That's a tall order. We've seen overt racism, homophobia, mysogyny, treating the Sept. 11 tragedy as the exclusive property of one political party, outright lies. And a lot more. But this is the worst political ad. Ever. The ad, sponsored by the oxymoronic gay Republican Log Cabin of Broward County Florida, depicts the dead body of the late Ambassador Christopher Stevens and asks if the Obama Administration can't protect gays, how can they protect against Sharia Law? It continues with an exhortation to support Israel, and vote Republican. Where to begin? Maybe with the fact that Ambassador Stevens' father has asked campaigns, specifically the Romney campaign, not to use his son's image in political ads? At the time of the attack, irresponsible Web sites claimed the Ambassador's body was dragged through the streets, some said he was sodomized. Some posters here mindlessly repeated the charge. We know now he was carried through the streets to a hospital. Yet the text with the photo implies that this was an attack rather than rescue attempt. There is no evidence Ambassador Stevens was gay, although there have been some rumors to that effect. To suggest that the Administration did not properly protect him because he was allegedly gay is not even outer space. We can reasonably debate security measures for embassies and consulates. A good place to start might be restoring the $500 million the current Congress cut from the budget for embassy security. This requires a serious discussion, not a lying ad or talking point. The ad then claims the Administration can't protect us from "Sharia Law", which no one is trying to impose. However, there are those who are trying really hard to impose their interpretation of Christianity as law. Most of them are Republican. And where does "Support Israel" come from? No explanation as to what needs to be done, aside from "vote Republican". And this ad was placed by a gay group in support of a candidate who has pledged to reinstate "don't ask don't tell", support a Constitutional amendment to forever prohibit marriage equality, whose party platform explicitly denounces the existence of gay people, opposes adoption right, opposes teaching of equality in schools. Even defeated a motion to affirm the dignity and humanity of all people. Worst political ad. Ever.
That ad sounds reprehensible to me, as reprehensible as the dude who showed up at a Romney event with a home-made "Put The White Back In The White House" tee shirt. "Explicitly denounces the existence of gay people?" Seriously? Got a link, crandc? Sincere question...
Disgusting ad whether he's gay, straight, or bi. The man gave his life for this country not for a political statement. I can't understand people who are this hateful. We're all human beings! If you see yourself in others then whom can you harm? -Buddha
The ad sucks. I don't like it, and I wish they hadn't done it. But they have a right to do it (just as Westboro, Occupy and others have a right to legal free speech) and the publication felt it had a responsibility not to censor it. However, I'm concerned about some of the things you wrote about. I'm sure it's a waste of time, but... -So 9/11 can't be the exclusive property of one party, but you can't be a gay republican? -the ad asks "If the Obama administration can't protect gay/gay-friendly American citizens..." You're cutting out a large part of the ad's meaning. It's not just the small percentage of homosexual people who radical Islamists hate, it's also those who don't report them to executioners if they know about it. Heck, even though you think I'm the epitome of Christian hate, I qualify as "LGBT-friendly" according Uganda's law because I denounce using someone's sexuality for punishment purposes, and would be punished there. I'm just going to surmise that since there aren't a whole lot of photos of the attack on the Ambassador, and that they used one that many people have seen and correlate with the terrorist attack. Do you think they were implying a sodomization or anything untoward to the body? From my reading of it, it seems as if they're parroting the oft-heard (and with some semblance of truth) rumor that he was targeted by the radical Islamic terrorists in part b/c he was gay (or gay-friendly?), not that he wasn't protected by the administration b/c he was gay. Are you saying that there's no way that a radical Islamic terrorist would target a homosexual (or even a "rumored homosexual") man for execution? How about an Iranian? Again, where was the lie? I agree with you about security debates and budget cuts. However, it's been proven that they asked for more, and Ryan's talking point in the debate brought up that the Paris embassy has more security than the Tripoli and Benghazi stations combined. Biden's talking point was $300M, however, not $500M. But that's nitpicking. No, it doesn't. It asks a question "...if the administration can't protect us from the terror of Islamic radicalism..." And if you haven't seen it, the stated goals of Al Qaeda is to impose a worldwide Caliphate (utilizing Sharia law) and to remove Israel from the face of the earth.[/quote] The poster is only so big. Maybe they assume that the people they're targeting with the ad know about the President's public snub of Netanyahu to go to Las Vegas and go on The View. I'm pretty sure you're misinformed here. I mean, maybe if you read what the man says... I hadn't heard this, but I don't know what's in the Republican party platform, so I thought I'd check. In the entire platform (and especially the "values", "family" and "marriage" sections) there wasn't a single instance of the word "gay", or "homosexual". And here's the platform on adoption: I don't know what rights you mean they're opposing: If there's something insidious in there, please let me know and I'll be happy to combat it with you. But I don't know what you're talking about here. Again, this one I know nothing about. Do you have a link to the motion? I'll read it before I comment non-intelligently on it.
crandc with another over the top thread the has literally zero impact on society in general, other than her being mad that gay GOP members apparently exist. On a scale of 1-10, this is a 1 nationally. Seems more like an internal gay community issue. Hillary Clinton just accepted full responsibility for Ambassador Stevens' death. The buck stops with her, apparently.
I never questioned their free speech rights. They have a right to free speech, I have a right to consider this the worst political ad ever. Papa's comments are a classic pot calling kettle. He has started dozens of threads repeating talking points verbatim without regard to facts. At least this was my original view and not a copy/paste. That is the offical platform of the Texas Republican Party.
^^Thanks, didn't know that. I wouldn't say (and this doesn't just go for political issues) that Texas necessarily speaks for the rest of the country, as evidenced by the national platform. I don't think it's masochistic or oxymoronic for a group of people in FL to agree more with R's on one or more issues (terrorism/Israel)? even if they disagree with a faction's interpretation of the national platform. We agree that the ad sucks, though.
I know it's OT, but I think it's funny. http://townhall.com/columnists/kevi...rnment_wasted_your_money_this_year/page/full/ The National Science Foundation spent $30,000 to fund a study done by the University of Washington and Cornell University's to measure "gaydar" - the ability of people to identify sexual orientation merely by appearance. The researchers confirmed that "gaydar" exists, writing that participants were about 60% accurate when attempting to identify sexual orientation by appearance.
Do you get paid to advertise for Obama, or do you just naturally parrot whatever he wants you to say and think?
Anyone else noticed that everyone on this board views themselves as the only independent thinker and that anyone who disagrees with them is a sheep following the herd?
