Donkeys and Elephants and Delegates,oh my!
Check out the most popular
'Scare tactic' — Obama slams Muslim portrayal
politico.com — The Obama campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife. An American flag burns in their fireplace. The New Yorker says it's satire. It certainly will be candy for cable news.
SirPopper- 1526 diggs
- digg it
- LauraBlu, on 07/14/2008, -64/+26thats' crazy ... they have The New Yorker at my gym ... can't wait to see this. Lol.
- RedReplicant, on 07/14/2008, -4/+8Are you heading over there in 26 minutes?
- StuTheMeatMan, on 07/14/2008, -3/+16That's great! How much do you bench?
- QuadZeroRoute, on 07/14/2008, -10/+4I can do 15 reps with 120lb dumbells.
- dirtycontractor, on 07/14/2008, -5/+3Lets see a cartoon caricature cover on the next New Yorker depicting Mr McCain in some anti-American position...lol...but they would have to dig a bit deeper to find something wouldnt they? hmmm...I think if Mr Obama was a bit more patriotic as in standing at attention and saluting during the national anthem instead of making remarks about the poor content of the nations heart felt and patriotic song, maybe he wouldnt be such an easy target for the New Yorker. Anyway, if they did a cover for McCain, I doubt it would generate much controversy because in America it seems to have become an accepted norm to allow demeaning illustrations or demeaning racist remarks about White Americans without any backlash, however, whenever something remotely conceived as racial or even satirical as in this case, is generated about a black american, all the liberal media critics, and population, seems to be conditioned to jump up, pay attention and beat the dead horse to a pulp, as to say lets make this so painful so it never occurs again. I say as Americans its way past time to stop being overly sensitive to criticism aimed at black americans, or lets show the same level of sensitivity to all races in the USA. Anyway, the point here is that I believe Obama, by his disrespectful behavior and comments towards our nation's national anthem, in part, contributed to allowing the New Yorker cover to be a success. They would be hard pressed to find something equally compromising for Mr McCain, but this is the challenge :-)
- TopherT, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1That was almost unintelligible.
- hmd1987, on 07/14/2008, -12/+115boss: Hey, how can we sell more copies of 'The New Yorker'?
employee: Let's make a controversial cover including everything "controversial" about Obama
boss: That's a great idea!
(national media has a field day with the cover of The New Yorker,
hence lots of idiots buy it to see if there's any more "funny pictures" and
to read what the author has to say)
The New Yorker Wins, next week it's on to the next controversy.
What do you think I THINK will happen next week? Okay, I'll try...
My Prediction: Sharpton says he wants to cut Cosby's nuts off- schuder, on 07/14/2008, -6/+25The artist in this did it to satirize the image of Obama that is sometimes portrayed. While it may have been in poor taste it was not intentioned to be so. If you look at some of his other work, they have a certain GOP playing footsies with a guy in a bathroom stall.
- morcheeba, on 07/14/2008, -6/+26There's a big difference between those two portrayals: Larry Craig's was based on a factual arrest & guilty plea; the obama one is based on non-factual smear tactics used by his opposition.
- twiztidsinz, on 07/14/2008, -6/+5Please.. Share with us how this could possibly NOT be in poor taste, intent or otherwise?
- Wargalas, on 07/14/2008, -21/+11Take a look at Obama's statement right after the 9/11 attacks:
The essence of this tragedy, it seems to me, derives from a fundamental absence of empathy on the part of the attackers: an inability to imagine, or connect with, the humanity and suffering of others […which usually…] grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness and despair. […]
We will have to be unwavering in opposing bigotry or discrimination directed against neighbors and friends of Middle Eastern descent. Finally, we will have to devote far more attention to the monumental task of raising the hopes and prospects of embittered children across the globe — children not just in the Middle East, but also in Africa, Asia, Latin America, Eastern Europe and within our own shores.
Sounds like an awful lot of Obama trying to make excuses for those attacks.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2008/07/21/0807 ... - OralCavity, on 07/14/2008, -5/+20really? did you read the quote that you posted? it sounds like trying to understand your enemy so that you can dismantle the system that creates the mindset that terrorism is justified. Or maybe i'm wrong. Perhaps the depth of our conversation around 9/11 should have been limited to: "They hate our freedom".
- Wargalas, on 07/14/2008, -14/+8"grows out of a climate of poverty and ignorance, helplessness, and dispair".
Osama came from an extremely wealthy family. Mohammed Atta was a highly educated architect. I think you're simply wrong as well as Obama was.
That's not the kind of guy I want in the White House when 3,000 citizens have been murdered. I want blood vengeance, THEN I want "understanding". - Wargalas, on 07/14/2008, -11/+5See why I'm being dugg down? Digg users don't like the truth. They like the sugar coated, Bush hating *****.
And that's why people make fun of liberals. - queenstarsha, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1the guy in the stall cover was a religious right-winger, but it wasn't larry craig. it was mahmoud ahmadinejad.
- sassip, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1@Wargalas, so... another of the 20%'ers, why'd you pick now to come out from under your rock?
- Wargalas, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1Don't like the truth? Tough *****. Your Messiah isn't who he claims he is.
- OralCavity, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Wargalas,
Last I checked Osama wasn't suicide bombing anyone. he was inspiring (and bribing) other (desperate) people (in desperate circumstances) to attack America. So yea.. the quote is accurrate and you are a simpleminded tool
- laserdog, on 07/14/2008, -7/+88Umm, nobody who reads the New Yorker thinks Obama is a Muslim.
I think the concern is that some Nascar Dad is going to walk past it on the news stand and say "I knew it!"?- GawtMilk, on 07/14/2008, -1/+12I support Obama. I also enjoy the New Yorker. I find it surprising that people aren't understanding satire -- I thought we were supposed to be on the educated side of the fence.
- mummbleswers, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4Yup, and McCain gets another week of "fun" with the press. Am I missing something? How the ***** is McCain the luckiest guy on the planet when it comes to covering his mistakes? I hope there are journalists reading digg - DO YOUR GODDAMN JOB!
- wertach, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3Why a Nascar Dad? Why not a ditzy Soccer Mom that doesn't know how to put gas in her car while she is talking on her cell?
- hmd1987, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1yes yes yes everyone knows that the New Yorker is being satirical; but
it's also being quite gimmicky...which is a real shame. it's not like time magazine
has to come up with a controversial cover...their content is what everyone cares about already.
- jbenson2, on 07/14/2008, -20/+11Prediction: President Obama breaks down in tears as he sees another cartoon of his administration.
Former President Bush says: "Get use to it, kid."- mummbleswers, on 07/14/2008, -2/+6Prediction: George Bush is surprised to find the printing press is actually still being used.
- TheNeoskeptic, on 07/14/2008, -8/+12it's obvious that this cover is satire, as are almost every single cover cartoons on The New Yorker. [yes i admit i am a latte-liberal elitist New Yorker subscriber].
the point is to say "how stupid is it that anyone would think any of this was true [about the Obamas]"
anyone who thinks otherwise is willfully ignoring the obvious. The Obama campaign "had" to denounce it in terms of getting out there ahead of the news cycle, but if the Media wasn't so full of lazy jackasses, they would have been able to respond differently.
it is just too easy for the MSM to sell "outraged".- sassip, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Hey Neo, Please don't forget SOMEONE elected Bush--twice - %#$&$%#^%$
- Terr01, on 07/14/2008, -1/+32And this is what happens when you leave off the /sarcasm tag in real life :D
- johnofsilence, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0Ha, unfortunately you may be right.
- norm7, on 07/14/2008, -3/+5All of the humor of the New Yorker revolves around perceiving everything ironically... this is a boost to Obama, if anything.
- mummbleswers, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I would agree if it didn't mean McCain gets another week or so of free pass time from the press.
- aussiejan, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2The problem is that too many Americans will not see this as satire. They will see it as a confirmation of their worst fears about Obama and his wife - he is a secret Muslim and she is an angry black woman. For this to have worked, everyone should have found it ridiculous. Let's take, for example, a picture of George W. in a diaper with a gun. It gets a message across but nobody really thinks that old George sits around in a diaper. But a lot of people think that Obama has one of those hats in his closet. And they think Michelle is like that - at least on the inside but covers it with pretty dresses.
- TopherT, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Well then ***** most Americans. I can enjoy satire without worrying if some idiot is taking it seriously, what the hell is wrong with the rest of you? There is no reason to abandon the message or 'distance' oneself from it, most people who ACTUALLY READ the New Yorker certainly got the joke. Obama may or may not be playing this right politically for most people, but for me it was entirely tone deaf. The cover was funny and was making a mockery of his detractors.
- sassip, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Topher, how quickly they forget... Who do you think elected Bush for the second time?
- kalii, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Perception is reality though. I think you a right within a certain context, very Idealistic, but Obama is in an arena where perception is driven by the media. These articles even though well intentioned don't do much in the terms of showing true reality.
The issue here is even if he was a Muslim it shouldn't matter, maybe that is the satire/angle that the New Yorker should have depicted.
- MxM111, on 07/14/2008, -5/+10Am I alone who actually find this funny? I mean all you need is to watch Fox News for 5 min to understand that this satire may actually be an understatement of how Fox News portraits Obama. :)
- stonr2, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2you don't watch Fox News, do you? They lean right, but are not as bad as every one thinks they are. The internet surely has succeeded in painting Fox News as the extremist right wing network, just like this New Yorker cover except the bloggers are dead serious.
- LeeSoong, on 07/14/2008, -2/+7Perhaps the whole nation of Islam will be offended by the comparison to Mr. Obama :
'' We do not support his liberal agenda !!! "- kalii, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1The "Nation of Islam" is a black nationalist organization and not the religion of Islam. I don't think the New Yorker was depicting him as a follower on Farrakhan but more of a "radical" Muslim from the Middle East.
- schuder, on 07/14/2008, -6/+25The artist in this did it to satirize the image of Obama that is sometimes portrayed. While it may have been in poor taste it was not intentioned to be so. If you look at some of his other work, they have a certain GOP playing footsies with a guy in a bathroom stall.
- pingpants, on 07/14/2008, -13/+95Thanks for posting the original link rather than the HuffPo write-around.
- piattorney, on 07/14/2008, -56/+43Seems like the most truthful cartoon so far. After all, he is a communist who supports one nation under allah. Let's just be honest
- CCSprinter11, on 07/14/2008, -6/+19I dugg you and I wasn't sure why. Then I realized that you just pulled off sarcasm without using any italics or asterisks.
- chrissku, on 07/14/2008, -12/+16Barack Obama is more of Christian than John McCain is smart guy.
- OralCavity, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1sadly, that's true :(
- pintomp3, on 07/14/2008, -8/+7this is why we can't have nice things. idiots like you can't tell the difference between satire and truth.
- chispito, on 07/14/2008, -3/+3I'm pretty sure it was meant as a satirical comment.
- BadseedJR, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3This reply made me laugh.. a lot. It is obviously you who can not detect the satire over truth.
- hierophantus, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Ah, but what if pintomp3, in turn, is being sarcastic? Isn't that comment just a little too ironic?
But then, maybe BadseedJR was being sarcastic about pintomp3...
SARCASM INFINITE REGRESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!
- Tssst, on 07/14/2008, -4/+6Dude, your sarcasm flew WAY over the heads of Diggers, I am really sorry to see you buried. Did my part to digg you up :)
- pintomp3, on 07/14/2008, -1/+5i thought it was sarcasm until i checked his history.
- QuadZeroRoute, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1pintomp3, part of the Marxists for Obama Digg gang.
- QuadZeroRoute, on 07/14/2008, -4/+1I agree. Its on my blog now and I will repost it weekly.
http://quadzeroroute.blogspot.com/ - kayala, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Poe's Law, anyone?
- SoyJames, on 07/14/2008, -14/+29As long as they're *ahem* "fair and balanced", who cares:
http://amrep.wordpress.com/2007/01/25/bush-as-nero ...- Stormwern, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3Nero was a pathological psychopath, Bush is stupid and egotistical, somehow I'm not laughing.. The difference between a satirist and a slanderer is the same as between an insult comic and an *****, one has comedic (or any) talent, the other does not.
- BlankVerse, on 07/14/2008, -27/+153They better have a very, very good 'satire' of John McCain next month.
How 'bout John McCain as Rambo storming a family planning clinic as he tries to overturn Roe vs. Wade?- linagee, on 07/14/2008, -8/+11Is that the worst you can come up with? It's kind of hard to draw how much of an apocalypse there will be if McCain wins.
- pweegar, on 07/14/2008, -8/+4if bama boy wins, this country hasn't seen the hell he'll put us thru. But you liberal morons would have to open your eyes and dig your heads out of your asses, er sand, first, to see that.
Bama is anything BUT American. - stoneking2312, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3both mccain and obama suck, search your heart, you know it to be true
- TheSenator624, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2@stoneking At last, a Digger I can agree with wholeheartedly. ;)
- linagee, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1@stoneking I agree. Let's have a preliminary do-over. All the candidates suck.
- pweegar, on 07/14/2008, -8/+4if bama boy wins, this country hasn't seen the hell he'll put us thru. But you liberal morons would have to open your eyes and dig your heads out of your asses, er sand, first, to see that.
- wedges, on 07/14/2008, -2/+11it's a weekly magazine. but, yes, i hope the next cover is mccain.
- winnestow, on 07/14/2008, -13/+7i do too, it will show a young mccain in the hanoi hilton suffering for our country contrasted by a young obama in muslim dress giving a political speech in africa
- bjornski, on 07/14/2008, -6/+10Nah, it'd probably have something to do with being in the bottom 1% of his graduating class in the Navy, one of his five plane crashes, the fact that he left his wife for an heiress, or his ties with the S&L scandals.
Or maybe it'll be a picture of a TV, with him giving up information on his ship and our positions. How he gladly stayed with his programmers because he knew he was safe as the son of an admiral, while others would have been killed. He's the Republicans own Jane Fonda as far as propaganda tapes go.
Or maybe it'l lbe something with him carrying a copy of Greenspan's book, since he himself has admitted he doesn't know much about the economy. But he knew just enough about money to help Charles Keating.
Maybe standing in front of 9 houses, one with a "repo" sign on it due to back-taxes not being paid. Considering he's getting half the tax rate of others in that neighborhood, it's quite funny they couldn't even keep that amount paid.
Or maybe it'll be a cover with Phil Gramm and Joe Lieberman standing over his shoulder, pointing out what to do. Or maybe it'll be John looking back at records of his past votes, so he can "remember" how he voted in the past when asked those inconvenient questions about insurance-paid birth control. (Doubly inconvenient since it's one of his own staff that brought up the touchy topic he refuses to talk about).
Or maybe a picture of him getting out of his place, and being helped into a Hover-Round and up to the podium to make a speech pandering to the "whiners" he's speaking to.
The possibilities are endless.
- kleezy, on 07/14/2008, -6/+34See, the difference is that this cover is making fun of the folly of those who actually think Obama is a Muslim/terrorist. Your suggested cover would be poking fun at the folly of John McCain's own stated beliefs.
The Obama cover is not poking fun at either candidate, but those who wish to destroy one candidate on baseless accusations. I don't think they need to give equal cover time to the other side, because the other side isn't making up ***** about McCain.- winnestow, on 07/14/2008, -21/+3baseless?
from dreams of my father: "I found a solace in nursing a pervasive sense of grievance and animosity against my mother's race." - Phyraxus, on 07/14/2008, -2/+8@ winnestow: Quotemine? What is the full context of the statement?
- kleezy, on 07/14/2008, -2/+11As I said -- baseless:
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements ... - wendelgee2, on 07/14/2008, -2/+16"Father, take this cup away from me." -Jesus.
See! Jesus wasn't willing to die for our sins. He was forced to.
See how taking one line from a story with developing characters can lead to misinterpretation? - keviniskool, on 07/14/2008, -4/+3Funny, I'm pretty sure all Christian beliefs and justifications are based on this principle, along with every other religion in existence. I think that might say something about religions.
- rearlgrant, on 07/14/2008, -1/+10Your quote demonstrates the problem...
That was not written by Obama but a Republican partisan. Yet you feel so certain it's true you have no problem repeating it.
"We read the book, and thought this line sounded out of place. To be doubly sure, we purchased an electronic edition of the book via ebooks.com, and searched for the words solace, grievance or animosity. We were not able to find the sentence, or anything close to the sentence, in Obama's book. " http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements ... - winnestow, on 07/14/2008, -4/+1http://thesaloon.net/blog/_archives/2008/7/8/37824 ...
- johnofsilence, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0"...those who actually think Obama is a Muslim/terrorist." = the cable news media. I'm convinced that they are who this image is satirizing, the media.
- winnestow, on 07/14/2008, -21/+3baseless?
- chispito, on 07/14/2008, -12/+2Well I'm pretty sure that between the two, John McCain would still come off a lot better.
- provost, on 07/14/2008, -2/+6No, because he only believes in that half the time. McCain as a flap jack flipping in a pan is easiest.
- bjornski, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Or a pair of flip-flops.
- HanSolo69, on 07/14/2008, -9/+3Can you please explain why they should at all feel compelled to give McCain similar treatment? McCain hasn't had to have ignorance over his heritage and even just his name thrown around throughout this election. The only thing that comes close for McCain would be the whole thing over whether or not he can be president with the whole not being born in the US thing.
- Acolyte357, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3What? Please respond in English.
"not being born in the US thing."
He was born on US soil (a military base). - winnestow, on 07/14/2008, -3/+2obama however has yet to produce a certified birth certificate
- Acolyte357, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3What? Please respond in English.
- winnestow, on 07/14/2008, -17/+6the problem with the satire here is there is a little too much truth to it
- neognostic, on 07/14/2008, -2/+5Is that you Cindy McCain? Isn't it time for your stolen meds?
- rearlgrant, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3No, it has no context... If it were in the thought bubble of an elephant the satire would be clear.
New Yorkers, (yes, I'm point out my own pun), to be blunt, write criticisms of the rest of the world's artistic efforts (usually to the theme of "it wasn't made by the NY arts clique, so it can't be good") but, as we see now, are unable to see their own creative failures.
Like Jake on TV's Two and a Half Men, they've drawn a "boobala." Of course, it was just a joke...
- ncc74656m, on 07/14/2008, -1/+10I say it should be a geriatric McCain bent over a walker threatening Iran.
- mummbleswers, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5But that's not satire - it's real life!
- exomni, on 07/14/2008, -5/+4How about John "Senior Moment" McCain in a pile of his own ***** unable to feed himself or use the bathroom, in an assisted living center, while his Bimbo spoiled useless junkie wife Cindy shoots painkillers from the assisted living center's medical supplies?
- MysticSavage, on 07/14/2008, -4/+3You forgot to call her a trollop *****.
- evilgourmet, on 07/14/2008, -5/+1Junkie doesn't cover trollop?
- exomni, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1@ MysticSavage
Well, if speech bubbles are allowed, then torrets-ridden McCain would be spouting obscenities, off-colour jokes about killing muslims and raping muslim women, and calling his wife a ***** several times.
- Nionignite, on 07/14/2008, -5/+5Indeed. That would be fair, but they shouldn't be making this sort of sensationalist crap in the first place. The New Yorker used to be respected, now it's just another tabloid trashrag in my eyes.
- johnofsilence, on 07/14/2008, -5/+0fare is fare.
- linagee, on 07/14/2008, -8/+11Is that the worst you can come up with? It's kind of hard to draw how much of an apocalypse there will be if McCain wins.
- axiomata, on 07/14/2008, -23/+43Yes, because the New Yorker is part of the great right wing scare mongering machine Mr. Obama.
- niradg, on 07/14/2008, -10/+22It may be meant as satire, but the right-wing media will deliberately misinterpret it for their "low information" viewers.
- laserdog, on 07/14/2008, -3/+10Indeed, you can already see them happy to have an excuse to reshow, if even a reproduction, of Obama in that African garb.
- winnestow, on 07/14/2008, -4/+4G D america for allowing this!
- notanidiot, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3Yeah, GD America for its damn freedom of the press! Hello? This is obvious satire, directed towards those who make stupid allegations against Obama. Obama fans should be applauding this "jab" at Obama's insulters, if you excuse the pun.
- Phyraxus, on 07/14/2008, -3/+8I can see the spin now...
"Tonight on FOX NEWS!! See the cartoon everyone is talking about! Watch how the liberal New Yorker magazine agrees with us on our views about Barack HUSSEIN Obama and his terrorist fist-jabbing wife."- notanidiot, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3Does it really matter what the Fox News audience hears? This is satire, obvious satire, and those who cant see it are obviously retarded, and would never have the brain power to see that Obama is a better choice than McCain anyway.
- jabberwolf, on 07/14/2008, -4/+1"It may be meant as satire, but the right-wing media will deliberately misinterpret it for their "low information" viewers."
Meaning that The obama campaign thinks that it's supporters are "low information" and might be misguided.
- niradg, on 07/14/2008, -10/+22It may be meant as satire, but the right-wing media will deliberately misinterpret it for their "low information" viewers.
- Fangsinmybeard, on 07/14/2008, -34/+11The media slant is definitely in favor of ***** McCain. The man is a foreign national for God sake.
- Rimrock, on 07/14/2008, -5/+4MO-RON
- Egoist, on 07/14/2008, -1/+6You are so out of touch with reality that I'm amazed you haven't dissolved into a cloud of smoke. You're so deluded as to call McCain a foreign national? Does that make every other American baby born on a military base a foreign national?
You are not someone who can call others a "*****." - rthakidn, on 07/14/2008, -2/+5Media in favor of McCain?? Foreign national?? You my friend, are a strong argument for minimal competency test in order to vote.
- stevetrojanman, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2Or at least a test for right to procreate...
- LKnight, on 07/14/2008, -32/+50The image on the cover will echo until at least the day of the general election, if not beyond, feeding the egos of the smear mongering Michelle Maklins, Megyn Kellys, and Rush Limbaughs who will grin like canary fed Cheshire cats. The people who know won't be affected, but the people who already wonder about his background will see the cover and never read the article.
It was a mistake.
Here's how to respond: http://my.barackobama.com/page/event/detail/4gjyd- NoDrama, on 07/14/2008, -9/+3Bingo
- laserdog, on 07/14/2008, -5/+3"The image on the cover will echo until at least the day of the general election, if not beyond"
Hyperbole much?
The only reason this is a big deal, is that the MSM now has an excuse to reshow Obama in African garb.
I appreciate the satire of The New Yorker, won't be canceling my subscription, and think that Obama is only reacting this way as a further measure to try to distance himself from the left (because that has been working so awesome for him in the polls).- MasterGrief, on 07/14/2008, -2/+1I lost him at "canary fed Cheshire cats".
- winnestow, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1yes, he needs to continue his shift to the right
http://www.newsweek.com/id/145737
- Kyan, on 07/14/2008, -3/+3Plus, it could even help him. People who would be put off by seeing him in Muslin garb, probably weren't going to vote for him anyway. Whereas the talk this will get on cable tV might cause some wavering people to actually learn more about him.
And he can score a few sympathy point from independents. - rockforever, on 07/14/2008, -2/+1You can just respond by not buying the magazine
- winnestow, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4i responded by ordering the bumper sticker
- ChefGroovy, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2I'm putting it on a shirt
- BadseedJR, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5Not saying that the cover is easy to understand, but it's a sad day for America's intelligence level if so many people can't understand satire so much so that they think a liberal media source would bash their own candidate
- notanidiot, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3I disagree. I think that this picture seriously provokes one to read what it says inside. What is more interesting than a national enemy running for president, and having a likely chance of winning? Nothing I can think of, dammit!
- rearlgrant, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Thanks for that. I did it.
- mzx639, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2WAAAAAaaaaaaaa......
- DreamSynthesis, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2Actually if Obama had just laughed this off I would have been much more impressed with him. As it stands, with all of this outrage, it just seems sad.
- chrissku, on 07/14/2008, -57/+67What *****. The New Yorker should be ashamed. Totally shameful picture. No reason for it whatsoever.
- FoghornLeghorn, on 07/14/2008, -2/+11There's a reason, and right now it's working to perfection. When was the last time the New Yorker got this kind of attention?
It's all about the bottom line, while it may be "tasteless and offensive" all that matters to the New Yorker is how many copies they can sell. It could end up being their best selling copy ever, in the world of business that's called success. - laserdog, on 07/14/2008, -4/+5Ashamed?
They are attempting to satirize the people who do it.
The same people who are now showing the picture with much of the satirical context stripped away.
Everybody with a New Yorker magazine subscription understands the context of the front cover. - ninesky01, on 07/14/2008, -2/+4ahh poor baby...
- Krondor, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4The New Yorker meant it as satire of the ridiculous claims made against him. It might be in bad taste, maybe, but at least the New Yorker isn't insulting the intelligence of its readers by assuming they can't understand satire.
Of course the general media is by running with this as a hot story, though. - exomni, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3No Reason? Any publicity is good publicity.
- PabloMac, on 07/14/2008, -1/+6Freedom of Speech.
- crazyoldman, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4It's called satire, doesn't anybody know what that word means. The New Yorker cover was meant to show how ridiculous the attacks against him were.
The only people really upset by the cover are people too dense to be able to understand the meaning of the word satire.- omercyme33, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Agreed. When I saw it, I assumed it was poking fun at the people who actually think Obama is a Muslim, and not the other way around.
- subtleone, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2chrissku, did you just not get the joke or something? There are smear campaigns, official or unofficial, which paint Obama as a turban-wearing black panther who was a member of the weathermen and wants to shoot crackas, and his wife as a bitter black woman who hates white american culture. This new yorker cover is making fun of those caricatures, and if you actually read the new yorker you would understand how ridiculously pro-Obama they are. In conclusion, the new yorker can do whatever it wants because as long as the quality of the writing stays consistent, it will continue to sell subscriptions.
- FoghornLeghorn, on 07/14/2008, -2/+11There's a reason, and right now it's working to perfection. When was the last time the New Yorker got this kind of attention?
- chrissku, on 07/14/2008, -35/+67The really sad part is that the reason why the New Yorker did this is so they can get their magazine on every news show on cable all week. They saw it as free advertising. How pathetic. They have PERMANANTLY lost my business!
- TheNeoskeptic, on 07/14/2008, -4/+7i'm sure the New Yorker will survive without you
all this "outrage" when it's obvious the real intention of the cartoon was satire?- queenstarsha, on 07/15/2008, -0/+3sure, it's (too-too) obvious to new yorker readers. but to my ex-beauty queen (read: dumb) aunt who forwards me the anti-muslim racist *****? not so much with the obvious.
- Kyan, on 07/14/2008, -5/+13I just randomly dugg and buried 30 comments.
- gdehms, on 07/14/2008, -0/+7I just dugg your comment, then undugg it.
- Kyan, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1gdehms - cool, thanks!!
- BrendanSheehan, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1Well I buried yours... cause if McCain wins we're all *****!! How about some good old fashioned journalism for once.
- userperson, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1Way to go!
- HanSolo69, on 07/14/2008, -3/+2You are truly one of the ignorant if that is all you see in this. Sure, I'm certain they were well aware of the free advertising this would get them, but it is also a very strong, poignant message satirizing the sort of ignorance people like you spend all day spouting.
- BadgerDigger, on 09/04/2008, -2/+5Plus, it has made the front page of DIGG. Even more free advertising.
- MikeFallopian, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6If you're going to capitalize one word of your rant for emphasis, I suggest that you pick one that is spelled correctly.
- bvlnc, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2As satire it's childish. I'm sending my issue back to them unopened.
- subtleone, on 07/15/2008, -0/+0Yeah, because issues come wrapped in plastic so that when you receive it, you can safely send it back unopened with your political point unblemished.
- userperson, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1This is good to know, thanks for sharing.
- BrendanSheehan, on 07/15/2008, -1/+2I didn't mean to roll over your foot in my car, but I am sorry your foot is now broken. This is satire, but it will do Obama damage, and the New Yorker knew very well that.
- TheNeoskeptic, on 07/14/2008, -4/+7i'm sure the New Yorker will survive without you
- NoDrama, on 07/14/2008, -14/+20The really sad part is that it demeans so many people while purporting to poke satiric fun at attacks on Obama.
http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/July_21_New_York ...- winnestow, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2at least it doesn't demean obama
- bmph8ter, on 07/14/2008, -21/+23Damn. That's tacky.
- Tomboys, on 07/14/2008, -26/+26Damn! I am not a huge Obama supporter... I voted Hillary... but this is WAY OFF BASE. I am kinda shocked at the New Yorker!
- TsuruchiBrian, on 07/14/2008, -1/+13Why did you vote for Hillary?
- SouthernGuy118, on 07/14/2008, -1/+7its satire, its suppose to be
- Garlik, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4The picture or the fact that the guy voted for Hillary?
- SouthernGuy118, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6both
- Snuff99, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3Should digg you down twice for voting Hillary...
- Tanktunker, on 07/14/2008, -3/+4Oh man, I too totally disagree with his senseless disregard for due democratic process by exercising his voting rights to help elect the candidate of his choice.
- tcbishop12, on 07/14/2008, -21/+11I remember that artist Blitt who drew the cover. Wasn't he the kid that lit the blowtorch in the fireworks factory because he just wanted people to have a little more light?
Seriously -- we need to find New Yorker's editorial phones and e-mails and their business servers and let them have it. At the same time we need to get an up to date list on each and every one of their advertisers and send them a letter demanding that the issue be withdrawn or that their products will be boycotted. And we've got to get on this like yesterday. Someone's on it, but if they're not - then Diggers must lead the way.- SouthernGuy118, on 07/14/2008, -2/+5once again...SATIRE.
- ninesky01, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3ahh poor baby... doesn't wike it when dis favorite canidate gets made fwun of...
- Rimrock, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3Libs can't stand a free press. Funny that.
- Tanktunker, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Freedom of the press?!
What'll they force on us next, Racial equality? No cruel and unusual punishment? FREEDOM TO BEAR ARMS?! - ChefGroovy, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Nothing wrong with making fun of my boy George W. I say buck up and take it like a man, friggin whiners.
- SouthernGuy118, on 07/14/2008, -2/+5once again...SATIRE.
- tcbishop12, on 07/14/2008, -26/+19Ok - here's the New Yorker's info to lodge a complaint for starters:
If you would like to write to us about our Web site, please send an e-mail to
webcomments@newyorker.com
or
http://www.newyorker.com/contact/WebComments
Alternatively, letters may be sent by post to:
The Mail
The New Yorker
4 Times Square
New York, NY 10036
All letters should include your name, postal address, and daytime phone number.- xEn1gma, on 07/14/2008, -11/+9Here's my complaint:
Go ***** yourself.- Rimrock, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4Ditto
- Tanktunker, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4Tritto.
- laserdog, on 07/14/2008, -6/+11Yeah, I'll be writing a letter to compliment them on the satire.
The New Yorker writes intelligent and nuanced pieces, well researched and many pages long.
Satire should be legal. Making a big deal out of this is only giving the MSM an excuse to replay an image of Obama in African garb over, and over again until it is stripped of it's satire altogether.
This was disappointingly misplayed by his campaign. - SouthernGuy118, on 07/14/2008, -3/+8seriously? you're going to complain about a satirical cover?
- TheNeoskeptic, on 07/14/2008, -1/+7laserdog, i couldn't agree more.
The MSM just has a great time selling "outrage".
The cover was actually lampooning all the BS they've been slinging. "is he american enough?" "how much does he love our country?" "is his wife too 'angry'?" and all that.
the new yorker played this right.
Obama could have seized an opportunity to speak to the intelligence in America that would understand this. instead, they knee-jerked into "reject and denounce" mode because that's how the MSM will play it.
i guess they looked at the situation and figured they didn't have a choice. - mochaman, on 07/14/2008, -6/+3Calm down you're going to make it look like all Obama's followers are jihadis ready to burn the American flag. The satire is in bad taste and I leave it at that period. Move on people there's nothing to see here.
- TheLoneHoot, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2Ha! I sent an e-mail and got an "out of office" response.
- xEn1gma, on 07/14/2008, -11/+9Here's my complaint:
- tcbishop12, on 07/14/2008, -24/+25I just sent my regards to New Yorker editor David Remnick. Suggest everyone do likewise.
- PolishLogic, on 07/14/2008, -4/+19I did:
Dear David,
Hilarious cover.
Sincerely,
Polish Logic- archiesteel, on 07/14/2008, -3/+3PolishLogic, you *do* understand the cover is really making fun of people like you, right?
- PolishLogic, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2Hmm, how so?
I don't recall claiming Obama was a muslim. I don't recall likening Michelle Obama to some black power/blaxploitation film star of the 70's. I don't recall using the term "terrorist fist bump".
So how is this making fun of people like me? Please, fill me in on what I'm missing here. - archiesteel, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3Those who spread these lies about Obama are people who are opposed to his candidacy. You are opposed to his candidacy. Since you share this trait, you are "alike", at least in that regard.
Like it or not, you are in the same camp as the rumor-mongers. But you're right, I should have been more precise. Allow me to rephrase: you do realize the cover is really making fun of your camp, right? - archiesteel, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3Hmmm...you *did* however digg stories that allude to the fact that Obama may have been a muslim. For example, you dugg this one:
http://digg.com/politics/Barack_s_Brother_Referenc ...
Why would you digg it if not because you think your side might benefit from spreading this type of FUD about Obama's background? - PolishLogic, on 07/14/2008, -3/+2That may be one of the dumbest things I've read on this site....and that's saying a lot.
You would be in this same camp too, you know. You eat, and rumor-mongers eat, therefore you're in the same camp as them. So this cover is making fun of you too.
(idiotic, isn't it)
Here are a few gems you can use later on: You drink water, murderers drink water, therefore you're in the same camp as a murderer.
or
Air is deadly to humans, because every human that has ever taken a breath of air has eventually died. - archiesteel, on 07/14/2008, -3/+4It's not as simple as that, PolishLogic, and you know it. The fact that there are two "camps" with regards to the general election is not a matter of semantics. Are you or are you not in the camp opposed to Obama's candidacy?
It's not a matter of irrelevant similarities (such as drinking water) or other syllogisms, it's a matter of relevant ones, i.e. you are opposed to Obama's policies and have posted items that are very critical of him, as well as dugg articles that seem to support the unfounded rumors that he's a Muslim. To me, that makes you *very* close to those the New Yorker magazine was referring to.
So, again, do you realize that this cover is making fun of your camp? (And no, I am certainly not a part of that camp.) - PolishLogic, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2Why I'm even continue this ludicrous discussion is beyond me, but work is rather boring today. So here goes....
That's just it, it is as simple as that. You're saying that because I don't like Obama politics, I'm basically just like those that think he's a muslim, terrorist fist bumping husband of a black radical.
Goddamn, just when I though you couldn't get any dumber you post this *****. Why not just call me racist too? Considering that some in the anti-Obama people are, in fact, racist. Why not call me pro-life, since some people who oppose Obama are also pro-life. It doesn't appear to matter that I'm neither racist, nor pro-life. Facts be damned, when we can just connect two random dots that appear on the same page, right?
"The fact that there are two "camps" with regards to the general election is not a matter of semantics. "
So, that must mean I'm voting for McCain? Even though it's looking more and more like I'm going to abstain from voting altogether because there isn't a candidate worth voting for. But regardless of the fact that I may not be voting, you're claiming that I am, in fact, voting for McCain, because that's what anti-Obama people do.
Ok, we'll play your overly-simplistic (even though you don't feel it is) game. How about this one:
Why do you hate the guarantees provided to us by the Consitution. Obama seems to considering he voted for the FISA Compromise, which expanded warrentless wiretapping, and you do support Obama. So what's your response there.
Do you honestly not see how ***** ridiculous your line of reasoning is?
"http://digg.com/politics/Barack_s_Brother_Referenc ..."
Wow, one post "alluding" to it. You go girl.
"Why would you digg it if not because you think your side might benefit from spreading this type of FUD about Obama's background?"
It was an interesting read. - archiesteel, on 07/15/2008, -3/+2"Goddamn, just when I though you couldn't get any dumber you post this *****."
I may be dumb, but chances are I'm a lot smarter than you - however, that's besides the point.
Okay, so you're not pro-McCain, yet you keep digging articles from QuadZero's pro-McCain blog. Interesting. You say you're not anti-Obama, but I have yet to see you seriously criticize his opponent. You claim to be above the fray, but you clearly have a conservative bias. Are you that naturally non-committal, or are you just trying to wiggle out of the corner you've painted yourself in?
All right, I'll take your word for it. After all, it is possible I've judged you too quickly. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, however I'll be watching what you post to make sure you're really as independent as you claim.
"Why do you hate the guarantees provided to us by the Consitution. Obama seems to considering he voted for the FISA Compromise, which expanded warrentless wiretapping, and you do support Obama."
I disagree with Obama on this, but I understand why he did it. In any case, if the new FISA bill is indeed unconstitutional (which is debatable), then the courts will strike it down (the ACLU is already on it).
"Wow, one post "alluding" to it. You go girl."
Hey, lady, I found it after a 30 second search. You want me to dig deeper?
"It was an interesting read."
How convenient. - PolishLogic, on 07/15/2008, -2/+2"Okay, so you're not pro-McCain, yet you keep digging articles from QuadZero's pro-McCain blog. Interesting. "
Yes, it's interesting. There's interesting reading there. Besides, I get my Obama news here, since there's no shortage of it. He's also a friend. Don't you digg your friends submissions when you find them interesting?
"You claim to be above the fray, but you clearly have a conservative bias."
I make no secret about my conservative views. I also make no secret that I think the current control of the Republican party is *****, the Democrats are no better. Keeps me pretty much above the fray of your "Dems are god, Repubs are satan" *****.
As for the FISA compromise, I'm ***** stunned, and a bit sad. He does something like that, and you don't even care. Sounds like what people have been screaming about Bush voters doing for over the last 8 years (well six, considering his popularity rating in the time after 9/11). I guess it's ok when it's you're getting ***** on by a person you like.
"Hey, lady, I found it after a 30 second search. You want me to dig deeper?"
29 seconds longer than I've spent looking at your profile. Want a medal?
"How convenient."
It was actually. Got a shout and clicked on the link doesn't get much more convenient than that. Just out of curiosity, do you ever read things you disagree with or are you worried about being labeled because you read them.
Not that any of this entire thread matters. You've already pointed out that conservative=stauch republican=neocon=pro war everywhere=believes Obama's a muslim=scared by the terrorist fist-bump. They're all in the same camp, remember.
Now go screw. - archiesteel, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1"Yes, it's interesting. There's interesting reading there."
Right. A blog that claims to be "fair and balanced", then advertises its support for McCain on the front page.
"Keeps me pretty much above the fray of your "Dems are god, Repubs are satan" *****."
Oh, I don't think the dems are gods, far from it. In fact, most of them are spineless wastes of skin. But at least they're not as bad as Republicans. In any case, a change of guard once in a while is a good thing in any democracy.
"As for the FISA compromise, I'm ***** stunned, and a bit sad. He does something like that, and you don't even care. Sounds like what people have been screaming about Bush voters doing for over the last 8 years (well six, considering his popularity rating in the time after 9/11). I guess it's ok when it's you're getting ***** on by a person you like."
I'm afraid (but not surprised) you're not getting it at all. Obama had *no choice* but to support the bill, or the Republicans would have ripped him a new one about him being soft on terrorism. He did introduce an amendment to remove immunity for Telecoms. Sure, he knew that the amendment wouldn't pass, but he also knew the bill would pass even if he voted against it. So if he voted against it it was a lose-lose situation, while voting for it with the amendment was a win-lose situation.
I'm satisfied with his pledge that he will seek redress of that situation if elected.
"Just out of curiosity, do you ever read things you disagree with or are you worried about being labeled because you read them."
Read, yes. Digg, no. When I digg something, it almost always mean that I support the point of view being purported by the article.
"You've already pointed out that conservative=stauch republican=neocon=pro war everywhere=believes Obama's a muslim=scared by the terrorist fist-bump. They're all in the same camp, remember."
Of course not. There are a number of conservatives who support Obama. In any case, I'm glad to know you're not in the McCain/anti-Obama camp. I gotta ask, though: what was it you liked about the New Yorker cover that prompted you to send them a note? Also, can we expect you to denounce those who still claim on this very web site that Obama is a Muslim, like IconoclastStill? The fact that you're a conservative would have much more impact than if an Obama supporter does it.
"Now go screw."
I did, actually, and it was great. Thanks for caring about my sex life.
- oMeSSiaHo, on 07/14/2008, -8/+1Dont tell me what to do. Why on earth should I do something just because you want me too?
- Acolyte357, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5Then don't you ***** chud. Do you have to tell everyone on the net that you are not going to do what they say? Opening your spam box must suck away your day,
- sjh0313, on 07/14/2008, -1/+0You don't listen to that tcbishop12. He's just jealous. Stay strong, and make your mean face in the mirror.
- oMeSSiaHo, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1I'm just annoyed by the mentality of "I dont like it so everyone else must not like it".
- QuadZeroRoute, on 07/14/2008, -6/+3I e-mailed him immediately after you posted the address!
Thanks for the covers for my blog! I will be reposting them weekly.
http://quadzeroroute.blogspot.com/
Sincerely,
QuadZeroRoute
A Fair and Balanced Digg Blog- archiesteel, on 07/14/2008, -3/+3Your blog is anything but fair and balanced. One only needs to look at the "About" box to see that it's in support of John McCain.
Oh, I get it. You mean "Fair and Balanced" in the same as Fox News, right? That explains everything. - QuadZeroRoute, on 07/14/2008, -3/+2archieDumbAss, fair and balanced against Digg which is socialist and Marxist. I didn't expect you to get it....you one of the ***** assholes that ruins Digg.
Whats wrong? Didn't you see the articles about Obama? - archiesteel, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3This might be difficult for someone of your limited intellect to understand, but the content on Digg is user-generated. That means that it reflects the values of a certain demographics. Apparently, Obama is much more popular than McCain with that demographics, so he's portrayed more favorably as a result - there's nothing "socialist" and "Marxist" about this (by the way, you shouldn't use words when you don't understand what they mean).
In any case, that still doesn't change the fact that your blog isn't Fair and Balanced - counter-bias is still bias. You should at least have the guts to own up to your obvious bias and drop the pretense of objectivity - no one is buying it.
Also, advertising for your own blog is not encouraged on Digg. That's called spamming, and will get you dugg down pretty quickly. If you don't like it, go somewhere else. - PolishLogic, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2"Also, advertising for your own blog is not encouraged on Digg. That's called spamming, and will get you dugg down pretty quickly."
Or dugg up if people like what they read. Digg is user-generated and user-driven, after all. - archiesteel, on 07/15/2008, -2/+2Uh, no. Blogspam is definitely *not* appreciated here.
- PolishLogic, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1If there were no blogs, digg would have almost no content.
You have the option to not click. - archiesteel, on 07/15/2008, -1/+1You still don't understand (I guess this does prove I'm smarter than you after all): it's okay to link to people's blogs. It's *not* okay to plug your own blog in comments.
So tell your friend that while *you* can link to his blog, he does so at his own risk. If he had posted his message early in the article thread, he would have been dugg down to oblivion (and probably reported for abuse as well).
- archiesteel, on 07/14/2008, -3/+3Your blog is anything but fair and balanced. One only needs to look at the "About" box to see that it's in support of John McCain.
- PolishLogic, on 07/14/2008, -4/+19I did:
- BishkekBuddy, on 07/14/2008, -27/+11Completely and totally inappropriate and offensive not only to Obama but to all of us ... does the New Yorker think they are being read by uneducated dolts? I just hope the rag isn't read by anyone ever again....
- SouthernGuy118, on 07/14/2008, -2/+12no, it's read by educated intellectuals...who will understand that the cover is satire. Uneducated dolts like yourself will think its a reality piece and get all offended
- wendelgee2, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1I'm sorry...the New Yorker is a "rag"?
Is that because the articles are too long for you?
No lolcats?
- MizSwann, on 07/14/2008, -36/+30I've always registered as Independent...usually voted Republican til recently...currently a card-carrying Libertarian...and I think Obama is absolutely, totally, COMPLETELY UNQUALIFIED to lead this country out of the mire we are in. I wouldnt vote for him if he was the only one running.
But this? This is not only insulting to a decent man and his equally decent wife, it is degrading to America as a whole.
These two people are doing what they SHOULD be doing as patriotic Americans - it isnt easy, it isnt fun, and it takes a lot of commitment and energy from them both.
All of us need to respect that. They deserve respect.
Looks like a last-ditch effort by Republicans to try to knock BHO down a peg or two, thinking it will raise McSame up by equal measure.
This is abhorrant to me, and to any other mature and moral person.
No wonder our national reputation throughout the globe is tainted.
BARR / ROOT 2008 !- txsln, on 07/14/2008, -4/+2Respect? In an election? Seriously, I thought we were past that...
I was being sarcastic, but I'm completely serious when I say this: you've got it right, MizSwann, and said it perfectly. Power to you. - TsuruchiBrian, on 07/14/2008, -4/+8Bob Barr is not a Libertarian.
This will be the first presidential election since I turned 18 that I will not vote for the Libertarian Party candidate. It's great that you converted to libertarianism and all, but I think you should know that whatever the LP has become, is NOT Libertarian. - oMeSSiaHo, on 07/14/2008, -4/+7Uhhh, what does your rant have to do with the article?!
I LOVE strawberry cheesecake ice cream. I used to get this one that had pretzels and fudge but once I tried the strawberry I knew I couldnt go back. Its so much better tasting even though it has more fat. Since I only get once in awhile I think its ok.
Thats what your post sounds like...- Acolyte357, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2Couldn't keep focus long enough to read the short little post? Take your Ritalin and try again.
- oMeSSiaHo, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2I read the whole thing. There was a sentence about the article. Maybe I got confused because there was a break after every sentence. I thought he was maybe writing a poem!
- blackdude, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1"BARR / ROOT 2008 !"
With a name like MizSwann, you're probably his wife, his lover, and his only fan; you should cut off your computer and go back to the kitchen.
- txsln, on 07/14/2008, -4/+2Respect? In an election? Seriously, I thought we were past that...
- BohicaTwentyTwo, on 07/14/2008, -20/+20Its supposed to be the Democrats who are smart and witty, but I think this election season its the the Republicans who seem to have a better sense of humor.
http://digg.com/politics/McCain_Insults_College_St ...- TsuruchiBrian, on 07/14/2008, -6/+6I don't know. Joking about killing Iranians stopped being funny the 4th or 5th time.
- QuadZeroRoute, on 07/14/2008, -4/+1Killing Jew hating Iranians only got old for limp wristed liberals.
- Rimrock, on 07/14/2008, -4/+9Its a known fact that libs have no sense of humor. None at all.
- PabloMac, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3I wonder why we don't hear the liberals whining about "Freedom of Speech" and "Freedom of the Press" on this issue.
- apetrie, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Who is calling for them to be fined or for it to be taken off magazine racks by the authorities? Anyone getting arrested or threatened with it? Thats right, you are just full of *****.
You're twisting it into a freedom of speech issue when clearly its not. No one is claiming they don't have the right to publish this cover, many people however feel its in bad taste and they shouldn't be using it. There is a huge difference. It is the New Yorkers right to print whatever they like as far as I'm concerned, and its their readers rights to continue or not continue to be their customers, and voice their opinions. You know that already though, you're just one step above a troll.
- apetrie, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Who is calling for them to be fined or for it to be taken off magazine racks by the authorities? Anyone getting arrested or threatened with it? Thats right, you are just full of *****.
- TsuruchiBrian, on 07/14/2008, -6/+6I don't know. Joking about killing Iranians stopped being funny the 4th or 5th time.
- docjulia, on 07/14/2008, -19/+22So are they running a satire of McCain getting tortured next month? Him whining 'i was a prisoner, that qualifies me to be president'.
I will never buy a copy of the New Yorker again. i'll find something else to read on airplanes.- SouthernGuy118, on 07/14/2008, -1/+5except an article like that one for McCain would be pretty far off the theme of the cover. The cover addresses the rights smear campaign by showing what their reality would look like. Pointing out flatly that McCain is incompetent isn't satire
- ClassicResort, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3skymall.
- ozymandias2012, on 07/14/2008, -9/+20I think putting Osama's portrait on the wall was a little over the top.
- pintomp3, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3how about the flag burning in the fireplace?
- Kyan, on 07/14/2008, -2/+1I agree, the flag in the fireplace, too.
- winnestow, on 07/14/2008, -3/+3obama... osama...
"I will stand with the muslims should the political winds shift in a ugly direction" ...audacity of hope- rearlgrant, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1That quote is a complete fabrication.
- zacharytelschow, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2No, it isn't. He wrote it. But he wrote it in the context of possible American persecution of Arab Americans after 9/11, saying he would stand by them.
- TheNeoskeptic, on 07/14/2008, -1/+7did you not study Jonathan Swift in high school lit?
this is Satire. look it up, bitters. - NeoHomer, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2Hussien and his loser cronies ruining our economy is what is over the top.
- franklymister, on 07/14/2008, -14/+81Best response I've heard so far was from Kevin Drum at CBS:
"If artist Barry Blitt had some real cojones, he would have drawn the same cover but shown it as a word bubble coming out John McCain's head — implying, you see, that this is how McCain wants the world to view Obama. But he didn't. Because that would have been unfair. And McCain would have complained about it. And for some reason, the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame McCain is somehow seen as worse than the risk that a failed satire would unfairly defame Obama.
So: gutless. And whatever else you can say about it, good satire is never gutless."- SouthernGuy118, on 07/14/2008, -8/+8i thinks this is pretty gutsy. I mean, look how all of you are up in arms
- ghuytro, on 07/14/2008, -3/+4You spelled "ya'll" wrong
- merreborn, on 07/14/2008, -2/+4I'm not aware of McCain ever calling Obama a terrorist, muslim, or flag-burner.
That's mostly been the likes of Fox News.
A satirized fox news logo in the corner of the image probably would have worked.- SouthernGuy118, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1nah, that would be too direct. Good satire does have to name who it is targeting, people (the smart ones at least) know
- TheNeoskeptic, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2and don't forget all those email forwards i'm getting from some bitter grandmother out in the fly-overs.
- johnofsilence, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0good quote.
- SouthernGuy118, on 07/14/2008, -8/+8i thinks this is pretty gutsy. I mean, look how all of you are up in arms
- knumbknuts, on 07/14/2008, -23/+26Welcome to the First Amendment.
Welcome to the second attempt to get the same thing to the front page.- jehan60188, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6sorry man, First Amendment only applies when you're trying to piss off muslims...
- TheNeoskeptic, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3the far-right loves to see an example of the "liberal" media doing something they can spin as "anti-obama". just like jesse jackson last week.
the outrage on the MSM....if we could bottle it and sell it around the world, our problems would be over. - looneysinger, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0there is nothing wrong with the cover as i see! i prefer not to have obama the muslim running my country! he will bring trouble to the us more than we have had! he is the sheep that we do not need as potus. looneysinger
- OldWiseOne, on 07/14/2008, -18/+11If Obama can not take critisizm and mean-spirited comments that come with the territory, he should back out of the picture. Look at the thousands of slanderous and tasteless images that are out there about Bush; you don't see him crying to mommy. Deal with it.
- neognostic, on 07/14/2008, -4/+8Show us a single one that isn't true. I stand by my avatar.
- stayputnik, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3bush deserves it. give me one reason people shouldn't be mad at him.
- wedges, on 07/14/2008, -3/+3Except Obama IS NOT a muslim, and if this cover convinces even one ignorant voter that he is, then it's done enough damage. This is slander, no mistake about it.
- TheNeoskeptic, on 07/14/2008, -1/+4this is Satire. easily confused with Slander if your IQ is below 100.
get over it, bitters.
- str3ama, on 07/14/2008, -12/+20Here's my take on it, it's offensive not because of the flag burning or anything. But because during this campaign I've realized that they're making it seem like Muslim/Islam is a bad and shameful thing. They use it as if labelling someone as a Muslim is a horrible thing, tantamount to calling someone a terrorist or sexual deviant. It's odd that calling oneself a God-Fearing Christian is a positive, while the same thing is not true of calling oneself a Muslim, or any other religion for that matter.
- kleezy, on 07/14/2008, -1/+5To me, the cover shines the light on the very thing you just said. Many people DO think there's something terribly wrong with being Muslim. The whole illustration on the cover is completely ludicrous, yet its exactly what some people think. They're just trying to bring to light the ignorance of some people in this country. They're taking all of those Obama emails circulating around and laughing at them on a larger stage. I believe that was their intent, anyway. I'm surprised more people aren't getting that from the illustration.
- modiggz, on 07/14/2008, -2/+2I agree. The New Yorker was on one hand trying to sell itself this month. On the other hand the satirical comic is pointing out all the ridiculous things people think about Obama during this campaign. BUT--there are many who, let's face it, aren't going to understand an intelligent comic, and will take it literally. Heck, there are tons of people who don't even understand satire. So, i think the whole thing was too risky.. and did more damage than good.
- merreborn, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3Where have you been? "Muslim" has been synonymous with "terrorist" in the red states since 2001.
http://www.tolerance.org/news/article_hate.jsp?id= ...
http://www.aclu.org/crimjustice/bias/10087prs20010 ...
There are still millions of Americans who believe that all Muslims are out to destroy the US.- str3ama, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Well I wouldn't go so far as to say every red state, I'd like to believe that half the country isn't entirely ignorant.
- markgl, on 07/14/2008, -8/+9funny, obama didn't say anything about it but the title says he did. hmm.
- Hetman, on 07/14/2008, -14/+14Who cares. His voting record speaks for itself. Patriot act bad. FISA bad. Obama: Patriot act Good. FISA Good.
- dagnabbit, on 07/14/2008, -7/+9he voted for the revised patriot act, not the original. revised version reduced the powers of the original. I'm glad he did and you should be too.
- Hetman, on 07/14/2008, -4/+6From his website. It states that the revised patriot act modestly changed the over all patriot act. It does not get into the different specifics of what is different between this version and the one before. And this is comming from Obama's own website. And no I am not happy he signed the revised patriot act. If no one would have passed the revised patriot act there would be no patriot act of any kind anymore. That is because the originial patriot act had a time limit on it. Guess what there is no time limit on the new revised patriot act. Does that sound better to you?
- LordoftheLoo, on 07/14/2008, -14/+11He didnt slam the "Muslim Portrayal!" There is nothing wrong in being a muslim, but to put a portrait of osama bin laden and the image of a burning american flag in the fireplace is obscene and disgraceful.
- jehan60188, on 07/14/2008, -2/+4If there's nothing wrong with being muslim, why are they turned away at Obama rallies?
- SouthernGuy118, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1they arent
- czeiszperger, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2They were in Michigan because his staff didn't want pictures of Obama taken with Muslims in the background.
Obama apologizes to Muslim women; apology accepted
http://www.politico.com/ blogs/ bensmith/ 0608/ Obama_apologizes_to_Muslim_women.htm...
Sen. Barack Obama today called the two Muslim women who were barred from sitting behind him at his Detroit rally to apologize, one of the women and two other sources said. "Sen. Obama called himself and he apologized to each of us," one of the women, lawyer Hebba Aref, told me just now. Aref, who had suggested that an appropriate fix might be seating her behind Obama at some future event, said she'd also discussed that possibility with his staff. Aref and Shimaa Abdelfadeel had been barred from sitting behind Obama on Monday by volunteers concerned that they would appear on camera with him while wearing headscarves. - jehan60188, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1"It's easier to ask for forgiveness, than permission"
Sure, he apoligized, but have you seen any pictures of him with muslims?
- QuadZeroRoute, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1The image is everything that liberals want.
Liberals want Obama who is a Muslim by birth, with militant wife in the White House to enjoy liberal right of burning flag....it is all liberal. I think they will sell extra copies to liberals....I'll bet you.
- jehan60188, on 07/14/2008, -2/+4If there's nothing wrong with being muslim, why are they turned away at Obama rallies?
- xrisnothing, on 07/14/2008, -9/+69When are people going to realize that this isn't a satire of Obama, but a satire of the media?
- DreKor, on 07/14/2008, -2/+12As a general rule, people are stupid. Has this hit any of the big media outlets yet? Until it does, this won't be a problem. The biggest issue here is context. If this comic had been an original submission to LGF, then people would have a reason to be upset since it would be presented as fact.
- Defuser, on 07/14/2008, -9/+2It's not a "satire of the media". The cover says absolutely NOTHING about "the media". It's equivalent to me calling your mom a whore, then claiming it's a "satire" of Sesame Street. There has to be some sort of reference to the media for it to be a satire of the media.
Understand now?- SouthernGuy118, on 07/14/2008, -0/+6no, there doesn't. Good satire doesn't have to explicitly announce its target
- DreKor, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Well, if Elmo had been calling my mom a whore and paying her for sex on daytime TV and then the New Yorker did a cover of my mom with a stripper pole, you would be correct.
- TheNeoskeptic, on 07/14/2008, -2/+4thanks, xrisnothing.
unfortunately, the Media won't be explaining how it's a satirical comment on the media. wish they had the guts to do that. but they won't. - DiggasWAttitude, on 07/14/2008, -1/+0Of course it is. The real shame of it all is that allowing people to discuss it under the guise of "Did you see the New Yorker cover?" I have a bad feeling that if people think the New Yorker made fun of him (not understanding it was satire) then its open season for everyone else. The cover is going to be in every right wing smear email for the next 5 months.
It should have been under the Cartoon Caption contest instead.- rthakidn, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3NOT being an Obama supporter, I can tell you: I think the NY was just having fun with some of the claims made against BO. It appears the only people "offended" by the cartoon or read a hidden message in it are those close to BO's campaign.
- blackdude, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1I realize that it could be, but then again, the satire is retard-edly unclear, and that's the problem with it & what makes it no good.
- SouthernGuy118, on 07/14/2008, -1/+6its not retardedly unclear, its just unclear to retards. Quit demanding the media dumb itself down
- blackdude, on 07/14/2008, -2/+1It should, else you can't grab the biggest audience possible, isn't that the whole damn point of even making mass journalism? This is a prime example of confusing part of your audience, while the other part understands. Clearness & Conciseness is key and this definitely doesn't have it.
The satire is unclear as hell because it could mean a number of things. Depending on your background (different audiences have different common backgrounds, I hope you know that, seems like you don't) you can take this many ways. Obviously, the guy who drew this knew what the hell he was doing, and unclear satire can only = media coverage.
According to your logic, all media should be like this which honestly I think is pretty damn stupid. Try releasing a magazine with these types of covers every month, you're audience will be about as big as the KKK, until hell, you offend them too for being unclear. - DreKor, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Look, this clearly wasn't written/drawn for you. Do you subscribe to The New Yorker? If not, you're probably not in their demographic and, therefore, don't have the "same common background" as the rest of its readership. If you did, you probably would have gotten the joke without someone explaining it to you.
And, no, the point of mass journalism isn't always to sell to the biggest audience possible. The general populous isn't going to be spending their money on Rolexes, Mediterranean cruises, New York high-rise condos, and first editions but that's what the magazine advertises for. You can infer their clientele from that. If you have enough quality, you don't have to make it up in quantity.
/angry elitist rant - blackdude, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1"If you did, you probably would have gotten the joke without someone explaining it to you."
Did I ever say I didn't?! I don't find that hard to understand based on my background and myself watching media coverage. The way you speak of such audience but assume things makes me wonder what your background is, seems to be surely lacking in something; definitely isn't elitist.
- johnofsilence, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0I agree.
We must express our appreciation for the lucidity that this image represents in how the cable news media is out of focus and only creates its content for the sole purpose of causing unnecessary and crude conflict; as if they honestly believed that the resulting dialectic would derive any truth.
- Johannes DeSilento
- thewordisberry, on 07/14/2008, -18/+25It's not satire if there's no context. Bad call on the part of the New Yorker.
- winnestow, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3it's satire because it's true!
- sonnybobiche, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1Everyone who reads the New Yorker knows the context. If ever there was a liberal magazine, that's it.
- redcolumbine, on 07/14/2008, -12/+5We is ofended cuz we dont git it, duh. And now wes axtra ofended cuz are ofended snitt makes it so clere how dum we iz.
- crazyoldman, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I is ofende cuz yous dont git the english language and snitt, duh.
- versualize, on 07/14/2008, -23/+17Pick a ***** side, Digg. Remember FISA like 5 days ago? Who voted for it again? Oh yeah.
- pintomp3, on 07/14/2008, -2/+10yes, everything is a matter of black and white. a person is either all good or all evil.
- Hetman, on 07/14/2008, -1/+5Digg is not a single organism. Sometimes there are people on digg who like Obama, Sometime there are people on digg who hate Obama. You would have to look at each individual user to be able to determine if they have changed their minds.
- TheLoneHoot, on 07/14/2008, -1/+12"Pick a ***** side, Digg"?
Are you serious? You'd prefer it was just all slanted one way or another? Is that how you prefer your issues? Such ignorance is mind blowing.- versualize, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Oh hello there. You must be new to the Internet. You can call me troll.
- txsln, on 07/14/2008, -8/+11perfect example of the politics of fear
- wonkavsn, on 07/14/2008, -7/+5I thought his wife was black.
- rthakidn, on 07/14/2008, -3/+2When she needs to be.
- LZeppelinJ0, on 07/14/2008, -12/+18Better cover would have been George Bush pissing on the constitution. Nobody seems to understand the satire behind this cover.
- defwheezer, on 07/14/2008, -1/+12That would not be satire, but sickening fact.
- LZeppelinJ0, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Well put
- ubergeek09, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Well Obama seems to not give a crap about the Constitution either with his support of FISA. Whoever gets in office I think we can count on the Constitution being shredded even further.
- defwheezer, on 07/14/2008, -1/+12That would not be satire, but sickening fact.
- solidcube, on 07/14/2008, -14/+8The New Yorker is run by israelis.
- DanBoodro, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2And Scientologists.
- s0m31john, on 07/14/2008, -10/+3Now I just want to see him "slam" the whole anti-freedom portrayal thing. Oh wait, FISA, that's right...
- mlbwebdesign, on 07/14/2008, -9/+4OH NO YOU DIDN'T!!!
- SuperVepr308, on 07/14/2008, -12/+24Now THAT is hilarious! For whatever reason they did it, it came out great.
- 12D3, on 07/14/2008, -7/+7The New Yorker this week:
Portrayed Obama as a terrorist. - Saying it was 'satire' ie "All in fun"
Gave the Dark Knight the first bad review. - Saying the movie wasnt 'fun' enough.
I'm glad they want everything to be a joke. Someone is looking for attention.- xrisnothing, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Different publication, fwend.
- 12D3, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0The specific reference to fun was. Not the bad review though.
http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/cinema/2008/ ...
- 12D3, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0The specific reference to fun was. Not the bad review though.
- xrisnothing, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Different publication, fwend.
- BBoombastic, on 07/14/2008, -8/+30It looks like half of digg hates it because they don't understand the satire and the other half hates it because they do understand the satire.
- azurechaos, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3I don't think it's a cut and dry issue of people not understanding the satire though. I think most people realize it's supposed to be satire(after investigating), but it's not presented very convincingly as satire, and so there's a worry of what consequences this will have on the population. As one poster mentioned above, it would have had more clarity if it was in a conservative's speech/thought bubble or something of the sort.
Instead, it will be taken at face value by many people and serve as a reinforcement of baseless ideas of Obama being muslim, terrorist-connected, etc. That's what worries me. - BrendanSheehan, on 07/15/2008, -0/+2We all understand it's satire, but it's tasteless, badly timed and will have a bad effect on Obama. That's why there's uproar. They did this to sell copies, like the way the sold their soul.
- queenstarsha, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1the satire is boringly obvious to people watching obama get smeared by the republicans day after day. that is, it's obvious to informed, new yorker reader types. and then to stupid people, it just reinforces the smears. so it stinks all-around. still, the fact that we're talking about how stupid the cover is could be a good thing for obama.
- BrendanSheehan, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1I doubt it. All it's doing is associating him with the smears, it's shameful.
- azurechaos, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3I don't think it's a cut and dry issue of people not understanding the satire though. I think most people realize it's supposed to be satire(after investigating), but it's not presented very convincingly as satire, and so there's a worry of what consequences this will have on the population. As one poster mentioned above, it would have had more clarity if it was in a conservative's speech/thought bubble or something of the sort.
- jbenson2, on 07/14/2008, -19/+11Waaah! The O-man is a thin-skinned crybaby who does not like satire.
- winnestow, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2would the fairness doctrine stop this kind of thing?
- TheNeoskeptic, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1don't you get that the campaign was forced to respond this way?
the MSM is going to be all outrage, all the time over this "smear" from the "liberal media elitist new yorker".
if the campaign didn't respond and respond immediately, they would be painted as wishy-washy, effete, and spineless.- jbenson2, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1The Obama team responded immediately and they are still painted as wishy-washy, effete, and spineless.
Barack needs to grow a pair.
- jbenson2, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1The Obama team responded immediately and they are still painted as wishy-washy, effete, and spineless.
- crazyoldman, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Real, is "the O-man" the best you can come up with.
- giveupsin, on 07/14/2008, -16/+24Digg is such a left wing site.
- levelred, on 07/14/2008, -1/+8confused you are. it's the people and how they think some are to the right some are at the middle, and the majority just happens to be left.
- TheLoneHoot, on 07/14/2008, -5/+4Why are you here then? If you're so put off by "such a left wing site", then do us both a favor and leave forever. Go "give up sin" somewhere else.
- Defuser, on 07/14/2008, -2/+3There's a difference between being "left wing" and being "an idiot". For example, I'm "left wing". TheLoneHoot, however, is "an idiot". Listen pal, nobody owes you an explanation for why they post here. Maybe he LIKES fighting with Left Wingers. That's his right.
- NeoHomer, on 07/14/2008, -4/+1Well, duh. I come here for that reason, idiots should be made fun of and it's so easy to rev 'em up and watch em spin.
- mummbleswers, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2Do you really have nothing better to do with your life?
- Screwy1138, on 07/14/2008, -13/+5I'm offended! You're offended! We're all offended! I'm suing for emotional distress.
- doctechnical, on 07/14/2008, -23/+19"MOM! They're making fun of me again!"
Way to show leadership, dude.- Anonchrist, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5That whole "no comment" thing was such a cry feast... McCain condemned it and Obama didn't give it another moment of attention.
Bravo to both of them - TreatsTheBear, on 07/14/2008, -0/+3I hardly think that's a fair characterization of his tone.
- mummbleswers, on 07/14/2008, -1/+3Please, McCain and Bush have got to be the worst at that *****. Why do you think the term patriot started being used so much? It was made up by Bush and his henchmen to combat anybody that disagreed with them. They don't just have a different idea of how things should get done - they hate America. So don't even go there, conservatives are the worst when it comes to fake outrage.
- ozymandias2012, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1You're hilarious.
- mummbleswers, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1@ ozymandias
thank you I'll be here all week, try the veal it's great.
- Anonchrist, on 07/14/2008, -0/+5That whole "no comment" thing was such a cry feast... McCain condemned it and Obama didn't give it another moment of attention.
- amightywind, on 07/14/2008, -15/+8Thou doth protest too much, me thinks. We finally have an accurate portrayal of Obama and his militant wife.
- oMeSSiaHo, on 07/14/2008, -14/+41What. The. *****. "Scientology is killing our free speech by having protesters arrested!" "McCain is a jackass for throwing that woman out of his convention because he didnt like what she was saying." "Bush is a jackass for throwing the protesters out of his speech at Montecello." "The New Yorker should be ashamed for showing satire that offends me."
You people cant have the first amendment only when its convenient for you! While I think the cover is done in poor taste who cares? It only bothers you if you let it. I cant believe this is the same user base that complains about people being too politically correct.- wedges, on 07/14/2008, -4/+7the problem isn't whether its offensive, the problem is that it's manipulative.
lets say you're running for office. then lets say people accused you of being a child rapist, which you are not. but people keep saying you are. so then lets say i draw a satire of you raping a child. how exactly does that help your case?- SouthernGuy118, on 07/14/2008, -2/+5by showing people just how ridiculous false reality is
- oMeSSiaHo, on 07/14/2008, -0/+4Calling someone a child molester when they are not is slander and is not protected under free speech. On the other hand parody, which the cover is, is protected. If someone was being accused of being a child molester and someone else parodied that claim it is protected. It sucks that people could be confused, but those people are probably stupid and would probably think those things anyway.
- Archer007, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1Exactly. The root issue here is that some stupid person will assume Obama is a Muslim, or supports terrorism, or something ridiculous like that. The trouble is, there are a LOT of stupid people out there, and mass media can reach ALL of them. The people who read the New Yorker know that it was a parody and will see the cover in a proper context, complementing the articles inside. However, people who catch a couple minutes of CNN or some other "mainstream" program may (and probably will) not get a proper explanation of the picture or the context that it was published in. The trouble is that these people will go out and vote based on that flawed and/or incomplete information.
- SpyDerMann, on 07/15/2008, -0/+1Parody is meant to exaggerate a person's characteristics, defects, decisions or words to make fun of him. Inventing something to make fun of someone is LYING.
The New Yorker should be sued for slander.
- shrewd1983, on 07/14/2008, -2/+6You people cant have the first amendment only when its convenient for you! While I think the cover is done in poor taste who cares? It only bothers you if you let it.
Exactly!
Once again it goes to show how many people let the media do the thinking for them, haha
Land of the slaves, home of the cowards- kevinmillerj, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0yeah but whenever you trust humanity to make the correct decision on something, where do we go. THE MEDIA!!!
I'm all for the first amendment, but when Americans don't use our God (Or whomever or whomever not you worship) given ability to think for ourselves, you must not take pride in the manipulation of the Constitution to get higher sales.
Watch Charlie Wilson's War; there you will have your ideas about the government. I'm sure for some of you, there is little knowledge from your own perspective and ideas and you all are swayed by mass multimedia. Read this crap and get your own opinion, don't listen to those who think they can speak on your behalf or the "Soulja Boi" celebrities who find something about them or near to them and instead of being mature and just accepting that some people are stupid and respond by their constant blitzkrieg of comebacks. "oh Yeah well the New Yorker is a terrorist", Bashes Obama.
Anyway go vote on your own for which ever terrorist you would like... I actually am still thinking about voting for the BAMA.
- kevinmillerj, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0yeah but whenever you trust humanity to make the correct decision on something, where do we go. THE MEDIA!!!
- TheLoneHoot, on 07/14/2008, -3/+2"The New Yorker should be ashamed for showing hate propaganda that couldn't possibly pass for 'satire'."
There fixed it for you. You're welcome. - TheNeoskeptic, on 07/14/2008, -1/+2just because Obama says it was in poor taste doesn't mean they want to censor it and throw anybody in jail or anything.
all you a-holes saying he's "wahhhhh" crying to his mommy are full of it.
they had to respond this way to head-off the ridiculous way the MSM is going to spin this. - roystgnr, on 07/14/2008, -0/+2The New Yorker's cartoons are free speech. So are the Digg users' cries of "shame on you". Unlike in the other cases you mentioned, nobody here (or at least nobody being dugg up) wants the New Yorker artist to be arrested or kicked off of public property.
The First Amendment means that the government can't use it's authority to restrain your speech based on political (or most other) content. It also means that after you exercise your free speech rights, other people get to use their free speech rights to criticize whatever you said. - baldr, on 07/14/2008, -1/+1no one is saying legal action should be taken against The New Yorker. people are just voicing their disgust.
- wedges, on 07/14/2008, -4/+7the problem isn't whether its offensive, the problem is that it's manipulative.
- CoMpUtErITGuY, on 07/14/2008, -18/+34Dugg because it's funny.
- slyzxx, on 07/14/2008, -2/+1i`m glad you think a burning flag is funny.
- giveupsin, on 07/14/2008, -0/+0I didn't think left wingers used anything else to warm their houses with
- JMarch619, on 07/14/2008, -0/+1I think the constitution being shredded would have been a nice touch
- slyzxx, on 07/14/2008, -2/+1i`m glad you think a burning flag is funny.
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/14/2008, -36/+36Oh, look... Obama gets to play victim again.
- Defuser, on 07/14/2008, -6/+5Why are people like you so mind-bogglingly ignorant?
- vexingmodstwo, on 07/14/2008, -5/+11..says the moron who doesn't understand satire.
- Defuser, on 07/14/2008, -6/+5Why are people like you so mind-bogglingly ignorant?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 167 discussions
