Ladies and gentlemen, the President of the United States. I didn't think we'd be marking the fifth anniversary of 9/11 with a flippant caption contest, but the Decider has put his foot down, dammit!Remember, if you don't mock him, then the terrorists have already won.
16 comments:
Well, since I don't see a copy of the Constitution around here...
"Oh George, the rug is nice, but I still think Miss Beasley woud have looked fabulous as a handbag..."
"George, this isn't the supermarket. Stepping on the mat won't make the doors open."
...and nobody better try and burn this here doo doo mat.
"Don't tread on what now?"
Visually capturing this putz literally standing on the flag and the 9/11 tragedy sums it all up.
'Nuff said.
Nicely played, Norb. I'm pretty sure Cheney is the Stone of Shame.
"Wow, you sure can sweep a lot of stuff under this here rug!"
I'm with Furious.
No caption necessary.
Mr. F's right. What were they thinking, putting that mat there to be stepped on by anyone?
That said, and hoping I don't draw everyone's wrath, if the mat wasn't there, this would be an excellent, somewhat unusual photo of a president and first lady.
Sideshow Bob's is excellent.
I want to know: Are those things actually for sale? Who buys those doormats? Doorknobs? And lastly, is this some insidious ploy to engender my support for a flag-desecration amendment? If so, it's sort of working.
s.w.a.-
No wrath from me. Since a good part of my job is looking at and selecting photography, I can also appreciate a nicely composed or interesting shot. I'll give it to this White House, they've often done a bang-up job in THAT department (remember all the halos?).
But after your comment, I went back to take a closer look, and something about this photo is wacky.
What's the original source, OM?
Mr. F, I see two things that probably trigger your impression something's wrong.
First, it looks to have been taken with a very wide angle lens, maybe 24mm or even 21mm focal length on a 35mm camera. That makes his foot and leg in the foreground look a bit large for the rest of him.
Secondly, the two figures, especially their faces, are bluish because the limited available light over them is of a cool color temperature, while the incandescent light on the bricks is extremely warm.
Both these things lend an ethereal quality to the image, IMO.
Mr. F, I see two things that probably trigger your impression something's wrong.
First, it looks to have been taken with a very wide angle lens, maybe 24mm or even 21mm focal length on a 35mm camera. That makes his foot and leg in the foreground look a bit large for the rest of him.
Secondly, the two figures, especially their faces, are bluish because the limited available light over them is of a cool color temperature, while the incandescent light on the bricks is extremely warm.
Both these things lend an ethereal quality to the image, IMO.
How did I do that? Anyway, sorry. Please feel free to delete one of the dupes.
Nah, a comment that nice we'll post it twice.
Found it over at Dependable Renegade, as always, but I've seen it everywhere.
Post a Comment