digg

Join DiggAbout
See the original image at caglecartoons.com

A Preview of Next Week's New Yorker Cover (PIC)

caglecartoons.com — Turnabout is fair play, after all.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • paradexes, on 07/16/2008, -10/+75Yea let's see that one fly. Something tells me there will be FOX news (aka Govt) retaliation on this one.
    • funkymoose, on 07/16/2008, -14/+10yeah.. but at the same time everyone else will be talking about it in celebration. I find it odd that this will be most likely very socially acceptable but the Obama one isn't.
      • ffingers, on 07/16/2008, -5/+17probably because this one would represent a lot of true things that are happening under the current administration...

        while the obama cover was meant to portray rumors and conjecture....

        the difference in the two is one is depicting an interpretation of ACTUAL events, whereas the other is depicting a sensationalist image made up of rumors and inaccuracies
      • Pillage, on 07/16/2008, -5/+6See they are factual things because FFingers wants them to be factual. He has a vested emotional interest in those thing being right, so he too can say to his close inner circle and of course anonymously over the internet "I KNEW IT LOLZ!!!1".
      • egoideal, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4Don't waste your time funky. Satire is too complicated for most people on digg.
      • TheSenator624, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2Actually ffingers, the Obama cover *criticizes* and *lampoons* those ridiculous rumors about his being a Muslim. It's not the New Yorker's fault if you can't understand their satire.
    • deenoop, on 07/16/2008, -2/+12See now this illustration is funny!

      I think the New Yorker can learn something from this.
    • OwdenBowden, on 07/16/2008, -19/+4If this cover is true then the only reason it will be the cover is because they are sucking up to the Obama Klan as they are playing the Race card.

      ObamaBots - You can't have your cake; eat it and the expect to lose weight. This is called Life. The cover on the New Yorker is what it is. This entire Presidential race the denouement of what crap this country has become where we are teaching our children that "we are all winners" by making sure their Little league game is "fair and balanced"; Where the MLB All-Star games ends in a tie? (a ***** tie what they hell is with that *****) and where half of us go around screaming "Me. Me Me" while the other half is singing Kumbaya and hugging trees!

      Cry me a ***** river. Digg me UP or Digg me down but mark my words the "O" in Obama is in reference to the zerO he is ( Empty suit, Lies, Deception, and typically Writing Checks He can't cash) and his percentage of getting into the White House )%.

      Now go back to suckling on the O's member you sheep...

      Obaaaama Obaaaama Bam Obaaaama Obaaaama Bam
      • chrillen, on 07/16/2008, -2/+10I've bookmarked this, if Obama wins I'll have a good laugh, and I'm bloody Swedish.
      • GreyICE, on 07/16/2008, -2/+12Someone's mad that mommy took away his Xbox.
      • s3rgi0, on 07/16/2008, -3/+3AL won in 15 innings. Tie?
        They made sure there wouldn't be ties.
      • seabass10, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1^They tied 6 years ago
      • s3rgi0, on 08/22/2008, -0/+1Yeah they did, then Bud Selig decided they couldn't do that again.
  • PoliticalMan922, on 07/16/2008, -10/+7Haha, I like that. Nice image.
  • ToastyMallows, on 07/16/2008, -16/+3Win.
    This image fits much better than this one.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/7505953.stm
  • crazycarlmar, on 07/16/2008, -17/+283Problem is this cover wouldn't be satire.
    • Rotzooi, on 07/16/2008, -7/+52It's funny because it's true.
    • OwdenBowden, on 07/16/2008, -10/+2Thanks Homer.
    • richbleak, on 07/16/2008, -6/+8This brings up a good point. Are they using the cover in the same way they used the Obama cover? They said they were pointing out how ridiculous the ideas presented in the Obama cover are. Are they criticizing the ideas depicted in this cover in the same way? I hope not as everything in this image is accurate.
      • DooM, on 07/16/2008, -0/+21It's a political cartoon - it's poking fun AT The New Yorker it's not FROM the New Yorker.
      • richbleak, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4Hah, thanks DooM; shows how closely I look at things.
    • ostracize, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Observational humor.
    • leladax, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1spot on.
    • sicking, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4Lets be honest, it's still satire. His ears aren't *that* big.
  • psykeeq, on 07/16/2008, -3/+25diehard 12V
  • Xondar, on 07/16/2008, -20/+4Not only is the cover not satire, it's also not as well drawn as the Obama cover. It's more divorced from reality than the Obama cover I think.
    • crazycarlmar, on 07/16/2008, -2/+10It's not a cover of The New Yorker. If you look closely you can see a watermark of who drew the picture.
    • BoonTobias, on 07/16/2008, -2/+7look up: reality
      n00b
    • Phyraxus, on 07/16/2008, -2/+5I don't think you understand the words satire, divorced, and reality.

      If it were divorced from reality, it WOULD be a satire; it ISN'T divorced from reality, therefore it ISN'T a satire.
  • Babblin5, on 07/16/2008, -10/+4roflmao
  • jamesalfaro, on 07/16/2008, -7/+75Alternate Cover:
    http://members.aol.com/pushymia/new-yorker-alt-mcc ...
    • V3n0M, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4This one ^^ makes more sense.
    • rald84, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2why is the portrait on the wall of a man from imperial china?
      • V3n0M, on 07/16/2008, -1/+5I just figured it was the Vietnamese that he gave all the information to.
      • leahcim, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3Jeez I was way off, that sounds more plausible. I thought it was Sun Tzu because he's such a war hawk.
      • rugabug, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1Or how under Bush, and here assumed McCain, China has thrived at our own downturn.
      • Archeologist, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1That is Ho Chi Minh, the leader of Communist North Vietnam during the Vietnam War.
    • davidrools, on 07/16/2008, -1/+8I was hoping they'd emphasize the oldness more, along with the craziness
    • SpacePoet, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2There's a better one out there with McCain, more pills and stuff, sry dont have it handy, but you'll see it eventually.
  • jdowland, on 07/16/2008, -8/+10Excellent response to The New Yorker.
    • leladax, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1no, this one is true, the other is satire.
  • jellydoughnut21, on 07/16/2008, -4/+109is that dick cheney or the grim reaper?
  • drfnord, on 07/16/2008, -9/+2Awesome
  • V3n0M, on 07/16/2008, -14/+6So the Grim Reaper is married to George Bush?
  • monsterette, on 07/16/2008, -11/+2...gone...
  • rolandvvv, on 07/16/2008, -11/+39But that's not satire. Its the truth.
  • dshPls, on 07/16/2008, -21/+4This is no better than the Obama cover, and that's not a good thing. Don't stoop to their level.
    • crazy0, on 07/16/2008, -5/+3what a pansy
    • Phyraxus, on 07/16/2008, -2/+5There is no stooping here. The Obama cover was a lie, this is not.
    • SpacePoet, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4The Obama cover was a satire, and it took me quite a while to feel that way, but in general it is making fun of people that say all those stupid things about Obama and push it right back in their faces to show them how stupid they are. It was a very powerful and risky picture, but the more i think about it the more i'm fine with it. Daily Show last night really hit on it well.
  • jeremyduffy, on 07/16/2008, -11/+3Ha! THAT'S someone that knows Satire.
  • wizzroom, on 07/16/2008, -8/+1funny *****. i like.
  • Thekirby45, on 07/16/2008, -4/+25terrorist jab! Someone alert fox news!
  • kerguelen72, on 07/16/2008, -7/+5It would be better with the bohemian grove Molech owl
  • CorneliusStump, on 07/16/2008, -12/+3OMG BUSH IS A NAZI I HAAAET HIM SO MUCH, OBAMA 08
  • DigitalRifleman, on 07/16/2008, -2/+13Wait, if that's the Grim Reaper, and he's touching Bush....
    • Cybermaul, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3I know, I was getting my hopes up too.
    • iJessicaRabbit, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2He's a witch! Yeah! burn him! burn him!
  • borez, on 07/16/2008, -9/+4I see what you did there, but I didn't see the relevance.
  • Lynxplus, on 07/16/2008, -8/+6Now that's satire. or is it truth?
  • starsarebent, on 07/16/2008, -16/+19Everyone shows their true colors when placing these comments side by side with the comments about the Obama cover. I guess it's only "sickening" and "discusting" when it goes against your flaming liberal views.

    I, for one, don't care for Bush or Obama. Or any modern day politician. Political cartoons don't offend me either way.
    • Jenadae, on 07/16/2008, -5/+6Your mothers a dirty whore.

      Hows that work for you?
      • littlegoku, on 07/17/2008, -2/+0the reason why this site fails.

        liberal lunacy at its best
      • Jenadae, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1The reason why this site fails.

        Idiots who need a sarcasm tag...
    • jakemdoz, on 07/16/2008, -6/+1You sure seem offended for someone who claims he isn't offended.
      This is the truth, drawn out in an exaggerated way. President Bush has expanded his Office in a manner that contradicts some ideals of the Constitution. For example, the 1st and 4th Amendments prevent unreasonable "search and seizure" (which extends to surveillance) without a warrant:

      'Warrantless ''National Security'' Electronic Surveillance .--In Katz v. United States, 151 Justice White sought to preserve for a future case the possibility that in ''national security cases'' electronic surveillance upon the authorization of the President or the Attorney General could be permissible without prior judicial approval. The Executive Branch then asserted the power to wiretap and to ''bug'' in two types of national security situations, against domestic subversion and against foreign intelligence operations, first basing its authority on a theory of ''inherent'' presidential power and then in the Supreme Court withdrawing to the argument that such surveillance was a ''reasonable'' search and seizure and therefore valid under the Fourth Amendment. Unanimously, the Court held that at least in cases of domestic subversive investigations, compliance with the warrant provisions of the Fourth Amendment was required. 152 Whether or not a search was reasonable, wrote Justice Powell for the Court, was a question which derived much of its answer from the warrant clause; except in a few narrowly circumscribed classes of situations, only those searches conducted pursuant to warrants were reasonable. The Government's duty to preserve the national security did not override the gurarantee that before government could invade the privacy of its citizens it must present to a neutral magistrate evidence sufficient to support issuance of a warrant authorizing that invasion of privacy. 153 This protection was even more needed in ''national security cases'' than in cases of ''ordinary'' crime, the Justice continued, inasmuch as the tendency of government so often is to regard opponents of its policies as a threat and hence to tread in areas protected by the First Amendment as well as by the Fourth. 154 Rejected also was the argument that courts could not appreciate the intricacies of investigations in the area of national security nor preserve the secrecy which is required. 155' (sorry, the numbers are citations and footnotes).

      Obama is not, however, a Muslim (nor do I think that's relevant, anyway.) And his wife is not a member of the Black Panthers. That is, however, how the loudest, stupidest conservatives see them. Therefore, it's funny, not "sickening" and "disgusting." The LA times does not speak for liberalism.
      • starsarebent, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3*Yawn*.... You actually had to do research to flame me. I'm not offended. I'm stating the obvious.

        "You sure seem offended for someone who claims he isn't offended." How so? Because I said that everyone shows their true colors when placing these comments side by side with the comments about the Obama cover?

        "This is the truth, drawn out in an exaggerated way" WOW... cocaine's a helluva drug. You made a statement then contradicted it in the same sentence.

        "Obama is not, however, a Muslim (nor do I think that's relevant, anyway.) " You have a very distorted view of this religion if you think it's irrelevant. The only religion as a whole that still kills people who don't convert. Show me another religion as a whole that kills people who don't convert.
    • jackieblu, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3why comment at all?
  • dthebear, on 07/16/2008, -10/+3are they just trying to find balance coz their last cover ***** on my home boy Barrack?
  • exomni, on 07/16/2008, -12/+4It's one thing to caricature a president, it's quite another to slander a presidential candidate.
    • Rhymenoceros, on 07/16/2008, -0/+7why?
      • esus4, on 07/16/2008, -0/+2It's alright to caricature either. If this cartoon came out the day after the election it would not matter at all. But the trouble with the original New Yorker cartoon of Obama is the unforseen side effects of the image. Something that the ivory tower intellectuals at the New Yorker completely missed. They only took into consideration those people with enough intelligence and how they would view the drawing. People of even modest brainpower would grasp the idea that believing Obama is somehow related to the image in the drawing is ludicrous.
        The folks at the New Yorker did not think of people on the other side of the spectrum Those with double digit IQs. The people at the New Yorker were totally clueless about the level of stupidity that is out there. These are the people who are forwarding the picture to every other clueless hoser they know. Each one unable to grasp that this is satire and instead taking it to be gospel truth. They can't grasp satire but they do vote. So for all the reasons a person could be for or against Obama their vote will be be based upon a complete fabrication that was mistakenly encouraged by a magazine. More than anything it shows that those at the New Yorker are ever so slightly less smart than they think they are.
    • TheSenator624, on 07/17/2008, -1/+2BAAAAWWWWWWWW! Poor baby, did somebody criticize your Messiah?
  • electricwaffles, on 07/16/2008, -9/+2Oh snap!
  • baudbwoy, on 07/16/2008, -5/+8so what your saying is that next weeks cover will be actually portraying the truth.
  • CLAWC, on 07/16/2008, -12/+2$50 says they wouldn't have done this were it not for the popular pressure & criticism. Racists
    • Chode2235, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3news flash: Its fake.
    • Kyan, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2News flash, it's not fake - it's a freakin' political cartoon.
      I swear I've never seen comments this dense all the way around before.
      • hANDoFdEVIL, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2you idiot. its a fake new yorker cover.
  • fleischner, on 07/16/2008, -5/+8Yeah, except people on my side are so used to this I yawn. Remember how the Left even made a movie about the assassination of Bush for example?

    That's why the Obama one -- even when it's ACTUALLY a dig on the Right -- was so shocking. Imagine if something like that BHO one were on the cover of a *conservative* magazine. The ***** would cover the planet.
    • thescimitar, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2What movie was that? (I genuinely have no idea what you're referring to...)
      • fleischner, on 07/16/2008, -0/+4"Death of a President"

        Google is your friend.
    • condeh, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3the image regarding the planet is pretty sick
    • jakemdoz, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2Yes, the big evil entity calling itself The Left created a movie about the assassination of Our Most Sacred an Intelligent President Bush. Mr. Left, chief of Leftist cinematography, personally made sure to release the film to the widest possible audience strictly to enrage the Right. Mr. Left is a very, very bad man and should be waterboarded. Along with the terr'ists. You know, the ones planting bombs everywhere in the US and high-fiving members of the Left.
    • rlbond86, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Some of us flaming liberals are actually intelligent enough to understand the humor of the Obama cover.
    • Lenoxus, on 07/20/2008, -0/+0If I saw this on the National Review or something like that, I'd have thought the intent was just the same as on the New Yorker. Why? I'll tell you why… in song!

      THE COVER IS COVER THE TOP
      IT'S OBVIOUSLY EXTREMELY LUDICROUSLY OVER THE TOP AND ABSURD
      SHEESH

      (You invent the tune, and the next lines, I'm lazy)
  • AyaJulia, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4I love the Calgary Sun for its political cartoons. :D
  • MadNuke, on 07/16/2008, -4/+3Terrorist fist jab,
  • V3n0M, on 07/16/2008, -6/+5The original New Yorker cover featured Barack Obama with his wife, unless this is a very poorly drawn image of McCain and his wife, this is a failure.
    • Kyan, on 07/16/2008, -5/+3NOT A COVER. A POLITICAL CARTOON.
    • caseycoold, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1I don't think his wife was the primary target.
      You are a failure.
  • michael43, on 07/16/2008, -13/+4@ffingers: or maybe it's just because you enjoy sucking obama's dick?
    • btschul, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3Hey there is this new feature on digg, you might not have heard of it: It's this button that lets you reply directly to a comment, instead of putting the name of the user that your comment is directed at in a comment half way down the page. It's called the "Reply" button.
      • michael43, on 07/16/2008, -3/+3Hey there dickweed. You want a reply so I'm giving you one. I suggest you suck the seat of my drawers and keep your advice to yourself. If you were only half as brilliant as you think, you'd realize I was replying to the thread. Unfortunately, you are an idiot and there's not much that can be done for you. You could try to improve your lot in life by keeping your dicksucker shut though, at least you wouldn't draw flies that way.
      • starsarebent, on 07/16/2008, -1/+4LOL @ this whole thread.
      • btschul, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3What the hell are you talking about? You didn't reply to a thread, you made a comment to another user about sucking obama's dick in the middle of the giant sea of relevant comments. By the way, you seem to have a fixation on dick:
        "Hey there dickweed."
        "keeping your dicksucker"
        "enjoy sucking obama's dick?"
        "I, michael43, love dick"

        You might want to see someone about that. You also seem very hateful. I just suggested that you should reply to the comment you are referring to instead of starting a new thread containing your reply half way down the page. There is really no reason to get angry.
    • caseycoold, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1wtf? Where the hell did that come from.
      I think someone needs to let out some repressed feelings...or just come out of the closet.
  • Mr.Gone, on 07/16/2008, -3/+8I think the funniest thing on Digg.com is when people think that parody or joke postings are the real thing. The Michael Bay: Dark Knight script etc etc.

    Just to let you know, this is a joke, not an actual upcoming cover.
  • leerayIG88, on 07/16/2008, -8/+3I knew it! Death and Bush worked together on 911th
  • Nubli, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6Wait a minute... he's supposed to die when touched by Death!
    • ShitStainedBall, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2*****. Screwed again.
    • caseycoold, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2I think Death would get the short-stick with that exchange....
  • dalittle, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3Hmmm... I always though of W. Bush as more of a Saddam on that South Park Movie.
    • snotrokit, on 07/16/2008, -0/+3nah, more the satan. Cheney is the Saddam. Cheney is the pitcher, W is the catcher.
  • Patogrande, on 07/16/2008, -3/+3So if this cover is actually in the same vein as the Obama cover, we might actually have the first centrist political commentary.
    • Kyan, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4NOT A COVER. A POLITICAL CARTOON.
    • Patogrande, on 07/16/2008, -0/+9OH MY GOD THAT COMPLETELY INVALIDATES MY POINT

      I HAD BEST FORFEIT THIS DIRE BATTLE OF WITS

      YOU TRULY ARE THE BETTER MAN
  • bigteebo, on 07/16/2008, -2/+5There's a big difference we should note here regarding cartoon protests:
    Mohomad on cartoon: riots & propertry destruction
    Obama on cartoon: meh, just some discourse & discussion about it

    Perhaps the radical Muslims could learn a lesson here. We aren't torching embassies & doing daily protests in the streets(where do they get time to do that in the Middle East?) over a cartoon.


    BTW THE bouncing comment box really is irritating.
    • ffoofighter2001, on 07/16/2008, -1/+3I agree with you when you say the Muslims could learn a lesson but I think you're underselling the reaction of the Obama cartoon. It was called racist and offensive to Democrats and blacks. They blew it way out of proportion for something that is wasn't-a 'jab' at Obama.
    • TheSenator624, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Ironic that the same people decrying the "Obama is a Muslim" rumor are the same people who whined and complained about a cartoon.
  • mogebier, on 07/16/2008, -10/+5Ah, so when it's about Obama, you Digg people have your panties in a wad, but make it about Bush and it's okay.
    Hypocrisy at it's finest!!
    • sockpuppets, on 07/16/2008, -4/+5Your inability to understand why this is "okay" is indicative of your intelligence.
      • mogebier, on 07/16/2008, -6/+3No I understand it 100%. The kids here in Digg are generally left-wing leaning. They have been indoctrinated by their professors to think this way and have no idea how the real world really is. Just look around.
      • sockpuppets, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2One cover is satirical, one is not. Yet they're both equally disturbing.

        One of the biggest "tells" a poster can have is when they insert passive-aggressive insults into their posts, like yours. Typically it's a sign of the self-righteous christian type poster. In your case it's assuming everyone here is a naive kid being brainwashed by their professors.

        What, pray tell, makes you such an authority on the real world?
    • jakemdoz, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1Who were the ones that pounced on Michelle Obama after she said she was "proud of her country for the first time?" Conservatives! You guys got all huffy over a personal opinion that singled nobody out! Who are the people that harass people at abortion clinics? Conservatives! How the hell do you know what sort of ***** a woman going through abortion has had to deal with? And why the hell do you care?! And don't forget the "terrorist fist jab" comment about Obama fist-bumping his wife!

      "Hypocrisy at it's finest!!"
      (It's "its," dumbass. Apparently, you were too stoic and individualist to fall for your professors' and teachers' "left-wing" grammar lessons.
      • starsarebent, on 07/16/2008, -0/+1You forgot to close your parenthesis.
      • mogebier, on 07/16/2008, -2/+2Wow, nice off-topic rant there Lefty. Where the hell did I say a thing about Mrs. Obama?? You have a chip on your shoulder about something. I hit a nerve didn't I?? Your post proves my point. Your panties are all in a wad about something, and nothing about what I said. Go back to your parents basement, kid. At least until you learn about how things in the real world works.
    • motivatedmama, on 07/17/2008, -1/+2Not hypocrisy, The Majority. The world hates Bush. Where have you been?
      • mogebier, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1It's hypocrisy. And the majority of the world doesn't hate Bush. The majority of the world couldn't care less about anything outside of their own lives. Don't exaggerate. Just because you are a college student and in the "I hate Bush the baby killer" club doesn't mean you are in the majority.
  • inkubusfan, on 07/16/2008, -3/+6Dugg for epic accuracy.
  • acroyear2, on 07/16/2008, -2/+6Here you go

    More Feux Covers: http://cagle.com/news/NewYorkerCover/main.asp
  • ZedoMann, on 07/16/2008, -1/+6you kiddin, the grim reaper would never hang out with somebody that dumb.
  • Barackalypse, on 07/16/2008, -6/+1Buried, I don't think Bush is down with fist action, either the ghetto kind or the gay kind.
  • leladax, on 07/16/2008, -2/+3this one is true, the other is satire.
  • p51d007, on 07/16/2008, -4/+4And you can bet conservatives will just laugh it off...unlike liberals, who get their panties in a wad over just about
    anything. The cartoon with obabma is NOTHING compared to some of the things I've seen with Bush
    • jakemdoz, on 07/16/2008, -3/+2Panties in a wad?! Prove it, jackass! Who were the ones that pounced on Michelle Obama after she said she was "proud of her country for the first time?" Conservatives! You guys got all huffy over a personal opinion that singled nobody out! Who are the people that harass people at abortion clinics? Conservatives! How the hell do you know what sort of ***** a woman going through abortion has had to deal with? And why the hell do you care?! And don't forget the "terrorist fist jab" comment about Obama fist-bumping his wife!
      • starsarebent, on 07/16/2008, -1/+2ON the issue of abortion, I'm going to open a can of worms.... Why does the father not get the decision? Don't bother with "stararebent... it's her body blah blah blah" or "what about the rape issue, blah blah blah"... I don't want to hear it. It's a human life. It's not the babies fault if the mother WAS raped. It doesn't deserve to die.

        "oh it'll be a constant reminder of when she got raped, and blah blah blah blah..." shut the ***** up right there. It's a HUMAN life. I think that those who think abortion is okay should be aborted right now... would that prove a point? You're all a constant reminder to me of the time I got raped because the woman who raped me looked retarded and was a flaming liberal communist. So you all deserve to die.
      • TheSenator624, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1Your straw men are showing. Might want to address that.
      • rlbond86, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1@starsarebent: There are differing opinions on when human life begins. In the Bible, murder results in capital punishment, but harming a woman which causes miscarriage is only a monetary penalty. Even the Bible regards unborn children as not worth a live human life.
    • harlyridr, on 07/16/2008, -2/+0Oh yeah, conservatives wouldn't laugh it off unless their congressman was caught in a brothel/toilet stall/capital office with a page. Oh wait, conservatives have no sense of humor, what was I thinking??
    • rlbond86, on 07/17/2008, -0/+2I'm a liberal and I thought the Obama cartoon was funny. But hey, you just go back to watching the 1/2 hour news hour.
  • TheDeepFriar, on 07/16/2008, -7/+1.....accept THIS cover is true!
    • obamayomama, on 07/16/2008, -0/+8Is that a command, or do you not know the difference between "accept" and "except?" You're not really going to vote, are you?
      • TheSenator624, on 07/17/2008, -2/+1Unfortunately, I'm sure s/h/it will. And judging by their comment and your username, it looks like you two are compatriots. Have fun with that!
      • obamayomama, on 07/17/2008, -1/+1Well if you're a real senator I'm still more popular than you.
    • ffoofighter2001, on 07/16/2008, -2/+4Buried for being the SIXTH TIME that someone said that. Read the diggs and don't comment if it's the SAME EXACT THING someone else wrote six other times..jeez
  • alexkball, on 07/16/2008, -1/+8Oh wow, now I see, George Bush loves oil and has ***** over the Constitution and looks like a funny little monkey and is apparently friends with the Grim Reaper and loves waterboarding...how wittingly fresh and original! I'd never considered the possibility that he might have been a bad president, thanks for this informative cartoon!!!
    • caseycoold, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1Oh yes, informative, I'm sure that was the goal. not a politcal jest or even a chuckle.
      I always get my news and information from cartoons.
  • Jeffler, on 07/16/2008, -2/+1Is it just me, or do 95% of you guys still not realise this was from a Canadian newspaper and not the actual next New Yorker cover?
    • caseycoold, on 07/17/2008, -0/+1There was like ONE post to that effect. jeeze...
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 67 of 67 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.