Barack & Michelle make the cover of The New Yorker Magazine (and it's not pretty

[miskie]

It seems the very liberal publication The New Yorker has the primitives in full blown outrage.. Here is the cover for reference.

Apparently, its supposed to be a satirical look at how The New Yorker feels conservatives portray the Obamas, but it comes off wrong.. The gnashing of teeth over this is priceless. Anyway..

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.

Linkage..

[Lord Undies]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x6495244

Suffer the little goons suffering the indignation.  Suffer the little goons suffering the question, "Why is the liberal media doing this to our Lord & Savior?", when the liberal media is not suppose to exist.

Suffer the little goons suffering through the "What can we do about this?" phase of angst as they realize they are powerless and unimportant - as if they imagine tommorrow's headline is going to read, "DemocratUnderground.com Stops New Yorker cover".

[Splashdown]

 

[RightCoast]

Got to admit I also find it pretty offensive.  And I'm not easily offended.

[Lord Undies]

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

[Miss Mia]

Got to admit I also find it pretty offensive.  And I'm not easily offended.

I do too. 

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

I've never seen that before Undies, but I'd say it's equally as offending. 

[Rebel]

You people get offended too easily. I'm not offended by either. Disagree? Yes. Offended? Not too much offends me.

[Miss Mia]

You people get offended too easily. I'm not offended by either. Disagree? Yes. Offended? Not too much offends me.

Yeah, well I'll say that saying I'm "offended" was stronger than what I really feel.  In the end, I don't read The New Yorker anyways, so it doesn't effect me. 

[Lord Undies]

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.   

[Rebel]

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. 

[Chris_]

I think the point of the cover is that this is supposedly how the Right is portraying hussein and wife.
 

[Miss Mia]

I think the point of the cover is that this is supposedly how the Right is portraying hussein and wife.
 

I get that, but I can still thinks it's stupid.  Just like that cover Undies put up, it's stupid.

[Rebel]

They would be wrong. I portray them as:






**** Whitey! 

[Lord Undies]

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. 

Ok.  I'm offended that you're offended that I....oh, FFS!

[Lord Undies]

I must have been absent the day the DUmmies were outraged over this cover, which could easily leave the casual browser with the wrong impression.

[Duke Nukum]

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.

[Peter3_1]

I find it amusing.

[Atomic Lib Smasher]

I find it amusing.

I find it to be almost damn near accurate.

[Chris_]

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'm offended the three of you bastards are offended.
AND I am offended that I am offended.

[Peter3_1]

Well, Libsmasher, the positively hystercal reaction to any criticism of Obummer does make one wonder. It is my understanding, he did in fact attend a Moslem run school in Indonesia. By islamofascist standards, that makes him Muslim. If he no longer believes, he's an apostate.  Someone marked for death and an enemy of Islam.

BRINGING US TO THE QUESTION, Why do the islamofascists back Obummer for president if he is, according to the Qur'an , an apostate? Then examinating his last church, they have, for me, an unacceptable friendly relationship with the NOI and Calypso Louie.

So the hysterical reaction is so the Obummer worshipers won't have to answer any "hard" questions about his personal history. Why are they soooooo afraid?

[PatriotGame]

Offended?
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.

[Chris_]

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.   

[jukin]

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?

And if you think it has to do with racism, may I remind all of the Condi Rice cartoons that the DUchebags thought were GREAT.

[dutch508]

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).

Yeah, too bad it played top story on every evening news show in America.

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

When President Obama passes the fiarness doctrine we'll have them shut down!!!

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.

  DUh!

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.

 

and on all the TV stations too!!!

[Duke Nukum]

Offended?
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.

and H5