The New Yorker Magazine, a liberal magazine's front cover this week, fueled the fires on the Internet, talk radio and opinion cable.The cover of the new Yorker Magazine, artistically portrays excellent renderings of caricatures of our heroes Barrack and Michelle Obama as flag-burning, Osama bin Laden-honoring terrorists bumping fists in the Oval Office. I am a conservative but I must own a copy of this weeks magazine.
It offended many, including the putz John McCain. But as crude and offensive as it was? debatable I may add because i find this New Yorker issue a work of Art. .The cover was tame next to other Internet rot, not all of it aimed atObama. The ageism directed at John MyCane is prevalent, too.
.,
No doubt political discourse will move on to the next outrage. But the New Yorker image's unintended consequence freshly exposed the cult of victimization so pervasive in American politics on at least three levels:
Obama's defenders railed against it as racist and offensive, and the image of Obama in Muslim clothing only reinforced the ill-gotten views of 12 percent of Americans who erroneously? think Obomber is a Muslim. You study in a madras's during the 6 formative years ...guess what, you are a muslim.
Further, this grievance goes, no one except the sophisticated New Yorker reader is smart enough to get it, so it's bound to end up as a poster on every bigot's wall. Oh to bad, "hayBendito, gran poder, pobre O'bomber"
• Conservatives complained that legitimate questions about Obama were stereotyped into a box of bigotry, and that they probably would get blamed for the image in the end.
In closing so i muslims are offended, to bad, we in America. If muslims kill each other over the magazine. Oh well thats there style.
If Barry Hussien O'Bomber is offended, to bad, after all its only Muslims who become morons and are offended over drawings.
