even if homosexuality is, as you say, a private thing between two individuals in their bedrooms- it violats the right to privacy, which you've mentioned as supportign. Thusly, it would behoove you to support such an intrusion into the private lives of individuals because, as you say...the cumulative effect. By your logic, if we let the government intrude too many times - it will be too late.

It's always been an issue RW, don't be naive.

It affects us because your beliefs cause you to act in a way that affects us, our beliefs, our lives, our happines, our piece of the American dream. You know the phrase, "Don't tread on me"? Well damn it, don't tread on us. By all means, you live your life, but don't fucking tell us what is right and wrong with ours. If everyone just lived their lives and stopped insisting (through the perversion of our system that was meant to see everyone as equal)

Bullshit, prove it.

I'm not equating christmas with the holocaust - I'm talking about a separate but pertinent issue, the idea that majority rules, and is (always) right. That just isn't the case, and the founding fathers knew that. They understood that the pendulum of populism swings back and forth.

Actually, there have been scientific studies that have show that it is innate and unable to be changed (consciously), only repressed. In fact, there is evidence to suggest that not only is it biological, but that the mechanism that controls it is in fact biological.

That said, I'm going to be fair...and simply ask you to prove to me, with facts...how Gays supposibly are treated equally and have the same rights, because...it's funny...if gays had the same rights...don'tcha think that they would be able to marry whom they love? They could carry on their lives and not be told they are evil and wicked...

~AJ

Great, then go tell conservatives, especially those conservatives who have used our election system to make sure that others cannot pursue their happines, as their free will dictates.

Geesh.

You may have open eyes RW, I'll concede that - but why don't you use them? Why have I never seen you hold FoxNews accountable, or Bush accountable? Why is it that you always are the right wing apologist, and liberal basher? Good ideas are not exclusive to one side or another.

I wouldn't have any problem with people who are conservative (or religious, etc - or - liberal, etc. ) , to be honest, if they were open minded, tolerant, dealt with their own life (not others), championed others' rights to live their own lives, and were reasonable/rational. That is what ultimately ticks me off - they never are. I could respect them a little more. As it is, I don't know what to think of them frankly...they're all nuts (left and right).

Yes, I would have been just as concerned and I did my research and came to the best conclusion I could about both conspiracy theories (McCain and Obama); I feel both were/are legit. The only problem with the birther deal is that people want his original birth certificate, which according to my understanding, you cannot get in the state of Hawaii. You can get the certified copy, which many people did get. That is the closest you can get legally, period. The issue, as far as I was concerned, was never about whether he was born in Hawaii. Frankly, it was yet another political attack, one of many (l and r) in the election.

I have more of an open mind and open eyes than you think RW, just ask around. Don't buy the kool aid man, it's bad for ya.

Yes it does, because journalism is about being true to the facts - not the spin. BG has proudly shown its overt and bias, and as such can't be trusted as a credible source. How can anyone trust them for news?

Limbaugh is a joke...an utter joke...waste of time on the radio in my opinion. To each their own though, even if they like being spoon fed lies. Some people are just happy with their own little world.

 1. Bingo! Tell me, where is your criticism of Obama constructive? I have yet, in the (almost) year that he has been in office, to hear you offer an opnion, suggest that conservatives and liberals sit together and work things out. You (both you, as in you, and you as in rhetorically) continually bash him, just as moronically. Criticize, yes; hold accountable, yes; but if that is what you're only going to do...and not offer any alternatives...you're just blowing hot air without much meaning. You sound like just another talking head. Put some thought into it. (This goes for liberals as well)

2. Oh really? It was legal? Prove it, because I can't help but call bullshit.

How many people would you trust with your life? Now put that into politics. While I agree that his judgement of people is suspect, it's politics and more often than not - the altruists are outnumbered by the self interested.

Yeah well RW, many liberals, if you give them credit as opposed to simply labeling them, are due more credit than they get. Adittionally, I may find myself on the left side of politics, but that doesn't mean that I'm the full text of your (or most conservatives/republicans) misconception of liberals/liberalism.

A large part of why I identify with liberalism is that it actively seeks to make sure things are fair and balanced - true to our constitution, unlike conservatism which has - no pun intendeded - traditionally sought to maintain the status quo as history has shown. If conservatism had won in the American revolution, we would possibly be British. It was liberal (enlightenment) principles that drove it.

It all depends on perspective RW - I don't buy the tripe about it only being the left, the right wing has its own little crusade; good old fashion religion at the helm, no less.

1.Ten commandments on federal grounds (unconstitutional - as per 1st amendment, SCOTUS, etc.), ten commandments in courtroom, etc. Christmas is politicized by people like the hacks at FoxNews, or the various reverends and religious who insist on others celebrating. Additionally, when people insist the government recognize a religious figure/monument (i.e. commandments). There is no live and let live, period. Yes, I agree, this doesn't exclusively belong to the right wing or the left, but really...will it really serve anyone, this pointing of fingers? Bottom line is that it happens, and it needs to stop. Why point and blame RW? What does it serve? How does it fix anything?

Oh sure, it strokes egos and shifts the blame...but...that's childish, when it's in a "They do it, so why not us!" way. 

2. It's ironic RW, that you say that "in his name...", but in his name...oppression HAS happened. You can't deny facts. Well, you can, people do it all the time, but...you're being a fool and a dumbass if you do.

Oh, so they can marry whomever they choose, right? Just like heterosexuals can? Gee, what was I thinking, assuming that the intention of the rights given was that so american citizens could pursue their happines and live life and enjoy liberties. Oh, quick fix! Homosexuals just have to turn straight!

Silly me, it only works if you can actually pursue your happines which includes - in some cases - marrying who you love!

See? Simple concept...yet millions don't get it. (Intelligent Design my ass...)

You know AJ, if you spent a little less time being so defensive and more time being a bit more open and considerate you would realize that you can actually disagree with something without taking away a person right to express their beliefs and what makes them happy.

I have yet to get from you that you thought the Ornament itself was wrong. All you have done is defend the right of the person who put it there to put it up. You also ignored the fact that the small things really do count, isn't that what they say about relationships? Here's a couple for ya:

The recent attack at the military base by a Muslim who was a Major at that base could have been stopped had they given more importance to the smaller things but instead chose to ignore them to avoid being racist.

The recent terrorist caught on an airline from Amsterdam to the US was able to get thru 2 airports before he was caught because our security system chose to ignore the small details. They were lucky to catch him before he was able to set off the bomb.

One more. Obama himself could have been kept from becoming President had the small details about him been taking into consideration and serious.

This ornament thing? Not a big deal, just an ornament right? The kid who kills many at Columbine started off with small things. But then so do LEGO blocks. The end result of small things coming together however is usually one big thing. They it's the small things that matter and I agree.

Also AJ, stop being so sensitive. If you can't handle a little criticism then I suggest you avoid the political section of this site. But then with your constant name change you can't avoid this site period. You must have been abused as a child and seem to miss that abuse.