That is HUGE for O'Reilly. :lol:

What's wrong with satire?

Sat-ire? Starts with S-A-T? Hmmm, could it be...SATAN? :lol:

Sorry, I don't know who he is and didn't realise it was a satirical radio phone in. My bad.

It's not, I was yanking yer chain. I think it was just a figure of speech used out of contex. In other words, a poor choice of words.

Argh! Pick on the furriner day!
(thanks for admitting it - I would have been none the wiser)

He's hard to read and people keep spelling his name wrong.

It might be healthy if more people used college to determine where they fit in the world. She apparently figured out her role. Her internal conflict was based on race. Mine was related to a largely dismantled rural society. Other's might have hang ups about religion or economics. College is often about discovering or reinventing yourself.

I can't agree more. But once discovery is made it is often remains as the buildiing block for your future goals and ideals about where you want to go in the world. I really don't anything should be used from your college years as some absolute snapshot into your current beliefs but once you become a public figure all bets are off. In this day and age of politics every leaf will be overturned and you are going to have to deal with whatever anyone finds. In this case she will just have to deal with it and show through her words and deeds that she is beyond some of the more radical ideas she expressed. Everybody changes as they age. I hope she has come around as well.

Right on, everyone gets to college with significant issues about something. It's commonly about how they fit in the world, for one reason or another.

Why is it wrong for the New Yorker to picture what Rush Limbaugh et al have been saying on daily radio shows? Why is the New Yorker offensive, but wacko right ring extremist talk show hosts are not for saying the same thing?

Why a double standard - or do you not realize how full American airwaves are with these wacko extremist propaganda claims? Routine is to overhear someone ask, "Is Obama a Muslim?" Less common is for the other to say, "Yes." It was overheard by this poster.

Why is it tasteless? This same propaganda also proved that Saddam had WMDs. If the New Yorker had pictured a comic Saddam with his WMDs, would you also call that wrong?

Wrong are many Americans who have been promoting these wacko extremist myths. What the New Yorker did could only be tasteless IF these claims were not routinely entertained among wacko extremist listeners. Wackos religiously believe this stuff to be fact, but the New Yorker and Mad Magazine cannot satirize it? Why not? And why are you not also criticizing Mad Magazine for doing the exact same thing? Double standard?

Sad – or the funny part: among the most wackos, that New Yorker satire is actually a truth. BTW, you would not believe how many people have lately been overheard saying all but the niger word. Subliminal racist is also being used as knowledge. We should not discuss or satirize that too? It may be tasteless. But bias in overt denial of reality must be aired no matter how ‘tasteless’ it may be.

Rush Limbaugh’s most extremist fans believe the New Yorker has only published truth. Only ones 'wronged' by that satire are those who also believe it to be fact.

Funnily enough TW, I have no idea what is on the American airwaves.
I wouldn't have known what was on the cover of the New Yorker either if it hadn't been posted here.

If I see or hear something I find offensive I will comment on it.
I can't comment on things I don't see and hear.

@ t-dub:

OK, maybe it wasn't so much that it was tasteless as it was that it is stupid, boring, meaningless, sensationalistic, and lent a bit of credence to the wackos. Yeah, we get it. Many don't.

Oh, and I do find Rush et al offensive. Absolutely they have every right to be so, as the New Yorker has every right to be stupid. Sometimes, you just hope for better, ya know?

Not to worry, neither does he.

Speaking of tasteless wacko extremists who love Rush Limbaugh ....