Gay-Supporting Christian Billboards - In Texas
This is a bold move, especially in Texas.
From the CBS11TV web site, out of Fort Worth:
Isn't that an interesting reaction! Imagine twisting the scriptures to fit your own needs ... hmm, I wonder if that ever happens...
The other day I posted an article pointing to the importance of religion in a civil rights debate. For some reason, anti-gay churches have commandeered the Bible for their own purposes and twisted obscure passages to make it appear that the Judaeo-Christian God opposes LGBT people, when in fact there is almost nothing in thousands of pages of scripture on the subject -- and lots about forgiveness, understanding, kindness, forgoing judgment.
From the CBS11TV web site, out of Fort Worth:
Christine Lutz was traveling down Interstate-30, just east of Fort Worth, when she came face to face with a billboard containing a pro-gay message. "I cringed. I was disgusted at the same time," she said.
The billboard angered Lutz so much, that she fired off a stern e-mail. "I said how dare you take the scriptures and twist it to fit your needs," she recalled. I-30 Pro-Gay Christian Billboards Spark Debate
Isn't that an interesting reaction! Imagine twisting the scriptures to fit your own needs ... hmm, I wonder if that ever happens...
There are four billboards with similar pro-gay messages along I-30 that have started a debate among Christians in North Texas.
Rev. Jon Haack, with Promise Metropolitan Community Church, said, "If we go back to the gospel readings, we don't find anything within those texts that discriminate or exclude against gay and lesbian people. Gay and lesbian, bi-sexual and transgender people are part of God's creation too."
Rev. Haack is with one of five local churches sponsoring the billboards that advocate gay acceptance by all Christians.
One billboard reads, "The early church welcomed a gay man." Another one reads, "Jesus affirmed a gay couple."
The other day I posted an article pointing to the importance of religion in a civil rights debate. For some reason, anti-gay churches have commandeered the Bible for their own purposes and twisted obscure passages to make it appear that the Judaeo-Christian God opposes LGBT people, when in fact there is almost nothing in thousands of pages of scripture on the subject -- and lots about forgiveness, understanding, kindness, forgoing judgment.
The billboards were put up a week ago along I-30 between Grand Prairie and Fort Worth and the negative e-mails are already coming in. "There are people who have told us to reread our Bible which is the very question we're asking others to do," explained Rev. Colleen Darruagh, with Metropolitan Community Church of Greater Dallas. "We've had people say, 'How dare you take the name of God in vain' and that God hates homosexuals."
Pastor Sam Dennis, of Parkway Hills Baptist Church in Plano, says Christians shouldn't hate gays. He disagrees however with the billboards' use of scripture to back a pro-gay message. "I'm hard pressed to find that scripture advocates that it's alright to live in a gay lifestyle. Just like I'm hard pressed to find that scripture advocates that's it's alright to live in an adulterous relationship or as a wife abuser or as a murderer."
The five local churches sponsoring the billboards are part of the Worldwide Metropolitan Community Church which has a predominantly gay congregation.
posted by JimK at 9:09 AM
31 Comments:
When it comes to the proposed Islamic center near ground zero, I subscribe to President Barack Obama's position: "Muslims have the same right to practice their religion as anyone else in this country."
But that's old news. Today the debate is the debate. And this debate is far more consequential.
There are those who continue to make the facile claim that any protest over Park51 is a display in un-American intolerance and contempt for the Constitution. This position treats criticism of faith -- religious institutions and symbols included -- as tantamount to "bigotry."
Given that there remains overwhelming opposition to the ground zero mosque, this viewpoint would mean that 70 percent of Americans are impulsively hostile to freedom of religion and irrationally narrow-minded.
Could be. Or maybe a few of these folks believe the First Amendment features more than one clause. Even a newfound reverence for religious liberty on the left does not negate our right to protest and criticize the philosophical disposition of others. And applying public pressure in an effort to shut down a project is as American as protesting the arrival of a new Walmart. Religious institutions, as far as I can tell, are not exempted from these disputes.
In 2008, thousands of gay rights activists protested the Mormon temple in Westwood, Calif., for its role in passing Proposition 8 -- the ban on same-sex marriage. This grew into a national protest to undermine the influence of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints -- even though not every Mormon was involved.
I don't recall anti-Mormon protesters being referred to as bigots for targeting religion; it appeared to be just the opposite, in fact. And if I am offended by aspects of Mormon theology, why not voice those concerns? Put it this way: If Mormons proposed the erection of a 13-story community center in West Hollywood or the West Village, I would be happy to join the outcry of protest.
Though only a fraction of Catholic priests are pedophiles, the entire Roman Catholic Church is routinely broad-brushed as corrupt and depraved. I've not heard those who make generalizations about Catholicism referred to as bigots in Time magazine. Nor have I heard those who regularly disparage evangelicals called intolerant.
These groups inject themselves into political and cultural disputes of the day -- as they have every right to do -- so they become fair game. And by building the Islamic center near ground zero, the backers of Park51 insert themselves in a broader political conversation.
As a person with a libertarian political temperament, I would loathe to see government shut down religious expression. As an atheist, I am distrustful of religion's influence on that freedom. But in the end, one is a discussion about the role of government in society and the other is a discussion about civilization. Few people in this debate make that distinction.
As we know, only a fraction of Muslims are radicalized to violence. Most Muslims are peaceful -- free to practice their religion unencumbered. All of this is indisputable. Prospectively speaking, unlike many other faiths, ideological Islam has a poor track record of compatibility with liberal ideals. Surely, that's worth a discussion in a free society. Or is it a case of intolerance to bring it up?
I've read numerous columns claiming that "allowing" a mosque to be built near ground zero is proof of our tolerant goodness. To be certain. But surely our ability to conduct a peaceful debate over the meaning of institutions, including religious ones, is also a reflection of that greatness.
Interestingly, neither your post nor the linked story contains any scriptural references.
If they think scripture has been twisted, can they be specific about which verses have been twisted and explain how?
Also, do they have biblical references for these statements?:
"The early church welcomed a gay man."
"Jesus affirmed a gay couple."
Scripture doesn't spend much ink on homosexuality, but it seems to me there are two probable reasons:
it was not common
and
it was already generally considered morally wrong.
What would be curious is if the general view was wrong and scripture doesn't mention it. Scripture generally speaks to common societal misgivings.
Anyway, what scripture does say about homosexuality is uniformly negative. Far from twisting, most make the most perspicuous reading of scripture possible.
I guess one could argue that the obvious reading is wrong in some way. There are some brilliant rationalizations of all kinds of things. Those rationalizations would seem more likely to involve some twisting.
Look at Matthew 4:5-7 for a good example of someone twisting scripture.
that same guy also twists God's word in Genesis 3:1-4
ya gotta laugh:
"COLUMBUS, Ohio (Aug. 18) -- President Barack Obama used the homey backdrop of a middle-class Ohio family's backyard Wednesday to try to show voters he shares their concerns about the economy, health care and Social Security.
Jacket off and sleeves rolled up, Obama took questions from the Weithman family and a small group of their neighbors arrayed around picnic tables and lawn chairs. His message was familiar: The economy is getting better.
"A lot of it is recovering," the president said. "You get a little bit stronger each day."
Unemployment is at 9.5 percent nationally, and topping 10 percent in Ohio, so the economy dominated the questions.
Instead of answering, Obama used the questions as an opportunity to tout the expansive agenda he's undertaken since assuming the presidency."
Apparently, anyone who makes a "political issue" against any Democrat will be investigated by Congress.
We need to end Democrat control of the three houses of government before we lose our freedom.
Americans will take back their country in November:
"Nancy Pelosi wants some answers.
The house speaker is calling for an investigation into groups protesting the building of the Ground Zero mosque.
"There is a concerted effort to make this a political issue by some," she told San Francisco's KCBS radio on Tuesday.
Pelosi added that she joins "those who have called for looking into how is this opposition to the mosque being funded.""
"an investigation into groups protesting"?
how Nixonian...
Meanwhile, those funding the Islamic center said today they will not rule out accepting funds from Iran.
Nancy has no problem with that.
damned if Democrat leaders aren't pretty hard to defend
(Aug. 19) -- The number of Americans who believe that President Barack Obama is a Muslim has climbed significantly since he entered the White House and now accounts for nearly one in five people, according to a survey out today.
Eighteen percent of the American population said that they thought Obama is Muslim, up from 11 percent who said so in March 2009, according to the poll by the non-partisan Pew Research Center and its affiliated Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life. The number who said he is a Christian dipped to 34 percent, down from 47 percent two years ago. But the largest share of people, 43 percent, said they were uncertain of his faith, up from the 32 percent in late 2008.
Worryingly for the White House, the survey is based on interviews completed in early August, before Obama waded into the debate over whether an Islamic center should be built two blocks away from the World Trade Center site. The president last week said Muslims had the right to set up a mosque there, but refused to take a position on whether they should actually build it.
A separate survey carried out Monday -- five days after Obama talked about the mosque -- by Time magazine/ABT SRBI found that 24 percent think he is a Muslim, 47 percent said they believe he is Christian and 24 percent were unsure or didn't respond. The poll also revealed that 61 percent opposed the construction of the Park51/Cordoba House project, while just 26 percent approved it.
The fact that the percentage of Americans who believe a lie about the faith of our Hawaiian born President has increased since 2009 is testament to the power of Australian born Murdock's money and network of media outlets, which are only "fair and balanced" in the eyes of the radical right fringe.
With his million dollar donation to the Republican Governor's Association, CEO Murdock has made his one-sided partisanship as clear as the color of President Obama's skin.
"Apparently, anyone who makes a "political issue" against any Democrat will be investigated by Congress."
They've got nothing on the GOP supporters who host this website:
http://www.impeachobamacampaign.com/
Impeaching a President worked out so well for the right wingers last time they tried, is there any doubt they'll do it again?
when the government decides to "investigate" groups for doing nothing but engaging in free speech, a line has been crossed
Pelosi should be persuaded to resign
having people like her in our government is dangerous to our freedom
"Americans who believe a lie about the faith of our Hawaiian born President"
you can't fault Americans for trying to surmise the truth when Obama himself has been obviously lying
during the campaign, he said he was a Christian and would find a church to attend in Washington when he became President
hasn't happened
he attended a church with a racist, conspiracist, liberation theology pastor for years but quit when Americans found out what goes on there and hasn't pursued any involvement in any other church
so Americans are simply trying to figure out what's going on
and they look at his actions and try to see whose interests he has served
how can one say people believe a lie when no one knows what the truth is
how can one say people believe a lie when no one knows what the truth is
That's a pretty big mouthful for a liar.
The Daily Politics article you ripped off said the truth and you deliberately deleted it.
You wrote:
"(Aug. 19) -- The number of Americans who believe that President Barack Obama is a Muslim "
but the article says:
"(Aug. 19) -- The number of Americans who believe, wrongly, that President Barack Obama is a Muslim"
People who intentionally lie through their teeth are the ones who have crossed the line IMHO.
you offer no proof, Bea
the journalist didn't either
journalists should report facts and back them up
this one showed bias
Next paragraph, you told another bald-faced lie:
"Eighteen percent of the American population said that they thought Obama is Muslim,"
but Politics Daily wrote:
"Eighteen percent of the American population said that they thought Obama -- a Christian -- is Muslim"
No dear, the point is you are a bald-faced liar.
I didn't lie about anything
the reporter included statements without providing support and I only included the verifiable facts
we've gone over this before
whenever I cut and paste some parts of a story, you accuse me of lying unless I paste the story verbatim and complete
I never attributed any source and nothing I posted was a lie
you saying I lied is a lie but we won't press that point
people are guessing what Obama's religious beliefs are because he hasn't been honest when he's discussed them
in that situation, you can hardly say they believe a lie
The owner of Fox News and The Wall Street Journal, has given $1 million to the Republican Governors Association, making it one of the largest corporate donors to the GOP this election season.
News Corp.'s $1 million contribution to the Republican Governors Association earlier this year would be a notable gift from any company -- but Rupert Murdoch's media empire is hardly just any company.
News Corp. owns the Fox News Channel, The Wall Street Journal, New York Post, the Fox Business Network and more than two dozen local television stations, many with news programs.
Murdoch, of course, is known for his largely conservative political views.
"I don't think the million-dollar contribution will make Fox News Channel more right-wing oriented, because, for the most part, I don't see how it could be," says Eric Burns, former chief media critic for Fox News.
Officials at Fox News, the nation's top-rated cable news channel, declined to comment. They deferred to their parent company, News Corp., whose spokesman Jack Horner rejects the notion that the gift in any way undercuts the professional standing of its journalists.
Officials and editors at The Wall Street Journal, the jewel in Murdoch's crown, also would not comment for this story, though one staffer says White House officials are already pointing to the News Corp. gift in conversations with the paper's reporters.
The Journal wrote about the issue in Wednesday's newspaper, though at this writing, it's been awfully hard to find any coverage from Fox.
A seven-figure donation is not a first for Murdoch; he gave $1 million to the California Republican Party in 1996.
An outspoken conservative, the Australian-born Murdoch asked at a forum in April about Fox's heavy coverage of the "tea party" movement, Murdoch said: "I don't think we should be supporting the tea party or any other party."
"A seven-figure donation is not a first for Murdoch; he gave $1 million to the California Republican Party in 1996."
so, this is nothing new
Murdoch is an individual with a right to free speech
if he directs the corporation he owns to make a donation, that doesn't impede the objectivity of the news departments at his papers
much more valuable than any monetary gifts is that newspapers make political endorsements of candidates and issues
that has never been considered a problem, so why is this?
it's recognized that papers have editorial boards with opinions
and if papers with liberal boards want to contribute to Democrats, that's fine too
oh, that's right...
they can't because they're going broke
because the NY Times is losing readers and MSNBC never had many viewers to begin with
but WSJ and FoxNews are doing great
that's how a capitalist democracy works
political winners are determined by the will of the people
eventually
say goodbye to Obamacare and hello to Prop 8
We're all individuals with the right to free speech, however, the FEC limits all individuals' (and now corporations') rights to make political contributions as follows:
An individual may give $2,400* to each candidate or candidate committee per election
An individual may give $5,000 to any political committee(1) per year
An individual may give $10,000 per year combined limit to state, district, and local party committee(2)
An individual may give $30,400* per year to national party committee(3)
Special limits:
An individual has a biennial limit of $115,500* ($45,600 to all candidates and $69,900 (5) to all PACs and parties)
*These limits are indexed for inflation in odd-numbered years.
(1) These limits apply both to separate segregated funds (SSFs) and political action committees (PACs). Affiliated committees share the same set of limits on contributions made and received.
(2) A state party committee shares its limits with local and district party committees in that state unless a local or district committee's independence can be demonstrated. These limits apply to multicandidate committees only.
(3) A party’s national committee, Senate campaign committee and House campaign committee are each considered national party committees, and each have separate limits, except with respect to Senate candidates — see Special Limits column.
(4) Each of the following is considered a separate election with a separate limit: primary election, caucus or convention with the authority to nominate, general election, runoff election and special election.
(5) No more than $45,600 of this amount may be contributed to state and local parties and PACs.
(6) This limit is shared by the national committee and the Senate campaign committee.
(7) A multicandidate committee is a political committee that has been registered for at least six months, has received contributions from more than 50 contributors and — with the exception of a state party committee — has made contributions to at least five federal candidates.
(8) A federal candidate’s authorized committee(s) may contribute no more than $2,000 per election to another federal candidate’s authorized committee(s). 2 U.S.C. §432(e)(3)(B) and 11CFR 102.12(c)(2).
$1 million in one year is a lot more than $115,500 in two years.
limiting how much an individual can contribute to a candidate or party is an unconstitutional infringement on the freedom of speech
eventually, it will be declared so by the Supreme Court
I haven't heard anyone else suggest that the Newscorp contribution was illegal
why not?
Well I did some more digging and found the answer to that question.
You'll have to forgive me for thinking Justice Alito had been honest when he mouthed "that's not true" in response to President Obama criticism of the Supreme Court decision that would allow "corporations to spend without limit in our elections." I was wrong to assume corporations would be subject to the same campaign spending limits as individuals are, but they're not. Obama was right. Thanks to the Supreme Court's ruling, unlike individual citizens, corporations are now free to spend money in elections without limit or disclosure!
The Supreme Court’s disastrous decision to allow **unlimited corporate spending in elections** overturned decades of law, including two **Supreme Court precedents** issued in 2003 and 1990. Now unlimited corporate spending on federal campaigns is allowed.
There is no mandate for disclosing this corporate spending on federal campaigns, and legislation to enact one is hanging by a thread in Congress, even though the same Supreme Court decision that allowed this unlimited corporate campaign spending also prescribed public disclosure of that spending to help voters “make informed choices in the political marketplace."
Well, what do you suppose happened with the Supreme Court's prescription that Congress pass a law mandating public disclosure of this newly enabled unlimited corporate campaign spending? The House passed a worthy transparency measure (the DISCLOSE Act), but all 41 Republicans in the Senate voted in lockstep to block consideration of the bill.
Those 41 GOP Senators apparently do not want voters to be able to “make informed choices in the political marketplace." Those 41 GOP Senators apparently prefer corporations be able to spend unlimited money on federal campaigns without disclosing it to American citizens, you know, the people who get to vote.
As far as I can tell from my research in this area, corporations do not have the right to vote in America, yet.
corporations, like unions, are groups of individuals who all have a right to vote
I see no reason why people can't judge an idea on its merits without knowing who paid to have the idea publicized
really doesn't make sense
disclosure of contributions is favored by those who prefer to make personal attacks on contributors because they fear they will lose any debate on substance
were those who perpetrated 9/11 a lone band of crazies?
"These weren't crazies. They were methodical, focused, steel-nerved operatives.
Nor were they freelance rogues. They were the leading, and most successful, edge of a worldwide movement of radical Islamists with cells in every continent, with worldwide financial and theological support, with a massive media and propaganda arm, and with an archipelago of local sympathizers, as in northwestern Pakistan, who protect and guard them.
Why is America fighting Predator wars in Pakistan and Yemen, surveilling thousands of conversations and financial transactions every day, and engaged in military operations against radical Muslims everywhere from the Philippines to Somalia -- because of 19 crazies, all of whom died nine years ago?
Radical Islam is not, by any means, a majority of Islam. But with its financiers, clerics, propagandists, trainers, leaders, operatives and sympathizers -- according to a conservative estimate, it commands the allegiance of 7 percent of Muslims, i.e., more than 80 million souls -- it is a very powerful strain within Islam. It has changed the course of nations and affected the lives of millions. It is the reason every airport in the West is an armed camp and every land is on constant alert.
Ground Zero is the site of the most lethal attack of that worldwide movement, which consists entirely of Muslims, acts in the name of Islam and is deeply embedded within the Islamic world. These are regrettable facts, but facts they are. And that is why putting up a monument to Islam in this place is not just insensitive but provocative.
Just as the people of Japan today would not think of planting their flag at Pearl Harbor, despite the fact that no Japanese under the age of 85 has any possible responsibility for that infamy, representatives of contemporary Islam -- the overwhelming majority of whose adherents are equally innocent of the infamy committed on 9/11 in their name -- should exercise comparable respect for what even Obama calls hallowed ground."
Five members of the Supreme Court mandated that donors of unlimited corporate campaign money should be disclosed. They are:
Antonin Scalia
Anthony Kennedy
Clarence Thomas
Samuel Alito
John Roberts
actually, freedom of speech is in the Constitution
those didn't write it, they just support it
can't say that about many Democraps
The Constitutional protection is for free speech, not secret speech.
everyone here has been whining that corporations can make contributions not that they can keep it secret
optional secresy is vital to free speech, however
it really doesn't even require explanation
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FhMMmqzbD8
TargetBoycott.org
Remarks of President Barack Obama
Weekly Address
August 21, 2010
As the political season heats up, Americans are already being inundated with the usual phone calls, mailings, and TV ads from campaigns all across the country. But this summer, they’re also seeing a flood of attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them.
The reason this is happening is because of a decision by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case – a decision that now allows big corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections. They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads – and worst of all, they don’t even have to reveal who is actually paying for them. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation. You don’t know if it’s BP. You don’t know if it’s a big insurance company or a Wall Street Bank. A group can hide behind a phony name like “Citizens for a Better Future,” even if a more accurate name would be “Corporations for Weaker Oversight.”
We tried to fix this last month. There was a proposal supported by Democrats and Republicans that would’ve required corporate political advertisers to reveal who’s funding their activities. When special interests take to the airwaves, whoever is running and funding the ad would have to appear in the advertisement and take responsibility for it – like a company’s CEO or an organization’s biggest contributor. And foreign-controlled corporations and entities would be restricted from spending money to influence American elections – just as they were in the past.
You would think that making these reforms would be a matter of common sense. You’d think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections wouldn’t be a partisan issue.
But the Republican leaders in Congress said no. In fact, they used their power to block the issue from even coming up for a vote.
This can only mean that the leaders of the other party want to keep the public in the dark. They don’t want you to know which interests are paying for the ads. The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide.
Well, we cannot allow the corporate takeover of our democracy. So we’re going to continue to fight for reform and transparency. And I urge all of you to take up the same fight. Let’s challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us in stopping it.
At a time of such challenge for America, we can’t afford these political games. Millions of Americans are struggling to get by, and their voices shouldn’t be drowned out by millions of dollars in secret, special interest advertising. Their voices should be heard.
Let’s not forget that a century ago, it was a Republican President – Teddy Roosevelt – who first tried to tackle the issue of corporate influence on our elections. He actually called it “one of the principal sources of corruption in our political affairs.” And he proposed strict limits on corporate influence in elections. “Every special interest is entitled to justice,” he said. “but not one is entitled to a vote in Congress, to a voice on the bench, or to representation in any public office.”
We now face a similar challenge, and a similar opportunity to prevent special interests from gaining even more clout in Washington. This shouldn’t be a Democratic issue or a Republican issue. This is an issue that goes to whether or not we will have a democracy that works for ordinary Americans – a government of, by, and for the people. Let’s show the cynics and the special interests that we still can.
"Americans are already being inundated with the usual phone calls, mailings, and TV ads from campaigns all across the country."
oh, dear
how can they withstand all that free speech?
"this summer, they’re also seeing a flood of attack ads run by shadowy groups with harmless-sounding names. We don’t know who’s behind these ads and we don’t know who’s paying for them."
oh, mark my words
it's a vast right-wing conspiracy....to actually have their opinions heard
aaarrrrrggggghhhhhh!!!!
"The reason this is happening is because of a decision by the Supreme Court in the Citizens United case – a decision that now allows big corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections. They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads – and worst of all, they don’t even have to reveal who is actually paying for them. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation. You don’t know if it’s BP. You don’t know if it’s a big insurance company or a Wall Street Bank. A group can hide behind a phony name like “Citizens for a Better Future,” even if a more accurate name would be “Corporations for Weaker Oversight.”"
that's a shame
now, you can't know who launch personal attacks against when you can't counter their ideas with any substantive argument
"We tried to fix this last month."
yes, socialists are always trying to "fix" free speech
"There was a proposal supported by Democrats and Republicans that would’ve required corporate political advertisers to reveal who’s funding their activities. When special interests take to the airwaves, whoever is running and funding the ad would have to appear in the advertisement and take responsibility for it – like a company’s CEO or an organization’s biggest contributor. And foreign-controlled corporations and entities would be restricted from spending money to influence American elections – just as they were in the past."
infuencing elections by voicing your opinion is kind of what the founding fathers had in mind
"You would think that making these reforms would be a matter of common sense."
socialists always think it's common sense to curtail speech that questions the government
"You’d think that reducing corporate and even foreign influence over our elections wouldn’t be a partisan issue."
they have no "influence" unless they can convince the voters they are right
just like everyone else
"But the Republican leaders in Congress said no. In fact, they used their power to block the issue from even coming up for a vote."
those leaders are profiles in courage
"This can only mean that the leaders of the other party want to keep the public in the dark. They don’t want you to know which interests are paying for the ads. The only people who don’t want to disclose the truth are people with something to hide."
or those who would like you to focus on the substance of their message
"Well, we cannot allow the corporate takeover of our democracy."
allowing someone to run an ad doesn't amount to a "takeover"
Barry is being his usual divisive self
"So we’re going to continue to fight for reform and transparency. And I urge all of you to take up the same fight. Let’s challenge every elected official who benefits from these ads to defend this practice or join us in stopping it."
demogoguery
the American people will reduce this loser's influence in the fall and send him home in 2012
"They can buy millions of dollars worth of TV ads – and worst of all, they don’t even have to reveal who is actually paying for them. You don’t know if it’s a foreign-controlled corporation. You don’t know if it’s BP. You don’t know if it’s a big insurance company or a Wall Street Bank."
You see how Obama feeds fear and demonizes certain parties?
So, a foreign corporation, BP, an insurance company or a bank might do something dastardly, like express an opinion on TV.
We shudder to imagine it.
Not just an insurance company either, a BIG insurance company
Not just a bank, a WALL STREET bank
Not just a foreign corporation, a foreign-CONTROLLED corporation
And just BP. That's right BP!!
Earth to Obama: those banks and corporations and insurance companies and, yes, BP, all exist and prosper because they have offered us services and we have chosen, in our capitalist society to engage in transactions with them. The services they provide contribute to our lives. If they didn't, they'd go out of business.
In addition, they also provide added value by buying TV ads and subsidizing our entertainment and other media.
We like that.
What we increasingly don't like is you, Barry.
Maybe you should announce you're not running in 2012 now and let the Democrats start working on finding a feasible candidate.
Hillary looks better every day.
Post a Comment
<< Home