[Darlmtgq]

Can't we all just be friends?

[c-cialis]

A Satire of the New Yorker Satire

"Being Barack Obama"

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=CmEFcz_QeIA

Featuring such artworks as

Crush the McCainWalker Bitches!

and

Whos the Wartime President Now Bitches!

From the creator of "Hollywood Chefs".

[Guaranano]

Why are you pushing this stuff?

I will say though, that the designs would make a nice summer print.

I'm seeing low priced summer dresses ...acrylic-blend beach towels ...that sort of thing.

Although 80's-revival is very much over, there are still some parts of the country that have not caught up yet.

I can hook you up with some very good sweatshops in China or India if you are interested.


---

[iNYZgxNC]

As a side note this is the kind of thing that sometimes Pi$$ES people off about publications like the NY'er, despite the generally high regard I have for them, and is certainly contributing to the criticism. In this case, they just come off as being too intellectual and too sophisticated by half.

Another fence-sitting response.

Again, I am not suggesting that they do not or should not have the right to publish this or anything else. I am not a proponent of censorship and I recognize the cover for what it is. However, it is in poor taste and perhaps more irresponsible than the rest of the 'circumstances' on your long list which unlike this one likely originated from ignorant or biased sources. And still another.

Why don't you just take a position.

I specifically cited the Motion Picture Code because it was NOT mandated by government law. The studios had the right to continue making films without restriction; they formulated the code themselves because they feared public opinion that deemed some of their work in poor taste and irresponsible.

[Patabeamn]

A simple mechanism could have mitigated much of the controversy.

[Cajlwdvx]

The only problem with the elephant in the photo is that it should be a donkey. Because it was a donkey left-leaning organization that published this. NOTE: No conservative organization has said or printed anything like this at all. So for them to try to insinuate that this is what conservatives are talking about is just a sham. It's obviously all liberals can think about - they're so race-obsessed!

[vSzsgifP]

Another fence-sitting response.

And still another.

Why don't you just take a position.

I specifically cited the Motion Picture Code because it was NOT mandated by government law. The studios had the right to continue making films without restriction; they formulated the code themselves because they feared public opinion that deemed some of their work in poor taste and irresponsible.

I think my position is very clear. This cover was irresponsible and in poor taste, despite that it was targeted as an attack on his detractors. I do not understand your confusion or your accusation.

Any ambivalence you may sense is the direct result of your attempts to portray my response as condoning censorship as indicated here:

If you're going to make the leap from an already-rascist-nutjob being prodded into action by a cartoon, then I can make a very looooong list of similar situations that should also require..what's the word I'm looking for
(bold added)

If censorship was not the word "you were looking for" than please tell me what was.
As I posted from the very beginning, just because you have the right to do something, doesn't mean you are acting responsibly when you do it.

As to the motion picture rating system, the parallel doesn't work for me, because frankly this hits too close to home. This man has been under the protection of the Secret Service for over 18 months now. He and his family receive death threats on a regular basis. Is it your position that anything they print is acceptable?? If not, how far is too far?? What if anything would they need to do to be over the top??

[Biashpainabix]

bobbiesox, you idiot troll -- republicans are the ones trying to 'paint' Obama as something he isn't. This cover merely illustrates just how absurd their characterizations are -- only it isn't obvious enough for some of the less mentally acute.

You've shown yourself to be an indiscriminate partisan hack troll, spare us the 'clever' sniping.

[Natashasuw]

After reading other posts by BS i have to agree ^

[Biashpainabix]

Jasonik: Your elephantine addition is good ^

One thing that cracks me up about all this is the gaggle of idiot pundit heads who went bozo over the cover ("It's an outrage!!") and complained that the New Yorker cover didn't properly correspond to an article (Where Barack Obama Learned to be a Pol) which they referred to as the "cover story". In actuality that was just one article published in that issue as part of the regularly occurring "The Political Scene".

The New Yorker doesn't do "cover stories". The covers have always stood alone. Sometimes it coincidentally happens that the cover and an article or two refer to the same current events. The media folks should know that. But groupspeak took over and they just mouthed garbage. Funny how the outrage is over now.

Most Americans could care less about this brou-ha-ha. The 10% - 13% who remain ignorant of BO's religion are seemingly unchangeable. And they probably won't believe Obama is a Christian no matter what he or anyone else does or says.