And now...Obama bin-Z and his baby mama, Beeotchee Knowitall...

If the cover art floating around is real, wait 'til the latest "New
Yorker" comes out...or, if you can't, do a Google search: Obama Michelle
terrorists...this oughta be interesting...

R

wrote:
If the cover art floating around is real, wait 'til the latest "New
Yorker" comes out...or, if you can't, do a Google search: Obama Michelle
terrorists...this oughta be interesting...

"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."

Michelle has a huge Afro, ala Angela Davis, and an automatic weapon
and she is giving the terrorist fist dap to Obama who is dressed as
a sheik with a turban. A portrait of Osama bin Laden hangs over the
fireplace where an American flag is burning.

Is this so over-the-top so as to be ridiculous ? Sure it is. But
are there millions of Americans stupid enough to think that it's
for real ? Sure enough.

I think The New Yorker is being too cute by half by publishing a
recruiting poster for the dumbass right-wing. If I didn't enjoy the
magazine I'd seriously consider canceling my subscription. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Jul 13, 6:01*pm, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
wrote:
If the cover art floating around is real, wait 'til the latest "New
Yorker" comes out...or, if you can't, do a Google search: Obama Michelle
terrorists...this oughta be interesting...

"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."

Michelle has a huge Afro, ala Angela Davis, and an automatic weapon
and she is giving the terrorist fist dap to Obama who is dressed as
a sheik with a turban. A portrait of Osama bin Laden hangs over the
fireplace where an American flag is burning.

Is this so over-the-top so as to be ridiculous ? Sure it is. But
are there millions of Americans stupid enough to think that it's
for real ? Sure enough.

I think The New Yorker is being too cute by half by publishing a
recruiting poster for the dumbass right-wing. If I didn't enjoy the
magazine I'd seriously consider canceling my subscription. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

Whats the quota the RNC gave you on this ****? Do we get a ceratin
number every week or just a set number by November.

"BJ Conner" wrote in message
...
Whats the quota the RNC gave you on this ****? Do we get a ceratin
number every week or just a set number by November.

geez, BJ, give the man some slack!! The RNC has nowhere near RDean's sense
of humor, and they DEFINITELY don't care for quotas(I read that in an
election year platform sometime ago).

Anyhow, as to the topic at hand here, the cover is legit.
It will sell the New Yorker some extra copies. The hopelessly slow-witted
will actually see it as realism, not parody, and otherwise the general
public will roll its collective eyes and forget about it. I've seen the
magazine do better work in the field of parody and ironic humor, but you win
a few and lose a few.
Tom

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:01:22 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
If the cover art floating around is real, wait 'til the latest "New
Yorker" comes out...or, if you can't, do a Google search: Obama Michelle
terrorists...this oughta be interesting...

"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."

Michelle has a huge Afro, ala Angela Davis, and an automatic weapon
and she is giving the terrorist fist dap to Obama who is dressed as
a sheik with a turban. A portrait of Osama bin Laden hangs over the
fireplace where an American flag is burning.

Is this so over-the-top so as to be ridiculous ? Sure it is. But
are there millions of Americans stupid enough to think that it's
for real ? Sure enough.

I think The New Yorker is being too cute by half by publishing a
recruiting poster for the dumbass right-wing. If I didn't enjoy the
magazine I'd seriously consider canceling my subscription. ;-)

Um...Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription...as it were...

"...too cute by half...?" If it is real, I don't think the word "cute"
need be anywhere near this monumental ****up...

HTH,
R

wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:01:22 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
If the cover art floating around is real, wait 'til the latest "New
Yorker" comes out...or, if you can't, do a Google search: Obama Michelle
terrorists...this oughta be interesting...
"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."

Michelle has a huge Afro, ala Angela Davis, and an automatic weapon
and she is giving the terrorist fist dap to Obama who is dressed as
a sheik with a turban. A portrait of Osama bin Laden hangs over the
fireplace where an American flag is burning.

Is this so over-the-top so as to be ridiculous ? Sure it is. But
are there millions of Americans stupid enough to think that it's
for real ? Sure enough.

I think The New Yorker is being too cute by half by publishing a
recruiting poster for the dumbass right-wing. If I didn't enjoy the
magazine I'd seriously consider canceling my subscription. ;-)

Um...Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription...as it were...

"...too cute by half...?" If it is real, I don't think the word "cute"
need be anywhere near this monumental ****up...

Oh, it's real alright.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...ve_new_yo.html

If it had a witty caption, ala an editorial cartoon, it might have
worked but as it is it just ain't funny. And for something like that
to work it has got to be funny.

The real pity is that this cutesy magazine cover is deflecting
attention away from an important editorial in today's Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html

I think Obama has hit the nail squarely on the head in this piece
but unfortunately it won't get the coverage it deserves because of
a stupid brouhaha over a silly magazine cover.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:35:06 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:01:22 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
If the cover art floating around is real, wait 'til the latest "New
Yorker" comes out...or, if you can't, do a Google search: Obama Michelle
terrorists...this oughta be interesting...
"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."

Michelle has a huge Afro, ala Angela Davis, and an automatic weapon
and she is giving the terrorist fist dap to Obama who is dressed as
a sheik with a turban. A portrait of Osama bin Laden hangs over the
fireplace where an American flag is burning.

Is this so over-the-top so as to be ridiculous ? Sure it is. But
are there millions of Americans stupid enough to think that it's
for real ? Sure enough.

I think The New Yorker is being too cute by half by publishing a
recruiting poster for the dumbass right-wing. If I didn't enjoy the
magazine I'd seriously consider canceling my subscription. ;-)

Um...Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription...as it were...

"...too cute by half...?" If it is real, I don't think the word "cute"
need be anywhere near this monumental ****up...

Oh, it's real alright.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...ve_new_yo.html

If it had a witty caption, ala an editorial cartoon, it might have
worked but as it is it just ain't funny. And for something like that
to work it has got to be funny.

Er, no. The Obamas dressed in Madras shorts and pink Lacostes with the
collars up and sweaters around their shoulders, but covered in gangsta
bling and driving a "Pimp My Ride" Volvo stationwagon _might_ be funny
if it were handled right because it has, at its core, at least a
smattering of truth (or at least the possibility of it), even if
exaggerated and over-the-top. Bill Maher hit it when he called Obama
the Halle Berry of US politics, and when they make such barely hip-hop
moves as the "fist knock," shoulder wipe, or, he, ahem, dances like a
white boy on Ellen and have the ViewCrew going all cougar, he winds up
looking like the Keenan and Damon Wayans "Brothers Brothers" routine
come to life. OTOH, showing them as terrorists, even as "satire," is
certainly not funny, nor can it be made funny, and IMO, it's a
particularly dangerous, stupid thing to do internationally, especially
for the sake of some magazine sales.

The real pity is that this cutesy magazine cover is deflecting
attention away from an important editorial in today's Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html

I think Obama has hit the nail squarely on the head in this piece
but unfortunately it won't get the coverage it deserves because of
a stupid brouhaha over a silly magazine cover.

One thing this piece points out to me is how weak Obama's _written_
stuff is compared to his speeches, where there is no "fervor of the
masses" to play off or up. Go back and really read it - it really
doesn't say anything with regard to Iraq, insofar as really taking a
position. I can't say whether it'll lose coverage because of the cover
thing, but I can say that I think it deserves none because it's nothing
worthy of notice.

Another thing I've noticed/realized over the last weeks - how similar
Obama's interviews and speeches are to GWB's 1st candidacy speeches as
far as the overall themes and presentation. I'm not saying that the men
themselves or their actual ideas are similar, only that for someone who
had no real interest in either of them and only knew very generally
about that of which they were speaking, I'm not sure such a person could
tell whether which, if either, was supposedly a Dem or GOP, or even
"conservative" or "liberal." Compare some of them while pretending you
don't know or care about either speaker - it's spooky.

TC,
R

On Jul 14, 11:28*am, wrote:
One thing this piece points out to me is how weak Obama's _written_
stuff is compared to his speeches, where there is no "fervor of the
masses" to play off or up. *

Give credit where credit is due. He said he's gonna take troops from
the most stable areas first and volatile areas later.

Visionary! Visionary I tell ya! :-)
- Ken

On Jul 14, 11:28*am, wrote:
On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:35:06 -0500, Ken Fortenberry





wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 18:01:22 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
If the cover art floating around is real, wait 'til the latest "New
Yorker" comes out...or, if you can't, do a Google search: Obama Michelle
terrorists...this oughta be interesting...
"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."

Michelle has a huge Afro, ala Angela Davis, and an automatic weapon
and she is giving the terrorist fist dap to Obama who is dressed as
a sheik with a turban. A portrait of Osama bin Laden hangs over the
fireplace where an American flag is burning.

Is this so over-the-top so as to be ridiculous ? Sure it is. But
are there millions of Americans stupid enough to think that it's
for real ? Sure enough.

I think The New Yorker is being too cute by half by publishing a
recruiting poster for the dumbass right-wing. If I didn't enjoy the
magazine I'd seriously consider canceling my subscription. ;-)

Um...Cancel Your Own Goddam Subscription...as it were...

"...too cute by half...?" *If it is real, I don't think the word "cute"
need be anywhere near this monumental ****up...

Oh, it's real alright.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-t...teless_and_off...

If it had a witty caption, ala an editorial cartoon, it might have
worked but as it is it just ain't funny. And for something like that
to work it has got to be funny.

Er, no. *The Obamas dressed in Madras shorts and pink Lacostes with the
collars up and sweaters around their shoulders, but covered in gangsta
bling and driving a "Pimp My Ride" Volvo stationwagon _might_ be funny
if it were handled right because it has, at its core, at least a
smattering of truth (or at least the possibility of it), even if
exaggerated and over-the-top. *Bill Maher hit it when he called Obama
the Halle Berry of US politics, and when they make such barely hip-hop
moves as the "fist knock," shoulder wipe, or, he, ahem, dances like a
white boy on Ellen and have the ViewCrew going all cougar, he winds up
looking like the Keenan and Damon Wayans "Brothers Brothers" routine
come to life. *OTOH, showing them as terrorists, even as "satire," is
certainly not funny, nor can it be made funny, and IMO, it's a
particularly dangerous, stupid thing to do internationally, especially
for the sake of some magazine sales.

The real pity is that this cutesy magazine cover is deflecting
attention away from an important editorial in today's Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/14/opinion/14obama.html

I think Obama has hit the nail squarely on the head in this piece
but unfortunately it won't get the coverage it deserves because of
a stupid brouhaha over a silly magazine cover.

One thing this piece points out to me is how weak Obama's _written_
stuff is compared to his speeches, where there is no "fervor of the
masses" to play off or up. *Go back and really read it - it really
doesn't say anything with regard to Iraq, insofar as really taking a
position. *I can't say whether it'll lose coverage because of the cover
thing, but I can say that I think it deserves none because it's nothing
worthy of notice.

Another thing I've noticed/realized over the last weeks - how similar
Obama's interviews and speeches are to GWB's 1st candidacy speeches as
far as the overall themes and presentation. *I'm not saying that the men
themselves or their actual ideas are similar, only that for someone who
had no real interest in either of them and only knew very generally
about that of which they were speaking, I'm not sure such a person could
tell whether which, if either, was supposedly a Dem or GOP, or even
"conservative" or "liberal." *Compare some of them while pretending you
don't know or care about either speaker - it's spooky.

TC,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

What is spooky is your obsession with this election, especially
considering your perfect record of being on the wrong side of
virtually every policy and political question over the last 8 years
when it comes down to the well being of this country and its people. I
was relieved when JR said that you personally responded in a patriotic
and generous way to the floods. Otherwise one would be moved to ask
that well known ROFF question . . . Why do you hate America so much?

Dave

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 17:43:08 -0500, wrote:

If the cover art floating around is real, wait 'til the latest "New
Yorker" comes out...or, if you can't, do a Google search: Obama Michelle
terrorists...this oughta be interesting...

"Interesting"? Really? To whom? To you nitwit righties?

Your suggested Google search yields about a hundred send-ups of that idiot
Faux News reader (who is now in deep, deep storage) E. D. Hill's "terrorist
fist jab" tickler. Is that what you were hoping for?

/daytripper
(who knows 98.5% of the voting public has no clue what "The New Yorker" is)