My theory is to frighten the Jewish voters (alot of them are not convinced that is not a Muslim, which Obama thinks that to be a Muslim is smear [here official Obama webside]Posts: 2198 | Registered: Jun 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I see Obama's trumping the "I-raq is improving" line these days, no doubt to renege on his pull out promise. Yeh just look at Carl Levin below. Doesn't he look "safe"? LOL
posted
OMG, give me a break. The New Yorker is a LIBERAL publication, hence, they are all in for Obama. The same issue featured a favorable article on the man. This is clearly satire [though in bad taste], but maybe some non-Americans can't understand it since they aren't aware of the political context. The cartoon is titled "the politics of fear" and used to criticize the right wing nuts for their bogus caricatures.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
You fail to grasp the significance of the New Yorker satire, simpleton. Why do the Dems feel the need to constantly alleviate white fears? Why does Obama feel the need to keep saying over and again he is not Muslim and a "radical" throwing his mentor under the bus? It is precisely because of the willingness of white America to believe in the dreaded Black Peril. You can dismiss it as "bogus caricatures" all you want but the same fears that led to Birth of a Nation (Jew film) is same fears today. Sorry. This is why your assimilationist dream will not come true. So please stop lashing out on "non-Americans" Captain America for reminding you of this failure despite decades of "progressive" politics.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: [QB] You fail to grasp the significance of the New Yorker satire, simpleton.
Stop saving face.. You failed to realize that it was satire until I pointed it out as you're a paranoid loser. Initially, you used this issue as evidence in a previous thread of the contempt still aimed at Black Americans, when the very publication is in the tank for Obama and wrote a favorable article about him in the same issue. You lose via your misunderstanding of American politics and satire. Focus on Jamaica..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't you think a "black Nazi" such as myself would know of the political stance of New Yorker? LOL Poor you, negro just can't see beyond left and right.
It's not the issue Captain America, of course what you are running from is the fact that whites (left, right, Jew, gentile) do see blacks as such. You are also hiding from the fact that Obama didn't throw his pastor under the bus to please only the white right. No win or lose here, just a fact. So whatever the article in the New Yorker say is not the issue.
But if you are going to argue, however, that white Jewish liberal magazines don't use "art" and "satire" as an excuse for racism then you really are a wilful ignoramus. What did the Jew Freud say about sub-conscious desires? LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: OMG, give me a break. The New Yorker is a LIBERAL publication, hence, they are all in for Obama. The same issue featured a favorable article on the man. This is clearly satire [though in bad taste], but maybe some non-Americans can't understand it since they aren't aware of the political context. The cartoon is titled "the politics of fear" and used to criticize the right wing nuts for their bogus caricatures.
Is there any reference on the cover that says the cartoon is satire...did any of the articles made any reference to the cover?
There might be individuals who subscribe to the New Yorker who might see it as satire, but when you have 18% of the American population that believes that Obama is a Muslim, that cover is not helpful.
Posts: 391 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): ^Do you think that that 18% of the population are even changeable rational minded people?
Perhaps that is what the article was aiming to get accross to those who might have a little un founded fears of Hussein Obama.
Hence ako's posted "Why do the Dems feel the need to constantly alleviate white fears?"
I could see how the muslim depiction in general could be aimed at both the Jewish and racist populations in general.
The cover is a reinforcement of that belief, because the average American doesn't read the New Yorker.
Therefore, when they look at this cartoon cover, depicting Obama as a muslim and a terrorist, and his wife as a afro wearing, trigger happy Black militant, with a burning USA flag and a portrait of Osama on the wall of the Oval Office, they're not going to look at it as satire, especially when there is no information on the cover to suggest that it is.
Posts: 391 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
SEEKING seems to be one of the more prudent Obamaniacs. LOL Damn right you folks have a problem on your hands, he cant shake the radical black image (an image even negros like Sundiata detests! LMAO!) no matter what he does or say. Apart from white racism, one other reason is the fact that it has an element of truth to it. He was member of a black cultural nationalist church and his wife did say this is first time she felt like American, or something. She was speaking the truth but damn did it expose you guys. And the signature black fist greeting, dont you guys know that s**t scares even liberals?!?!? LOLOLOLOL And youre right too, the average American don't read liberal Jewish garbage. That's the preserve of the elite east coast crowd, and negro wannabes like Sundiata.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Sundjata: [qb] OMG, give me a break. The New Yorker is a LIBERAL publication, hence, they are all in for Obama. The same issue featured a favorable article on the man. This is clearly satire [though in bad taste], but maybe some non-Americans can't understand it since they aren't aware of the political context. The cartoon is titled "the politics of fear" and used to criticize the right wing nuts for their bogus caricatures.
Is there any reference on the cover that says the cartoon is satire...did any of the articles made any reference to the cover?
1. Knowledge of exactly what the New Yorker is and what they stand for alone make evident the fact that this is satirical.
2. The editor of the publication was interviewed on why he chose the cover, and the cover its self is entitled "the politics of fear". A phrase commonly used by Obama to describe tactics used by the political right.
Context, context, context. It doesn't even make sense to anyone aware of this publication to suggest that it's an attack. Obama himself addressed it on Larry King Live, saying that he understands their intent, though it seems to have back fired. It is the Steven Cober style of satire.. Some people are just not intelligent enough to understand and those same people won't vote for Obama anyways.
quote:There might be individuals who subscribe to the New Yorker who might see it as satire, but when you have 18% of the American population that believes that Obama is a Muslim, that cover is not helpful.
I agree, and said myself that it was in bad taste. Doesn't distract away from the fact that it is satire though, which is my point.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: SEEKING seems to be one of the more prudent Obamaniacs. LOL Damn right you folks have a problem on your hands, he cant shake the radical black image (an image even negros like Sundiata detests! LMAO!) no matter what he does or say. Apart from white racism, one other reason is the fact that it has an element of truth to it. He was member of a black cultural nationalist church and his wife did say this is first time she felt like American, or something. She was speaking the truth but damn did it expose you guys. And the signature black fist greeting, dont you guys know that s**t scares even liberals?!?!? LOLOLOLOL And youre right too, the average American don't read liberal Jewish garbage. That's the preserve of the elite east coast crowd, and negro wannabes like Sundiata.
LOL, c'mon you uneducated troll. Stop spinning around the FACT the you immediately used this LIBERAL publications cover piece as evidence of "racism" because you are paranoid and too stupid to know satire when you see it. There's a huge difference between the bad judgment of a group who FULLY supports a Black candidate and systematic racism..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Obama's campaigners, who are New York street side out with their ears to the crowd, did not approve of the cartoon at all.
They know all too well that, satire or not, every white hater of the Obamas, whether conservative or liberal, see it as the confirming poster for all susceptible to the "politics of fear." It will hang on their walls as an "See, I told you so and even the liberals slyly wink and nod inagreement," (though in such a way they can deny it if called out on it).
quote:Originally posted by Alive-(What Box): ^Do you think that that 18% of the population are even changeable rational minded people?
Perhaps that is what the article was aiming to get accross to those who might have a little un founded fears of Hussein Obama.
Hence ako's posted "Why do the Dems feel the need to constantly alleviate white fears?"
I could see how the muslim depiction in general could be aimed at both the Jewish and racist populations in general.
The cover is a reinforcement of that belief, because the average American doesn't read the New Yorker.
Therefore, when they look at this cartoon cover, depicting Obama as a muslim and a terrorist, and his wife as a afro wearing, trigger happy Black militant, with a burning USA flag and a portrait of Osama on the wall of the Oval Office, they're not going to look at it as satire, especially when there is no information on the cover to suggest that it is.
Seeking. I don't know many who will dispute this but the satirical point being lost on racists and bigots who are already steadfast in their world view is irrelevant. But I do agree that some ignorant voters who don't bother researching information on their candidates may be mislead by such intellectual humor [that many don't find too funny].. Ironically, most people asked about it who were offended were more offended by the American flag burning in the fire place. Most people don't take it seriously and all that is needed is that MOST people vote for Obama. The 18% of racists and bigots can vote for Mccain..
-------------------- mr.writer.asa@gmail.com Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This idiot is so contrary he doesnt realise his long a** post merely validates what Seeking is saying: that the average America (who doesn't care for liberal Jewish humour/"satire" anyway) will "misinterpret" the cover. Ironically I think, however, they won't.
I think both the New Yorker and this cover speak to white liberal projecting more than anything else. White liberals want us to think they are addressing the convenient scapegoat the evil white right, when in fact they are secretly communicating their fears. after all he did throw Rev. Wright under the bus and cursed black males for them too did he not? So I think the New Yorker speaks to their psyche and need for reassurance from "the slave" more than anything else. Captain America likes to talk about projecting so much, I am amazed he would miss this one, right under his nose. LOL
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: This idiot is so contrary he doesnt realise his long a** post merely validates what Seeking is saying: that the average America (who doesn't care for liberal Jewish humour/"satire" anyway) will "misinterpret" the cover. Ironically I think, however, they won't.
I think both the New Yorker and this cover speak to white liberal projecting more than anything else. White liberals want us to think they are addressing the convenient scapegoat the evil white right, when in fact they are secretly communicating their fears. after all he did throw Rev. Wright under the bus and cursed black males for them too did he not? So I think the New Yorker speaks to their psyche and need for reassurance from "the slave" more than anything else. Captain America likes to talk about projecting so much, I am amazed he would miss this one, right under his nose. LOL
I'm not arguing with Seeking and don't disagree with anything he said, only disagreeing with YOU that it is racist propaganda, like the type you are used to promoting. My point was in response to the parent post, suggesting that it was aimed at bigots like you as opposed to smart people who understand it [even if they don't agree with it]. Fact remains, you didn't even know it was satire until I told you so your comments about it aren't important.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why we are talking about the style as opposed to the intent, is beyond me [since the thread is about racial intent]. Everybody and their mama can denounce, reject, and repudiate it as they wish.. Like I said, Obama himself addressed this on Larry King and specifically implied that he WAS NOT offended and understood the intent, but felt that it was in bad taste and for him, strategically negative.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Without semantic games, Obama himself disapproved.
Nor is it private for Obama's eyes only. It's very public and Obama saw it as hurtful to his campaign strategically negative. Everyone has their own opinion and mine is, yes, it is strategically negative. I couldn't care less who agrees or disagrees with my opinion. No one but no one can look into anyone's heart and discern their true intent. If you can then I know law firms who will pay you whatever you ask.
Cartoonist Ted Rall: "If The New Yorker wants to get into the political cartoon business, it ought to hire some political cartoonists. Until they hire some smart editors, The New Yorker ought to stick to what they do well: gag panels about Upper East Siders at cocktail parties." http://politicalhumor.about.com/b/2008/07/17/the-new-yorkers-obama-cartoon-scandal.htm
Jon Cooper (D-Lloyd Harbor), Obama's Long Island campaign chairman, upon viewing the magazine cover online. "I think I have a pretty good sense of humor and I think I'm pretty fair- minded, but this is just beyond the pale. ... It's not funny." Obama campaign, Democrats slam New Yorker Obama cartoon "What possessed them to do this?" bemoaned New York Democratic consultant George Arzt, echoing the chorus of lament in the liberal blogosphere since The New Yorker issue came out yesterday. "It feeds all the rumor-mongering that is going on just under the radar."
One organ agrees with me about the poster use of the cover: "This is going to upset a lot of people, probably for the same reason it's going to delight a lot of other people, namely those on the right," lamented the liberal Huffington Post about the cover. "Because it's got all the scare tactics and misinformation that has so far been used to derail Barack Obama's campaign - all in one handy illustration."
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
David Remnick On That New Yorker Cover: It's Satire, Meant To Target "Distortions And Misconceptions And Prejudices" About Obama:
Earlier today, the New Yorker released its cover for the July 21, 2008 issue — and the reaction was swift and furious.
The cover by Barry Blitt, called "The Politics of Fear," shows Michelle and Barack Obama depicted as the worst of the prejudiced, smearing characterizations that have dogged them over the course of the campaign: Michelle Obama as a revolutionary in military fatigues, packing AK-47 and ammo; her husband dressed like the Muslim he is stubbornly accused of being. Both of them stand in the Oval Office, with a portrait of Osama bin Laden behind them over a fireplace, in which an American flag burns. Not very subtle.
Some are not alarmed — Clarence Page, longtime Chicago Tribune columnist (and African-American) said the cover was "quite within the normal bounds of journalism" — but not everyone sees it that way. It's been described as "offensive" and "trash" and "disgusting" and "just as bad as Fox News."
Why would the New Yorker publish such a thing? Why would they run a cover that could have run, irony-free, on the cover of the National Review? What were they thinking? We put these questions and more to David Remnick, the editor of the New Yorker. His answers are below.
This cover has quickly become very controversial. The Obama campaign has called it "tasteless and offensive." Why did you run it?
Obviously I wouldn't have run a cover just to get attention — I ran the cover because I thought it had something to say. What I think it does is hold up a mirror to the prejudice and dark imaginings about Barack Obama's — both Obamas' — past, and their politics. I can't speak for anyone else's interpretations, all I can say is that it combines a number of images that have been propagated, not by everyone on the right but by some, about Obama's supposed "lack of patriotism" or his being "soft on terrorism" or the idiotic notion that somehow Michelle Obama is the second coming of the Weathermen or most violent Black Panthers. That somehow all this is going to come to the Oval Office.
The idea that we would publish a cover saying these things literally, I think, is just not in the vocabulary of what we do and who we are... We've run many many satirical political covers. Ask the Bush administration how many.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: SEEKING seems to be one of the more prudent Obamaniacs. LOL Damn right you folks have a problem on your hands, he cant shake the radical black image (an image even negros like Sundiata detests! LMAO!) no matter what he does or say. Apart from white racism, one other reason is the fact that it has an element of truth to it. He was member of a black cultural nationalist church and his wife did say this is first time she felt like American, or something. She was speaking the truth but damn did it expose you guys. And the signature black fist greeting, dont you guys know that s**t scares even liberals?!?!? LOLOLOLOL And youre right too, the average American don't read liberal Jewish garbage. That's the preserve of the elite east coast crowd, and negro wannabes like Sundiata.
LOL, c'mon you uneducated troll. Stop spinning around the FACT the you immediately used this LIBERAL publications cover piece as evidence of "racism" because you are paranoid and too stupid to know satire when you see it. There's a huge difference between the bad judgment of a group who FULLY supports a Black candidate and systematic racism..
Oh come now, stop with the elitist pretensions and clouding of the issue captain America. I used it as an example of how white America sees you. The "satire" explanation, like politcal right and left, is mere semantics. It is clear that with all your smoke screens, you have yet to contradict my original post. This is how white America sees you, so no assimilation as you desire.
You are alone in your unconditional love for white liberals as even jewish alT is upset, even intimated that it might be more than mere "satire", "It will hang on their walls as an "See,I told you so and even the liberals slyly wink and nod inagreement," (though in such a way they can deny it if called out on it).".
Makes you wonder if it was really "satire" and not a underhand swipe at Obama's bid. Remember Jewish liberals have no problem with McCain also since he too advertises himself as a "maverick"and is "good for Israel".
quote:Opinions vary...intent doesn't.
you believe them because you want to. but unless you can get into their minds you don't "know" their "intentions". "No one but no one can look into anyone's heart and discern their true intent." - alT
You are no long Captain America but Professor X.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
Obama will appear on Larry King tonight. Here are some excerpts.
On the New Yorker cover:
LARRY KING, HOST: I've heard a lot of others comment on it. We haven't heard you speak about it yet. That "New Yorker" cover which depicts you and your wife, and you dressed in a Muslim outfit, your wife in a kind of military outfit, Osama bin Laden's picture burning, what do you make of that?
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:
Well, **I know** it was The New Yorker's attempt at satire. I don't think they were entirely successful with it. But you know what? It's a cartoon, Larry, and that's why we've got the First Amendment ... You know, we've -- one of the things when you're running for president for almost two years is, you get a pretty thick skin. And, you know, I've seen and heard worse.
I do think that, you know, in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead. But, you know, that was their editorial judgment. And as I said, ultimately, it's a cartoon, it's not where the American people are spending a lot of their time thinking about.
On the smears the New Yorker referenced:
KING: Considering that, though, there's a lot of e-mails going around. It gets rather terrible. A "Newsweek" poll shows that 12 percent of America believes that you're a Muslim, and 26 believe -- 26 percent believe you were raised in a Muslim home. A lot of misinformation. How do you fight that?
OBAMA: Well, you know, by getting on "Larry King" and telling everybody I'm a Christian and I wasn't raised in a Muslim home. And pledge allegiance to the flag. And, you know, all the things that have been reported in these e-mails are completely untrue and have been debunked again and again and again. So, all you can do is just tell the truth and trust in the American people that over time, they're going to know what the truth is.
One last point I want to -- I do want to make about these e-mails, though. And I think this has an impact on this "New Yorker" cover. You know, this is actually an insult against Muslim-Americans, something that we don't spend a lot of time talking about. And sometimes I've been derelict in pointing that out. You know, there are wonderful Muslim-Americans all across the country who are doing wonderful things. And for this to be used as sort of an insult, or to raise suspicions about me, I think is unfortunate. And it's not what America's all about.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sly Kenyan fox Obama's not as blind as some imagine. His campaign launched a website and paid off GOOGLE to parry the New Yorker's damaging "poster."
"I do think that, you know, in attempting to satirise something, they probably fuelled some misconceptions about me instead," Obama said.
"But, you know, that was their editorial judgment. And as I said, ultimately, it's a cartoon, it's not what the American people are spending a lot of their time thinking about."
"If a casual observer didn't know that The New Yorker was a liberal literary and cultural magazine, he or she might easily believe Blitt's drawing was trying to promote the right-wing smears that it intended to lampoon.[...]........Media Matters for America, a liberal media watchdog Web site, took that as evidence that The New Yorker cover reinforces false perceptions about the Obamas. I get a different message. The misinformed—or willfully misled—folks who say they think the cartoon depicts the real Obamas offer evidence that false perceptions already are out there, New Yorker or not."Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't have to excerpt Page's initial reaction and those interested in the full context will go to the site and satisfy themselves rather than be fed.
In any event an overwhelming majority including Obama himself see the cartoon as negative and damaging hence the website to counter what it is a poster of.
Posts: 8014 | From: the Tekrur in the Western Sahel | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^^How about you give us YOUR interpretation on what he meant that is contrary to the excerpts? I mean, did he contradict himself, while attributing some kind of ill intent that he says in the excerpt wasn't there? Aren't we discussing this?? It isn't enough to post the full context and expect people to interpret it in some way you may have, assuming that you have an opinion...
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry I'm not into spoon feeding people. Anyone truly interested can easily peruse the article to see his initial reaction and how it altered. In the end he's one guy. The political savvy, i.e. the campaigners, even his opponent don't side with Page an Op-Ed writer(?).
In any event an overwhelming majority including Obama himself see the cartoon as negative and damaging hence the website to counter what it is a poster of. [/QB]
I've posted the "FULL CONTEXT" of what Obama said on the issue and you are free to read it.. The fact that it may or may not have a negative impact isn't the point.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: Sorry I'm not into spoon feeding people. Anyone truly interested can easily peruse the article to see his initial reaction and how it altered. In the end he's one guy. The political savvy, i.e. the campaigners, even his opponent don't side with Page an Op-Ed writer(?).
Like I said.. Do you have an opinion? Are you discussing or just posting links? Otherwise, I assume that the context is consistent with what I posted about it concerning the relevant points. Others are free to dispute it as this is supposed to be a discussion. Has nothing to do with "spoon feeding" since if that's the case, then the link is right there to expose my distortions. It's no different than posting the entire thing and highlighting what's relevant. Maybe I should do that as to avoid "spoon feeding"..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
Obama will appear on Larry King tonight. Here are some excerpts.
On the New Yorker cover:
LARRY KING, HOST: I've heard a lot of others comment on it. We haven't heard you speak about it yet. That "New Yorker" cover which depicts you and your wife, and you dressed in a Muslim outfit, your wife in a kind of military outfit, Osama bin Laden's picture burning, what do you make of that?
SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE:
Well, **I know** it was The New Yorker's attempt at satire. I don't think they were entirely successful with it. But you know what? It's a cartoon, Larry, and that's why we've got the First Amendment ... You know, we've -- one of the things when you're running for president for almost two years is, you get a pretty thick skin. And, you know, I've seen and heard worse.
I do think that, you know, in attempting to satirize something, they probably fueled some misconceptions about me instead. But, you know, that was their editorial judgment. And as I said, ultimately, it's a cartoon, it's not where the American people are spending a lot of their time thinking about.
On the smears the New Yorker referenced:
KING: Considering that, though, there's a lot of e-mails going around. It gets rather terrible. A "Newsweek" poll shows that 12 percent of America believes that you're a Muslim, and 26 believe -- 26 percent believe you were raised in a Muslim home. A lot of misinformation. How do you fight that?
OBAMA: Well, you know, by getting on "Larry King" and telling everybody I'm a Christian and I wasn't raised in a Muslim home. And pledge allegiance to the flag. And, you know, all the things that have been reported in these e-mails are completely untrue and have been debunked again and again and again. So, all you can do is just tell the truth and trust in the American people that over time, they're going to know what the truth is.
One last point I want to -- I do want to make about these e-mails, though. And I think this has an impact on this "New Yorker" cover. You know,
My theory is to frighten the Jewish voters (alot of them are not convinced that is not a Muslim, which Obama thinks that to be a Muslim is smear [here official Obama webside]
^^Like I said, it isn't the point. We are going off on a tangent, for reasons unknown to me.. This is about paranoid accusations of racism and/or racial intent on the part of the New Yorker, not how racists receive it.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
It still amazes me how easily people get distracted by the initial off-beat rantings of a troll who doesn't even know what he's talking about. It works as a step stone to an exceedingly irrelevant conversation full of straw man arguments and non-responsive cop-outs.
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: Why does Obama feel the need to keep saying over and again he is not Muslim and a "radical"
Because he isn't, though he points out the flawed nature of the criticism as well, per the highlighted piece above which again, goes to my former points about his candidacy and contradicts your suspicions about the man's agenda.
quote:Originally posted by alTakruri: I don't know about any THE point. It may not be YOUR point. It is mos def MY point.
The theme of the thread was in response to the parent post by Arwa, so you were obviously on a different subject than the initial post. Forgive me for my confusion. Lack of communication, but not from a lack of trying [to communicate] on my part at least.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
My theory is to frighten the Jewish voters (alot of them are not convinced that is not a Muslim, which Obama thinks that to be a Muslim is smear [here official Obama webside]
^^Like I said, it isn't the point. We are going off on a tangent, for reasons unknown to me.. This is about paranoid accusations of racism and/or racial intent on the part of the New Yorker, not how racists receive it.
Stop lying to cover your a**. Never accused New Yorker of "racism" but used the cover as an example of how white America sees you, hence the futility of your assimiliationist dreams. In an attempt at deflecting from the issue you point out the picture was satire (duh).
But even here you opened a whole other issue: so-called "true intentions" of white liberals. Your interpretation of the issue as mere "satire" seems to be in the minority, even by obama sympathizers. Even undecided ones like Alive and alT hinted at possible undercover white liberal racism. Like I said, it wouldn't be that far fetched since McCain is not too far off from Obama and "good for Israel" too.
It seems only you, Professor X, "knows" what their "true" intentions were.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
My theory is to frighten the Jewish voters (alot of them are not convinced that is not a Muslim, which Obama thinks that to be a Muslim is smear [here official Obama webside]
^^Like I said, it isn't the point. We are going off on a tangent, for reasons unknown to me.. This is about paranoid accusations of racism and/or racial intent on the part of the New Yorker, not how racists receive it.
Stop lying to cover your a**. Never accused New Yorker of "racism" but used the cover as an example of how white America sees you, hence the futility of your assimiliationist dreams. In an attempt at deflecting from the issue you point out the picture was satire (duh).
But even here you opened a whole other issue: so-called "true intentions" of white liberals. Your interpretation of the issue as mere "satire" seems to be in the minority, even by obama sympathizers. Even undecided ones like Alive and alT hinted at possible undercover white liberal racism. Like I said, it wouldn't be that far fetched since McCain is not too far off from Obama and "good for Israel" too.
It seems only you, Professor X, "knows" what their "true" intentions were.
The point you missed is that you dictated the direction of the thread's discussion and people let you. I did not. That is the difference. I see past your radicalism and look at things for how they are. In this case, satire. Initially, you begged to differ and lying about that is useless..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by akoben08: Why does Obama feel the need to keep saying over and again he is not Muslim and a "radical"
Because he isn't,
Wrong Professor X, it was a rhetorical question for which I answered, "It is precisely because of the willingness of white America to believe in the dreaded Black Peril. You can dismiss it as "bogus caricatures" all you want but the same fears that led to Birth of a Nation (Jew film) is same fears today.'
quote:Initially, you begged to differ and lying about that is useless..
Feel free to post where I said other than "this is how America sees you"...if you can't then it is your own a**backwards interpretation to deflect from what I was saying: white America will always see you as a threat, hence no assimilation.
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Feel free to post where I said other than "this is how America sees you"
Which alludes to your ignorance by depending on a satirical cartoon by a LIBERAL publication who supports a Black candidate, to exemplify that, and as if being a Muslim is a stereotype attributable to African-Americans who are predominantly Christian.
You are fooling no one. You automatically took the magazine cover literally like the paranoid scitzo you are! LOL..
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sundjata, did you expect Obama to say anything different on the Larry King show?
Barack is not foolish. He is not going to articulate his personal views about the cover on that show, or any show for that matter, because it would only fan the flames even more. This would have led to more coverage about the cover, with concentration on its implications, so he had to downplay it as much as possible.
Barack wants to concentrate on the issues and not about a cover that depicts him as a muslim and terrorist. It will not serve him politically to do this, so I am not surprise by his answer on the Larry King Show.
quote:Originally posted by SEEKING: [QB] Sundjata, did you expect Obama to say anything different on the Larry King show?
Barack is not foolish. He is not going to articulate his personal views about the cover on that show, or any show for that matter, because it would only fan the flames even more.
All I can do is go by his words. I have nothing else to go on. This is a forum full of primary sources and these are what I rely on, not suspicion. Maybe you're right, maybe not, but I posted what the man said in his own words to reinforce my point that this cartoon is simply satirical, which was my ONLY point all along. Any thing else is irrelevant to what I'm saying.
quote: This would have led to more coverage about the cover, with concentration on its implications, so he had to downplay it as much as possible.
Barack wants to concentrate on the issues and not about a cover that depicts him as a muslim and terrorist. It will not serve him politically to do this, so I am not surprise by his answer on the Larry King Show.
That makes sense, but either way, it was still satirical, whether or not he was "secretly" offended or not by it.
Thanx for posting.. I was meaning to watch it live but missed it and have only heard small segments of it since.
Posts: 4021 | From: Bay Area, CA | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote: Your answer was insufficient and paranoid, so I gave you a more practical one..
Correction again. My answer disturbs you because you know its true. If these notions are merely confined to a minority illiterate trailer park rednecks in the “red states”, then there would be no need to constantly refute them. He knows as a BLACK man he is vulnerable to misconceptions by both the white left and right. Hence Rev. Wright and the black community had to take it up the a** in the interest of his campaign!
quote: Which alludes to your ignorance by depending on satirical cartoon by a LIBERAL publication who supports a Black candidate to exemplify that,
Correction again. It alludes to your need to deflect attention from my point which disturbs you; as if my use of the New Yorker cover is evidence of me "relying" on liberal publications for black caricatures. LOL
Professor X you are digging your own grave further with all these apologia for sick jewish liberal "humour" – BTW, did they caricature Liberman as a conniving, scheming Jew on their cover when he was running for VP to counter "anti-Semites"? I think not, I think I know why too.
quote:All I can do is go by his words. I have nothing else to go on.
Again, don't lie. you believe him on Larry king because you want to believe him. As if you would readily believe what McCain, Bush or any other politician you don't like, says on TV. Please you are sinking yourself further...
Posts: 4165 | From: jamaica | Registered: May 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
In his Letter from Birmingham City Jail, King "almost" came to the "regrettable conclusion" that the greatest stumbling block to black progress is not the Ku Klux Klan or the White Citizens' Council, but white moderate.
Compare Obama's wife with
New York (mostly Jewish) publications were known for these kinds of jokes, called "satire" today: NOTE no "Jewish" caricatures
posted
Here's somethin haterz gon' find, not at all funny We takin' all ya wimmenz, takin' all ya money
Posts: 3423 | From: the jungle - when y'all stop playing games, call me. | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
^ another example of continued ethnic notions by liberal whites is the music industry and particularly "gangsta rap", an updated version of the "brute negro". This particular character represented blacks inability to be "civilised" after emancipation, hence the justification for continued discrimination. I don't have to tell you all about the Jewish/liberal whites role in promoting this updated caricature ("satire"? LOL) today.
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic