Do You Believe in the Truth, Fairey?

By 29 Comments 1,894 views

shepard-fairey-poster_348x3031


“Help us Obama Won Kenya Be….you’re our only Hope.”

Remember Shepard Fairey? He’s the one responsible for that drab Obama Socialist Realism Art seen everywhere during Senator Obama’s presidential campaigning.

Fairey’s another one of those disillusioned progressives further to the left of President Obama who put all his poker chips into gambling on the candidate of Hope and Change.

Esquire magazine:

Do you think Obama has lived up to your “Hope” poster?

Not even close.

How come?

Obama has had a really tough time, but there have been a lot of things that he’s compromised on that I never would have expected. I mean, drones and domestic spying are the last things I would have thought [he’d support]. I’ve met Obama a few times, and I think Obama’s a quality human being, but I think that he finds himself in a position where your actions are largely dictated by things out of your control. I’m not giving him a pass for not being more courageous, but I do think the entire system needs an overhaul and taking money out of politics would be a really good first step.

Shep’s been disillusioned by the Hope and Change Rainbows and Unicorns candidate for sometime now, as Skookum had blogged about in 2010.

More erudite observation from the artist formerly known as an Obama sycophant

We also need a public that isn’t so uneducated and complacent. I hate to say Americans are ignorant and lazy, but a lot of them are ignorant and lazy.

Turn off Jon Stewart.

It’s just like what I was talking about with Rebel Music and art. When you live in a place that has a lot of good things that make life easier, it’s easier to take them for granted. But what frustrates me to no end are people who want to blame Obama or blame anything that is something that if they were actually doing anything as simple as voting, it might not be as bad as it is. There’s a lot of finger pointing and very little action and very little research into the dynamics that created the situation that they’re unhappy about.

Um….excuse me, your side actually did that simple act of voting….twice for this President. That was the problem.

images

As you say: “a lot of finger-pointing and very little action and very little research.”

You should have said nope to the dope after the first 4 years.

Fortunately he’s not on the ballot in 2016; but whoever wins the next election will be spending his time mopping up the mess inherited from the previous 8 years of failed leadership.

29 Responses to “Do You Believe in the Truth, Fairey?”

  1. 1

    Nanny G

    Shepard Fairey: “….he’s compromised on that I never would have expected. I mean, drones and domestic spying are the last things I would have thought [he’d support].”

    In other words, Obama wasn’t far enough to the LEFT to please Shep.

  2. 3

    Bill

    Well, to our sad little disillusioned liberal friends, here is a sure giveaway to prevent you from supporting, enthusiastically and without reservation or consideration, the next Emperor (or Empress) with no clothes:

    When they offer everything to everyone, they are bound to be lying to somebody. That somebody could be YOU

  3. 4

    Msefge

    So what’s your point? He’s doing exaclty what you’d be grabbing your crotch over if (and when) Bush had done them. Hypocites.

  4. 5

    Bill

    @Msefge:

    So what’s your point? He’s doing exaclty what you’d be grabbing your crotch over if (and when) Bush had done them. Hypocites.

    Only Bush DIDN’T.

    Moron.

  5. 6

    Greg

    We also need a public that isn’t so uneducated and complacent. I hate to say Americans are ignorant and lazy, but a lot of them are ignorant and lazy.

    It’s a fact. Many Americans are well informed and industrious, but a lot are ignorant and lazy. Neither category is defined by political orientation. Those who are ignorant and lazy generally don’t see themselves as such. Often the ignorant are totally convinced that ignorance is the other guy’s problem. They’re often assured that this is the case by people who want to manipulate them.

  6. 7

    Common Sense

    And Obola told us you can keep your health insurance and/or doctor “period” and the liberal wackos believed him. He blames Bush for all ills and the liberal wackos believed him!! He told us ISIS was a JV team and the liberal wackos believed him!! He told us Benghazi was a video and NOT islamic terrorism and the liberal wackos believed him!! Reality is the opposite and maybe that’s why the Democrat controlled legislature is now under Republican control!! This is reality!!

  7. 8

    George Wells

    @Bill #5:

    “So what’s your point? He’s doing exaclty what you’d be grabbing your crotch over if (and when) Bush had done them. Hypocites.”
    “Only Bush DIDN’T.”

    Sure he did.
    He gave the political hawks and the mighty military-industrial weapons manufacturers and the War-Is-Great-War-Is Good military employment scammers enough wars (at tax-payers’ expense, of course) to keep them all over-employed for the next decade, while simultaneously cutting EVERYONE’S taxes, ensuring that the next president would inherit an exploding deficit.

    I don’t recall ANY president of EITHER political party in my lifetime who had the audacity to fairly and equally represent the entire nation. They ALL pander to their respective constituencies and screw the losers. Get over your naïve fantasy that your precious GOP is in some way immune to the aspects of human nature that guide so many elected Democrats. It’s called “politics” for a reason.

  8. 9

    Bill

    @George Wells: Bush sought bi-partisan support. Furthermore, he got it. The left cannot make the claim of Bush’s lies because the bulk of the intelligence came from Clinton, Clinton supported regime change and, no doubt, briefed Bush and, as we have seen, openly supported the war.

    As did Hillary. Until, of course, it was politically beneficial NOT to. Then she simply flopped her flip, knowing her liberal followers are far too stupid to realize what had happened.

    I know 2001 was a LOOOOONNNNNGGGG time ago, but the time is significant because a terrible thing happened we now refer to as “9/11”. Then, it became the responsibility of the President of the United States to protect the nation from further attacks. So, when a credible threat was determined to be poised against the nation, action has to be taken. Not the drawing of red lines, not talk about how disappointed he was that someone wanted to kill Americans, not declarations that we would defeat the terror threat, then do absolutely nothing towards that end. Bush took the responsibility seriously. Bush did not take the view that he could credibly blame someone else for whatever happened, he felt he had the responsibility to protect Americans.

    I keep repeating the word “responsibility” because Obama accepts none. That is the difference between Bush (a leader) and Obama (a community organizer).

  9. 10

    rich wheeler

    @Bill: My question to you and all Conservatives on this thread.
    Do any of you HONESTLY think that ANYONE of the 17 or 18 potential Repub. Prez hopefuls can beat HRC?
    I believe that only a Rubio–Fla./ Kasich–Ohio ticket has any chance of pulling an Electoral College miracle..

  10. 11

    Bill

    @rich wheeler: Were there to be equal and fair media reporting of all facts, defeating Hillary would be impossible… because she would not be running. If her facts were widely known (rather than ignored or covered up), no one would touch her with support with a 50′ pole.

    As it is, it will take a scandal-free and accplished candidate to overcome both her and her guardian media. Walker has ample accomplishments (Hillary has NONE) and, having combatted the unions in Wisconsin, has already had whatever can be imagined thrown at him with NO scandalous revelations (Hillary is a scandal buffet).

    I would prefer to see Rubio and Cruz wait a while, perhaps take a VP position. Graham is interesting in that, while he could be more conservative, he is blunt and honest in his rhetoric (Hillary is a vacillating, chameleon-like liar) and that appeals to me.

    Again, if any liberal with half a chance were to challenge Hillary, you wou see the media turn on her like a chicken on a June bug. Too bad you leftists are out of stock on honest, principled leaders.

  11. 12

    rich wheeler

    @Bill: The playing field is what it is.. If it doesn’t suit you, work hard on changing it, or take your ball and go home.
    Seems that Conservatives are lining up behind Walker–IMO a risky choice. This would eliminate Cruz, Santorum,Perry,Huck and Carson. Who will challenge from the moderates? Obviously the two Floridians Bush and Rubio. Also Graham and Paul.
    If Webb runs–seems unlikely today–he’ll be in to win. A true hero, a moderate with a proven record of service to his country.

  12. 13

    Nanny G

    Hillary is losing her ”inevitability” factor.
    http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2015/images/06/01/2016.poll.pdf
    Her favorability numbers are dropping like rocks.
    At this rate I think Bernie is in and Martin is in just to make the old battle axe look moderate between them.
    It won’t work.
    We have yet to see the Republican field honed down.
    When that happens the remaining ones will jump in the polls.
    When is the Iowa straw poll? And which Reps are bypassing it?

  13. 14

    Bill

    @rich wheeler: http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/02/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-poll-gop-field-close/index.html

    The truth is leaking out. She makes it worse herself by being deathly afraid to face questions, so she can’t even lie her way out of this. Only the media can give her a good scrubbing and if they lose interest (because she appears to be a loser, or another liberal dog they like better enters the race), you will see her revealed like never before. Then its, “Buh-bye, Hillary. See ya; wouldn’t wanna be ya.”

    At least there is choice on the Republican side and, apparently, a lot of different people that want to help repair the damage from Hurricane Obama. You’ve got nothing but the bottom of the barrel as choices.

  14. 15

    rich wheeler

    @Bill: Navy Cross recipient Jim Webb shines brightly when compared to ANY Repub. hopeful.

    Nan Iowa straw poll won by Bachmann in 2012–meaningless. Iowa caucus won by Santorum in 2012–he’s out to derail Walker.

  15. 16

    Bill

    @rich wheeler: If he could shine that brightly he’d BE a Republican. As a Democrat, he has to have some serious flaws. For instance, if he is a useful Democrat, he should have been reprimanded long ago for denouncing Obama’s agenda. I don’t recall that happening, so he must align himself with it.

    Convince me.

  16. 17

    rich wheeler

    @Bill: Read his bio then tell me what you think.
    BTW Reagan praised him highly and Jim’s got the video. Of course he was a Repub. at the time.lol

  17. 18

    George Wells

    @Bill #9:
    My POINT in #8 was that Bush was irresponsible – not for going to war, although that case can be made, but for lowering taxes at a time the country couldn’t afford to do so. My POINT was that Msefge was right and that you were wrong when you insisted that Bush DIDN’T do what Msefge said he did.

    You chose to ignore that, drawing attention instead to Obama’s weakness as if it excuses Bush’s choice to do as Republican strategists have been suggesting for some time now: kill social programs like Social Security and Medicare by simply eliminating the revenues needed to fund them. How better to accomplish that cynical objective than to simultaneously start a war and cut taxes. What amazes me the most is that he got away with it. Stupid Americans! We get what we deserve.

  18. 19

    Common Sense

    @George Wells: Let’s get serious and talk about what’s killing Social Programs!! When you fast talk America to get elected by promising free healthcare that kills Social Programs. When you grant amnesty to 11 million illegals that kills Social Programs!! The blame Bush days are over and have been over for a long time!!

  19. 20

    George Wells

    @Common Sense #19:

    Once again you are all missing Msefge’s only point, which was that all politicians OF BOTH STRIPES pander to their OWN party constituents, promise their OWN party way more than they can deliver, reward their OWN constituents way more than they deserve, and in general ignore the voters that they know they cannot count on for votes, whether it’s Romney’s 47% or Obama’s. I’m not BLAMING Bush for anything that he didn’t do any more than I’m defending Obama for the stupid things HE’S done. They’re all POLITICIANS. It’s what they do. Like Msefge said.

    You obviously had a partisan knee-jerk-hostile reaction to a hot-button word or phrase I used instead of reading the whole post and finding out what the context was.

    Go back and read it again, and if you bother to continue with your thought (?) anyway, perhaps you could try a little harder to make the connection between the things you accuse Obama of doing with healthcare and illegal immigrants and “killing social programs,” ’cause I’m not seeing that connection in what you wrote.

  20. 21

    Bill

    @George Wells:

    My POINT in #8 was that Bush was irresponsible – not for going to war, although that case can be made, but for lowering taxes at a time the country couldn’t afford to do so.

    The left never seems to understand that just taking more money away from people means more revenue in the Treasury even though it has been proven time and time again not to be the case. In fact, Bush’s tax cuts increased revenues by allowing the economy to grow; $750 billion in added revenues. Ever wonder why Obama didn’t rescind those cuts as soon as he took office? Because it would have had a devastating effect on the economy. Obama chose, instead, to hide his tax increases and, by raising taxes and increasing regulatory restrictions, he throttled the economy and has kept it from recovering.

    Republican strategists have been suggesting for some time now: kill social programs like Social Security and Medicare by simply eliminating the revenues needed to fund them.

    How about some evidence of this? What has been proposed is alternative means of funding. Privatization, perhaps. No one has proposed eliminating the programs… more leftist scare tactics. Much better than the liberal intention to simply ride the programs into bankruptcy by using it as a vote-getting lure to illegal immigrants. Another thing liberals never seem to understand is the breaking point between revenues and spending. Liberals, because of their DNA, simply believe that once you have blown through all your money, no matter how much corruption, theft, waste and mismanagement ate up of the budget, you can always go back and get more.

    For the record, al Qaeda started the war… not Bush. Your propensity for left wing blame further exposed.

  21. 22

    George Wells

    @Bill #21::

    “Republican strategists have been suggesting for some time now: kill social programs like Social Security and Medicare by simply eliminating the revenues needed to fund them.”

    “How about some evidence of this?”

    Evidence? What, you didn’t read your GOP manual?

    “”Starving the beast” is a political strategy employed by American conservatives in order to limit government spending[1][2][3] by cutting taxes in order to deprive the government of revenue in a deliberate effort to force the federal government to reduce spending.
    The term “the beast” in this context refers to the United States Federal Government and the programs it funds, using mainly American tax payer dollars, particularly social programs[4] such as education, welfare, Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid.[3]

    The tax cuts and deficit spending of former US President George W. Bush’s administration were attempts to “starve the beast.” Bush said in 2001 “so we have the tax relief plan […] that now provides a new kind—a fiscal straightjacket [sic] for Congress. And that’s good for the taxpayers, and it’s incredibly positive news if you’re worried about a federal government that has been growing at a dramatic pace over the past eight years and it has been.”[8]

    Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson’s tax-cut plan, incorporating a flat tax, also deferred paying for the larger deficits it would create. [1] It “would most likely be funded by lower government spending on Social Security and Medicare benefits” according to the Wall Street Journal.[2]

    “For the record, al Qaeda started the war… not Bush. Your propensity for left wing blame further exposed.”

    How thick, how MINDLESS are you, anyway?
    Where is your reading comprehension?
    THIS is the point: Bush went to war… AND… Bush cut taxes.
    Going to war wasn’t the issue, no matter how much you want to make it so. And in good times (surplus years), cutting taxes make sense. But Bush’s war cost over a trillion dollars, and his simultaneous tax cuts made sense only in the context of his “starve the beast” strategy. The GOP’s interest in cutting social programs – has that abated because those tax cuts INCREASED revenues as you suggest? No. Would those cuts in social programs fall squarely on the backs of those voters most aligned with the Democratic Party? Yes. Does this prove the point Msefge made way back that I have been supporting and you have been ignoring all along? Yes.

  22. 23

    Bill

    @George Wells: First, link me to this “GOP manual”. Next, I might point out that Social Security and Medicare are not federally funded programs; they are TAXPAYER FUNDED programs in that they are funded (supposedly) by deductions in taxpayer’s paychecks and those funds are to go (supposedly) directly into those programs and those programs ONLY. So, no, I do not believe it is the “GOP manual” directions to “starve” Social Security or Medicare; these come out of separate revenue streams.

    The problem with these programs is that leftists have been steadily adding beneficiaries to them as popularity issues require. Obama is currently handing Social Security numbers out like candy on Halloween to illegal immigrants which exacerbates the problems with all those programs you listed (having been derived from the “GOP manual”). For instance, welfare is intended to be a helping hand for temporary need, not a career. Yet, despite the obvious benefits yielded when the GOP forced Clinton to reform the welfare system, Obama has reversed much of those improvements and added several more problems to boot. Then, of course, when we run out of money, you leftists cannot leap quickly enough to blame conservatives for, first, telling you all along that, Constitutionally, we should not go there and, secondly, opposing the endless increases in expenditures to continue to prop up a failed social engineering program.

    “For the record, al Qaeda started the war… not Bush. Your propensity for left wing blame further exposed.”

    How thick, how MINDLESS are you, anyway?
    Where is your reading comprehension?
    THIS is the point: Bush went to war… AND… Bush cut taxes.

    Well, let’s conduct a little “Who Is Actually Thick and Mindless Test” and just see who the dimwit actually might be. Were you aware that, from 2004 to 2008, despite the wars, despite (or due to) the tax cuts, deficits were cut, year after year after year after year? No? Case closed. YOU are thick and mindless.

  23. 24

    George Wells

    @Bill #23:
    ” I might point out that Social Security and Medicare are not federally funded programs; they are TAXPAYER FUNDED programs in that they are funded (supposedly) by deductions in taxpayer’s paychecks and those funds are to go (supposedly) directly into those programs and those programs ONLY. So, no, I do not believe it is the “GOP manual” directions to “starve” Social Security or Medicare; these come out of separate revenue streams.”

    Why are you attempting to justify something that doesn’t exist? EVERYTHING is “taxpayer funded.” Those bombs we are dropping on ISIS are “taxpayer funded” So what? You know full well that those “taxpayer funded” moneys that supposedly go into Social Security are really diverted into every other underfunded federal program and that the accounting of contributed dollars means exactly nothing. Those “taxpayer” funds aren’t “invested” in stocks or bonds, and no matter if they WERE, we taxpayers would never reap any gains if those markets went up any more than we’d suffer a loss if they went down. Our money put in is SPENT, having bought for us a promise from the government to pay us whatever the government decides is appropriate for the year we are being paid. Our estates don’t get any rebate of unpaid “taxpayer contributions” when we die, either. It is nothing more than a TAX, no matter what the politicians choose to call it. And that tax, ON PAPER, gets applied toward the liability the government incurs from agreeing to pay us a modicum of “social security.” No matter, because “separate revenue streams” is a shell game myth. The government ALWAYS does whatever it wants to do, ALWAYS finding a way to fund whatever it wants to fund.

    “Were you aware that, from 2004 to 2008, despite the wars, despite (or due to) the tax cuts, deficits were cut, year after year after year after year?”

    Uh…wrong, again. The deficit in 2008, the last full year of Bush’s presidency, the deficit was 459 billion, a record. Clinton was the tax-happy chap who reduced the deficit each of his first four years in office and who ran a healthy surplus each of his second four years. YOUR boy inherited Clinton’s budget surplus and quickly threw the country into the red, running deficits in each and every one of his years in office, and the bailouts he initiated, and HIS war, and HIS tax cuts cost the first year of Obama’s first term the record deficit of 1.4 trillion. Not Obama’s. It doesn’t argue convincingly for your economic strategy when the guy who follows you in office inherits a collapsing economy, a costly war and a gutted revenue stream. There is a hopelessly discredited economic myth that you can cut revenues to almost nothing and that the resulting stimulation to the economy will result is so much production of wealth that there will be more than enough money to pay for EVERYTHING. POOF! That magic bean didn’t sprout. Bush tried that theory, squandered Clinton’s surplus, gave huge tax breaks to the rich (who promptly sent their new-found wealth off-shore) bought and paid for a war out of the pockets of future generations, who WILL curse him for his robbery that ultimately will be paid for by seniors on fixed incomes, who will crash and burn as the treasury – out of necessity – prints more and more money… BECAUSE IT CAN, driving up inflation… which is the only truly effective cure for deficit spending.

  24. 25

    Bill

    @George Wells:

    Why are you attempting to justify something that doesn’t exist? EVERYTHING is “taxpayer funded.”

    Usually, the full message is important. There followed: “in that they are funded (supposedly) by deductions in taxpayer’s paychecks and those funds are to go (supposedly) directly into those programs and those programs ONLY.” Social Security was supposed to be a savings account. However, Democrats keep dipping their mitts into it to make out their little gift baskets of money in exchange for votes. They also keep bestowing Social Security benefits upon those who just showed up here one day and never paid into it. In other words, the left is bankrupting Social Security (as they do everything else) and then bitching about the measures necessary to clean up their mess. No, actually, those words will do just fine.

    And, sorry to have to disagree, but, YEP, every deficit until the recession and TARP hit was decreasing. But, if you would, have a look a what you just wrote:

    The deficit in 2008, the last full year of Bush’s presidency, the deficit was 459 billion, a record.

    $459 billion was a record, you say!! Look at deficits now. After Obama racked up $1.4 trillion deficits four years in a row, he has them down to around $700 billion and you guys are doing cartwheels and back-flips!!

    Also, you forget something else Bush inherited from Clinton (aside from the smoke and mirrors “surplus”)… a recession. Then, because Clinton was getting his hooter buffed in the Oval Office instead of giving orders to kill bin Laden, he handed 9/11 over to Bush as well. And, Obama’s first $1.4 billion deficit you say he got from Bush? $785 billion of that was TARP, which Obama supported and which was paid back (good luck finding THAT cash). Obama’s deficits were because of Obama; $800 billion in “stimulus” that yielded nothing but debt, spending, spending, spending, spending. No, George, no more blame Bush. All Obama, all the time. Every one of your worn out left wing talking points have fallen flat. Perhaps it is about time to admit that you are either too ignorant to find the truth or you are satisfied to keep repeating lies.

    Which is it?

  25. 26

    George Wells

    @Bill #25:
    ““Were you aware that, from 2004 to 2008, despite the wars, despite (or due to) the tax cuts, deficits were cut, year after year after year after year?”

    You were wrong, Bill.
    I proved that.

    Dem’s raid the Soc. Sec. coffers?
    Yep. I said as much, remember?
    Exactly as the GOP raids them.
    Were you making a point?

  26. 28

    George Wells

    @Bill #27:

    You proved that when you err, you dodge.
    You also proved that you can distort historical details with the best.
    And in doing so, you proved that you are no better – no more principled – than the “left wing propagandists” that you accuse others of being.
    You won’t be bothered with making a factual statement and then defending it or admitting when it’s wrong.
    Much more fun to turn everything into a blame exchange.
    Throw up a smoke screen, move the goal posts, don’t EVER bother to address an issue directly.
    Accuse the left of “parroting” propaganda and then recite verbatim from Phyllis Schlafly’s most recent rant.
    Not much reason to converse with someone who sees nothing wrong with his own party and everything wrong with the other one.
    You can’t fix a blessed thing that’s broke until you can figure out how to cooperate with people who don’t share the exact same position you hold.
    And you’re not there yet.
    Not even close.

  27. 29

    Bill

    @George Wells:

    You proved that when you err, you dodge.

    I have neither erred or dodged. I stated the facts. Despite tax cuts and war spending, once the recessions were done (you know, there was a time when recessions did not last forever; we’ll call that period “BBO: Before Barack Obama”), deficits began to steadily decrease until the 2007 recession and then TARP. Sorry, George; FACT.

    Much more fun to turn everything into a blame exchange.

    I guess here would be a good place to note that what I am doing is EXPLAINING why YOUR blame is WRONG. With FACTS.

    Accuse the left of “parroting” propaganda and then recite verbatim from Phyllis Schlafly’s most recent rant.

    And just who and what would that be?

    You can’t fix a blessed thing that’s broke until you can figure out how to cooperate with people who don’t share the exact same position you hold.

    You can’t fix anything as long as you lie about your responsibilities and the actual cause of the problem… which you and yours have been making a career of. Bush’s tax cuts ignited business growth and INCREASED tax revenues… FACT. Despite way too much spending (on wars as well as domestic frivolities), the deficits began to SHRINK due solely to greater business activity; RAISING taxes retards business activity and harms the economy… REDUCING tax revenues, not increasing them.

    So, go finish your pouting about getting slapped around with facts and truth, then, if you have the balls, come back and hear the truth some more. You’ll be a much better person for it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *