Chilly

To steal a joke from Seinfeld: "Whose Bra Is This?"

Republicrats?

New Yorker circulation is around 1 million copies - South Park ratings for new episodes are around 3 million viewers or so.

Don't think he really needs to do more than have one of his workers issue a statement to mobilize his base. One just needs to look at the blogs to see that.

And you got mad at me for supposedly taking a shot at you.

You aren't getting it: You've said multiple times now that you find burning the American flag to be an unacceptable thing to put into the satire. You have yet to explain why it was unacceptable. Was it unacceptable because you don't agree that terrorists burn the flag? Was it unacceptable because you have more emotions tied into the flag than the other imagery? Is it because, *gasp*, the terrorists are committing an act of war against the US?

But alas, its sitting right there, in our authoritative source.

Oh boy, again calling it "in bad taste" without explaining why this is "in bad taste" instead of legitimate satire. I think I've been to this part of the neighborhood before.

My Jim Kelly Hall of Fame jersey, signed by him on the day he entered the hall.

I view it as a way to mobilize the base and get donations myself.

What the hell do you think a terrorist would do? Is it shocking to you that they would burn the American flag? (By the way, think of the controversy over him refusing to wear the flag pin, and you'll see why he put that in there...)

hay guys my opinion's more realistic than your opinion

Gee - such a change from normal! A politician who has fiercely devoted followers denouncing it for political purposes (I'm quite sure Obama gets the satire), combined with one of today's most emotional and taboo subjects = recipe for outrage.

No way? Any argument to back up this idea, besides just emotions? Both pieces of satire are making fun of the same thing - the media (and society's) silly and inaccurate characterizations of Presidents. It just so happens that Obama's silly media stereotype - a muslim terrorist - is a more emotional subject at the moment.

I love artificial boundaries.

?

From the guy mad about the New Yorker satire.

Your point might be valid, if the New Yorker didn't have a history of satirical and controversial covers - the only difference is this time Obama rallied the troops.

Actually, the word bad can be used for fault, just like the word Mistake. From Merrian-Webster: Main Entry: bad Function: noun Date: 15th century 1 : something that is bad 2 : an evil or unhappy state 3 : fault 4<the mistake was my bad> Its essentially the same as saying "My Fault"

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.

Personal preferences, mostly. Typically brews by the Boston Beer Company are decent examples of the style of each category, and stick to the standards, but they aren't all that complex. Their White Ale, for example, has all the characteristics of a Witbier, but isn't nearly as deep as Blanche de Chambly, or my favorite Blanche de Bruxelles.

Since Paul is not an official write in candidate, any votes for him aren't tallied in the official numbers. I wanted to post this article I saw on RCP today - http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/...nd_freddie.html Any comments on that, from our resident economists?

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.

Which is a problem with the people viewing the magazine, which is where the outrage should be directed - not at the magazine itself. 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.

They're in it to turn a profit? SHOCKING! I would have never thought that the purpose of a business was to make money. Pop psychology on the intertubes is always so accurate - this statement included. Good for you. I, too, think there is a time and a place for an American-style lager. A beer can be enjoyable without being good, and vice versa. Congrats, so have I. You probably are. I, for example, don't really like dark, malty beers (although there are some exceptions). I'm not a fan of stouts or porters - its the way my palate has developed. I'm a hop head, and as such, I miss out on a number of quality dark beers. lol, you're saying that you don't question why someone likes to drink a thick black stout, but then you give the answer for why someone likes to drink that thick black stout: "because it came from some small brewery in Portland." You've proceeded to give an answer to a question that you claimed you don't ask. Of course you don't. But, again, just because you enjoy something, doesn't make it "a good beer". Macro brews typically lack the depth of a micro, for a number of reasons. If you like Pale Lagers like PBR, Samuel Smith's Organic Lager is a better beer, as it has more complex flavors, a nice balance, and a finish, without being overly flavorful (like a Pale Lager is supposed to be). This is not to say that someone can't enjoy PBR - just that its technically not as good of a beer.