16 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat it does is it confirms our perception of Bush as nothing more than a well heeled toady putting on another peerless performance of distracting the public's gaze from the machinations of real power.
Bush isn't democracy and he should count himself lucky that all he got was a shoe thrown at him.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by SiskinHe may be in his 60's, but he has the body of a 40 year old, due to his lack of work, caused by draft dodging, going AWOL as president pre/post 911, etc.
Indeed, you should be hitting the target from that range, but Iraq has no history of cricket or baseball (rounders on steroids) so perhaps he can be forgiven.
Though to be fair to W. he did duck and dive pretty impressively for a guy in his 60's.
Shame the shoe did not embed in his forehead, killing him instantly.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by Scheelso by attacking bush he is really attacking america. the same america that attacke iraq. go figure.
And by logical extension you would then claim that you only need to show respect for one politician in the world - the one you voted for at the last election ?
The point is that if you respect democracy as an institution you respect democratically elected leaders. Attacking them is attacking their voters and the concept of democracy.
It is easy to laugh o ...[text shortened]... laugh if he had been beaten or shot you should not laugh when witnessing an attack on democracy.
16 Dec 08
Originally posted by SeitseWhile I admit to getting a chuckle out of it, I can't help but notice the stark difference between Iraq now and Iraq under Saddam. The guy may have gotten some bones broken, but under Saddam if someone did that at one if his press conference, someone would have ended up in a grave and the guy would probably have had to watch his wife get raped.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7782422.stm
Do you agree that a chair would have been better than a shoe?
Debate!
16 Dec 08
1 edit
Originally posted by SeitseHow dare you sir!! You are so politically incorrect in this statement it is laughable. I'll have you know that without Ahmadinejad, the insurgent "freedom fighters" for Iraq might be altogether absent. It is he alone we have to thank for these efforts. In addition, Ahmadinejad is also responsible for the "freedom fighting" insurgents in Israel via Hamas. Why without him, no one would be fighting at all in the region. Is this what you want!!! 😠
I would laugh my ass off if someone would throw a shoe at Ahmadinejad.
Now I think you owe myself and Ahmadinejad an apology.
May peace be upon him.....just not to us. 😉
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by MerkYeah. The dictators in U.S. client states were in a class all of their own.
... under Saddam if someone did that at one if his press conference, someone would have ended up in a grave and the guy would probably have had to watch his wife get raped.
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by SeitseI agree! Bush is the worst President this country ever elected. The arab guy was right, Bush IS a dog! Oh well...only a few more weeks and we'll be rid of him. 😏
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7782422.stm
Do you agree that a chair would have been better than a shoe?
Debate!
17 Dec 08
2 edits
Originally posted by ale1552Well that's easy. If they are cowboy boots, he must be a red neck and therefore not sophisticated enough to understand the enlightened and progressive message of the Democrat party so he must be a Republican. If they are loafers, he must be lazy and therefore a Democrat because the rich owe him a living. If they are high heeled shoes, however, more information is needed. For example, if a man is wearing them he must be a democrat (for obvious reasons), but if it is a nice looking woman, she must be a Republican. After all, just look at Palin. Smooookin!!!
Now you've got my curiousity aroused. How did he ascertain a man's politics by the shoes he wore?
17 Dec 08
Originally posted by no1marauderWrong.
It was poor technique by the thrower; if you want to hit a mobile target, you have to aim where the target is likely to move to. Since it would be expected that Bush would duck, the thrower should have aimed for Bush's chest. It would also have helped if there had been less of a time delay between shoe #1 and shoe #2 thus limiting the target's response time.
Shoe one should be lobbed to draw attention upwards. While target is distracted the thrower can then aim and launch shoe two accurately.