Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Buzzfeed)   You remember that Anti-Obama painter? Well, he's at it again, and here is his latest masterpiece   (buzzfeed.com) divider line 115
    More: Stupid, President Obama, art world, Thomas Kinkade, Jon McNaughton, U.S. Constitution, Sean Hannity  
•       •       •

14103 clicks; posted to Politics » on 23 Jun 2012 at 6:00 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-23 07:07:29 PM  
8 votes:

Dougie AXP: Is it me or does Obama not look so much frightened as he does "oh look out we got a badass over here.


i601.photobucket.com

You're welcome
2012-06-23 05:53:15 PM  
8 votes:

cman: I can't wait to see how this will be described as somehow racist. That will be fun to watch


For your convenience, I have put the appropriate rebuttal below.

Dr. Mojo PhD: I love how lunatic conservatives operate.

First, have registered (or better yet, ELECTED) Republicans send out crap like this:
i.imgur.com
(Watermelons on the White House lawn, sent by Los Alamitos Mayor Dean Grose, in March 2009, a scant two months after Obama was inaugurated -- I'm sure they were just criticizing 3.5 years of bad policy decisions, though)

And this:
i.imgur.com
(Obama Bucks, sent by Diane Fedele, the president of the Republican women's club in San Bernardino, in October 2008, a month before Obama was even elected -- I'm sure they were just criticizing 3.5 years of bad policy decisions, though)

Second, DON'T CALL OUT THESE RACIST ELEMENTS OF YOUR PARTY. Acknowledging they exist will foul the next few steps. You must pretend as if this never happened.

Third, allow liberals to rightly call this racist.

Fourth, criticize Obama on something not related to this. Then, to immediately shelter your statement from criticism, "predict" that liberals will call your criticism racist because they have a history of calling actual racism racist. Pretend that because a Republican sent out pictures of Obama as a lazy, watermelon-eating negro, this means liberals will view your argument in the same light. This automatically shelters you from criticism, instantly makes you the real victim, and turns you into Innocence Abused.

Instant win and totally not-transparent-at-all hug-bait that only works on people that exist in your echo chamber whose arguments are so fragile that not only can they not withstand critical examination, but you need to make yourself the victim to feel that any critical examination is unfair slurs against your character.

2012-06-23 04:23:48 PM  
7 votes:
WE GET IT.

HE'S BLACK!
2012-06-23 07:33:00 PM  
6 votes:
i259.photobucket.com
2012-06-23 07:26:44 PM  
5 votes:
Bravo, to that dashing young Aryan!

24.media.tumblr.com

Beaten down, chained, seemingly crushed beyond repair... only to rise up victorious?

That's quite a triumph of the will.
2012-06-23 07:08:37 PM  
5 votes:

Snapper Carr: maybe some 3 wolves thrown in for full effect.


Quick and Dirty:

i140.photobucket.com
2012-06-23 06:16:56 PM  
5 votes:
img254.imageshack.us
2012-06-23 04:15:57 PM  
5 votes:

cman: I can't wait to see how this will be described as somehow racist. That will be fun to watch


not racist.
Just moronic.
2012-06-23 04:52:31 PM  
4 votes:
Nothing will top his One Nation Under Cthulhu

static.omglog.com
2012-06-23 11:12:28 PM  
3 votes:
i.imgur.com
2012-06-23 10:34:19 PM  
3 votes:

Jonathan Hohensee: You signed the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act


It didn't work because it was hamstrung by Senate Republicans. Had it been as strong as economists said it needed to be in order to work, the GOP would have killed it by filibuster because f*ck Obama.

Jonathan Hohensee: You signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law


Most of the people who oppose "Obamacare" only oppose the "Obama" part and are in favor of its provisions, such as being able to keep your kids on your health plan until they turn 26 and not having coverage deined due to pre-existing conditions.

Jonathan Hohensee: You appointed over thirty Czars without any Congressional oversight to control every aspect of the country.


And how many czars were installed by Reagan, Bush The Merely Okay, Clinton and Bush The Terrible?

Jonathan Hohensee: You intervened in the troubled automotive industry, renewing loans for General Motors and Chrysler Corporation to continue operations while reorganizing. Over the following months the White House set terms for both firms' bankruptcies, including reorganization of GM giving the U.S. government a temporary 60% equity stake in the company. Where in the Constitution does it say the government can do that?


Something, something, general welfare....

Would you rather Obama had let GM and Chrysler go tits-up and have thousands or tens of thousands of people lose their jobs?

Jonathan Hohensee: You signed into law the popular Car Allowance Rebate System, known popularly as "Cash for Clunkers." In the middle of our country's worst financial crisis you give out freebees with taxpayer dollars?


Okay, that one I'll grant, since it probably could have been handled a little bit better than it was. Still, the money its participants saved by not having to spend extra money on gas and maintenance for their old beaters is money they can put into the economy (to help the rest of the country) or into their savings accounts and/or towards their other bills (helping themselves, and thus their ability to contribute to the economic recovery)

Jonathan Hohensee: You used your executive powers to shakedown British Petroleum after the oil leak catastrophe in the Gulf to create the $20-billion escrow (slush!) fund without any law, legal controls, or binding rules to guide it on how and how much those injured materially by the oil spill (and whom among them) will be paid.


You'd rather BP not have been punished for the Deepwater Horizon disaster at all? (I mean beyond the billions of dollars' worth of oil spilled because they wanted to save a few hundred dollars by cutting funding for safety equipment)

Jonathan Hohensee: You attacked Libya without consulting Congress to declare war. We were not being attacked and it was an unprovoked act of aggression.


Bush attacked Iraq without consulting Congress to declare war. We were not being attacked and it was an unprovoked act of aggression. And the US involvement was limited to helping the French-led NATO coalition with logistics for their close-air support mission for the Libyan rebels' uprising -- there was not a single pair of American boots on the ground, apart from the CIA ghosts who were already there and would have been there regardless of whether or not there was a rebellion.

And you seem to have "accidentally" forgotten to mention that most (if not all) of the people complaining about that are the exact same people who were complaining that Obama WASN'T attacking Libya.

Jonathan Hohensee: You signed the NDAA.. All though it was necessary to pass a military budget, the disregard for the Fourth Amendment is stunning. Where is the Supreme Court on this one?


The Fourth Amendment-raping language was put into the bill by Senate Republicans on threat of filibuster. It's called a poison pill - adding an abhorrent rider to a must-pass bill, so that the other side would be lambasted for either killing the must-pass bill or (as you are doing) passing the bill with the abhorrent add-on.

SCOTUS will have an opinion on this one when (and if) they hear a case to which this bill could conceivably be even tangentially applied.

Jonathan Hohensee: You believe that the Constitution is a living, breathing document. I thought that the only way to change the Constitution was to amend it? It's not all your fault, Mr. President. If Congress and the Supreme Court did their job properly you would have been checked and balanced.


The President is not a dictator. The only laws he can create are the ones that get passed by Congress first, and given that the official policy of the party which controls Congress is literally "Defeat Obama at all costs!", there's no reason why you could possibly say that he hasn't been checked and balanced.

And since you're almost certainly gonna retort with the tired old "The Democrat Party has the majority in the Senate!!!1!" canard, let me just say that:

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY HAS NOT HAD A FILIBUSTER-PROOF MAJORITY FOR MORE THAN 6 MONTHS OF OBAMA'S PRESIDENCY!
2012-06-23 07:45:20 PM  
3 votes:
I'm guessing Obama put these people in chains just to protect that chicken from getting brutally f*cked.

s3-ec.buzzfed.com
2012-06-23 06:31:17 PM  
3 votes:
What I see in this man painting is a white man who wants to throw off the yoke of
government suppression so that he in turn can do even more to suppress the minorities
who are the cause of his irrational fears.
2012-06-23 04:30:44 PM  
3 votes:

cman: I can't wait to see how this will be described as somehow racist. That will be fun to watch


Not racist.

Lame. Weird. But not racist.
2012-06-23 04:25:01 PM  
3 votes:

cman: I can't wait to see how this will be described as somehow racist. That will be fun to watch


Obama looking fearful with his hands up in a defensive posture, like a slave about to be beaten for disobeying his master, all but cowering from a proud white man with "Aryan" features is a pretty obvious narrative this racist artist is conveying here. Sheesh, open your eyes.
2012-06-23 04:19:20 PM  
3 votes:

SilentStrider: cman: I can't wait to see how this will be described as somehow racist. That will be fun to watch

not racist.
Just moronic.


I would have said childish, but whatever.
2012-06-24 04:19:30 AM  
2 votes:

runcible spork: I admit I'm not a political wonk (thank goodness!) and also that Wikipedia isn't the best authority, but they seem to indicate that fascism is a type of corporatism.


Well, personally, I like to call it Authoritarian Capitalism, but that's the problem with a crowd-sourced information hub: Inconsistency.

The issue is that they are different systems describing different sectors of human organization. Corporatism proper is a socio-economic platform while Fascism is a socio-political ideology. There's some overlap, but it's more proper to say that Fascism likes to incorporate Corporatist policies, not the other way around.

This is something that people seem to misunderstand a lot -- the difference between political, economic and social systems and how they react to each other when working in concert. Democracy is a political system; its antagonist is Despotism. Capitalism is an economic system; its antagonist is Socialism. Communism is a social ideology; its antagonist is actually Anarchy. And so on.

Now, Capitalism can work under any political system, but it is actually happiest in a non-democratic society, preferably a benign dictatorship. It requires political stability -- a strong centralized government that won't get in its way -- and a compliant and orderly populace. The streets need to be calm, dissent must be discouraged, disorder repressed, little time must be wasted on politics, debates, elections and inefficient legislatures as these are a distraction from the real goal of making a pretty penny. The populace also need to understand that so long as they don't challenge the system, they will be free to amass wealth and pass it on to their children.

The only system in the history of mankind that really let Capitalism stretch its wings, test the fullest extent of its cold, methodical logic and let it run unimpeded through the world to horrifying extremes was Fascism. Capitalism was content under Hitler, happy under Mussolini, very happy under Franco and delirious under Pinochet.

Capitalism is good. Too much Capitalism is farking scary.
2012-06-24 12:51:53 AM  
2 votes:

puffy999: The funniest thing about that picture is that the man is holding dollar bills.

I bet you could take the talented, albeit insane, man who makes this art and back him into a logical corner within two seconds.


One thing I would love to ask him in person:

"In your most famous painting (with Jesus and the Constitution), your website says when you hover the mouse over Thomas Jefferson that he intended the 'wall of separation between Church and State' that he wrote about to be taken as a wall that only blocks the government from controlling or interfering with religion, not the other way around.

"Okay, you're an artist, right? Here's a blank piece of paper. Draw a sketch of this wall (not door, gate, turnstile, ramp, or whatever: Jefferson specifically called it a wall! Double-you, Aye, Ell, Ell, wall!) that could've been constructed using any technology that Jefferson would've known about, that blocks passage only from one side to the other, but freely allows passage in the opposite direction."
2012-06-24 12:00:08 AM  
2 votes:

Death_Poot: I just want to know, how is that any different from this, except for your political perspective:

[ttoes.files.wordpress.com image 640x909]

Go on, give me a rational, non emotional, non name calling explanation, without calling me racist, etc


It's like a fun contest. I'll give it a try:

One of them is a picture of a candidate and a one word slogan. The message seems to be "vote for Barack Obama for change."

The other is a picture of an everyman holding the Constitution in one hand, and a stack of money in the other hand, while some presidents stand behind him applauding, cheering, and praying, and other presidents recoil in horror and look down in shame. The message seems to be "Respect the Constitution and you'll make a lot of money while making the good presidents happy and making the bad presidents horrified and ashamed."

/9/10
2012-06-23 11:02:58 PM  
2 votes:

runcible spork: Also, that democratic filibuster-proof majority was in the first six months of the administration


The Democratic filibuster-proof majority lasted from the time Al Franken was seated on July 7, 2009 and the time Ted Kennedy died on August 25, 2009. The "filibuster-proof" majority also counted two Independents, neither of whom were guaranteed lockstep democratic votes. As far as I can tell, Kennedy's last vote was in March of 2009, meaning that in fact the Democrats never had 60 members (or even 58 members and 2 Independents) during any of Obama's term.
2012-06-23 09:21:24 PM  
2 votes:
www.speakinggump.com

Ya, as Garble and Hobodeluxe noted, he's going for a neocon Norman Rockwell vibe, but is appropriately fuddled and befuddled. His rendering skills put Kinkade to shame, but make N Rockwell look like a Michelangelo.(and I'm not to keen on Rockwell's oeuvre).

That cargo pocket is big enough to hold a bomb.

/ almost said "corpus"
// I always feel like someone's watching me.
2012-06-23 08:52:48 PM  
2 votes:

Ishkur: Great_Milenko: My favorite part is Calvin Coolidge.

So Calvin Coolidge cut taxes on the rich.... and we had the crash of 29.

Regan cut taxes on the rich.... and we had the crash of 87.

Bush cut taxes on the rich... and we had the crash of '08.

I'm starting to see a pattern here -- if you let the rich keep too much of their money, they fark up the economy. Therefore, we should tax them to death to prevent economic calamity.


No, it means that investment - real investment - is necessary for growth. Cutting tax rates only encourages speculation, which is unhealthy.

It's all about liquidity : If the market is too liquid, then it adjusts in reaction, causing a crash, and illiquidity.

If the government can gently reduce the liquidity of the market at the point where it starts to go wrong, then strong economic growth occurs.
2012-06-23 08:48:12 PM  
2 votes:

Great_Milenko: My favorite part is Calvin Coolidge.


So Calvin Coolidge cut taxes on the rich.... and we had the crash of 29.

Regan cut taxes on the rich.... and we had the crash of 87.

Bush cut taxes on the rich... and we had the crash of '08.

I'm starting to see a pattern here -- if you let the rich keep too much of their money, they fark up the economy. Therefore, we should tax them to death to prevent economic calamity.
2012-06-23 08:09:10 PM  
2 votes:
His vision of the "Everyman" looks like somebody I'd call the cops on if I saw him hanging around a playground.
2012-06-23 07:59:33 PM  
2 votes:
Am I the only one picking up a massive scent of ASD on this guy? Very poor language skills, his sentence construction is awkward and stilted, and he doesn't always know which word to use (Obama road to power?) Obsession with a single, poorly understood topic. But nevertheless, definite skill in a single area, which seems to inform all of his other communication.
2012-06-23 07:15:09 PM  
2 votes:

The Evil That Lies In The Hearts Of Men: So, he seems pretty direct in his criticism of GWB - does anyone have any links to his paintings from when GWB was President?



W. is his sacrificial lamb. He throws him halfway under the bus to show that he's non-partisan, but when he actually talks about Bush, he walks it back and blames it on the hardships Bush faced as a President (9-11, financial collapse, Katrina, etc.)

If you look at "The Forgotten Man" Bush appears much more reluctant to be standing with the Dems... He's looking back over his shoulder at the forgotten man like "but we should do something!"

It's basically the way all right-wingers treat Bush when faced trying to maintain intellectual integrity when complaining about "big government" and then having to acknowledge things like Medicare Part D, DHS, and the bank bailouts.

"Okay, fine... Then I don't like Bush neither!

(Yes, I do George! I don't mean it. I don't mean it one bit. I know you was only doin' what you had to do to protect this country! God bless you and keep you safe, Mr. President!!!)"
2012-06-23 07:10:30 PM  
2 votes:
Oh, and a bit off-topic but I've been wanting to say this for a while..

I'd bet my left one that the your founding fathers would hate the current Republican agitprop with the intensity of a thousand suns.
They were mostly Deists after all.

/feel better now :)
2012-06-23 07:02:08 PM  
2 votes:

Lionel Mandrake: Zmog: I wanna know what that guy has in his pocket. Looks like he shoved a daily wage's worth of cheeseburgers in there. Or possibly a bunch of ferrets.



The Empowered Man

He represents every man, woman and child of every color and creed who is an American. Like you and me, he hopes for a better life, to find the American dream of happiness and prosperity. But now, because of unconstitutional acts imposed upon the American people by our government we stand on the precipice of disaster. What will his opportunities be in the future? Will he ever have a chance to realize the American Dream?

Yes! He has got off his bench, ripped the Constitution out from under the feet of Obama and holds it up to the world. He is empowered to save our nation.

How? He understands the Constitution and liberties and laws therein. He also carries a Bible in his right coat pocket. He knows from where his true empowerment comes.


So he hides the True Power in his pocket while he holds up false idols in both hands? Where's your Christian principles, McNaughton?

/soniamdisappoint.jpg
2012-06-23 06:45:15 PM  
2 votes:

evoke: Even though you don't agree with the sentiment the guy has serious artistic talent.


His technical skills are quite good, but his story telling somehow manages to be both heavy handed and unclear at the same time.

You never needed liner notes to know what was going on in a Norman Rockwell painting.
2012-06-23 06:25:25 PM  
2 votes:
Both paintings feature the same "everyman" character, who in McNaughton's telling, has chosen to break off the chains of an oppressive federal government.

Ah yes, a white blonde guy with tons of money. It's the spitting image of the everyman of 21st century America.
2012-06-23 06:19:09 PM  
2 votes:

FloydA: You have a really weird, twisted and distorted view of the world. It must be very unpleasant in your head.


To be fair, he made his cross so farking tall that when he nails himself to it every thread, he's barely getting enough oxygen.
2012-06-23 05:56:00 PM  
2 votes:

FloydA: cman: I can't wait to see how this will be described as somehow racist. That will be fun to watch

You have a really weird, twisted and distorted view of the world. It must be very unpleasant in your head.


Liberals might play the race card, which sometimes slanders innocent people, but conservatives just LOVE the racist card, which provides cover for ALL racists every time they use it.
2012-06-23 05:09:08 PM  
2 votes:

AzDownboy: This picture is an example that earnestness is the complete opposite of irony


Yes; he understands the importance of being earnest, but lacks any talent to express it.
2012-06-23 04:57:40 PM  
2 votes:
This picture is an example that earnestness is the complete opposite of irony
2012-06-23 04:50:08 PM  
2 votes:

cman: I can't wait to see how this will be described as somehow racist. That will be fun to watch


You have a really weird, twisted and distorted view of the world. It must be very unpleasant in your head.
2012-06-23 04:47:07 PM  
2 votes:

cman: I can't wait to see how this will be described as somehow racist. That will be fun to watch


nah, not racist - just propaganda.
2012-06-23 04:27:31 PM  
2 votes:
I wonder if it's available on velvet?
2012-06-24 11:05:12 PM  
1 votes:

intelligent comment below: ZipSplat: for your position.


You mean the position of actually reading the entire farking amendment not just the part after the comma? And understanding history? Yeah how about that.


Either you didn't actually read what I wrote, or your reading comprehension is really bad. Try again.
2012-06-24 10:11:11 PM  
1 votes:

xaveth: Congrats! You just achieved maximum derp.


Well, yes, he was trying to do what FOXNews does. So if he matched it, of COURSE he reached maximum derp.
2012-06-24 09:05:42 PM  
1 votes:

Halli: Animatronik: Truth is, Obama is losing the constitutional challenges. Obama said a couple years ago that he couldnt offer amnesty to a million illegal immigrants because its against the law. Now he doesnt care, because when SCOTUS strikes it down, he scores big points with Latino voters in an election year. Even the liberal justices are going against him. Example: 9-0 decision against EEOC in a lawsuit attacking a church's employment practices.

Yeah that Hannity clip only showed half of what Obama was saying. FOX News tends to be dishonest like that.


vygramul: Animatronik: jcooli09: GeneralJim: vygramul:
...
Obama said a couple years ago that he couldn't offer amnesty to a million illegal immigrants because its against the law.

See, this is where FOXNews has you fooled. And even though I can prove it, it won't change your mind. Why? For the same reason God doesn't bother letting a dead man go back to earth and warn his brothers. They simply won't believe him.

The FULL clip of Obama has him saying the exact opposite of what you were shown on TV.


Watch me quote the Holy Bible the same way that Hannity, et al at Faux News and other RW sources have often quoted Obama (actually, I'll be somewhat more honest than them and indicate mine omissions with ellipses):
• Exodus 8:10: "...there is no God...." (CEV & The Message)
• Exodus 9:14: "...there is no God...." (EtR)
• Deuteronomy 3:24: "...there is no God...." (EtR & GNT)
• Deuteronomy 32:39: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except BB, CEV, D-R, GNT, JST, LITV, MCB, Msg, NIRV, NJB, NLT, & WE)
• Deuteronomy 33:26: "...there is no God...." (MCB)
• I Samuel 2:2: "...there is no God...." (GB & NCV)
• II Samuel 7:22: "...there is no God...." (CJB, ERB, ESV, EtR, HCSB, LITV, MCB, NAB, NASB, NCV, NIV, NLB, NLV, NRSV, RSV, UBv1.9, & YLT)
• II Samuel 22:32: "...there is no God...." (EtR & PLT)
• I Kings 8:23: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except CEV [Msg has this at verse 22], CJB, JST, LITV, & YLT)
• II Kings 1:3: "...there is no God...." (Amp, ASV, ERB, ERV, GB, GNT, HCSB, JPS, JST, NAB, NASB, NCV, NKJV, NIV, NLV, NRSV, PLT, RSV, & UBv1.9)
• II Kings 1:6: "...there is no God...." (ASV, ERB, ERV, GB, GNT, HNV, HCSB, JPS, JST, NAB, NASB, NCV, NKJV, NIV, NLV, NRSV, PLT, RSV, & UBv1.9)
• II Kings 1:16: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except BB, CEV, CJB, EtR, GB, GNT, LITV, MCB, Msg, NJB, NLT, NRSV, & YLT)
• II Kings 5:15: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except CEV, LITV, Holman, & YLT)
• I Chronicles 17:20: "...there is no God...." (CJB, ESV, HCSB, NAB, NCV, NIV, NLV, NRS, PLT, RSV, UBv1.9, & YLT)
• II Chronicles 6:14: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except CEV [Msg has this at verse 12], JST, LITV, & PLT)
• Job 12:6: "...there is no God...." (PLT)
• Psalm 10:4: "...there is no God...." (Amp, ASV, BBE, CJB, Darby, ERV, ESV, GB, LITV, NASB, NJB, NLV, NRS, PLT, RSV, & UBv1.9)
• Psalm 14:1: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except BBE, Msg, JPS, JST, LITV, & YLT)
• Psalm 18:31: "...there is no God...." (EtR & PLT)
• Psalm 53:1: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except BBE, CJB, JST, LITV, & Msg [JPS has this at verse 2])
• Psalm 71:19: "...there is no God...." (EtR)
• Psalm 86:8: "...there is no God...." (BBE, GNT, & NCV)
• Proverbs 30:1: "...there is no God...." (Msg)
• Isaiah 44:6: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except CEV, EtR, JST, LITV, MCB, Msg, NKJV, & NCV)
• Isaiah 44:8: "...there is no God...." (KJ1611, KJ21, KJV*, PLT, & TMB)
• Isaiah 45:5: "...there is no God...." (all major translations except CEV, CJB, EtR, JST, Msg, NASB, NCV, & NJB)
• Isaiah 45:6: "...there is no God...." (Amp, BBE, & GWT)
• Isaiah 45:14: "...there is no God..." (ASV, ERV, KJ1611, KJ21, KJV*, & NASB)
• Isaiah 45:21: "...there is no God...." (Amp, ASV, Darby, ERV, JPS, KJ1611, KJ21, KJV*, NKJV, NIRV, NIV, & TMB)
• Isaiah 46:9: "...there is no God...." (D-R)
• Daniel 3:29: "...there is no God...." (BB, GB, & MCB)
• Micah 7:18: "...there is no God...." (EtR, NCV, & PLT)
• Judith 6:2: "...there is no God...." (D-R)
• Sirach [Ben Sira] 36:2: "...there is no God...." (D-R)
• Sirach [Ben Sira] 36:5: "...there is no God...." (D-R, GNT, KJ1611, KJV, & NRSV [NAB has this at verse 4])
• Sirach [Ben Sira] 36:13: "...there is no God...." (D-R)
• II Esdras 8:58: "...there is no God...." (KJV, NRSV, & TMB)
• I Corinthians 8:4: "...there is no God...." (Amp, ASV, BBE, ERV, ESV, HCSB, Msg, NAB, NIV, NJB, NRVS, RSV, UBv1.9, Webster, Wesley N.T., Weymouth N.T. & Wycliffe N.T. [for obvious reasons, this is the only appearance of that phrase in the Wesley, Weymouth, & Wycliffe])


intelligent comment below: ZipSplat: Oh here we go again. Gun control is one of the big issues I have with the left in an otherwise agreeable relationship. Look, if you want to pass a Constitutional amendment to change the Second Amendment, do that. But you're trying to pretend that in the 1780's, immediately after the Revolutionary War period, that the authors of the Second Amendment intended that gun ownership be restricted to formal members of an organized militia, you are off your goddamn rocker and off into "WHARS THE BIRTH CERTIFKAT??? NOE TEH REAL WAN!!!!" realms of daftness.

The second amendment is saying, in contemporary terms, that militias are necessary, and therefore the right of people to keep and bear arms, clearly for the purposes of building a militia, will not be infringed.

Your knowledge of history is frightening. Seems like the hobby of liking guns has blinded you to the reality and history of the country.

I'm not making the argument guns shouldn't be legal, but the context in which the amendment was written was strictly to make sure state militia aged men would not be able to be disarmed by the federal government.

These people were part of the state militias that today make up the national guard and police forces.

Absolutely nothing to do with the idea the NRA drilled into gun nuts since birth how your hobby should be covered.


As my above spiel re: Faux News quoting out-of-context should make plain, I'm no right-wing extremist. That said, it is your knowledge of history that is deficient.
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
↑ That is the second draft of the Second Amendment, the first revision after James Madison's proposed original. The part I boldfaced remained intact through the next two subsequent revisions as well, and was finally removed only because it was considered redundant! Everyone at the time knew what the word "militia" meant! What they didn't know was just how drastically the general interpretation of that word would change over time (sort of like how, just three decades ago, "going postal" only referred to how one might send a letter or physical object to a distant recipient).

There's also the small matter of how English grammar worked then and still works now. The operative clause of any compound complex sentence is the independent clause, the one that can stand alone in its own right as a grammatically complete sentence. All others are dependent clauses and are merely descriptive, not operative.

"A well regulated Militia, necessary to the security of a free State,"
↑ Is that a grammatically complete sentence in its own right? No? Then it's a dependent clause. Descriptive. Expressing a reason for what follows, not a limitation upon it.

"The Right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
↑ Is that a grammatically complete sentence in its own right? Yes? Then it's an independent clause. Operative.

You can rationally debate whether the Second Amendment has outlived its usefulness in this day and age, and should perhaps itself be amended. Just get two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and then ¾ of the States, to agree with you.

But you can not rationally debate that the Second Amendment doesn't say and mean what it very clearly says and means: by the earlier drafts, by the debates held on it (all of which are publicly available freely on the Internet and elsewhere), by the meanings that the key words (not just "Militia" but also "well regulated," "Arms," etc.) had at the time and by the basic rules of English grammar, both then and now.

If it were worded in modern English vocabulary and grammar to convey the same concepts it did originally, it might read:

"Because a well-armed and equipped populace is necessary to the security of a free State, the Right of the People to keep and bear hand-wieldable weaponry and any ammo or other supporting materials needed for the use of same, shall not be infringed."

/feels unclean supporting GeneralJim...
2012-06-24 08:54:53 PM  
1 votes:

intelligent comment below: Your knowledge of history is frightening. Seems like the hobby of liking guns has blinded you to the reality and history of the country.

I'm not making the argument guns shouldn't be legal, but the context in which the amendment was written was strictly to make sure state militia aged men would not be able to be disarmed by the federal government.

These people were part of the state militias that today make up the national guard and police forces.

Absolutely nothing to do with the idea the NRA drilled into gun nuts since birth how your hobby should be covered.


Hyperbole tends to belie insecurity. My knowledge is less "frightening" than inconvenient for your position.

So you're saying that the intent of the Second Amendment could be paraphased as "The right of males between the ages of 15 and 65 to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"? Care to substantiate that?

Additionally, the National Guard does fill a militia role, but there is no reason here to infer that the militias that were coalesced into official State militias, and then later in 1903 into the National Guard, are the only militias which would be allowed to exist. In the period in which the second amendment was written, militias were grassroots. They weren't controlled by the Federal government or even the State government in the same way the current National Guard is (Please, PLEASE try to tell me that the National Guard is run by the states. Please try to tell me that.)
2012-06-24 08:09:32 PM  
1 votes:

intelligent comment below: GeneralJim: And, the Second Amendment... Just how does ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" mean that the government needs to closely regulate guns?


That's not what the 2nd Amendment says.

Why do you leave out the most important part?

A well regulated militia...


Oh here we go again. Gun control is one of the big issues I have with the left in an otherwise agreeable relationship. Look, if you want to pass a Constitutional amendment to change the Second Amendment, do that. But you're trying to pretend that in the 1780's, immediately after the Revolutionary War period, that the authors of the Second Amendment intended that gun ownership be restricted to formal members of an organized militia, you are off your goddamn rocker and off into "WHARS THE BIRTH CERTIFKAT??? NOE TEH REAL WAN!!!!" realms of daftness.

The second amendment is saying, in contemporary terms, that militias are necessary, and therefore the right of people to keep and bear arms, clearly for the purposes of building a militia, will not be infringed.
2012-06-24 05:08:46 PM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: Grow up? I have. I have a different definition of "art" than you have; deal. For example, I don't consider any of the following to be "art," although some people do:

Soup can
Giant Flashlight
Atomized Jet Engine
Throwing paint into a jet exhaust
The bronzed crap of celebrity crotchfruit
Most any crap (sometimes literal) from Jackson Pollock
Overhyped, predictable excuses for artistic endeavor, however international

Predictable postwar and postmodern stuff.


Gotcha. So you consider barely competent hackwork, the product of a muddled artistic sensibility (nb: I am not referencing McNaughton's political iconography -- such as it is -- here), to be superior artistically to some works from the latter half of the 20th century that are for the most part considered philosophically and artistically groundbreaking. Not that I care for a lot of them either, mind you, but I can acknowledge and understand their significance.

Uhm, "deal." And. Grow. Up.
2012-06-24 03:17:27 PM  
1 votes:

mrshowrules: I wouldn't hire anyone advertising there TS clearance on their resume.


Well you don't seem to be very familiar with clearances in general, so I doubt the types of resumes you read are geared toward that type of job. But FYI going forward, if you've had a clearance that isn't the kind of thing one would omit from a resume. That's not someone divulging too much information, that's you being unfamiliar with clearance etiquette.

It really doesn't matter whether or not someone advertises that they have, had, or will be receiving a clearance. It just means that the Federal Government has looked into your background and deemed you suitable to be in the vicinity of information it considers sensitive. That can mean you're the guy eavesdropping on top-level Chinese diplomatic traffic, or the guy serving that guy mashed potatoes in the Ft. Meade food court, and anywhere in between, or above, or below. It just means that in the government's eyes, you're a trustworthy person.
2012-06-24 10:49:28 AM  
1 votes:

Animatronik: jcooli09: GeneralJim: vygramul: (Watermelons on the White House lawn, sent by Los Alamitos Mayor Dean Grose, in March 2009, a scant two months after Obama was inaugurated -- I'm sure they were just criticizing 3.5 years of bad policy decisions, though)
What is it with you morons? Do you share a single diseased brain? Finding a couple jackasses who don't like Obama, and are racist does not mean that everyone who doesn't like Obama is racist.

Along similar lines, Obama's approval rating started at 60%, and has now fallen to about 45%. According to you, that means that 15% of the electorate just noticed that Obama isn't white. To a racist, it's all about race.

Don't be stupid. Pointing out a few of the obvious bigots who don't like Obama is not the same as saying that everyone who doesn't like Obama is a bigot.

The
"It must be racism, what's not to like about Obama's policies' theme is well established as a Democratic party campaign theme and among liberal farkers.


only after Republicans refused to admit anything like Obamabucks was racist. Do YOU think the Obamabucks pic is racist?

Obama said a couple years ago that he couldnt offer amnesty to a million illegal immigrants because its against the law.

See, this is where FOXNews has you fooled. And even though I can prove it, it won't change your mind. Why? For the same reason God doesn't bother letting a dead man go back to earth and warn his brothers. They simply won't believe him.


The FULL clip of Obama has him saying the exact opposite of what you were shown on TV.
2012-06-24 10:21:52 AM  
1 votes:

LoneWolf343: That picture one is iconic. This isn't. Observe it's simplicity in comparison to the maelstrom of "symbolism" in the more conservative paintings. These paintings are noisy in their subject matter, dreary in their color schemes. The morass of elements in these paintings mix together into a bland sea of grey. The Change poster is stark, high-contrast, and yet deep in emotion.


You know what, you're ridiculously onto something. I knew that style evicted something, but couldn't quite put my finger on it until you made this comment.

www.marxists.org
www.marxists.org
www.mcnaughtonart.com

Links be hawt yo.
2012-06-24 10:03:07 AM  
1 votes:

SouthernFriedYankee: intelligent comment below: Oh great, another Fark Independent "Both sides are bad" troll

So disagreeing with leftism makes one a troll, and eveything one says "derp."

Ok. As long as I understand your logic, and your debate skills.

I will offer concrete facts to support my position, thankyouverymuch:

Estonia I

Estonia II

Estonia III

I wish I had another example than this one country, but unfortunately, everyone else is trying the same old Keynesian stuff which is not going to work. When another country decides to get a clue, I'll let you know. You won't listen, I imagine, but I'll still let you know.


So your single example is Estonia? It has a population of around 1.3 million. More people and born and die in the US every year than Estonia has total citizens. It has an economy smaller than a number of our states. The GDP of Washington, DC, with a population about half the size, is about ten times as large.

Oh, and from Wikipedia:

Between 2007 and 2013, Estonia receives 53.3 billion kroons (3.4 billion euros) from various European Union Structural Funds as direct supports by creating the largest foreign investments into Estonia ever.[147] Majority of the European Union financial aid will be invested into to the following fields: energy economies, entrepreneurship, administrative capability, education, information society, environment protection, regional and local development, research and development activities, healthcare and welfare, transportation and labour market.[148]

They received massive external investment in the time period during which they supposedly achieved stunning economic success due to cutting government spending.

Your argument is crap.
2012-06-24 09:57:52 AM  
1 votes:

runcible spork: Dwight_Yeast: runcible spork: Effing Warhola. *sigh* I dearly hope D Hirst represents the apotheosis and terminus of that conceit.

My money is on Hirst being the Bouguereau of our age. He was the first artist to see his work sell at auction for $1 million, and it took until the 1980s for his work to reach that mark again.

Ugh. The thought of a Hirst revival.


Eh, we'll be dead long before it happens. I recently read a history of one of the lesser New York auction houses, written in the 1960s, and the author makes a great deal out of the fact that there were a whole raft of popular late 19th artists whose work was basically unsalable by the 1930s. Most of them are still forgotten. Bouguereau gets something of a pass in my book, as he was amazingly talented as a painter. Sadly, he used those talents for evil instead of good.
2012-06-24 09:13:57 AM  
1 votes:

GeneralJim: Now, if his adopted father changed his citizenship to Indonesian, Obama could have regained American citizenship by simply filing a paper. There is no evidence that he did that. Further, there is no evidence that he changed his name back to his birth name. That would mean that a foreign citizen has usurped the Presidency under an assumed name. That's the kind of information that would come out of a thorough vetting process.

Now, it is possible that Lolo Soetoro lied on the school admissions forms, and Obama never was legally named Barry Soetoro, and never surrendered his citizenship. If he had been vetted, we would know the answer to whether his Indonesian citizenship and name were faked. But, as far as I know, nobody has searched the Indonesian records to see if he was naturalized. So, no, he wasn't vetted.


Ok, I read the rest of it (wanted a chuckle). Would you be able to provide a link to the documentation of Barack Obama changing his name to Barry Soetoro within the American system? Do you have a copy of his social security card with that name, or anything like that?

Also, I enjoy that you shamelessly reveal your position that because nobody flagged you down and told you about something, it can't possibly have happened.

Obama wasn't just vetted by the Democrats and by the Feds, you moron, he was vetted by the Republicans as well. If there were _any_ truth to any of this bullshiat, McCain would have brought it up during the election. Or would you assert that McCain, and his entire campaign staff, were in on the conspiracy?

So why didn't this "truth" come out before? I'd assume because it took this long for the "intrepid investigator" who "discovered" it to get a cracked copy of photoshop to work.

And so you know, I'm not the only one laughing at you. The assholes who feeding you this bullshiat are laughing at you too. They can't get over how eagerly you eat this shiat up.
2012-06-24 08:50:19 AM  
1 votes:

HMS_Blinkin: RulerOfNone: Political tripe aside, this guy is a rather decent artist.

He might make realistic impressions of the people and things he's trying to depict in his painting, but that doesn't make him an artist. His work isn't challenging, it is, as you said, political tripe. And political tripe can never be art, as art can never be political tripe. Art can maybe, MAYBE, make a political statement, but it has to do so with some subtlety, and preferably in a way that challenges pre-conceived notions. This garbage only serves to reinforce pre-conceived notions.


You must love Guernica.
2012-06-24 08:43:34 AM  
1 votes:
jcooli09:
Don't be stupid. Pointing out a few of the obvious bigots who don't like Obama is not the same as saying that everyone who doesn't like Obama is a bigot.

Not in itself. But, look at the context of the post, and Viagrinal was saying just that. His post is HERE, and details a complicated conspiracy theory about how Republicans are racist because they claim that calling them racist if they don't like Obama doesn't make sense. Well, that's how I interpret the screed. But, I'm not a mental health professional, so if you want a definitive interpretation, find a professional.
2012-06-24 08:23:32 AM  
1 votes:

cman: I can't wait to see how this will be described as somehow racist. That will be fun to watch


Straw man.

From a purely technical standpoint, this is an illustration, not art. It contains no aesthetic value, nothing of interest in terms of color, light or brushwork. It could as easily have been stitched together in Photoshop, but the use of traditional painting technique gives it a veneer of respectability and uniqueness (ironic because the bulk of the profits from this painting will be made by selling reproductions). Frankly, the average romance novel cover illustrator could have done a better job.

McNaughton is a hack. That is the essence of his success.
2012-06-24 07:53:01 AM  
1 votes:

St_Francis_P: ZipSplat: What do you people mean when you say that the President is "unvetted"?

You may not get an answer, as those informative chain emails don't generally include definitions. I think they imagine his name was picked out of a fish-bowl.


I have a feeling it means "David Axelrod didn't anticipate every possible conspiracy theory which could be fabricated about the President and prevent us from spreading them and feeling dumb after the fact. Therefore the President is 'unvetted'."
2012-06-24 06:19:19 AM  
1 votes:

tony41454: Not as farked up as someone who would vote for an untested, untried, unvetted community organizer to run the United States.


Remember: That untested, untried, unvetted community organizer was running against a 72 year old in ailing health who picked, as his running mate, an appallingly ignorant, delusional, and fundamentally unintelligent and unsophisticated moronic simpleton.
2012-06-24 06:12:32 AM  
1 votes:
What do you call a radical liberal 100 years after he dies? A conservative....
2012-06-24 05:15:53 AM  
1 votes:

runcible spork: Which prompts the question, which economic system is most suited for a democracy?


Syndicalism.

Understand that one thing Democracy has going for it that has never even been brought up in all the theorizing thought of all the systems in the past is general tolerance, dignity and respect for minority classes, to the point where most modern Democracies see it as an important political component to go out of their way to protect them. This is a completely new valueset in political theory, only come about due to the empowerment of women in the last century. All systems in the past reserved their theories for elites; there was always an exploitable and undesirable underclass forced to do the work that was too hazardous or difficult, for whom the enlightened ideologies did not apply.

This is why Capitalism does not like modern Democracy. It's not interested in human care, social issues, or the general health and well-being of the populace. Capitalism's goal is to amass capital, and it considers all things expendable -- including human life -- in pursuit of this aim. That makes it utterly and inhumanly amoral. People always seem to forget this: Capitalism has absolutely no ethical value. It will push its own mother into the street to pick up a nickel, but it will feed the poor for a tax writeoff.

Democracy did not start out this way. Early Democracies permitted slavery, profited off migrant cheap labor and sponsored aggressive mercantilism, and propped up a series of cruel, capitalist oligarchies that treated their own working classes like a dump truck full of dirt. There were no child labor laws, health regulations or safety standards. These things were not seriously addressed on a pertinent national until women began influencing democratic discourse.

And now that they are essential valuesets, Capitalism is struggling with this very uncomfortable partnership. The solution, then, is to cast it away and adopt a new economic platform more in line with the values of modern Democracy, where civility, care, health and well-being are the goals, not profit.

That might require a world war or two, however. Capitalism does not like going without a fight. And it has the resources to make one.
2012-06-24 03:18:00 AM  
1 votes:
orrinjohnson.com

PRIME / HOT ROD for 2012


/till all are one
2012-06-24 03:16:26 AM  
1 votes:
The best (and most revealing) part of the painting is how the Constitution is used as a symbol instead of an actual document. Instead of reading it, the man holds it up like Peter Cushing would hold up a cross in a Hammer film. The words mean nothing, only the power inherited by the paper because....well, isn't important, isn't it? It's a stunning display of the ignorance that right-wingers hold now that they realize Christianity has been tarnished with pathetic bigotry: they don't realize that the Constitution's real power comes from what is written on it, but instead that it exists and therefore is somehow important. Notice that the Perfect Man there--complete in his casual workwear and glory--doesn't read it at all. He's off looking up while holding a few bucks. Without the pathetic pandering in the background, the main focus of the painting is insulting and very enlightening. Why is the man empowered? Is it because he uses the symbol of the Constitution? Is it because he has a few bucks in hand? He's not really that empowered if you look at him in the context of the painting.
2012-06-24 02:56:47 AM  
1 votes:

Sabyen91: cman: I can't wait to see how this will be described as somehow racist. That will be fun to watch

Pathetic troll.


You must be new to Fark. If you approve of anything that is anti-Obama, then you're a racist. You must conform, citizen.
2012-06-24 01:56:47 AM  
1 votes:
This guy can't even follow the same damn visual metaphors.

In the first pic, the guy is ignoring the cash as he cuts free of the system. In the second pic he clearly has a stack of cash in his hands.

Perhaps he is simply illustrating the duality of nature that tea party patriots feel when cashing their social security checks, all the while biatching about the government and how evil it is.
2012-06-24 01:43:35 AM  
1 votes:

Death_Poot: I just want to know, how is that any different from this, except for your political perspective:

[ttoes.files.wordpress.com image 640x909]

Go on, give me a rational, non emotional, non name calling explanation, without calling me racist, etc


That picture one is iconic. This isn't. Observe it's simplicity in comparison to the maelstrom of "symbolism" in the more conservative paintings. These paintings are noisy in their subject matter, dreary in their color schemes. The morass of elements in these paintings mix together into a bland sea of grey. The Change poster is stark, high-contrast, and yet deep in emotion.

tl:dr Less is more.

/sorry, I sometimes get melodramatic when talking about art.
2012-06-24 01:34:07 AM  
1 votes:
Wait... so all I have to do is paint some moronic shiat that will appeal the baser instincts of conservatives and slap a huge price tag on it and I'll be rich? hmmm... might just have to do that.
2012-06-24 01:32:25 AM  
1 votes:

Lsherm:
For all the idiots glomming onto this guy's paintings, 50 million more looked at that and thought Obama was going to "change the world."

Idiots abound.


Actually, most of us looked at the opposition and recoiled in abject horror.
2012-06-24 01:09:29 AM  
1 votes:
4.bp.blogspot.com
2012-06-24 12:59:35 AM  
1 votes:
I'm the libiest lib that ever libed and I think that a collection of those would be an interesting cover for my walls. I'd get a good background color for the walls and hang them up. They'd make great discussion pieces when we have guests over.

I don't know if I'd have 'Obama burning the Constitution' or 'Jesus Holding the Constitution' above my TV/faux-fireplace and, thus, my centerpiece.
2012-06-24 12:57:42 AM  
1 votes:

Fista-Phobia: So lack of pic posting leads to alts.


www.empireonline.com

Alts lead to confusion...

Confusion leads to fear...

Fear leads to erectile dysfunction...

Erectile dysfunction is the path to the dark side.
2012-06-24 12:49:03 AM  
1 votes:

Death_Poot: I just want to know, how is that any different from this, except for your political perspective:

[ttoes.files.wordpress.com image 640x909]

Go on, give me a rational, non emotional, non name calling explanation, without calling me racist, etc


The difference is one is supposed to be a positive message about getting America working again, and the other is supposed to be a negative message about how much Obama hates the Constitution.

Another big difference is that this is only one in a SERIES of paintings about how much Obama hates the Constitution.
2012-06-24 12:19:51 AM  
1 votes:

Death_Poot: ...apart from the obama painting being adopted as a campaign tool, there is no difference.



If you honestly cannot discern a difference other than that between the two, then I'm afraid you lack subtlety in a variety of areas: formal expression, representation, composition, purpose, etc.

scruffy1: ... He claims that he has no political message and I believe that he honestly believes it in the same way that a blind person believes that the only color in the world is "darkness," that's what he has been led to believe all his life therefore it must be true, and anyone that doesn't believe the same, well there is something wrong with them.



C'mon, even a blind person with a smidgen on awareness is able to appreciate that just because they are physically unable to perceive something that is eminently provable doesn't mean that they can't accept its objective veracity. Unless... did you mean a blind person deprived of contact with sighted people?
2012-06-24 12:11:31 AM  
1 votes:
Did anyone else explore the rest of his art? Lots of LDS stuff. As someone mentioned before or inferred it does seem as if he has some ADS going on, or perhaps, and since this IS the politics tab I will put it out there, some Romney Like Programing was involved. It has been mentioned time and time again that Romney's indifferent behavior is common with members of the LDS Church. By extension that would explain this guy, his art and his rather verbose explanations of his art as well as his answers to any perceived criticism that he may face regarding it. He claims that he has no political message and I believe that he honestly believes it in the same way that a blind person believes that the only color in the world is "darkness," that's what he has been led to believe all his life therefore it must be true, and anyone that doesn't believe the same, well there is something wrong with them.
2012-06-24 12:04:05 AM  
1 votes:

Death_Poot: gimmegimme: Death_Poot: I just want to know, how is that any different from this, except for your political perspective:

[ttoes.files.wordpress.com image 640x909]

Go on, give me a rational, non emotional, non name calling explanation, without calling me racist, etc

This one is easy. The Republicans are hell-bent on dismantling the country and selling it to the highest bidder. For over a decade, they have subverted elections and continually disregarded the spirit of the representative republic we inherited.

The paintings in question are indicative of the kind of person who has never ever thought about anything ever and has never cracked a book and doesn't care whether or not what he believes is true. The Obama image is not evil, twisted propaganda that appeals to racists and the feeble-minded. It's an example of the simple and traditional "vote for me" imagery most candidates employ.

You're still talking from political perspective.....apart from the obama painting being adopted as a campaign tool, there is no difference

Also, regarding your first sentence, you are drinking the koolaid.....the D's and R's are both sides of the same coin....we are being played for suckers.


You didn't ask him to be non-political, bring those goalposts back
2012-06-23 11:59:05 PM  
1 votes:

Death_Poot: gimmegimme: Death_Poot: I just want to know, how is that any different from this, except for your political perspective:

[ttoes.files.wordpress.com image 640x909]

Go on, give me a rational, non emotional, non name calling explanation, without calling me racist, etc

This one is easy. The Republicans are hell-bent on dismantling the country and selling it to the highest bidder. For over a decade, they have subverted elections and continually disregarded the spirit of the representative republic we inherited.

The paintings in question are indicative of the kind of person who has never ever thought about anything ever and has never cracked a book and doesn't care whether or not what he believes is true. The Obama image is not evil, twisted propaganda that appeals to racists and the feeble-minded. It's an example of the simple and traditional "vote for me" imagery most candidates employ.

You're still talking from political perspective.....apart from the obama painting being adopted as a campaign tool, there is no difference

Also, regarding your first sentence, you are drinking the koolaid.....the D's and R's are both sides of the same coin....we are being played for suckers.


Democrats want to make out with your girlfriend. Republicans want to kidnap your mother and your wife in the middle of the night and sell them to a rich Middle Eastern sheik and strap you into a chair so they can force you to watch every step they take into sex slavery. All the while, Republicans are tossing softballs at your scrotum and force-feeding you deep-fried Snickers bars so they will get more entertainment out of chaining you to a treadmill that provides electricity to the fark machine your daughter is strapped into.

I'm going to go with the Democrats.
2012-06-23 11:57:12 PM  
1 votes:

Death_Poot: gimmegimme: Death_Poot: I just want to know, how is that any different from this, except for your political perspective:

[ttoes.files.wordpress.com image 640x909]

Go on, give me a rational, non emotional, non name calling explanation, without calling me racist, etc

This one is easy. The Republicans are hell-bent on dismantling the country and selling it to the highest bidder. For over a decade, they have subverted elections and continually disregarded the spirit of the representative republic we inherited.

The paintings in question are indicative of the kind of person who has never ever thought about anything ever and has never cracked a book and doesn't care whether or not what he believes is true. The Obama image is not evil, twisted propaganda that appeals to racists and the feeble-minded. It's an example of the simple and traditional "vote for me" imagery most candidates employ.

You're still talking from political perspective.....apart from the obama painting being adopted as a campaign tool, there is no difference

Also, regarding your first sentence, you are drinking the koolaid.....the D's and R's are both sides of the same coin....we are being played for suckers.



Death_Poot, please pick one of the other responses to reply to. You know, one of those that actually addressed your request?
2012-06-23 11:47:41 PM  
1 votes:

Death_Poot: I just want to know, how is that any different from this, except for your political perspective:

[ttoes.files.wordpress.com image 640x909]

Go on, give me a rational, non emotional, non name calling explanation, without calling me racist, etc




Here's one:

Because one is explicitly campaign material, makes no pretensions to "art," and does not have confused and shaky ideological and philosophical symbolism.
2012-06-23 11:39:50 PM  
1 votes:
I just want to know, how is that any different from this, except for your political perspective:

ttoes.files.wordpress.com

Go on, give me a rational, non emotional, non name calling explanation, without calling me racist, etc
2012-06-23 11:36:55 PM  
1 votes:
I've finally figured out who the Empowered Man looks like, and it's terrifying.

www1.pictures.zimbio.com
2012-06-23 11:36:38 PM  
1 votes:

Jim_Callahan: I don't have a personal hatred for the guy or anything, but he was authoritarian to the verge of nearly turning the half of the country he controlled into a military Junta and a number of his decisions were borderline incompetent at best.



Yeah, the nerve of that guy for reacting to the Confederacy taking up arms against the Constitution and the states.
2012-06-23 11:17:49 PM  
1 votes:
This wouldn't work in reverse. No liberal would be stupid enough to pay six figures for a painting of George Bush.
2012-06-23 11:12:53 PM  
1 votes:
subbooks.com
2012-06-23 10:29:33 PM  
1 votes:
i34.photobucket.com
2012-06-23 10:26:39 PM  
1 votes:
Fark ladies and Fark gentleman, I give you my latest artistic work. I call it "Begging Him to Read." The bidding will start at 100K.

img191.imageshack.us
2012-06-23 10:18:27 PM  
1 votes:

tony41454: I like it. Truth in oils.


Yeah - but you're f**ked up, and most people aren't like you.
2012-06-23 09:42:44 PM  
1 votes:

Ghastly: Wait a minute!!!! WAIT A MINUTE!!! His farking paintings sell for SIX FIGURES?

Screw hentai! From now on I'm doing paintings of ramming his fist up George Washington's ass and pulling out a fetus which he then rapes while wearing the Declaration of Independence as a condom.

Oh wait... that's still hentai.


Don't let that stop you.
2012-06-23 09:27:17 PM  
1 votes:
My rebuttal:


celebrity-photos.elliottback.com
2012-06-23 09:24:47 PM  
1 votes:

runcible spork: [www.speakinggump.com image 640x847]

Ya, as Garble and Hobodeluxe noted, he's going for a neocon Norman Rockwell vibe, but is appropriately fuddled and befuddled. His rendering skills put Kinkade to shame, but make N Rockwell look like a Michelangelo.(and I'm not to keen on Rockwell's oeuvre).

That cargo pocket is big enough to hold a bomb.

/ almost said "corpus"
// I always feel like someone's watching me.


I've always been a fan of Rockwell, but the big difference is that you don't need a website to explain what's going on here.
2012-06-23 09:18:38 PM  
1 votes:
The guy should love Obama. Without the shtick he'd be painting crappy landscapes hanging in some Motel 6.
2012-06-23 09:08:57 PM  
1 votes:
it's like a Twilight Zone where Norman Rockwell had syphillis
2012-06-23 08:59:41 PM  
1 votes:

The Lone Gunman: Economic historians have shown that Roosevelt's policies actually extended the Great Depression.Great_Milenko: DamnYankees: Who the hell is that person to the right of Lincoln and Reagan? Is that supposed to be Washington? And who is that kneeling down? Pat Robertson in a wig?

All the answers ye seek are contained within

My favorite part is Calvin Coolidge.

Economic historians have shown that Roosevelt's policies actually extended the Great Depression.

The Great Depression started in 1929 and was at it's worst in 1933, about six months after FDR was inaugurated. Then, the New Deal caused massive growth in the GDP and fall in unemployment.

On the other hand, Sean Hannity was blaming the crippled economy on Obama BEFORE he was even inaugurated. So, wtf...let's just say we hate Democrats and leave it at that, shall we?


Technically they point the extension of the Great Depression of the slowing of the economy due to austerity measures being put into place way too soon.
2012-06-23 08:12:34 PM  
1 votes:
Of all modern Presidents, you only put one on the cheering side, and it's Reagan??

I'm also not sure why he loves Abraham Lincoln so much either. If you're a strict constructionist and don't like big-Government power, Lincoln should be one of your least favorite. He was the one who really started us on the path to Statism in the first place.
2012-06-23 07:56:39 PM  
1 votes:
ActualFarkal:
RulerOfNone: Political tripe aside, this guy is a rather decent artist.

Ooh! Ooh! You know who ELSE was a rather decent artist?

/Godwinrar
//I has it


Well, except I wouldn't characterize Hitler's work as "rather decent". I'd call it technically competent but dull, lacking in any emotional or evocative component whatsoever. At most it portrays a mawkish idealized sentimentality about his country that would mirror later Nazi attitudes.

iliketowastemytime.com
2012-06-23 07:56:10 PM  
1 votes:

Shaggy_C: That's a very nicely done painting in a day and age when most political images are stupid black animal cartoons.


the fact that it can't really be determined if it's a painting or a political cartoon kinda highlights its artistic merit.
2012-06-23 07:48:09 PM  
1 votes:
Someone should draw a picture of Jon McNaughton selling his artwork to members of the KKK, with a giant money sign drawing.

It would have all the subtly of McNaughton's work with the advantage of being true.
2012-06-23 07:24:30 PM  
1 votes:
This is the prequel to the Cthulhu painting. The guy has already summoned and bound the ghosts of a lot of the country's founders, obtained the original constitution to symbolically represent the nation and bargain with it, and now he's looking to the sky at Great Cthulhu and selling him the USA for a handful of cash. Obama is rightly saying "hey buddy I wouldn't do that". But he's all like "No way I do what I want! I'm gonna be eaten first, fhtagn!
2012-06-23 07:21:06 PM  
1 votes:
I prefer his "Obama burning the constitution" picture, just because it makes Obama look so badass. I mean he's just standing there pointing at the burning constitution with a "what are you going to do about it" expression on his face. Who wouldn't vote for that man?
2012-06-23 07:16:06 PM  
1 votes:
So the subject of this painting is a millionaire (symbolized by the guy having a fistful of money) holding the Constitution, essentially telling the presidents "I OWN YOU BIATCH!"?
2012-06-23 07:16:02 PM  
1 votes:

Gwendolyn: balthan: The "artist"'s site with the mouse-overs is here.

Ooo Madison then. I like how the description goes on to talk about Madison's unhappiness like he's able to express it from the grave.


If you click on Obama, you get a list of Unconstitutional things he's done that the artist doesn't like.
2012-06-23 07:15:54 PM  
1 votes:
The funniest thing about that picture is that the man is holding dollar bills.

I bet you could take the talented, albeit insane, man who makes this art and back him into a logical corner within two seconds.
2012-06-23 07:10:01 PM  
1 votes:

cman: I can't wait to see how this will be described as somehow racist. That will be fun to watch


I keep saying that this blind hatred of Obama isn't because he's black. It's because he's a Democrat.

And as Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and dozens (if not hundreds) of Republicans have already figured out, blind hatred Democrats is very VERY good for the bankbook.
2012-06-23 07:00:20 PM  
1 votes:

trotsky: Is he trying to be the next Kinkade? That's exactly what I want to see above Granny's couch.


I initially read this as "above Granny's cooch".

Good place for it.
2012-06-23 06:57:29 PM  
1 votes:
Do we have freedom when half the country pays taxes to support the other half?

I know it's just a talking point but lord that one trolls me proper every time. I guess children, retirees, housewives and the disabled need to start paying taxes and so this chump can skimp on his share.
2012-06-23 06:52:36 PM  
1 votes:

apoptotic: It also describes him as representing "every man, woman, and child of every color and creed who is an American".


Pure coincidence he's depicted as a white Christian male.
2012-06-23 06:48:23 PM  
1 votes:
Needs more crying bald eagle...maybe some 3 wolves thrown in for full effect.
2012-06-23 06:48:01 PM  
1 votes:

apoptotic: It also describes him as representing "every man, woman, and child of every color and creed who is an American".


But in a strange freak coincidence, he's a white male.

Yeah, that's the ticket.

Also, is he meant to represent gay people? Or are they still unworthy of equality?
2012-06-23 06:42:11 PM  
1 votes:

poonesfarm: cman: I can't wait to see how this will be described as somehow racist. That will be fun to watch

Obama looking fearful with his hands up in a defensive posture, like a slave about to be beaten for disobeying his master, all but cowering from a proud white man with "Aryan" features is a pretty obvious narrative this racist artist is conveying here. Sheesh, open your eyes.


And the second painting, with Obama gloating over all the chained white folks, panders to the deepest fear of racists.
2012-06-23 06:31:41 PM  
1 votes:
I interpret the expressions of the former presidents on the left as patronizing and sarcastic.

Also, Obama has huge hands, which may be an unintended compliment.
2012-06-23 06:28:11 PM  
1 votes:

RulerOfNone: Political tripe aside, this guy is a rather decent artist.


He might make realistic impressions of the people and things he's trying to depict in his painting, but that doesn't make him an artist. His work isn't challenging, it is, as you said, political tripe. And political tripe can never be art, as art can never be political tripe. Art can maybe, MAYBE, make a political statement, but it has to do so with some subtlety, and preferably in a way that challenges pre-conceived notions. This garbage only serves to reinforce pre-conceived notions.
2012-06-23 06:25:19 PM  
1 votes:
I like how you have to have a huge wad of $$$ to be empowered.
2012-06-23 06:21:50 PM  
1 votes:
2012-06-23 06:21:38 PM  
1 votes:

tenpoundsofcheese: shredding the Constitution



Reagan is President again?
2012-06-23 06:21:21 PM  
1 votes:
Is it me or does Obama not look so much frightened as he does "oh look out we got a badass over here.
2012-06-23 06:16:02 PM  
1 votes:
Political tripe aside, this guy is a rather decent artist.
2012-06-23 06:03:23 PM  
1 votes:

SilentStrider: cman: I can't wait to see how this will be described as somehow racist. That will be fun to watch

not racist.
Just moronic.


So you are okay with the policies of our government shredding the Constitution while 0bama raises millions from Wall Street and socialist organizations?

Well, good to know that is how you feel.
2012-06-23 04:51:04 PM  
1 votes:
John McNaughton, like Thomas Kinkade, but even more crass.
2012-06-23 04:27:22 PM  
1 votes:

poonesfarm: DamnYankees: Who the hell is that person to the right of Lincoln and Reagan? Is that supposed to be Washington?

I think it's F. Murray Abraham.


www.corporate-aliens.com

I absolve you.
2012-06-23 04:14:03 PM  
1 votes:
I can't wait to see how this will be described as somehow racist. That will be fun to watch
2012-06-23 04:12:18 PM  
1 votes:
Looks like FDR finally dropped that "polio" thing. Stupid lib malingerer
 
Displayed 115 of 115 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report