Yikes! Controversial New Yorker Cover Shows Muslim, Flag-Burning, Osama-Loving, Fist-Bumping Obama

  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Jul 14, 2008 1:28 AM GMT
    original.jpg

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/13/yikes-controversial-emnew_n_112429.html
  • ShawnTX

    Posts: 2484

    Jul 14, 2008 1:51 AM GMT
    I don't trust the guy, he's sneaky and conniving (moreso than the average politician), but I think the references to Obama being Muslim are crude, juvenile, and old. However, everything else this cover is suggesting is pretty much on par. All IMHO of course.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2008 2:24 AM GMT
    I have to ask, have you guys read his work? Visited his website? If not, then you need to before expressing such an opinion. I find most things in The Huffington Post to be extremely biased toward the Wrong Wing, the alledged Neo Cons. I may not agree with all of his politics, and I may go down in history as being very wrong in the following belief, but if (or when) he becomes President, I'll bet history will see him as the smartest, and possibly best President since JFK.
    At least I'm willing to bet he'll be a HELL of a lot better than McCain and the current status quo.
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Jul 14, 2008 2:28 AM GMT
    ShawnTX saidI don't trust the guy, he's sneaky and conniving (moreso than the average politician), but I think the references to Obama being Muslim are crude, juvenile, and old. However, everything else this cover is suggesting is pretty much on par. All IMHO of course.

    What a frightening, totally unsubstantiated statement you've made. It's on a "par"? Please explain yourself.

    When have you seen Obama burning a U.S. flag? Do you think Michelle Obama is a raical freedom fighter? Do you really think if elected he would hang a portrait of Osama bin Laden in the White House?

    I'd prefer facts over your so-called "humble opinion".
  • ShawnTX

    Posts: 2484

    Jul 14, 2008 2:45 AM GMT
    Whoopsie, I forgot to add the rest of my thought about the references to Obama being Muslim and any sort of relationship with Osama. My mistake.

    What I find frightening, but not surprising, is that I seem to not be entitled to share my opinion...or am I as long as it's the same as yours?

    I've written about my reasons for disliking Obama on here already, and it seems obvious it would be a waste of time to express them again in this thread since you probably won't agree with them, making my opinion wrong and baseless.
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Jul 14, 2008 2:57 AM GMT
    ShawnTX saidWhoopsie, I forgot to add the rest of my thought about the references to Obama being Muslim and any sort of relationship with Osama. My mistake.

    What I find frightening, but not surprising, is that I seem to not be entitled to share my opinion...or am I as long as it's the same as yours?

    I've written about my reasons for disliking Obama on here already, and it seems obvious it would be a waste of time to express them again in this thread since you probably won't agree with them, making my opinion wrong and baseless.
    By all means you're entitled to a dislike of Obama but your opinion simply doesn't hold the same weight as facts.

    You seem to be implying that Michelle Obama is a some kind of terrorist and that Barack likes to burn the American flag.

    Can you cite ANYTHING: any article, any statement, any photograph, any video clip to back up your contentions?

    I'm asking if you base your opinions of Obama on facts.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2008 3:13 AM GMT
    ShawnTX saidI don't trust the guy, he's sneaky and conniving (moreso than the average politician), but I think the references to Obama being Muslim are crude, juvenile, and old. However, everything else this cover is suggesting is pretty much on par. All IMHO of course.

    Boy, it didnt take long for him to go Texas crazy!!!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2008 3:19 AM GMT
    My hillbilly and redneck cousins will see this at the local newsstand (where they usually buy lotto and porn mags) and go "See, even them New Yorkers thank he's a damned Muslim."

    First the magazines make up the Madonna A-Rod affair, now this. What's happened to the Fourth Estate? (Oh right, Rupert Murdoch.)
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2008 3:33 AM GMT
    At the risk of cruxifying myself for sounding like a Turban laced, militant, Al-Qaueda, Super Liberal, Obama fan, the actual point of the picture that accompanied the article (that unfortunately the majority of people won't take time to actually read!) was about how in this post 9/11 socitey, American politics has basically abused fear as a tactic to sway the public opinion. War on Iraq, the Patriot Act, etc.
  • NickoftheNort...

    Posts: 1416

    Jul 14, 2008 4:11 AM GMT
    When I see the cover, I just see the satire, epitomized by the fist-bump that was fodder for USAmerican media-idiocracy last week.

    To see that cover, understand that it's The New Yorker, and then think it's a serious and actual accusation toward Senator Obama is far more of a testament to why the US needs a stronger effort put into its education system than to the potential foolishness of the cartoonist.

    The humans that want to believe that Senator Obama is an anti-USAmerican, Islamic-derived terrorist will find their "proof" regardless of a cover of The New Yorker.

    Stifling free speech, even inconvenient free speech, is the purview of authoritarians, and (I hope) not of Democrats / Senator Obama supporters.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2008 4:27 AM GMT
    Unfortunately, Free Speech, much like certain uninformed "opinions" have a way of deteriorating into the lowest common denominator. Simply put, yes everyone has an opinion, but Free Speech does NOT entitle everyone with an uninformed opinion to get into a public forum and spout off. That's the whole point of editorial responsibility and informed peer review. I hate to say this, but before the Internet, before the rise in popularity of sloppy "News" shows such as Fox News (a travesty of journalism if ever there was one) and baseless talk shows such as Jerry Springer, where any moron with an "opinion" felt he or she had the right to use it to sway America's future or denigrate someone they didn't like under the guise of Free Speech, no matter how ill-informed or ignorant they were, and the producers/editors of same polluted the airwaves and Netscapes with such trash because the bottom line was ratings, we were a somewhat more well-informed society. That's all gone down the tubes now, and anyone can just get up and mouth off without any form of fact-checking or credentials and say they're an "expert."
    Same thing with that cover art, an insult to responsible journalism. Yes, maybe it was only to get more people to buy the magazine, but when we have to use tactics such as that in order to sell our news and "inform" the public, we are, in fact, one step closer to knee-jerk reactions which will, ultimately, lead to greater censorship. Give an airwave or Net platform to the Fred Phelps's or the Rush Limbaughs of the world, and our days of Free Speech are numbered.
    With the power to reach a mass audience comes a MASSIVE responsibility to inform them properly.
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Jul 14, 2008 4:38 AM GMT
    zeebyaboi saidUnfortunately, Free Speech, much like certain uninformed "opinions" have a way of deteriorating into the lowest common denominator. Simply put, yes everyone has an opinion, but Free Speech does NOT entitle everyone with an uninformed opinion to get into a public forum and spout off. That's the whole point of editorial responsibility and informed peer review. I hate to say this, but before the Internet, before the rise in popularity of sloppy "News" shows such as Fox News (a travesty of journalism if ever there was one) and baseless talk shows such as Jerry Springer, where any moron with an "opinion" felt he or she had the right to use it to sway America's future or denigrate someone they didn't like under the guise of Free Speech, no matter how ill-informed or ignorant they were, and the producers/editors of same polluted the airwaves and Netscapes with such trash because the bottom line was ratings, we were a somewhat more well-informed society. That's all gone down the tubes now, and anyone can just get up and mouth off without any form of fact-checking or credentials and say they're an "expert."
    Same thing with that cover art, an insult to responsible journalism. Yes, maybe it was only to get more people to buy the magazine, but when we have to use tactics such as that in order to sell our news and "inform" the public, we are, in fact, one step closer to knee-jerk reactions which will, ultimately, lead to greater censorship. Give an airwave or Net platform to the Fred Phelps's or the Rush Limbaughs of the world, and our days of Free Speech are numbered.
    With the power to reach a mass audience comes a MASSIVE responsibility to inform them properly.


    Wow, I certainly wouldn't put the New Yorker in "sloppy" journalism or irresponsible. It does what all art should strive for, to provoke, to bring the topic into discussion.

    Free speech days are never numbered so long as Americans stand up for the defining document that founded our country.

    Sure, you don't have the right to yell fire in a crowded theater since that action stands a large chance of injuring people.

    Exactly what should be considered irresponsible about this piece? The artist is displaying displaying what some people actually, truly really believe about Obama.

    ShawnTX Is an example. So why shoot the messenger?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2008 4:45 AM GMT
    Forget the innuendo on the cover of the New Yorker. I'm incensed that Obama sold us out on FISA. He can keep the change.

    http://www.eweek.com/c/a/VOIP-and-Telephony/Bloggers-Slam-Barrack-Obama-on-FISA-Vote/
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2008 5:23 AM GMT
    ruck_us saidForget the innuendo on the cover of the New Yorker. I'm incensed that Obama sold us out on FISA. He can keep the change.

    http://www.eweek.com/c/a/VOIP-and-Telephony/Bloggers-Slam-Barrack-Obama-on-FISA-Vote/
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I didn't like Obama's Fisa vote either, but are those blogger above, and are you aware that he voted for the Dodd/Fiengold ammendment to take the immunity clause out of the Fisa bill? Once the attempt to failed to remove immunity, he and his advisors thought it best to vote for the compromise for now, rather than being seen as soft on terrorism, and whether we like it or not, that would have "stuck" to him. I don't like it either, but its always best to try, as he did, then go with the next best option. If in his shoes under these current political situations, we probably would have done the same thing, cause trying to fight it was futile, there weren't enough Dems with balls to get the amendment passed. Even so Obama still represents our best chance to get our country aimed back toward the right direction and away from all the failed policies of bush, the alternative candidate will give us nothing but more of the same.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 14, 2008 5:38 AM GMT
    I Think this is really over the Top!
  • ShawnTX

    Posts: 2484

    Jul 15, 2008 1:37 AM GMT
    swimbikerun said

    Exactly what should be considered irresponsible about this piece? The artist is displaying displaying what some people actually, truly really believe about Obama.

    ShawnTX Is an example. So why shoot the messenger?


    Yep, I sure am an example of that. I don't trust the guy and I'm not afraid to say it.
  • kinetic

    Posts: 1125

    Jul 15, 2008 1:48 AM GMT
    I saw this on the news today too.
    This cover does nothing except stir up more shit.
    Yeah, perpetuate more bullshit, that's really what the world needs.
    What a waste of energy.
    icon_mad.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2008 1:59 AM GMT
    One of the requirements for the office of President of the United States is, a thick hide. It appears Senator Obama can't handle the heat. If this offends him, what will future characatures of him do? I don't think anyone in the world gets more criticism than those who hold that office. The funny thing about this situation is, the New Yorker was trying to criticise the ignorant critics of Senator Obama.

    I am reminded of the outcry over the Mohammed with a bombturbin cartoon.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 15, 2008 2:04 AM GMT
    Who the fuck even READS The New Yorker since Tina Brown ruined it?
  • swimbikerun

    Posts: 2835

    Jul 17, 2008 4:34 AM GMT
    ShawnTX said

    Yep, I sure am an example of that. I don't trust the guy and I'm not afraid to say it.


    You seem to be fond stating your opinions without citing facts to support them.

    To paraphrase Mr. Capote: "That's not an opinion sweetie, that's just typing!"
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jul 17, 2008 4:41 AM GMT
    jprichva saidWho the fuck even READS The New Yorker since Tina Brown ruined it?


    The American public must still read the New Yorker for yet another Steve Pinsky poem. Yawn...