According to the counter on the George Bush/Chimp website, it has had over 5 1/2 million hits. That is a larger number than the circulation of the edition of the New York Post that contained the offending cartoon.

Over a period of eight-plus years ... I dare say the New York Post has sold more papers than that in that time.

 

Really, though, why does it matter in terms of credibility? The website you reference is just that ... a website, with no regulation. That doesn't compare to a long-established newspaper that is subject to libel laws.

Over a period of eight-plus years ... I dare say the New York Post has sold more papers than that in that time.

 

Really, though, why does it matter in terms of credibility? The website you reference is just that ... a website, with no regulation. That doesn't compare to a long-established newspaper that is subject to libel laws.

 

My point is not about credibility. It is more about precedent. We had a President who was compared to a chimpanzee for 8 years, including side-by-side picutures of similar poses and situations. Those pictures were "published" on the website at least 5 1/2 million times and circulated by an untold number of emails. My only point was whether the stupidity of comparing the current President to a chimp, if that was the intent, was mitigated by the comparison of the prior President.

 

For the record, I find the subject cartoon stupid and un-funny. I didn't think it was racist until it was pointed out by others. I would never draw, endorse or publish a cartoon like this.

 

BTW, who said websites aren't subject to libel laws?

For the record, RTS, many of us know that the President didn't pen the bill.

 

If that actually mattered, would we be having this debate?

Then why the comparison to Obama? Why are some on here calling it racist? Our gal Nancy is the one that this reflects on more than anyone and last time I checked, she's white.

Then why the comparison to Obama? Why are some on here calling it racist? .

 

As someone pointed out previously in this thread, while Congress wrote the bill it is being described as "President Obama's Stimulus package."

BTW, who said websites aren't subject to libel laws?

I didn't completely make my point, which is that newspapers are subject to libel laws and have a history of upholding journalistic standards.

 

Better?

This might hold the answer:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6LqxEhC9EEg

 

It's funny and worth the time IMO.

 

 

Dr. Dre for Surgeon General:thumb::lol:

 

Thanks for the link.

 

But in regard to cartoons, will any sort of caricature be acceptable?

 

In my opinion, this cartoon was a failure not because of the racial implications, but because it was too much of a stretch between subjects to be funny.

Dr. Dre for Surgeon General:thumb::lol:

 

Thanks for the link.

 

But in regard to cartoons, will any sort of caricature be acceptable?

 

In my opinion, this cartoon was a failure not because of the racial implications, but because it was too much of a stretch between subjects to be funny.

 

Never gets old. :lol:

Then why the comparison to Obama? Why are some on here calling it racist? Our gal Nancy is the one that this reflects on more than anyone and last time I checked, she's white.

 

It's all perception. Perception is that it is Obama's bill.

As someone pointed out previously in this thread, while Congress wrote the bill it is being described as "President Obama's Stimulus package."

I think everyone on here is smart enough to know better though. Most Americans, now that's a different story.

It's all perception. Perception is that it is Obama's bill.

I agree, but that perception is by the misinformed.

The shooting of the chimpanzee had absolutely nothing to do with the stimulus bil, Obama, Congress, or anything else. It was stupid to even try to correllate the two, and definitely not much thought was put into it by either the cartoonist or the editorial staff of the newspaper, or they'd have seen this reaction coming.