PDA

View Full Version : Painting Depicts Obama as Crucified Christ



FlaGator
11-27-2012, 02:28 PM
They are really taking this Obama is the messiah stuff beyond sacrilegious. I wouldn't want to have to stand anywhere near Obama or the painter.


A painting that features President Obama posed as Jesus Christ crucified on is on display at a community college art (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/painting-depicts-obama-as-crucified-christ.html#) gallery in Boston.
The painting by Michael D’Antuono (http://artandresponse.com/)is part of a larger exhibit called “Artists on the Stump – the Road to the White House 2012.” It’s on display at the Bunker Hill Community College Art Gallery (http://www.bhcc.mass.edu/artgallery)until Dec. 15th.
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/the-truth-300x176.jpg (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/the-truth.jpg)

The painting is called “Truth” – and shows the president with his arms outstretched. A crown of thorns rests on his head.
It was originally supposed to debut nearly four years ago at New York City’s Union Square. But that event was cancelled due to public outrage.
“I always regretted cancelling my exhibit in New York because I feel my First Amendment rights should override someone’s hurt feelings,” D’Antuono told Fox News. “We should celebrate the fact that we live in a country where we are given the freedom to express ourselves.”
A spokesperson for the art gallery told Fox News there hasn’t been any criticism of the painting.
D’Antuono said the public exhibition “has afforded me the ability to right a wrong.”
He dismissed critics who called the display blasphemous.



Story is here (http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/painting-depicts-obama-as-crucified-christ.html)

Elspeth
11-27-2012, 02:33 PM
This is just pure blasphemy. They take a nothing politician who is being propped up by some of the most criminal Wall Street outfits and try to equate him with the Son of God who came in peace and fought for the salvation of all the worlds' peoples.

It's a stomach-turning type of disgusting.

Generation Why?
11-27-2012, 02:35 PM
Very interesting. The shading is off, BTW.

FlaGator
11-27-2012, 02:44 PM
“I always regretted cancelling my exhibit in New York because I feel my First Amendment (http://www.conservativeunderground.com/forum505/#) rights should override someone’s hurt feelings,” D’Antuono told Fox News. “We should celebrate the fact that we live in a country where we are given the freedom to express ourselves.”

Try out that sentiment by using the n word or any word the left decides is offensive. Why doesn't this jerk just be honest and say that he should have the right to offend Christians because they'll take it. Try this stunt with Mohammed and the guy will be saying adios to his head.

I bet dollars to doughnuts that he hasn't got the testicles to offend a minority or a Muslim.

Arroyo_Doble
11-27-2012, 02:57 PM
Try out that sentiment by using the n word ....

http://www.realitychex.com/storage/littlerock-rockwell.bmp?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1283617970 095

FlaGator
11-27-2012, 03:00 PM
http://www.realitychex.com/storage/littlerock-rockwell.bmp?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1283617970 095

False dichotomy...
But nice try.

Arroyo_Doble
11-27-2012, 03:03 PM
False dichotomy...

I agree.

Elspeth
11-27-2012, 03:03 PM
http://www.realitychex.com/storage/littlerock-rockwell.bmp?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1283617970 095

That painting, if done today, would be very controversial especially in the black community and especially if done by a white male artist. Rockwell would be accused of racism now.

At the time Rockwell painted that, the n-word was in common use, especially in the South, and Rockwell was depicting an actual contemporary reality that needed to be addressed. "White male" had not yet become synonymous with "racist bigot" in the public mind and there were many whites who were outraged by what occurred in Little Rock.

Today's context is very different.

FlaGator
11-27-2012, 03:10 PM
That painting would be very controversial in the black community if it were done today, especially by a white male artist.

At the time Rockwell painted that, the n-word was in common use, especially in the South, and Rockwell was depicting an actual contemporary reality that needed to be addressed.

Today's context is very different.

That was what I meant when I called Arroyo_Doble's use of the Rockwell image a false dichotomy. This image symbolized the negativity of the word. It wasn't meant to offend but to expose. Any offense was a collateral result of the true meaning of the image. The artist who painted the Obama picture was intending to offend and nothing else.

Generation Why?
11-27-2012, 03:14 PM
I bet dollars to doughnuts that he hasn't got the testicles to offend a minority or a Muslim.

I wouldn't go that far to say he did this to offend Christians. I think he just really likes POTUS. And no he probably wouldn't intentionally offend Muslims. Very few people would these days. I don't aim to to offend anyone intentionally, but if their feelings get hurt, like many Christians with his painting, that is a result of his actions. I will leave it at that. I think the painting is stupid, regardless of who it would have been.

Elspeth
11-27-2012, 03:26 PM
I wouldn't go that far to say he did this to offend Christians. I think he just really likes POTUS. And no he probably wouldn't intentionally offend Muslims. Very few people would these days. I don't aim to to offend anyone intentionally, but if their feelings get hurt, like many Christians with his painting, that is a result of his actions. I will leave it at that. I think the painting is stupid, regardless of who it would have been.

If you really like a politician, you can paint him in a thousand other ways. If you choose a universally known religious symbol to equate your politician with a deity people actually worship, you are being blasphemous. The difference is that today's Christian's won't imprison or execute you for blasphemy, but today's Muslims will take out as many of your citizenry as they can.

FlaGator
11-27-2012, 03:49 PM
If you really like a politician, you can paint him in a thousand other ways. If you choose a universally known religious symbol to equate your politician with a deity people actually worship, you are being blasphemous. The difference is that today's Christian's won't imprison or execute you for blasphemy, but today's Muslims will take out as many of your citizenry as they can.

Thinking about this, I may have missed used the concept of a false dichotomy. :single_eye:

Odysseus
11-27-2012, 03:54 PM
Just a moment to create a side-by-side comparison

http://www.realitychex.com/storage/littlerock-rockwell.bmp?__SQUARESPACE_CACHEVERSION=1283617970 095

http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/the-truth.jpg

Note that Rockwell's juxtaposition of the little girl (all in white) against the background of graffiti and thrown tomatoes makes a clear statement as to the contrast between the violence of the segregationists and the innocence of their target. It's subtle, well designed and beautifully executed. The Obama-as-Christ painting makes no real statement beyond the idea of Obama as savior, unless the artist had intended to imply that he was being crucified on the presidential seal, in which case, his persecutors were the American voters. It's a sloppy thought, poorly executed (the pallet is garish, the composition is poor and the use of the crown of thorns is overkill). It's one step above van painting. For an example of how a great illustrator would handle an iconic image of someone that he saw as heroic, here's Rockwell's Saturday Evening Post cover commemorating Lindbergh's Trans-Atlantic flight:

http://imgs.inkfrog.com/pix/framesandthings/Pioneer.jpg

noonwitch
11-27-2012, 04:31 PM
If you really like a politician, you can paint him in a thousand other ways. If you choose a universally known religious symbol to equate your politician with a deity people actually worship, you are being blasphemous. The difference is that today's Christian's won't imprison or execute you for blasphemy, but today's Muslims will take out as many of your citizenry as they can.


I think the artist meant to compare Obama to Jesus. I'm not sure why he wants to do that, my guess is that it's more of a use of crucifixion imagery in the same way John Lennon did in the song "The Ballad of John and Yoko" ("The way things are going, they're going to crucify me"). Implying, of course, that someone is trying to crucify Obama in a figurative sense.


I don't worship the image of God, I worship God, so on that level I don't find the image blasphemous.

FlaGator
11-27-2012, 04:35 PM
I think the artist meant to compare Obama to Jesus. I'm not sure why he wants to do that, my guess is that it's more of a use of crucifixion imagery in the same way John Lennon did in the song "The Ballad of John and Yoko" ("The way things are going, they're going to crucify me"). Implying, of course, that someone is trying to crucify Obama in a figurative sense.


I don't worship the image of God, I worship God, so on that level I don't find the image blasphemous.

It is blasphemous in that it seems to equate Obama with God.

noonwitch
11-27-2012, 04:55 PM
It is blasphemous in that it seems to equate Obama with God.


I'm not sure if the artist meant to equate Obama with God, even though I can see why such a work would be interpreted that way.

Unfortunately, the word crucify (and the associated imagery) has been used in these times to denote persecution of some sort (even imaginary persecution). That's why I used the Lennon song as an example, because I don't think that the roadblocks to the marriage of John and Yoko really compare to the bloody, horrific execution of an innocent man. It's hyperbole.

I think the artist was more trying to imply that Obama is somehow being figuratively crucified (by republicans/FOX/etc.) than that Obama is equal to God. He also probably guessed that by producing a controversial work, he'd get attention.

Elspeth
11-27-2012, 05:09 PM
Thinking about this, I may have missed used the concept of a false dichotomy. :single_eye:

Now, now....

Generation Why?
11-27-2012, 05:20 PM
If you really like a politician, you can paint him in a thousand other ways. If you choose a universally known religious symbol to equate your politician with a deity people actually worship, you are being blasphemous. The difference is that today's Christian's won't imprison or execute you for blasphemy, but today's Muslims will take out as many of your citizenry as they can.

I agree completely. Like I said, this is a terrible and stupid portrayal of POTUS. Hell, my sentiments would stand regardless of who the picture was. It is most certainly blasphemous. I just don't think he piss off Christians.

Elspeth
11-27-2012, 05:20 PM
I'm not sure if the artist meant to equate Obama with God, even though I can see why such a work would be interpreted that way.

Unfortunately, the word crucify (and the associated imagery) has been used in these times to denote persecution of some sort (even imaginary persecution). That's why I used the Lennon song as an example, because I don't think that the roadblocks to the marriage of John and Yoko really compare to the bloody, horrific execution of an innocent man. It's hyperbole.

I think the artist was more trying to imply that Obama is somehow being figuratively crucified (by republicans/FOX/etc.) than that Obama is equal to God. He also probably guessed that by producing a controversial work, he'd get attention.

I might accept your interpretation if it were not for the fact that there have been so many suggestions and depictions of Obama as Messiah, especially during the 2008 election. This image, for example, was all the rage at DU:

http://mypresidentisnuts.com/Obama-messiah.jpg

The idea of Obama as some sort of savior was part and parcel of the PR campaign that got him elected. To many African Americans, he may have seemed that way. He may also have seemed like a symbol of grand forgiveness of America for its past racism.

Jamie Foxx's recent "lord and savior" (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57554783/jamie-foxx-takes-heat-for-calling-obama-our-lord-and-savior/)statement must surely be taken in this context.

Elspeth
11-27-2012, 05:28 PM
It's also worth remembering that even the media of the time was joking about Obama's "savior" status:

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm239/spectral_music/Obamacartoon.jpg

noonwitch
11-27-2012, 05:28 PM
I might accept your interpretation if it were not for the fact that there have been so many suggestions and depictions of Obama as Messiah, especially during the 2008 election. This image, for example, was all the rage at DU:

http://mypresidentisnuts.com/Obama-messiah.jpg

The idea of Obama as some sort of savior was part and parcel of the PR campaign that got him elected. To many African Americans, he may have seemed that way. He may also have seemed like a symbol of grand forgiveness of America for its past racism.

Jamie Foxx's recent "lord and savior" (http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-207_162-57554783/jamie-foxx-takes-heat-for-calling-obama-our-lord-and-savior/)statement must surely be taken in this context.


Are you sure that this picture is meant to make Obama look like God? It looks more like an R&B album cover. I like the white horse surfing on the water in the backround.

Rockntractor
11-27-2012, 05:31 PM
OMG!

m00
11-27-2012, 05:33 PM
open question for people who have a problem with the painting:

If this exact same painting was done by a conservative artist, who meant it ironically, or as an indictment of Obama... (Obama is giving himself "god-like" powers in government / Obama is playing the victim & the artist is referring to the expression "on the cross" / Obama sees himself as a saviour, or others see him as a saviour / etc)... would you still have a problem with it?

aka, is it the image or the intent?

Elspeth
11-27-2012, 05:44 PM
open question for people who have a problem with the painting:

If this exact same painting was done by a conservative artist, who meant it ironically, or as an indictment of Obama... (Obama is giving himself "god-like" powers in government / Obama is playing the victim & the artist is referring to the expression "on the cross" / Obama sees himself as a savior, or others see him as a savior / etc)... would you still have a problem with is?

aka, is it the image or the intent?

It's the image. I think a conservative artist with ironic intent would have been better able to express that irony and the religious among us would have recognized it. When you have to explain your irony (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/09/26/madonna-muslim-comments-obama-ironic_n_1916054.html), you're either a bad artist or lying about your intent to begin with.

Elspeth
11-27-2012, 05:48 PM
Speaking of Obama and art:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=BejxcnGpnVo#!

Generation Why?
11-27-2012, 05:49 PM
open question for people who have a problem with the painting:

If this exact same painting was done by a conservative artist, who meant it ironically, or as an indictment of Obama... (Obama is giving himself "god-like" powers in government / Obama is playing the victim & the artist is referring to the expression "on the cross" / Obama sees himself as a savior, or others see him as a savior / etc)... would you still have a problem with is?

aka, is it the image or the intent?

I think it is based on who produced it.

NJCardFan
11-27-2012, 05:49 PM
open question for people who have a problem with the painting:

If this exact same painting was done by a conservative artist, who meant it ironically, or as an indictment of Obama... (Obama is giving himself "god-like" powers in government / Obama is playing the victim & the artist is referring to the expression "on the cross" / Obama sees himself as a savior, or others see him as a savior / etc)... would you still have a problem with is?

aka, is it the image or the intent?

Translation: I don't have a problem with my president being portrayed as Christ because that's what I think he is and anybody who has a problem with it is short sighted. Or should that be 'HE'?

Elspeth
11-27-2012, 05:56 PM
Spike Lee makes it clear what the expectations were in 2008:

Spike Lee says Obama was Savior/Black Jesus (http://stop-obama-now.net/2012/08/11/10043/)


http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=-45QUUTPCjA

0.16-0.22

Arroyo_Doble
11-27-2012, 05:58 PM
It is blasphemous in that it seems to equate Obama with God.

The Crucified Christ imagery, and quite often the Christ story (Being There, The Iron Giant, The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, etc ...) has been used quite often in art, literature, movies, photography, and all that.

Offense is your choice.

I am sort of with Odie on this one. It is overt, heavy handed, and sloppy. All it gets from me is a "meh."

Generation Why?
11-27-2012, 05:58 PM
Translation: I don't have a problem with my president being portrayed as Christ because that's what I think he is and anybody who has a problem with it is short sighted. Or should that be 'HE'?

That's a rather extreme translation, don't you think? The painter has the right to paint it. I can't really say I have a problem with it other than it being stupid. I don't like it but I don't hate it.

Elspeth
11-27-2012, 06:02 PM
It's also worth remembering that even the media of the time was joking about Obama's "savior" status:

http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm239/spectral_music/Obamacartoon.jpg

Even the left wing Guardian has this article from 2009:


Obama is not saviour of the world. He's still an American president (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cif-green/2009/dec/15/obama-saviour-copenhagen-climate-change)


..This is fast becoming Obama's role on the world stage: managing disappointment. The gap between what international opinion demands of him and what he can deliver widens with each passing month, and it falls to him to explain why. If he could be completely frank, he might well tell the climate activists in the Danish capital that, were it purely up to him, he would give them everything they desire. After all, he is the same man whose stump speech two years ago used to open with a declaration that "the planet is in peril". But it is not purely up to him. He has to represent the multiple, complex and contradictory interests of the country he now leads. His job is not saviour of the world. As the climate adviser to a 19-strong group of African nations puts it ruefully: "He's still an American president."

djones520
11-27-2012, 06:11 PM
The Crucified Christ imagery, and quite often the Christ story (Being There, The Iron Giant, The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, etc ...) has been used quite often in art, literature, movies, photography, and all that.

Offense is your choice.

I am sort of with Odie on this one. It is overt, heavy handed, and sloppy. All it gets from me is a "meh."

The Iron Giant? I never quite saw it in that light...

Elspeth
11-27-2012, 06:12 PM
The Crucified Christ imagery, and quite often the Christ story (Being There, The Iron Giant, The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, etc ...) has been used quite often in art, literature, movies, photography, and all that.

Offense is your choice.

I am sort of with Odie on this one. It is overt, heavy handed, and sloppy. All it gets from me is a "meh."

First, fictional uses of such iconography or parts of the Christian narrative can be quite appropriate. Certainly The Lion, The Witch and the Wardrobe by Christian writer C.S. Lewis is a respectful use of Christian ideas. Even such secular pop songs as Mr. Mister's "Kyrie Eleison"* seemed to be contextualized and respectful.


However, the furthering of a messianic imagery of a particularly destructive American president--on whose watch Americans became more impoverished and less free--does not strike me as a respectful use Christian iconography. I think it is meant to shock and be a finger in the eye to conservatives of faith and to those of us who really understand what the sacrifice of Christ means.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dHXgHjDOxUM&feature=fvwrel

(Just FYI, the Catholic Church found this problematic, but rank and file Catholics did not.)

m00
11-27-2012, 06:14 PM
Translation: I don't have a problem with my president being portrayed as Christ because that's what I think he is and anybody who has a problem with it is short sighted. Or should that be 'HE'?

There are a number of inaccuracies here.

1) I'm Jewish, so I have no particular attachment to Christ or Christ-imagery. So the idea that I don't have a problem with Obama being portrayed as Christ because I worship him (as Christ) is doubly laughable. It's triple-ly laughable because I've also been accused of being a paulbot.. so which is it?

It's like in your world... you have two sides... Republican Politicians... which are all conservative Christians crusaders of God that serve in the military, and all good in the universe comes from them... and "the other side" which is Satan, communism, socialism, liberalism, Democrats, fascism, Islam, Homosexuality, 3rd parties, high taxes, the 99%, bottled water, global warming, evolution, abortion, cap-and-trade, both Stalin AND Hitler, Europe in general but specifically the French.

If anyone does not immediately condemn any element of that list for whatever absurd reason, you assume they are on "the other side" and therefore immediately subscribe to all positions you may project into any element of that list based on your own fantasy.

"I wonder why people think tap water is superior to bottled water?"
"WHY DO YOU THINK OBAMA IS YOUR GOD AND WHY WANT TO DESTROY THE EARTH WITH ISLAM AND GAY, YOU ABORTION PROVIDING GODLESS SOCIALIST LIBERAL"

This is seriously the level of discourse.

2) defending free speech is not the same as advocating for the contents of any particular speech. I also believe Neo-Nazis have a right to put out their stupid hate crap. Does this make me a Nazi?

3) I just asked a question, trying to understand why people are seriously offended. Your "translation" is entirely your own projections and hangups.

SaintLouieWoman
11-27-2012, 06:38 PM
With the country so evenly divided, this isn't exactly going to bring folks back together. It's insulting to a Christian. Are we becoming a country that idolizes our leaders, sort of like Peron in Argentina? It's not that far of a leap to despotism.

Generation Why?
11-27-2012, 06:44 PM
2) defending free speech is not the same as advocating for the contents of any particular speech. I also believe Neo-Nazis have a right to put out their stupid hate crap. Does this make me a Nazi?


Nazi? Possibly. Neo-Nazi? Absolutely.

Arroyo_Doble
11-27-2012, 07:00 PM
The Iron Giant? I never quite saw it in that light...

I admit that it is my own interpretation when seeing the film the first time (after sacrificing himself, he rises again). Others may have come to the same conclusion, but I am not sure about that.

djones520
11-27-2012, 07:01 PM
I admit that it is my own interpretation when seeing the film the first time (after sacrificing himself, he rises again). Others may have come to the same conclusion, but I am not sure about that.

Eh... I could see the connection, but I think that's stretching a bit. I feel it was more just to make the kids feel a little better about the ending of the movie.

JB
11-27-2012, 07:50 PM
Another from the guy:

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/47462_426920887357696_1901561292_n.jpg

I guess all that "I got Osama" talk really resonated with some people.

Generation Why?
11-27-2012, 08:26 PM
Another from the guy:


I guess all that "I got Osama" talk really resonated with some people.

Yup. Is he supposed to be St. Michael in this one? Or is he Rafiki from The Lion King?

NJCardFan
11-27-2012, 09:40 PM
The Crucified Christ imagery, and quite often the Christ story (Being There, The Iron Giant, The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, etc ...) has been used quite often in art, literature, movies, photography, and all that.

Offense is your choice.

I am sort of with Odie on this one. It is overt, heavy handed, and sloppy. All it gets from me is a "meh."

Allegory is one thing. Even The Green Mile was an allegory of Christ. But straight blasphemy is quite another. But as was said, the reason why idiots get away with this is because Christians won't riot and kill ambassadors over this.

NJCardFan
11-27-2012, 09:51 PM
3) I just asked a question, trying to understand why people are seriously offended. Your "translation" is entirely your own projections and hangups.

You supported Obama during the election hence my opinion as to why you don't see a problem with this.

SarasotaRepub
11-27-2012, 10:43 PM
I heard that DU is considering a "Church of Obama" Forum...

Really!!! I'm series!!!! :friendly_wink:

Chex
11-28-2012, 02:02 AM
What makes me angrier than the picture is that there are "Christians" who refuse to see it as blasphemy. I literally just got out of an argument with some lefty who was totally okay with it and told me I'm being arrogant, because art and religion are "different". Seriously?


open question for people who have a problem with the painting:

If this exact same painting was done by a conservative artist, who meant it ironically, or as an indictment of Obama... (Obama is giving himself "god-like" powers in government / Obama is playing the victim & the artist is referring to the expression "on the cross" / Obama sees himself as a saviour, or others see him as a saviour / etc)... would you still have a problem with it?

aka, is it the image or the intent?It's both... If it was ironic, there would be some clearer indication that "this is what Obama believes"/"this is what the left believes". Instead it's a disturbingly sincere effort at elevating him to Christ's position.

Janice
11-28-2012, 02:50 AM
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man >>>

Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

Romans 1

-----------------------------

I say - let them worship this vile creature. Or mock the crucifixion. Its only natural (liberal). And they shall receive the just recompense of their reward.

Odysseus
11-28-2012, 09:09 AM
open question for people who have a problem with the painting:

If this exact same painting was done by a conservative artist, who meant it ironically, or as an indictment of Obama... (Obama is giving himself "god-like" powers in government / Obama is playing the victim & the artist is referring to the expression "on the cross" / Obama sees himself as a saviour, or others see him as a saviour / etc)... would you still have a problem with it?

aka, is it the image or the intent?

It's both. The image, at face value, is making the statement that Obama is Christ. In that regard, it's a form of idolatry that is guaranteed to offend believing Christians. If it was meant to be ironic, it fails, because it's too similar to the stuff that's done with a straight face by other Obama worshipers. It may be suffering from the difficulty of parodying something that's over the top to begin with, but if you have to explain it, it fails. And, it's a crappy painting, to boot.


Another from the guy:

http://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/47462_426920887357696_1901561292_n.jpg

I guess all that "I got Osama" talk really resonated with some people.

Okay, now that's irony. Obama wouldn't even wear a flag pin.

Arroyo_Doble
11-28-2012, 09:26 AM
Okay, now that's irony. Obama wouldn't even wear a flag pin.

I agree that it is ironic but mostly because the flag was the one in use from July 4, 1912, to July 3, 1959; the one we had as a nation prior to Alaska and Hawaii becoming states.

Rockntractor
11-28-2012, 09:43 AM
I agree that it is ironic but mostly because the flag was the one in use from July 4, 1912, to July 3, 1959; the one we had as a nation prior to Alaska and Hawaii becoming states.

True, and according to Obama we have 9 more states since then.

Janice
11-28-2012, 10:02 AM
I guess this means it's okay to place a picture of Zero in a jar of urine. "Art" and all that ...

Arroyo_Doble
11-28-2012, 10:13 AM
I guess this means it's okay to place a picture of Zero in a jar of urine. "Art" and all that ...

You are too late. Glen Beck beat you to it. (http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/glenn-beck-puts-obama-bobblehead-in-urine/)


Although it is not a picture, it is a bobble head doll and for my part, that doesn't look like urine.

m00
11-28-2012, 10:33 AM
You supported Obama during the election hence my opinion as to why you don't see a problem with this.

You got any quotes to back this up?

Or is this one of those... any verbal criticism of the Romney campaign, or any of his surrogates, is tantamount to "supporting Obama" which equates with "worshipping Obama as Jesus Christ"

m00
11-28-2012, 10:36 AM
You are too late. Glen Beck beat you to it. (http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/glenn-beck-puts-obama-bobblehead-in-urine/)


Although it is not a picture, it is a bobble head doll and for my part, that doesn't look like urine.

I guess Glen Beck and I agree...


Beck agreed with D’Antuono’s sentiment, saying, “Art is in the eye of the beholder, and this guy has right to do this. I think it’s offensive. I don’t think it’s close to reality, but whatever floats your boat, Jack. I support his right to do exactly that.”

Novaheart
11-28-2012, 11:26 AM
If you really like a politician, you can paint him in a thousand other ways. If you choose a universally known religious symbol to equate your politician with a deity people actually worship, you are being blasphemous. The difference is that today's Christian's won't imprison or execute you for blasphemy, but today's Muslims will take out as many of your citizenry as they can.

Apparently a seemingly mediocre artist has gotten himself quite a bit of attention with a cliché. I'd say he's probably proud of himself.

Novaheart
11-28-2012, 11:34 AM
You are too late. Glen Beck beat you to it. (http://www.wnd.com/2012/11/glenn-beck-puts-obama-bobblehead-in-urine/)


Although it is not a picture, it is a bobble head doll and for my part, that doesn't look like urine.

Glenn Beck is a moron. I listened to him for a few seconds yesterday while on an errand as he was challenging his sycophant to name "Three other people who have been crucified." He thought it was funny to mention Peter being crucified (albeit no contemporary accounts of same exist) but said that didn't count because he wasn't wearing a crown of thorns (how the F would Glenn Beck know that? Is it in the Book of Moron?).

FlaGator
11-28-2012, 12:00 PM
The Crucified Christ imagery, and quite often the Christ story (Being There, The Iron Giant, The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe, etc ...) has been used quite often in art, literature, movies, photography, and all that.

Offense is your choice.

I am sort of with Odie on this one. It is overt, heavy handed, and sloppy. All it gets from me is a "meh."

To compare that artist's imagery with the allegory of the Chronicle of Narnia is ridiculous!.

C. S. Lewis in stated that when writing the Narnia books he asked himself what would Christ be like if he was born in Narnia and Aslan was the answer he came up with. I don't believe that the artist asked himself what would Christ be like if he was born in the USA and concluded he would be as Obama. I feel his thought processes were a lot more convoluted than that and I also suspect that much of his purpose was to tweak Christian sensibilities.

Wibbins
11-28-2012, 12:28 PM
I wonder if we should take to the streets and kill people, I mean it's not OUR fault we were outraged by someone BLASPHEMY against our God, hell maybe obama would even come out and say "You know, all this is because of a paintin'"

noonwitch
11-28-2012, 12:55 PM
To compare that artist's imagery with the allegory of the Chronicle of Narnia is ridiculous!.

C. S. Lewis in stated that when writing the Narnia books he asked himself what would Christ be like if he was born in Narnia and Aslan was the answer he came up with. I don't believe that the artist asked himself what would Christ be like if he was born in the USA and concluded he would be as Obama. I feel his thought processes were a lot more convoluted than that and I also suspect that much of his purpose was to tweak Christian sensibilities.



I think Lewis created a story for children in which the same basic lessons of the gospel were put in an alternative setting, so that they would spark the readers' imaginations and ultimately their actions-to be able to rely upon their faith to sustain them and direct them in any situation or place,

NJCardFan
11-28-2012, 04:38 PM
You got any quotes to back this up?

Or is this one of those... any verbal criticism of the Romney campaign, or any of his surrogates, is tantamount to "supporting Obama" which equates with "worshipping Obama as Jesus Christ"

You voted against Romney hence you voted for Obama even if you didn't actually hit the switch for him. A vote for 3rd party loser was a vote for Obama in this election so that said, you voted for Obama IMO.

NJCardFan
11-28-2012, 04:44 PM
True, and according to Obama we have 9 more states since then.

Actually it's 10. People always leave out the 58th state Obama mentions in that line: "I've now been in 57 states. I think 1 left to go..."

Generation Why?
11-28-2012, 05:11 PM
You voted against Romney hence you voted for Obama even if you didn't actually hit the switch for him. A vote for 3rd party loser was a vote for Obama in this election so that said, you voted for Obama IMO.

You do realize that if every Gary Johnson vote had gone for Mitt Romney, he still would have lost, yes?

m00
11-28-2012, 05:19 PM
You do realize that if every Gary Johnson vote had gone for Mitt Romney, he still would have lost, yes?

I read that if every district's 3rd party votes went for Romney for every swing state, it wouldn't have changed a single EV.

m00
11-28-2012, 05:21 PM
You voted against Romney hence you voted for Obama even if you didn't actually hit the switch for him. A vote for 3rd party loser was a vote for Obama in this election so that said, you voted for Obama IMO.

That seems pretty arbitrary.

"You have brown hair HENCE you voted for Obama even if you didn't actually hit the switch for him"

See, in my world the definition of voting for someone is hitting the switch for them. Not whatever arbitrary definition someone makes up.

Rockntractor
11-28-2012, 05:22 PM
I read that if every district's 3rd party votes went for Romney for every swing state, it wouldn't have changed a single EV.

Meaningless because you were not clairvoyant at the time you voted, Bama Boy.

m00
11-28-2012, 05:24 PM
Meaningless because you were not clairvoyant at the time you voted Bama Boy.

Yes, I voted for him because you decided that my not voting for him means I voted for him. :rolleyes:

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m97pqmMuk61rswg2c.png

Generation Why?
11-28-2012, 05:31 PM
Meaningless because you were not clairvoyant at the time you voted, Bama Boy.

So it is negated because m00 didn't use foresight?

Rockntractor
11-28-2012, 05:35 PM
Yes, I voted for him because you decided that my not voting for him means I voted for him. :rolleyes:

http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m97pqmMuk61rswg2c.png

Maybe you can get in on the inauguration in January, I'm betting they'll be smoking some premium bud.

Generation Why?
11-28-2012, 05:37 PM
Maybe you can get in on the inauguration in January, I'm betting they'll be smoking some premium bud.

I don't see a problem if someone wanted to partake in the latter.

m00
11-28-2012, 05:48 PM
So it is negated because m00 didn't use foresight?

Rock believes that because he doesn't like someone, therefore they physically and literally voted for Obama, even if they didn't. Because Rock not liking someone is the same as voting for Obama, even if you didn't hit the switch.

m00
11-28-2012, 05:52 PM
Meaningless because you were not clairvoyant at the time you voted, Bama Boy.

I disagree -- I was able to predict a complete and utter Romney loss in the general election, even when they were down to 4 in the primaries. You were too enthralled with the RINO echo chamber of Romney's infallibility to notice... because being critical of the Romney campaign was somehow treasonous to conservative principles.

JB
11-28-2012, 09:21 PM
Bit dramatic don't you think m00.


I disagree -- I was able to predict a complete and utter Romney loss in the general election, even when they were down to 4 in the primaries.Welcome to so was everybody else. Any Republican candidate coming out of the primary was probably down 6 points right away and had to play from behind. Except for Ron Paul. He was probably down 20.


You were too enthralled with the RINO echo chamber of Romney's infallibility to noticeSeriously? All I ever heard from anyone was that Romney was not their first choice. Were you not paying attention during the campaign season.


because being critical of the Romney campaign was somehow treasonous to conservative principles.Not quite. Putting Barry in office was. Even Rand Paul knew this.

txradioguy
11-29-2012, 04:11 AM
Bit dramatic don't you think m00.

Welcome to so was everybody else. Any Republican candidate coming out of the primary was probably down 6 points right away and had to play from behind. Except for Ron Paul. He was probably down 20.

Seriously? All I ever heard from anyone was that Romney was not their first choice. Were you not paying attention during the campaign season.

Not quite. Putting Barry in office was. Even Rand Paul knew this.

m00 and Linda #'s...seperated at birth?

m00
11-29-2012, 10:30 AM
Bit dramatic don't you think m00.

There are probably one or two political issues that get me really, really annoyed. This is it. The idea that doing something other than voting for X is equivalent to voting for X is insane.

I think what's dramatic is the ongoing destruction of the conservative wing of the Republican party. Everyone freaked out when Obama was elected, but it was obvious from a mile away. Things aren't going to get better until people wake up.


Not quite. Putting Barry in office was. Even Rand Paul knew this.

The only people who put Barry in office was Romney and the RNC.

Arroyo_Doble
11-29-2012, 10:33 AM
There are probably one or two political issues that get me really, really annoyed. This is it. The idea that doing something other than voting for X is equivalent to voting for X is insane.

I think what's dramatic is the ongoing destruction of the conservative wing of the Republican party. Everyone freaked out when Obama was elected, but it was obvious from a mile away. Things aren't going to get better until people wake up.



The only people who put Barry in office was Romney and the RNC.


You are contradicting yourself.

The people who put Barry in office where those who voted for him.

m00
11-29-2012, 10:40 AM
You are contradicting yourself.

The people who put Barry in office where those who voted for him.

I worded that clumsily.

Obama is responsible for people voting for Obama, and Romney (and the RNC) is responsible for people voting for Romney. In this election, voter turnout for Romney was remarkably low. To the point where if every 3rd party vote went to Obama, it wouldn't have changed a single EV. My point was that on the Republican side this isn't anything other than a rejection of Romney, and to a larger extent his campaign.

FlaGator
11-29-2012, 10:55 AM
This was a simple decision for me. I looked at who had the best chances of beating Obama and voted for that person. I did not vote for Romney in the primary but I was not going to assist the in re-election of Obama by voting for someone who didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of winning.

Arroyo_Doble
11-29-2012, 11:01 AM
I worded that clumsily.

Obama is responsible for people voting for Obama, and Romney (and the RNC) is responsible for people voting for Romney. In this election, voter turnout for Romney was remarkably low. To the point where if every 3rd party vote went to Obama, it wouldn't have changed a single EV. My point was that on the Republican side this isn't anything other than a rejection of Romney, and to a larger extent his campaign.

I disagree. This was a ham sandwich election and whatever problems Republicans had, it wasn't with other Republicans. The problem they had was convincing others to vote for Romney. But all they were really offering was "Romney is not Obama" and I understand that the right has a great deal of animus for our president but unfortunately for them, that is a minority opinion.

m00
11-29-2012, 12:05 PM
I disagree. This was a ham sandwich election and whatever problems Republicans had, it wasn't with other Republicans. The problem they had was convincing others to vote for Romney. But all they were really offering was "Romney is not Obama" and I understand that the right has a great deal of animus for our president but unfortunately for them, that is a minority opinion.

But Romney couldn't turn out Republicans. The numbers have shown this. I agree it wasn't a "ham sandwich" election -- as much as people want to believe this, it never is. You actually do have to run a real candidate. The Republican leadership had themselves convinced of this false dichotomy that the only two options is that Obama is God, or Obama is the anti-Christ. If you don't think Obama is the anti-Christ, therefore you believe Obama is God.

Odysseus
11-29-2012, 06:15 PM
I disagree. This was a ham sandwich election and whatever problems Republicans had, it wasn't with other Republicans. The problem they had was convincing others to vote for Romney. But all they were really offering was "Romney is not Obama" and I understand that the right has a great deal of animus for our president but unfortunately for them, that is a minority opinion.

You've got it backwards (again). Romney was so thoroughly vilified by the media and the Democrats (redundant, I know) that he had to work ten times harder just to establish that he wasn't a monster who raped companies, outsourced child labor and denied medical care to dying women. Obama's campaign was one of the most dishonest that I have ever seen, and I go back quite a while.

JB
11-29-2012, 06:15 PM
...whatever problems Republicans had, it wasn't with other Republicans. The problem they had was convincing others to vote for Romney.Sure it was. Republican turnout was down. In the millions it turns out. I've heard varying ranges but it was enough to cost Rs the election.


But all they were really offering was "Romney is not Obama"Then you weren't paying attention and this is incredibly ridiculous as it's coming from "your side" or "The Left" as it were. Barry ran solely on "I'm not Bush" in 2008. He did it in 2012 too but added Republicans want to make the rich richer and the poor poorer, Romney didn't pay taxes, killed my wife, hates dogs and old people and wants to outlaw contraception and Planned Parenthood. :rolleyes:


and I understand that the right has a great deal of animus for our president but unfortunately for them, that is a minority opinion.Even if that were true...meh. Multiply it by 1,000 during the GW years.

Rockntractor
11-29-2012, 08:24 PM
Sure it was. Republican turnout was down. In the millions it turns out. I've heard varying ranges but it was enough to cost Rs the election.



The most recent count I have heard puts Romney ahead of McCain in total votes, right after the election he was behind.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/obama_vs_romney_compared_to_obama_vs_mccain.html

NJCardFan
11-29-2012, 10:56 PM
But Romney couldn't turn out Republicans. The numbers have shown this. I agree it wasn't a "ham sandwich" election -- as much as people want to believe this, it never is. You actually do have to run a real candidate. The Republican leadership had themselves convinced of this false dichotomy that the only two options is that Obama is God, or Obama is the anti-Christ. If you don't think Obama is the anti-Christ, therefore you believe Obama is God.

No, it was stubborn people like you that cost Romney. You all got butthurt that your man, Ron Paul wasn't the nominee so you all decided to either stay home or cast your vote for someone who had a slightly better chance of being elected president that I had of hitting last night's lottery. A I've said ad nauseum, that love or hate the Democrats but they get behind their candidate full bore. But because of people like you, the worst president in my lifetime, and I am old enough to fully remember that dark time called the Carter years so I know of what I speak in referring to Obama as the worst president not only in my lifetime but the lifetimes of my parents as well but back on point, people like you and your little cult of Ronulans thought it was worth 4 more years of a guy who is singlehandedly sending this country down a dark shithole of both sovereign and financial ruin just to prove some silly point. I don't care how you and your little cult of Ronulans think or believe but anyone of the Republican candidates who were running(with the possible exception to the unhinged nutbag named Ron Paul) was a better choice than what we had or what we are stuck with for 4 more years. The GOP should have been able to run an old tennis shoe against Obama and win but thanks to you and your merry little band of wingnuts, we now are on an unreversable course down the rathole so I hope you and the rest of your little cult sleeps well knowing that you all made that possible.

Janice
11-30-2012, 12:56 AM
http://i48.tinypic.com/292lez8.jpg

m00
11-30-2012, 10:49 AM
No, it was stubborn people like you that cost Romney.

This would only be true if Romney was somehow "owed" someone else's vote by default. How can you be against welfare system that claims person A is "owed" the money that belongs to person B, but simultaneously believe the person A's vote does indeed belong to person B?


You all got butthurt that your man, Ron Paul wasn't the nominee so you all decided to either stay home or cast your vote for someone who had a slightly better chance of being elected president that I had of hitting last night's lottery.

Apparently, everyone who wasn't Obama had exactly the same chance of becoming president - 0%.


But because of people like you, the worst president in my lifetime... (blah blah blah)

I guarantee in 4 years whoever the democrats put up will be the new "worse president in your lifetime." As I keep saying, it's very telling that the party of "personal responsibility" puts up a candidate who nobody wants to hold personally responsibility for failing to win an election.

You really blame all the people that Romney insulted, alienated, and took for granted... for not voting for him? Romney made it clear he didn't want my vote. He made it clear he didn't want to be my president. But yet... my vote belongs to him, and not voting for Romney is somehow stealing? That's would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic that you actually believe that.

And you can't have it both ways... either the Ron Paul people didn't have the numbers, and are irrelevant in which case their votes don't matter... or they are a sizeable faction of the Republican Party in which case it's Romney's job to accommodate them on something (just like he accommodated the Rockefeller wing).

Rockntractor
11-30-2012, 10:53 AM
This would only be true if Romney was somehow "owed" someone else's vote by default. How can you be against welfare system that claims person A is "owed" the money that belongs to person B, but simultaneously believe the person A's vote does indeed belong to person B?



Apparently, everyone who wasn't Obama had exactly the same chance of becoming president - 0%.



I guarantee in 4 years whoever the democrats put up will be the new "worse president in your lifetime." As I keep saying, it's very telling that the party of "personal responsibility" puts up a candidate who nobody wants to hold personally responsibility for failing to win an election.

You really blame all the people that Romney insulted, alienated, and took for granted... for not voting for him? Romney made it clear he didn't want my vote. He made it clear he didn't want to be my president. But yet... my vote belongs to him, and not voting for Romney is somehow stealing? That's would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic that you actually believe that.

it is much easier to call you an idiot rather than wasting time typing out a paragraph of material and expecting a block of cheese to understand it.:biggrin-new:

m00
11-30-2012, 10:55 AM
it is much easier to call you an idiot rather than wasting time typing out a paragraph of material and expecting a block of cheese to understand it.:biggrin-new:

I vote in Georgia. What exactly are you blaming me for? Please explain to me how Romney getting more votes in Georgia would tip the election.

Please, lay it out for me. Use small words.

Rockntractor
11-30-2012, 11:02 AM
I vote in Georgia. What exactly are you blaming me for? Please explain to me how Romney getting more votes in Georgia would tip the election.

Please, lay it out for me. Use small words.
Hi cheese, nice cheese, you would be good with a little Rotell, wuncha little buddy wuncha!:biggrin-new:
http://i686.photobucket.com/albums/vv230/upyourstruly/velveeta_jpg-magnum.jpg

Janice
12-03-2012, 01:28 PM
It would appear that the way some blacks feel about Obama, is about the same way Nazis felt about Hitler.