The guy that threw the shoe at President Bush is facing up to two years in prison for, get this, "insulting a foreign leader." Not attempted assault. Not even for disrupting a public meeting. But for the Crime of Insult.
That's progress?
Edit: To see some pretty funny animated GIFs of the shoe throwing event, go here. That didn't take long.
.jpg)
12.16.2008
Random Political Thought
The guy that threw the shoe at President Bush is facing up to two years in prison for, get this, "insulting a foreign leader." Not attempted assault. Not even for disrupting a public meeting. But for the Crime of Insult.
That's progress?
Edit: To see some pretty funny animated GIFs of the shoe throwing event, go here. That didn't take long.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
42 comments:
MF ought to be dead!
Those "thick as shit" Iraq's will pin a medal on his chest kiss his feet and claim him as the new leader for this act!
I assure you he will have a big part in the future IRAQ.This is and always will be their mentality.Nothing we do will change their simple little minds.
I lived there I know this as a fact.
Damn lucky he was not shot...
Do you have any idea what would have happened to him when Barak Hussein.....uh Saddam Husein was in charge?
So yes, that's progress.
Beheading or
Two years in prison.
Guess it depends on your definition of progress.
But that question does confuse me a little....isn't it the liberal view to assess the lesser punishment? Why would you question 2 years in prison when 5 years ago he would have got a bullet in the head.
1:21, beautiful cognitive dissonance. "Uh, we're better than that guy!"
He is braver than any American. He did what nobody else could do for the last eight years.
If you dug up and dropped S.H. dead body in the streets they would ralley round the decomposed body dancing and wailing and prasing his return.All the while beliving he had been deliver'd back to the people of Iraq by devine power ALLAH to lead the Iraq people to victory!
None would ever think that his remains had been DUMPED out of a passing plane! Thick as SHIT the entire clan! I can assure you they would build a Mosque where his remains fell in HIS HONOR! and all would worship there! BELIVE IT!!!
1:28,
Did you just say that the guy who threw a shoe is "braver than any American"?
My advice to you would be to always post anonymously.
128 - ummm...I don't think you understand what "cognitive dissonance" means. It means to hold two contradictory ideas simultaneously. 121's point was that when Saddam Hussein was in charge, the reporter -- if he had the courage to express discontent at all -- would have been much more severely treated than he will be now.
Agree or disagree with that notion, it's not an example of "cognitive dissonance."
Next time just stick with comparing Bush to Hitler. You know, something you understand.
1:28 has to be Katie Couric or Phil Donahue. That would be something one of them would say.
1:21
Be damn proud our fearless gatekeeper, Mr Barry won't out your ass after a comment like that. And yeah, you need to stay anonymous. Email Barry privately, he can get ahold of me privately, and I will be happy to stick a shoe up your ass. Then you can call it a beautiful whatever.
Why would I be afraid of any of you keyboard warriors? I'm not anonymous anymore, but the two that makes threats of violence (progress!) post anonymously. Irony, which is something else wordkyle won't get.
I'll be happy to give my address out to anybody who emails me.
Irony? Oh, no, no...where I come from people ski topless while smoking dope, so irony's not really a high priority. We haven't had any irony here since about '83, when I was the only practitioner of it. And I stopped because I was tired of being stared at.
I just wish the first shoe had been filled with monkey poop and the second one with sheep shiate. Then, even if neither shoe made the desired target, Bush would have been drenched in feces - he deserves it.
I never did and still do not have any respect for that moron, even when he was our Governor. Good riddance.
The World Cheers and you folks from Wise County STILL DONT GET IT.
They are not clapping for us but against us! Please let me guess. A billion people world over are wrong and a bunch of dumb ass hicks from Wise County know everything.
Well, Nova...whatever. I checked your blog. You are the type who would rather we not fight the terrorists. Would you be surprised to know that the Washington Post editorial staff printed an editorial article today calling for the bombing of Il's camps and railways in North Korea because of their imminent threat, their nuclear threat, and their human rights violations. Sound familiar? Sounds like precursers to Iraq. And it sounds like one of the more liberal editorial staffs in the nation calling for it. I bet you don't have the stomach for that, either. Shall we appoint you to head the committee to meet with our imminent international threats to try to address their insane and unreasonable grievances with our country and people? Did you know that the President Bush that you hate has given more tax money to charitable causes than any other President in history? Did you know that he asked Congress on numerous occasions to stop the bad loans being made by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, but the liberal congress, spearheaded by Pelosi and Frank, did nothing? If you want to hate anyone, hate the Pelosi, Reid, Obama triumvirate. Government will become bigger and more corrupt than ever. Blogojevich is just a harbinger of the things to come under the "rule" of King Barack. But at least no one will be in the way of any and all acts of terror by the muslim extremists. You woosie hippies better join the real world. We are in danger. Iran may have nukes or they may not, but they talk like they do: raghead talk tough, raghead face consequences. Would you stand in front of a police officer and act like you had a gun and expect not to get shot? If so, you are a fool. You need to stop being oblivious to what is going on around us. Our government is getting bigger, and our enemies are licking their chops because the guardian is leaving office and the nutless pacifists are coming in.
7:31 Blah ... Blah ... Blah ....ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ.
The Sky is falling ..The Sky is falling said chicken little ;)
Noe - Your fixation on feces would fascinate Freud.
724 - There are just under 7 billion people on the planet. Your numbers would indicate your POV is in the minority. (P.S. When has the job of President of the United States ever been a popularity contest?)
Wordbile I think any election would be considered a popularity contest? Or does the guy they hate the most win? Except that stolen election from Florida by Bush.
So you think the world is wrong too? Or they really love us and it is all a liberal farse to fool you and these other dumb asses on Barry's blog?
1034 - First, it's "farce."
I chose my words carefully. I didn't say the election of the President, I said the job of the President. Should every decision be made based on how popular it is? That's not leadership.
Let's look at your logic. Under Clinton, I presume you believe that we were "loved." That attitude led to 9/11. Under Bush, regardless of how the world thinks of us, we have not been attacked by Islamic terrorists for seven years -- a miracle, if you apply the standards of 2001.
Meanwhile, these beloved countries have been attacked: India, Spain, England, Algeria, Lebanon, Yemen, Thailand, Pakistan, Mauritania, Sri Lanka, Somalia -- well, you get the idea.
Also, in every official count and recount done in Florida 2000, Bush had the most votes. But don't let the facts get in your way.
You were saying something about dumb asses?
THere you go again wordie - playing loose with the facts.
The recounts in Florida were halted and never completed by neutral policy.
9/11 happened on Bush's watch - you may have an opinion that it was because of something the Clinton administration did, but that is not an a fact. There are others who do not blame the Clinton administration, others that blame both the Clinton & Bush administrations, and others that blame the terrorists' success on luck and mistakes made by people in key positions. You absolutely cannont blame 9/11 on Clinton and act like that is a widely accepted opinion any where other than FOX news.
I am not going to hint that you are a dumb ass, because I don't think you are. I think you are a smart guy with an agenda and a viewpoint that in my opinion is just wrong.
But I will give you credit as to being tricky and deceptive to others, including yourself.
619 - Okay, simple. Name a single official count or recount that Bush did not win. And, as it turns out, the recounts that Gore wanted but the Supreme Court denied? Bush had more votes in them too. Your argument seems to be that recounts should have gone on until you got the result you wanted.
If you ignore the fact that the Florida Supreme Court changed the rules for recounts after the election that the Florida Legislature -- who has the sole Constitutional authority to determine how electors are chosen -- put in place years before the election, then other lapses in logic are to be expected. I've addressed this dead nag in depth here.
Regarding 9/11, it appears that you are arguing that America was beloved up until January 2001 and that, in the eight months following Bush's inauguration (and due to his influence) 1) we became hated; 2) Islamic terrorists came up with a plot to blow up buildings by flying planes into them; 3) they got the necessary training and information to do so; and 4) Bush should have known all about it and prevented it. Is that what you're saying? This ignores, of course, Osama bin Laden's known (during the Clinton administration) crimes and aspirations to commit terrorist attacks, and Clinton's refusal to take bin Laden when he had the opportunity.
Between that scenario and my assertion that in the eight years of his administration, Clinton's attempts to be loved by the world led to the conditions that caused 9/11, I believe mine has a bit more credibility.
Is that what you call tricky?
Barry:
Should read, "The guy who...."
Not "The guy that..."
"the guy who" thru the shoe will have a job in the new IRAQ regime.He is eqivilant to a super hero in the eyes of ALL middle Eastern men and young boys. Almost 5 thousand dead American military men and countless billions of dollars all of this has been un- done with an act as simple as throwing a shoe! Belive it!!!
Wordy, 1. The Florida recount was flawed as a complete statewide recount was required. Gore was requesting only a partial recount. IF the statewide recount required by the state constitution had be requested and completed, who knows what would have happened on 9/11. I just suggest a different president would have been in charge.
2. You conveniently ignore the fact the Clinton was aware that bin Laden was a threat. Clinton had a program designed to catch/kill him for years. He launched hundreds of Tomahawk missiles at a camp bin Laden was supposed to be at (missed him obviously). It was Clinton's security advisor who tried to get Bush's team to take bin Laden seriously - and they just didn't get around to it till after 9/11.
So go ahead and repeat the popular myths - but many have seen through them by now.
1136 - 1. The Florida system was in place before the election. Flawed or not, that was the law. The Florida Supreme Court changed the system after the election, violating their own constitution. Gore understandably wanted a convoluted partial recount that would give him the victory. To repeat: Bush won the initial count and every official recount done afterward.
2. Clinton was indeed aware that bin Laden was a threat, yet he failed to take him when Sudan offered him up.
I think we can agree that America was hated before Bush took office, which was my earlier point.
(And shall we mention Clinton's Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick, who strengthened the bureaucratic "wall" that prevented criminal investigators and counterintelligence agencies from cooperating with each other before 9/11?)
During the time that the hatred was brewing and terrorists were plotting 9/11, Clinton was trying to become loved by the world. He succeeded in winning that popularity contest, at the cost of the attacks. What happened during his eight years in office created the conditions that led to 9/11. They did not happen as a result of Bush's eight months in office before September 11, 2001.
Wordbyle: While you seem more interested in what Freud would say about my fixation on feces in regards to George W. Bush, I would be much more interested in knowing what Mr. Freud might say about Mr. Bush. My guess?
Hmmmmm........it might be similar to what Dr. Justin Frank noted in his book,
"Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President":
- the scion of a powerful family that failed to nurture its first-born son even as it instilled within him a
sense of omnipotence
- an individual in the grip of anxieties that require a monumental effort to manage
- an untreated alcoholic supported by a nation of enablers
- a rigid thinker with a perilously simplistic worldview
and
- a megalomaniacal leader driven to invent adversaries so he can destroy them.
And to Anon 7:31PM, I challenge you to re-read the poem "The White Man's Burden" by Rudyard Kipling. I must wonder if your feeble mind can even begin to comprehend it's relevance to the dire Bush legacy we are now struggling with. I doubt it.
Noev - The American Psychological Association has an ethics standard which forbids doctors from offering a psychiatric opinion on a public figure unless the psychiatrist has personally treated the official and has authorization to break patient-doctor confidentiality. It is banned not only because it is not scientific, but also because it might cause the entire field of psychoanalysis to be held in disrepute. This rule, not so coincidentally, is called the "Goldwater rule" named after another Republican who was subjected to such an attack.
Dr. Frank is an avid partisan Democrat. His opinions on Bush are not unbiased. Between that and his violation of the APA ethics code, his "analysis" should be taken with large doses of salt. As one president of the APA put it: "Psychobabble reported by the media undermines psychiatry as science."
I agree with 10:17. This shoe thrower guy is now a national hero. If he chose to run, he could be elected by any of the Iraqi warring ethnic groups.
As for wordy, he's just funny.
Hey 10:17 shoe thrower is gaining support by the hour. I think you might actually be right about those people!
Here somthing I was wondering? this plan to put Americans back to work by the re-building of our HWY's and Bridges road ways etc Obama's plann... I dont remeber the last time I actually saw anyone other than a MEXICAN working HWY construction do yo? How many illegals do you think worked the HWY 380 project bettwen Decatur and B-port? Never saw a Deportation buss paked on the side of the road? I dont know but I dont think that Obama has spent anytime in TEXAS? Just sayin
Well, its been a whole day and I haven't received a single e-mail. You two blowhards chickened out. Just like your idol Bush, you're all hat, no cattle.
"2. Clinton was indeed aware that bin Laden was a threat, yet he failed to take him when Sudan offered him up."
A Hannity make-up. You should get info from other sources besides NewsMax. What other complete false things you proclaim to be true flows from that wordy mouth?
Yes, wordie, that's exactly what I call tricky!
But like 3:34 said (even though it's unintentional) you're funny.
But no one could ever accuse you of being inconsistent. You are totally, rigidly consistent.
Have a nice day.
1211 - Hear it from Clinton himself. (Click on the link on that page to hear the recording.) You can also hear Hillary say "we had a very different mindset about how to handle these problems." QED
747 - You must live an interesting life. Bush won all the official counts and recounts. That's a fact. The Florida Supreme Court extended the due date for final recounts, in violation of Florida state law. That's a fact. I don't understand how citing those facts can be considered tricky. Have as nice a day as you're capable of.
wordy point straight to the link. Tried, could not find it. Your link would not even open in a full window. I really want to hear Newsmax being truthful.
---------------------
This is just as good as yours:
----------------
On June 21, FOX News Channel co-host Sean Hannity repeated the false claim that former President Bill Clinton refused an offer from Sudan to turn over Osama bin Laden to the United States in 1996, even though the 9-11 Commission found no "reliable evidence to support" the claim that Sudan made such an offer. This false claim originated in a 2002 article by the right-wing news site NewsMax.com that distorted a 2002 statement by Clinton. Lanny J. Davis, former White House special counsel to Clinton, pointed out that Hannity was lying, but Hannity persisted.
In fact Wordmouth, here is the link. Why would your link that did not work be better than this link?
http://mediamatters.org/items/200406220008
Newsmax - the dittohead sheep news source.
---------
excerpt by Joe Conason with regard to the newsworthyness of "Newsmax" which might should just be called "Maximum News Distortion To Please Conservatives" who will believe anything.
---------Many of the familiar figures and institutions that should be permanently discredited by their roles in
the Clinton drama have emerged again to smear Obama. Newsmax, the big right-wing Web site
founded by Richard Mellon Scaife, sugar daddy of the Arkansas Project, dispatches daily news alerts
with blaring headlines: "Obama Birth Certificate Battle Not Over" and "Obama, Blagojevich Tied to
Same 'Godfather.'" Rush Limbaugh, who has never stopped hinting that the Clintons murdered
Vince Foster, no matter how many investigations concluded that Foster's death was a tragic suicide,
now wonders how Obama could be unaware of "all this stuff swirling around him."
Such are the "questions" darkening the great forensic brains of the right. "Did Barack Obama's transition
team know this was going on? Heck, did Barack Obama himself know this was going on?" demands radio
talker Neal Boortz. And asking a question is tantamount to winning a conviction, or at least an indictment,
according to the perverse norms of discourse established during the last Democratic administration
-- or what my friend and coauthor Gene Lyons calls 'the Clinton rules.'
Well, kids, I opened the link with no problem. There seems to be a little "user error" involved.
For those of you who are not link-impaired, click the link in the second paragraph on that page that says "Click here." (Right after the sentence that says "You can listen to the tape yourself.")
Pertinent passage from Clinton: "At the time, 1996, he [bin Laden] had committed no crime against America, so I did not bring him here because we had no basis on which to hold him."
Except that in February, 1995, bin Laden was listed as an un-indicted co-conspirator in the '93 WTC bombing.
What part of this would you like to dispute?
What about the link that disputes your claims? Don't care if you could open you link fine, just reported what happened when I clicked on it. User problem?
Just keep sucking on your pipe. After all, you are a real good sucker. You just suck now......
639 - Not surprisingly, you are having problems opening a working link that connects to a recording of Clinton verifying my point.
Clinton saying I did not bring him here because... indicates that 1) bin Laden was available to be had, and 2) Clinton chose not to take him. How else do you interpret his own statement?
The argument made by Media Matters is that Sudan did not officially "offer" to deliver bin Laden to the US. That's a legalistic parsing of words that resembles Clinton's attempt to argue what "is" is. Sudan let the Clinton administration know that bin Laden was available to be had and Clinton chose not to take him.
Some of you will never take any evidence of this, regardless of how precise and accurate it is. ( A recording? In his own words??) This information is for everyone else.
Know why you are sucker of Newsmax.
------
The FBI did not believe we had enough evidence to indict bin Laden at that time, and therefore opposed bringing him to the United States," said Samuel R. "Sandy" Berger, who was deputy national security adviser then.
Three Clinton officials said they hoped -- one described it as "a fantasy" -- that Saudi King Fahd would accept bin Laden and order his swift beheading, as he had done for four conspirators after a June 1995 bombing in Riyadh. But Berger and Steven Simon, then director for counterterrorism on the National Security Council (NSC) staff, said the White House considered it valuable in itself to force bin Laden out of Sudan, thus tearing him away from his extensive network of businesses, investments and training camps.
"I really cared about one thing, and that was getting him out of Sudan," Simon said. "One can understand why the Saudis didn't want him -- he was a hot potato -- and, frankly, I would have been shocked at the time if the Saudis took him. My calculation was, 'It's going to take him a while to reconstitute, and that screws him up and buys time.' "
Post a Comment