Gene Frenkle Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Well, lookie there. Its Deep thoughts by Jack Handy!! Do deep thoughts make you uncomfortable? It's both amusing and fitting that the best you can do is to reference a TV show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Do deep thoughts make you uncomfortable? It's both amusing and fitting that the best you can do is to reference a TV show. When you drink the water, remember the spring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Jealousy sucks, though I think you've hit most of the talking points in this thread and I'd like to congratulate you for that. Keep up the good work and we may get Old Man McCain in the white house yet! Incidentally, after nearly eight years of our 'underprivileged', hard-knock-life Prez (who fought his way up from the gutter of course), the best you can do is to question the supposed pampered life of the Democratic candidate's wife??? Seriously? You know W also went to an Ivy League school, right? But he's the salt of the earth of course. Do you even think before you latch on to every word that comes out of Rush Limbaugh's pill-popping mouth? Original ideas and critical thought are both good things. Of course, the obvious difference is that GWB hasn't made a point of constantly complaining about how hard his life is and how hard life in America is. Every time you give Michelle Obama a microphone, she has an axe to grind about how our terrible, racist society has treated her so poorly. (Which is why the Obama campaign has taken the microphone away from her for the most part compared to her role a few months ago.) In any event, that's a pretty huge difference between GWB and MO. American society hasn't treated either one of them poorly, not even close. Ironically, the poster complaining about "original ideas" is the same guy who completely misses the point of what he's reading and ends up taking the "pill-popping Rush Limbaugh" route. Would you recognize an original thought if you read it or are you only fluent in bumper sticker talk? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SD Jarhead Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Of course, the obvious difference is that GWB hasn't made a point of constantly complaining about how hard his life is and how hard life in America is. Every time you give Michelle Obama a microphone, she has an axe to grind about how our terrible, racist society has treated her so poorly. (Which is why the Obama campaign has taken the microphone away from her for the most part compared to her role a few months ago.) In any event, that's a pretty huge difference between GWB and MO. American society hasn't treated either one of them poorly, not even close. Ironically, the poster complaining about "original ideas" is the same guy who completely misses the point of what he's reading and ends up taking the "pill-popping Rush Limbaugh" route. Would you recognize an original thought if you read it or are you only fluent in bumper sticker talk? "Stuff White People Like" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Would you recognize an original thought if you read it or are you only fluent in bumper sticker talk? "Stuff White People Like" Thousands of years from now Archaelogists will excavate a site in modern day North America and uncover the rusted shell of an SUV. As they peel back they layers of time they will learn much about the political structure of 21st century Americans Obama '08 Nobody Died When Clinton Lied Kerry/Edwards '04 No Blood For Oil Gore/Lieberman 2000 You Can't Hug Nuclear Weapons Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blzrul Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I think the people who are upset really believe that Americans are so stupid that they'll see the magazine cover and believe it's true. Kinda like the people who watch Fox News and see "Osama" where it should read "Obama" and believe Obama's a muslim terrorist. The error in this line of thinking is that most of the morons guilty of the latter behaviour don't read this magazine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 "Stuff White People Like" Thousands of years from now Archaelogists will excavate a site in modern day North America and uncover the rusted shell of an SUV. As they peel back they layers of time they will learn much about the political structure of 21st century Americans Nobody Died When Clinton Lied Kerry/Edwards '04 No Blood For Oil Gore/Lieberman 2000 You Can't Hug Nuclear Weapons Yes, they will see some of the democrats that lost elections and know why the country went to crap. Republicans. Sorry had to do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fan in Chicago Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 If the cartoonist's depiction has to be explained by & to so many people, the artist has failed in his attempt at satire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I think the people who are upset really believe that Americans are so stupid that they'll see the magazine cover and believe it's true. Which is a problem with the people viewing the magazine, which is where the outrage should be directed - not at the magazine itself. Kinda like the people who watch Fox News and see "Osama" where it should read "Obama" and believe Obama's a muslim terrorist. And here is an actual deplorable attack on Obama, where the outrage should be directed at the people that created it. Quite a big difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 If the cartoonist's depiction has to be explained by & to so many people, the artist has failed in his attempt at satire. I disagree that the old "if you have to explain the joke, then its not funny" line of thinking applies here. Satire requires the audience to have a well-versed knowledge of current events. The people that I regularly talk to about politics in real life all knew about the Terrorist Fist Jab comment, and thus got the satire without anyone needing to explain it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 If the cartoonist's depiction has to be explained by & to so many people, the artist has failed in his attempt at satire. Maybe so. Though the Country being pretty much split down the middle says that half probably got the Satire and the other half are whinny little wankers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I wonder if the people that have a problem with that cover had a problem with these. http://s355.photobucket.com/albums/r466/CB...v_tab_my_albums Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I disagree that the old "if you have to explain the joke, then its not funny" line of thinking applies here. Satire requires the audience to have a well-versed knowledge of current events. The people that I regularly talk to about politics in real life all knew about the Terrorist Fist Jab comment, and thus got the satire without anyone needing to explain it. I disagree. If you are using this as they as cover art. Yes, the piece should be plain as day... the audience should not have to have it explained to them. If that's the case place it with the article itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 You Can't Hug Nuclear Weapons You Hug Your Children with Nuclear Arms. Get it straight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 If the cartoonist's depiction has to be explained by & to so many people, the artist has failed in his attempt at satire. Nonsense. The humor of the New Yorker has never been broad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I disagree. If you are using this as they as cover art. Yes, the piece should be plain as day... the audience should not have to have it explained to them. If that's the case place it with the article itself. You're absolutely right, because no one can think for themselves anymore. But is that the magazine's fault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I disagree. If you are using this as they as cover art. Yes, the piece should be plain as day... the audience should not have to have it explained to them. If that's the case place it with the article itself. Cept that their audience didn't need to have it explained to them. The New Yorker's audience is quite different from a normal magazine. This whole "outrage" boils down to a bunch of people on the internet, who normally don't read the New Yorker or who would have never even known about it except for both Obama and McCain's desires to politically capitalize on the cover, being mad at it because they think that in November, the New Yorker's parody cover is going to somehow have a negative effect on their candidate. The political ploy has worked brilliantly: Obama has gotten free press time, he's managed to united most of the media behind him in misplaced outrage at the New Yorker, and he's established these types of attacks as being off-limits and baseless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 You Hug Your Children with Nuclear Arms. Get it straight. I guess I'm just not white enough then But in my defense I have experienced Yellow Fever Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 I guess I'm just not white enough then But in my defense I have experienced Yellow Fever No, you just don't live in CA, the idiotic bumper sticker capital of the world. Or is that Seattle? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pBills Posted July 15, 2008 Share Posted July 15, 2008 Cept that their audience didn't need to have it explained to them. The New Yorker's audience is quite different from a normal magazine. This whole "outrage" boils down to a bunch of people on the internet, who normally don't read the New Yorker or who would have never even known about it except for both Obama and McCain's desires to politically capitalize on the cover, being mad at it because they think that in November, the New Yorker's parody cover is going to somehow have a negative effect on their candidate. The political ploy has worked brilliantly: Obama has gotten free press time, he's managed to united most of the media behind him in misplaced outrage at the New Yorker, and he's established these types of attacks as being off-limits and baseless. You have to remember that yes, the New Yorker has gained some great media coverage. It like any other publication is looking for new subscribers. If this is their way of making a statement to gain new subscribers, gain media coverage, make an impact - they did it in what I think is a very bold way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts