Is the New Yorker Magazine Cover Unfair to Obama??

I'm sorry, do you not understand who writes the budget? And what happens when a petty congress shuts down the government by not signing it?
Click to expand...

You might want to go back and take a civics refresher class. The President proposes a budget, but Congress is the body that actually sits down and allocates the funds for whatever projects that they deem worthy. This is where the pork comes in. It's not the President that does that. The majority party decides what gets funded and how much, taking into consideration the President's requests for things like the military and other executive programs. Then the President is the one who is given the choice of sign or not sign. You seem to have it completely backwards, but that's ok. One of my many goals in life is to educate people and I'm always happy to do my part when folks don't understand how this country works.

But in sum, the Democrats are and have been the ones who send a completed budget to the President for an up or down, yes or no vote in the form of his signature.
 
Yes, the cover is unfair to Obama.

Don't get me wrong. I think Obama is terrible, and have no intention of voting for him. But there is an American flag burning in the fireplace, and a photo of an Osama Bin Laden figure on the wall. That is not fair.
 
See the budget deficit for 2001-2006. Realize who was in power. Be enlightened.

It's amazing that the massive increases in national debt occurred primarily during reagan, Bush I & II presidencies, yet they have absolutely no responsibility for that.
 
Good humor has an element of truth intermixed....

obama_coverdoc.jpg
 
1) Life aint fair.

2) People who think this is terrible should take a look back at the political cartoons of the late 1700's and early-mid 1800's. This is comparatively mild.

3) Its hypocrisy for people who paint all conservatives as uncaring uncompassionate warmongering greedy redneck gun-toting religious ignorant folk, to whine when they are hit with the broad brush.

Good humor has an element of truth intermixed....
Click to expand...

+1
 
I thought that the cover was hilarious. It's about time that the media pulled their noses out of Obama's backside. He's certainly had a LOT of help from the media in the last six months, so he can suck it up now.

The artist was probably clinging to his guns and religion.
Click to expand...
Best laugh I had all day.:D
 
just wait a while

before November the New Yorker will do a similar piece on McCain and folks will not understand that one either.
 
Can not vote for the man but still think it's ....

A cheap shot !!!
Click to expand...

The artist was probably clinging to his guns and religion.
Click to expand...

satire (n): the use of irony, sarcasm, ridicule, or the like, in exposing, denouncing, or deriding vice, folly, etc.

The New Yorker is not implying that Obama is a Muslim or a terrorist. They're making fun of people who believe that.
 
The New Yorker cover is much like the TV series "All in the Family" that was supposed to be a satire as well. Instead, a lot of folks said, "Yeah, that's how a lot of people really are."
 
You're kidding.
Click to expand...

Nope, the interview I heard today by the editor of the New Yorker said on no uncertain terms that it was to make fun of the rumors, innuendo, and outright lies about Obama.

This thread simply makes the NY'er cover even funnier.
 
Is the cover unfair? No. I think it is satire that in fact hits a little too close to home for me. Obama did not salute the flag and has written to the effect that he would stand with the Muslims. If you can't stand the heat then get out of the kitchen.
 
If the accompanying article is not satirical in nature, does that make a difference to those defending the satire? Or does the cover stand alone as satire so long as the editor say that it is?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top