Libs not appreciating latest New Yorker cover

[pBills]

I'm not the one worked up about it. You appear to be. One post of "it's in bad taste" would have sufficed.

 

 

Wow, and that was a cleaver post.

[justnzane]

because no one cares about South Park

I tried to stay out of this bitchfest, but those are fighting words around here South Park is generally on base with its political satire, and they are still as funny as they were 10 years ago.

[Chef Jim]

How many freakin' times do I have to spell it out for you?

 

Jesus, worked up a bit?

[Chef Jim]

Wow, and that was a cleaver post.

 

Cleaver? No. To the point? Yes.

[SilverNRed]

because no one cares about South Park

South Park is a lot more relevant to American society than the New Yorker.

[Chilly]

How many freakin' times do I have to spell it out for 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?

[X. Benedict]

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

 

Nah, there is not much red meat for the base here. The Obama campaign has done very well to present a candidate that can be seen as transcending categories that the base knows they have lost on in the past (race, religion). It would really be dumb to touch this with more than a plain press release from the campaign with.... point out, look forward to, politics of the past, concern, real issues, unflattering depiction, move ahead, blah, blah, blah......

[Chilly]

Nah, there is not much red meat for the base here. The Obama campaign has done very well to present a candidate that can be seen as transcending categories that the base knows they have lost on in the past (race, religion). It would really be dumb to touch this with more than a plain press release from the campaign with.... point out, look forward to, politics of the past, concern, real issues, unflattering depiction, move ahead, blah, blah, blah......

 

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.

[/dev/null]

because no one cares about South Park

 

Looks like a couple others have already pointed out the flaw with your argument

 

I would also like to add that I wouldn't be surprised if syndicated South Park reruns on around 6ish in the evening on various local stations draw a larger audience than the New Yorker has subscribers

[Chilly]

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

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

There is a difference between the satire they have run in the past and going over the top. They went over the top. Come on, you can say that the satire is comparable to the one with Bush and Cheney surrounded by empty beer bottles? No way.

 

I read more into the Bush/Chaney one. It portrays Chaney as the man of the house, the one actually in charge. Bush with the feather duster is his b-i-t-ch. And Chaney is a low life slob. I think some people who post here actually believe that, or want others to.

[/dev/null]

I read more into the Bush/Chaney one. It portrays Chaney as the man of the house, the one actually in charge. Bush with the feather duster is his b-i-t-ch. And Chaney is a low life slob. I think some people who post here actually believe that, or want others to.

 

I read that cover as more of an "Odd Couple" reference

[Cheeseburger_in_paradise]

I read that cover as more of an "Odd Couple" reference

 

Hmm...that might make sense.

[pBills]

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?

 

 

 

First off it's sad that people believe so heartedly in South Park. Damn, I killed Kenny.

 

Why do you feel that burning the flag is acceptable? Would you want to see that next to McCain? What about a cross burning next to the Pope? It symbolizes America, and that to me has no business in satire. Not funny what-o-ever.

 

Did I say that terrorists don't burn the flag? No. But to portray that a candidate for the position would burn the flag because he didn't wear a pin is absolutely disgusting. I like any of you should hold the flag dear to my heart. Sorry, but you don't f' around with it.

[pBills]

Looks like a couple others have already pointed out the flaw with your argument

 

I would also like to add that I wouldn't be surprised if syndicated South Park reruns on around 6ish in the evening on various local stations draw a larger audience than the New Yorker has subscribers

 

 

And again..... sad. Almost negates any argument anyone here has ever had.

[pBills]

Wait a minute, did a democrat and according to some Liberal say that the flag is important?

[blzrul]

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.

The problem is that some people cannot tell the difference.

 

By the way, I think it's sorta funny.

[pBills]

Don't be outraged at the magazine/newspaper that published it, gave it the means to be out there. Just be mad at those who created it instead. HAHAHA!!

[Chilly]

Why do you feel that burning the flag is acceptable?

 

Ah, the old ask a question in response to a question. But, to answer your question anyway -

 

You're missing the key: context.

 

Would you want to see that next to McCain?

 

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.

 

What about a cross burning next to the Pope?

 

Again, there is no satire here.

 

It symbolizes America, and that to me has no business in satire. Not funny what-o-ever.

 

Guess you must hate the Colbert Report, with him using the Bald Eagle and all.

 

Did I say that terrorists don't burn the flag? No. But to portray that a candidate for the position would burn the flag because he didn't wear a pin is absolutely disgusting. I like any of you should hold the flag dear to my heart. Sorry, but you don't f' around with it.

 

That bolded statement is exactly the point that the New Yorker is making, using a cartoon instead of words.

[Chilly]

Don't be outraged at the magazine/newspaper that published it, gave it the means to be out there. Just be mad at those who created it instead. HAHAHA!!

 

Might want to try reading that again.