Iowa Billboard Puts Obama Side-By-Side With Lenin and Hitler.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

The billboard is honest... Though you'd need to put a few other Presidents up there as well from both parties....

-----------

http://cbs11tv.com/politics/billboard.obama.hitler.2.1804603.html

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) ― An Iowa tea party group on Wednesday replaced a billboard comparing President Barack Obama to Adolf Hitler and Vladimir Lenin, calling the sign a bad decision that reflected poorly on the organization.

Workers papered over the sign in downtown Mason City at the request of the North Iowa Tea Party.

"We got it covered up first thing this morning," said Kent Beatty, the general manager of the company that owns the billboard.

The roughly 200-member tea party group had the original sign put up last week. It showed photographs of Obama, Nazi leader Hitler and communist leader Lenin beneath the labels "Democrat Socialism," "National Socialism," and "Marxist Socialism."

After the billboard drew sharp criticism by other state and national tea party leaders, members of the local group sought the change.

North Iowa Tea Party co-founder Bob Johnson said he and other leaders agreed with critics that the image of Obama between Hitler and Lenin was offensive. He said the images overwhelmed the intended message of anti-socialism.

"They are absolutely right in their criticism because the image of Hitler just totally wiped everything else and it misrepresents the tea party movement," Johnson said. "They were right from the standpoint that the image was not a positive reflection on the tea people."

Johnson said Hitler images are usually not allowed at North Iowa Tea Party gatherings.

Removal of the sign was welcomed by the American Gathering of Holocaust Survivors and their Descendants, a New York-based group.

The North Iowa Tea Party "acted properly in removing the grotesquely offensive sign which should never have been put up in the first place. Had they not acted to remove it they would have severely damaged the credibility of legitimate political causes they espouse," the group said in a statement. "We ask that political groups do not trivialize our suffering in the future by making false analogies with Hitler's horrendous crimes."

For now, the sign has been plastered over with one urging people to notify officials before digging.

But Johnson said the North Iowa Tea Party plans to put up a new sign soon.

That sign will feature a quote that some attribute to Thomas Jefferson that reads, "My reading of history convinces me that most bad government results from too much government." Others argue Jefferson never wrote the statement.

Listed below, in smaller print, will read, "The North Iowa Tea Party stands for individual responsibility, freedom, liberty, less spending, smaller government."

"It's going to be little more bland," Johnson said. 'We paid for a month, so we don't want to waste the money."

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

The funny thing is that the entire US political spectrum is confined to the upper right quadrant of the political compass. (IE authoritarian conservative)

[IndigoSkies 168]

Shouldn’t it be democratic socialism rather than democrat socialism? The other two has adjective + noun above the pictures. Why does Mr. Obama get noun + noun? Is there a conspiracy here that I'm not seeing or can I safely attribute this to illiteracy of those who hate democracy and the fact that there really is a black man in the white house, running this country? One would think two years were long enough to absorb this fact and to get on with their life.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Shouldn’t it be democratic socialism rather than democrat socialism? The other two has adjective + noun above the pictures. Why does Mr. Obama get noun + noun? Is there a conspiracy here that I'm not seeing or can I safely attribute this to illiteracy of those who hate democracy and the fact that there really is a black man in the white house, running this country? One would think two years were long enough to absorb this fact and to get on with their life.

you could say the same thing the 8 years Bush was President and how the liberal fumed over and over and over every time a word was spoken. It was BOOOOOOOOOOOSH! for 8 years...

[IndigoSkies 168]

So the end sum is that no matter who is in the office, there will be haters who make hyperbolic allegation. Mr. Bush was equated to Hitler, Mr. Obama to Stalin, and Pope Benedict to Darth Vader. If you and I realise this is the case, then we ought not pay attention to these absurd allegations. Rather we should find out about the actual policies of a president and provide constructive criticism and hold them responsible. Right?

To be sure, America is a free market economy. But it has many socialist tendencies. All countries of the world, no matter what they say, have various social programs which makes them socialist. It would be very wrong and morally outrageous if America didn't provide welfare to its citizen when they are going hungry and cold. But at the same time, America cannot keep providing this to everyone indefinitely. That's the government needs to ensure that people can stand on their feet. Help those who are on their way, etc. If a few things are completely provide for by the government, it will be best for everyone. It would mean one less things to contend with in life. A mixture of everything makes for a dynamic and functional government and enriches its citizenry.

Edited July 14, 2010 by IndigoSkies

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

In most respects Bush and Obama can be lumped together as opposites to Hitler and Stalin. They don't wield unchecked power, and they haven't created much change.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

So the end sum is that no matter who is in the office, there will be haters who make hyperbolic allegation. Mr. Bush was equated to Hitler, Mr. Obama to Stalin, and Pope Benedict to Darth Vader. If you and I realise this is the case, then we ought not pay attention to these absurd allegations. Rather we should find out about the actual policies of a president and provide constructive criticism and hold them responsible. Right?

To be sure, America is a free market economy. But it has many socialist tendencies. All countries of the world, no matter what they say, have various social programs which makes them socialist. It would be very wrong and morally outrageous if America didn't provide welfare to its citizen when they are going hungry and cold. But at the same time, America cannot keep providing this to everyone indefinitely. That's the government needs to ensure that people can stand on their feet. Help those who are on their way, etc. If a few things are completely provide for by the government, it will be best for everyone. It would mean one less things to contend with in life. A mixture of everything makes for a dynamic and functional government and enriches its citizenry.

When social programs (i/e medicare and social security) discourage personal responsibility, that's when it becomes dangerous. Social programs should never be made to live off of, they should only be there to help. As you said indefinite should not be an option. Eventually people need to be 'cut off' and thrown out into the world. The government should also be a last resort or this sort of thing as well. People used to rely on their community or their family for help. Charities while numerous today still, aren't the way they were back before the social programs were enacted.

One of the things I used to like about Welfare here in Texas (not sure if it's still the same today) is that DHS used to work with people who were capable to fine jobs, get interviews, place them, etc. where they wouldn't be on the system for too long. I think that was a great benefit. It was ilke: "sure, we'll help you out, but you're going to help yourself as well and get off this as quick as possible." - That was smart and worked.

As far as leadership goes, the problem with Obama and Bush, both of them especially have had more corporate interests controlling them than almost anyone in history... Obama ran on the fact that his office would not be full of insiders, special interests, etc. Right away he broke that campaign promise by filling his cabinet and administration with nothing but...

Both of these Presidents and their willingness for corporate welfare. That's the worst kind there is. Companies are meant to fail. There is no such thing as 'too big to fail' as something will always come along and pick up the pieces.

The path we have been continuing on isn't so much a worry about socialism, it's a worry about control of our finances due to a rogue government that can't keep its spending under control. It's real easy when the government can borrow from the Fed any day of the week and the money that we pay as taxes only goes to repaying the interest on the loans. We have been in debt to the Federal Reserve since World War II.... 70 damn years and counting.

I mean just look as social security, it was supposed to be a secure retirement fund, but all of that money got tossed into the general fund. There is $0 for SS, it's all borrowed money these days.

Inflation is through the roof. Look at the value of the US Dollar 90 years ago versus today, it's pathetic. Truly pathetic. A loaf of bread today would cost $20 with today's money back then. How sad is that?

I don't blame any one president. Though I do blame a former certain mayor from New York for part of the problem with legislation/spending for the past 12 years... If he hadn't sued Bill Clinton over the line item veto, then the budget could have been trimmed/kept down even more.. Of course, the SCOTUS made their ruling on that. Possibly rightfully so, but I'm a fan of the idea that if an item in a bill can't pass on its own meritt, then perhaps it shouldn't be put forth at all.

Oh I could keep going, but it really is endless lol...

[IndigoSkies 168]

Social security and Medicare are paid for by the people. Check out your salary statement. A portion of your earning is withheld for social security and Medicare. America would be a sad country if after being incapacitated by old age; people didn't have social security and Medicare to turn to for food and health.

You're b.tching about unemployment benefits which comes with the condition that participants actively seek jobs. Yesterday I was going home while listening to All Things Considered. One of the interviewee who’s getting unemployment benefits said he only get 300USD which isn’t a lot of money. He has to apply for jobs every week and has to meet up with his counselor-type person at least once a month to continue receiving this benefit. I am not sure how unemployment benefits are funded. I recall being told that employers fund this on an ongoing basis or their employees. And government funds a chunk of it. This doesn’t seem wrong to me at all.

American executives and lawmakers are very much influenced by lobby groups which represent various social and corporate interests. Perhaps it’s time the lobbying should be banned. I hate talking with you even on though on many occasion you say agreeable things. You use hyperboles too much. You called the government rogue when it was elected by the citizen. For the most part the election was credible although there were no EU, UN, or foreign observers.

A loaf of bread costs 20USD (!) now because of decades of inflation which is natural aspect of economy. When adjusted for inflation, things are still pretty cheap and are getting cheaper. Think back in the days baking bread required more work and more resources than it does today. So it costs cheaper.

I’m drawing a blank here. Who was the certain mayor of NYC that created the past 12 years of spending? And why are you blaming Mr. Clinton? Mr. Clinton was an amazing president during whose term everything was going great. I wouldn’t be opposed to the idea of him running again and being elected.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Social security and Medicare are paid for by the people. Check out your salary statement. A portion of your earning is withheld for social security and Medicare. America would be a sad country if after being incapacitated by old age; people didn't have social security and Medicare to turn to for food and health.

This has become 'acceptable' today. People 60 years ago actually have retirement money or they lived with their family when they got older.... It's a concept we seem to have forgotten

You're b.tching about unemployment benefits which comes with the condition that participants actively seek jobs. Yesterday I was going home while listening to All Things Considered. One of the interviewee who’s getting unemployment benefits said he only get 300USD which isn’t a lot of money. He has to apply for jobs every week and has to meet up with his counselor-type person at least once a month to continue receiving this benefit. I am not sure how unemployment benefits are funded. I recall being told that employers fund this on an ongoing basis or their employees. And government funds a chunk of it. This doesn’t seem wrong to me at all.

Employers pay a tax for this yes. This tax has been going up actually in many areas because of so many people on the system. It puts a burden especially on small business. The governmetn subsidizes some of it, but a lot of it comes from that tax.... It's why ultimately your former employer is part of the deciding factor on whether or not you get benefits. You can actually be denied if you did something stupid to get fired...

American executives and lawmakers are very much influenced by lobby groups which represent various social and corporate interests. Perhaps it’s time the lobbying should be banned. I hate talking with you even on though on many occasion you say agreeable things. You use hyperboles too much. You called the government rogue when it was elected by the citizen. For the most part the election was credible although there were no EU, UN, or foreign observers.

Not really. He who has the biggest advertising check wins the election, or he who is chosen by the party is the candidate. The media (which is wholly owned by corporate interests today) puts forward the candidate they want in office more. - If you really think you have a choice in who the President is, then look deeper and harder at the election cycle. We may 'vote' but outside of local elections, we hardly have a say in the matter...

A loaf of bread costs 20USD (!) now because of decades of inflation which is natural aspect of economy. When adjusted for inflation, things are still pretty cheap and are getting cheaper. Think back in the days baking bread required more work and more resources than it does today. So it costs cheaper.

No no no, see that's the misconception that people are spoonfed. Inflation is not natural at all. Inflation occurs when your currency is devalued. The devaluation of the US Dollar is hardly natural when you look at the course of the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 and what's taken place since. Fluxuation is possible in currency value yes, but not to the extreme that has taken place over the course of the last century. It's almost pathetic. It's because we let the market decide the value of a piece of paper and continue to decrease its value by printing more of it. Of course the US Dollar is nothing more than worthless paper these days that has ZERO true value because it's not backed by any type of commodity of assett. The banks win of course in a situation like this and we the people lose...

I’m drawing a blank here. Who was the certain mayor of NYC that created the past 12 years of spending? And why are you blaming Mr. Clinton? Mr. Clinton was an amazing president during whose term everything was going great. I wouldn’t be opposed to the idea of him running again and being elected.

Rudy Giuliani sued Bill Clinton over the line item veto, because he wanted to Veto an item that was to be funded in bill for a piece of PORK for NYC... The SCOTUS ruled in favor of Giuliani and the line item veto was done for.... Clinton used the line item veto ALOT and it's how he was able to trim the budget as well.. Bush didn't have this ability, nor does Obama. They either had to pass a bill or veto a bill in its entirety.. It's why so much PORK spending made it through under Bush and now Obama as well... Sucks really.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

All those that love free speech........ please keep it to yourself.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

All those that love free speech........ please keep it to yourself.

It was their decision. As far as I can tell their rights were not trampled.

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

I didn't say they were trampled.

[IndigoSkies 168]

Actually Paul, more and more people are living alone after retiring. They aren't moving back in with their offspring. The family-value side of me says they should move in with their family or that they should've never seperated to begin with. The trend and the facts are that most people, when retired, live alone. With the help of technology and with the age of individualism taking over, this will only become more prevalent. Most of us are shocked, shocked to find joint families. An indication of this is the advertisement for LifeAlert. The old lady says "I can live alone without living alone."

There has been ground breaking studies that show it's not really monies that elect a person. Though it helps and it makes it seem the one with the more money wins. It's not the case. The one with the most appeal and the one who's most likeable wins the election. Elections of a president are, sadly, not very different than picking your prom queen. I recommand you read the book Freaknomics which explains this phenomenon. Also read, 13 Things That Don't Make Sense: The Most Baffling Scientific Mysteries of Our Time. McCain being a Republican had more money or access to more money. But he didn't win because he wasn't a likeable person and majority of the people didn't agree with him.

I'm not sure about your Rudi angle. But it seems like Mr. Clinton is shown in a good light. That is a good thing. Clinton is amazing. He needs a nobel peace prize.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

I didn't say they were trampled.

I guess I don't get the point of your earlier post then.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Actually Paul, more and more people are living alone after retiring. They aren't moving back in with their offspring. The family-value side of me says they should move in with their family or that they should've never seperated to begin with. The trend and the facts are that most people, when retired, live alone. With the help of technology and with the age of individualism taking over, this will only become more prevalent. Most of us are shocked, shocked to find joint families. An indication of this is the advertisement for LifeAlert. The old lady says "I can live alone without living alone."

I think it's kind of sad really. I mean there used to be an expectation that you would take care of your parents when they got older, or you'd throw them in a home... The idea though that we need SS and medicare these days because people want to live alone is a bit silly when you really look at it.

I'm not sure about your Rudi angle. But it seems like Mr. Clinton is shown in a good light. That is a good thing. Clinton is amazing. He needs a nobel peace prize.

I wouldn't go that far... Clinton is charismatic, but a douche at the same time. He was a creature who was controlled like Bush and Obama were/are, but he still did things his own way when it came down to the budget.

I really miss the line item Veto and it's the one thing I will say he used right.

I honestly wonder how the budget might have been different, if Bush had the same tool, or Obama for that matter...