Don't liberals understand the "art of satire"?
Liberals are famous for using race as a weapon in which to attack blacks who don't subscribe to their dingbat ideology. In the case of the satire cover of the New Yorker featuring Barack Obama and his wife Michelle, it seems the chickens have come home to roost,no pun intended lol. Liberal activists have gotten their chuckles over the demeaning of several famous black conservatives and republicans in recent years. Now all of a sudden, the laughter seemed to have stopped cold a few days ago. When a picture of Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was created to make him look like a "lawn jockey", some liberals couldn't stop laughing to save their lives. When a picture was created mocking Condi Rice showing her in a military outfit saying "I'm fighting for whiteye", That was seen a comedic genius by liberals.
When a photo of Former Lt. Governor of Maryland Michael Steele was manipulated to show him as a "simple sambo", liberals were shooting milk out of their noses, it was better then Comedy Central to them. So why the laughter stopped with this cover of the New Yorker? Liberals can't take a"joke" or is it that liberals can' t take a joke when the target is one of their own? The New Yorker isn't a conservative magazine by no stretch of the imagination. It's very liberal to say the least. The satire of the cover was meant to try and portray the tactics the "right wing" was going to use or habr used against him and his wife. Well the satire missed it's mark completely, and Obama and his legion of sheep are very upset over the cover. To offended Obama supporters all I can say is "tough duck". What goes around truly does come around. The New Yorker broke cardinal rule number one in creating so called satire. The rule is to never ever ever use another liberal as the subject matter in which to demonstrate the satire. If the magazine cover showed a conservative painting a picture of Michelle Obama with an AK-47 and Barack with an Afro,,liberals would have immediately figured it out and that would have been acceptable to them. In the case of the New Yorker, the "evil republican" wasn't in the cover to clarify the message of the editor. Liberals claim to be so sophisticated, I wonder why they didn't figure out the meaning of the message the magazine was trying to communicate? Now Vanity Fair has come to the rescue of the New Yorker by printing it's own "satire" cover showing McCain using a "walker" and his wife CIndy with a handful of pills. I have yet to hear "offended " Obama supporters " come out and condemn the Vanity Fair's cover as "offensive" as well. Actually the Vanity Fair cover is truly more offensive then the New Yorker. People started to form their opinions on Michelle Obama based on her comments both past and present. Cindy McCain a long time ago had a problem with an addiction to prescription drugs, but what does that have to do with "political" satire in regards to Vanity Fair? Vanity Fair has gone to far, to them it's ok since the targets are two Republicans. With liberals, the ends justify the means of course just never when it's one of theirs being used to make the point.