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

Originally posted by Dronetek
It sounds like a MAD TV skit or something.

Okay, then watch this one. You'll be on the floor laughing. This is nearly as tongue-in-cheek as the New Yorker image. I'm not sure if they meant to be serious or not.

Dramatic music, Arabic chanting. This has it all.

Originally posted by dbates
So you're rebuttal is that the National Anthem isn't important if someone is cooking food nearby?

No that is just the part you took out.
You still got it wrong.

A cook-out where someone sings the national anthem does not require you to place your hand over your heart. It is at your discretion. Get it now?

Please list the conditions where you feel patriotic and those where you don't feel patriotic.

What are you talking about? You are the one judging his patriotism not me. I haven't claimed anyone to be unpatriotic by any personal definitions I hold.

The whole thing is completely subjective. I could feel patriotic right now and start singing the anthem, but does that require you to join in? Stand up, and place your hand over your heart?

Nope.

I was going by the standard U.S. code. The code suggests certain actions during certain events. This event doesn't seem to fall under that category as far as I can tell.

Obama's ignorance of U.S. code of conduct isn't a free pass. This just shows his naivety, ignorance, and inexperience.

And is it a free pass for those NOT facing the flag as well?

That too is a part of the practice that NO ONE on stage followed. That means anyone not facing the flag at this "steak fry" is naive and unfit to ever command.

Again even if he did believe it wasn't required...according to the code...he didn't have to place his hand over his heart if he didn't want to. No one has to put their hand over their heart during the song under those circumstances as clearly this "steak fry" was not a "patriotic and national observance". It certainly wasn't a place where a pledge began and Obama refused to take, like the propaganda suggests. That part was a UTTER lie that you seem not to care about.

You guys need to lighten up a bit in my opinion.

It's a friggin' cookout. You want to measure his distance from the flag and strike a notch off the patriot meter for every foot he was away from it?

Speaking of ignorance, our current President put his hand over his stomach. His guts.
I'd have rather he didn't place his hand anywhere, but I guess this just proves Bush is unfit to lead by your rules.

I'd say his actions have shown this but hey...I require a lot more than a photo to make a sweeping judgment and vehemently condemn an individual like some do with casual rationalized ease.

I'm not that guy.

While this isn't a flag burning event I can see how the New Yorker links this to the flag burning satire.

You don't know what they were linking the flag burning to at all, do you?

I suspect it was just used as an extreme symbol of anti-American sentiment and not something Obama has done. It was simply and artistic device to drive the point of Obama's alleged hatred of America home.

You reaching to connect all the dots for the cover and your post when you don't have them. The New Yorker claims to mock what you are posting as fact. Saying that such claims are unsubstantiated and irrelevant. They are mocking the uptight conservatives for their outrageous lies and accusations.

Who are you or I to question anyones patriotism on weak unfounded rumors, and by what definition are we to be judged? Seems pretty flimsy and subjective to me. Almost like trying to post propaganda and pass it off as fact without telling the whole story.

Part of my rebuttal showed him pledging the flag. How research shows the claims of his refusal to pledge are unsubstantiated, and thus ending the whole ridiculous hoopla over a photo taken out of context.

Miss that part?
Not good and patriotic enough for you?

- Lee

Here is the event in question.

He SINGS (no one else does) but doesn't place his hand over his heart.
Not a major issue as it was not required but anyway:



Okay here he is pledging the flag during the opening Senate sessions.



He was the headline speaker at the meet-and-greet. Why would he go there just to offend his supporters? He sang the song, that get the point across?

He pledges the flag.
He doesn't hate America.

The end.

- Lee

reply to post by Dronetek

he's too exotic to vote for, for a lot of ethnic reasons.

well that statement in itself is ridiculous, I am exotic, can't some of these people see, some of us just don't like the guy because of issues and and what we see as flaws in his character

Why does everyone have to like Obama or else they are intolerant hillbillies?

Can the Obama supporters on this forum accept me and my opinion?

Can I have an opinion on who I like or dislike on political issues?

Politician for the most part are creepy, and this makes him even creepier, why do people think he is any different?

I guess we will all have to find out the hard way.

[edit on 083131p://bTuesday2008 by Stormdancer777]

reply to post by RRconservative

Just more proof that you can't criticize Obama.

Correct, that is a sign of weakness and insecurity.

Originally posted by RRconservative
Just more proof that you can't criticize Obama.

What do you mean you can't criticize him? He is the MOST criticized candidate EVER!

You mean you can't criticize him and have everyone sit back and either agree with you or keep their mouths shut. Welcome to America, bud. Where you can criticize anyone you want and others are free to rebut.

"We can't criticize Obama..."

Who's whining again?

Criticize all you want. Just don't be surprised if someone comes along with their opinion on the matter. Welcome to America...

By the way, I see no problem at all with the cover of the magazine. That IS what this thread is about, isn't it???


[edit on 15-7-2008 by Benevolent Heretic]

Well apparently I am not the only one that sees him as a, weak sniveling widdle grand-maws boy, a grand maw he has hidden away somewhere for obvious reasons who changes his mind on which way the wind blows
www.nydailynews.com...

www.americanthinker.com...

Sooner or later, voters are going to recognize the exquisite sensitivity of the Obama campaign to ridicule as weakness. By choosing to cry foul over the New Yorker cover depicting the Obamas as the opposition supposedly sees him, the campaign reveals the precariousness of the substance-free image-building effort to date.

www.americanthinker.com...

Grow a pair, Obama
Michelle Malkin

OH! Jesse said he wanted to cut them off, make up my mind, lol

Own it JJ, you said it YOU OWN it!

bp1.blogger.com...



People are constantly apologizing to Obama, it is ridiculous.



[edit on 093131p://bTuesday2008 by Stormdancer777]

[edit on 093131p://bTuesday2008 by Stormdancer777]

A clearer picture begins to emerge, with his obvious weakness now showing, it will be easy for the powers that be to manipulate and control this guy.

[edit on 093131p://bTuesday2008 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
reply to post by Dronetek

 

he's too exotic to vote for, for a lot of ethnic reasons.

well that statement in itself is ridiculous, I am exotic, can't some of these people see, some of us just don't like the guy because of issues and and what we see as flaws in his character

Why does everyone have to like Obama or else they are intolerant hillbillies?

Can the Obama supporters on this forum accept me and my opinion?

Can I have an opinion on who I like or dislike on political issues?

Politician for the most part are creepy, and this makes him even creepier, why do people think he is any different?

I guess we will all have to find out the hard way.

[edit on 083131p://bTuesday2008 by Stormdancer777]

I'm not sure where you got that quote, but it wasn't from me.

reply to post by Dronetek


Chris Matthews said it., I do believe it was from the link you posted,


[edit on 103131p://bTuesday2008 by Stormdancer777]

Originally posted by Stormdancer777

Just more proof that you can't criticize Obama.

Correct, that is a sign of weakness and insecurity.

Wrong.

There is a difference between criticizing a person and making outright lies about them.
That's what kids in high school do about the person they don't like. When they have no reason to attack someone they make something up. Am I giving members here too much credit?

Criticize him for what he HAS done not what you fear he WILL do based on nothing but your on irrational thoughts. If you present a fact based argument, not something about Sharia law, or terrorist affiliations, then it would be much more convincing and could help pull others to your side.

There are conservatives that are smart enough to know the difference between criticizing someone and lying about someone. Are we so politically polarized in America that we want lies so that we have a reason to hate the opposite team?

I also know how to criticize Obama without making up lies.

I'm not a fan of his or McCain. I don't think I will vote for either.
What I am is a person tired of seeing simple minded people playing gutter politics.
I'm tired of the America people being conned by "swift boats" or "secret bir-racial love children". I want truth and fact, not a bunch of garbage and lies that makes some people feel better.

I would defend McCain AND Obama from such things.
McCain just isn't getting it as bad on these forums.

I don't like Obama.
I don't like McCain.
I HATE liars.

- Lee

The right wing of this country has enough power to influence even the left wing New Yorker. I hate the idea of Obama has POTUS. But I respect him.....Well maybe not But that pic is totally unfair, even if it is VERY funny

reply to post by lee anoma



I am sorry, I haven't seen any lies.

I see nothing wrong with the cover myself. We've all seen Barack Obama dressed in Muslim robes, we all know he dislikes saying the pledge of allegiance and saluting the flag unless he's on camera, and I have a picture of Michelle Obama with her hair done up in an afro. As far as I know though, he has no pictures of Osama bin Ladin.

Is it racist now to state facts or poke a little fun at a politcal candidate? What about the picture of John McCain in a tiger cage being tortured by Vietnamese soldiers, or all the idiotic pictures that have been drawn of George W. Bush? Barack just needs to grow up.


[edit on 7/15/08 by LLoyd45]

Didn't have time to read all eight pages...but what I did read...MAN!!!

Leave the egos aside people and see what the cover art is all about...FREEDOM!

Not only was it meant to be satirical...but its all about the FREEDOM of Speech, FREEDOM of art and creativity.

If it is offensive to some, easy...don't look at it...simple?

People that do not like or agree with it have the FREEDOM to ignore it.

Personally, I feel the American People have very little to choose from in the upcoming election, so why not make light of it...in the end it's ALL ONE BIG JOKE.

~HOLLY

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I am sorry, I haven't seen any lies.

Then your vision is very selective.

Right off the bat, the photo of him standing by the flag was sent with a note saying he REFUSED to pledge the flag during the pledge of allegiance. This was echoed repeatedly...including in this forum.

The video of the event shows this was not the case. He didn't refuse the pledge, it wasn't the pledge of allegiance and he was the damn headline speaker at the very event.

That was a lie.

Unless of course you have a different definition of lie.
lol...you obamaphobes can't even admit when you are wrong.
That is a sign of weakness to me.

Don't worry I don't expect anyone to comprehend this fact if they refuse to do so.
Just skip over it and pretend I said something other than this.

- Lee

reply to post by Holly N.R.A.


I wish you HAD read through the entire thread.

You may have gotten a better understanding of what it was about and realized your lesson on (yet again) freedom of speech is unnecessary as no one has said the cover should be censored. We all know about freedom. We all have said that being offended is a right, as is creating the cover.

You are pretty much talking to yourself with this post.

Please read a bit more.

- Lee

Originally posted by LLoyd45
...we all know he dislikes saying the pledge of allegiance and saluting the flag unless he's on camera...

We do?

How in the world do you know what Obama does off camera? What a specious claim.
I should say then that McCain also doesn't pledge the flag when off camera.

Prove me wrong.

Just a recap: The point of the thread was to address the idea of whether or not people would get the satire in the cover (It's making fun of those that hold your assumptions as fact Lloyd) or feel their assumptions are justified by it and completely miss the point.

I can see most don't get it.

Sigh...again in The New Yorkers own words:

The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: “On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of the The New Yorker, in ‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.”
politico.com

My bolds

The New Yorker is a liberal publication....you do realize this right? This thread wasn't started with the premise that the cover should be destroyed or hidden. I was essentially questioning the ability to comprehend such satire in the average voter.

The cover is doing this as well.
In that sense it is brilliant.

So you see, I am glad you like the cover Lloyd, but the joke is really on you.

- Lee

Originally posted by lee anoma
reply to post by Holly N.R.A.

 

I wish you HAD read through the entire thread.

You may have gotten a better understanding of what it was about and realized your lesson on (yet again) freedom of speech is unnecessary as no one has said the cover should be censored. We all know about freedom. We all have said that being offended is a right, as is creating the cover.

You are pretty much talking to yourself with this post.

Please read a bit more.

- Lee

Thank you so much, Lee for the suggestion. But I was answering in reference to those that did disagree/were offended with the cover, and there were a few, although I'll give you not many, as well as those that chose to make it appear the cover was completely politically related.

It is about the Freedom of the artist to create and speak thru a medium as he saw fit, without fear of recourse.

let me know if you need to borrow my glasses...lol...

~Holly

Originally posted by Holly N.R.A.
Thank you so much, Lee for the suggestion. But I was answering in reference to those that did disagree/were offended with the cover, and there were a few, although I'll give you not many, as well as those that chose to make it appear the cover was completely politically related.

It is about the Freedom of the artist to create and speak thru a medium as he saw fit, without fear of recourse.

let me know if you need to borrow my glasses...lol...

~Holly

Holly,

Are you saying people do not have a right to say they are offended by the cover?
Do I need to point out the contradiction you are making if so?

Listen, people have a right to be offended by the cover, just as the artist has a right to create it. Again..NO ONE said the artist didn't have the right to create the art. the art itself is brilliant satire that ATTACKS those that believe the politics of lies. I think it works well. As I said before my thoughts were about those missing the point.

I think you don't fully understand what freedom of speech entails but surely you know that those that exercise their right to free speech are not obligating anyone to agree with what is said. It goes both ways Holly. Those that are stating they disagree are ALSO exercising their right to free speech. Unless of course you are against them doing so in which case your argument is with yourself.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievance.

Please show me where it states that you are not allowed to be offended by someones use of free speech? That vocalizing disagreement is an attack on free speech?

If you can find that, then the whole first amendment is in contradiction of itself.

Yes people are offended, this is not an attack on free speech. If they are offended and attempt to censor the item then THAT is an attack on free speech.

As stated:

Freedom of speech is being able to speak freely without censorship.
Wiki

See the difference?
So who advocated censoring the item?

Not I.

As I said in my first post to you...no one that I have seen so far.
Offense is ABSOLUTELY fine. Just as you can choose to be offended by my post.

Oh and I have my own glasses thanks.
Keep yours and read over the Bill of Rights.

- Lee