Advertisement

Archive for Tuesday, July 15, 2008

Magazine cover called ‘tasteless, offensive’ by Obama campaign

July 15, 2008

Advertisement

New Yorker magazine's July 21 cover satirically depicts presidential candidate Barack Obama dressed as a Muslim and his wife, Michelle, as a terrorist.

New Yorker magazine's July 21 cover satirically depicts presidential candidate Barack Obama dressed as a Muslim and his wife, Michelle, as a terrorist.

— A satirical New Yorker magazine cover cartoon depicting Barack Obama and his wife as flag-burning, fist-bumping radicals drew outrage from the Democratic presidential candidate's campaign as it appeared on newsstands Monday.

The illustration, titled "The Politics of Fear" and drawn by Barry Blitt, depicts Obama wearing traditional Muslim clothing - sandals, robe and turban - while his wife, Michelle, has an assault rifle slung over one shoulder and is dressed in camouflage and combat boots with her hair in an Afro.

A flag burns in a fireplace behind them as they exchange a fist bump, the affectionate greeting they used onstage the night Obama clinched the Democratic nomination. A Fox News anchor later referred to it as a possible "terrorist fist jab." A portrait of Osama bin Laden hangs above the fireplace.

The cartoon, which Obama's campaign said was "tasteless and offensive," is not explained inside the magazine. The issue, dated July 21, also contains a 15,000-word story about Obama's political education and early years in Chicago.

The cartoonist's previous covers include a drawing of President Bush and his inner circle floating up to their elbows in water inside the Oval Office, for an issue published just after Hurricane Katrina ravaged New Orleans.

In a statement, the magazine said the cover combines "fantastical images about the Obamas and shows them for the obvious distortions they are."

"The burning flag, the nationalist-radical and Islamic outfits, the fist-bump, the portrait on the wall? All of them echo one attack or another," it said.

Obama, who is Christian, has long fought rumors that he is secretly a Muslim. His wife has endured her own attacks, including ones that claimed there was videotape of her criticizing "whitey" from a church pulpit. The Obama campaign says there is no such tape because she never spoke at a church.

The magazine said satire is part of what it does "to hold up a mirror to prejudice, the hateful, and the absurd. And that's the spirit of this cover."

Comments

jaywalker 6 years ago

Satirical, I'm a big fan of satire, and on one hand can see the alleged intent, particularly with the portrayal of the 'terrorist fist bump' which has to be one of the most moronic things to be uttered by the talking heads. But, and this is purely opinion, it would have been wise to back it up with an actual article explaining 'The Politics of Fear'. There's lampooning and there's controversial. I keep thinking of the Golf mag with the noose on the cover recently.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

"Isn't there a lot of Jew-hatred in this world today?" There's a lot of racist hatred of all sorts in this world, including hatred of Jews. But criticism of the actions and policies of Israel doesn't mean hatred of Jews any more than criticism of the actions and policies of the US government indicates hatred of Americans.

0

whiskeysour 6 years ago

I fail to see a difference between visual and rhetorical assertions of terrorism - especially if the magazine content addressed the linkage of Obama, Islam, and terrorism as it seems that it did. Your indication that the author can make a case explaining themselves is spot on - but the key word is CAN, many times they do not. Thus, the accusations are equally unexplained when presented in pictures or print. http://www.nogw.com/ contains conspiracy ravings, assertions of Bush being a terrorist, as well as pictoral representations of him as Hitler. It is an international website, hosted/headquartered in Costa Rica I believe, which states as its purpose"Web site that exposes the corrupt Bush administration and his terrorist organization. We pull together the resources that expose the death and destruction of this Illuminati organization, in their bid for global domination. The value of human life is falling fast with the Bush Cheney regime in power in Washington. Regime change starts in Washington" Sites such as this, and visual representations of Bush as terrorist are par for the course among left wing protest movements - their lack of publication by mainstream media outlet does nothing to undercut their existence. For the record, I support the right of these groups to say such things about Bush, just like I support the New Yorker for its cover representation of Obama. Its called free speech.It also seems to me that Obama's connection to terrorism is less a cause of the controversy as is the Islamic garb. However, as a previous commentator pointed out, was first circulated by Clinton supporters.

0

jaywalker 6 years ago

Jonas says:"Satire is pretty tricky, and you can burn yourself easily....but it's always clearer to the creator than the audience what the intended goal was."Truer words have not been spoken on this string. Satire is meant for reaction, oft times severe reaction. Soon as I saw this on the news last night I groaned and shook my head. There's pushing the envelope and then there's 'jumping the shark'. I say again, I believe the cover's controversy would have been diffused with an article which outlined the caricature's intent.

0

Flap Doodle 6 years ago

"...Obama doesn't have any real policies, his message of "hope & change" is more of a mantra than a platform, and he has more flip-flops than a Hawaiian surf-shop, he needs to distract voters from these glaring weaknesses or they might see him for a suit empty of anything but a pocketful of ambition.He needs to be a victim to do this, standing alone against the evil racists who oppose him because they have to be racist because they oppose him.Sadly, the Right, except for a few on the nutty fringes, failed to deliver on the fearmongering. The rumours of his secret Muslim past was mostly ignored by anyone outside the Hillary Clinton campaign, because the smart people on the Right knew that Obama is not a Muslim. That's because you actually have to believe in something to be a Muslim, and Barack Obama believes in nothing but his own greed for power.The Right does discuss his inexperience, the only thing he has a lot of, but I don't think they view him as a scary figure. In fact, most see him as a weak figure, a shallow, vain, opportunists with a cadre of friends that range from the crooked (Rezko) to the fanatical (Ayers) to the downright nutty (Rev. Wright) and he's running out of buses to throw them under. And that's not racist, they'd have done the same thing to any candidate with a resume thinner than Paris Hilton.So, without the Right providing the racism he wanted Obama's backers have decided to manufacture it, and they believe it will work because the Mainstream Media will take anything Obama's campaign says as gospel, whether it has any truth in it or not.So the New Yorker publishes a rather inane cartoon, claiming that it's about what the Right is up to, even though it has nothing really to do with the Right, and it gives Obama that blessed status of victimhood he so desperately craves to distract folks from his utter failure as a statesman."Read it all at: http://moxargongroup.blogspot.com/2008/07/leftist-mind-picture-says-1000-words.html

0

Jonathan Kealing 6 years ago

Bozo,You know that's not true. If I removed every post of yours where some clicked suggest removal, you wouldn't have any posts on the site. In all seriousness, when I remove posts (and others do as well) I'm looking for profanity, personal attacks or general offensive content.Jonathan KealingOnline editor

0

fundamental 6 years ago

From Mark Hemingway:When the week's New Yorker arrived with the caricature on the cover of Barack and Michelle Obama in Muslim and Commie guerrilla garb respectively, fist-bumping in an Oval Office where Osama bin Laden's picture hangs over the mantle, Obama's campaign released a statement. The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree. It is, indeed, a tasteless and offensive attack - on conservatives. The New Yorker is right about one thing: If you're a subscriber, you probably get the satire the magazine intended, even if the image itself has all the subtlety of a Michael Bay movie. The problem is not that the typically literate New Yorker reader won't understand that the magazine isn't earnestly portraying Obama as a member of al-Qaeda. The problem is that liberal media types think this caricature of Obama actually exists in the heads of "right-wing critics." Engage most real-life "right wing critics" for a few minutes and you'll realize the contention is laughable, but instead of a reality check, The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum does The New Yorker one better, making this observation: "If artist Barry Blitt had some real cojones, he would have drawn the same cover but shown it as a gigantic word bubble coming out of John McCain's mouth - implying, you see, that this is how McCain wants the world to view Obama. But he didn't. Because that would have been unfair."Too bad Drum was being sarcastic, because "that would have been unfair" is exactly right. Remember when John McCain upbraided a radio host who referred to Obama by his unfortunate middle name at a McCain campaign event? How about when the North Carolina GOP ran ads using footage of Jeremiah Wright, and McCain told the state party to put a sock in it? Did Drum not notice that the McCain campaign immediately released a statement condemning the New Yorker cover? Can Drum produce any evidence that shows that the New Yorker cover is "how McCain wants the world to view Obama"? Drum doesn't - and can't - point to a single thing that John McCain has said or done that to support this conclusion. More to follow...

0

jmadison 6 years ago

If memory serves, the picture of Sen. Obama in Muslim garb was first circulated by Sen. Clinton's campaign.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

jkealing-- Thanks for posting about what the policy is, but in my own defense, I think that the "personal attacks" for which I have had posts removed almost invariably made note of or referred to actual comments or posting behavior of the other posters, the posts in this thread being no exception to that.But, hey, it's your forum, you can run it as you see fit.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

I think the key is violence AND intimidation. If there is no violence or threat thereof, then it isn't terrorism.

0

Flap Doodle 6 years ago

Gonna go for three in a row, bozo?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

"The left, however, can't take a joke."I think Obama probably got the humor just fine-- I think what he's worried about is the the right-wingers this joke is really on will not get it, and use it to spread their own xenophobia.

0

sfjayhawk 6 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Flap Doodle 6 years ago

So the New Yorker can step up alongside Jesse Jackson & Ralph Nader now?

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

"I was wondering how long it would take Bozo to move from 'Invictus hates everybody' to 'I heart Invictus.'"As usual, screed, your strawman assertion mostly just makes you look silly to anyone paying any attention.But I'm curious, do you believe that any criticism of Israel automatically means the criticizer is an anti-Semite?

0

EXks 6 years ago

99% of Americans have NEVER heard of, nor read the New Yorker...which includes most of YOU.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

sfjayhawk 6 years ago

The title of the cover, "The politics of fear" was not included - but surely it was pretty clear. Right? Surely no one could possibly interpret the cover, intended to satirize the use of fear tactics and misinformation in the campaign (a Fox News host called the Obamas' fist-bump as possibly a "terrorist fist-jab" in June) as a corroboration of those charges. Wrong again - too much credit was given to dumb racist Americans who continue to believe many of the lies circulating about the Obamas and who are scared to death of a non-white American in the white house - they just cant seem to wrap their tiny minds around the joke. How sad.

0

whiskeysour 6 years ago

In regards to logicsound's challenge to show the cartoon of Bush or Cheney as terrorists, I'd like to point out several occurences of Bush opponents using the label of terrorist to refer to the president. While not visual, the linkage of political opponents to the cause of terrorism seems quite similiar. In February of 2006 Alec Baldwin, in a Huffington Post column wrote, "Cheney is a terrorist. He terrorizes our enemies abroad and innocent citizens here at home indiscriminately." Moreover, Harry Belafonte, in a January 2006 speeh in Venezuela, labeled President Bush "the greatest terrorist in the world". It became quite common for left wing rhetoric to cite Bush, Cheney, neo-Cons, et al as the "real" cause of terrorism. Is it an less offensive to depict the president/vice president as theives, coprorate manipulators, etc - or does the left just not find that offensive because they "believe it to be true" and thus their defense of Obama is based upon their faith in him as a candidate?As for the cover/satire of the Obama's, taken for what it wsa intended to be (satire) I find no fault with it. The arguement that states well it was misguided because people might take it as truth holds no merit, in my opinion, because that would discount 90% of comedy - Daily Show, Colbert Report, late night monologues, which use innuendo and misconceptions as punchlines.

0

beatrice 6 years ago

Why isn't there a "Suggest removal" link posted next to the offensive image showing the Obamas as terrorists? Talk about your personal attack!

0

Jonathan Kealing 6 years ago

Bozo,I was trying to use a bit of humor, but the substance of the matter is the vast majority of your posts don't present any problems for us or for the forum. It's just the occasional one that we take down and I'm pretty comfortable with why we have.Jonathan KealingOnline editor

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

The only "rule" on post removal is whether or not this button--Suggest removalhas been pushed.

0

sfjayhawk 6 years ago

Poor racist Americans - the butt of just about every joke, including this cover, and they dont even realize it. I imagine all of this makes them pretty bitter, and in turn they cling to their guns and jeasus even more. Sad really.

0

beatrice 6 years ago

I still find it humorous that the LJWorld is removing posts for being "offensive," yet they choose to picture the repugnant satire of the Obamas that is described in their own headline as "offensive and tasteless." Talk about a case of do as I say, not as I do.

0

beatrice 6 years ago

There you have it. I described a potential satirical image of John and Cindy McCain, without using profanity or lying, just exaggerating, and it got removed. Yet we have people here calling others jew-haters, picturing the Obamas as terrorists, we routinely have liars calling the Obamas terrorists, etc., and the LJWorld even has the offensive picture from the New Yorker, yet they all remain. Wow. But why remove my comment?Isn't John McCain old? He is certainly past the age of retirement for many companies, including the Air Force. Didn't he have an affair while married to his first wife with the younger woman he is married to currently? Yes, and he admitted it recently.Isn't she filthy rich from family money? To the tune of $100 million in money she didn't earn but was born into.Didn't she have a problem with drug addiction? She sure did, and admitted to stealing drugs from her own "charitable" organization. Am I the first to describe her as a Stepford Wife? Not even close.So why remove the post? Must be the "liberal" media again.

0

whiskeysour 6 years ago

Interesting bozo - at what level does intimidation not constitute terrorism though. For example, Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton etc often threaten boycotts and other actions to cause companies to acquiesce (Feminist groups, such as the Martha Burke led crusade against Augusta National - employ similiar tactics) which to me constitutes a form of indimidation. Does that mean that they are terrorists as well? Should we delve into Chicago politics to come up with examples of Obama using intimidation, or surrogates using it on his behalf, to validate the cover?

0

jaywalker 6 years ago

That cover smacks of a dishonest, shameless attempt at selling the magazine (at $4.50 a pop). I have not read the article, but from what I hear, while the cover is 'supposed' to be satire, the story inside is not. Having a caricature like that on the cover and titling it 'The Politics of Fear' is going to lead many to believe the topic is covered inside.Personally, I find it ridiculous and disrespectful to the Obama's. And I'll bet Jackson and Sharpton are preparing to 'release the hounds' right about now.Daytrader,I think I've seen you reference Bush ties to the Bin Laden family before. I'm very curious to learn what you're referring to.From what I've read, Osama was the only one of that vast family to become a blight on the world stage. I know his father built his fortune on a reputable construction business and some of the brothers have gone to school here in the U.S. and are admired and respected here and abroad. What are the controversial ties you allude to ?

0

jonas 6 years ago

jaywalker: Lessons from experience, man. (errr. . . assuming your a man) I had some people pretty pissed off at me after we read our story in class, I can tell you.

0

beatrice 6 years ago

screed: "I missed bozo's 9:32 post. PM me if it was about me, and I'd be glad to respond."Got Paranoia?

0

beatrice 6 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

Looks like the moderators will be busy on this thread today, although there are still at least a couple of offending posts remaining here, if consistency is their goal.

0

jonas 6 years ago

Satire is pretty tricky, and you can burn yourself easily, particularly when the actual target of your satire is more difficult to discern. When I was in High School, I wrote a children's story for our Creative Writing class with a couple of friends entitled "Red Riding in da Hood." My thought on making it was to take all the stereotypes us nice white suburbanites used against black people and throw them out at once, and of course everyone thought we were being horribly racist. Personally, I thought the tiny Ross Perot floating through the background of one page in a little balloon shouting "Pat Buchanan is a nazi!" was something of a giveaway, but it's always clearer to the creator than the audience what the intended goal was.

0

unite2revolt 6 years ago

I heard of the New Yorker, when I was a kid I read it for the cartoons.

0

whiskeysour 6 years ago

I did not state that you (logicsound) demanded punishment or removal. . . more generally I was making a point about why this entire brouhaha is ridiculous. Having said that, I don't believe that the place where pictures/accusations appear (New Yorker, Huffington, fringe websites, etc) makes a real difference. Either something is permissable, or its not. Its that simple.

0

cato_the_elder 6 years ago

Illlogic, the Obamas are what U.S. Supreme Court decisions view as "public figures." As a result, it's virtually impossible to defame them in the legal sense without a very specific finding of a species of malice that's extremely difficult to prove (a few celebrities, such as Carol Burnett, have actually done it, but for politicians it's virtually impossible). The Court's decisions and this very tasteless cover are, I might add, entirely consistent with political cartoons in our country from the time of our independence, through the marvelous works of Thomas Nast and others, to the present.

0

hwarangdo 6 years ago

Hhmmmm ... time to elect another president ... now who could we possibly vote for who is PERFECT?Ho hum, guess we'd better just stick with the status quo and vote republican again ... ho hum ... yawn ... These responses are SO funny ... and SAD.If America has slid down the toilet this far there is no hope for this country, all in the name of 'satire' [sic].If FREEDOM is taken away because we are too scared, paranoid, and vengeful, too hateful, too angry to live with our fellow human beings in PEACE, then it is a sad day in the history of this country.There is a very thin line between satire and bias. Those who love to hate will jump onto the bias bandwagon and toot that horn aplenty.Toot toot ya'll.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

oldvet 6 years ago

"However most of rural America will take it literally."Hey, this is on the New Yorker, not Sports Illustrated or Guns and Ammo... most of rural America won't even see it...But you're playing in the big leagues now, so get ready for anything and everything. Every time you or your wife open your mouths, any gesture you make, anything you wear or don't wear, you are open targets... get tough or go back to the minors...

0

Satirical 6 years ago

Everyone has a problem with a little satire (pun intended)

0

cato_the_elder 6 years ago

The New Yorker used to be one of America's most respected publications, but in recent years its demonstrated lack of taste and its abandonment of any semblance of objectivity are the primary reasons for its decline. The magazine's lame attempt at a statement explaining what it did here demonstrates how out of touch it is.

0

Satirical 6 years ago

Logicsound04:"Please show me the satirical cartoon painting Bush/Cheney as white supremacists or terrorists and you will have made a good point."Have you seriously not read doonesbury and the political cartoons for the last 8 years? I tend to skip most of them because they are baseless and stupid, but there has been everything from implying he is a racist, terrorist, warmonger, criminal, power hungry, anti-American, and just plain evil. The ones referring to Cheney and the hunting incident were actually pretty funny.The U.S. Supreme Court has stated there is a completely different standard of defamation against political figures as there is for the average public. Otherwise doonesbury and the like would have been sued six ways to Sunday. Satire is as old as the republic and won't stop for Obama, even though he things any criticism of him is out of bounds.

0

sfjayhawk 6 years ago

Actually Obama used a family bible for his swearing in - but honestly I dont care if obama is sworn in as president on a copy of mad magazine. Racist xenophobes never cease to amaze me with their stupidity.

0

just_another_bozo_on_this_bus 6 years ago

terrorism |&&char114&& terÉ&&char114&&rizÉm|nounthe use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.Under that definition, Bush and Cheney are indeed terrorists. Even Clinton is, although on a much smaller scale. Bush I and Reagan clearly were, Carter, not so much, but Ford, Nixon, Johnson and Kennedy were.

0

Daytrader23 6 years ago

I find a bit of humor in it. However most of rural America will take it literally. Thats the sad part. I'm still voting for Obama, regardless of his ties to jihad terrorist and the Bin Laden family, Oh wait, that was Bush.

0

fundamental 6 years ago

In fairness to Drum, you should read his swift condemnation of the caricature in Rolling Stone last month that had a screaming McCain inside a tiger cage being poked with sharp sticks by Obama, Hillary Clinton, and George W. Bush dressed as north Vietnamese in black pajamas. Wait, Drum didn't write a post condemning Rolling Stone?Well, at least the Obama campaign issued that statement taking Rolling Stone to task for the tasteless McCain illustration. It was particularly brave of the campaign, when one considers that the magazine's coverage of Obama couldn't be any more fawning if it were bylined by Bambi. What's that you say? Obama's campaign didn't release a statement condemning Rolling Stone for their "tasteless and offensive" McCain caricature?But surely, Obama's dealt with a lot of other unfair attacks in this campaign from "right wing critics"? With the first black presidential candidate there has been a fair amount of racial politics at work. So Obama was probably pretty upset when those right-wingers said that his victory in the South Carolina primary was irrelevant, because Jesse Jackson won that primary (and wink, wink, nudge, nudge - they're both black!). Oops. That was Bill Clinton. Then there are the "right wing critics" who question his insanely convoluted answer to the question "why don't you wear a flag pin?"; that his wife said she wasn't proud of her country until it became obvious that her husband had a good shot at the White House; that he's had a close relationship with Bill Ayers, an unrepentant domestic terrorist. Okay, fine those were the work of "right wing critics" - and they had some legitimate concerns on those counts. As for the baseless charge that Obama is a Muslim, let's look at some actual data rather than base our preconceptions on a cartoon. Back in late March, Pew did a survey. One of the questions they asked was "Do you know if Obama is a ... Christian, Muslim or don't know?"The headline everyone ran with from the study was of course, "Poll: 1 in 10 think Obama is Muslim." But who, exactly, is it that thinks Obama is a Muslim? According to Pew, 14 percent of Republicans, 10 percent of Democrats and eight percent of Independents thought Obama was Muslim. However, the poll has a margin of error of plus or minus three percent, so statistically we're pretty even. Further, the study reported that 54 percent of Republicans correctly identified Obama as a Christian, compared to 52 percent of Democrats. Twenty-nine percent of Republicans said they didn't know Obama's religion, compared to the 34 percent of Democrats who said the same.Still more...

0

fundamental 6 years ago

The last of it...So this leads us to a fairly inescapable conclusion, obvious to anyone who's toiled in the salt mines of public-opinion polling: there's a large cross section of the American people who are not very well-informed. And that cross section appears to be a much more diverse sample of people than one might think. For instance, after this week we now know that smarty-pants New York magazine editors are often no less ignorant, and even more prejudicial, than the trailer-dwelling backwoodsmen in West Pennsyltucky, whose perceived mindset they eagerly skewer in their clumsy attempts at appearing urbane and sophisticated. America, it seems, is truly egalitarian even in its faults. Contrary to what Barack Obama and The New Yorker would have you believe, no political party or ideology can lay claim to a lion's share of ignorance. And everyone should expect to see plenty more of it between now and November.

0

jaywalker 6 years ago

Jonas:Know exactly where you're coming from. Had a similar experience with a creative writing course at KU. Wrote a paper on 'Why it's good to be a guy', with the intent of the piece to illustrate how much more difficult every day life can be for women. And guess which portion of the class was upset with me after it was read? Never saw it coming.And, yeah, I'm a guy.

0

Satirical 6 years ago

logicsound04..."It sounds like you're implying that Obama has brought this upon himself, or at the very least, that "all's fair" in politics."Satire is completely fair game. I can't count the number of satirical cartoons lampooning Bush or Cheney in the last 8 years. Have you ever ready doonesbury? Sometimes satire is tasteless and baseless, but as long as it is not defamation it is all apart of politics.

0

neverforget 6 years ago

This comment was removed by the site staff for violation of the usage agreement.

0

Curtis Martell 6 years ago

Here is what I think is interesting - had I seen the magazine on the newstand, I would have instantly recognized it as satire lampooing Obama's critics and not thought much more about it. But when instead saw the article and the cover next to it, then read this blog I thought it was offensive and disprespectful. So context means a lot. Anyone who is regular reader of the New Yorker would recognize it a satire, pure and simple. Take the cover out of that context, and it could mean a lot of things to a lot of people. Too bad only the Obama's were pictured in cartoon and not Bill O'Reilly with a word bubble coming out of his mouth containing the cartoon like another poster suggested.

0

beatrice 6 years ago

Hey Snap, your new best friend Tom used to log on as right-thinker, a known racist who would back up his arguments by providing links to White Supremacist sites.That is who your friend is. Who are you?I look forward to Obama being your President.

0

Curtis Martell 6 years ago

Thanks for the tip snapcracklepop. I can't beleive I've been missing the brilliant insight provided by:"...THE MOXARGON GROUP the blog where the Overlord of the Known Universe and his minions analyze and occasionally mock the politics and cultures of a little blue-green rock call Earth"I'm resetting my home page.

0

Satirical 6 years ago

This is clearly politics as usual, however most of the libs see this political satire as wrong, yet fail to recognize the years of political satire against the Bush administration and McCain was just as bad, if not worse. In fact most libs likely believed the satire targeting Bush as the gospel truth, which is probably why their "facts" are so often unsubstantiated (ironically fear of misinformation is the main reason many posters today claim this satire against Obama is wrong). When I see stuff against someone I support I just role my eyes (unless it is really funny, then I laugh) because I know this is part of the game. The sooner you realize politics is a game, the better off you will be.Get used to it, we are in a Presidential election, and both sides are naive to think that this type of satire wouldn't surface when it has been going on ever since the Union has been in existence. However, libs in the last 8 years have brought it to a new level, and now all of a sudden they revile when it is used against Obama? Give me a break. Further proof that many libs are either hypocrites or completely blinded by their liberal colored glasses and are too young or incompetent to understand history.

0

Satirical 6 years ago

Everyone who read this article should also read today's article titled "Truth now more ridiculous than satire"

0

Commenting has been disabled for this item.