Oregon's Willamette Week Online Endorses Obama

[Queasy]

Link :laugh:

I'm not sure if it is the roses or the white unicorns that is the coup de grace in this picture. :laugh:

 

[Genx87]

lmao I told you people think he is jesus christ. Ill have to find an online picture of Jesus my parents have in their dining room. Damn thing is a near replica hahahahaha.

 

[Vic]

I haven't read the article yet, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the OP is not familiar with the WW.

edit: meaning that the only thing controversial about their pick, made 2 weeks ago, is that they chose Obama instead of Hillary. And the picture, etc. were just tongue-in-cheek in that regard, their readership being very leftist, feminist, and/or LGBT that they stepped on quite a few toes with their pick.

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Genx87
lmao I told you people think he is jesus christ. Ill have to find an online picture of Jesus my parents have in their dining room. Damn thing is a near replica hahahahaha.

Funny thing about white people... Jesus was nearly the same color as Obama - not white -- lol lol lol

 

[Genx87]

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Genx87
lmao I told you people think he is jesus christ. Ill have to find an online picture of Jesus my parents have in their dining room. Damn thing is a near replica hahahahaha.

Funny thing about white people... Jesus was nearly the same color as Obama - not white -- lol lol lol

What???? You mean the picture of jesus as a white european with blue eyes is wrong?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

/sarcasm

 

[dahunan]

Originally posted by: Genx87

Originally posted by: dahunan

Originally posted by: Genx87
lmao I told you people think he is jesus christ. Ill have to find an online picture of Jesus my parents have in their dining room. Damn thing is a near replica hahahahaha.

Funny thing about white people... Jesus was nearly the same color as Obama - not white -- lol lol lol

What???? You mean the picture of jesus as a white european with blue eyes is wrong?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?

/sarcasm

🙂

Funny thing about history and how we rewrote it .. breaking noses off of Egyptian statues and such..

^^ sorry to sidetrack the original topic

 

[Queasy]

Originally posted by: Genx87
lmao I told you people think he is jesus christ. Ill have to find an online picture of Jesus my parents have in their dining room. Damn thing is a near replica hahahahaha.

Well, we also have The Rolling Stone's "Glowbama", The New Republic's Christ Pose, Time tries a shot of "Glowbama".

 

[m1ldslide1]

Originally posted by: Vic
I haven't read the article yet, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say the OP is not familiar with the WW.

edit: meaning that the only thing controversial about their pick, made 2 weeks ago, is that they chose Obama instead of Hillary. And the picture, etc. were just tongue-in-cheek in that regard, their readership being very leftist, feminist, and/or LGBT that they stepped on quite a few toes with their pick.

This is probably an asinine post but it rubs me the wrong way to see media endorsing candidates. WW always does this with every election, and although its interesting to read, I know that a ton of people are influenced by it, and I don't feel like that's the right way to go about it (even though I often agree with their endorsements). I think they should let their subjectivity come from individual columnists or editorials and let the name WW remain the objective vehicle. Then again, calling any media entity "objective" is problematic from the start, so perhaps its more honest after all to just say "WW endorses this person".

The idealist in me just wishes that a publication that goes out of its way to be critical of the dishonesty and manipulation in politics, big business and media would try to abstain from directly wielding partisan influence, no matter how fundamentally different they may be from Fox news corp.

 

[LTC8K6]

They are getting blasted in the comments, too.