givemebackmycountry Donating Member (1000+ posts)
Sun Jul-13-08 06:24 PM
Original message
Barack & Michelle make the cover of The New Yorker Magazine (and it's not pretty)
This may be the most offensive thing I've seen in a LONG time...
New Yorker cover shows Oval Office with Obama as tribal African, wife as afro-70s-woman with machine gun, Osama on the wall, and flag on fire...
http://www.americablog.com /
Okay, what do we do about this? I want suggestions. This is what we have to deal with in America, as Democrats. A liberal media that bends over so far backwards to be "fair" that it becomes just as bad as FOX News. A liberal publication like the New Yorker thinks it's funny to make Mrs. Obama some radical black panther, Barack Obama basically a terrorist (you'll note that he looks just like Osama bin Laden on the wall), and they're even burning the American flag in the Oval Office (that's supposed to be the White House, get it?). They put Osama bin Laden on the wall of the Oval Office. And this is funny? Is the New Yorker so out of touch that they don't realize that much of America, or at least too much of America, harbors these very concerns about Obama and his wife? I'm sure the New Yorker thinks they're actually poking holes in the myth by making light of the stereotypes. Yeah, and tell us how this pokes fun at the stereotype? It reinforces it. And yet again, you'd never see them try anything like this with John McCain. God forbid you even ask a question about John McCain's experience, the media will destroy you. But paint Obama and his wife as America-hating flag-burning violent terrorists, and it's funny. I can't wait to hear what Mrs. Greenspan and Bob Schieffer over at NBC have to say about this. Somehow I'm betting their outrage won't be as great as when anyone questions Saint McCain.
Got to admit I also find it pretty offensive. And I'm not easily offended.
Got to admit I also find it pretty offensive. And I'm not easily offended.
Got to admit I also find it pretty offensive. And I'm not easily offended.
No one was offended by this Brokeback Mountain "parody", lest of all DemocratUnderground.com
(http://i34.tinypic.com/fjkhuc.jpg)
You people get offended too easily. I'm not offended by either. Disagree? Yes. Offended? Not too much offends me.
You people get offended too easily. I'm not offended by either. Disagree? Yes. Offended? Not too much offends me.
You people get offended too easily. I'm not offended by either. Disagree? Yes. Offended? Not too much offends me.
I know what you mean. I get offend by the misapplication of the word offended.
I think the point of the cover is that this is supposedly how the Right is portraying hussein and wife.
You people get offended too easily. I'm not offended by either. Disagree? Yes. Offended? Not too much offends me.
I know what you mean. I get offend by the misapplication of the word offended.
Fine. I'm offended that you're offended. :-)
I find it amusing.
I'm offended the three of you bastards are offended.You people get offended too easily. I'm not offended by either. Disagree? Yes. Offended? Not too much offends me.
I know what you mean. I get offend by the misapplication of the word offended.
Fine. I'm offended that you're offended. :-)
I think the point of the cover is that this is supposedly how the Right is portraying hussein and wife.I didn't know her name was Hussein too. :fuelfire:
The left has been doing the same to Conservatives and the Bush administration for a long time.
Remember the New York Times, Ted Rall, and Ward Churchill?
CTyankee (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-13-08 06:52 PM
Response to Reply #20
55. This is such inside baseball, New York style.
Nobody in theheartland even knows about the New Yorker. It is an elitist (altho decidedly middle brow magazine) located in the Boston, NY and DC area that itwon't really hit the rest of America.
I'm not worried at all about the New Yorker. It has never ultimately mattered in any presidential race I've experienced (and I've experienced every one actively since 1960).
jesus_of_suburbia (640 posts) Sun Jul-13-08 06:30 PM
Response to Original message
7. UNREAL! What type of magazine is "The New Yorker?"
I think they're gonna get in trouble
Drunken Irishman (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-13-08 06:31 PM
Response to Reply #7
9. It's one of the most prominant liberal publications out there.
I say liberal liberally, of course.
MH1 (1000+ posts) Sun Jul-13-08 06:31 PM
Response to Original message
12. Unbelievably offensive.
Please, someone tell me this is not an actual cover of a magazine that has been printed and will be on newsstands.
O.M.F.G. that's offensive.
Offended?:clap: and H5
Hogwash!
The offense and resentments you are feeling are constructs in YOUR mind, the manner in which YOU interpret something. If it offends you, then YOU own it and no one else.
This shit about being offended then expecting the world to bend over and appease your "feelings" is gotten out of hand in this nation and is destroying it.
Personally, I feel there IS some truth to the cover solely because of statements made by both Osama and his inconsiderate wife.
The left has been doing the same to Conservatives and the Bush administration for a long time.
Remember the New York Times, Ted Rall, and Ward Churchill?
Additionally, I think it is damn funny the way the left is shitting their red diapers over this.
“I think he was very strategic in his choice of friends and mentors,†In retrospect, I think he saw the positions he held as stepping stones to other things and therefore approached his public life differently than other people might have.â€
She suggested that Obama joined Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ for political reasons. “It’s a church that would provide you with lots of social connections and prominent parishioners,†she said. “It’s a good place for a politician to be a member.â€
(Obama says) “When I started organizing, I understood the idea of social change in a very abstract way,†Obama told me last year. “It was to some extent informed by my years in Indonesia, seeing extreme poverty and disparities of wealth and understanding sort of in a dim way that life wasn’t fair and government had something to do with it. I understood the role that issues like race played and took inspiration from the civil-rights movement and what the student sit-ins had accomplished and the freedom rides.
“But I didn’t come out of a political family, didn’t have a history of activism in my family. So I understood these things in the abstract. When I went to Chicago, it was the first time that I had the opportunity to test out my ideas. And for the most part I would say I wasn’t wildly successful. The victories that we achieved were extraordinarily modest: you know, getting a job-training site set up or getting an after-school program for young people put in place.â€
In this early foray into politics, Obama revealed the toughness and brashness that this year’s long primary season brought into view. As Burns, who has a mischievous sense of humor and a gift for mimicry, recalled, “Black activists, community folks, felt that he didn’t respect their roleâ€â€”Burns imitated a self-righteous activist—“in the struggle and the movement. He didn’t engage in obeisance to them. He wanted to get the job done. And Barack’s cheap, too. If you can’t do it and do it in a cost-effective manner, you’re not going to work with him.†Ivory Mitchell, the ward chairman in Obama’s neighborhood, says of Obama that “he was typical of what most aspiring politicians are: self-centered—that ‘I can do anything and I’m willing to do it overnight.’ â€
The article WE linked to is a must read. Check out these snippets and read between the lines.Quote“I think he was very strategic in his choice of friends and mentors,†In retrospect, I think he saw the positions he held as stepping stones to other things and therefore approached his public life differently than other people might have.â€
She suggested that Obama joined Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ for political reasons. “It’s a church that would provide you with lots of social connections and prominent parishioners,†she said. “It’s a good place for a politician to be a member.â€
(Obama says) “When I started organizing, I understood the idea of social change in a very abstract way,†Obama told me last year. “It was to some extent informed by my years in Indonesia, seeing extreme poverty and disparities of wealth and understanding sort of in a dim way that life wasn’t fair and government had something to do with it. I understood the role that issues like race played and took inspiration from the civil-rights movement and what the student sit-ins had accomplished and the freedom rides.
“But I didn’t come out of a political family, didn’t have a history of activism in my family. So I understood these things in the abstract. When I went to Chicago, it was the first time that I had the opportunity to test out my ideas. And for the most part I would say I wasn’t wildly successful. The victories that we achieved were extraordinarily modest: you know, getting a job-training site set up or getting an after-school program for young people put in place.â€
In this early foray into politics, Obama revealed the toughness and brashness that this year’s long primary season brought into view. As Burns, who has a mischievous sense of humor and a gift for mimicry, recalled, “Black activists, community folks, felt that he didn’t respect their roleâ€â€”Burns imitated a self-righteous activist—“in the struggle and the movement. He didn’t engage in obeisance to them. He wanted to get the job done. And Barack’s cheap, too. If you can’t do it and do it in a cost-effective manner, you’re not going to work with him.†Ivory Mitchell, the ward chairman in Obama’s neighborhood, says of Obama that “he was typical of what most aspiring politicians are: self-centered—that ‘I can do anything and I’m willing to do it overnight.’ â€
I think you should. I skimmed it and lots of things jumped out at me.
"Lemme esplain. Ah no, there's too much lemme sum up...." :rotf:I think you should. I skimmed it and lots of things jumped out at me.
I will, but the only people that will read it will be you and lauri. :-)
I think the point of the cover is that this is supposedly how the Right is portraying hussein and wife.
You know, sometimes when making fun of how we see people's belief's we end up telling more about ourselves than we do about the people we are making fun of. In attempting to make fun of us "reich wingers" the New Yorker has written a novel-length commentary on who they really are.
I don't really find it as offensive as telling. And I encourage the New Yorker to tell us more.
I think you should. I skimmed it and lots of things jumped out at me.
I will, but the only people that will read it will be you and lauri. :-)
I asked her if what she considered slights or betrayals were simply the necessary accommodations and maneuvering of a politician making a lightning transition from Hyde Park legislator to Presidential nominee. "Can you get where he is and maintain your personal integrity?" she said. "Is that the question?" She stared at me and grimaced. "I'm going to pass on that."
To further Nukum's point from above, Michelle Malkin has a few choice reminders of who the liberals really are and what really think...This is a MUST READ!!! Of the cartoons she pointed out, this one from the Rolling Stone is truly offensive and made me physically ill. I can see no irony or satire in it at all:
http://michellemalkin.com/2008/07/14/grow-a-pair-obama/
This is what happens when you let DUmmies who are to the left of Stalin make your magazine covers. I can't help but notice the striking parallels to the many "nasty freeperpukes are hitler lovers!" posts so common on Skin's asylum.I think the point of the cover is that this is supposedly how the Right is portraying hussein and wife.I guess it's supposed to be a criticism of the caricature that the right has created of The BarackStar!
only problem is that is hasn't happened. aside from some fringe loonies, I have heard very little along these
lines at all. in fact, it is probably frustration that it hasn't happened on any scale at all that caused them to roll
this thing out prematurely.
if this was supposed to be a blast at the right, they missed.
The article WE linked to is a must read. Check out these snippets and read between the lines.Thanks for posting this excerpt, I tried to read the link posted above but fell asleep, anyway, I don't get what he is trying to say. In my experience, life only seems unfair when we don't know how to demand what we want from it, but he seems to be saying that life isn't fair and government helps in making it unfair? So then he got into politics to make government make life more fair and didn't really have much in the way of success in making government make life more fair?Quote“I think he was very strategic in his choice of friends and mentors,†In retrospect, I think he saw the positions he held as stepping stones to other things and therefore approached his public life differently than other people might have.â€
She suggested that Obama joined Jeremiah Wright’s Trinity United Church of Christ for political reasons. “It’s a church that would provide you with lots of social connections and prominent parishioners,†she said. “It’s a good place for a politician to be a member.â€
(Obama says) “When I started organizing, I understood the idea of social change in a very abstract way,†Obama told me last year. “It was to some extent informed by my years in Indonesia, seeing extreme poverty and disparities of wealth and understanding sort of in a dim way that life wasn’t fair and government had something to do with it. I understood the role that issues like race played and took inspiration from the civil-rights movement and what the student sit-ins had accomplished and the freedom rides.
“But I didn’t come out of a political family, didn’t have a history of activism in my family. So I understood these things in the abstract. When I went to Chicago, it was the first time that I had the opportunity to test out my ideas. And for the most part I would say I wasn’t wildly successful. The victories that we achieved were extraordinarily modest: you know, getting a job-training site set up or getting an after-school program for young people put in place.â€
In this early foray into politics, Obama revealed the toughness and brashness that this year’s long primary season brought into view. As Burns, who has a mischievous sense of humor and a gift for mimicry, recalled, “Black activists, community folks, felt that he didn’t respect their roleâ€â€”Burns imitated a self-righteous activist—“in the struggle and the movement. He didn’t engage in obeisance to them. He wanted to get the job done. And Barack’s cheap, too. If you can’t do it and do it in a cost-effective manner, you’re not going to work with him.†Ivory Mitchell, the ward chairman in Obama’s neighborhood, says of Obama that “he was typical of what most aspiring politicians are: self-centered—that ‘I can do anything and I’m willing to do it overnight.’ â€
cat_girl25 (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-14-08 09:55 PM
Response to Original message
2. They should have posters made out of that! LOL!
hedgehog (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-14-08 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. I posted a number of covers criticizing the Bush administration last night.
I have to admit, the difference is that the covers lampooning Bush were lampooning actual flaws in character or policy. The Obama cover is lampooning false perceptions of Obama. There should be an interesting cover in response to all this in a few weeks.
lastliberalintexas (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-14-08 10:08 PM
Response to Reply #12
14. Yep, that's how it comes across to the average American
If people in our country were intelligent and sophisticated enough to understand this cover, we would have enjoyed the prosperity of the President Stevenson years.
Canuckistanian (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-14-08 10:09 PM
Response to Original message
15. That's a brilliant satire of Cheney
Or is it a brilliant satire of our irrational hatred of Cheney?
I'm so confused.
I love how the DUmmies and other Libs have their knickers in a twist over that New Yorker cover...but think stuff like this:
(http://newsbusters.org/static/2008/07/oliphant-rice.gif)
Is just effen hliarious!
:whatever:
Selective bigotry, Sarge . . . she's "off the plantation." :mental:
Selective bigotry, Sarge . . . she's "off the plantation." :mental:
It's so damn selective Blue...that the Libtards have selectively "forgotten" that The New Yorker is a left wing rag and are blaming stuff like this on Republicans and of course their favorite Demon...President Bush.
:mental:
hedgehog (1000+ posts) Mon Jul-14-08 09:56 PM
Response to Original message
3. I posted a number of covers criticizing the Bush administration last night.
I have to admit, the difference is that the covers lampooning Bush were lampooning actual flaws in character or policy. The Obama cover is lampooning false perceptions of Obama. There should be an interesting cover in response to all this in a few weeks.
^nice backpedal there DUmmie. *eyeroll*
How about trying that line for the Bush, Condi, McCain, etc...photos?? Yeah, didn't think so.
Asshat DUmmies.
Before this, who was the last group to get so bent out of shape over a cartoon depicting their prophet?
Before this, who was the last group to get so bent out of shape over a cartoon depicting their prophet?
"This cartoon is insulting to MUSLIMS [hoping for hope and change] everywhere."
"This cartoon is insulting to MUSLIMS [hoping for hope and change] everywhere."More so than asking the ladies in Burka's to move out of camera shot so the lilly whites can be seen sitting behind the prophet?
Quote"This cartoon is insulting to MUSLIMS [hoping for hope and change] everywhere."More so than asking the ladies in Burka's to move out of camera shot so the lilly whites can be seen sitting behind the prophet?
excellent comparison. :-)
(http://www.granitegrok.com/pix/MohammadTurbanBomb.jpg)