Highly Controversial cover of the New Yorker of Obama
Posted July 14th, 2008 by celeste
output
Bookmark/Search this post with:
 HAVING PROBLEMS VIEWING THE SITE? GET FIREFOX! | A NOTE ON ADVERTISING |
As much as I do not support
As much as I do not support Obama, Ron Paul supporters should not get in the middle of this one. Let the McCain and Obama supporters battle this out. What if someone came up to you with a magazine cover with Ron Paul on it dressed up in smears? Would it make you willing to look at their candidate? There you go. Not something Ron Paul supporters should touch, in my opinion. Not to mention that this is the very type of thing Ron Paul speaks out against in his book. (Not the satire, but using something like this to attack another candidate by focusing on the superficial and not the policies.)
I'm not saying people here were planning to do that -- just wanted to throw that out there as a warning.
The cover was not attacking Obama
It was painting the attacks on Obama as ridiculous.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://will86aber.wordpre...
It is the policies
That gives this the credibility. Ron Paul has nothing to hide. To know him is to love him. The other candidates are just being exposed for what they really are. The shine is off the penney to speak. But you are totally right that we should stay out of it.
Obomb delegate
calls for boycott of New Yorker
affirmation: President Paul
affirmation: President Paul 2008
Fanofwalt - You are MAGNIFICANT! I'd vote for you:)
I wish I had his tact
Can't help it. Its time for the gloves to come off. America is under seige. Most wouldn't say shit if they had a mouth full. I think the New Yorker nailed it (a little over the top). I give them alot of credit for the balls to print it.
Its a revolution, welcome to it.
Ditto
You are Pres of the RP debate team
Posted on another thread
The greatest hope I have seen recently is the people waking from the Obama spell. One world socialism is not really the "change" they thought he was implying.
Obamanation is a Crack smoking Homo
and his wife is an America-Hating AFRICAN-negro beard
It makes me sick seeing the khazar media pose her as the new Jackie Onasis and refer to them both as the new Camelot.
ugh!!!
As for the homo charges, look up the videos on You Tube
Put in the search engine
Obama and Sinclair
and pass them around widely
mk
hahahaha An Eye for an Eye
hahahaha
An Eye for an Eye will ONLY make this world go blind~Ghandi~
Awe, You Made Me Do It
Obama is a "slickster trickster, slippery tongue of liquidity dung".
Makes me angry:
When people say that Obama is anti-American. Have you ever listened to Reverend Wright's speeches? KRS-One? Immortal Technique? The message that has been branded 'anti-American' is the idea that America has supported the overthrow of democracies, the assassination of elected officials, bombed innocent civilians, meddled in the affairs of soveriegn nations, rigged elections, supported terrorists....and that 9/11 was the BLOWBACK for all of that. A niche of the black community, and international community, has been saying it for years. Chalmers Johnson has written books on it, Stephen Kinzer has written about it....AND RON PAUL HAS MADE IT A CENTRAL THEME OF HIS CAMPAIGN!!
If you people would pull back the reigns on your 'NO-ONE-BUT-RON-PAUL' hysteria, you would realize that what Barack Obama presumably believes, or what his wife or pastor believes, is 100% compatible with the anti-war, anti-imperialist facet of the Ron Paul Revolution.
Read a book, for godsake.
Why did Barack support funding for the Iraqi War?
Why did he vote for the FISA bill, when he originally said he wouldn't?
Why is his chief advisor, Zbigniew Brzeziniski, a person who set up Al-Qaeda, telling Obama what to do?
Why did he smoke crack?
Why was Obama's mother and Obama's education funded by the Ford Foundation, a main contributor to the Nazi campaign, and a proponent of eugenics ideals?
Why is his wife part of the Council of Foreign Relations, where they profess their goal is to dissolve national sovereignty and create a one world government?
Why are his top contributors from the same companies (Goldman Sachs)as Hillary and John McCain (www.opensecrets.org)?
Ron Paul's the real deal-Obama's a dangerous puppet.
I am of the same mind
Rev. Wright promotes empowerment through ethnic destinction. Some of the topics match those of Ron Paul, but the effects when placed in a racial perspective will only result in a deeper divide.
Zbigniew Brzeziniski, has a long history of radicalizing groups for national demoralization and destabilization.
He is a member of the Council of Foreign Relations. Worked with the Rockefellers to establish the Trillateral Commission. He has been a part of the Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Bush Sr. and Regan Adminstrations.
As national security adviser for the Carter administration, he supported the secret aid and CIA training of the Mujahadeen (radical Islamic group) which culminated in the Soviet war with Afagnistan.
Brzezinski determed how the U.S. would support the Pol Pot guerrillas. He persuaded Thailand & China to rebuild the Khmer Rouge to destablize the Vietnamese Parlamentry government.... Brzezinski said, " I encouraged the Chinese to support Pol Pot. I encouraged the Thai to help the DK [Democratic Kampuchea]. The question was how to help the Cambodian people. Pol Pot was an abomination. We could not support him but China could."
He is the author of many books: Between two Ages, The Grand Chessboard, Out of Control and Power and Principal.
In his book Between two Ages Dr. Brzenzinski wrote, "Bolshevik tyranny in Russia and the Maoist terror in China are models for this World Empire, the “global governance” of the Earth, its people and resources by a gilded elite."
Another Obama advisor is Anthony Lake. Mr. Lake, started with the Kennedy Administration as assistant to Henry Kissenger. He also worked in the Carter, Nixon and Clinton Administrations.
While serving as Clinton's National Security Advisor Tony Lake came under Congressional Investigation for his policies surrounding, China, Cuba, Somalia, Bosnia, and Pakistan. He also formed a secret `no instructions' policy toward Croatia allowing Iranian arms to flow into Bosnia. With strict instructions not to inform Congress.
In 1995, he wrote a glowing report on the democracy of Zimbabwe. To understand what he means by "democracy" please read "How to Kill A Country": www.theatlantic.com/doc/2...
With the exception of Rev. Wright, these men to not represent Barack Obama's "associates", these are people who shape the policies of this nation. Add that to Obama's voting record and you can see he is the same as voting for McCain or Bush Jr, NOT Ron Paul.
Obama is a collectivist, happy to see the destruction of the US Constitution.
Cameron? Can you Answer?
I am interested in your response to the above questions.....
go to the dictionary and
go to the dictionary and look up cameron_dehart..
this is what you will find..
typical brainwashed publicly educated gullible american who believes everything he's told..
Obomba is a muslim , who is a socialist, who does not have the best interests of the United States at heart or the American people! go look at his legislation he is trying to pass! wake up!
as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD
Do you and your
Do you and your homeschooling house-wife friends sit around and read chain e-mails ALL day, or do you take short breaks to pray and flog your children with olive branches?
I think there is something in your water; your flouride filters must not be working correctly.
the more you say
the more i wonder about your sanity.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://will86aber.wordpre...
Dear Cameron
You are absolutely correct in your observation that those who support Obama do indeed share many of the same hopes and strong American beliefs as those held by RP supporters. There is actually a lot of crossover in many areas.
However, were Obama 100% compatible with the anti-war, anti-imperialist facet of the RPR, his votes and actions would support his rhetoric.
Read some legislation records, for goodness' sake. Start with the recent FISA bill records...
And of the two candidates
And of the two candidates who actually have a chance of winning, you wouldnt support Obama? Remember in 2000, Nader drew votes away from Gore, and allowed Bush to take office (that along with a few phoned-in favors from friends).....Dont you think that the anti-war vote that would CERTAINLY go to Obama is being somewhat divided among the small, though noticeable support for Barr/Baldwin/Barr? You may want Obama to lose, but do you really want McCain to win?
My response
In one minute and twenty-eight seconds.
Additionally, quoting from your comment:
you would realize that what Barack Obama presumably believes,
Did you notice the word "presumably" there? In Ron Paul, we have proof, not mere rhetoric.
Dont you think that the anti-war vote that would CERTAINLY go to Obama is being somewhat divided among the small, though noticeable support for Barr/Baldwin/Barr?
Oh, very likely so. But I'd much rather my anti-war vote go to a candidate who actually IS anti-war than one who says he is and then goes ahead and votes funding for the war he's allegedly against.
Cameron, it is heartening to see a supporter work so hard for his candidate, and you're certainly doing your best to go to bat for Obama. I'm afraid, however, you'll soon discover that ten RP supporters can outwork a thousand Obama supporters. We are educated, we are well-versed in the Constitution and dedicated to liberty. We are most certainly NOT dedicated to choosing the lesser of two evils.
Take a break from futile attempts to convert RP supporters, and look around the CampaignForLiberty.com site. You may be surprised to find it's what you've been looking for all along.
I am not trying to convert,
I am not trying to convert, necessarily. I am trying to bring some reason to the conversation.
Not trying to convert?
* Whew! * Lucky for you, then! :D
Fanofwalt
Great response.
You're barking up the wrong tree
I have little doubt that the vast majority of people here would ever consider themselves a democrat over a republican or that by supporting Baldwin or Barr that they're being sapped away from Obama. You should go find a Cynthia McKinney forum, try to get them to support Obama.
At least with McCain having been a former pow, I know I won't be tortured.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://will86aber.wordpre...
One more thing that makes me agree with this movement
The tendecy of people to throw around labels. Do you know how often the platforms of the Republicans and Democrats shift? It is so frustrating when people say 'I am the REAL-Republican', or that they would NEVER support a Democrat....Does it really matter? Look at a candidate at face value and then judge them.
Had you been following this movement
Then you would know our stand on labels. They mean virtually nothing, at least not these days.
When we speak of "Republican" ideals, we do NOT mean the neo-conservative pablum that the GOP tries to pass off as Republican ideals. We refer to the original meaning and use of the term (back to your good suggestion of reading a book sometime).
RP supporters are Republicans, Democrats, Libertarians, Green Party, Independents, and whatever other party I've left out. Many of us registered Republican just so we could vote for the one candidate who actually stands up for true American ideals. We are old, young and inbetween; we are rich, poor, and what's left of the middle class; we are blue collar, white collar, no collar; we are bikers and businessmen; we are deeply religious and strongly anti-religion. We cross the gamut because of the ONE thing that does unite us: liberty.
You think we're going to go to the trouble to cross all those boundaries to unite under the one concept that matters, and then jump ship because of your fear mongering post?
And one more quote from you:
Look at a candidate at face value and then judge them.
Ah, see, there's the difference: r3volutionaries always research deeper than face value. You might try it yourself.
well of course the meaning of the label changes
though I assumed you understood I was referring to the Democrat and Republican Parties of 2008, yes?
In that thought process, people tend to flow with the thoughts of their parties platform/ their political ideology. And Obama is no different, he's just a typical Democrat, all of his beliefs adhere to their principles. In this case, however, those beliefs come slapped on a fresh faced well spoken candidate.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://will86aber.wordpre...
BUT...Ron Paul considers
BUT...Ron Paul considers himself a Real Republican because he is anti-war, anti-imperialism, non-interventionist, pro-civil liberties. The GOP of 2008 no longer supports such positions. The Democratic Part of 2008 DOES! Doesnt it make sense for someone who is anti-war and pro-civil liberty to transcend any preconcieved notions towards the Dems, and throw his support that way, in the name of progress over partisanship?
Taking the points one by one
Ron Paul considers himself a Real Republican because he is anti-war, anti-imperialism, non-interventionist, pro-civil liberties. The GOP of 2008 no longer supports such positions.
DPers, is ANYONE here going to argue against this point? (That's not exactly ammunition here, Cameron.)
The Democratic Part[y] of 2008 DOES!
DPers, is ANYONE here going to stop laughing long enough to address this point? (Seriously, I don't think anyone here, even lifelong Democrats, will agree with your view on this.)
Doesnt it make sense for someone who is anti-war and pro-civil liberty to transcend any preconcieved notions towards the Dems, and throw his support that way, in the name of progress over partisanship?
Here; I'll fix that for you:
Doesn't it make sense for someone who is anti-war and pro-civil liberty to transcend any preconcieved notions towards any party, and throw his support to a candidate who supports the Constitution, in the name of progress over partisanship?
except they aren't
"anti-war, anti-imperialism, non-interventionist, pro-civil liberties"
okay your first three are all basically the same and quite false. Neither Obama nor Hillary has supported an immediate withdrawal. Hillary has been a pretty ardent supporter for the war in Iraq and Obama, well Obama thought we should invade our ally Pakistan...
On being pro-civil liberties, I see them fighting hard for the civil liberties of neo-liberals but what about the rights of people they don't agree with. I have yet to see the Democrat Party stand up for separation of church and state on the side of keeping the state out of the church. If a church gets the slightest political they lose their tax exempt status, that isn't the government's decision; it's a churches right. And how about the civil liberties of unborn Americans?
The democrat party stands for enlarging the size and scope of government, increasing taxes, forcing Americans to pay for causes they may not believe in, paying to support people who aren't working and they don't believe in the free market.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://will86aber.wordpre...
"The democrat party stands
"The democrat party stands for enlarging the size and scope of government, increasing taxes, forcing Americans to pay for causes they may not believe in, paying to support people who aren't working and they don't believe in the free market."
Yeah, dying in the streets is one of the most American things you can do. And who needs more schools? I say f*ck the poor and minorities.
I am not a Democrat...I am basically a libertarian, but at what point do you cut your losses, and support a candidate that is can actually win. I have been involved with Ron Paul since June 2007, and I have put my neck out for his campaign....but I think that Democrats are better suited to run the country than Republicans. If we throw third parties out the window, then Obama is the best choice. And I would take him, honestly, over Barr and Baldwin anyday. My main man is Ron Paul, all the way, but realistically, Obama NEEDS to win over McCain and the neocons.
"Yeah, dying in the streets
"Yeah, dying in the streets is one of the most American things you can do. And who needs more schools? I say f*ck the poor and minorities."
... that didn't even make sense in reference to what it was replying to. Though since you mentioned school systems, the education of our youth would benefit the most if we eliminated public schooling all together, and that's coming from an education major who works in the public schools.
and when did minorities come into the conversation?
I have a hard time seeing you as a libertarian, every comment you write screams democrat.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://will86aber.wordpre...
Every example of 'Democrats
Every example of 'Democrats trying to expand the government' relates to things like schools, healthcare, poverty, and things like that. The Republicans are the ones spying on you.
And what do you replace the public schools with? You think Jethro and Bertha can educate their kids better than an actual teacher?
That is a very easy question to answer Cam
Replace government schools with non-government schools.
Every example
"Every example of 'Democrats trying to expand the government' relates to things like schools, healthcare, poverty, and things like that."
Yeah... do you not understand libertarianism? or free market economics? That systems work better when they aren't managed by a large over-seeing bureaucracy? That government doesn't have the right to steal one person's money and redistribute it to someone else?
And I don't doubt that once the Democrats re-gain the White House that they'll make use of all the new powers George Bush gained.
In comparison to public school teachers, I'm sure Jethro and Bertha will do a fairly average job. Though I'd lean towards private schools, parents choosing the best school for their children, bad schools closing down, etc.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://will86aber.wordpre...
BURN!! An Eye for an Eye
BURN!!
An Eye for an Eye will ONLY make this world go blind~Ghandi~
Sadly
this discredits any legitimate arguments against Obama and his wife; making them seem radical and silly. Typical leftist battle tactics, they make a fake enemy for their hero to vanquish and when he does, everyone forgets about the facts.
Now any hard evidence that points to Michelle's radical streak or Obama's anti-American feelings will fall on deaf ears. Thank you NewYorker for killing intelligent dialog.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
http://will86aber.wordpre...
I thought similarly
Yeah, I just happened across that cover at this site.
I think many on both (all) sides of the aisle will find the illustration over-the-top tasteless; many on both sides will misinterpret the cover (i.e., miss that it's supposed to be satire) and will be upset about it; many on both sides will get the "humor" of the satire, and be upset about it; and some will say it's great satire.
But the net result may very well be precisely what billsebe pointed out: now any rhetoric about certain issues surrounding Obama will be summarily dismissed, because, "Oh; you're just basing that on that satire cover!" (or, "That was just from that tasteless cover.").
"Cover," indeed. I wonder just how upset Obama is about this...
(Had the illustrator put the Bill of Rights in the fireplace, and wiretap headphones on Obama, then we'd have some dialogue.)
Wow
Not at all surprising that no one here can read; the cover is clearly a satire of the close-minded 'believe-it-without-research' sentiments towards Obama harbored by many 'Red State' Americans.
wow they tell it like it is!
wow they tell it like it is! couldn't be more accurate if you ask me!
as for me and my home, we shall worship the LORD
Hmmmm,
I certainly did enjoy reading further down the page about Ron Paulers being the best chroniclers (?) of anything to do with Ron Paul....
The tides are beginning to turn
Notice the American flag in the fireplace
Well,
this will make the sparks fly. Peace