Obama says he is not offended by Clint Eastwood's "empty chair" RNC convention speech

Obama recently publicity stated that he was not offended by Clint Eastwood's empty chair speech at the Republican National Convention this past week. According to USA Today , Obama said that he is  "a big fan" of Clint Eastwood, and when asked if he was offended by his remarks, said : "One thing about being president or running for president — if you're easily offended, you should probably choose another profession."

Good for Obama that he didn't take this too seriously, and after all, if you have ever seen just one Clint Eastwood movie (whether he starred in it or directed it), how could you not be a fan? :) (One of my favorite movies is Gran Torino).

What I don't understand, though is why a self-described libertarian like Clint Eastwood would speak at a Republican convention, and why he seems to support Mitt Romney. The ideals of the Republican party for the most part go against everything libertarians stand for. Time and again, the Republican party has supported bigger government and more government spending, more interference in people's personal lives, opposition to homosexuality/gay rights, and more war/interference in world affairs.

Maybe he just sees this as an opportunity for a platform to speak out against President Obama, but if he doesn't support Romney and the Republican party, why doesn't he just say so?

When not reading the Bible becomes a major problem...

Some atheist bloggers have been talking about a billboard recently put up in Texas by a local man that says "Pray for Obama" and reference a verse from Psalms, Psalms 109:8, to be more precise. All seems good and well, until you actually look up the verse in question. It gets even better when it is read in context, when you dig deeper into the meaning, it's actually alarming enough that the Secret Service started investigating.

The billboard seems harmless enough at first:

OK, good so far, but what does that verse actually say? (To give some context, this chapter talks about "wicked men")

Psalm 109:8 (KJV):  "Let his days be few; and let another take his office."
Depending your interpretation of "Let his days be few", this could be a problem. If taken figuratively, it could mean that this person would want Obama's days in office to be few, but if you take it literally, it could mean that he would want the days of his life to be few. It's really up to interpretation at this point, but wait, read it in context.

Psalms 109: 7:13:

"7 When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin.
8 Let his days be few; and let another take his office.
9 Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow.10 Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places.
11 Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labour.
12 Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favour his fatherless children.
13 Let his posterity be cut off; and in the generation following let their name be blotted out."

There's a major problem here, don't you think?

Who knows, maybe he didn't read the passage in context, which is a possibility, and this can just be chalked up to a major blunder, and get quite a few laughs, but if he's serious, well, let the Secret Service sort this out.

I sure don't envy the Secret Service, as hostile as people have been in politics in recent years, and with the US having it's 2 last presidents be probably the most controversial in US history, I'm sure they've seen far worse than this. 

Moral of the story? When quoting anything, read it in context first, especially if you are quoting from a holy text, otherwise you will end up with a major fail like this....

Credit and many thanks to The Friendly Atheist (Patheos) for this story. Also thanks to pro-LGBT rights blog Joe. My. God for this story, and I "stole" the picture of the billboard from that post (psst. don't tell anybody ;) )