While I agree with you on your synopsis of false progressive outrage, I would also point-out that it took Progressives precisely 1 millisecond to cry "racism" over the Trayvon Martin shooting while ignoring the myriads of both black-on-black crime, as well as the black-on-white crime that has taken place over the last 10 years. Selectivity is their muse.

Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. Constitution says zilch about forcing people to accept two sodomites as "married." Get over yourself.

When you have no other argument, just start calling people names and making things up. It's the final step in "How to Lose An Argument" and is also featured in such best-sellers as "Denial" and "Self-Deception: The Art of Knowing Nothing While Claiming To Know It All."

Or the Liberals who abandoned Hillary in 2008 after she lost out? What a dumb statment.

Jesus did tell people to repent of their sins, and He did not abolish the Law of God. "Do not think that I have come to destroy the Law, or the prophets; I am not come to destory, but to fulfill. For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." (Matt 5:17-18). The woman caught in adultry to "Go and sin no more, lest a worse thing come upon you" (Jn 8:11). Christ never directly confronted many sins, but He in no way endorsed/allowed them. That's a pretty pathetic argument you make there. He also said if you love Him, you'll keep His Commandments - John 14:21

If Obama uses JPM as a reason to write more regs, he will have almost abandoned his entire base. The African-American community does not support him on SSM, the Jewish Population finds his pro-Palestinean remarks troubling, big Wall Street Donors hate Dodd-Frank and his incessant "Wall Street Fat cats" rhetoric, and women don't buy his "War on Women" farce. By November, Obama will un-do himself and get landslided by Romney. Count on it.

Privatizing Reward? Yes. Socializing Risk? What free-marketeer endorses that?

You do not have the right to deny someone's freedom of expression, just as we do not have the right to impose on yours. Government removal of any & all religious symbols officially endorses atheism as its religion, which is banned by the Constitution as well. Removing all religious symbols will not appease your conscience one bit, nor will removing God from the public view. China and Russia tried that, and even under the Iron curtain had churches with memberships in the tens of millions.

They're the Chronically Offended Often-Times crowd (or COOTs for short)

"separation of church and state" is a comment in the modern-day equivalent of an email from Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists. It is not written anywhere in our Founding Documents, and private citizens working on behalf of the public system have every right to display their faith, whatever that may be, on their gravestones, memorials, donated monuments, etc if they so choose. That is NOT the Government establishing a religion if 1) the Government has not passed a statute declaring it, or 2) private citizens choose those symbols on their own free will. Similarily, the absence of relgiious artifacts on Government property can also be seen as a Governmental endorsement of Atheism as the state religion, dually banned by the same precept.