OMG is it true. nine striped flag behind bush. A return to constitutional rule?

I've filed my complaint, and forwarded the entire U2U exchange. It is in your hands now. I have nothing further to say about it. My comment was self explanatory. Read the U2Us.

edit for content

[edit on 11-7-2005 by Icarus Rising]

TC has an opinion on the matter that doesn't affect his job- LET'S LYNCH HIM!
Oops, sorry, mob mentality.

Back to the topic (assuming that it won't make anybody say bad things about my mom)
I have a question for TC.
Assuming just for a minute that Bush is a "maritime flag guy", belonging to or bending to the powers which have seen fit to place admiralty flags in our courts, couldn't there potentially be some intentional meaning to the fact that the executive, speaking as the commander in chief on a military base, would display a judicial flag?
The strange presentation of the flag is what gets me the most though. Why the unorthodox display, which according to my understanding of flag ettiquite is improper and disrespectful even (perhaps especially) if those are decorations rather than real flags?
Taken together, doesn't there seem to be at least a slim chance that he was conveying something to somebody in a completely secure and plausibly deniable manner?

Communication in this manner isn't entirely unheard of. What's the big theory on how Bin Laden might communicate to his operatives without opening himself up to betrayal somewhere in his lines of communication? Hide meaninful symbols in a video and let the global media distribute it for him.
So why couldn't Bush do exactly the same thing to communicate matters that absolutely must never be overheard, recorded, documented, or in any way made public in an irrefutable way? Would you get on a phone that your intelligence aparatus says is secure and talk to your cohorts about something that could get you all killed and destroy your plan, trusting 100% that every man in your intelligence service can be trusted at such stakes?

This should serve as a clear reminder to everyone... DON'T EAT PAINT CHIPS!!!

Now, all kidding aside. How many people here honestly believe that Bush's backdrop was a signal, and that Constitutional Rule is imminent?

Obviously I'm here so I'm interested in conspiracy theories, as a whole. But I think this one is really pushing the envelope. In order to plan and execute such a fundamental change, it's going to take incredible planning and extensive involvement by MANY people. Even if Constitutional Law is around the corner I can't see Bush using a backdrop, ala-Osama bin Laden tapes, to send a signal to "begin." If he's doing this as a secure way of communicating to his co-conspirators, and with the intent of covering his tracks, then how did they plan this grand conspiracy to begin with? How have they executed all the steps needed up to this point? Through Bush's previous backdrops? Come on now. What I'm trying to get at is that if it was safe enough to discuss and plan the conspiracy through traditional lines of communication, which it must have been, then wouldn't they use those same means of communication to launch the effort? It's 12:30am here but I hope I'm making sense! lol

well, i believe there is a crew of people that shows up before every presidential thingy, just to make sure that etiquette and protocols are observed. the symbolism of the flag is penultimately important, as thomas has pointed out. it's 'not cool' to get it wrong. remember the soldiers who pulled down saddam's statue? they had their flag patches on worng, according to some. upside down and backwards or something. it supposedly means a hostile takeover of the american government has occurred?
now, the happy faces we see everywhere now, since the seventies, are representations of sol invictus. this is cleary new world order symbolism, as 'the sun is our god' is the religion that will be forced down everyone's brain in the new world order agenda.

9 in numerology is completion.

yay. the NWO's complete! (cheering, celebration and whatnot)

Originally posted by billybob
the symbolism of the flag is penultimately important, as thomas has pointed out. it's 'not cool' to get it wrong.

yay. the NWO's complete! (cheering, celebration and whatnot)

... and then, from the school of malapropisms:

Did you actually mean that:

A. the flag is of paramount importance

OR

B. in a list of important things, the flag is the second last thing that gets looked at?


What's he building in there? We have a right to know.

Have any of you Great Constitutional Scholars ever heard of the word "bunting"?

If not, do you think you could stop bleating about gold-fringe admiralty sons of liberty rubbish and look it up?

There are no flage behind the President. It is bunting.

If the picture is authentic, the President is standing in front of a graphic. Maybe even a video graphic given the quality of the colors and whatnot and if that is true, then it is just a sanpshot in time of a longer display. Whatever it is, it's meaningless when it comes to policy.

Originally posted by Nygdan
The strips aren't vertical. The flag is simple being hung in a strange way.

The flag is not actually displayed in strange way. Regard:



www.ushistory.org...

Originally posted by Rasputin13
This should serve as a clear reminder to everyone... DON'T EAT PAINT CHIPS!!!

Is that what those were? They looked like corn chips. They did put me on the toilet for quite a while though, so maybe you're right.

Now, all kidding aside. How many people here honestly believe that Bush's backdrop was a signal, and that Constitutional Rule is imminent?

Of course I don't believe that. I believe that the backdrop was a signal and that what is imminent is a crushing blow against whatever slim danger of a return to the constitution may exist.

In order to plan and execute such a fundamental change, it's going to take incredible planning and extensive involvement by MANY people. Even if Constitutional Law is around the corner I can't see Bush using a backdrop, ala-Osama bin Laden tapes, to send a signal to "begin."

My take on the symbol is pretty simple. Bush uses it to scream loud and clear to those who understand "I'm losing too much control". Whoever got the message then ordered the bombing of the subways in London to obscure the American face of the war on terror and take some of the pressure off of Bush. It reminds me a bit of a Bin Laden video that came out some time ago where he was dressed in white and gold, as only analyst pointed out, looking very much like a diplomat. I think that was a similiar cry from his side, "Take the pressure off, you're ruining things over here."

If he's doing this as a secure way of communicating to his co-conspirators, and with the intent of covering his tracks, then how did they plan this grand conspiracy to begin with?

Our world is generally not run by people who just woke up one day, ran for office, and won. There are powerful families that send their children to prestigious schools where they can join influential organizations. There is ample opportunity to learn the language while you are not in public life, and even if somebody spilled the beans on that language, nobody would believe it because it's so vague.

Later these people are in power. You flash a sign that says help, and somebody else unilaterally cooks up a plan to help you, gives a false reason for it, executes it through his nation or organization's covert capabilities, and it's done.
Think about military hand signals. Everyone knows the signs before you go into action. Everyone knows what to do in a given situation. You don't have to spell everything out to everyone in the squad when the stuff hits the fan, you just give the appropriate signal or command and everyone does what the situation requires.

Everything is already in place. Less risky more intricate deceptions have put in place everything that is needed. The war on terror- somewhat transparent and often betrayed by leaks, but not damning to the true objective because they didn't get together and say "ok we're gonna start a war on terror to bring about one world government" or anything like that. They covered their motives with lesser crimes like seeking strategic or economic advantages at the expense of others.

So hypothetically, if Tony Blair has a problem related to the real agenda, which he can't safely communicate by standard methods without the risk of giving away too much information (for example, purely hypothetical in every sense, if public support for his secert masters in the British Monarchy is running way to thin, and he needs something stir sympathy and support) All he has to do is display a sign of some kind in the language of symbolism. No discussion of the motives of the plot is necessary. Somebody can come to his aid by staging an attempt on the Queen's life under wholly unrelated reasons. If it comes out, you've still got a huge scandal of incredible proportions, but not one that reveals the fact that the Prime Minister is subservient to the Queen and endangers the master plan.

What I'm suggesting is a very basic symbolic language used to convey the most basic but supremely secret of ideas, upon which less sensitive and more detailed planning and action can be based.

Grady has pointed out precisely which rules I believe were broken.

The flag was not displayed flat- it was folded with several stripes obsured (or, for the sake of argument, perhaps a partial likeness of the flag was displayed- if those aren't real flags), and they were used as draping/tapestry. This was inappropriate- if full flags could not be properly (flatly) displayed, then bunting of blue white and red should have been used, not flags or partial representations of flags.


Edit to add for Off_the_street:

I thought THIS was bunting. Isn't the whole point that it is not in any way an accurate representation of the flag and thus can be employed in ways that would be disrespectful to an actual flag?


[edit on 12-7-2005 by The Vagabond]

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar

Originally posted by billybob
the symbolism of the flag is penultimately important, as thomas has pointed out. it's 'not cool' to get it wrong.

yay. the NWO's complete! (cheering, celebration and whatnot)

... and then, from the school of malapropisms:

Did you actually mean that:

A. the flag is of paramount importance

OR

B. in a list of important things, the flag is the second last thing that gets looked at?


What's he building in there? We have a right to know.

nice. love ya, man.
i would rather fit the conclusion to the assumption, now, and say, "A".
but, because when i opened my dictionary for self improvement, the first thing i saw was 'obelisk', with a picture of the washington monument, and a caption under the picture that states the height, of 555 ft, 5.5 inches, i will say "B".

irregardless, it's literally a metaphor.

Dramatis Personae

In a flame war, everyone gets burned.

To my fellow members who have singed hair and smoldering clothes, I pray you can resolve your personal differences in a reasonable manner.

Sometimes, being nice really is more important than being right -- a lesson that I, as a recovering flamelord, could stand to remember myself when I am tempted to steer a topic away from the subject and toward a fellow member.

I'm not saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", I'm saying we shouldn't be throwing them in the first place.

Pulling The Flag Over One's Own Eyes

As for the topic, well, I've been seeing this sort of thing for years in one form or another. This seems to be a variation on the “admiralty flag” theme and so forth.

If people want to believe this stuff, they can, but in my opinion, those who do are wasting time fixating on trivia while the world is stolen out from under their feet.

My advice: stay alert, choose your battles and keep your powder dry.




P.S. In fairness to warthog911, I do feel it necessary to agree that the Master Chief does indeed pwn Halo.

Thank you, Vagabond, for pointing out so succinctly how there is ample evidence for the case that there could have been a purposeful message behind the unusual and incorrect display of the flag at Bush's speech. I made a poor attempt at it, and only succeeded in temporarily derailing the thread. When rational discussion ends, darkness begins.

These are difficult times we live in, with so much at stake for all of us. Nobody wants to see this great nation descend into civil strife the way this thread descended into petty bickering and name calling tonight. I apologize to the entire board for my part in it. I won't let it happen again.

Right now, there is only one way to display the flag in my opinion. Perpetually at half mast and like this;



As to the "SONS OF LIBERTY", I have your Fathers of the Sons right here.

PTS -Sons of Liberty-

Try reading the material, it is from those should not have died in vain, as well as are rolling in their graves believed. It is USA, when it was original and un screwed up.

Maybe only Constitutionalists will understand, or care to try at least.

Let it be known, those who knew, tried.

Truth, against the world.

[edit on 12-7-2005 by ADVISOR]

[edit on 12-7-2005 by Thomas Crowne]

Originally posted by Majic
I'm not saying "let he who is without sin cast the first stone", I'm saying we shouldn't be throwing them in the first place.

but, then you said.....

Originally posted by Majic
My advice: stay alert, choose your battles and keep your powder dry.

hmmmm. self contradiction. i sense a conspiracy! let's move this thread to ATS. haha!

Well, these last few posts have been very informative.

1. Majic, I had no idea you had recovered Just razzin' ya.

2. I had no idea it was within my power to be succinct. (I view my last post as an extention to my already extremely long-winded series of posts on the matter).

3. I just found out how tall the Washington monument is. Now if only I knew what that means.

So now, if I could just get Advisor's link to work and figure out what he's talking about, I'd be far more knowledgeable than I was when I woke up this morning.

I fixed the link, lol I put the search address in there instead of the actual thread address. LMAO

It is good to go now.

The Sons of Liberty

In Boston in early summer of 1765 a group of shopkeepers and artisans who called themselves The Loyal Nine, began preparing for agitation against the Stamp Act. As that group grew, it came to be known as the Sons of Liberty.

Thank you, ADVISOR, for getting me back to the heart of the matter. What great reading, at any time, in any age, never more relevant than right now.

Vagabond, sorry to take so long getting back to you; I had to get some sleep so I could finish the Dennis Mess Cleanup. That way, there'll be less to pick up after Emily!

Here's why I seriously doubt that Bush is sending a message that the Constituional government is going to bve restored and that Shrub is sending a message: It'd be less uncertain to simply commit suicide instead of have "them" suicide you!
If Shrub intended to do that, it'd be best that he simply recind martial rule, get rid of thr Federal Reserve and put us back on the right track again in a very public manner. Otherwise, don't you suspect that the Powers that control us now will surely kill him to preserve their power and control?