Sounds like Home Depot has policy in place regarding the issue. They do it, to protect their butts from lawsuits of any kind. While this man is free to display his 1st Amendment, it is generally understood in professional circles, that religion is one of two subjects you do not bring up (the other being politics).

But, time will tell if there is any effect on this issue.

This would be good concept to keep making a video that sums up the month of what Fox 'News' tried to portray. I would almost argue that it makes a slant in such a way, that Fox News does not have an honest chance at a fair hearing. But the, this is NORMAL operating process over at Fox News towards anyone that isn't Republican or Conservative. And they do stuff like this on a daily basis.

It is amusing to watch Fox News sink in to a seige mode. Where ANY snipits of good news is extremely glossed over, while bad news is minimized to the N-th degree. But, its also amusing to hear conservatives quoting from Fox News. It tells me they are to lazy and/or uneducated to check thier facts.

Actually, marriage, like any other word in the English language, is largely how it's define. In the USA, the term is a contract.

If you define marriage as between a man and woman, that's one defination.
If you define marriage as the process to procreation, that's another defination.
if you define marriage as between two adults, that's a third.

What alot of you get hung up on, is that 'marriage', is not only a religious concept and meaning. There's a financial and legal defination.

The financial defination, usually means, things are joined shared in terms of expenses and financial gain. In addition, if a spouce passes away, the other, gains full ownership of assets and expenses.

Legal defination, is that, a spouse can make decisions for their spouce, in the even their loved one is unable to make decisions (i.e. in a coma, serving on active duty, in prison, etc). This applies to issues in which legal definations are needed as the result of issues that arise from local, county, state, and federal laws and regulation.

So in the end, if you oppose gay marriage, not from a religious point of view, you would need to define exactly what is the financial and legal documentations and rights of the people. I have yet, to hear one arguement that is non-religious in nature, that holds weight, in why two homosexual people can not marry. Even the one on procreation. Since, the couple can still adopt, or maybe one or both have children from a previous relationship. Still, they could hire a surrogate mother to carry a child to term (and be paid for it too).

Now, some argue, that if gay marriage was allowed. Marrying one's dog/cat, or sibling, or underage person, or, taking a 2nd or 8th wife, is equally 'ok'.

Marrying one's pet: This is not allowed under contract law of the USA, on the grounds that a pet (i.e. a dog) can not communicate understanding of the legal issues of being married. Notice your dog doesnt get Visa/Mastercard applications in the mail? There's a reason for it.

Marrying one's silbing/underage person: Contract law can only 'stick' if A) The person is 18 or above, or B) Has a parent's permission (inwhich case, the parent is held libable for any damages). Except for a few states, most states in the US prohibit this.

Marrying multiple people: Besides the fact that this would just be a legal nightmare to navigate through. One would have to make the arguement, that those in previous but current marriage contracts, agree, to the terms of the new marriage. Unless one is a Mormon, I doubt anyone would really pursue this for legimate reasons.

How will you spend your retirement?

They are pretty good singers. The original song "The Sun will come out, tommorow" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yop62wQH498&feature=related

Now, if this was at a town hall meeting, when a conservative was asking a question, or making a statement as an adult. I would be opposed to the singing, on the grounds that its being disrespectful to the democratic system. Since this appears to be a private audience, with people who don't care about the public, I'm ok with.

Two Thumbs Up!

Yes, NOW, these idiots want to debate and have dialogue regarding Health Care Reform. They want it, because, the HCR is almost ready to be rolled out and shown to the country. They want/need their piece of the pie. Because if they dont, democrats can challenge them in their district: "This person didn't want you to be healthy, nor, an educated consumer, vote for Mr. Democrat instead and be on the winning team!"

Then...

Over the summer, as we all know, republicans, conservatives, and everyone's 'honest' and most 'trustworthy' news organization, Fox News, tried to kill HCR. They tried at rallies, at town meetings, and even on the airwaves/internet. It came across to most moderates (the ones I've talked to at least), as be immature, uneducated, unintelligence, and un-American. And after all that crap, these people pulled, their efforts, F-A-I-L-E-D.

Now...

Some of them want to vote 'yes', but only if they can score some pork for their disctrict. That's right conservatives, its going on right now. The very people that said, they are opposed to pork spending of ANY kind, are taking bribes to get money for their district. No, it wont be in the actual act of the HCR, but in a month or a few. When none of you are looking or paying attention. They know, you conservatives are not a very educated or wise bunch to begin with.

This is about 'dead on target' as it gets. Not even the US Military could land a smart bomb more squarely on target, then this presenation.

Oh, and just remeber boys and girls, Mitt Rommey, IS, a Mormon. As a resident of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, this guy should NEVER be taken seriously nor trusted. He's a political slut. He will say and do ANYTHING, if it gets him elected to office. But, he did get health care system into the legal system a few years ago. But then, as the saying goes, the road to Hell is paved in good intentions. Of course, the road goes right down the center of the church for LDS.

Once a public option looks like a reality, alot if not ALL, the insurance companies will start scrambling to be better in every concept. They'll have to treat their customers like customers, and not cattle or peons. They'll have to revamp how they do business, or be sent to the unemployment line.

Yes, republicans want less competition, but more capitalism. Sort of oxymoron. They hate pork spending, but enjoy health care industries donating funds to their re-election funds.

I think a public option would do alot of good, for improving our country's health care system. Maybe a few less medical bankruptcies, so Sen. Al Franken can go grill other industry screwballs on things that are not being handled correctly.

After reading yet, ANOTHER, bias reply from Winston, I was about to start creating my own reply. But, Netrunner beat me to it. Which is fine. I do get alittle amused, that Winston does try to shift, turn, and yes, even spin events that looks horrible and distastous, in to republican/conservative win.

But to do this on the concept of Health Care, given the sorry state of bankruptcies within the US, is not just political manuveuring; Its just immoral, unethical, and unwise. Winston, does not understand pain and suffering. Nor does he understand sacrifice. But, given my knowledge of life, I KNOW, he will have to face up to reality sooner or later in his life time. And then, he'll just be a hypocrit.

This guy does not understand Americans well enough. If you have to ask, you dont know either.

So, the Republicans, Fox News, and conservatives, are allowed to act mean, and draconian, without an ounce of responisbility for their actions. Well saw just over the summer, how responsible they are with power, with all the town meeting 'shocking matchs'. In addition, the small buzz words like 'Death Panel' and 'Socialized Heathcare'. Mr. Limbaugh, Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, Miss Coulter, ARE, the representatives of the Republican party. While Mr. Obama, Reid, Madam Pelosi, and Ted Kennedy (May he rest in peace!), are (or were) representatives of the Democratic party.

Which of those two groups, can be held FULLY accountable for what they say and do in our country?

I dont think the word 'Bully', correctly the actions and words of the representatives of the Republicans are doing (and there mini---er---coworkers). Being an Oppressor? Tormentor? Intimidator? They are NOT, the sort of words you want your philosophy or concept of goverment to be thought of as. Heck, when looking up the other synonym's of the word 'Bully', is 'Terrorist', 'tyrant', 'ruffian', and 'buffalo'! (buffalo?)

As with Mr. Grayson, its custum to wear the tie, UNDER, the sweater, when a sweater is worn, with a jacket. Wearing without a tie, would have word just the same. Its a custom irregularity that we Americans might seem alittle strange.

While yes, this presentation does seem like a pro-conservative or pro-liberitarian promotion, it does a few things incorrectly:

A) The presentation is to the speed of the music, not to the spend of the human eye to translate concept in to something the brain understands. The music is great (if only to get it as a techno soundtrack somewhere..). There were a few times I either stopped th presenation, and thought on the history accuracy or rewinded to see it again.

B) It moves past Mr. Clinton quite quickly (which is bad for conservatives, as they hate Clinton). Before Mr. Obama, the previous 4 US presidents have increase the US debit from the 1.4 trillion during the Carter Administration (again, the sources do range in numbers) to 10+ trillion after Mr. Bush. So, if Clinton was in that group of four, and Reagan, Bush Sr and Bush Jr were in there; the which party should be held more accountable for spending? At 5:14 in the presentation, it does say that Clinton "Federal Deficit becomes Surplus". Actually not entirely true. The economists stated that under the Clinton Administration, if the 'plan' was followed for 2 additional years (1st 2 years of Bush Jr), the budget would be a surplus. Mr. Bush Jr, being the 'brilliant' and 'wise' man he was, surrounded himself with equally 'brilliant' and 'wise' men. Together, they gave Americans 3 Tax checks that effectively removed any chance of the deficit being made a surplus.

I found Democrats look long term, and Republicans, short term. Here was a great example of this effect in practice. We could have had the budget balanced THEN given tax breaks to remove the surplus down. This never happened. So while I hear conservatives/liberatians b*tching at Obama about how he spends the US money, never ONCE, do I hear them complain how republicans spent the money. Kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

C) All of this tries to ignore the other 90% of events and activites that were taking place across the country and world. Yes, it shows something here and there, but that's it! The Vietnam War effected a HUGE section of the population. The Iraq War, the Recssion, and Hurricane Katrina. This presenation glosses over things like this, even though they are huge events. (/start sarcasm) Oh, and September 11, 2001? That's right, it wasn't important from a finanical point of view...(/end sarcasm)

And I was going to shop at Whole Foods as a new buyer. I guess I'll have to stick with my previous grocery store. Yes, my previous grocery store doesn't have much gluten free products (a protein found in Wheat, Rye, and Barley), but they would post 'Product of ....." Right next to the price. Once you stroll through the fruits and vegitables, you find which items not to buy. I'll buy Canada, and sometimes Mexico. Their standards are alittle better then China.

Also, dont buy from Wal-Mart. They represent 1/4 of China's export to the USA. Why give china US dollars?

*Fail

I'm wondering if the bus driver was distracted by texting?

So, was Rush for or against, the US Patriot Act when it was being rushed through Congress back during the Republican administration & Congress? That's right, not a single negative issue of it.

I agree, Rush can have all his wild accusations that he wants. He could say the reason it rained on his birthday, is because of the Obama corruption against him. He just has to put his money where is mouth is. He has to come up with the burden of EVIDENCE. That's Rush's problem, no evidence to support his ranting and raving.

There is an upper limit to someone accusing someone else of wrong doing. Once that limit is exceeded, a good, solid amount of evidence is needed to support it. When this support doesnt come, its up to the person to TAKE RESPONSIBLITY of their actions. Now, Republicans and conservates, are VERY noted for being irresponsible with money and power (i.e. GWB 2000-2008).

The cult of conservative republicans simply is a sad case of people who cant owe up to their past destruction as an ADULT.