July 21st cover of the new yorker

[tw]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Okay, I don't get a lot of this.
But for me, to show a man in Muslim dress when he isn't a Muslim, in a country that is very wary of Muslims (sorry guys, that's the way you come across) during an election campaign is pretty wrong.

Why is it wrong for the New Yorker to picture what Rush Limbaugh et al have been saying on daily radio shows? Why is the New Yorker offensive, but wacko right ring extremist talk show hosts are not for saying the same thing?

Why a double standard - or do you not realize how full American airwaves are with these wacko extremist propaganda claims? Routine is to overhear someone ask, "Is Obama a Muslim?" Less common is for the other to say, "Yes." It was overheard by this poster.

Why is it tasteless? This same propaganda also proved that Saddam had WMDs. If the New Yorker had pictured a comic Saddam with his WMDs, would you also call that wrong?

Wrong are many Americans who have been promoting these wacko extremist myths. What the New Yorker did could only be tasteless IF these claims were not routinely entertained among wacko extremist listeners. Wackos religiously believe this stuff to be fact, but the New Yorker and Mad Magazine cannot satirize it? Why not? And why are you not also criticizing Mad Magazine for doing the exact same thing? Double standard?

Sad – or the funny part: among the most wackos, that New Yorker satire is actually a truth. BTW, you would not believe how many people have lately been overheard saying all but the niger word. Subliminal racist is also being used as knowledge. We should not discuss or satirize that too? It may be tasteless. But bias in overt denial of reality must be aired no matter how ‘tasteless’ it may be.

Rush Limbaugh’s most extremist fans believe the New Yorker has only published truth. Only ones 'wronged' by that satire are those who also believe it to be fact.

[Sundae]

Originally Posted by tw

Why a double standard - or do you not realize how full American airwaves are with these wacko extremist propaganda claims?

Funnily enough TW, I have no idea what is on the American airwaves.
I wouldn't have known what was on the cover of the New Yorker either if it hadn't been posted here.

If I see or hear something I find offensive I will comment on it.
I can't comment on things I don't see and hear.

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by Sundae Girl

Funnily enough TW, I have no idea what is on the American airwaves.

Not to worry, neither does he.

[tw]

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Not to worry, neither does he.

Speaking of tasteless wacko extremists who love Rush Limbaugh ....

[lookout123]

Originally Posted by tw

Speaking of tasteless wacko extremists ...snip....

Oh, hi Pot, where ya been?

[TheMercenary]

Originally Posted by tw

Speaking of tasteless wacko extremists who love Rush Limbaugh ....

Who is Rush Limbaugh? someone you jack off to every night? Never heard of him.....

[tw]

[quote=TheMercenary;469862]Who is Rush Limbaugh?[quote]Playing dumb again Merc? Or just trying to outdue Urbane Guerrilla. Next time read Mad Magazine with more care.

[BigV]

Originally Posted by tw

Why is it wrong for the New Yorker to picture what Rush Limbaugh et al have been saying on daily radio shows? Why is the New Yorker offensive, but wacko right ring extremist talk show hosts are not for saying the same thing?

I refute your incorrect assertions. Both are wrong.

Originally Posted by tw

Why a double standard - or do you not realize how full American airwaves are with these wacko extremist propaganda claims? Routine is to overhear someone ask, "Is Obama a Muslim?" Less common is for the other to say, "Yes." It was overheard by this poster.

No double standard. One standard.

Originally Posted by tw

Why is it tasteless? This same propaganda also proved that Saddam had WMDs. If the New Yorker had pictured a comic Saddam with his WMDs, would you also call that wrong?

You know full well why this is tasteless. If you do not, you are beyond my ability to educate or inform.

Originally Posted by tw

Wrong are many Americans who have been promoting these wacko extremist myths. What the New Yorker did could only be tasteless IF these claims were not routinely entertained among wacko extremist listeners. Wackos religiously believe this stuff to be fact, but the New Yorker and Mad Magazine cannot satirize it? Why not? And why are you not also criticizing Mad Magazine for doing the exact same thing? Double standard?

There's a single intelligent standard--my own (you have yours, too, apparently) and a fundamental part of that standard is to consider the source; to consider the intent. The New Yorker, Rush Limbaugh and Mad Magazine are different sources, with different intentions, and I hold them to different standards.

Originally Posted by tw

Sad – or the funny part: among the most wackos, that New Yorker satire is actually a truth. BTW, you would not believe how many people have lately been overheard saying all but the niger word. Subliminal racist is also being used as knowledge. We should not discuss or satirize that too? It may be tasteless. But bias in overt denial of reality must be aired no matter how ‘tasteless’ it may be.

Please explain why you feel justified in speaking for most wackos.

Originally Posted by tw

Rush Limbaugh’s most extremist fans believe the New Yorker has only published truth. Only ones 'wronged' by that satire are those who also believe it to be fact.

Dammit... I kept up with you almost the whole way and you slipped the iron bonds of logic right at the end.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Anyone who doesn't see this as satire, sees it as truth?... or an attempt to reinforce untruths?

Are those the three camps, on this cover?

Can we break the first group into two groups?
A- Those that think it clever/funny, because it's so obvious it's a poke at silly accusations.
B- People who recognize it's satire, but are offended because they think they are smarter than the unwashed masses, that are too stupid to recognize satire, and would believe it's true?

[tw]

Originally Posted by BigV

There's a single intelligent standard--my own (you have yours, too, apparently) and a fundamental part of that standard is to consider the source; to consider the intent. The New Yorker, Rush Limbaugh and Mad Magazine are different sources, with different intentions, and I hold them to different standards.

So wacko extremist political broadcasters who originally promoted every stereotype parodied on Mad Magazine and the New Yorker covers - they can lie all they want - all but call Obama a nigger - and that is not tasteless? That is a double standard.

The New Yorker educated non-American who apparently don’t know so much overt hate and fear is promoted every day on the radio by about 300 wacko extremist talk show hosts. The New Yorker magazine just informed non-Americans how much hate of Obama is being promoted across America. They can promote that hate – and it is acceptable – considered tasteful? The New York can accurately define each ‘hate’ and be criticized?

Yes, we should not be reminded that a large minority of Americans “hate the nigger or ‘black panther radical’ or Muslim Obama”. Take your choice. All those words are being used overtly or covertly in wacko extremist circles. Therefore the New Yorker only reported the news - by using satire.