Those Liberal Rags

[2centsworth]

I'd give mad props to the magazine with the balls to run that cover.

I'm cool with that. What scares me is if the obama picture was on a conservative rag would there be liberals trying to censor it as hateful? Would there be hate speech lawsuits?

[Spurminator]

I'm not complaining. I like freedom of speech.

I didn't mean you, I think we're in agreement here.

It's really sad to read the comments on various sites about this... I know our school systems are lousy but it's pretty amazing how many people are completely misinterpreting this cover.

[2centsworth]

I didn't mean you, I think we're in agreement here.

It's really sad to read the comments on various sites about this... I know our school systems are lousy but it's pretty amazing how many people are completely misinterpreting this cover.

the other side is why are people so concerned about the interpretation? It's still a free country. If you don't like it, don't buy it.

[Spurminator]

I'm cool with that. What scares me is if the obama picture was on a conservative rag would there be liberals trying to censor it as hateful? Would there be hate speech lawsuits?

If the conservative magazine was satirizing Obama, then that would be different. The New Yorker is not making fun of Obama here... they're making fun of conservatives (not all conservatives, but the ones who like to play up the idea that Obama and his wife are America-hating terrorist sympathizers.)

[2centsworth]

If the conservative magazine was satirizing Obama, then that would be different. The New Yorker is not making fun of Obama here... they're making fun of conservatives (not all conservatives, but the ones who like to play up the idea that Obama and his wife are America-hating terrorist sympathizers.)

it would be different if it was a conservative mag, but would it matter. I rather things like that be out in the open and discussed. I would feel the exact same way if a liberal mag painted Bush and McCain the way i described. Protect Free-Speech!

[JoeChalupa]

you're way off my man. the only one bringing up race are the dems with the race card.

No, I'm not. You just hear and see what you want. I stand by my post.

[JoeChalupa]

it would be different if it was a conservative mag, but would it matter. I rather things like that be out in the open and discussed. I would feel the exact same way if a liberal mag painted Bush and McCain the way i described. Protect Free-Speech!

I've got nothing against Free-Speech or that damn liberal rag.

[2centsworth]

No, I'm not. You just hear and see what you want. I stand by my post.

that's what I'm saying, you hear what you want.

[mouse]

I wonder what they can do to make McCain look funny.

[mouse]

[Wild Cobra]

You're on a roll Ray... first Schumer, now this?
What's next? Liberals ate your lunch?

Thing is this.

Schumer is in a position to know such things. Maybe he wasn't the cause of the failure, but his position grants him knowledge that people respond to. The theory is that the pulling out of investments causing the lending company to go bankrupt was because of what Schumer said. Not from information known otherwise. The company would have remained solvent if the investors hadn't taken their money out. They took their money out after Chucky's statement.

I know this doesn't make much sense until experienced. I was almost fired once for what I thought were innocent statements. I once made some statements why I didn't think such an action would take place in the fortune 500 company I worked for in a chat room. They didn't like it. Even though it was opinion, and I was in no position to factually know, my statement was taken very serious. It was taken very serious because I outlined my position so well, the logic was flawless. I had a serious talk to about how investors respond to such employee statements. My unsaid response was that they were obvious lying to powerful people to worry about my forum statement.

The only think that saved my skin was I wasn't trying to hid my iden y or anything. I used my real name for my handle and told people where I worked. The company knew I was not intentionally doing anything wrong, and I was one of the best technicians they had. This was 8-9 years ago. I no longer work there. It had to do with why 200 mm wafers would remain dominant over the 300 mm wafers in the near future of my employer in the semicondictor industry. But then I was working with 300 mm since 1996 with my previous employer too. I really did know stuff about them nobody else did since I was the first to do the CMP process on 300 mm oxide wafers ever.

[NASCARdad]

that's what I'm saying, you hear what you want.

I'm with ya buddy. To with that Obama muslim loving fool. Us real Americans need to stick together.

[Tree hugger]

[PixelPusher]

Thing is this.

Schumer is in a position to know such things. Maybe he wasn't the cause of the failure, but his position grants him knowledge that people respond to. The theory is that the pulling out of investments causing the lending company to go bankrupt was because of what Schumer said. Not from information known otherwise. The company would have remained solvent if the investors hadn't taken their money out. They took their money out after Chucky's statement.

I know this doesn't make much sense until experienced. I was almost fired once for what I thought were innocent statements. I once made some statements why I didn't think such an action would take place in the fortune 500 company I worked for in a chat room. They didn't like it. Even though it was opinion, and I was in no position to factually know, my statement was taken very serious. It was taken very serious because I outlined my position so well, the logic was flawless. I had a serious talk to about how investors respond to such employee statements. My unsaid response was that they were obvious lying to powerful people to worry about my forum statement.

The only think that saved my skin was I wasn't trying to hid my iden y or anything. I used my real name for my handle and told people where I worked. The company knew I was not intentionally doing anything wrong, and I was one of the best technicians they had. This was 8-9 years ago. I no longer work there. It had to do with why 200 mm wafers would remain dominant over the 300 mm wafers in the near future of my employer in the semicondictor industry. But then I was working with 300 mm since 1996 with my previous employer too. I really did know stuff about them nobody else did since I was the first to do the CMP process on 300 mm oxide wafers ever.

Schumer wasn't an employee of Indy Mac; he can say whatever the he wants. And what he said was, well, you know...TRUE! Why should the corporation take precedence over the stockholders?

[herzlman]

As a member of the community with an IQ above 4, I think I can speak for all of us by saying that we actually can tell the difference between satire and hate speech.

Jonathan Swift's A Modest Proposal was the first in a long line of satires that was taken seriously by moron conservatives.