Cover of the New Yorker: Barack in turban, Michelle with AK-47??

reply to post by Dronetek

For years we've been told Cheney is evil, Bush is part of skull and Bones, Illuminati and so on. Why is it that the media and left wingers had NO problem with that. Yet, suddenly when they get a dose of their own medicine they have a problem?

Dronetek, I don't get it either, all of a sudden they have found the prince of of politicians all squeaky clean and desirable,

They wont even consider the fact that he may possibly be one of the most conniving dirty politician that have come out of the Chicago political machine , the next president was suppose to have been Blagojevich, but that didn't happen because he was/is to close to getting his hand caught in the cookie jar.

You guys just don't understand Illinois and the way it operates.

I guess people just need a HERO, a messiah, hope, change,

perfect set up,

LMAO


[edit on 103131p://bMonday2008 by Stormdancer777]

This confused me.

I thought it was somewhat of a contradiction of your previous statement since I assumed you were talking about the cover in question as the "dose of their own medicine". I thought you were saying this cover was giving the same treatment to liberals since some are saying they were offended by it.

What were you referring to?

I just meant the democrats cant take what they dish out. Sort of a side observation. This cover is supposed to represent "what conservatives think of Obama", which is a complete lie. Than the democrats get to be outraged over it, while forgetting their own similar deeds.

For example:

www.cbsnews.com...

Barack Obama's campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts Obama 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.

I'd challenge you to find ANY such article about the lies and innuendo thrown at Bush and Cheney over thew last 7 years.

Its simply another case of what I like to call, "Its ok when democrats do it!", or "they can dish it out, but they cant take it".

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Dronetek]

Originally posted by lee anoma
When is the last time you've heard someone say John Sidney McCain?

Hillary Rodham Clinton
George W. Bush (the W gets used a lot)
Martin Luther King
JFK
Lee Harvey Oswald
Jon Bennet Ramsey
etc etc etc It happens.


I still say that the Obamas won't be liking this at all. I could easily be wrong ... but I sure as heck wouldn't want it ... even in jest. 'The truth is sometimes said in jest'.

immediate edit for spelling.






[edit on 7/14/2008 by FlyersFan]

When is the last time you've heard someone say John Sidney McCain?

LOL, are you serious? Using the full name of a president is pretty steeped in American tradition.

As to the OP:

I think it is an excellent example of free speech.

Many of us know the dog any pony show that the recent Tony Snow thread(s) were allowed to become.

This is no different.

It may be tasteless, offensive, and rude. But that is opinion, and doesn't count.

So nobody that defended the gravedancers have any right to complain.

It doesnt take a genious to figure out this is to favor McCain.

Politics is so dirty and disgusting, i think they've gone over the top here.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by dgtempe]

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

I just want to point out this hilarious and contradictory thought:

Originally posted by Dronetek
The whole point is to say, "look, this is what conservatives think of Obama". Even though that's completely and utter BS. In other words, its meant to rally mindless Obama fanatics.

Let me tell you something, Dronetek, It's complete and utter BS to think that Obama supporters are "mindless fanatics", too.

He didn't say all Obama supporters are mindless fanatics. I interpreted it to mean "those Obama supporters who are mindless fanatics"


reply to post by lee anoma

Originally posted by lee anoma

Originally posted by Dronetek
Well, there have been quite a few Obama campaign offices with posters of Che Guevara up. Not much of a difference. Most of the heat Obama catches is purely his fault based on who he chooses to surround himself with.

I can't believe you don't see the difference between the alleged mastermind of the 9/11 attacks that leveled the twin towers and killed thousands of American lives, and Che Guevara. I believe there are MAJOR differences there. The American people have a direct relationship to the more recent actions of Osama Bin Laden and his followers. People are still healing from the wounds inflicted that September, and some rescue workers have developed serious medical conditions as a consequence.

Incredible. Yesterday there was discussion about Tony Snow being equated with Abu Musab al-Zarqawi. I took the same position that you did here; there is a big difference..

What I find most telling and unfortunate is the fact that some participants in yestserday's debate, who are here on this thread, have chosen the low road and not challenged you. But I know the reason - it is because this is about Obama. The old double standard is alive and kicking.

Originally posted by Dronetek
This cover is supposed to represent "what conservatives think of Obama"

Yes, the entire thing is over-the-top tounge-in-cheek satire. It's fantastically funny too. The flag burning in the fireplace with the image of Osama hanging above the mantle was genius. I'm disappointed that they didn't have Jeremiah A. Wright in the image (burning the flag) and Ahmadinejad with his feet up on the desk in the background but I guess they're just sticking with the Muslim association for this image.

I laughed. If you don't think that this image is funny, you need a smack in the funny-bone.

I think this cover signals an entire series of satirical Obama cartoons to come:

Next should be a picture of him serving tea to Ahmadinejad and bin Laden, since he has vowed to sit down with our enemies.

Originally posted by jsobecky
He didn't say all Obama supporters are mindless fanatics. I interpreted it to mean "those Obama supporters who are mindless fanatics"

By the same token, the "point" of the picture is not to say, "Look, this is what ALL conservatives think of Obama". Just those conservatives who think he's a terrorist "secret Muslim" who burns flags and worships Osama bin Laden.

Originally posted by Dronetek
The whole point is to say, "look, this is what conservatives think of Obama".

Originally posted by jsobecky
So nobody that defended the gravedancers have any right to complain.

There is ALWAYS the right to complain. That is ALSO Freedom of Speech. It's just that here on ATS, there are rules and "laws" about personal attacks on people. You can complain and disagree, but personal attacks crosses a line, according to the T&C.

Disagreement is not a personal attack.
Being offended is not a personal attack.
Complaining is not a personal attack.
Expressing offense is not a personal attack.

You gotta be kidding. Our country has become such a PC country that now even a political candidate has to be babied. God for bid someone sits at home with no life whining over a cartoon. SAD!

Look...the man is running for PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES...a position that DEMANDS you work for the people..ALL people...not just the ones who accept your lifestyle, skin color, and opinions. When your looking to run this country you HAVE to expect to be made fun of, hated, liked, loved, etc... I am ALWAYS amazed how we bash bush and all is well, bash a minority and all of a sudden its wrong. BS!! If he can't take the bashing and criticism should he really be in charge of the most hated, yet loved country in the world?

You can't change the way people view him...they are given the right to express their thoughts of him...here on ATS most of you ALWAYS cry about the right to free speech...how its ok to curse out cops, make fun of bush, hate on politicians, etc...but now this is to much...TYPICAL hypocricy!!

Originally posted by philjwolf
its ok.. to have a cartoon about a sitting president (lil bush)... portraying him as an idiot.. but this is going to far.. ???? Its ok.... for the dems to do it.. but not the reps??

I guess my response would be the difference is about accuracy. Portraying GW as an idiot..well there is a strong case to be made

Originally posted by rcwj75
here on ATS most of you ALWAYS cry about the right to free speech...how its ok to curse out cops, make fun of bush, hate on politicians, etc...but now this is to much...TYPICAL hypocricy!!

CONFUSED.

Statements of this sort always confuse me. I am for free speech and would never suggest that speech or writing anti-obama BS or almost anything else should be illegal. Never. But aren't people entitled to respond and challenge BS with our opinions/views etc.? Free speech means anyone can spout any kind of BS they like and it also means we can call it what it is. Calling it foul DOESN'T MEAN WE ARE AGAINST FREE SPEECH. Just the opposite, we are using our right to free speech.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by maybereal11]

Yahoo News

Obama is now saying it's tasteless and offensive.

I like the cartoon but I fully understand where he's coming from AND I'd feel the same way.

Originally posted by Dronetek

When is the last time you've heard someone say John Sidney McCain?

LOL, are you serious? Using the full name of a president is pretty steeped in American tradition.

The use of his middle name by many conservatives and conservative radio show host was done to prejudice Americans, and have them connect him to being a secret Muslim. Emphasis is made there (at times as if a slur) because it also connects to Saddam. Which is why voters in interviews on CNN said they wouldn't vote for him because they "don't agree with his Muslim religion" and "have had enough of the Husseins".

Enough With the ''Barack Hussein'' Business

In an op-ed essay in these pages, my colleague Ron Brownstein writes about Colorado's perhaps pivotal role in the presidential election equation, and quotes sundry Coloradans on what's going into the making of their choices.

The one that got to me was a fellow who only offered one name -- Matt -- who said something we've been hearing here and there across the country: ``I can't vote for a guy whose middle name is Hussein.''
LA Times

...but groups proclaiming Barack Hussein Obama: The worst name in the history of U.S. politics (which uses a logo blending the words Obama and Osama), His Middle Name is HUSSEIN for Pete's Sake, and Can we please remember that Barack Obama's middle name is Hussein can also be found, all seeking to draw attention to his Arabic name, which is common in the Muslim world and thus supposedly unAmerican.
Guardianblog

Barack Hussein Obama: Once a Muslim, Always A Muslim

His full name--as by now you have probably heard--is Barack Hussein Obama, Jr. Hussein is a Muslim name, which comes from the name of Ali's son--Hussein Ibn Ali. And Obama is named after his late Kenyan father, the late Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., apparently a Muslim.

And while Obama may not identify as a Muslim, that's not how the Arab and Muslim Streets see it. In Arab culture and under Islamic law, if your father is a Muslim, so are you. And once a Muslim, always a Muslim. You cannot go back. In Islamic eyes, Obama is certainly a Muslim. He may think he's a Christian, but they do not.
FreeRepublic.com

Judging from some of the responses to the Free Republic article there are many that are claiming him to be Muslim by the simple fact of his middle name. It's backfiring though as many Obama supporters are changing their online names to Hussein in solidarity.

Regardless...it was happening.

So yes I am serious.
Are you naive?

- Lee

Originally posted by jsobecky
I think this cover signals an entire series of satirical Obama cartoons to come:

Next should be a picture of him serving tea to Ahmadinejad and bin Laden, since he has vowed to sit down with our enemies.

So yes I am serious.
Are you naive?

If you think its racist to use someones legal name, than you're the one that's naive.

[edit on 14-7-2008 by Dronetek]

Originally posted by lee anoma
The use of his middle name by many conservatives and conservative radio show host was done to prejudice Americans, and have them connect him to being a secret Muslim.

I can't believe you had to explain this!

Barack Hussein Obama
No relation to Saddam or that jerk Osama
He's a man on a mission
A visionary poet slash politician...

Benevolent Hussein

reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jsobecky
He didn't say all Obama supporters are mindless fanatics. I interpreted it to mean "those Obama supporters who are mindless fanatics"

By the same token, the "point" of the picture is not to say, "Look, this is what ALL conservatives think of Obama". Just those conservatives who think he's a terrorist "secret Muslim" who burns flags and worships Osama bin Laden.

I don't see that at all. I see it as the New Yorker publishing a politically satirical cartoon on it's cover because it can. To read into their motives is pretentious, and without proof. Unless, of course, you have a memo from the editorial staff stating that that was their motive.

Originally posted by jsobecky
So nobody that defended the gravedancers have any right to complain.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
There is ALWAYS the right to complain. That is ALSO Freedom of Speech. It's just that here on ATS, there are rules and "laws" about personal attacks on people. You can complain and disagree, but personal attacks crosses a line, according to the T&C.

Bullcrap. I don't think even you believe that. There are personal attacks in that thread that have been allowed to live despite several people complaining about them. How does that work, again?

Oh yeah, use the Complaint button.

What happens when the Complaint button is broken?

Originally posted by jsobecky
As to the OP:

I think it is an excellent example of free speech.

Many of us know the dog any pony show that the recent Tony Snow thread(s) were allowed to become.

This is no different.

Hi, Jsobecky,

I have no idea what threads you are referring to. I haven't seen them but I will look them up now. You say I haven't been challenged in this thread? You should look again. I seem to be arguing the same point that some people just don't get. I understand the satire of the cover, but I also understand the potential offense to it.

Oh and this reminds me:

Guys...PLEASE stop the free speech rhetoric already. I never once said it should not be printed, I never once said I was offended. I never once said the artist had no right to create the image.

Please stop and read what I actually said.

Keep in mind, even if one is offended by it they ALSO have a right to be. Being offended by something doesn't remove the right to free speech. It is when you are offended and try and CENSOR the material in question that free speech can be in jeopardy.

I have not once said I advocated censoring the cover.

Please don't keep lecturing me on free speech.
I am exercising my right to it at this very moment, if you haven't noticed.

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
Dronetek, I don't get it either, all of a sudden they have found the prince of of politicians all squeaky clean and desirable,

This cover is an attack on those that attack Obama with outrageous lies, not an attack on him specifically.
It is not an attack on him but again he has a right to be offended if he chooses.
You have a right not to be if you choose.

- Lee