• #1
    I'm not offended by the comparison of Michelle Obama with a work of art that celebrates the abolition of slavery... I'm offended by the piss-poor photoshopping.
  • #4
    It's an attention-getting cover that hopefully draws attention...

    Here's another example...

    BLOOMBERG: Ronald Reagan Is A 'Socialist!'

    "The argument of the accompanying story, which will undoubtedly be a topic of conversation Tuesday at the Republican National Convention, is not that Reagan is actually a socialist. That term is used in a hyperbolic fashion, in a nod to the regular charges from Republicans that President Obama is a "socialist.""

    Read more:

    So what we have here is a Lib trying to say that since he can lob the "socialist" label at Reagan and use incomplete information and hyperbole as proof to back up his claim it must be that when people call President Obama a socialist we must be doing the same thing. There's only one problem with that.

    President Obama has nationalized GM, Chrysler, and student loans. He has the bank under his thumb and the Class Warriors calling for, "Soak the Rich!"

    IOW-- President Obama is a socialist.
  • #20
    @Sonny-- Please explain how... citing another example of a magazine cover that is designed to attract attention like the one cited in the story by Mary which is about how the magazine cover is drawing attention... is irrelevant.
  • #22
    @Bobolinsky ---Well for starters, I don't see Mr. Reagans breasts hanging you?.....Irrelevant!!! x 2!
  • R Load more replies

  • #28
    Whether or not the article is complimentary, I think the cover art is tasteless and done for sensationalist purpose. I do think it's offensive to the dignity of the First Lady. However, in fairness the European media treat their own politicians and their wives with equal disrespect.

    You have to suspect though that the publishers would have hesitated to portray Laura Bush half-naked, out of fear that W might physically come find them and kick their asses.
  • #6
    Nope... After being called a racist many time because I think food stamp entitlements should be reduced (Even when more whites than blacks receive them) and Welfare should require able body recipients to work (Even when more whites than blacks are affected) .. I have come to the position that I don't give a crap if other people make fun of other racists...
  • #9
    More whites quantitatively receive food stamps than other groups but blacks receive more as a percentage of blacks receiving food stamps.

    Subsidies such as welfare and food stamps should only be given after a minimum of 10 years continuous service as a taxpayer and then for a maximum of 18 months. If you can afford to have children while on welfare then you don't need welfare. There are way too many people crossing federal and state borders to cash in on free money and it needs to stop. A national biometric identification system should be used to check on previous recipient status, drug usage, immigration status, child support arrears, IRS delinquency and so forth. Anyone who is a criminal can go into the local labor pool to get 3 hots and a cot in return for the taxpayers giving them a real job cleaning out crappers or cleaning up streets.

    On the subject of being a racist... It's not so much the group but members of that group who cause the public not to like that group. I guess an appropriate answer is if you want people to like you then police your own ranks.
  • #16

    I will start to care about the few idiots on the right that are racists and cause the right problems with PR when I see the left speaking up about their total support of racism as an integral part of their policies and platforms... Racism is when you think a group of people of the same skin tone are lesser people not capable of excelling and becoming successful, Racism is thinking blacks, browns are just not good enough to make it and need a generational crutch because heck, they just are not as capable as white people... Racism is Intrinsic on the left, It's disavowed on the right ...
  • #17
    @Your_Name_Here .. Oh and I Almost agree with your first paragraph with the exception of those that for no fault of their own need a short term helping hand... But require solid verification of the No Fault of their own part....
  • #21
    @Quantummist ... You did agree with me; short term is 18 months and that's fine but people in this country as a whole are just plain lazy and will stay at the teat until it runs dry.
  • R Load more replies

  • #2
    How did "negress" get past the censors???? She is obviously a black African Amerigress. I had to specify black because there are white African Americans; easy to spot because they don't qualify for the benefits and exceptions granted the other ones.
  • #41
    This picture is only racist if you wish it to be. I see it for what it means too me. Look again at the flag. It is not crumpled up in the small of her back. It is draped over the chair and around her. I see it as a symbol of a nation that once deemed the black people as nothing more than livestock, to now protecting, comforting, shielding and elevating them to the point of equality where a black man or woman can hold the highest office of power in our nation. This picture shouldn't spark thoughts of racism. It should be a symbol of how far we have come. But if all you see is racism, then maybe we haven't come as far as I think.
  • #18
    I didn't see any flag in the photo.
    I think you are stateing about the SOUTH AFRICA flag at the olympics.
    I do fully agree with you on that
  • #26
    @artjeb - Look more carefully. The artist added a crumpled American flag behind Mrs. Obama's lower back.
  • #37
    Why would a flag draped over the chair she's sitting on offend you? I'm curious.
    Personally, I hate flag paraphernalia. Whether it be bikini's, hats, shirts, pen's, pencils. I just think its tacky. That said I don't believe in imposing on someone else because I don't like it.
  • #40

    As I said, it looks like she's sitting on it. Or at the very least using it as a back rest. I agree with you when you say hats, etc look tacky. Bandanas drive me up a wall.
  • R Load more replies

  • #67
    I'm not offended, I actually think it's the nicest looking pic I've seen of her. She looks much smaller and not quite as girthy...why she's
    half sitting on the fag is what I find disturbing. ATRUE American knows you Never sit or lean on THE flag of the United States of America...that's my only complaint.
  • #11
    Yes, I am deeply offended!..I don't recall seeing Laura Bush half naked on any magazine covers...Do you?
  • #95
    I thought slavery was ended here by 1866. Only some of the Muslim countries are still involved in the slave trade so far as I know.
  • Comment removed for Engagement Etiquette violation. Replies may also be deleted.
  • #66
    No. The world at large doesn't seem to be as touchy as North America does. "Don't Judge a Book By it's Cover"(or a magazine cover prior to reading the article). Besides, if something is offensive, I can either try to effect change, or shut my eyes.
  • R Load more comments...