Posted on 11/02/2008 12:12:26 AM PDT by birdfree
Naw...it’s more like the Goatse.cx image. It’s a metaphor to what Obama is going to do to us.
Thanks for posting the graphic. I don’t really see it either (which is good, I guess).
Hubby thought Obama’s “O” reminded him of the old ecology “e”. I didn’t really see that either.
Dugg!
Did zombietime nail it?
bump!
Obama’s gravitation to Ayers and sharing the views is unmistakable. Theirs was not a passing association, but sameness of the world view. Linking their logos is a stretch I don’t care about. Using O for Obama is natural and needs no justification.
Not directing this at you, but just using an opportunity:
I am very much against all superficial attacks on Obama (middle name, citizenship, who was his “real” father, etc). I see them as distraction welcomed by his smarter supporters who get a good reason to discredit his opponents. (Only one “conspiracy” that could have serious implications is that his first book was co-written or at least heavily edited by Ayers). The real issue is that he has no accomplishments, and when he does have a record - it is a record of hard Left alliances and voting (when he was actually voting). Another real issue is his supporters creating (with his tacit approval) Obama’s personality cult, and mainstream media failing to pose hard questions and serve as a watchdog as they used to claim is the main reason for their existence: to tell the truth to the power and keep politicians feet to the fire - and I support that mission 100% when applied to ALL politicians.
Another real issue is Obamaniacs’ distortion of the race relationships in America - a claim, seriously made, that Obama’s loss can be explained ONLY by racism is horrible, and actually worsens race relationships. Another real issue is that Obama managed to move away from his previous stances without having flip-flop charge sticking to him. A real issue is that people are going to vote for him on what they THINK, or better HOPE, he is going to do, not what he did, and they fill in that blank state with their own hopes, often contradictory and not supported by his record. A real issue is that his judgement (on that few occasions when he had to be definitive) is lacking. I can go on and on (socialism, naivete in foreign affairs, alliance with anti-Americans and anti-Semites, never challenging Chicago political machine, playing hardball politics while claiming to be a new type of pure soul politician, etc, etc). There are more than enough real issues, IMHO.
Obama’s logo resembles a toilet bowl
bttt
I asked for your opinion, and you were nice enough to take the time to offer me one, FRiend. Thank you for your candor. My response will be in a seperate post to ‘all’.
To all:
I think this logo match is compelling. He’s friends with Ayers. You are being overly cautious, IMHO. His logo is clearly based on a terrorist logo. I’m no lawyer, but I think my claim could stand up in court.
The concept of ‘superficial attacks’ has hurt this campaign. That view seems to have won in how this campaign has been run. I recall Reagan once glibly joking about Jerry Brown liking the notorious med flies so much that he bred them. Let’s see how close this election is. Obama left himself wide open.
People deserve to see points and make up their own minds. Sheperding them by withholding information is dangerous, the same as covering over terror threats to keep the stock market rolling while keeping voters uninformed about what kind of leader America really needs.
To all:
The reference to the ‘O’ that Tolik mentioned has nothing to do with this thread. The matching logos are clearly more than just an ‘O’, but rather rainbow/horsehoe patterns, both with loops, rising over similar fields.
The remark of the plain ‘O’ was a symbolic question in another thread:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/2122424/posts
I think that an ‘O’ being much the same as the notorious Rings of Death is an ominous symbol which any friend of Ayers deserves. That’s why I posed it as a question:
Is the ‘O’ a tribute to Ayers’ Ring of Death? Obama’s logo is almost identical to the Weather Underground logo. They are joined at the hip. Do the Rings link it all together? I think so. After all, Ayers was moved to weeping when handed his ‘precious’, his ring. Bill Ayers, just the kind of man to babysit Obama’s children.
That symbolism was only presented symbolicly to point out that no friend of Ayers should do anything to remind people of rings. Cobble that with the matching logos, and it’s haunting.
But as I said, that criticism would have been better placed in my own vanity thread, not here.
And while I’m at it, the flag on the ground to be walked on matches with Ayers’ recent stunt of walking on the American flag. No friend of Ayers should even hint at having a flag on the ground.
Those are good points. Our opposition to Obama has to stay mainstream and broadly focused. Obama does not represent the majority of Americans when it comes to values and broader issues, he is merely tapping into suburban anger (at least here in VA), some white guilt, and the usual cadre of moochers who have probably grown under Bush.
If it was planned that way, was it planned as a simple act of solidarity with the WU, or was it planned to divide and marginalize the opposition? Will the average Joe be able to see the resemblance for themselves or will they just read about stories in the MSM about the whacky right wing?
“If it was planned that way, was it planned as a simple act of solidarity with the WU, or was it planned to divide and marginalize the opposition?”
More to the point — do they or do they not look oddly similar? Why jump to ‘why’ so quickly?
I think the logo was a friendly suggestion of Ayers. I mean, it appears that Obama even has Ayers ghost write for him. [Even congressman Cannon is asking that question now.] I think Ayers made the logo for him, and Obama went along and might not even have known or cared.
“Will the average Joe be able to see the resemblance for themselves or will they just read about stories in the MSM about the whacky right wing?”
A variety of reactions. Look at Kentucky: over half of republicans and one fourth of democrats are unsure if Obama is Christian. That might sound ‘kooky’, but a heck of a lot of people are curious. I don’t think that most republicans of an entire state are kooks, do you?
Yellow dogs will always try to think of us as kooky, and so will RINOs. If we sneeze, they call it ‘kooky’. If you want kooky: “9-11 was an inside job.”
Maybe we sound kooky to talk about Kennedy and Chapaquidick, or to talk about Vince Foster, or Waco. Some conservatives always will be curious. I think conservatives get browbeat. Over the years, they ‘dig in’, not wanting to sound kooky about new shockers when they’ve been zinged so much about the earlier ones.
Good point, we are damned if we do, damned if we don't (according to the media). The best thing is to keep putting out facts but prioritize and contextualize them. Although in that case the media will just rip the juicy stuff out of context...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.