The Forgotten Man

[msduncan]

[Smoove_B]

[Mr. Fed]

Shut down the internet. No first post will ever be better than that.

[Mr. Fed]

Also, I'm completely fine with depicting Obama as standing on the Constitution. I just can't grasp portraying Bush sympathetically in the same picture in which you do so. The fact that "Bush did it first" is not an excuse for Obama, nor is "Obama kept doing it" an excuse for Bush.

I also don't get singling out Obama for indifference to the (apparently) jobless man. Now, show me a picture throwing elephant dung at Obama AND Bush for using taxpayer money to bail out cronies while working stiffs got less and less -- that I could get behind.

This just seems to be what you would get if Thomas Kinkaide painted a picture for Joe the Plumber's birthday.

[Mr. Fed]

Also, Adams (I think that's supposed to be Adams) is much too tall. And he looks like he's about to fumble the snap from Obama. Or catch his turds, one or the other.

[Exodor]

Why is Keanu Reeves eating a stick of butter?



Sometimes I don't get art.

[Smoove_B]

He's actually eating a stick of margarine. Clearly the image depicts the tyranny of the United States banning the sale of margarine in the 1880s -- completely against what the founding fathers would have wanted. If not for the actions of Lois Dowdle Cobb in the 1960s, you might not know its greatness.

I'm sure Grund would back me up on this.

[msduncan]

Shut down the internet. No first post will ever be better than that.

How did he do it so fast? Or did someone already have that done?

[msduncan]

Also, Adams (I think that's supposed to be Adams) is much too tall. And he looks like he's about to fumble the snap from Obama. Or catch his turds, one or the other.

It is Adams.

And to be fair, the artist didn't really have Bush being VERY concerned... it's more like a 'hmm...should I care about that dude?'.

[msduncan]

Oh, and the guy sitting on the bench is clearly Robert Redford

[msduncan]

Truman is over there being a dick as usual......

[Mr. Fed]

Also, Adams (I think that's supposed to be Adams) is much too tall. And he looks like he's about to fumble the snap from Obama. Or catch his turds, one or the other.

It is Adams.

And to be fair, the artist didn't really have Bush being VERY concerned... it's more like a 'hmm...should I care about that dude?'.

Maybe he's actually pointing at a run in George Washington's hose.

[Smoove_B]

Shut down the internet. No first post will ever be better than that.

How did he do it so fast? Or did someone already have that done?

I didn't create it, but the original painting has been around since 2010 -- so there's been plenty of time to photoshop it into something more topical.

[Holman]

Any right-wing agitprop with Lincoln opposing gubmit tyranny has forgotten the meaning of right-wing agitprop.

[silverjon]

While I would love to learn more about the picture, artist, dealer, etc., the website that image is hotlinked from appears to be experiencing difficulties.

I was able to wayback this:
http://web.archive.org/web/201011130147 ... search/353
So that got me his name.

Um... interesting output.

[GreenGoo]

Weird. I don't understand how Obama cannot care about the downtrodden man, while trying to provide healthcare for the nation and being burned at the stake for it.

Politics is a strange beast.

[Combustible Lemur]

No president has come closer to Lincoln than Reagan, and the Clinton's reaction is beautiful, "Yay constitution stomping"!
sent from incredible'

[Grifman]

Weird. I don't understand how Obama cannot care about the downtrodden man, while trying to provide healthcare for the nation and being burned at the stake for it.

Yeah, that's rather rich coming from the Republicans. Since when have they cared for the common man. They've opposed heath care, the Family Leave and Medical Act, the Consumer Financial Protection Agency, just about any initiative which seeks to protect consumers by even the merest regulation of Big Business.

[YellowKing]

Republicans care about the individual, not broad stereotypes and artificial class constructs. They also understand that businesses are the ones who hire the common man, and choking the lifeblood of business puts the common man out of work.

While I would love to believe in an American utopia where everybody receives the same salary of one million dollars a year from owning a small business and cars run on liquid optimism, it's not reality. Some people can't handle reality and the idea they have to actually expend effort to make something of themselves, and for those people the Democratic party offers a steady drip of morphine. Republicans are "evil" because they're not spoon-feeding the masses some feel-good pap that has no basis in real life.

The notion that successful people are bad, and that you are not successful because society is "keeping you down" through no fault of your own is an appealing message. It's human nature to blame everyone but yourself for your problems, and Democrats exploit that idea at every opportunity.

As for who really cares about the downtrodden, go do some Google searching on whether conservatives or liberals are more charitable. The answer may surprise you.

[Grifman]

Republicans care about the individual, not broad stereotypes and artificial class constructs.

Saying Republicans care for the "individual" is pablum. If they care for individuals, what are they doing to solve specific problems for individuals? "Making things better/easier for business" is not the answer to every problem in the country. What is their solution to the health care problem? Haven't heard one. Why did they oppose the Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows people time of WITHOUT PAY to deal with family/medical issues. Why do they oppose a bureau to help protect consumers from financial wheeling and dealing (surely the past few years have shown such a need exists).

They also understand that businesses are the ones who hire the common man, and choking the lifeblood of business puts the common man out of work.

Sure, there has to be balance but standing by when there are real issues that need to be addressed isn't the answer either.

While I would love to believe in an American utopia where everybody receives the same salary of one million dollars a year from owning a small business and cars run on liquid optimism, it's not reality.

Strawman. I don't believe anyone here is calling for everyone to make a million dollars.

Some people can't handle reality and the idea they have to actually expend effort to make something of themselves, and for those people the Democratic party offers a steady drip of morphine. Republicans are "evil" because they're not spoon-feeding the masses some feel-good pap that has no basis in real life.

Health care has no basis in real life? Family and medical problems that people need time off for has no basis in real life? What planet are you living on? These are real problems for which the Republicans presented no real alternatives and actively opposed.

The notion that successful people are bad, and that you are not successful because society is "keeping you down" through no fault of your own is an appealing message. It's human nature to blame everyone but yourself for your problems, and Democrats exploit that idea at every opportunity.

Another strawman. No one here is opposed to successful people, nor do I believe most Democrats opposed to "successful" people, since many Democrats are "successful" themselves.

As for who really cares about the downtrodden, go do some Google searching on whether conservatives or liberals are more charitable. The answer may surprise you.

You are correct there in terms of personal giving. The problem is that individual charity is incapable of dealing with many issues such as health care.

[Combustible Lemur]

Some people can't handle reality and the idea they have to actually expend effort to make something of themselves, and for those people the Democratic party offers a steady drip of morphine. Republicans are "evil" because they're not spoon-feeding the masses some feel-good pap that has no basis in real life.

Yeah, beleiving in marriage equality, women's rights, environmental stewardship, affordable healthcare, and the rights of non christians are such sweet sweet painkillers. shiver aaaaaaaaahhhh morphine.

[SpaceLord]

The notion that successful people are bad...

[Holman]

I think the best part is FDR's gleeful applause. He's like "F*CK that Common Man! Am'I'rite, Teddy??"

[Holman]

For those who find the OP painting too subtle:

[GreenGoo]

Who's crying there? A supreme court justice?

Whoever the artist is, he's a great satirist.

[Holman]

Who's crying there? A supreme court justice?

Whoever the artist is, he's a great satirist.

Jesus and Presidents can run this country without any meddling from Congress or the Courts, thankyouverymuch.

[Grundbegriff]

This just seems to be what you would get if Thomas Kinkaide painted a picture for Joe the Plumber's birthday.

Also, Adams (I think that's supposed to be Adams) is much too tall. And he looks like he's about to fumble the snap from Obama.

That's Madison, the document's chief author/father. Hence the vigor of his opposition. Adams is visible in the crowd just above Keanu's head.

Why is Keanu Reeves eating a stick of butter?

Also, Adams (I think that's supposed to be Adams) is much too tall. And he looks like he's about to fumble the snap from Obama. Or catch his turds, one or the other.

It is Adams.

It's Madison.

And to be fair, the artist didn't really have Bush being VERY concerned... it's more like a 'hmm...should I care about that dude?'.

I thought his gesture meant "Hey, look! George W!"

[Grundbegriff]

Any right-wing agitprop with Lincoln opposing gubmit tyranny has forgotten the meaning of right-wing agitprop.

Funny how times change. "Would you like some habeas on that corpus?"

[Defiant]

Why is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care act strewn on the ground carelessly? Did I miss something, and Obama throw that out (in addition to a bunch of amendments and the Social Security Act(?)) while he's been busy treading on the Constitution?

[Anonymous Bosch]

Republicans care about the individual, not broad stereotypes and artificial class constructs.

Saying Republicans care for the "individual" is pablum. If they care for individuals, what are they doing to solve specific problems for individuals? "Making things better/easier for business" is not the answer to every problem in the country. What is their solution to the health care problem? Haven't heard one. Why did they oppose the Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows people time of WITHOUT PAY to deal with family/medical issues. Why do they oppose a bureau to help protect consumers from financial wheeling and dealing (surely the past few years have shown such a need exists).

Because for many Republicans, as Reagan famously put it, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem". e.g. Given the efficacy of the bureaucracy in charge of regulating the securities industry in terms of oversight of Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, AIG, et al during the Great Recession, and their (mis)handling of the Madoff investment scandal, isn't a certain degree of skepticism warranted over creating yet another federal bureaucracy to "help protect consumers from financial wheeling and dealing"?

[Combustible Lemur]

Because for many Republicans, as Reagan famously put it, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem". e.g. Given the efficacy of the bureaucracy in charge of regulating the securities industry in terms of oversight of Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, AIG, et al during the Great Recession, and their (mis)handling of the Madoff investment scandal, isn't a certain degree of skepticism warranted over creating yet another federal bureaucracy to "help protect consumers from financial wheeling and dealing"?

Sure, but tell that to the ladies at the Triangle Shirtwaist factory.

[Romney] I don't really care; I guess I should have fixed their safety nets, but maybe if they had self deported...[\Romney]

And your post is funny since the woman Obama picked to lead the Bureau was fought against so hard by the Republicans exactly because they were afraid she would be effective. It's not the government entity they don't like it's the interference in the free market. Which is a valid philosophical view point. That leads to bubbles. I like bubbles , but I hate when they pop.

[Pyperkub]

Republicans care about the individual, not broad stereotypes and artificial class constructs.

Saying Republicans care for the "individual" is pablum. If they care for individuals, what are they doing to solve specific problems for individuals? "Making things better/easier for business" is not the answer to every problem in the country. What is their solution to the health care problem? Haven't heard one. Why did they oppose the Family and Medical Leave Act, which allows people time of WITHOUT PAY to deal with family/medical issues. Why do they oppose a bureau to help protect consumers from financial wheeling and dealing (surely the past few years have shown such a need exists).

Because for many Republicans, as Reagan famously put it, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem". e.g. Given the efficacy of the bureaucracy in charge of regulating the securities industry in terms of oversight of Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, AIG, et al during the Great Recession, and their (mis)handling of the Madoff investment scandal, isn't a certain degree of skepticism warranted over creating yet another federal bureaucracy to "help protect consumers from financial wheeling and dealing"?

Sure, but tell that to the ladies at the Triangle Shirtwaist factory.

[Romney] I don't really care; I guess I should have fixed their safety nets, but maybe if they had self deported...[\Romney]

And your post is funny since the woman Obama picked to lead the Bureau was fought against so hard by the Republicans exactly because they were afraid she would be effective. It's not the government entity they don't like it's the interference in the free market. Which is a valid philosophical view point. That leads to bubbles. I like bubbles , but I hate when they pop.

There ain't no such thing as a free market.

Epic 4g/Tapatalk

[Grifman]

Because for many Republicans, as Reagan famously put it, "government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem". e.g. Given the efficacy of the bureaucracy in charge of regulating the securities industry in terms of oversight of Deutsche Bank, Goldman Sachs, AIG, et al during the Great Recession, and their (mis)handling of the Madoff investment scandal, isn't a certain degree of skepticism warranted over creating yet another federal bureaucracy to "help protect consumers from financial wheeling and dealing"?

Given that logic we should do away with every govt regulatory agency. Is that your proposal? Get rid of the federal agencies protecting our drugs, food, water, and air? Your solution is really funny when you think about it. You give perfect examples of why we need regulation but because regulation failed, the solution is "no regulation"? Yeah, that makes perfect sense!?!?

No, the solution is fix whatever problems those agencies have so that they do their jobs, not get rid of them. That's throwing the baby out with the bath water.

[Grifman]

Why is Keanu Reeves eating a stick of butter?

Hmm, I thought it was John Travolta!?!

[Freezer-TPF-]

We do not need smaller government or bigger government. We need better government. Better government will entail some parts becoming smaller, and other parts becoming bigger.

[Anonymous Bosch]

Given that logic we should do away with every govt regulatory agency. Is that your proposal? Get rid of the federal agencies protecting our drugs, food, water, and air? Your solution is really funny when you think about it. You give perfect examples of why we need regulation but because regulation failed, the solution is "no regulation"? Yeah, that makes perfect sense!?!?

I did not put forward a "solution", nor am I proposing anything beyond offering a rational hypothesis of a political perspective that may differ from your own. I was simply addressing your question as to why Republicans might oppose a bureaucracy intended to help protect consumers from financial wheeling and dealing. If you choose to conflate that into believing that Republicans -- or I, despite the fact that I am not a Republican -- wish to do away with every government regulatory agency, that's your prerogative (though even the most moronic observer of history could see the flaw in that particular premise).

No, the solution is fix whatever problems those agencies have so that they do their jobs, not get rid of them. That's throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Heh, easier said than done.

[triggercut]

We do not need smaller government or bigger government. We need better government. Better government will entail some parts becoming smaller, and other parts becoming bigger.

What my main man Freezer just said.

[Rip]

So what is government?... Very simply, it is an agency of coercion. Of course, there are other agencies of coercion -- such as the Mafia. So to be more precise, government is the agency of coercion that has flags in front of its offices.

- Harry Browne

[Rip]

Even better.

The State, it cannot be too often repeated, does nothing and can give nothing which it does not take from somebody. The Forgotten Man works and votes--generally he prays--but his chief business in life is to pay. - William Sumner - "The Forgotten Man" (1883)

[Exodor]

The State, it cannot be too often repeated, does nothing and can give nothing which it does not take from somebody. The Forgotten Man works and votes--generally he prays--but his chief business in life is to pay. - William Sumner - "The Forgotten Man" (1883)

Does nothing?