President Obama as the Joker

[Daskinor]

Well back to the original topic at hand.

I do not think its a Republican dirty tactic. But the work of 4chan, and done for their normal reason. "For the lols"

I don't have any direct proof. Its just a huge hunch based on a few observations. Basically to be funny people would throw the joker face on anyone to see how it would look and post the pictures up. I am fairly sure that is where the original image came up.

Also from snippets of conversations taken from 4chan and saved to other internet sites. One person took the image and edited it to its current form and printed it up. Posted it in a public location, took a picture and then uploaded to 4chan. This of course inspired others to do it as well. So basically the whole thing went viral, even more so after they got a response.

So in the end the whole thing was done for a few laughs by the final boss of the internet.

[BroomJockey]

But the work of 4chan, and done for their normal reason. "For the lols"

That's "lulz." Not "lols." Lurk moar.

[lordlundar]

I do not think its a Republican dirty tactic. But the work of 4chan, and done for their normal reason. "For the lols"

Lately it's been tough trying to figure out the difference.

[PepperElf]

i'm also curious about something....

ever since someone did the "how dare you" and "show yourself" (etc) statements on the original picture... more and more of them keep cropping up.

i'm thinking that the sudden explosion of the various versions is a direct result of the demands to stop.

kinda like, "you have no right to tell us to stop! here, have MORE pictures then!" etc


and that if they had just shrugged it off instead of the (in my opinion) thin-skinned reaction, it would have just gotten a giggle or two and then would have somewhat died.

but now you can buy it on a tshirt

[Tanasi]

Well, Izzard said it best, "They killed their own people, and we're sort of fine with that. Hitler killed people next door. Stupid man. After a few years, we're not going to stand for that kind of thing, are we?"

That's a paraphrasing from memory, of course. What kills me is that we were Allies with Stalin, at the very same time he was sending political enemies and formalist artists to Siberia for disagreeing with him. That is, of course, if he didn't just outright torture and kill them. No wonder Mayakovsky committed suicide.

Stalin, like Mao, Tito, Chairman Ho and some others were allies of convience. The enemy of my enemy is my friend. The bad part of that is that you have to take such allies stink and all. You don't critize such allies because they just might make a seperate peace and then you have your enemy all to yourself.
BTW a communist is just a socialist in a hurry.
Hitler nationialized all industry that contributed to war. He left small businesses alone because for the most part they didn't. You take over the auto factory to make tanks but you leave the baker alone.

[Boozy]

BTW a communist is just a socialist in a hurry.

That's quite glib, but not very accurate. Socialism refers to an economic system, whereas communism refers to an economic and political system.

It's an important distinction, since many countries have at times adopted centrally-planned economic policies without resorting to communist political ideology. One of the best examples is France.

[Fashion Lad!]

I have no problem with people depicting Obama as the Joker. Bush was apparently Satan and or a monkey. It's freedom of speech.

Socialism- a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

The stage in Marxist-Leninist theory intermediate between capitalism and communism, in which collective ownership of the economy under the dictatorship of the proletariat has not yet been successfully achieved.

Obama is not going after a certain group of people to blame for everything bad in the world. So comparing him to Hitler in that regard is wrong. Hitler was a Socialist. Mein Kampf outlines the National Socialist Programme. (I have a copy of Mein Kampf if you'd like to borrow it.)

One of the main reasons for the creation of the autobahn was because when Hitler took office, unemployment was very high. With the use of stimulus plans (they weren't called that back then) Hitler was able to achieve full employment. Now, Obama's $787billion stimulus plan focuses a lot on the infrastructure of our nation. Roads, highways and bridges. (I won't argue that we did or did not need it. But that was one of his plans to get people working, just like it was one of Hitler's plans to get people working.)

Look at programs like Cash for Clunkers and don't tell me that's taking money from one group of people to give to another. How many people would have been able to afford a new car if they hadn't had the $4500 trade-in? Well, I can tell you we wouldn't have seen a magnificent jump in auto sales without the program. Where does that $4500 come from? Well, the government can't (or it shouldn't) be creating money out of thin air, so we're taxed. How many people got all their tax money back and went out and bought a car? How is that not re-distribution of wealth? (I will not argue why we need or don't need C4C, I'm just pointing out that people had no issue taking money from the government that took money from the people.)

I want Obama to succeed as president, because that means we succeed as a country. But there are some of his policies that I just do not like. So, liking him to the Joker doesn't bother me. When there is a clear resembles of some of the stuff he wants to put in place that was similar to Hitler, why is it wrong to compare his policies to Hitler's? I know he's not going to try and exterminate an entire race, but he's going to try and stimulate the economy in the same way.

[joe hx]

I couldn't find the source, but apparently the guy who did this didn't vote in the election and could care less about politics. Apparently also "socialism" wasn't on the original poster.

But again, I can't find the source...

[lordlundar]

When there is a clear resembles of some of the stuff he wants to put in place that was similar to Hitler, why is it wrong to compare his policies to Hitler's? I know he's not going to try and exterminate an entire race, but he's going to try and stimulate the economy in the same way.

Because a lot of Americans run in "all or nothing" mode, so comparing Obama to Hitler for these people means you are saying that Obama is going to be a vicious, crazed monster. Bear in mind, these are the same people who say "are you a democrat or a republican?" and then run with the assumption that you are the extreme of the point of view you choose because they can't comprehend there is a middle ground.

[guywithashovel]

Look at programs like Cash for Clunkers and don't tell me that's taking money from one group of people to give to another. How many people would have been able to afford a new car if they hadn't had the $4500 trade-in? Well, I can tell you we wouldn't have seen a magnificent jump in auto sales without the program. Where does that $4500 come from? Well, the government can't (or it shouldn't) be creating money out of thin air, so we're taxed. How many people got all their tax money back and went out and bought a car? How is that not re-distribution of wealth? (I will not argue why we need or don't need C4C, I'm just pointing out that people had no issue taking money from the government that took money from the people.)

I am starting a new thread about the sentiment in this post.