Posted in 
Tags: 
These paintings by Dan Lacey, also known as The Painter of Pancakes, shows his portrayal of the president of the United States in a series of unique paintings. Lacey’s artworks can also be ordered as posters at Dan Lacey’s blog.
Some of the weirdest paintings you will ever see in your lifetime:
————————————————————————————————————
Are right-wing email forwards bombarding your inbox?
Reply with funny political pictures in your Christmas cards this year!
————————————————————————————————————
“bitch ain't pretty”
Eh, lose the glasses and braces and I'd hit it.
Don't read to much into it; just sit back, look at the pictures and ask yourself what the hell this artist was smoking at the time, and where perhaps you could obtain some.
It is rather weird. Though one unicorns are among other things a symbol of hope. Kinda apt really.
[...] no purpose. 2010-01-17 04:21:12 · Reply · View carachameleon: @MeowMeowHotMix http://wildammo.com/2009/07/27/unusual-paintings-of-obama-naked-with-unicorns/ 2010-01-17 04:21:03 · Reply · View soulhuntre: Coakley – fought to keep an [...]
brilliant. uni is coming onto obama. especially in picture 2
[...] und noch andere tolle Bilder gibt es hier! [...]
It's sad to think that this artist thinks Obama is so fantastical. His beliefs are based on his life's experiences, which were supportive, intellectual and racially confusing. His younger adult years existed to identify with his two gene pools that if mixed together many lifetimes of negative, horrible racism. The fact that his life's journey allowed him to be SO successful despite and because of his internal struggle is empowering. hence his hope slogan. ehem. Anyone who diminishes any one else's opinions, beliefs, faiths, culture, or person's identity is an immature, hopefully ignorant(otherwise just a dumbass), narrow-minded, and un-empathetic. I do hope that with new concepts we can start bringing back some family togetherness (please do not mix “family togetherness” with the “family values” term as it has connotations that I do not agree with) and rebuild America with our families, our children to be leaders to be worthy of following. It takes a nation to raise a child.
add it's racist!
Really like these. Nice reference of the unicorn meaning truth and the purity of truth, and the ideal man represented by the nude in Obama, who is speaking it (it says a lot about what good things you find in his character, and how he might be tapping into a long and shared history of classical mankind and it's struggles). Also, really appreciate the references to classical artworks, for instance David's “Napolean Crossing the Alps (the post shaped like an obelisk).” Really nice stuff visualized in a very personal narrative and expressionist manner, with a clear sense of ease and comfort with the expression of emotion, idea, and concept. Carry on – maybe the world will use what you are saying about Obama and our country at the moment as an illustrated example of what is going on someday, just like we look at David now. Onward and Upward!!! Don't stop painting!!!
that was gay….
Yeah and Rush Limbaugh is nude too which means that he too is the ideal man!!! I never would have guessed…WOW! A MAZE ING!!!
Not to mention SPEECHES, BEAUTIFUL, and HILARIOUS. I'm SO hanging on every word uttered by one who can't figure out how to spell check….
hey , i got led to this site by mmystery google . definently the best 15 minutes ever spent .
i mean , who doesnt love unicorns , and Obama naked , all in one picture ? haha , its great .
why is house in one of the paintings..?
[...] Naked with Unicorns http://bit.ly/12orFp I need at least one of [...]
America's New HomePage!
Take A Look – http://www.200linx.com/
[...] februarie 4, 2010 in Fără categorie YES WE CAN !!!!! [...]
[...] http://wildammo.com/2009/07/27/unusual-paintings-of-obama-naked-with-unicorns/ [...]
[...] Th3 int3rn3tz R W3ird. (NSFW) http://wildammo.com/2009/07/27/unusu…with-unicorns/ __________________ …see what I did [...]
that was the most horrible excuse for art i have ever seen
[...] Unusual Paintings of Obama Naked w/Unicorns [B3ta] [...]
Obama and the unicorn are vaultdwellers
Oh my god the one with Stalin and House. I wan't that shit.
Where is the one of Obama ruining the country?? Socialist….
I thought unicorns could only be ridden by virgin ladies…
I thought unicorns could only be ridden by virgin ladies…
i don't think the american right really “gets” socialism. or the severe lack of sustainability inherent in laissez-faire capitalism.
think with your head.
The American Right “gets” statism and socialist programs. Don't ever think that idiots who promote it or try to denigrate capitalism by referring to it as “laissez-faire” or “unbridled” know what they're talking about. They either don't know or they're lying.
Your hope that the Right is anywhere near as ignorant as you are about economics and politics is wishful thinking and it doesn't make you look all that sharp…
You sound desperate! Sad.
These paintings are stupid beyond words.
Lady Liberty.
These paintings are stupid beyond words.
Lady Liberty.
ditto
did it hurt very much when you had your lobotomy?
did it hurt very much when you had your lobotomy?
[...] Unusual Paintings of Obama Naked w/Unicorns [...]
Assuming that anybody doesn't understand something based on what could scarcely be considered a paragraph isn't a good idea. Whether you like it or not, capitalism is a laissez-faire system, which I am not using to mudsling. It's simply a fact that any high school student taking economics could tell you. Invisible hand runs the show with little government interference. I think smrt brings up a good point about its sustainability. Although creative destruction is pretty awesome in terms of weeding out faulty businesses, it is also that: destruction. On the other hand, from a pure economic standpoint, you can't deny the fact that socialism eliminates the incentive for workers/entrepreneurs to innovate, to invent. Incentives run the economy. So either way, both systems are flawed. Don't assail your opponents argument ad hominem by assuming they are just an idiot who doesn't know what they are talking about. Figure out what about your preferred system makes it better than the argument, and THEN try to explain why they are using faulty logic.
The fact that you even put Socialism and Capitalism on the same level doesn't say much for your knowledge of the subject. “Both systems are flawed”?? Good lord. What exactly are the flaws you've found in Capitalism, anyway? I don't mean flawed versions of it, but the system itself.
To say that Socialism is “flawed” is certainly correct, but it doesn't quite capture the essence of just how bad the system is when attempted by human beings. We don't need to even get to the “lack of innovation” part. We can start with the fact that it's impossible to budget accurately with Socialism. Then we can bring up the fact that there's no efficient way to set prices and wages under Socialism. If you've got any bright ideas along those lines you're welcome to toss them out… You'll have to be able to defeat people like Ludwig von Mises in that argument, though, and so far nobody's been able to accomplish that.
Desperate to do what? Your comment doesn't make a lot of sense.
I clearly DIDNT put them on the same level, before you start thinking that your distorted interpretation of my argument leads you to believe that what I said is somehow invalidated. I juxtaposed them and showed that both have flaws in order to prove my point: moderation is the key. Neither system is without its flaws and you need a balance. Yes, capitalism is flawed. Socialism, in concept, is next to perfect. But it's no secret that in practice it has its fallacies. One of the major flaws of capitalism is that not everybody can be successful in capitalism. It defies its definition. No matter how exceptionally somebody can perform, others can outperform them. Well, that's good isn't it? By being put under pressure of competition, products improve and prices become competitive. However, unchecked capitalism (the CONCEPT you referred to, not a flawed version, which was never my argument anyway) leads to gross welfare loss. When the incomes of the people become so disparate that an overwhelming majority of people are in poverty, then you have an issue. For example, look at 18th century France. Besides monarchical debt, that particular societies major flaw was its unbalanced capitalism. And in case you weren't aware, the whole idea behind the French Revolution was the idea that the people were starving because they didn't have fair entrepreneurial opportunities. And if you prefer an example closer to home, check out America prior to anti-monopoly legislation. Not only did the people lose welfare, but the excess money in the hands of a few leaked into the government and led to corruption. Another flaw in capitalism is that once it gets going, you suffer from an economy of scale. Large corporations can run out smaller proprietorship by lowering their prices in an isolated area for a brief period of time. This isn't innovation winning. It's cut-throat greed that ruins the small-town economies and ULTIMATELY results in less GDP for the economy, pretty much defeating the point of capitalism. You are a fool to think that a pure economic system in any form isn't flawed. And the kicker is, I'm actually quite in favor of capitalism. But I'm willing to acknowledge its flaws, especially for the sake of an argument with somebody who clearly understands very little about practical economics.
My friend, you've managed to Google just enough to make yourself look silly. I can imagine what kind of instructors you've had… May I make a recommendation for you: start questioning the crap you've been fed and do some research. Your comments about both Capitalism and Socialism are straight out of the Leftist talking points folder, and don't stand up for one second against scrutiny. You know just enough to make a fool of yourself. If I were you, I'd demand my money back for that Eco 101 course…
But I'll certainly pick one and comment on it, so you can see I'm not just bouncing back meaningless rhetoric. Let's take an urban legend of a Leftist point, one which they still regularly use: that there's something wrong AT ALL with “income disparities” and their growth. You commented that “When the incomes of the people become so disparate that an overwhelming majority of people are in poverty, then you have an issue.” I suppose you hoped that everyone would assume as axiomatic that “income disparity” always includes poverty. Please don't tell me that you yourself have been laboring under that myth as well…
Income disparity SHOULD increase in a healthy economic system. If it doesn't increase, that means that a top limit has been reached, and whatever the reason for that, it will ruin an economy. The bottom limit doesn't change significantly, you'll remember, because it STAYS near zero. Can't go beyond it, and you can't force people to earn more money if they don't want to earn more money. I have no idea how in the world you logically connect income disparity with poverty. There's no logical connection. And there's not much income disparity in places like Cuba and North Korea, if I'm not mistaken. There are a handful of chosen ones who take what they want, and everyone else makes pretty much the same income. Pick another point and we'll discuss that, if you like.
As far as Cuba and North Korea go, the nations are ravaged by war and dictatorships. It's impossible for an economy to grow in such conditions as that, so your example is meaningless. A healthy economy cannot possibly grow and prosper when it is in constant warfare, and market economics have no chance to grow and prosper. Just because they have the same average income, that doesn't mean they have a good economy. Compare their average income with that of America or England, they would be well below the poverty level. The massive differences in the upper and lower incomes, no matter the number of people with said income, is ridiculous.
So would you say that having a large majority of people living in poverty is acceptable? Whether almanac said is what the terminology actually is, it's obvious what he intended. When small amounts of people control massive amounts of the money, then something is wrong. Economic systems were implemented to unsure a better standard of living and easier way of doing business for everyone, not just a chosen few. With both socialism and capitalism you have that problem. The term “socialism,” has become so taboo in western philosophy. It's absolutely appalling. We shouldn't be afraid to talk about anything, especially something that seems like such a panacea, but there are flaws in the system brought in by humans, and the corruption of mankind, just like in capitalism. Everything sounds wonderful in theory, but it's man that screws it up, so without rules and regulations, then nothing will work. Less than a thousand men throughout the world would be able to control 90+% of the money by colluding and dumping their products in global markets, creating world-wide monopolies, and what would the rest of man do? We would be stuck working in factories without the chance of forming a new industry, because we would be choked out the second it started. THERE lies the flaw in capitalism, which must be realized.
I need two of them… one to sh*t on and one to cover it up.
the last one is clearly gary della'bate
the last one is clearly gary della'bate
what the US has can hardly be called a free market. Government interference causes most of the problems the government wants to “solve”
[...] three are probably my favorites, but you can view more here and decide for yourself which ones are best. You know you want to click through to see more [...]
let me see his balls
who ever did this is a DUMB N *****
this is by far the stupiedest thing i have ever seen in my life obama don't give a fuck about you i don't care what race or religon you are he is still a lier
[...] can see more at wildammo. 0 people like this post. [...]