What If the NYT Cartoon Depicted a Muslim, Lesbian, Black or Mexican As a Dog?

[Weatherman2020]

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?

Nor is the publication of this anti-Semitic cartoon a one-off. For years now, the New York Times op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel’s enemies. Most recently, the New York Times published an op-ed declaring, on Easter Sunday, that the crucified Jesus was probably a Palestinian. How absurd. How preposterous. How predictable.

In recent years, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between the reporting of the New York Times and their editorializing. Sometimes its editors hide behind the euphemism “news analysis,” when allowing personal opinions to be published on the front page. More recently, they haven’t even bothered to offer any cover. The reporting itself, as repeatedly demonstrated by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), has been filled with anti-Israel error

 

[bodecea]

Didn't the Times apologize?

 

[Weatherman2020]

Didn't the Times apologize?

And replaced it with another racist cartoon.

No one fired, bonuses likely handed out.

 

[Slade3200]

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?

Nor is the publication of this anti-Semitic cartoon a one-off. For years now, the New York Times op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel’s enemies. Most recently, the New York Times published an op-ed declaring, on Easter Sunday, that the crucified Jesus was probably a Palestinian. How absurd. How preposterous. How predictable.

In recent years, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between the reporting of the New York Times and their editorializing. Sometimes its editors hide behind the euphemism “news analysis,” when allowing personal opinions to be published on the front page. More recently, they haven’t even bothered to offer any cover. The reporting itself, as repeatedly demonstrated by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), has been filled with anti-Israel error

The cartoon was inappropriate but also, it was targeting Trump and Netanyahu... it wasn’t calling all Jews dogs. Let just be honest about it shall we?

 

[Weatherman2020]

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?

Nor is the publication of this anti-Semitic cartoon a one-off. For years now, the New York Times op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel’s enemies. Most recently, the New York Times published an op-ed declaring, on Easter Sunday, that the crucified Jesus was probably a Palestinian. How absurd. How preposterous. How predictable.

In recent years, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between the reporting of the New York Times and their editorializing. Sometimes its editors hide behind the euphemism “news analysis,” when allowing personal opinions to be published on the front page. More recently, they haven’t even bothered to offer any cover. The reporting itself, as repeatedly demonstrated by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), has been filled with anti-Israel error

The cartoon was inappropriate but also, it was targeting Trump and Netanyahu... it wasn’t calling all Jews dogs. Let just be honest about it shall we?

Yeah, the Star of David was on the dog because it had nothing to do with Jews.

Racist apologist.

 

[bodecea]

Didn't the Times apologize?

And replaced it with another racist cartoon.

No one fired, bonuses highly handed out.

What does the "another racist cartoon" look like?

 

[irosie91]

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?

Nor is the publication of this anti-Semitic cartoon a one-off. For years now, the New York Times op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel’s enemies. Most recently, the New York Times published an op-ed declaring, on Easter Sunday, that the crucified Jesus was probably a Palestinian. How absurd. How preposterous. How predictable.

In recent years, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between the reporting of the New York Times and their editorializing. Sometimes its editors hide behind the euphemism “news analysis,” when allowing personal opinions to be published on the front page. More recently, they haven’t even bothered to offer any cover. The reporting itself, as repeatedly demonstrated by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), has been filled with anti-Israel error

The cartoon was inappropriate but also, it was targeting Trump and Netanyahu... it wasn’t calling all Jews dogs. Let just be honest about it shall we?

A picture of Muhummad as a terrorist is not "calling all muslims
terrorists" -----Let's just be honest about it

 

[bodecea]

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?

Nor is the publication of this anti-Semitic cartoon a one-off. For years now, the New York Times op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel’s enemies. Most recently, the New York Times published an op-ed declaring, on Easter Sunday, that the crucified Jesus was probably a Palestinian. How absurd. How preposterous. How predictable.

In recent years, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between the reporting of the New York Times and their editorializing. Sometimes its editors hide behind the euphemism “news analysis,” when allowing personal opinions to be published on the front page. More recently, they haven’t even bothered to offer any cover. The reporting itself, as repeatedly demonstrated by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), has been filled with anti-Israel error

The cartoon was inappropriate but also, it was targeting Trump and Netanyahu... it wasn’t calling all Jews dogs. Let just be honest about it shall we?

Yeah, the Star of David was on the dog because it had nothing to do with Jews.

Racist apologist.

So...a star of david on a flag is racist?

 

[Tax Man]

Only Beny makes the situation funny. The reason is because of how rumpy uses him.

 

[Weatherman2020]

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?

Nor is the publication of this anti-Semitic cartoon a one-off. For years now, the New York Times op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel’s enemies. Most recently, the New York Times published an op-ed declaring, on Easter Sunday, that the crucified Jesus was probably a Palestinian. How absurd. How preposterous. How predictable.

In recent years, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between the reporting of the New York Times and their editorializing. Sometimes its editors hide behind the euphemism “news analysis,” when allowing personal opinions to be published on the front page. More recently, they haven’t even bothered to offer any cover. The reporting itself, as repeatedly demonstrated by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), has been filled with anti-Israel error

The cartoon was inappropriate but also, it was targeting Trump and Netanyahu... it wasn’t calling all Jews dogs. Let just be honest about it shall we?

Yeah, the Star of David was on the dog because it had nothing to do with Jews.

Racist apologist.

So...a star of david on a flag is racist?

And what flag is that?

You racists are lousy liars to support your racism.

 

[bodecea]

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?

Nor is the publication of this anti-Semitic cartoon a one-off. For years now, the New York Times op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel’s enemies. Most recently, the New York Times published an op-ed declaring, on Easter Sunday, that the crucified Jesus was probably a Palestinian. How absurd. How preposterous. How predictable.

In recent years, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between the reporting of the New York Times and their editorializing. Sometimes its editors hide behind the euphemism “news analysis,” when allowing personal opinions to be published on the front page. More recently, they haven’t even bothered to offer any cover. The reporting itself, as repeatedly demonstrated by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), has been filled with anti-Israel error

The cartoon was inappropriate but also, it was targeting Trump and Netanyahu... it wasn’t calling all Jews dogs. Let just be honest about it shall we?

Yeah, the Star of David was on the dog because it had nothing to do with Jews.

Racist apologist.

So...a star of david on a flag is racist?

And what flag is that?

You racists are lousy liars to support your racism.
View attachment 258676

Your complaint is about the Star of David, correct?

 

[Weatherman2020]

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?

Nor is the publication of this anti-Semitic cartoon a one-off. For years now, the New York Times op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel’s enemies. Most recently, the New York Times published an op-ed declaring, on Easter Sunday, that the crucified Jesus was probably a Palestinian. How absurd. How preposterous. How predictable.

In recent years, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between the reporting of the New York Times and their editorializing. Sometimes its editors hide behind the euphemism “news analysis,” when allowing personal opinions to be published on the front page. More recently, they haven’t even bothered to offer any cover. The reporting itself, as repeatedly demonstrated by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), has been filled with anti-Israel error

The cartoon was inappropriate but also, it was targeting Trump and Netanyahu... it wasn’t calling all Jews dogs. Let just be honest about it shall we?

Yeah, the Star of David was on the dog because it had nothing to do with Jews.

Racist apologist.

So...a star of david on a flag is racist?

And what flag is that?

You racists are lousy liars to support your racism.
View attachment 258676

Your complaint is about the Star of David, correct?

NYT admitted it was racist, but go ahead and display your racist excuses for us all.

 

[Tax Man]

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?

Nor is the publication of this anti-Semitic cartoon a one-off. For years now, the New York Times op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel’s enemies. Most recently, the New York Times published an op-ed declaring, on Easter Sunday, that the crucified Jesus was probably a Palestinian. How absurd. How preposterous. How predictable.

In recent years, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between the reporting of the New York Times and their editorializing. Sometimes its editors hide behind the euphemism “news analysis,” when allowing personal opinions to be published on the front page. More recently, they haven’t even bothered to offer any cover. The reporting itself, as repeatedly demonstrated by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), has been filled with anti-Israel error

The cartoon was inappropriate but also, it was targeting Trump and Netanyahu... it wasn’t calling all Jews dogs. Let just be honest about it shall we?

Yeah, the Star of David was on the dog because it had nothing to do with Jews.

Racist apologist.

So...a star of david on a flag is racist?

And what flag is that?

You racists are lousy liars to support your racism.
View attachment 258676

Best look for beny I have seen yet! And rumpy looks dashing.

 

[Cellblock2429]

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?

Nor is the publication of this anti-Semitic cartoon a one-off. For years now, the New York Times op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel’s enemies. Most recently, the New York Times published an op-ed declaring, on Easter Sunday, that the crucified Jesus was probably a Palestinian. How absurd. How preposterous. How predictable.

In recent years, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between the reporting of the New York Times and their editorializing. Sometimes its editors hide behind the euphemism “news analysis,” when allowing personal opinions to be published on the front page. More recently, they haven’t even bothered to offer any cover. The reporting itself, as repeatedly demonstrated by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), has been filled with anti-Israel error

/——/ Nothing would have happened because the libs give each other a pass.

 

[Weatherman2020]

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?

Nor is the publication of this anti-Semitic cartoon a one-off. For years now, the New York Times op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel’s enemies. Most recently, the New York Times published an op-ed declaring, on Easter Sunday, that the crucified Jesus was probably a Palestinian. How absurd. How preposterous. How predictable.

In recent years, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between the reporting of the New York Times and their editorializing. Sometimes its editors hide behind the euphemism “news analysis,” when allowing personal opinions to be published on the front page. More recently, they haven’t even bothered to offer any cover. The reporting itself, as repeatedly demonstrated by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), has been filled with anti-Israel error

The cartoon was inappropriate but also, it was targeting Trump and Netanyahu... it wasn’t calling all Jews dogs. Let just be honest about it shall we?

Yeah, the Star of David was on the dog because it had nothing to do with Jews.

Racist apologist.

So...a star of david on a flag is racist?

And what flag is that?

You racists are lousy liars to support your racism.
View attachment 258676

Best look for beny I have seen yet! And rumpy looks dashing.

We already know your the USMB racist, fuck off.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Judging from some of the comments here the good news is that the liberals are now starting to see/admit that not everything is "racist", still a long way to go but it's in the right direction.

 

[Slade3200]

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?

Nor is the publication of this anti-Semitic cartoon a one-off. For years now, the New York Times op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel’s enemies. Most recently, the New York Times published an op-ed declaring, on Easter Sunday, that the crucified Jesus was probably a Palestinian. How absurd. How preposterous. How predictable.

In recent years, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between the reporting of the New York Times and their editorializing. Sometimes its editors hide behind the euphemism “news analysis,” when allowing personal opinions to be published on the front page. More recently, they haven’t even bothered to offer any cover. The reporting itself, as repeatedly demonstrated by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), has been filled with anti-Israel error

The cartoon was inappropriate but also, it was targeting Trump and Netanyahu... it wasn’t calling all Jews dogs. Let just be honest about it shall we?

Yeah, the Star of David was on the dog because it had nothing to do with Jews.

Racist apologist.

He is the president of Israel dumbass. If it was Obama holding a leash of Castro wearing a Cuban, triangle star, collar would you think it was calling all Cubans dogs? Use your brain, this isn’t a hard one to figure out.

 

[Slade3200]

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?

Nor is the publication of this anti-Semitic cartoon a one-off. For years now, the New York Times op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel’s enemies. Most recently, the New York Times published an op-ed declaring, on Easter Sunday, that the crucified Jesus was probably a Palestinian. How absurd. How preposterous. How predictable.

In recent years, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between the reporting of the New York Times and their editorializing. Sometimes its editors hide behind the euphemism “news analysis,” when allowing personal opinions to be published on the front page. More recently, they haven’t even bothered to offer any cover. The reporting itself, as repeatedly demonstrated by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), has been filled with anti-Israel error

The cartoon was inappropriate but also, it was targeting Trump and Netanyahu... it wasn’t calling all Jews dogs. Let just be honest about it shall we?

A picture of Muhummad as a terrorist is not "calling all muslims
terrorists" -----Let's just be honest about it

Really? Are you being serious or cynical with that argument?

 

[Weatherman2020]

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?

Nor is the publication of this anti-Semitic cartoon a one-off. For years now, the New York Times op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel’s enemies. Most recently, the New York Times published an op-ed declaring, on Easter Sunday, that the crucified Jesus was probably a Palestinian. How absurd. How preposterous. How predictable.

In recent years, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between the reporting of the New York Times and their editorializing. Sometimes its editors hide behind the euphemism “news analysis,” when allowing personal opinions to be published on the front page. More recently, they haven’t even bothered to offer any cover. The reporting itself, as repeatedly demonstrated by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), has been filled with anti-Israel error

The cartoon was inappropriate but also, it was targeting Trump and Netanyahu... it wasn’t calling all Jews dogs. Let just be honest about it shall we?

Yeah, the Star of David was on the dog because it had nothing to do with Jews.

Racist apologist.

He is the president of Israel dumbass, that is their flag. If it was Obama holding a leash of Castro wearing a Cuban collar would you think it was calling all Cubans dogs? Use your brain, this isn’t a hard one to figure out.

So where’s the star on trump? We got 57 of them, why are they missing?

You racists are hilarious.

 

[irosie91]

What if the New York Times Cartoon had depicted a Muslim, a Lesbian, an African American or a Mexican as a Dog?

Nor is the publication of this anti-Semitic cartoon a one-off. For years now, the New York Times op-ed pages have been one-sidedly anti-Israel. Its reporting has often been provably false, and all the errors tend to favor Israel’s enemies. Most recently, the New York Times published an op-ed declaring, on Easter Sunday, that the crucified Jesus was probably a Palestinian. How absurd. How preposterous. How predictable.

In recent years, it has become more and more difficult to distinguish between the reporting of the New York Times and their editorializing. Sometimes its editors hide behind the euphemism “news analysis,” when allowing personal opinions to be published on the front page. More recently, they haven’t even bothered to offer any cover. The reporting itself, as repeatedly demonstrated by the Committee for Accuracy in Middle East Reporting in America (CAMERA), has been filled with anti-Israel error

The cartoon was inappropriate but also, it was targeting Trump and Netanyahu... it wasn’t calling all Jews dogs. Let just be honest about it shall we?

A picture of Muhummad as a terrorist is not "calling all muslims
terrorists" -----Let's just be honest about it

Really? Are you being serious or cynical with that argument?

serious