Journalist throws shoes at Bush

[mickydaniels]

Originally Posted by Professor S

I recognize his rights to dislike Bush, and I recognize his argument as being a legitimate one, even if I disagree with it. What Im disagreeing with is the shoe tossing. Its his actions that are punishable, not his ideas or speech, and that was and is my point. The reporter simply could have stood up and screamed the same messages and gotten as much attention for his beliefs.

His show throwing destroyed his own argument and marginalized his opinion because he looks like a fool.

I don't know about that.
The shoe throwing is something that anybody all over the world can understand without any translation. And compared to other kinds of projectiles, is relatively harmless. Screaming out in Arabic limits his effective audience (would have been carried out anyway). So does using accented English that most people wouldn't understand.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by mickydaniels

I don't know about that.
The shoe throwing is something that anybody all over the world can understand without any translation. And compared to other kinds of projectiles, is relatively harmless. Screaming out in Arabic limits his effective audience (would have been carried out anyway). So does using accented English that most people wouldn't understand.

So if he had simply gotten up and started to angrily scream, his message wouldn't have been sent? The media wouldn't have covered it or translated his message? Really?

Throwing shoes is assault and is unacceptable under any circumstances, not to mention silly, regardless of the message intended. Something tells me that if some republican whack job had done the same to Obama, you'd be singing a different tune. And no, its not ok because it's Bush.

That said, I think it would be a big PR win if Bush pushed for this guy's release. It would show compassion and in the end shoe throwing is unacceptable but as mentioned, harmless barring some freak accident. The release would go a long way to show that Americans are understanding and magnanimous, a perception we have not cultivated in that region.

[Nighthawk]

you guys are missing the point...

Shoe
< dodge > ---- < AFK > Maliki
Knockdown

[Dylflon]

He should have thrown a pie.

[Angrist]

Normal pies are ok, but sometimes they make a puke/manure pie, that's just sick.

[Dylflon]

Well it would definitely have to be a banana cream pie.

[Professor S]

Having thrown a pie before, I can assure you that while it would have been far more affective and hard to punish (how do you jail a pie thrower?), it never would have made it. Simple physics of pie aerodynamics, and that banana cream has a large surface area and low density so it can be manipulated by cross-winds quite easily. It would have ended up on the back of the head of some poor Iraqi reporter, and if the poor son of a bitch was Suni we would have had a jihad on our hands.

Thats how a good pie goes bad...

[Dylflon]

He's in office for a few weeks yet.

There's still time!

[Fox 6]

Just ask one of our former PMs

so sorry Jean

[Seth]

I find it funny how this man has the so called freedom to express himself(stupidly...assault is a crime) without being cut up and given to his family in bags......and at the same time, Saddam would never have had the power or resources to perform such acts of cruelty and violence if it weren't for the military support given by none other than rumsfeld himself(1983)...those raghead iranians just needed to die. Think it over for a while. Freedom loving country enables mad dictator to persecute for decades, only to turn and fully denounce, pursue, and eventually sentence him to death(yeah whatever it was an 'iraqi court')........wtf prof s I think you're living in an american dreamworld.


just to note, American intelligence knew the atrocities undertaken by saddam, yet they still alligned militarily with iraq. is it a case of greys?

help me out here because I see some irony in this.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Seth

I find it funny how this man has the so called freedom to express himself(stupidly...assault is a crime) without being cut up and given to his family in bags......and at the same time, Saddam would never have had the power or resources to perform such acts of cruelty and violence if it weren't for the military support given by none other than rumsfeld himself(1983)...those ra******* iranians just needed to die. Think it over for a while. Freedom loving country enables mad dictator to persecute for decades, only to turn and fully denounce, pursue, and eventually sentence him to death(yeah whatever it was an 'iraqi court')........wtf prof s I think you're living in an american dreamworld.

1) Racist comments are NOT tolerated and its not to happen again.

2) Seth, you make the common mistake of looking at the past through the lens of the present. Iraq was not our biggest concern in the 80's, it was the USSR and Iran was buddy-buddy with them. Add to that Russia's push into Afghanistan, and Iraq was one of the only forces at the time that was thought able to prevent a consolidation of power in the Middle East which would have given Russia incredible resources (oil) for continued expansion.

Now does that make what happened right? No, but it makes it more complicated than you portray. America had a completely different foreign policy strategy at the time (enemy of my enemy is my friend) that empowered other dictatorships as well, and that is unlike what we have now even when Rumsfeld was with Bush. The Bush doctrine is not the Reagan doctrine when it comes to foreign policy. The situations are different and the decisions are different.

Administrations change, strategies change, and many times we have to deal deal with the mistakes of the past today, just as Obama is going to have to deal with the mistakes made in Afghanistan by the Bush administration.

You seem to live in a world where there are no mis-judgements or imperfect solutions; only golden truth and despicable deviousness. That is a hard and unforgiving way to look at the world that only breeds anger and paranoia.

[Seth]

Well, i thought the racist comment was in context, obviously not meant to be taken literally, merely a representation of how they were viewed by the reagan administration in terms of value of life. You're right though, it's offensive.
And, the US sold arms to both sides. Iran and Iraq, so I don't know where shades of gray fit in. By the time they signed the armistice over a million from both sides had died, and I wouldn't say that Bush Senior and the Reagan admin were far apart....i mean it's a general concession that Bush Senior ran the show as VP under Reagan. The guy was an actor for f's sake. Jimmy Carter started a move towards independence from foreign oil. Reagan effectively ended that movement and instead fueled the industrial war complex to keep oil money flowing.

[Bond]

Originally Posted by Seth

i mean it's a general concession that Bush Senior ran the show as VP under Reagan.

I don't think that's a general consensus, or true. Reagan's intelligence has been historically underrated. Take, for example, his 1964 speech in support of Barry Goldwater.

[Professor S]

Originally Posted by Seth

Well, i thought the racist comment was in context, obviously not meant to be taken literally, merely a representation of how they were viewed by the reagan administration in terms of value of life. You're right though, it's offensive.
And, the US sold arms to both sides. Iran and Iraq, so I don't know where shades of gray fit in. By the time they signed the armistice over a million from both sides had died, and I wouldn't say that Bush Senior and the Reagan admin were far apart....i mean it's a general concession that Bush Senior ran the show as VP under Reagan. The guy was an actor for f's sake. Jimmy Carter started a move towards independence from foreign oil. Reagan effectively ended that movement and instead fueled the industrial war complex to keep oil money flowing.

Your selective memory is astounding in your first sentence. Remember what was associated with the sale of weapons to Iran? The release of hostages? Remember that the weapons were initially sold to Iranians who were AGAINST THE AYATOLLAH??? Remember????? Once again the information you quote is missing important nuance and major facts.

The Iran-Contra affair was a political scandal which was revealed in November 1986 as a result of earlier events during the Reagan administration. It began as an operation to increase U.S.-Iranian relations, wherein Israel would ship weapons to a moderate, politically influential group of Iranians opposed to the Ayatollah Khomeini; the U.S. would reimburse Israel for those weapons and receive payment from Israel. The moderate Iranians agreed to do everything in their power to achieve the release of six U.S. hostages, who were being held by Hezbollah. The plan eventually deteriorated into an arms-for-hostages scheme, in which members of the executive branch sold weapons to Iran in exchange for the release of the American hostages

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran-Contra_Affair

The rest of your warrantless commentary isn't worth responding to on a serious level, IMO. You make groundless assumptions based on conspiracy theory fiction, as usual, and any statement that its "generally accepted" that Bush ran the Reagan whitehouse ignores any semblance of reality or knowledge of the conservative movement.

Correlation and absence of evidence to the contrary does not make evidence for your accusations. Until you can resource and quote some serious evidence for your claims, go crawl into a bunker, stockpile canned goods and arms and get ready for the New World Order to take over. I apologize for being so harsh but opinions like your are dangerous and if people are to read and believe they are true they damage themselves as conspiracy theories do more to crush ambition and create impotence than to reveal truth.

[Seth]

Bond, according to wiki Reagan had no idea about the arms for hostages 'scandal'. So really, administrative members were acting without the president's approval. The guilty parties involved were later pardoned by Bush sr. I'd also conjecture that the reagan of 1964 wasn't under the same influences as when in office. Don't misunderstand my comment as insuniating Reagan wasn't intelligent. Anyone with high political ideals can be manipulated. Dick Cheney, VP, holds tons of power...in the way that he's basically a lobbyist in an elected position. Given the vast amount of wealth of the bush family, their ties with oil, well I'd say that's power. Believe that the nice talking Reagan was free to make the best decisions for the american people instead of looking out for the status quo. Same thing with Obama, he's a beacon of hope. He's also the highest funded presidential candidate in history....which, hahaha, ensures that he'll be representing the working class american.
Hey, they used a portion of the profits from the arms sales in iran to give weapons to the nicaragua anticommunist militias...and they got cocaine in exchange. cocaine which they smuggled into america....the CIA did this. Sure, this all happened within the intelligence community without presidential administrative knowledge. suuuure. Believe that if it helps you sleep. Hey, they also destroyed evidence about the iran-contra affair...they probably just burnt the info that had no relevence with accountability towards the american people. Go ahead and call me a CT because I believe that money moves politics. sure, whatever. I'm not into canned food and weapons...and especially underground bunkers. You're just another fratboy so of course your opinions have a collective merit.
Prof, what do you mean about my selective memory in context with my first sentence? I was using a derogatory, racist term to emphasize the lack of empathy towards human life in the whole iraq/iran/communist/democratic shitfest. Maybe you weren't referring to this? The same Ayatollah you mention was loved by the iranians. We both know that Iraqis and Iranians don't know what's best for them though. I'm not saying I believe Ayatollah was right, or even a good man. The western implanted Shah before him modernized Iran through oil money. He was pushing for more women's rights and non-muslim equality. Hey, prof s, since you brought up the nwo, do you believe in the abolition of sovereign states? Should we all share the same constitution? Because that is what the political move is heading towards, straight from the mouth of a US president, and many more political leaders. Sure, it's a CT and of course, as you've mentioned before, keeping an open mind towards evidence is ambition crushing...whatever man.