Woah – Bloomberg Businessweek: Killed Romney Cover

‘…beat a dead democrat donkey…‘ Las

Now I think you’re latching onto a photo idea :0

Jimmy… thank goodness, a lone supporter of my argument. Your reaction to the portrayal (whatever the reasons were for the graphic) is what I believe to be a natural one. And that would be, “Wow! Romney got pretty beat up in SC!”

Please enlighten me. What’s my kool-aide?

Just kidding, btw. I don’t think you drink the wacky stuff (real kool-aid, i don’t know).

Because the political culture dictates it” ?????? That makes no logical sense.

Then you know very little about how the culture is being shaped. I’ll reference you to some sources if you are interested.

There is no doubt the cover is brutal, but it was not only Romney portrayed beaten but also Obama, Newt and Paul… so all received equal treatment… not just one.

It’s your prerogative to disagree, but I maintain that there is indeed a contrived outrage over things that far overtake the intended significance of the thing causing the outrage. And I maintain that the culture has been so shaped to cause knee jerk shock over things that in years past were simply seen for what they were.

A perfect example is the “crosshair” targeting of blue states… which was the cause of the calumny against Sarah Palin blaming her for the Giffords shooting. That was the liberal/dem version. Conservatives have their version of fake outrage as well so they can show the politically correct how much they too reject violence.

It’s almost irrelevant what the intended reason for the graphic portrayal. The fact is people, quite naturally, thought it had to do with Romney’s defeat in SC.

which is pretty darn close to a veiled threat against a candidate’s life.

Now this statement of yours is proving my point. In what normal time, in what normal era would this have been construed as a veiled threat? To use this bogus “veiled threat” nonsense proves that our reactions are shaped by what we think others would have us say.

So to repeat… yes it’s brutal when seeing it… no doubt. My wider point is that the outrage is exaggerated and overblown, and I’m saying that the outrage is a manifestation of our cultural conditioning.

You obviously believe otherwise, my opinion is that the reactions come from another source.

Was it over the top? Arguably it was. These kind of things take on a whole other dimension when political correctness steps in to arbitrate outcomes for what is acceptable and what is not and keys us up to be offended.

“in years past were simply seen for what they were.”
In years past, the ethical and moral foundation of our country was still intact and this cover would not have even been thought of or created, much less rejected.

I can agree the current lemming mindset is keyed up to be offended by everything… or to wait on the media to tell us what to think.

A black eye would have sufficed as a metaphor.

Lucky Strike Commercials used to use a black eye in their ad campaigns back in the 60′s.

“A perfect example is the “cross-hair” targeting of blue states… which was the cause of the calumny against Sarah Palin blaming her for the Giffords shooting.”

Blaming Sarah Palin for Gifford’s shooting was idiotic.

However if a different icon could have been used… My personal curiosity is in learning who actually chose the icon. Where has it been used as a neutral meaning icon before? but that’s another story.

snif! thanks