News-Record.com

For Pete's sake, if Obama gets elected I guess criticizing the president will be elevated to a "hate crime."
And I thought the only people who got angry over Muslim cartoons were radical Muslims......hmmmm. But that can't be, because Obama TOLD us he was really a Christian at heart...and he would never tell us something he didn't truly believe just to get our vote....would he??

Come on, jaycee! He's not a Muslim!

Neither is he perfect or above criticism. His most devoted followers have to accept that not everyone has to fawn over him.

Doug, how do you KNOW he's not a Muslim in his heart? Only he knows what's in his heart, you don't and neither does anyone else. All we know is what he SAYS. Do you trust everything a politician says when he's trying to get your vote?
If I told you I was really female, black, and Jewish would you believe me just because I said it?

Of course the NAACP is deeply offended. They have to be, they exist to be. You think the NAACP is the Hasty Pudding Club?

Another consideration is; being called an Islamic terrorist is even more pejorative than being put down for the color of one's skin, so in the NAACP eyes this is a "double hit" on Obama.

Yes, I am willing to take him at his word about that. For one thing, I don't believe anyone who was a true believer in any particular religious faith would outwardly deny it. If he did, he would not, in my opinion, really be a true believer in his heart.

I don't believe a true Christian would deny being a Christian. Same goes for Muslims.

Besides, the insinuation game is completely unfair. it's like saying: How do you know he won't betray America if he's elected president? You can't know what his true intentions are. If we elect him, he might surrender to our enemies.

If you're determined to believe that, there's no way to derail your thinking. But it's not a fair or reasonable line of discourse, in my view.

Doug, two things.
(1) The constant "is he a Muslim, well, maybe..." is simply the big lie in its newest iteration.

(2) Comparing pratfalls and deliberate religious fear-mongering are not comparable, IMO. All political leaders get mocked and satirized for what they say, promise and don't deliver. We parody mannerisms, voices, refrains and hairstyles. However, this fear-mongering about Muslims is on another plane: its purpose is to make you fear or hate a person as opposed to laughing at him for what he says or does (or even looks like).

Don't let those who are insistent on inciting fear based on religion frame the question and continue their 2008 version of the 'big lie.'

Sue, I agree completely.

But, for heaven's sake, The New Yorker was not fear-mongering about Muslims. It was answering that fear-mongering.

If we're going to become so literalist, we will put the modern-day Chevy Chases out of business.

Hypothetically, suppose the cover had been a cartoon of McCain leaning on a walker, drool dripping from his lips, a pee-stained diaper dripping into his mismatched socks; and suppose the AARP had issued an objection. Would your reaction be the same? Would you say the cartoon was fair and that AARP was off the mark?

The trouble is, presidents have been lampooned and even mocked for ages. Civil-war era cartoonists often presented unflattering depictions of Lincoln, and I doubt any president has been spared since.* Doug

Good Grief! You are years late on this subject! Are you aware that Obama just might be the missing link to the Thomas Jefferson and Sally affair?

In September 1802, political journalist James T. Callender, a disappointed office-seeker who had once been an ally of Jefferson, wrote in a Richmond newspaper that Jefferson had for many years "kept, as his concubine, one of his own slaves." "Her name is Sally," Callender continued, adding that Jefferson had "several children" by her.

Although there had been rumors of a sexual relationship between Jefferson and a slave before 1802, Callender's article spread the story widely. It was taken up by Jefferson's Federalist opponents and was published in many newspapers during the remainder of Jefferson's presidency.

Jefferson's policy was to offer no public response to personal attacks, and he apparently made no explicit public or private comment on this question (although a private letter of 1805 has been interpreted by some individuals as a denial of the story). Sally Hemings left no known accounts.

What's the point of supposin' one thing or another?

Are you joining the chorus of New Yorker bashers?

Unbelievable. The depiction was a lampoon of the idiots who spread malicious misconceptions about Barack and Michelle Obama. Although The New Yorker is regarded as sophisticated, this was not subtle satire. It should have been simple enough for anyone to get, except possibly for those who are determined to see the Obamas in the worst possible light ...

The real irony is that "The New Yorker" is a very Liberal publication. My first response was to laugh, my second response was to laugh even more! I took it for what it was worth, a cartoon. I can understand the Muslims continuing to be this skinned, but you would thik the naacp would maintain a reasonably low profile on this so as not to interject any more racial overtones into this campaign than there
already is. What the Hell has this world come to.......................

don't believe a true Christian would deny being a Christian. Same goes for Muslims.

Doug...........................
You need to brush up on you islam. Remember the 9/11 hi-jackers went to a strip club the night before to blend in. In islam "the end justifies the means" so a Muslim would deny deny deny and then cut your head off in the name of Allah!

Doug said:
Come on, jaycee! He's not a Muslim!

Neither is he perfect or above criticism. His most devoted followers have to accept that not everyone has to fawn over him
I'm not saying Obama is the AntiChrist but one has to admit that all Biblical writings about the AntiChrist fits him to a tee. Obama is a slick, sly, and smooth talking individual making promises "Of Change" which has generated a large following without even detailing what change he speaks of. it's undeniable that Obama has had significant exposure with Islam, and most importantly his exposure was at a young impressionable age! Beau

PLEASE WATCH AND EMAIL THESE LINKS OUT **NOW** TO YOUR FAMILY, CO-WORKERS AND FRIENDS!!

Obama’s Pastor Celebrates 9/11 (explicit) Only 5 Days After 3,000 Americans Killed
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wzhl-endvco

Jeremiah Wright Says America Deserved 9/11
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9HUdF9OZa8

Obamas Racially-Divisive Pastor
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VUbUBTlmAiA

Obama Disrespecting U.S. Flag and Anthem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8QCkgg5Kjo

The Audacity of Barack Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QwjnT4eJJvs

The Audacity of Barack Obama 2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VeC8BE-2T_k
Is Obama Wright? - Pastor Wright and Senator Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=72B3tUAqpo4

Obama's Pastor - 9/11 Fault of Israel Association
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FnI431s1r6s

Barack Obama: There Will Be Bamboozling
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU
The Two Things Senator Obama Accomplished
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/02/27/obamas-empty-change-message/

The Jeremiah Wright Lifetime Achievement Award
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Prhnc2fxAzg

Gaza Strip Palestinians Campaigning for Obama
http://youtube.com/watch?v=21YF7ggCG6g

Barack Obama Doesn't Want His Daughters Punished With a Baby
http://youtube.com/watch?v=eNzmly28Bmg

Obama: Bitter Americans Cling to Guns and Religion
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HNJAl8a3d9Q

Beau: you're being satirical, right?

Beau, if those are the criteria, then we've already survived the anti-Christ-Bill Clinton.

Doug wrote: "What's the point of supposin' one thing or another? Are you joining the chorus of New Yorker bashers?"

I'm asking a question of the NAACP basher. Just wondering if your "not in America" is a principal that can be abstracted from these circumstances to apply regardless of the parties involved.

Beau wrote: "one has to admit that all Biblical writings about the AntiChrist fits him to a tee."

I'd like to know more about that. Please educate us.

Oh my God! The AntiChrist is here already, about to take over the most powerful government in the world? And he's a damned Muslim terrorist, too?

I have so much to do, I don't even know where to start! :O

Roch, I really don't think we want to know more about Beau's antichrist theory, thanks.

I resisted your question because it inevitably leads to well, suppose this, or suppose that, or suppose any imaginable circumstance. There's enough to discuss in terms of this situation.

But, if we must we must.

The "suppose" you describe is different because, let's face it, McCain is old. The fictional depiction you describe plays on ugly images of the elderly and undoubtedly would offend some people and likely the AARP. I can't possibly guess whether the AARP would call on members to bombard whatever publication had done this with angry protests.

The difference, though, is obvious. Whereas McCain IS getting up in age, although he's hardly doddering and drooling, Obama is NOT a Muslim, period. The New Yorker cover would be comparable to your fictional McCain depiction if, say, it played on some racial stereotype that didn't pertain to Obama personally but might be crudely and hatefully associated with some black men. So the satire would be, This is what you bigots think of black men; Obama is a black man; aren't you stupid for having this view of Obama? But I don't think that would work very well, just like, as satire, your McCain depiction would not work very well.

Simply depicting Obama in Muslim garb is not in and of itself offensive -- certainly not racially offensive -- unless we think Muslim garb in general is offensive. (And nonMuslims in the Middle East and North Africa wear similar clothing.) The point is the absurdity of dressing up Obama like that, as if he's going to spring his secret Muslim identity on us as soon as he gets into the White House.

Now, please, don't give me a suppose something else.

Doug said:
"Obama is NOT a Muslim, period."
You don't know that. What you know is that Obama SAYS he's not a Muslim.

And he's not quite black, either. And he's not quite white, either. He can be either or neither, depending on what he wants to be on any particular day. He's black these days because it gets him votes.

Doug said:
"Obama is NOT a Muslim, period."
You don't know that. What you know is that Obama SAYS he's not a Muslim.

And he's not quite black, either. But he's not quite white, either. He can be either or neither. Right now I believe he's being black because it gets him votes.

Sorry for the double post. Doug, you can delete the first one if you like.

Doug, suppose, just suppose, I were to say you made a good point.

Hey, folks, the issue we should be focusing upon with Obama is not whether he is a Muslim or not. Frankly, whether he is Black Liberation Christian or Muslim is irrelevant. It really is.

All of this is just a smoke-screen to take our focus away from the real issue of who is Obama and what policies will his administration implement, if elected.

I fear the impact of his arguably socialistic political philosophy than his religion. I also am more concerned about who this man is in his inner core. This man has no record to analyze. Before entering politics, he was a community organizer for ACORN (a fairly radical organization who has been found to be illegally registering voters). As a "community organizer", he is no different than Al Sharpton. Would we want to elect Al Sharpton to be POTUS? Obama is surely slicker and more polished than Sharpton on the outside, but is he different n the inside?

I absolutely agree with Stormy that Obama's record deserves close scrutiny and his proposals should be examined carefully.

jaycee, we're starting to recycle arguments here.

Roch, if you suppose I make a good point every now and then, that's all I can ask for.