Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #7 - kosicandavid (02/18/2013) [-]
Can someone explain it for non-Americans?
#42 to #7 - trickytrickster (02/18/2013) [-]
The artist is a conservative. He painted Obama stepping on the constitution, while all the other Presidents react. He has people like FDR, Clinton, Teddy Roosevelt, clapping for Obama, since they were bigger government type of people. Then he has Lincoln, Reagan, as mad, and Madison is reaching for the Constitution(he wrote it).
User avatar #73 to #42 - kosicandavid (02/19/2013) [-]
thanks...
User avatar #8 to #7 - thatguywhohasbacon ONLINE (02/18/2013) [-]
Obama is pretty much ******** on the constitution and individual rights in order to further his own goals. The people in the background are former presidents, the ones on the right (from our perspective) are people who have done similar things (though most not as badly). The papers on the floor are the constitution and all of the amendments and bills that were passed to protect the people. And then there's the whole thanks obama thing which is just a joke (not part of the original picture) blaming obama for simple things that he obviously had no control over, it doesn't really fit with this picture.

TL;DR Obama is out for himself, not really concerned with the well-being of the U.S.
User avatar #29 to #8 - Crusader (02/18/2013) [-]
But that's wrong, the entire point of being a democrat, liberal, is that you are out for the greatest good of everyone.
The only people actually being hurt are the old-money rich and those who would rather support the few at the expense of the many, which coincidentally, are often the same people.
0
#71 to #29 - thatguywhohasbacon has deleted their comment [-]
#53 to #29 - arkfire (02/18/2013) [-]
Well what do you call this?
User avatar #54 to #53 - Crusader (02/18/2013) [-]
While I don't agree with much of that, gun control is needed, not in the control of what guns are allowed, but who they are allowed to, you shouldn't allow people with recent criminal records, ties to criminal organizations and/or mental problems to own guns.

But I was making a comment on the placement in the political spectrum than what they are actually doing.

As for what he has done, him and Romney probably wouldn't be able to make decisions that are too different than what the other did, there were only a handful of options available.
#59 to #54 - arkfire (02/18/2013) [-]
No gun control is not needed, we need criminal control. All gun control is right now is a rifle ban that will be useless since only three percent of gun crimes are committed with a rifle and if a criminal wants a gun why would he buy it legally if he can get one that's untraceable?
#40 to #29 - anonymous (02/18/2013) [-]
how dumb can you be? Liberal does not mean you're "standing for the greatest good of everyone" you narcissistic ass. Liberals are out for the greatest good of getting votes like nearly all politicians.
And really people who are rich are the only ones effected by the National debt and economic recession? I had no idea. Cuz im from a lower middle class and things sure as **** have gotten worse.
And lastly your biggest hypocrisy is the "those who would rather support the few at the expense of the many". How is that hypocritical? Because its your ******* policy, that is the base definition of healthcare. Its taking more money from everyone so that a couple people can get dental.
So no the one who is wrong here is you.
User avatar #44 to #40 - Crusader (02/18/2013) [-]
1 - Left wing (liberal) idea is that everyone is equal, so therefore they would want the best standard for everyone, yes parties that represent the left wing are out for votes, but so they can implement ideas that will lead to equality.
2 - I never said the rich are the only ones affected, if anything they are the least affected. I said that those that would be hurt the most by liberal ideas are those with old money, because they would increase taxes on old money.
3 - "those who would rather support the few at the expense of the many" that is conservatism, that there are a few at the top and everyone below them.
4 - The idea of socialized healthcare is that everyone pays and then everyone can get healthcare, as compared to what it is now, where many cannot get healthcare because they can't afford it. So no, that is not what that quote you brought up means.

I am not wrong, if you look at the political spectrum, left wing is liberal and wants equality, republicans are right wing, and therefore want a group at the top and everyone below that, like a pyramid.
User avatar #34 to #29 - silasdg (02/18/2013) [-]
"Democrat... Out for the greatest good of everyone"

Implying Republicans aren't? That's the problem right there you're over simplifying everything. There are good Dems and Bad dems, Good Reps and bad Reps. It's not as simple as "The Dems are the good guys" (paraphrasing of course. )
User avatar #36 to #34 - Crusader (02/18/2013) [-]
I'm not saying that at all, you are making an oversimplified straw man argument.

What I am saying is the left wing of the political spectrum is Liberals, which are democrats, which is that everyone should be equal, communist basically.
While the right wing is that if you work hard enough you will do well and that will regulate itself.
Therefore, Liberals/Dems are out to make sure everyone is equal, and therefore by comparison, everyone would be good.
As compared to Conservatives/Reps who are out for survival of the fittest and to make sure that the only way to do well is to work hard and so on, meaning that a few would do well at the cost of the group.
User avatar #39 to #36 - silasdg (02/18/2013) [-]
I didn't simplify anything or create a "straw man argument" ( a misrepresentation) I quoted you. You didn't mention the Reps at all so you left that open to two possible options.

There are 2 Major political parties in the US. If you're saying 1 is "out for good" it implies the other isn't (unless you're simply being redundant).

Again saying "everyone would be good" is oversimplifying everything. Things aren't going to magically work out because the dems "want whats best" now i'll agree an entirely conservative/rep point of view doesn't work either (balance is needed) but simply stating the dems are "out for the greatest good" denies the fact the rest of the system serves a purpose.
User avatar #41 to #39 - Crusader (02/18/2013) [-]
You are taking my quotes out of context.
I said "the greatest good of everyone"
Meaning that with a left wing system, everyone would have a good life, whereas with a right wing system you have a few with great lives and many with "meh" lives and below.

But again, I state my point, which is irrefutable, the liberal idea, the central mind set of left wings people, is that the world would be better if everyone were equal, and therefore that is the greatest good of everyone, as compared to a right wing idea of a few at the top and many below them.
#69 to #41 - anonymous (02/18/2013) [-]
look through history at any refugees from communist countries.the entire theory that "everyone is equal = everyone has a good life" doesn't work for **** . ever heard of Castro? How about Stalin? Communism doesn't work.
User avatar #43 to #41 - silasdg (02/18/2013) [-]
Buddy i'm not saying it's bad to be a democrat i'm telling you living in a democratic world wouldn't make things better. You need balance.

The right wing isn't out for "a few at the top" as you even stated their out for those who "...work hard" If you are naive enough to believe any one party is solely out for the people than you're not thinking for yourself. The entire political system has its problems and there will always be people involved who are solely involved for personal profit.

You can't claim one party has all the solutions for the people. Again that is over simplifying. Not every solution the democratic party has will work nor will every solution the republican party has. To suggest any party or group has all the perfect answers is foolish and only shows a flaw in judgement.
User avatar #45 to #43 - Crusader (02/18/2013) [-]
I am not claiming that.
In fact, I said that Republicans are right wing, and the right wing takes this stance, and that democrats are left wing, and the left wing takes this stance.

I never said one party is better than the other, I simply said what each party supposedly stands for.
User avatar #46 to #45 - silasdg (02/18/2013) [-]
"Meaning that with a left wing system, everyone would have a good life, whereas with a right wing system you have a few with great lives and many with "meh" lives"

That is literally suggesting a solely democratic system would be good for everyone and a republican system would not. You didn't present an idea of balance your presented an idea of sole party systems.

User avatar #47 to #46 - Crusader (02/18/2013) [-]
I may have miss-worded that.

My point is that in a truly liberal world, everyone would have equal amounts, which would probably be decent, whereas in a conservative world (which the USA basically is, with capitalism) there is a group at the top, while everyone else makes up the rest of the pyramid structure leading from absolutely great down to crappy. meaning that the overall average would be good, but with most of it going to the high end of it.

Depending on where you are in that system a liberal world would seem pretty good, yes there are draw backs, but I am just saying what the world is theoretically.
User avatar #55 to #47 - umanouski (02/18/2013) [-]
In the Conservative world, when the government is not taxing the wealthy (who in turn are the ones who create jobs) to death and punishing people who make over X amount of dollars the economy does well and everyone benefits, some more then others sure. In a liberal world, it is wrong to have more than someone else and you therefore are a bad person and must be punished. (E.g. higher tax rate) This makes wealthy people not want to reinvest their money and just hold on to it so they don't lose more of it to taxation.



Now keep in mind in America its to the point where if you earn more than 100K you are taxed at a huge rate. This leads small businesses to close and what does that do? Causes more unemployment and more dependance on government for you to make a living. This leads to generational "Welfare" families and then those people vote for the people giving them more stuff, and who is that? Democrats/Republican establishment/Occupy Movement (they want a living just because they exist)

Conservatives on the other hand want to not tax the wealthy at an extreme rate and let them create jobs and build things so they make more money which raises tax revenue because more people are working and less are sucking on the government tit.
User avatar #56 to #55 - Crusader (02/18/2013) [-]
The way that the tax is trying to work is so that it taxes old money.
The way taxes works is if you earn your money you get taxed a lot.
If you have a lot of money saved, old money, and your money comes from the interest earned off of investing that money, you get taxed very little.
What the government in the states is trying to do, is they are trying to find a balance between the two.

As it stands, they are failing miserably.
User avatar #60 to #56 - umanouski (02/18/2013) [-]
As it stands, anytime the Government tries to run or take over something, they usually fail miserably.
#20 to #8 - anonymous (02/18/2013) [-]
Found the Republican
#16 to #8 - themasterdebater (02/18/2013) [-]
how misinformed you are is beyond me
#13 to #8 - anonymous (02/18/2013) [-]
yup pursuing public healthcare has no benefits for the people. only himself. maybe it's time america adopted something a little more relevant to the times than the constitution?
#50 to #13 - arkfire (02/18/2013) [-]
All public healthcare gives is a reason to have higher taxes and businesses have all ready figured out how to avoid having to provide it by lowering part-time hours to 29 hours or less.
#11 to #8 - annoynymous (02/18/2013) [-]
The whole "Thanks Obama" part doesn't really fit with the rest of the picture because it's lampooning something that would be considered serious (ie stepping on the constitution of the United States) by juxtaposing it with something very trivial (ie a joke about 'blaming Obama for simple things that he obviously had no control over'). It's intentionally out of place with the rest of the picture, so, in essence, it DOES 'fit'. Though, I find it ironic that most of the presidents over to the right-hand side are modern ones, while MOST of the earlier Presidents did at least one if not several acts that some would consider to be overstepping the powers of the Federal government (ie Abe Lincoln suppressed opposition by jailing Democratic leaders and suspending their due process for years until the war was over, or John Adam's Alien and Sedition acts, which jailed newspapers who spoke out against the President). People forget that even things like the Louisiana Purchase, something that we all think is pretty awesome, were sometimes very sketchy in terms of legality (in this case, Jefferson didn't get Congressional approval for the purchase).

TL;DR The "Thanks Obama" text fits, and the picture is quite selective and political.
 Friends (0)