And I have to ask, what is the more dangerous action, putting up a stupid billboard, or trying to financially destroy a person with whom you disagree?

(Well here she goes again! Good grief!!!)

One may frame the question in a slightly different fashion, Bob.

Which is the more dangerous action: Putting up a hate and fear mongering billboard with the intent to either destroy a person's reputation, his/her career, or end his/her life....OR, as you say, "trying to FINANCIALLY destroy a person with whom you "disagree?"

Once again: NOTHING HAPPENS IN A VACUUM.

This billboard is not created out of the blue. The billboard refers to Ft. Hood, and we all know what happened there. We all know a Muslim Army officer went amuk. We also know that the Muslim haters have been beating the drum to turn the event into an orchestrated , planned, conceived, ordered and scheduled to be oft repeated terrorist plot. This billboard refers to "Jihad" next to a caricature of the POTUS. (Joe Lieberman is calling for scanning of ever American born Muslim in the US military or government service.) This billboard references a long enlivened smearing accusation that the POTUS is illegally in that position due to the foundless rumors of those in opposition to his election.

This billboard, not happening in a vacuum, is reinforcing the unfounded propaganda that the POTUS is NOT an American, that he is a Jihadist (again, not in a vacuum. We know his father was a Muslim and a Kenyan.), that the POTUS had some affiliation with the actions of another human being,(again, not in a vacuum, ) also a Muslim, which resulted in the deaths of 13 American military and almost three times that number wounded.

NOT IN A VACUUM!

In the current news we are bombarded with the "pray for Obama," may he lose his office, may his children be orphans, may his wife be a widow,....etc." in a land where those of us who are NOT living in a vacuum, know there to exist white supremicist groups, the KKK militant groups, those who still salute the "Confederate flag," and seek the disunity of States Rights and a roll back of "civil rights."
Current events, members of our elected representatives are shouting out rudely during a POTUS address in the House of Congress. Members of our elected representatives are slinging names like communist, nazi, socialist, liar, un-american, terrorist lover, traitor, treason, at those who oppose their obstructionism and hate mongering. Not in a vacuum.

This "...stupid billboard..." is a picture of encitement, of enticement, of stimulation to hate, to fear, and desire the destruction of the reputation and/or the life of the POTUS.

Now, let's ask the question, removing it from its protected encasement in a vacuum of your choice, hmmm?

Which is the more dangerous action: That "stupid" billboard, with all of the ramificatins and propaganda it contains, or to be trying, in some unexplained way, to financially destroy, in some unexplained way, some person, unidentified, with whom some also unidentified person disagrees? Are you talking about the car dealer? Who would be trying to destroy him "financially," by telling him he has done a blatantly offensive and dangerous act, considering the current political atmosphere, and the obvious fact that there are those who are making every effort to associate the thought of the POTUS and his destruction as being the "American, patriotic, freedom loving" needs of our society. Including, I might add, ye goode olde boye American, genuwine automobile dealer who is probably still in business because the guy whose caricature he has stuck up there bailed out his car company's incompetent arse?

Another clear difference. It matters not to some members of our society if a person's reputation, employment, health, family or even his life be damaged or lost, just so long as nobody mess with his financial comfort, acquisition and/or superiority. Well, best wishes to good old Bernie Madoff. Imagine that, ruining that wonderful self-made man's financial life. Like, uh, wow?
Again, a wonderful example of the "fundamental disagreement" which Grampatom sought. One side, generally speaking, is more interested in the quality and endurance of decent human life. The other side, generally speaking, is focused on care and feeding, the quality and sustainability of money and the safe and secure retention of money for an individual.
I love this idea. Grampatom, this is really working well, isn't it. Bob, you are doing a wonderful job, and you are a good sport.
come on, folks. Let's take advantage of this opportunity to learn from one another. Bob's NOT "from the 'government.'" He's here to help. It's safe. lol

enjoy.

jd