Chilly

I think the Bucs are the best fit for Favre this year. The biggest piece that they are missing is a top-notch QB, they could easily be back in the super bowl or win it with him.

I've always liked the Canucks myself.

He should be put to death for his crimes.

This election is like this video

I bet the media would have jumped on it - you can see how much its sold.

Its about money, woo.

I didn't call my own opinion realistic.

Daily Show's episode last night was about the "issue". Absolutely awesome.

Well then. This seems like a good time to post lolcats. Quicksand Kitteh

If its the latter, I'd imagine this film would be her favorite. An epic quest for a donut!

So it has absolutely no effect on anyone's decision on who to vote for this fall. Glad we established that the effects of the cover, outside of the point they were making and the politician's jumping on it politically, are essentially none. You keep saying that, but you keep suggesting pieces of satire that aren't equivalent to the New Yorker cover.

Where's that grandma in Dubuque when you need her?

This question is complete mental masturbation, because neither of us knows the answer. South Park puts some potentially pretty offensive things on the show. Its the New Yorker. They probably didn't care what kind of attention they got No, it didn't. To repost my original rebuttal of your argument: 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. The Daily Show, The Colbert Report, the whole history of the New Yorker, historical satire pieces such as A Modest Proposal, etc., all require a knowledge of the situation that they're talking about to really understand the satire. The cartoon made its point loud and clear; that a large segment of the population recognizes that its satire but doesn't understand a cartoon which is anything but subtle doesn't point to a problem with the cartoon. If it didn't have large visual clues pointing at it with huge arrows in bold letters going "HEY LOOK, I'M A TOTAL COMBINATION OF ATTACKS ON OBAMA, SEE HOW SILLY THIS IS?", I might agree with you. Uh, the New Yorker has an extremely long history of using satire and charactures on its cover. Its been doing that since its beginning. To quote Bill Maher - ”If you can't do irony on the cover of The New Yorker, where can you do it?”

How I Met Your Mother aint half bad.

So, people don't randomly come across South Park on the television and not have any clue about it, but it happens to the New Yorker? And how is this anyone's fault but the people who are viewing the magazine? They're doing a "terrorist fist jab", as described by Fox News. How more obvious do you need it to be to understand it?

Where are these hordes of people who are having their feelings reinforced? The people who would actually consider the cartoon validation of their feelings aren't likely to be well informed (and thus not much of a chance of knowing about it), nor would they vote for Obama in the first place. A completely emotional response, lacking logic behind it. They were defending Obama you dolt. Again: http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?ID=1792

I don't think he understands what satire means.

Not sure its close enough to the stadium for your tastes, but my favorite is Pizza Junction.

lol

I have yet to see hordes of people saying that the cartoon confirmed their worldview on Obama. The people who would actually consider the cartoon validation of their feelings aren't likely to be well informed (and thus not much of a chance of knowing about it), nor would they vote for Obama in the first place.

pBills, how do you feel about this? http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/horsey/viewbydate.asp?ID=1792

Where did you get that from what I said? The New Yorker isn't accusing Obama of anything, they are actually defending Obama in this cartoon. They are pointing out the ridiculousness of the right-wing (and Clinton) charactures of him by showing what it would look like if they were true. The New Yorker is not: - Saying Barack Obama is a terrorist - Saying Michelle Obama is a terrorist - Saying either of them burns flags - Saying either of them supports bin Laden - Saying either of them are disloyal Americans I am not: - Saying Barack Obama is a terrorist - Saying Michelle Obama is a terrorist - Saying either of them burns flags - Saying either of them supports bin Laden - Saying either of them are disloyal Americans The New Yorker is not: - Saying "terrorists are ok" - Saying "Osama Bin Laden is ok" - Saying "burning American flags is ok" I am not: - Saying "terrorists are ok" - Saying "Osama Bin Laden is ok" - Saying "burning American flags is ok" Uh, no, it couldn't. There were people questioning his loyalty to the country for the sole fact that he didn't support the American flag by wearing a flag pin, as if it was the ultimate disrespect to the American flag to not do so. To show the absurdity of equating not wearing a flag pin with accusing him of not supporting the flag, they drew him performing the ultimate disrespectful action to the flag, as if he would actually do that. Obama franticly looking for a flag pin before he goes on stage doesn't make any comment at all about the absurdity of the accuisations.

Might want to try reading that again.

Ah, the old ask a question in response to a question. But, to answer your question anyway - You're missing the key: context. There is no satire here. McCain hasn't been accused of being a terrorist, nor of being un-American because he refuses to wear a pin. Again, there is no satire here. Guess you must hate the Colbert Report, with him using the Bald Eagle and all. That bolded statement is exactly the point that the New Yorker is making, using a cartoon instead of words.

www.me.com