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.

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)

On Sun, 13 Jul 2008 20:48:47 -0400, daytripper
wrote:

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?

No, I have no idea if it's the actual next-issue cover, and a _very_
quick Google image search didn't turn it up. But I do think that if it
is real, "New Yorker" is making a mistake by doing this, regardless of
the effect (if any, positive or negative) on Obama's campaign. Show him
spilling his over-priced California Chardonnay while hitting the person
three alleys away with his bowling ball, show Michelle and Martha
Stewart as Stepford preppies, show him scraping ice off a little old
lady's Rolls windshield with his Platinum Card while he and Chris Dodd
get a 1% mortgage, or other silly-assed stuff, but to give _any_ cred to
the whole "terrorist fist jab" crap is a monumentally bad idea.

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

Even worse.

HTH,
R

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 Mon, 14 Jul 2008 11:59:54 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

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.

Um, even that isn't a given - it might well be better to fall back into
secure areas, bringing troops out of the volatile areas first and then
have an appropriate scheme for rotating units out of the theater. If
you pull out the troops in secure areas first, you risk ALL areas
becoming volatile and/or getting units surrounded.

Visionary! Visionary I tell ya! :-)

Yeah, a regular Swiss Admiral...

HTH,
R
- Ken