Stimulus funds go to illicit and perverted shows

[rbell]

Your government $$ at work. And folks wonder why we don't trust Washington?

The National Endowment for the Arts may be spending some of the money it received from the Recovery and Reinvestment Act to fund nude (further description removed by rbell) dances, Saturday night "pervert" revues and the airing of pornographic horror films at art houses in San Francisco.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,535608,00.html

Warning: It's sickening, but you need to know how your taxes are being spent.

And since it's in San Fran, don't bother questioning it. It's Pelosi's district, and it's money for fun with Barney's "boys." So it's a protected minority (two of them, actually...gays, and professional looters).

An NEA spokeswoman defended the agency's choices and said its grants would help "preserve jobs in danger of going away or that had gone away because of the economic downturn."

Great. As long as it preserves jobs, we should publicly fund p_rn horror flicks from the Land of Sodom.

I think the best we can hope for is that people like this spokeswoman use birth control. Folks that stupid shouldn't procreate.

 

[donnA]

so obama is giving our money to support and promote porn.

 

[Revmitchell]

There just is no decency with this man. Obama send tax payer money to slaughter unborn children and now this.

 

[Johnv]

The problem lies less with Obama and more with the NEA, since it was the NEA who decided to spend a portion of the money on these programs. That said, one would have thought that it would have dawned on the authors of the stimulus package, including Obama, to at least include language that would exclude pornographic businesses from being disqualified from receiving stimulus funds.

Regardless, I opposed both Obama's and Bush's bailout plans, and still do.

 

[Revmitchell]

Baloney Obama and all of the liberal congress knows exactly what the NEA is willing to fund. this caught them not by surprise.

 

[LadyEagle]

Baloney Obama and all of the liberal congress knows exactly what the NEA is willing to fund. this caught them not by surprise.

This is true. Unfortunately, the NEA has been the recipient of our tax dollars for lewd art, etc., for decades, even sacriligious "art" about Jesus....under both Republican and Democratic controlled Congresses. You would think not, but sadly, our tax dollars have funded this perverse outfit for a long, long time. I cannot even provide links to some of the stuff this outfit has propogated, because it is SO bad and in fact, nauseating, besides being downright evil.

 

[rbell]

if the NEA can't survive on it's own in the marketplace (and God help us all if it can)...then let it die.

I'm sick of them giving my money to these perverted wastes of carbon and trace elements.

 

[LeBuick]

This has been funded by every president since their existence.

If fact, Bush boosted their budget http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/12/DDGC94TOKL1.DTL

I guess you guys don't remember what an outrage that caused.

 

[rbell]

This has been funded by every president since their existence.

If fact, Bush boosted their budget http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/12/DDGC94TOKL1.DTL

I guess you guys don't remember what an outrage that caused.

Intellectual honesty isn't your strong suit, is it?

Many of us here have bemoaned the funding for these slimeballs for decades, including the Bush years.

You love Obama so much, that even when issues are brought up that are plain as day (after all...is there really any other position a Christian can take than to be offended by this)...you must defend your buddy.

I can't tell if it's a pride thing with you (oh no...I can't agree with those bad guys!), or if you seriously are so Obamamanic that you must simply refuse to criticize him.

Conclusion: This isn't about Bush, or Republicans. Start a new thread to bash them. We don't have a time machine, and we can't go back and un-fund NEA from 2002. We could do something now...but I guess you wouldn't be on board with it, because it might mean your having to criticize his holiness, pope Barack.

 

[targus]

This has been funded by every president since their existence.

If fact, Bush boosted their budget http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/02/12/DDGC94TOKL1.DTL

I guess you guys don't remember what an outrage that caused.

Right on cue - LeBuick chimes in with another mindless defense of "the one".

 

[targus]

...but I guess you wouldn't be on board with it, because it might mean your having to criticize his holiness, pope Barack.

There is no call to hurt LeBuick's feeling by demoting "the one" from savior to pope.