Offensive or artsy?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=391684&in_page_id=1770

I guess I see the "crucifixion nuance" folks are complaining about here, but doesn't the flag itself have a certain "crucifixion nuance" to it?

Are you more offended by Rooney trying to pull a Caviezel, or that people are being so touchy?

 

that's a pretty fuckin' cool ad

 

I got no problem with it, but I'm also not religious.

A lot of people in the world don't have enough to worry about.

 

Artsy, but I can see how some (including myself) could have a problem with it.

 

Bigger problem for nike if this ad runs in the u.s.: Who the f*ck is going to recognize that is rooney?

 

Americans will wonder why Flea is doing a Nike ad?

 

What makes you think Nike will be putting this up in Times Square or anywhere else on this side of the pond?

 

That's why I said IF.

 

The problem here's almost entirely contextual. It doesn't mean much to us, but this is the paint job the boys likely wore on their way out of town in 1099 to go visit Saladin. Nice to be reminded the UK's got it's fair share of hair-trigger true believers, though, who see in every pose like this an affront to Jeebus and his glorious global franchise.

Imagine the same picture here next week with Brett Favre in Green 'n Gold. I gather the Lutherans would be in quite a lather.

 

Good ad. All these uptight people need to take the oversized acorns out of their butt and relax.

 

But he'd have a big G on his chest. The ad merely matches the flag.

 

From Wikipedia

Interesting.

It isn't Rooney's fault for being in the ad or having Nike sponsor him, poor poor Rooney.

Then you have the actual flag being a war symbol and then people complaining that it is seen as a war symbol. Color me shocked.