I thought it was funny, but maybe I'm biased.

I still haven't forgotten the New Yorker cover. Everyone is going to get it.

There WAS A similar one for Obama, it wasn't nearly as harsh (and happened to be favorable to him) but people STILL lost it. I'm not personally offended, I just think if it was turned around people would be really upset.

Funny doesn't have a political party. Either it's funny or it's not. I think when we can't laugh at something because it offends our politics, it's time to take a break.

Well, I do like the part warning Levi that she knows how to use a gun, but it isn't exactly appropriate political discourse.

My absolute favorite was the Rolling Stone cover. The ethereal glow surrounding Obama was breathtaking. Brought tears to my eyes.

I thought I was the only one who cried when I saw that cover!

Nope, Organic, you were not the only one. It still makes me weepy just to think about it.

I think its funny, but it is pretty insensitive given the timing.

The funniest thing about this cover is the Putin Becah Bod sidebar.

I agree, kastarte! Putin is such a hottie. :swoon:

no way Kas! "On Russia: I can almost see it from my desk!"

Sometimes I just see if things are emoticons or not.

who is the chick in the bottom right? im blanking on who that is.

Cab, you are WRONG!

I think its funny!

I am glad they left out any comments about her teenage daughter, that wouldve been in bad taste

It's the best!!! At least they are not calling her a terrorist. now that's an insult.

This is kind of off-topic, but related. I just wanted to put out there that the Council on Foreign Relations actually does have what I guess you could call a magazine (It's not a glossy and not packed with ads, but it's a bi-monthly journal, I guess) called Foreign Affairs. It's quite interesting. Holbrooke's essay in the most recent issue is great.

I think its kind of funny, but I'm sure we'd all have our own list of itemized shortfalls to be make fun of. I'm more concerned she seems to be missing a loyalty chip.
Incidentally, I lived in Wasilla for eight years, its beautiful.

lilkimbo, I think the emotion faint might work.

Dream, I don't think arguing with Mich is wise. I'm not sure you will do your cause any good. Just saying.

Kast, what is that supposed to mean?

Yesterday it was "I wasn't around long enough to speak" -- today - it's "I'm thick" -- interesting.

The difference in the covers: The NY cover fuels the fires of a strong lie - this cover actually brings up questions that people have been asking since she poped out of nowhere.

I would never say that somebody wasn't around long enough to speak. And it was a very weak lie, not a "strong lie".

KAS -- the line are pretty much already drawn. No one's going to influence me to vote repub and vice versa. We all know where we stand. But she's slinging mud and I'm addressing it. I just didn't know personal insults were allowed. She basically called me stupid for voicing my opinion. I don't believe I said anything to her ever.

No it was a very strong lie.

lilkimbo, I love that you know that there is an actual bi-monthly Foreign Affairs mag!

I think the Putin thing is hilarious.

I find this amusing but I can see how supporters would find it insulting. It takes several comments out of context to make her look foolish. That's really not *news* in politics however. McCain's spoof ads about Obama being God basically do the same thing.

It's true. Mich did call her thick. I read it.

I'm with Michelin, I had no idea there were people out there silly enough to believe that the New Yorker was actually calling him a terrorist.
This is funny, it's clearly meant as satire. It's actually a heck of a lot funnier than the New Yorker's attempt at satire.

That's ridiculous. Opinions can't be stupid. All opinions are valid and everyone's makes sense.

Mich was saying if you believe that The New Yorker was actually calling Obama a terrorist then you're thick. It only implies if dream believes that. And since it was satire, and you know all about that rac, then I would think that she wouldn't really think that. So its a moot point.

Did people really take that New Yorker cover seriously? That surprises me.

She didn't call dreamsugar thick, she called anyone stupid enough to look at The New Yorker and say "OH MY GOSH, THE NEW YORKER IS CALLING OBAMA A TERRORIST!" thick. I think that everyone who kills animals for sport and fun is a vile barbarian, is that a personal insult to those who hunt? No, it's a broad generalization.

Why is everyone on citizen sugar so anxious to get their panties in a bunch?

Again -- this joke is based on truth (she has no foreign policy experience) -- the NY's attempts at satire was based on a lie - which fuels the fires of the extreme right (who thinks Obama is a terrorist - which is a lie).

But PopGoes has a good point!

I do think the different reasons people are on here are interesting. If I didn't seriously consider what other people are saying instead of coming in convinced that no one was going to change my mind, I wouldn't even bother commenting or reading other people's comments. Long, long ago in Sugar Land some thing Harmony said actually made me rethink my views of Hillary Clinton. What's the point in participating in threads if you are not going to even consider what others are saying?

I agree 100%, lilkimbo. Otherwise we'd all just be doing this to hear ourselves type.

The New Yorker wasn't satirizing Obama, though, it was satirizing the blogs accusing Obama of being a terrorist. It is true that the blogs were saying that, so it was a joke based on truth. (I think we should move this talk over to that thread, though. If people read through the comments over there, you will see this has already been rehashed several times in that one thread.)

Well as most of us know CitizenSugar did run a thread on that New Yorker magazine cover and there were a lot of people who were offended by its implications knowing it was satire.

http://teamsugar.com/find/citizensugar/New+Yorker+magazine+cover+on+obam...

Hey Everyone,

Not only do we not allow any attacks on other members, it is very important especially in political debates to respect each other and their opinions!

Do not attack each other and always RESPECT each other to keep this Community fun and friendly.

thanks
team

SEE! I told you! Now we're all in trouble!

Jazz, thanks for the faint emoticon!

(From way back when in this conversation.)

oo snapple!

Team - I'm genuinely curious as to what was seen as an attack on a specific person. I've yet to see one on this thread.

LOL -- this is rich. Ok she didn't personally insult me in a response to something I said -- I made that all up.....lol

She insulted anyone who believed something completely outlandish, stop whining.

Wow. Someone's an Angry Annie today.

Oh noes, I just re-read my comment and I called people who believe it "silly!" That should be reported and I must apologize for offending you! You poor sensitive creature.

I'm sick of everyone on Citizen Sugar getting so offended at the most basic of statements, racc. Every time I'm on here, someone has had a snit-fit about something more or less inoffensive.

Now someone's a Mean Margaret.

Well, here's my general philosophy on "personal attacks":

It's not a personal attack, but a general statement based on their point of view.

Now, if the comment were to address a particular member's name it should be promptly removed.