Disgusting Cartoon Depicts Barack Obama as Rapist of Freedom and the Statue of Liberty

[scandal 951]

It's a metaphor! Grow up!

Really? I seem to remember that at the height of the Lewinsky scandal we had all sorts of critics who took Clinton to task for daring to defile the Office and the Institution of the Presidency by banging Monica right next to the Oval Office. So a consensual ####### is bad form and defiles the Office. But the (false) implication of forced non-consensual sex does not? No matter what one thinks of the policies of a sitting President, is this really the way you think we should refer to the Office? The author has his First Amendment rights to create his message as he sees fit. I have my right to interpret it - I interpret it as part of the sickening slide into a pit where nothing is sacred, nothing is treasured, nothing holds any value any longer.

Let's try it the other way around Bill. What would be your thoughts of a similar cartoon that showed a smiling Bush (41,43, take your pick) or Reagan getting dressed, while on the bed lies a weeping poorly dressed black or Hispanic woman in ripped clothing who is intended to represent the poor being "raped" by said President's unfeeling attitudes? Is that just an appropriate usage of artistic expression by a satirist that wants to draw attention to GOP attitudes to the poor? Or does it cross the line? I think it crosses a line, personally.

[SMR 368]

Really? I seem to remember that at the height of the Lewinsky scandal we had all sorts of critics who took Clinton to task for daring to defile the Office and the Institution of the Presidency by banging Monica right next to the Oval Office. So a consensual ####### is bad form and defiles the Office. But the (false) implication of forced non-consensual sex does not? No matter what one thinks of the policies of a sitting President, is this really the way you think we should refer to the Office? The author has his First Amendment rights to create his message as he sees fit. I have my right to interpret it - I interpret it as part of the sickening slide into a pit where nothing is sacred, nothing is treasured, nothing holds any value any longer.

Let's try it the other way around Bill. What would be your thoughts of a similar cartoon that showed a smiling Bush (41,43, take your pick) or Reagan getting dressed, while on the bed lies a weeping poorly dressed black or Hispanic woman in ripped clothing who is intended to represent the poor being "raped" by said President's unfeeling attitudes? Is that just an appropriate usage of artistic expression by a satirist that wants to draw attention to GOP attitudes to the poor? Or does it cross the line? I think it crosses a line, personally.

You think the presidency is sacred?

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Steves jealous. He wanted to be barracks lady liberty. Hes already got you bent over! Just say "do me"

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Really? I seem to remember that at the height of the Lewinsky scandal we had all sorts of critics who took Clinton to task for daring to defile the Office and the Institution of the Presidency by banging Monica right next to the Oval Office. So a consensual ####### is bad form and defiles the Office. But the (false) implication of forced non-consensual sex does not? No matter what one thinks of the policies of a sitting President, is this really the way you think we should refer to the Office? The author has his First Amendment rights to create his message as he sees fit. I have my right to interpret it - I interpret it as part of the sickening slide into a pit where nothing is sacred, nothing is treasured, nothing holds any value any longer.

Let's try it the other way around Bill. What would be your thoughts of a similar cartoon that showed a smiling Bush (41,43, take your pick) or Reagan getting dressed, while on the bed lies a weeping poorly dressed black or Hispanic woman in ripped clothing who is intended to represent the poor being "raped" by said President's unfeeling attitudes? Is that just an appropriate usage of artistic expression by a satirist that wants to draw attention to GOP attitudes to the poor? Or does it cross the line? I think it crosses a line, personally.

It's already been done ad nauseam. I think the left's selective outrage further reinforces their image as whiny little toadies.

[Pooky 3,930]

Is grandstanding the word I am looking for?

I hate getting old...

You're only getting old if you visualise Frank Bough when you say Grandstand.

If you see Des Lynam, you're doing okay.

[Peikko 1,575]

You're only getting old if you visualise Frank Bough when you say Grandstand.

If you see Des Lynam, you're doing okay.

I need the hair rasing emoticon, and yes, I know who Frank Bough is (

[Pooky 3,930]

And if the Americans think this is bad, they need to think themselves lucky they never had Spitting Image over here.

I can only imagine how many noses it would have put out of joint and political taboos it would have broken.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

It's already been done ad nauseam. I think the left's selective outrage further reinforces their image as whiny little toadies.

Show me a cartoon that depicted a sitting President as a rapist?

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

All I can say is someone needs to learn how to use photoshop properly.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Show me a cartoon that depicted a sitting President as a rapist?

Still looking, but it is not an original theme:

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Freedom of speech cuts both ways. Get over it.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Show me a cartoon that depicted a sitting President as a rapist?

This one. Show me a limit on free speech.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

[Gary and Alla 3,696]

Really? I seem to remember that at the height of the Lewinsky scandal we had all sorts of critics who took Clinton to task for daring to defile the Office and the Institution of the Presidency by banging Monica right next to the Oval Office. So a consensual ####### is bad form and defiles the Office. But the (false) implication of forced non-consensual sex does not? No matter what one thinks of the policies of a sitting President, is this really the way you think we should refer to the Office? The author has his First Amendment rights to create his message as he sees fit. I have my right to interpret it - I interpret it as part of the sickening slide into a pit where nothing is sacred, nothing is treasured, nothing holds any value any longer.

Let's try it the other way around Bill. What would be your thoughts of a similar cartoon that showed a smiling Bush (41,43, take your pick) or Reagan getting dressed, while on the bed lies a weeping poorly dressed black or Hispanic woman in ripped clothing who is intended to represent the poor being "raped" by said President's unfeeling attitudes? Is that just an appropriate usage of artistic expression by a satirist that wants to draw attention to GOP attitudes to the poor? Or does it cross the line? I think it crosses a line, personally.

My thoughts of similar cartoons would be...similar. Free speech. Deal with it or get the heck out of the country to some place where only the speech YOU like is allowed. What a whiney bunch of fuggin' cry-babies. I can;t believe that grown adults would even discuss such drivel...oh yeah. Free speech.

Edited April 1, 2010 by Gary and Alla