Obama supporters just keep getting better!!!

Would you equally say there was no meaning to be found in removing the stars and replacing them with a hammer and sickle while leaving everything else the same archer? How about the symbol for anarchy? Anonymous?

For whatever reasons it would seem that replacing the elements of the flag is just fine so long as one agrees with what they are replaced with and a comparison drawn which illustrates the issue some have is attempted to be dismissed as tilting at windmills. Why is that?

Soulshiner wrote:

JSG wrote: You like that phrase "fundamental transformation" a lot, don't you? I think you're reading too much into the flag.

Personally, I think there are more important things to discuss -- issues that actually affect me.

Just google the phrase and you'll see where PS got it. It's a parroting talking point. There is no proof to PS's claims, just a desperate hope that if PS repeats something enough, everyone will start believing it's true.

GWB signs an actual flag in violation of the US Flag Code, but we aren't hearing a peep about that. Just shows that this is about a hatred of President Obama and nothing else.

You are right, there are way more important things to discuss.

I've Googled his rhetoric enough to know its more of the "sovereign citizen" garbage that he spews (and I ignore) on a regular basis. Must be the new phrase of the week.

As you pointed out, no American flag was taken and altered and it does not fall under laws or rules for desecration. Just another empty outrage-of-the-day. Never let a chance to play the victim go to waste.

LJ would know about "playing the victim", if anyone would!

Jonathan Hemlock wrote: LJ would know about "playing the victim", if anyone would!

Feel better now... :pop

Where PS got it was from the lips of Obama in Missouri just prior to the last general election. "We are 5 days away from fundamentally transforming the United States of America." That is a direct quote by the way, not a paraphrasing of what was said. The flag that was flying below the union flag that day is an alteration of the flag of this union. That is an accurate and fair description of that flag. Whether or not you subscribe to there being a message within that alteration, to pretend that is it anything but an alteration of the flag which stands for this union is completely transparent insincerity which defies any attempt to be believed.

RenegadeCJ wrote: Are you in favor of politicians putting their face on a flag?

No, I am not.
But that is not the case here. It was somebody else that put his face on that piece of fabric. I believe they were within their rights to do so. Do you think a politician should contact the person that put their face there and tell them to not do that. Do you think they have that right?

Photo-fish wrote:

RenegadeCJ wrote: Are you in favor of politicians putting their face on a flag?

No, I am not.
But that is not the case here. It was somebody else that put his face on that piece of fabric. I believe they were within their rights to do so. Do you think a politician should contact the person that put their face there and tell them to not do that. Do you think they have that right?

"Do you think a politician should contact the person that put their face there and tell them to not do that"... Obama's lawyers think so...

Jan. 30 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama’s popularity makes him a marketer’s dream. Now, the honeymoon may be over for those trying to profit from his appeal.

White House lawyers want to control the use of the president’s image, recognizing the worldwide fascination about Obama’s election, First Amendment free-speech rights and easy access to videos and photos on the Web.

“Our lawyers are working on developing a policy that will protect the presidential image while being careful not to squelch the overwhelming enthusiasm that the public has for the president,” White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki said.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... 4JojiQVy4c

Evidently there is some concern by at least one politician.

Yes Pecan!
Yes Pecan!
Yes Pecan!

PrintSmith wrote: Would you equally say there was no meaning to be found in removing the stars and replacing them with a hammer and sickle while leaving everything else the same archer? How about the symbol for anarchy? Anonymous?

What are you talking about PS......I didn't say anything about that issue........go back and read my posts again

For whatever reasons it would seem that replacing the elements of the flag is just fine so long as one agrees with what they are replaced with and a comparison drawn which illustrates the issue some have is attempted to be dismissed as tilting at windmills. Why is that?

Who is fine with replacing elements of the flag PS? not me, not anyone who has posted here from either side. You bring up all these what if scenarios, then ask if I, or someone else, is OK with that......what the hell kind of argument is that? Stick to what was actually done and state your opinion......but don't try to make this into something it isn't then try and paint the liberals here as being ok with something that never happened. You get more dishonest in your posts everyday.

Photo-fish wrote: Yes Pecan!
Yes Pecan!
Yes Pecan!

Sorry... you asked... I delivered.