CBS and AP Photoshop Racist Picture of Obama
By Noel Sheppard | November 04, 2010 | 09:18
What exactly were CBS and the Associated Press's intentions by creating this picture published at CBSNews.com Wednesday (h/t Creative Minority Report via Ace):
As one can see, the darker Obama is on the left with the Democrats, and the lighter Obama is on the right with the Republicans.
Are CBS and AP not so subtly implying the GOP are all white?
As Matthew Archbold pointed out at CMR:
How could anyone think that changing the President's skin tone like this would be a good idea? This has got to be either one of the most racially insensitive and just plain ol' stupid photoshops a major news organization has done since Time Magazine blackened OJ Simpson's face. The idiocy of this is only heightened by the fact that Obama's heritage is mixed.
Indeed. Seems like someone at AP and CBS has some splainin' to do.
- Noel Sheppard's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Comments
Stupid photoshoppers.
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 9:22am.
Stupid photoshoppers.
No one
Submitted by Iron Tigers Vet on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 9:52am.
can touch your PS skills BK
I'm working on it though. Gimme a couple more months.
tomorama - speechless?
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 9:27am.
Noel, um, um, um, um.
I got nothing.
The first thing I thought, Black Barry - Democrat - White Barry - Republican.
I can't think of any other way to rationalize this.
Bueller, Bueller..... ANYONE?
Half black, half white, all "Keynesian"?
Submitted by Newsbubba on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 9:28am.
... and they say a skunk can't change his stripe.
I'll play MSM reporter for a minute and suggest that CBS and AP are soooooo racist(!) that this line down the center of his head is a subtle message to all potential snipers out there in LaLa Land to use this as your aim point.
Hey, if a conservative source did this, they could read some really smoking stuff into it.
Racist my butt!!
Submitted by Patriot II on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 9:31am.
They are just showing what most of us already knew......the A.H. is a two faced phony!!!!
As I scanned over the photo I
Submitted by Pewah on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 9:38am.
As I scanned over the photo I had hopes that the line at which the color changed would not extend beyond the background of the field of stars. At least that would have given them plausible deniability. Their intent is grossly clear and I am so tired of the race game played by the libs that it makes me ill to anticipate the absurd excuses they will put out on this one to cover their butts.
It's funny how the left continues to perpetuate this sort of racism when they heralded their man as the coming messiah of a post racial era.
Question:
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 9:47am.
How is that racist?
Maybe not to you
Submitted by Iron Tigers Vet on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 9:57am.
but let this picture have been done by Fox and I would bet you would be banging a "guilty" gavel of the Fox news artists depicting racial implications.
Does that about get that right?
No.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 10:06am.
No.
I would not expect
Submitted by Iron Tigers Vet on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:41am.
any other answer from a troll than a NO.
It's ok, you can admit that what I said would happen. I'm sure the MSM is working on a fix to spin it in their direction.
You are still mistaken.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:53am.
You are still mistaken.
This is just an opportunity
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:16pm.
This is just an opportunity for conservatives to once again claim Democrats are as a whole, racist. Take no offense.
This game has been played
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:19pm.
This game has been played since I joined NB. I'm used to it.
The fact of the matter is we
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:22pm.
The fact of the matter is we can only judge for ourselves if we are racist or not. A published photo by an organization does not represent the left any more than Mark Sanford represents the right.
Only you can judge yourself?
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:28pm.
You must be kidding. That remark is beyond moronic.
Says the person using phrases
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:41pm.
Says the person using phrases such as "no likee."
Don't go getting snarky about names, Deddy
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:54pm.
Look...over there! What's that? Your hypocricy is showing.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 109 (and Counting)
Go away.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:58pm.
Go away.
You're a little touchy, Deddy
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:00pm.
Why is that, exactly?
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 109 (and Counting)
I've given up being nice to
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:04pm.
I've given up being nice to you. You have no interest in the topics. You parade around making snarky little comments, demanding apologies, and making threats.
You are not the reason I come to Newsbusters, and therefore I no longer have any reason to debate the issues with you.
Have a nice day.
Fail, Deddy
Submitted by Blonde on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:19pm.
You don't debate issues. You troll.
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 109 (and Counting)
Surely by now your t, r, o,
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:43pm.
Surely by now your t, r, o, and l keys must be wearing out.
Now tell me again, when was the last time you even attempted to discuss the topic of a story with me? Because here YOU go again, mucking up another thread because you have a personal issue with me.
Dead One---
Submitted by matthewdean on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 10:45pm.
Will this be your next incarnation/userame:
-hewhoaccusesothersofmuckingupthreads-
?
Seems to be your latest flavored whine, "I am trying to have a conversation here; why are you mucking up the thread?"
Childish.
MD
I thought the term was "disrupt", nwahs.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:13am.
Or is it user specific?
JWF disrupts threads.
Blonde mucks them up.
matthewdean derails the thread and all the train cars go flying.
Crybaby. Go back to talking about peoples children and harassing women, you were not such a crybaby in those days. You were better at being an obnoxious troll than a mucker upper crybaby.
Get some sleep, man. The
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:19am.
Get some sleep, man. The date stamps of your posts can only mean you have a sick obsession with me. Here's an idea - go out and be social, for it may help your anti-social behavior.
trollie ben heah 5 yeahs with lotz o monikerz.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:39am.
trollie don't even nose JWF work the midnaht shiftz.
trollie not bright. trollie dimz. furry dims.
No, I am well aware you work
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:41am.
No, I am well aware you work the midnight shift. That's because you're noticeably absent from the boards during the day. It's quite peaceful, actually.
Now get some sleep.
trollie giz orderz nah.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:47am.
trollie tinkz he gonna raize bile by givinz orderz nah.
trollie not too bright. dimz bulb iz trollie.
Nah, it's more of a
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:50am.
Nah, it's more of a suggestion. You're always so crabby, and I know when I'm crabby sometimes I just need rest.
Trust me, it'll help.
Using Phrases
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:33pm.
Ummm, let's see learned one. IT"S A NICKNAME not a phrase. Can you discern the difference? Perhaps not.
And by the way you dropped an e in nolikeee. Perhaps you cannot count either. How sad you are. Lose something? LOL.
No reply???
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:47pm.
Perhaps he's channeling Teddy. The smell of burnt meat should tell you where teddy currently resides.
It didn't deserve a
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:51pm.
It didn't deserve a response.
And burnt meat? That's Chipotle, big guy.
Actualy ADK
Submitted by Boudin on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 7:50am.
It's not, but that isnt real surprising considering the source
Oh I see how this works
Submitted by Iron Tigers Vet on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:50pm.
You and trogie can say you can "judge for ourselves", but the rest of your ilk will blatantly tell that ALL conservatives and Tea Party members are bigots, racists and Nazis and that's the way it is?
Hmmmm, slight double standard there even for you isn't it DK?
I have previously defended
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:54pm.
I have previously defended the Tea Party as well as conservatives on the racial front. It seems you're the one who still has issues.
When me and other
Submitted by Iron Tigers Vet on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:40pm.
conservatives are constantly called teabaggers, bigots and racists all the time, yes, I do and will have an issue with anyone who responds back to my post. Whether it be you or any other liberal on here that wishes to denounce the actions taken by the left then deal with the consequences of wrath and anger from any of us.
I'm not a racist or any of the above and will not let anyone tell me otherwise.
Good for you.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:50pm.
Good for you.
Thief
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:30am.
If you are going to steal my material at least use the whole thing. It was "Two Thumbs Up Buddy.....GOOD FOR YOU".Sorry, I don't have any
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:34am.
Sorry, I don't have any thumbs. I have a big toe known as "The Thumper" but "Two Toes Up" doesn't quite make much sense.
Narrowing it down
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:38am.
Although there are many crazies in Hollywierd, there can't be that many in the TV business walking around with no pants on because the lack of thumbs makes buttons and zippers too time consuming. Oh we're gonna find you now.I wear button fly jeans.
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:42am.
I wear button fly jeans.
uh
Submitted by sentry_99 on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:46am.
That seems even more difficult with no fracking thumbs. Good luck.~Toes
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 11:51am.
Are surprisingly limber, I frequently type with mine.
Okay Ted, a question for you. The intent of that photoshop appears to be to imply that Republicans are the party of white people and the Dems are the party of the darker-skinned.
Is assuming party affiliation to be a function of skin color inherently racist, or not?
I figure at this point most
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:00pm.
I figure at this point most people aren't honest with their own racial issues, so who am I to judge what is racist to some and not to others? The way I see it, the photo is in bad taste, but no worse than much of the bigotry we read here every day.
~Conflation
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:29pm.
I'm pretty sure you've seen plenty of things on the net and in life that you'd readily call racist. I know I have.
Alright, you're involved in artistic production, yes? Not the actual art part, but you're familiar with the massive amount of work that goes into an artistic production.
This was an artistic effort put forth by one of the main media outlets in this country, not something a single guy threw together in his basement for the amusement of his friends. Is this not something that should be held to a higher standard?
A basic tenet of marketing is to appeal to your target audience, while also trying to produce something that carries enough mass appeal to attract as wide a range of consumers as possible. One thing you don't do, is produce something that you know will be offensive to a large group of your viewers/consumers. Unless your goal is something other than turning a profit. (let your mind run over the possibilities, here)
What does this say about CBS and the AP as corporate entities?
It says they weren't thinking
Submitted by Guttermouth's Return on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:46pm.
It says they weren't thinking about the reaction to the controversial photo, or they were and assumed it would make great press. Either way it's not a smart photo.
~And..
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 2:12pm.
They obviously don't have any conservatives in positions of influence in the company! It's obvously partisan, which isn't a swift move for media outlets claiming to be impartial.
troglodyt, I'll take your
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:34pm.
troglodyt,
I'll take your word for it. But do you think others on the left and in the MSM would be so level headed if this was from Fox News?
Given all of the unjustified accusations of racism leveled against the Tea Party over the last year and a half and against republicans and conservatives in general for decades, I think we both know the answer.
You have been arguing that the picture isn't racist. OK. You know what? I agree.
But so what?
Some time ago, someone here (I wish I could remember who) posted the idea that an effective way to correct negative behavior is to imitate it. I agree. So who cares if the argument behind this post is weak. I say make the accusation anyways. Many on the left obviously have no problem do it.
The humorous thing about this has been watching you wasting time making arguments that there is no racism involved.
Welcome to the world of conservatives.
hydrodynDM
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:08pm.
I'll take your word for it. But do you think others on the left and in the MSM would be so level headed if this was from Fox News?
For me the interesting question is: How would Fox News, the conservative blogosphere etc. react to that criticism? I guess they might argue as I did.
Some time ago, someone here (I wish I could remember who) posted the idea that an effective way to correct negative behavior is to imitate it. I agree. So who cares if the argument behind this post is weak. I say make the accusation anyways. Many on the left obviously have no problem do it.
Fighting fire with fire might work. But fighting BS with BS just leaves you with an even bigger, smelly and appaling pile of BS. There is nothing to be gained from that.
The humorous thing about this has been watching you wasting time making arguments that there is no racism involved.
I wanted to cry "projection" from the start. But I stuck to defending that the picture isn't racist. I've just tried to figure out whether the original picture might have had the shades already in it. Why am I doing that and look at hundreds of pictures of Obama? No idea.
troglodyt, "For me the
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:44pm.
troglodyt,
"For me the interesting..."
Liberals accusing conservatives of racism. Yea, that's such a rare thing I can see how you would think it an interesting situation to study.
Yes, that was me being sarcastic.
"Fighting fire with fire..."
You are ignoring the possibility that everyone involved might get so sick of the smell that they eventually stop.
But even if that isn't the case, I don't have a problem with it. Taking the high ground here gains nothing. Some liberals routinely use accusations of racism as a weapon - why shouldn't conservatives do the same when given the opportunity?
Look at the entertainment it's provided us here.
did someone (libs) say.... racism??
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:56pm.
Some liberals routinely use accusations of racism as a weapon - why shouldn't conservatives do the same when given the opportunity?
Exactly, why shouldn't we?
- Shy, The Equalizer
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
hydrodynDM
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:56pm.
Some liberals routinely use accusations of racism as a weapon - why shouldn't conservatives do the same when given the opportunity?
Because they have often enough declared to own the moral highground. Because it's useless in actually overcoming the problem everyone is faced with. Because it is dishonest. Because ... just fill in something yourself.
But you are right about one thing: It's all about entertainment. It took just 40 years to strengthen McLuhans theorem: The medium is the message, and nothing but the message.
troglodyt, "Because they
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 3:09pm.
troglodyt,
"Because they have often enough..."
Have "they'? I'm a conservative - I never have. Maybe you can provide me with a list of these high-grounders. I'll be sure to exclude them from my suggestions on how to treat unfounded accusations of racism.
You assert that it's a useless approach. I disagree.
Years ago I lived in an apartment with a noisy neighbor. I initially took the high ground. I talked to them personally. I talked to the rental office. But nothing changed. So I decided to give them back as much noise as they gave me, only more of it.
They got the message and stopped.
So I guess this approach can work.
As for it being a dishonest approach - well, gee willikers. It sure would be a shame to tarnish the pristine enterprise which is political discourse with lies and half-truths, wouldn't it?
Have "they'? That is an
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 3:31pm.
Have "they'?
That is an observation I made while spending time on NB. Often enough self-proclaimed conservatives vowed to use only logic and reason and never engage in "leftist tactics".
You assert that it's a useless approach. I disagree. ...They got the message and stopped.
That might work on a personal level, though I believe that in similar circumstances the result might also be aggravated assult. The problem is, that within the media people are earning their money doing this. Perfect example is the whole NBPP issue. Fox ran it got their ratings earned their money. The MM and Olbermann ran it the other way around and earned their money with it. Sometimes things like that develop into whole soap operas (although there is no racism involved, just look at Olbermann and O'Reilly and their slot war).
It sure would be a shame to tarnish the pristine enterprise which is political discourse with lies and half-truths, wouldn't it?
I fully expect the political discourse to be on that level, but I think that the journalistic discourse concerning the political one ought to be different. No I have to wash myself because I feel appaled by my display of idealism.
troglodyt, "This is an
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 4:05pm.
troglodyt,
"This is an observation..."
Yes, I understand the basis for your generalization. But it is irrelevant to a discussion of the merits of the approach I'm advocating.
"The problem is, that within the media..."
Good. The success of this approach relies on the public being inundated with this garbage - from both sides - so they learn to ignore it. The media is necessary for that.
One more reason: "Not being
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 3:12pm.
One more reason:
"Not being able to distinguish between real racists and Tea Party-ers, or real bigots and Juan Williams or Rick Sanchez, is an insult, not only to those people, but to the racists themselves who have put in the exhausting effort it takes to hate,"
troglodyt, Seems that
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 3:33pm.
troglodyt,
Seems that Stewart was directing those words at the left. His examples back that up.
What does that tell you?
What I'm advocating is the use of a tactic, not the adoption of a world view which renders you unable to identify real instances of racism.
hydrodynDM
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 3:55pm.
I didn't include the part about muslims coming right after the quote above. He was adressing everybody.
What I'm advocating is the use of a tactic, not the adoption of a world view which renders you unable to identify real instances of racism.
But I suspect that in many brains one leads to the other. Look at how many people around here think that the Democrats are inherently racist. I think they didn't understand that it was just a rhetorical tool. And of what use is such a tool if it used again and again and again ad nauseam.
Otherwise you are in similar circumstances as the sorcerers apprentice: from the spirits that I called/ Sir, deliver me.
troglodyt, "And of what use
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 4:11pm.
troglodyt,
"And of what use is such a tool..."
That's the whole point. When everyone is constantly throwing around clearly unfounded accusations of racism, everyone begins to grow tired of it.
It's already happed to some degree. Does anyone take such charges from groups like the NAACP as seriously as they once did?
But in cases where it is taken seriously, it's always against those on the right.
The problem with your apprentice analogy is that out house is already overflowing with water - I'm suggesting we do the same to the house of the ones who started it.
hydrodynDM
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 4:19pm.
When everyone is constantly throwing around clearly unfounded accusations of racism, everyone begins to grow tired of it.
I suspect that some grow tired of it and become apolitical. But I also think that for another portion of those listening or watching the message deepens the divide between the perceived "us" and the alleged "them". They are becoming even more political, but sort of trapped in the way they look at their opponent (that Obama used "enemy" was one symptom of what we are analyzing here). And now guess who will have more political influence.
troglodyt, Either way, it's
Submitted by hydrodynDM on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 4:32pm.
troglodyt,
Either way, it's a win-win situation.
Some folks get tired of all of the BS accusations of racism and ignore it. Since up till now, it's always the right which has been targeted, that works out to the right's advantage.
Others will take it seriously, in which case the right has acquired a tactic that the left has employed for decades.
Appeals to dishonesty and deepening divides don't carry much water when the other side obviously doesn't care about such things.
Besides, my experience tells me that folks on the left tend to be moral relativists, so they obviously can't object to this approach on moral grounds. Right?
(Yes, again, I was being sarcastic with that last bit).
Oh no he didn't..........
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 10:20am.
How stupid are you for asking that question?
My bad, you are a troll and honesty is not part of the package.
Carry on with your work.
So you don't have an answer
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 10:23am.
So you don't have an answer to my question? Why don't you just say so?
Well let's see
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 10:18am.
You take the color of a man's skin and change it to make a political point. What might that mean otherwise?
The colour wasn't changed but
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 10:22am.
The colour wasn't changed but the tone. In this picture Obama is still a man of colour no matter what side you are looking at.
Look
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 10:36am.
The messing with the "TONE" is about the man's skin. You can try to sugar coat it and throw as much irrelevant crap around it, it's a racial allusion. End of story. If you really cannot see this get help.
Look again
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:12am.
The obvious allusion in this picture is to Two Face and not to race. If you can't see anything involving a person of colour, but in the context of race then get some help.
If it was obvious
Submitted by Tugboat Phil on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:16am.
then everyone would view it the same. It appears that they don't, and also that you don't really want an answer to your question.
_______________________
Don't Give Up The Ship!
So it is...
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:19am.
ODS at work?
Sounds to me like...
Submitted by jdlybrand on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:59pm.
...someone is having a tough time digesting the crow meat.
"What a revoltin' development this is!"
Chester Riley
double
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:21am.
.
Try again...
Submitted by onewiseguy on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:20am.
...depicting a person as two-faced does not involve changing the color of their skin. Two-faced means two-faced....not two colored. The vast majority of people who see this would take this at face value....that the image is trying to equate the "Black" man with the Democratic Party and the white man (or light skinned) with the Republican Party.
Just google
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:26am.
before you make a statement like that. I'm no comic nerd but wasn't Two Face usually depicted as on one half green and on the other white (or rather, how to put it... caucasian skin complexion)?
Obvious Allusion
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:13pm.
So Obama is supposed to look like Two Face? Two Face has been represented many ways. The two more recent were Batman Forever with Tommy Lee Jones (his face was half purple btw) and The Dark Night with Aaron Eckhart playing a half horribly burned Harvey Dent. Usually the character is horribly disfigured on the affected side. Now....changing the skin "tone" on Obama would lead WHO? to get this "obvious allusion"?
Well
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:17pm.
Obviously not you as you are stuck with this race issue and can't get away from it.
Nice Tap Dancing Troll
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:26pm.
Is this thread about a photoshopped pic of Obama and the changing of his skin color? So....we are discussing that topic which involves race??? If you have nothing further of substance to add and are unable to defend your "two face" "obvious allusion" just say so.sentry_99
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:41pm.
You just answer that one question: What race is targeted with this supposedly racist picture?
Several
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:48pm.
Obamas race is targeted. Does he have to be "more white" to deal with republicans? Is the creator of this picture saying a black man cannot be himself and still lead? Is the creator sayinig Republicans won't follow a "real" black man? The old white guys are to bigoted so Barack better "whiten up"? Whatever the intent of the creator, this picture is in poor taste, did not accomplish whatever the hell it was meant to and is offensive.So you are defending Obama
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:53pm.
So you are defending Obama here? Interesting.
Of course
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:02pm.
I have to, he's my Post racial President.Of course. That is what you
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:10pm.
Of course. That is what you have to do.
Well
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:30pm.
I don't want a bunch of purple shirts protesting at my front door.Yes
Submitted by Denny Crane on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:37am.
Because in this case he deserves defending.
Unlike the NAACP that wouldn't defend Gladney because he wasn't of the same political persuasion.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Ok "THINKER"
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:41am.
Let's put on our beanie cap, okay?
This is the most racially divisive president in at least the last 100 years
Everything that the GOP has said negative about this administration has been called racist by the MSM.
So this is not? Are you a fool or a liar?
You are entitled to your
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:51am.
You are entitled to your thoughts. But please defend them and argue how that is racist and towards whom (blacks, whites, asians perhaps?).
As a starting point use an actual definition of racism and go from there:
"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."
Fine
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:20pm.
"a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one's own race is superior and has the right to rule others."
Is not changing the "tone" or color of someone's head creating at an inherent difference. Is this "art" not produced by a media that has been calling the GOP racist for two years (or longer)?
You're not really saying that the LSM is suggesting their messiah is two faced or needs to be are you? These are the same organizations that have been using the race card continually for this past two years. What don't you get?
You're not really saying that
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:34pm.
You're not really saying that the LSM is suggesting their messiah is two faced or needs to be are you?
That is exactly what I think was the designers intent. Obama has to deal with two diametrically opposed parties and philosophies. That requires him to be two faced. Nothing new here. Every politician, not to mention human being, is in that sense many faced
BTW: I think you have to read the definition again and rethink your position, because you didn't make much sense with the "inherent differences".
These are the same organizations that have been using the race card continually for this past two years. What don't you get?
Why you desperately try to be part of that game.
Just answer this one question:
Is this racist towards Obama pars pro toto black people?
Not at all.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:24pm.
The racism is suggested of the GOP by the LSM.
Then the photo isn't racist
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:27pm.
Then the photo isn't racist but defamatory.
Wrong.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:45pm.
It's racist and the point is that if you don't "see" it that way you're deluding yourself. Look at the last two years of LSM labeling the GOP racist.
wrong again.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:58pm.
Look at the last two years of LSM labeling the GOP racist.
Exactly that is not racist, but defamatory. Look at the definition of the former.
The only one defamed here is troglodyt.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:28am.
And he does it to himself. Does anyone here know that troglodyt is German, born German, grew up speaking German. And learned perfect American English by watching TV ?
Would anyone here guess that English, the second hardest language to learn, is troglodyt's second language?
Would anyone here guess that troglody not only learned English, ney, MASTERED it, but mastered WRITING ENGLISH as well.
Learning another language, speaking another language is very difficult. Writing in another language, writing in another language so well you can pass is INSANELY difficult. Only Ayn Rand has managed it and based upon reviews of her books, not nearly as well as troglodyt.
So, would anyone guess that troglodyt is German, WRITING American style English as his second language?
No? That is because he LIES. trogolodyt is LYING to all of you claiming to be from another country.
Yeah, he is not trollie. Not trollie at all. Is he?
Several ways to notice a troll,---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 1:06am.
one of which is to observe when a house liberal starts agreeing with, defending, commiserating with, or joining up with a fellow lib poster to argue with NB conservative regulars.
The subject under discussion is immaterial.
While the inanity of a posters argument via liberal talking points is pretty much an obvious tell to look for, the easiest way, of course, is to glance at the posters username.
If it happens to be troglodyt, no further effort on your part is required.
You have met the inanemy (inane + enemy = inanemy), and it is the trogster.
MD
thx.
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 6:29am.
I'm again flattered by your well-disguised compliment.
Still waiting for an answer to a question asked a month ago.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 7:32am.
Name one German that speaks and writes fluent English.
This is the question that exposed the lying fraud for what he is. Someone in Germany that speaks and writes fluent English could quickly point out 10 people at the drop of a hat.
Still waiting. Liar.
The answer:
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 7:58am.
Obviously me, by your own account!
Little Boy Liar troglodyt or Joseph Goebbels?
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 8:07am.
A lie repeated thousands of times becomes a truth.
As you have unparalleled
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 8:31am.
As you have unparalleled experience and profound expertise in the subject of repeatedly lying the two of you would have been great buddies. No? Nevermind.
Unsure where, troglodyt, you get---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 4:56pm.
the idea the Vet is a liar, but you are exceedingly wrongheaded about that.
If he calls you a jerkwad, and you are in reality, a suckwad, you could make a case for him using a less sterling descriptive phrase than you would like (or not), but that is a far cry from being trollish by perpetually prevaricating.
And somehow wringing a recondite compliment out of what I said in an earlier post does demonstrate what an upside-down world you inhabit.
MD
MD
Submitted by troglodyt on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 7:31pm.
Let's assume someone said over and over again that you are a fake fire fighter. Then you compare that statement to your vivid and lively memories of bravely and heroically extinguishing the huge blazes you were confronted with, possibly saving lives along line. Wouldn't you trust your memory more than said person's statement. Wouldn't that also imply that he is a liar? And for the use of the term "liar": JWF has set the bar just so low!
PS: Tame your ego. I wasn't replying to you. That would have caused an indent which as you can see isn't there. I'm still flattered that JWF thinks I'm sort of US homegrown in my use of the english language, that's why the compliment. But I envy you and would very much like to have your abilities to formulate highly condecending and yes sometimes witty remarks, but I think I have a long way to go before I reach your level.
Trogster---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 9:58pm.
I have no ego; to wit - I trade posts with you.
And I wouldn't waste my time being condescending unless I felt the target deserved same.
MD
MD
Submitted by troglodyt on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:12am.
I have no ego.
If that were true I had to pitty you.
trogster---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 11/06/2010 - 6:11pm.
On occasion, your posts are puerile.
Other times, they make no sense.
Whatsoever.
MD
then if it was about
Submitted by Iron Tigers Vet on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:44am.
two faces, then make it with a face looking right and one looking left, but that would not leave the same message because the only face he has is the one to the left.
Your opinion of the picture doesn't match the actual picture. Try again.
dude
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:47am.
Not Janus. Two Face. The character from Batman.
Jer, ADK, are you being funny?
Submitted by Tomorama on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:07pm.
Genius, why did they change his skin tone for the Republican side?
If it was simply about splitting differences between the two sides and how he was going to work with both, why not just SPLIT HIS FACE IN HALF AND LEAVE THE COLOR ALONE?
Sorry skippy, this is racist that he is black to the Democrats and white to the Republicans or any way you want to anlyize it.
It is actually racist ON ALL ACCOUNTS.
Again, make this Fox news.com and every sporting event and event of any kind would be stopped and PITCHFORKS would have been passed out to storm the Fox castle.
Christ, you can't be that partisan or that stupid can you?
The question is still open:
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:15pm.
The question is still open: Even if that was the intended message, how is it racist in the sense of the definition given above?
If you are starting your thought experiments, then at least finish it, for example by explaining how conservatives and FOX would defend it.
It's really quite simple.
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:29pm.
Given that the LSM 99 times out of 100 uses the bogus argument that the GOP is a bunch of racists.
In the event that this photo meaning is ambiguous (to the blind), then the 99 out of 100 statistic resolves that, n'est-ce pas?
Implying that a group or a
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:38pm.
Implying that a group (as long as it is no race) or a party is racist isn't racism.
Well from that comment we no longer disagree
Submitted by hbnolikeee on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:54pm.
It is a racist photo. Unless the two years of LSM calling the GOP racist is also invalid.
Game set match.
Suggesting that a group needs to be part of one race to make racist comments about another is nonsense. And again the point it you have admitted "the group" photo is racist.
Enjoy your neutered totus.
His "totus" is Angelika
Submitted by NL207 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:55pm.
His "totus" is Angelika Merkel.
Riddle
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 3:32pm.
There is too much but not all of Eisenhower in your statement.
hbnolikee
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 3:08pm.
It is a racist photo. Unless the two years of LSM calling the GOP racist is also invalid.
I don't see the connection, but labeling the GOP as racist is invalid.
Suggesting that a group needs to be part of one race to make racist comments about another is nonsense. And again the point it you have admitted "the group" photo is racist.
Now you have lost me. What have I suggestes and where? And what have I admitted and where?
Tomorama...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 2:14pm.
You might want to check website posting protocol, Einstein:
When addressing a comment to Party A and/or Party B, posting same as a reply to Party C is STOOPID.
Jer
bwaha!
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:07pm.
He tried to compare this picture to a character that either had his face burned with fire a la "The Dark Knight" or burned with acid(earlier version of Two Face)!
Dude, you are so off!
-Jon
Allusions are sometimes very
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:22pm.
Allusions are sometimes very subtle. It's the crack that matters.
OR
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:27pm.
the allusions are non-existant.Nope.
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:31pm.
It doesn't matter because you compared it to a character from Batman who was disfigured. There's no comparison with regards to the photoshopped picture.
If they really wanted to make a divided picture between sides, then they should have used facial expressions. Smiling on the Democrat side, frowning on the Republican side, no color change needed. Simple as that. Yes, it really IS simple as that.
To make a color change like they did, that simply is a racist overtone. I'm sure even Senator-Elect Allen West would take exception to that picture.
-Jon
I didn't compare anything. I
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:44pm.
I didn't compare anything. I said it alluded to something else. And if you have better ideas for photoshopping then please feel free to do it
And again: It's not a change of colour, but of tone.
"And again: It's not a change
Submitted by Iron Tigers Vet on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:58pm.
"And again: It's not a change of colour, but of tone." or highlights, or lowlights. Maybe shadowing. I work with PS (CS5) and there are many manipulative things to do to a pic. Regardless, the pic is in poor taste and with everything that has been said about the "right", it is unacceptable to have out there.Beyond the black vote...
Submitted by MrShy on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:40pm.
Liberals really have no use for them.
- Just Sayin' Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
MJ Obama
Submitted by ledurchi on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 9:50am.
Does photoshop have a "Michael Jackson X .5" plug-in that someone at CBS stumbled upon? At least his nose doesn't look like it's falling off.
My mouth fell open when I saw
Submitted by Seashell on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 9:51am.
My mouth fell open when I saw this. WOW! - and they have the audacity to call us racist?
it's the
Submitted by spepper on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 9:51am.
it's one of the Black and White guys from an episode of Star Trek TOS!
the one in this picture is white on the left, and black on the right-- the arch-enemy of the other one, which was white on the right, and black on the left-- which is what I suppose they were really trying to go for in the picture.......
Isn't ?
Submitted by Dragonsbreath on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 10:26am.
AP= Always photoshoped?
'How are we able to secure the borders in Iraq and Afghanistan, and not secure our own as a government?'
Nobody Cares
Submitted by DeclinesToState on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 10:29am.
Why is it that the left make an issue of his skin color. Obama sucks because of his politics. Harry Reid is the whitest guy in the world, and his Senate leading sucking policy pal. We care for neither.....
dialects, according to Harry Reid
Submitted by mom_rox on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 10:32am.
Since AP chose to portray Pres. Obama's "light-skinned" visage on the right side, I think they are trying to tell us that Pres. Obama will not be using a 'Negro dialect' when he's speaking to Boehner, et. al.
Yeah, I thought of that
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 10:43am.
Yeah, I thought of that too.........along with the fact that Boy Blunder has Harry the Weasel and Chuck U. Shumer behind him = that's a trio of idiots, regardless of what 'color' they are!!! And anyway, Barry Soetoro speaks a terrible version of 'Negro dialect', because he's got no legitimate background in the American 'black' experience............
The Diverse Left...
Submitted by jeffjackie on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 10:47am.
Of course they put the darker Obama on the left side with the diversity of those two old white guys (Reid and Schumer).
I dunno about anybody
Submitted by killa37 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:12am.
I dunno about anybody else..........but aside from the racial overtones, or skintones, of this stupid photo........I'm REALLY sick of looking up at Obama's nostrils as he gazes across this kingdom with his head cocked back in a supremely arrogant pose............
Funny how that works
Submitted by jon_torlin on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:13am.
I think it's interesting they are choosing this picture to make, considering how many times I've seen the Chairman himself with darker makeup to make himself look more "brown" than he usually is which is more of an ashen color with purple lips.(the color on the right side of the face is closer to his actual color)
Anyone ever notice when that happens on occasion?
-Jon
Well...
Submitted by retrocon on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:15am.
This is obviously racist, and it seems to be intended align the Annoying One's black side with dems, and white side with reps.
I'm more interested in the "Time Magazine blackened OJ Simpson's face..." comment? OJ wasn't African American?
Now, if they'd said "Wired Magazine did a white makeover on OJ Simpsons's face..."
Follow up:
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:30am.
How could anyone think that changing the President's skin tone like this would be a good idea? This has got to be either one of the most racially insensitive and just plain ol' stupid photoshops a major news organization has done since Time Magazine blackened OJ Simpson's face. The idiocy of this is only heightened by the fact that Obama's heritage is mixed.
What is the alternative?
THE Alternative? MANY!!
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:35am.
IF the point, as you stated above, is about two faces why not use....hmmmm I don't know.....TWO FACES. Maybe something subtle like a change in tie color, a smile on one side and a frown on the other. Are you really this stupid?I think you missed the point
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:41am.
I think you missed the point of my post. There is an "or" missing in what Noel quoted.
The OR may have helped
Submitted by sentry_99 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:17pm.
or you could have just quoted the small part you were referreing to.True enough.
Submitted by troglodyt on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:20pm.
True enough.
I've said it before....
Submitted by MrShy on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:40am.
It's the libs and the lib-dominated media that are the racists!!
- Post-Racial Shy
Join Mr. Shy and The 1* Percent
let's see if there's a public
Submitted by sometimesright on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 11:56am.
let's see if there's a public outcry from the likes of the ACLU, NAACP, sharpton, jackson ect. Since this is an attempt to reflect badly on the reps i'll wait and see.
Race is a tool. Just like
Submitted by Thoreau on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:04pm.
Race is a tool. Just like class warfare. They aren't the first socialists to do this.
Google Is Manipulated
Submitted by rwnewsnut on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 12:10pm.
If you Google "CBS and AP Photoshop Racist Picture of Obama' the result does not show this racist picture but a picture of Sen. Mitch McConnell and of Rep. John Boehner. Under the picture, the caption is 'Fox News'
I have serious doubts of the neutrality and accuracy of Google. Would it cause Google any financial hurt if Conservatives use other search engines instead of Google?
Google = DEMS
Submitted by MaximusBraveheart on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:00pm.
I did what you said to search. If you click on the pic you get this story:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/11/04/senate-gop-leader-takes-aim-h...
If you click to the link next to it, you get this NewsBusters thread. Why is the Fox pic there w/Fox News below, and not the NB pic, which is the one in question.
-- Maximusbraveheart -- Is TRUTH knowable? Moral Relativism is the abandonment of Truth. Truth is knowable. Truth conforms to Reality. Reality is observable by evidence & witness in this day & from history. Relativism is Sesame Street play land.
Not racist
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 1:29pm.
Racism is the belief in the inherent superiority of one race over another. This image in no way could be considered racist. Additionally, Obama is the son of a white mother and a black father.
At best if the impression
Submitted by TerryWest on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:25pm.
At best if the impression they wanted to give their readers is that the President is torn, a victim who must now work with two opposing sides, (Oh woe is me) they have photo shopped more the a photo, they have used the tools to erase the truth as well.Well, even if
Submitted by Model850 on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:27pm.
Well even if the photo was somehow meant to be some allegation of racism against the right it fails miserably because there are white guys on either side of BHO. Kinda hard to claim Republicans are a party of old white guys when the Dems are pictured exactly the same.
For all their whining and accusations about race...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 2:56pm.
it seems to me to be the libs that are the ones that are forever bringing up the race/racist angle in politics...How many times have we heard the MSM accuse the political right and the Tea Party in particular, of being racist? When was the last time that anyone remembers actually hearing anyone in the media or a politician on the right actually saying or implying anything racist about Obama? In addition to the MSM, Obama himself is constantly bringing race into the discussion...Just weeks before the election, in a get out the vote appearance, Obama told an audience that Repubs are "counting on ...black folks staying home..."
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2010/10/11/obama_republicans_counting_on_blacks_staying_home.html
And this is just one of many, many times that he has done this...He did this a number of times through his campaign in '08, and he's continued to spout this race baiting garbage. This is standard operating procedure for libs, so the fact that this photo came from CBS and AP is no surprise, although they both should be ashamed for doing it...I am certain however, that they are not.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
I don't think Noel is a
Submitted by Satchmo on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 3:53pm.
I don't think Noel is a liberal.
Noel? I wasn't referring to Noel...
Submitted by PrairieSky on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 1:01pm.
Obviously, Noel is not a liberal. I was referring to all the libs in the media and in politics who are forever whining and making accusations that the right is full of racists.
"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction...It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them (our children) to do the same." ~President Ronald Reagan
ChickaBOOMer: Bisecting Barack
Submitted by StewartIII on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 3:39pm.
Bisecting Barack
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2010/11/barack-bisect.html
I fixed the CBS/AP photoshop
Submitted by bkeyser on Thu, 11/04/2010 - 9:00pm.
here.
Very nice BK
Submitted by Denny Crane on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 12:47am.
You are still the king of photoshop!
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
About that racist picture of Obama...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 1:00am.
After carefully studying the "offending" photoshopped product, a few thoughts:
a. Obama's natural and actual skin tone is closer to that as depicted on the left side of his face, i.e. to the viewer's right. The right side of his face [the side nearer to Schumer and Reid] appears to have been shaded slightly darker than normal. The notion, however, that there is a "black" side and a "white" side--or that this is a reflection of racial politics by party--is silly.
b. I believe it obvious the statement being made is nothing more than a recognition of a divided Congress in the wake of the midterm elections--the halfway point of Obama's first term in office. That division is represented by the fault line running vertically from the top of Obama's brow to the bottom of his neck with Schumer and Reid representing the still Democratic-controlled Senate and Boehner and Cantor representing the now Republican-controlled House. [A split Capitol building--also shaded and with the larger segment of the edifice appearing on the side of the new Republican majority House leaders--is directly behind the President.]
c. John Boehner is made to appear, dare I say...handsome? And if there is any questionable shading taking place, I would submit it is the complete eradication of any remaining trace of his former pumpkin-orange tan.
d. If you really wish to see an example of a "racist" picture, you need look no further than this. (The two bulging white eyes in the bottom right hand corner represent Obama among the pantheon of American Presidents.)
Jer
Sure Jer
Submitted by Denny Crane on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 1:38am.
And with that wonderful analysis, I'm assuming that the left is the darker side of politics?
Funny how you decried the Bush/monkey and O/monkey thing, but fail to see anything wrong with this picture.
As far as your link, it is just MORE racist.
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Denny...
Submitted by Jer on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 2:05am.
Why is it funny or odd that I would decry the obvious racial connotation associated with comparing a monkey to an African-American or the obvious tastelessness of comparing Bush with a chimp, but fail to decry this depiction which is obviously neither racist nor tasteless.
This is simply a case of people being determined to make something out of nothing. I felt the same way about the OJ Time cover. In that case, the editors clearly had no "racist" intent by slightly shading Simpson's face, but nevertheless a hypersensitive black community [incorrectly] thought otherwise and bullied and shamed the magazine into issuing an apologia.
Jer
I agree completely with Uncle Jer.
Submitted by The Vet on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 2:30am.
This is NOT not not not a racist picture. President Obama was born to a WHITE woman, fathered by a BLACK man.
He is half black. He is half white.
To symbolize his halfy-ness by drawing a line down the middle of his face and shading one side darker - not darkee, that is a racist word - darker than the other. Why there is nothing....
Wait. Weren't Republicans called racist over and over again by the MSM? So if I were to assign a half to President Obama, it would be his grandmother side racist and that would be the whiter side. Becuase Republicans represent the Southern racist plantation owner side that fathered children with the female slaves and had lighter skinned black children. That is the side I would give the Republicans. The lighter white - not whitey, that would be racist - white side.
The other darker side, representing the unadulterated pure African blood side, with no white blood mixed at all, I would assign to the Democrats because they love the Africans. They often say Viva Mama Africa! As Republicans spit on them at a protest before they signed the Civil Rights Health Care bill last year. Democrats pure. Democrats good. Democrats 100% pure. That is the side for the Democrats.
Nothing racist about that at all.
/sarc off
Jer it is more
Submitted by gfrrman on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 3:18am.
than obvious that the more you keep putting your foot in your mouth about denial...I will claim AGAIN. You ARE STUPID, by definition. The more you talk, the more you keep backing up my words for the nth degree. You ARE NOT CAPABLE of understanding anything other than your STUPID liberal beliefs. STUPID NOW =Jer. No more questions your honor!!(will wait for usual stupid comment forthcoming)...wait for it.........
"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel of envy"...Winston Churchill
G
Jer
Submitted by Denny Crane on Fri, 11/05/2010 - 4:18am.
Racist is in the eye of the beholder in this case.
I don't think they were being racist when they printed the picture. But after 2 years of these same people finding racism in just about everything that is said or done by conservatives, you would think that they would have caught this before it was posted.
Gee, maybe some people might find this offensive? Maybe we shouldn't publish it?
"Lib free or die"
We Are The 53%
Noel
Submitted by troglodyt on Mon, 11/08/2010 - 2:50pm.
Seems like someone at AP and CBS has some splainin' to do.
Although by now a story from the stoneage I have to point out that they explained their intentions.
http://www.mediaite.com/online/exclusive-cbs-explains-cbsap-photo-of-half-white-president-obama/
CBS' very unexpected answer:
We reached out to CBS, and a CBSNews.com spokesman told us, “Our intention with the “ripped paper” overlay effect down the middle was to convey a divided Congress and nothing more.”
Would be nice if you updated your article. What's curious about this explanation is that the skin colour wasn't even adressed. Perhaps the picture of Obama had this colour before they photoshopped it?
I didn't know Arab was a race?
Submitted by Constitution First on Mon, 10/17/2011 - 10:50am.
0bama is 5% African, 45% Arab, 50% Caucasian.
American has yet to see it's first Black President, unless, of course, you count Bill Clinton.