Hypocritical DUmmies Love New Yorker Cover Of Cheney
It seems like the DUmmies are completely unaware of their astounding level of hypocrisy. As we saw YESTERDAY, KOmmie (also DUmmie) heads were exploding in outrage over the New Yorker cover featuring Barack Obama and his wife. Fast forward just a few hours later and the DUmmies are expressing admiration for a New Yorker cover that made Vice President Dick Cheney look like an evil pumpkin as you can see in this THREAD titled, "Do you remember this New Yorker cover from 2007? I still have it!" No sense of irony in DUmmieland over their hypocritical reactions to these New Yorker covers. If an EVIL Republican is mocked on the cover of the New Yorker it is fine and dandy but if they use a Democrat for satire it is a crime against humanity. If memory serves correctly, I remember ZERO outrage from conservatives over the Cheney cover. In fact, most who saw it were probably amused. This is why I have frequently used a favorite DUmmie fantasy, Karl Rove being frogwalked across the White House lawn, as a graphic in DUFU editions. So let us now watch the DUmmies swim in their own hypocrisy in Bolshevik Red while the commentary of your humble correspondent, who would love to see Li'l Beaver satirized on the cover of the New Yorker, is in the [brackets]:
Do you remember this New Yorker cover from 2007? I still have it!
[Do you remember all the conservatives heads exploding over that New Yorker cover from 2007. I don't.]
Oh, now THAT was a good one. HeeHee; thanks for the laugh.
[Posted a DUmmie who was probably outraged over the New Yorker Obama cover.]
They should have posters made out of that! LOL!
[Can I order a poster of the New Yorker Obama cover?]
The artist that did the Obama cover is questionable I posted his past work below.
[So the quality of his artwork is determined by his subject matter?]
I posted a number of covers criticizing the Bush administration last night. I have to admit, the difference is that the covers lampooning Bush were lampooning actual flaws in character or policy. The Obama cover is lampooning false perceptions of Obama. There should be an interesting cover in response to all this in a few weeks.
[So which such flaws were demonstrated in the Evil Cheney pumpkin New Yorker cover my hypocritical little DUmmie?]
That's very different- a pumpkin doesn't have anything to do with Cheney's race
[Rationalized a DUmmie not very convincingly.]
They weren't mocking Obama, they were mocking the lies spread about Obama. The problem is that they were too subtle about it.
[Humor must be unsubtle in order to be appreciated by the DUmmies.]
The New Yorker cover does work. It's only the Perpetually Outraged who are SO afraid of those darned ignorant hordes (tm) that they think it didn't. There's plenty of ignorance to go around on all areas of the political spectrum, but the New Yorker cover is some great satire.
[LOUSY FREEPER TROLL!!!]
Is the pirpose of this cover to defend Cheney from
absurd characterizations from his enemies? To show he is being treated unfairly using "satire"? Or do they have check boxes on the inside covers where they mark: This Caricature Is: Satire ___, -or- We really mean it this time ___.
[Let us overanalyze the Cheney cover. Myself I ENJOY leftwing artwork portraying EVIL conservatives because it gives me humorous insight into their mindset.]
Excellent point! Well done! Yes, this pic is obviously ripping on people who think Cheney is evil. I don't know how people can be so unintelligent as to not see it!
[DUmmie microanalysis at work.]
At least he didn't rip off Ziggy.
[Or Zippy...the Pinhead. My FAVORITE newspaper comic strip. Perhaps the only newspaper comic strip left that I truly enjoy. I love reading it while munching on corn nuts and polysorbate 80. Check out the last Sunday's ZIPPY THE PINHEAD.]
I understand that a lot of people won't get the Obama cover, but I believe in my heart of hearts several things: The New Yorker in no way intended to harm Obama with either their cover or their article.
[Of course not since the New Yorker is liberal when it comes to politics. However, their other articles are really terrific.]
Was he running for office at the time?
[So is that your criteria? It's okay if he is not running but an outrage if he is running for office?]