July 2008 - Obama New Yorker Cover

[RatFink]

Anyone see this yet?
Ouch!

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by RatFink

Anyone see this yet?
Ouch!

Turbo posted it yesterday on this thread #4

The OFFICIAL OMG NObama F'd UP AGAIN DAILY THREAD!

[RobsIron]

Originally Posted by RatFink

Anyone see this yet?
Ouch!

Its like they pulled this image right out of my head.

[IEATV8S]

Furor Swirls Around Liberal New Yorker's Caricature Of Obama Cover

[RatFink]

I haven't read the New Yorker article, if there is one on the Obamas in this edition, but it was probably based on the "left's" perception of what the "dumb ol' hillbilly right" perspective of what the Obamas stand for. It was a good way to sell subsribtions. I wonder if the artist has armed escorts? Well, if it was printed in the Islamic parts of the world about their leaders he'd be de-balled by now.

[IEATV8S]

Apparently the new New York Magazine cover has "outraged" the Feminist Majority. I just got this email from them:

"Dear Diane,

Let the New Yorker's editor-in-chief, David Remnick, know your outrage over the magazine's July 21 cover. Of course some will say that feminists have no sense of humor, but there is absolutely nothing satirical or funny about it. This is a vicious attack masquerading as satire.

By choosing to publish this artwork without context on its cover, the editors have created a visual representation of racial, ethnic, religious, and sexist fear-mongering. If the New Yorker wishes to condemn the myths, lies and prejudices being spread about Barack Obama, why not ridicule those who are perpetuating them, rather than furthering their cause.

As feminists we refuse to be silent. We who have been infuriated at the sexist media coverage of Hillary Clinton will not tolerate the racist and sexist coverage of Michelle and Barack Obama. Express your outrage to David Remnick and demand that the cover be pulled.

For Equality,


Eleanor Smeal
President
Feminist Majority"

Notice how they were only "infuriated" by the "sexist" coverage (that's putting it mildly!!!) but now they're moved to action on behalf of BO and his wife. (Are ya kiddin me?!?!?!)

Sorry Eleanor... but with their muslim and terrorist associations, support for sharia law and open dislike of America, I think this cover is absolutely f**king accurate!!!

God..is there no organization left besides PUMA that I can hold my head up and steadfastly support?!?! It seems BO has infiltrated and ruined everything!!! God I hate this substance abusing man!!!

************************************************** ******

Just have to LOVE those "HillGirls", she sounds more violent then anything I post!

[Gothmog]

Liberals know this isnt a parady since so many conservatives believe this image is accurate.

You need only read IEATv8s post and you'll see that his perception of OBAMA and the cover are the same

[V8Assassin]

What will it take to make you realize these perceptions are not without merit? Say if michelle denounced our country and said what a mean place it is, or how about if she said she wasn't proud of her country, or how about giving speeches with farrakhan wife's about whitey, or how about support of black liberation theology, what exactly would it take?

As far as b.hussein, I simply don't have time to go over all his lies. The man has absolutely no backbone, along with his questionable associations, this should be enough to debunk him for good. I would like to hear one position he has not changed his ways on.

[Gothmog]

Originally Posted by V8Assassin

What will it take to make you realize these perceptions are not without merit? Say if michelle denounced our country and said what a mean place it is, or how about if she said she wasn't proud of her country, or how about giving speeches with farrakhan wife's about whitey, or how about support of black liberation theology, what exactly would it take?

As far as b.hussein, I simply don't have time to go over all his lies. The man has absolutely no backbone, along with his questionable associations, this should be enough to debunk him for good. I would like to hear one position he has not changed his ways on.

I dont get it, If the media is LIBERAL, where are you guys getting all this false information about OBAMA and his wife?

and once again, for the record, Michelle never denounced her country and never said she wasnt proud of her country.

[IEATV8S]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

I dont get it, If the media is LIBERAL, where are you guys getting all this false information about OBAMA and his wife?

and once again, for the record, Michelle never denounced her country and never said she wasnt proud of her country.

ROTFLMFAO!!!!! Here you go "Mr. I was at the WTC Landfill"!

Thank you HILLARY SUPPORTERS!!!!!!

YouTube Video

[V8Assassin]

Very Good!!!!

Now Goth, are you really going to try to argue that mainstream media is not greatly biased toward the left. Come on man, seriously at least make an arugument that is credible. We can show instance after instance that prove they are leaning hard to the left.

As far as michelle, have you been asleep through all of this? Why not just admit she screwed up? The words came from her own mouth and that is just what is on tape, God only knows how she really feels about whitey keeping her down.

I will refrain from calling you a liar and just go on the belief you are very misguided. Like George C said "it's not a lie if you believe it's true". I guess this is your theory on life.

[henschman]

as has been suggested on here, the cover was intended to be a funny, satirical representation of what some people believe about BHO based on politically-motivated rumors and exaggerations created by his enemies.

You know, the only reason the magazine cover isn't funny is because so many people actually believe that crap about Obama -- that he is a closet muslim (even though he has attended a Christian church -- admittedly a strange one, but definitely not one that teaches islam -- for years); that he is anti-american (because he refused to wear a flag pin for a principled reason that most simple-minded idiots are not capable of understanding); that his wife hates america (because she simply pointed out the fact that she was not proud of a lot of things our country has done), etc.

There are plenty of good reasons not to like Obama -- the fact that he is an arrogant central-planner/policy maker who thinks he knows what's better for people than they do themselves; the fact that he spouts all this crap about "change" even though he voted for the new warrantless surveillance FISA bill and has drastically changed his position on withdrawing from Iraq from what he said to get the nomination; the fact that he is just another big-government liberal promoting the same social policies the followers of Marx have been promoting since the 1840s...

I think it is really ridiculous how real issues like this have been replaced by mindless crap like flag pins and secret religious beliefs. Maybe it's just a product of the fact that the ideology the two major candidates stand for really aren't all that different, so they have to come up with other crap to argue about.

[Weester]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

Liberals know this isnt a parady since so many conservatives believe this image is accurate.

You need only read IEATv8s post and you'll see that his perception of OBAMA and the cover are the same

Im waiting for him to go "John Hinckley" on Obama..............

[RobsIron]

Originally Posted by Gothmog

I dont get it, If the media is LIBERAL, where are you guys getting all this false information about OBAMA and his wife?

and once again, for the record, Michelle never denounced her country and never said she wasnt proud of her country.

Even us righty's have stated our distaste for McCain. Yet you fight to the end defending Obama.

Admit your party f'ed up and shoulda nominated Hillary. We all know she sucks, but she is a 100 times better then Obama.

[Gothmog]

If the MSM is liberal, How are americans being systematically misinformed with negative opinions about "liberals" like Obama

He is not muslim
He did not swear into the senate on the Koran
He did not attend a medrassa
His wife did not say she wasnt proud of her country

The liberal media misinformed everyone?

Probably the same liberal Media that gave 30% of Americans the idea that Saddam was behind 9/11

Laughable

[LEFT OVER RICE]

Hey EATV8S, why does the media want to always talk **** about Obama but not about the "HERO " John Mcain? Do you guys know what he has done in his past (other than the drugs and etc, gov't wise)?

[Turbo RX-6]

Originally Posted by LEFT OVER RICE

Hey EATV8S, why does the media want to always talk **** about Obama but not about the "HERO " John Mcain? Do you guys know what he has done in his past (other than the drugs and etc, gov't wise)?

Because he's making all the news, they both have changed views on various subjects, but he is the golden boy, he made all theses promises and now he's back peddling and it's big news no matter what political party he's for.

And McCain has been around forever, the media knows him and they have a good relationship, plus he has never done drugs, nor has he been charged with any crime, the Keating situation and his wifes drug problems were going on 20 years ago, let it go, everyone else has, if thats all you have against him, something that happened 20 years ago, then thats your answer, no one cares, it's old, old, news, and he was never charged with anything. And with the Keating incident he was censored, and since then has been on the up and up as much or more then anyone in Congress. If your looking for a candidate with no past issues, good luck it aint gonna happen. Obama is new and unproven, and has a lot of unanswered issues dogging him, he is naturally going to get the most attention.

But the fact is the media is very biased toward conservatives as this study shows.

It's a very long article and if you don't want to read it, just check out the various graphs and charts, it's all you really need to see.

The Liberal Media
Every Poll Shows Journalists Are More Liberal than
the American Public — And the Public Knows It

By Rich Noyes
Director of Research
June 30, 2004
Section 1 of 4

Over the next four months, the media establishment will play a central role in informing the public about the candidates and the issues. As the countdown to Election Day begins, it is important to remember the journalists who will help establish the campaign agenda are not an all-American mix of Democrats, Republicans and independents, but an elite group whose views veer sharply to the left.
Most journalists deny that their profession is stacked with liberals. “I’ve worked around reporters all my life,” CBS anchor Dan Rather declared in an appearance on The Late Late Show with Tom Snyder back on February 8, 1995. “Most reporters, when you get to know them, would fall in the general category of kind of common sense moderates.”
ABC’s Peter Jennings echoed Rather. “We are largely in the center without particular axes to grind, without ideologies which are represented in our daily coverage — at least certainly not on purpose,” Jennings told CNN’s Larry King on May 15, 2001.
“The idea that we would set out, consciously or unconsciously, to put some kind of ideological framework over what we’re doing is nonsense,” NBC’s Tom Brokaw similarly declared on C-SPAN just a few days later, on May 24, 2001.
But study after study shows that Rather, Jennings and Brokaw are wrong: the newsrooms of major media outlets are not filled with non-ideological “common sense moderates,” nor do they reflect a diverse range of ideological viewpoints. Surveys over the past 25 years have consistently found journalists are much more liberal than rest of America. Their voting habits are disproportionately Democratic, their views on issues such as abortion and gay rights are well to the left of most Americans and they are less likely to attend church or synagogue. When it comes to the free market, journalists have become increasingly pro-regulation over the past 20 years, with majorities endorsing activist government efforts to guarantee everyone a job and to reduce the income gap between rich and poor Americans.
This MRC Special Report summarizes the relevant data on journalists’ attitudes, as well as polling showing how the American public’s recognition of the media’s liberal bias has grown over the years.

Journalists on Election Day: Pulling the Democratic Lever

Between 1964 and 1992, Republicans won the White House five times compared with three Democratic victories. But if only journalists’ ballots were counted, the Democrats would have won every single election.
In their 1986 book, The Media Elite, political scientists S. Robert Lichter, Stanley Rothman and Linda S. Lichter reported the results of their survey of 240 journalists at the nation’s top media outlets: ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report. When asked about their voting patterns, journalists admitted their preference for Democrats:

Of those who say they voted for major party candidates, the proportion of leading journalists who supported the Democratic candidate never drops below 80 percent. In 1972, when more than 60 percent of all voters chose Nixon, over 80 percent among the media elite voted for McGovern. This does not appear to reflect any unique aversion to Nixon. Despite the well-publicized tensions between the press and his administration, leading journalists in 1976 preferred Carter over Ford by the same margin. In fact, in the Democratic landslide of 1964, journalists picked Johnson over Goldwater by a sixteen-to-one margin, or 94 to 6 percent.

Lichter’s team focused on journalists at the very top national news organizations. Other surveys of journalists have discovered that the whole profession shares the same liberal bent, although the media elite’s liberalism is the most extreme:
• Journalists Picked Carter over Reagan: In 1982, scholars at California State University at Los Angeles asked reporters from the fifty largest newspapers for whom they voted in 1980. The breakdown: 51 percent cast a ballot for President Jimmy Carter and another 24 percent chose independent candidate (and liberal Republican Congressman) John Anderson. Only 25 percent picked conservative Ronald Reagan, who won 51 percent of the public’s vote that year.
• Journalists Picked Mondale over Reagan: In 1985, the Los Angeles Times polled news and editorial staffers at newspapers around the country, weighting the sample so that newspapers with large circulations were more heavily represented. Once again, pollsters discovered a heavy Democratic skew. When asked how they voted in the 1984 election, more than twice as many chose liberal Walter Mondale (58 percent) over the conservative incumbent Ronald Reagan (26 percent), even as the country picked Reagan in a 59 to 41 percent landslide.
• The White House Press Corps V