HOME | DD
sticmann — Change
Published: 2009-04-12 04:40:27 +0000 UTC; Views: 1083; Favourites: 8; Downloads: 29
Redirect to original
Description
.Related content
Comments: 63
hmm. I didn't say USSR was socialist. In fact, I didn't say anything about the USSR at all.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
In fact, i am aware of the implication of it with USSA, but okay bob-O. It's okoiii though, mate.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Are you trying to be obnoxious?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not really, actually. You sound severely pretentious, though. Usually i'm very nice to people's submissions, i just am not a fan of ignorance and trying to bash other people in politics.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You're right. I am an ass sometimes. I really want to do what is right, but I don't do it. Instead, I do the very thing I hate. I usually don't bash other people, and I hate political debate. Why did I do this stupid thing?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I don't know, man. :/
It's a well-done piece though !
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thanks. As to the socialist thing, USSA was meant to be United Socialist States of America. I know it's very close to USSR, but Soviet wasn't my intent. oh well.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I forgot to ask, ever watched "Harrison Bergeron", based on the short story by Vonnegut? Think you'd appreciate either if not. Same lines as we were talking about before, the orwells and huxley's etc
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nope. I hadn't heard of it 'til now. I think I've had my fill in that genre for now.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I can understand that...sometimes one just wants to think of nothing but pink fluffy bunnies
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I will specifically NOT comment on the political nature of this poster, since this is an art website, and debating politics over the net is like running into a brickwall repeatedly anyways.
I like your "benevolent" image of Obama, however I do think he looks a tad bit confused which doesn't quite go with the theme. I like the rest of the design, suits the style well, you've obviously done your poster research.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I thought you might take that approach. Very good.
Yeah, I think the eyes came out a little weird. I was going for determined and benevolent, but I'm not sure I hit it. It was fun to make and the research was interesting
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, they really knew how to get across a strong message with the visuals.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes. Yes it will...
Until it freaking COLLAPSES!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I think it's important to keep a level head and not get too caught up in all the sensationalism that's hanging in the air. Decide your boundaries, make a plan, and be prepared to carry it out when you need to. Then you don't have to worry.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I see it already starting to backfire, cause the conservative media that is so heavily deviled is watching him like a hawk.
And remember, "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" includes straight up violations, purposefully and knowingly, of the US Constitution as already settled in case law.
Banning handguns would do it or strict regulation on ammunition ie microstamping (DC v Heller, that's clear).
Fairness Doctrine IMO would be arguable as violation of 1st. As are some of the restrictions on religion that have been talked about.
I think his forced "volunteer" work is a "seizure" of your person, and thus a violation of the 4th. (I think the same of the draft/selective service too though). Some of his other social programs could be violations of the 14th.
If some of you thought GWB played fast and loose with the Constitution, at least he had arguable points based on case law and respected interpretation. Stuff worthy of arguing in front of the Supreme Court. Obama doesn't on a lot of it, and some of it has already been settled and he doesn't care, because he knows most of us don't know. That's that scary part.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow. You really follow this stuff, eh? Thank you for your well informed post. It makes me feel a little "put in my place" as it were. I do not follow politics, nor do I (usually) engage in debate regarding the subject. In fact, this piece was not coming from a political stance on my part, but rather an emotional one (on the part of the viewer(s)). I've gotten some quite varied response, so overall I'd say it was fairly successful.
Really, thank you for the sobering post.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've been doing this a surprising amount here the last few days, but I need to thank you for the courage to post this piece on this site, regardless of your reasons. So thank you for giving me a place to comment and your appreciative response
It's really easy to get flamed posting something like this and think the world is against you and you need to keep things to yourself. You should say what is on your mind. That's what the 1st is all about and one of the great things about living in a free country.
Upside to counter my doom and gloom... so far I am seeing a repeat of the Clinton Admin with slight modifications and far more radical, though Obama has already burned through all of 1992. Clinton was pretty well reigned in and moderated after the 1994 election and was seen as successful because of it. The success of the Republican Congress after 1994 helped get Clinton re-elected, partly because he chose to play ball with them. Possible Obama may experience the same. That is really up to him.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
What do you mean by "burned through all of 1992"? He's doing the same things or doing as much as Clinton did in the whole year? With this democrat-heavy congress, how much does it change the picture?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I should have said burned through 1993 as Clinton didn't take office until Jan 1993.
Clinton had a recession that he inherited from GHW Bush immediately following the Persian Gulf War, most of the reasons were not Bush's fault, and the recovery was built in. Difference is the recovery is not built in this time. A set of massive flaws in the financial system all came to a storm at once, mostly government caused and tinkered with by every President dating back to Taft! By 1995 the recession was well done and over with (really by early 1994 we were on the upswing). This was also the start of the "Tech Bubble", that was not government caused. The point was that Obama has experienced many of the major things that Clinton did in his first year of office already. Including dealing with Somali pirates/warlords (though Clinton's situation was much worse and handled very poorly).
Clinton had a Democrat controlled Congress in 1993 and 1994. Could do about whatever he wanted, including the 1994 Brady Bill and Semi-Auto assault weapons ban (would come back to haunt Gore in 2000, and is haunting Pres. Obama and AG Holder now), helped get a lot of Republicans elected in 1994. Also was a big blow to Clinton as large chunks of it were found unconstitutional on 9th and 10th Amendment grounds (People's and State's Rights). The mid-term elections in the fall of 1994 is when Gingrich and crew came in with the "Contract with America". They had such a huge budget fight with Clinton that year the budget didn't get passed in time to authorize the funds to keep the government working for the next year (FY '96). After this Clinton started to realize he would be more successful if he was reasonable and negotiated, so he did. Got welfare reform passed, did some things to keep social security solvent for another 20 years or so, finally got the International Space Station seriously funded and on it's way to completion, and went against the Republican Congress to take out a psychotic genocidal dictator (Milosevic) in 1999. Difference there compared to Iraq 2 and Afghanistan, is once Clinton said "we're doing this", the Republican Congress played nice mostly. The fights were over how to give the military more stuff and more capability to make sure the people of Albania were properly protected (we were saving muslims from genocide there, btw. Much like the Kurds, the Albanians greet Americans as heroes in their country for what Clinton started in 1999).
Obama could see a very similar trajectory if there's a party switch in Congress in 2010, and he decides to be reasonable instead of ram things through. One reason Pres. GW Bush had issues is because neither he or Pelosi's Congress (last two years) wanted to negotiate to do what was best for the country. That's error on both their parts. Bill Clinton and Gingrich's House did do that and are typically seen as successful and generally positive for the country.
Sorry that got so long to answer your question and do it justice.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Nice, well-informed wrap up. Thanks again.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Nice.
Glad to see some art of Obama that isn't about how great he is or drawing vague comparisons of him to superman and/or Jesus. It's scary what Obama's doing and how much the media fawns over him. I hope people wake up soon. It's amazing that people actually bought that he was/is a middle of the road democrat.
IMO, If Obama wasn't black there's no way he could have won. People would have needed a real reason to vote for him and might have looked at something actually important like his political positions and his voting record.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
hmm. I think I understand what you're saying but, in fact, this poster is expressly portraying Obama as a sort of sun god.
I think it is important to note that more people vote for the American Idol than for the president.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
sure, as well as drawing comparisons with the propaganda posters for many other so-called saviors.
I've heard that before. But is that taking into account that for American Idol people can vote as many times as they want or is that counting every vote as representing a different person?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, that was certainly the point.
hmm. I had just seen the raw numbers. I'm not sure if it counted multiple votes (probably).
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Which makes it vastly different from other artwork that blindly praises Obama. I suppose one could see this as positive, if one believes that a government like, specifically, the ussr had would be a good thing. Seeing as how it didn't turn out so good for them, I vote no on.
Yeah see I hate how rumors like that get spread around when people don't think through them first.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
It really looks like a poster from Soviet Russia or George Orwell's 1984. The text font, the use of red, the faceless masses, and the glorification/worship of Obama, is all spot on.
Yes, the government will take care of you. It already does. We don't teach our own kids, we send them to government schools where the government controls the teachers and the curriculum. We don't save for our retirement, we pay into social security, the greatest Ponzi scheme in history. We are not allowed to run our own businesses, Obama steps in and controls who the CEO is, what product line you have, and who merges and deals with whom. You don't work hard and save and buy a house, you get subsidies and bailouts from the government.
Individual rights are dead. Say hello to socialism... communism... fascism... national socialism...they are all variants of the same thing: government controls and denials of individual rights.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you. I looked at a lot of old Russian and Chinese posters before I set out to do this one. I took several of the elements from some of the stuff Mao had put out of himself (like Obama shining out of the sun).
It sounds like we have set up convenience as our god. As long as the government doesn't mess with that too much, we're all pretty complacent. What do rights matter as long as we have cable and fast food?
1984 was one of my favorites
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes it looks like Mao. And it also reminds me of the propaganda of North Korea, describing themselves as "a big happy loving family" when anyone can clearly see that it's a brutal dictatorship.
If you like George Orwell, you might like Ayn Rand. Her novel We the Living is kind of similar to 1984 in that it shows in great detail how government controls destroy individual lives. And Atlas Shrugged blew me away.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I've read several Rand books. I didn't read We the Living but Anthem reminded me a lot of 1984. I sort of gorged on this stuff when I was in high school. It's taken me a while to swing back toward the middle somewhat.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Disagree. This is what our country needs.
Actually communism is what our country needs. Then people would realized how much they actually DO have. Trust me. You wouldn't want me for a president.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
You say "disagree" but everything else you say actually tells me that you really do agree with the poster.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I disagree that Obama is a socialist.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Ah. But 'tis what you want, eh?
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Glad to see this is popular! This is so true, and more people need to realize it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well I haven't gotten any hate messages, so maybe I didn't push it far enough.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Did you do this to stoke hatred, or to start dialogue?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Thank you. A good question indeed and probably the most rational response so far. Most people jump in and assume I'm taking a side on this issue with this piece. My intent was completely non-political, actually. I don't really care anything for such issues or debates. I am coming at this from an artist's point of view. I issued a challenge to our speed painting group to do an "expressionist" painting and I chose to do a propaganda poster to get some sort of emotional response. The response has been interesting. I actually thought it might be a little more heated, but I'm not sure how far I'd really want to push it in this arena.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Consider that by using a specific person to represent 'government', it gives a more specific message. A different way to capture the 'big brother' ala 1984 would be with a shadowy figure without a specific identity. IN this case you seem to be casting Obama as 'Big Brother', a description which really doesn't fit him. He is far from it. Cheney on the other hand would be a ringer for that! But unfortunately for the purposes of this piece, he is no longer in office. Still, I think Cheneys in place of Barracks would be great, and far more frightening!
Of course your comments "Let's hear a big woohoo for socialism!" is a dead give away that you are coming from a place of bashing Obama and labeling him a socialist. So in spite of your saying your aren't taking a side, I'd say you are, but ONLY because of your comment.
If on the other hand you simply posted what you did in your previous response to me, I don't think anyone would would accuse you of being quite so partisan.
But, if you really want to push some buttons, include a swastika. But then you'd be pushing buttons just to be pushing buttons, and not really going for an artistic statement. Riling people up is exceedingly easy. Enlightening people in a positive way is FAR more difficult.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I had no idea how exhausting this discussion would become
Thanks for input. You're right about the socialism comment. I should have let the poster speak for itself.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I am all for dialogue, and yes, it can be absolutely exhausting! I know that you and I probably don't agree on everything, and may in fact have some huge ideological differences, but you are NOT my enemy. You are a fellow American, and I will defend your right to speak, even when I disagree.
If you follow some conversations where people disagree, it always seems to come down to childish name calling, or just blatant insult.
Just because I don't agree with you, doesn't mean I have to hate you, and sometime I get the impression that mass media opinionators want to us to keep hating each other. The more we hate each other, the more popular they become! (Rush, Colter, Beck, O'Reilly to name a few..) I reject that mind set. Let's disagree, but speak to each other respectfully, like we are now.
And don't stop making art! Cheers Mate!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I appreciate the openness and maturity you bring to the table. Even more than fellow American, we are fellow humans. There's a conversation that takes place in the movie The Day the Earth Stood Still that really stuck with me. Klaatu (an alien ambassador) has requested a meeting with the chiefs of state from every nation to warn them to cease building nuclear missiles or earth would be destroyed. It proves impossible to organize and the US representative tries to explain the complex relations between the nations. He suggests a private meeting with the US president.
KLAATU
(sternly)
I will not speak to any one nation
or group of nations.
(sharply, bitterly)
I don't intend to add my contribution
to your childish jealousies and
suspicions.
HARLEY
Our problems are very complex, Mr.
Klaatu. You mustn't judge us too
harshly.
KLAATU
I can judge only by what I see.
HARLEY
Your impatience is quite
understandable.
KLAATU
(sharply)
I am impatient with stupidity. My
people have learned to live without
it.
HARLEY
(ruefully)
I'm afraid my people haven't.
(with real sincerity)
I'm very sorry -- I wish it were
otherwise.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I hope you never lose your optimism!
By the way, I loved that movie. I even liked the modern version, but not nearly as much as the original.
You know, not only by talking, but by LISTENING, can we sort things out. So hey, thanks for listening!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
[link] really well drawn, i think it's nice that we FOR ONCE have a black presadent in America...enen though i'm Canadian..
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I'm pretty sure you missed the point.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
[link] oh? what was the point of it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, never mind. I guess you got it.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
| Next =>