I must admit to getting a little stiff watching that as well...

/Not hard enough to fap to, anyway I'm a leg man, not a foot man.

that's because its true Art. Life is short, Art(throwing a shoe at bush) is Long.

oh go cry me a river Larry, farking loser.

The shoe-thrower thought Bush would welcome the shoe as a liberator

It was just funny.

priestrape: The shoe-thrower thought Bush would welcome the shoe as a liberator

I just figured the dude didn't have any flowers or candy to throw.

BUT! The fact he threw his shoe and didn't die is PROOF that bush was right! The shoe throwing means victory!!!

/am I doing this right?

Who throws a shoe?!?

because it's farking hilarious.

apeiron242: Who throws a shoe?!?

a guy without a grenade...

It's funny that Leftists can loathe a person to such a degree they cheer on what is essentially assault.

Also, from the article:

"The violence-hating al-Zeidi, according to reports, displays a picture of the "revolutionary" Che Guevara on his wall."

Well, he is qualified to work for the Obama administration.

The media has been slinging mud at Bush for 8 years, to little effect. This man threw a shoe and got an instant reaction. Hence, their sense of awe at this event. Not so much "giddy" as "why didn't we think of this first?"

/don't get any ideas...

It's amazing that Bush can take 40 minutes to slur out a single sentence, but he ducked that shoe like he had f*cking Spidey-Sense.

Swampthing in Korea: It's funny that Leftists can loathe a person to such a degree they cheer on what is essentially assault.


Oh fark off, you humorless partisan twat

As much as I hate Bush with an everlasting passion, I'll take the naked lesbians, thank you very much.

burndtdan: because it's farking hilarious.

No, it's an assault against a political leader.

It should never be condoned or cheered, regardless of the person who occupies the office.

Swampthing in Korea: burndtdan: because it's farking hilarious.

No, it's an assault against a political leader.

It should never be condoned or cheered, regardless of the person who occupies the office.

Bush is where the bucks stops on responsibility for alot of deaths and unrest in Iraq and show throwing is what the apologists see as egregious, you people are f*cking sick in the head.

Interesting you said "Political leader" instead of just leader or "our president" or something else.

Even more interesting that you sound more upset about who the assualt was against more than the assualt itself.

You had me at two naked lesbians wrestling in baby oil.

log_jammin: Interesting you said "Political leader" instead of just leader or "our president" or something else.

Even more interesting that you sound more upset about who the assualt was against more than the assualt itself.

I'm upset that he wore shoes and not steel-toed boots

Headso: e bucks stops on responsibility for alot of deaths and unrest in Iraq

Compared to Hussein, he's a saint.

Swampthing in Korea: burndtdan: because it's farking hilarious.

No, it's an assault against a political leader.

It should never be condoned or cheered, regardless of the person who occupies the office.

He's only the President. He's not nobility or royalty, or descended directly from Jesus. I guarantee, yon misguided saboteur was throwing the shoe at the man, and not the office.

Pro Zack: Headso: e bucks stops on responsibility for alot of deaths and unrest in Iraq

Compared to Hussein, he's a saint.

cool!

Tenebreux

It does not matter, there is no justification for throwing or otherwise assaulting a person, regardless of your feelings towards him.

If the President had been Carter, Clinton or Hussein Obama I would still hold to that belief.

I was promised video of lesbian oil wrestling...

/Filing a complaint.

Swampthing in Korea: Tenebreux

It does not matter, there is no justification for throwing or otherwise assaulting a person, regardless of your feelings towards him.

If the President had been Carter, Clinton or Hussein Obama I would still hold to that belief.

You can though, understand why he was compelled to do such a thing? The President usually does have a kind of smirking arrogance about him, and for someone having to live in that kind of hell, this would be maddening in the extreme to have to witness. A mitigating factor perhaps is the action was more to shame than injure the President (contrast with the slapping of shoes in the fallen statue of Saddam Hussein), rather than a half-assed Assassination attempt.

Headso: Swampthing in Korea: burndtdan: because it's farking hilarious.

No, it's an assault against a political leader.

It should never be condoned or cheered, regardless of the person who occupies the office.

Bush is where the bucks stops on responsibility for alot of deaths and unrest in Iraq and show throwing is what the apologists see as egregious, you people are f*cking sick in the head.

Damn, and here I was thinking the responsibility was with the insurgents who actually kill, kidnap and detonate bombs.

Thanks for enlightening me that insurgents are purely mindless automatons reacting to outside stimuli/

So while al-Zeidi remains in custody, he faces no feet-first visit to the wood chipper.

... however, he has been beaten and tortured, and been treated for broken ribs, a broken leg, and eye injuries. So, perhaps contrasting his wonderful treatment with what he hypothetically would have received had he thrown his shoes at Saddam isn't the best argument.

/"Well, sure, we broke all of his fingers, but we didn't castrate him yet!"

Swampthing in Korea: Damn, and here I was thinking the responsibility was with the insurgents who actually kill, kidnap and detonate bombs.

Ah, the old "I didn't punch him, he ran into my fist" argument. The insurgents hold the entire reponsibility for deaths, including their own deaths and including deaths prior to them forming an insurgency 'cause of our preemptive strike doctrine. I find it amusing that the party who whines about personal responsibility is so eager to duck acquiring any.

My only complaint about it is that he didn't land a bulls-eye on Bush's forehead...

What the hell are we doing over there if we can't teach these people how to throw a shoe properly?

Naked lesbians or throwing shoes at Bush? Personally, I watch both, alternating.

Swampthing in Korea: It's funny that Leftistshumans can loathe a person to such a degree they cheer on what is essentially assault.

Fixed. And stop apologizing for the asshat.

Swampthing in Korea: Damn, and here I was thinking the responsibility was with the insurgents who actually kill, kidnap and detonate bombs.

who holds responsibility for all the "collateral damage" you tard?

Tenebreux: Swampthing in Korea: Tenebreux

It does not matter, there is no justification for throwing or otherwise assaulting a person, regardless of your feelings towards him.

If the President had been Carter, Clinton or Hussein Obama I would still hold to that belief.

You can though, understand why he was compelled to do such a thing? The President usually does have a kind of smirking arrogance about him, and for someone having to live in that kind of hell, this would be maddening in the extreme to have to witness. A mitigating factor perhaps is the action was more to shame than injure the President (contrast with the slapping of shoes in the fallen statue of Saddam Hussein), rather than a half-assed Assassination attempt.

It can NEVER be condoned dude.

I happen to loathe Jane Fonda with a vengeance, but I would not support assaulting or attempting in injure her.

As I said in a previous thread, he should be throwing shoes as the true killers of Iraqi insurgents, like the Baathist holdouts.

So how come we've got to choose?

As I said in a previous thread, he should be throwing shoes as the true killers of Iraqi insurgents, like the Baathist holdouts.

The true killers of Iraqi insurgents would be US troops, Iraqi troops and police forces, and occasionally their own ineptitude when IEDs go off early. Or are you trying to make some "No True Scotsman" argument that really, when you think about it, aren't they really their own true killers? And frankly, that's just needless philosophical navel-gazing.

Alphax: Swampthing in Korea: It's funny that Leftistshumans can loathe a person to such a degree they cheer on what is essentially assault.

Fixed. And stop apologizing for the asshat.

Yes, because introducing alternative views is bad.

Headso

Insurgents who detonate IEDS in the vicinity of civilians, or knowingly use civilians or their structures as shields.

Libs are showing how classy and adult they are with those little video games too.

Swampthing in Korea: Tenebreux: Swampthing in Korea: Tenebreux

It does not matter, there is no justification for throwing or otherwise assaulting a person, regardless of your feelings towards him.

If the President had been Carter, Clinton or Hussein Obama I would still hold to that belief.

You can though, understand why he was compelled to do such a thing? The President usually does have a kind of smirking arrogance about him, and for someone having to live in that kind of hell, this would be maddening in the extreme to have to witness. A mitigating factor perhaps is the action was more to shame than injure the President (contrast with the slapping of shoes in the fallen statue of Saddam Hussein), rather than a half-assed Assassination attempt.

It can NEVER be condoned dude.

I happen to loathe Jane Fonda with a vengeance, but I would not support assaulting or attempting in injure her.

As I said in a previous thread, he should be throwing shoes as the true killers of Iraqi insurgents, like the Baathist holdouts.

But was it not armed intervention against a hated head of state (albeit on a slightly larger scale) that engendered America to begin with? If all the other founding fathers save one had gathered around the one and said "Disrespect of King George is wrong. Much as we may disapprove of his government and person, armed violence is never justified", would you still feel the same way? It may be that this one guy might have done the shoe throw heard around the world, from his example (and how he's been treated), governments all over the middle east are overturned in a huge revolution. So my complaint with your line of reason is, you don't like it when it's your guy getting shoed and shooed, but every 4th of July, you have little problem celebrating something very similar being done to another guy.

Vonster: Libs are showing how classy and adult they are with those little video games too.

Farky'd for a year in the future when you're laughing about the latest "Dunk President Obama" flash game.

Swampthing in Korea: Yes, because introducing alternative views is bad.

You're pushing an alternate reality. I don't like liars.

Swampthing in Korea: Insurgents who detonate IEDS in the vicinity of civilians, or knowingly use civilians or their structures as shields.

Not only insurgents kill civilians, many American bombs have fallen on the wrong house, now riddle me this, whose responsibility does that fall on? Or is your contention that Americans have never killed a civilian in Iraq?

Swampthing in Korea: Tenebreux: Swampthing in Korea: Tenebreux

It does not matter, there is no justification for throwing or otherwise assaulting a person, regardless of your feelings towards him.

If the President had been Carter, Clinton or Hussein Obama I would still hold to that belief.

You can though, understand why he was compelled to do such a thing? The President usually does have a kind of smirking arrogance about him, and for someone having to live in that kind of hell, this would be maddening in the extreme to have to witness. A mitigating factor perhaps is the action was more to shame than injure the President (contrast with the slapping of shoes in the fallen statue of Saddam Hussein), rather than a half-assed Assassination attempt.

It can NEVER be condoned dude.

I happen to loathe Jane Fonda with a vengeance, but I would not support assaulting or attempting in injure her.

As I said in a previous thread, he should be throwing shoes as the true killers of Iraqi insurgents, like the Baathist holdouts.

One of the last apologists. You are pathetic and have no credibility.

Tenebreux: It may be that this one guy might have done the shoe throw heard around the world


Some day, tourists will visit the grave marker of Captoe Attacks?

Headso: Swampthing in Korea: Insurgents who detonate IEDS in the vicinity of civilians, or knowingly use civilians or their structures as shields.

Not only insurgents kill civilians, many American bombs have fallen on the wrong house, now riddle me this, whose responsibility does that fall on? Or is your contention that Americans have never killed a civilian in Iraq?

I did not say that. Merely that when collateral damage happens it is accident, rather then stemming for callous indifference or a desire to inflict fear. And the casualties from Collateral damage pale compared to that resulting from terrorist violence

CynicalLA: Swampthing in Korea: Tenebreux: Swampthing in Korea: Tenebreux

It does not matter, there is no justification for throwing or otherwise assaulting a person, regardless of your feelings towards him.

If the President had been Carter, Clinton or Hussein Obama I would still hold to that belief.

You can though, understand why he was compelled to do such a thing? The President usually does have a kind of smirking arrogance about him, and for someone having to live in that kind of hell, this would be maddening in the extreme to have to witness. A mitigating factor perhaps is the action was more to shame than injure the President (contrast with the slapping of shoes in the fallen statue of Saddam Hussein), rather than a half-assed Assassination attempt.

It can NEVER be condoned dude.

I happen to loathe Jane Fonda with a vengeance, but I would not support assaulting or attempting in injure her.

As I said in a previous thread, he should be throwing shoes as the true killers of Iraqi insurgents, like the Baathist holdouts.

One of the last apologists. You are pathetic and have no credibility.

Ah, a personal attack. The debating techniques of the left are clear to see.

Alphax: Swampthing in Korea: Yes, because introducing alternative views is bad.

You're pushing an alternate reality. I don't like liars.

No, you don't like people who disagree with your established perception.

Don't worry, "conservatives". If you pause the video right before the shoe you can just fap to Bush and pretend the whole terrible thing never happened.

Or you could find some pictures of flag draped coffins and rub one out over that.

Theaetetus: Tenebreux: It may be that this one guy might have done the shoe throw heard around the world


Some day, tourists will visit the grave marker of Captoe Attacks?

The Boston Massacre was the precursor to "Death by Cop", "Death by Redcoat". I dare you to throw snowballs at a Policeman nowadays, see how fast things can escalate.

Swampthing in Korea: No, you don't like people who disagree with your established perception.

No, you are consistently lying. I've wasted enough time on you.

/ignore

Tenebreux: Swampthing in Korea: Tenebreux: Swampthing in Korea: Tenebreux

It does not matter, there is no justification for throwing or otherwise assaulting a person, regardless of your feelings towards him.

If the President had been Carter, Clinton or Hussein Obama I would still hold to that belief.

You can though, understand why he was compelled to do such a thing? The President usually does have a kind of smirking arrogance about him, and for someone having to live in that kind of hell, this would be maddening in the extreme to have to witness. A mitigating factor perhaps is the action was more to shame than injure the President (contrast with the slapping of shoes in the fallen statue of Saddam Hussein), rather than a half-assed Assassination attempt.

It can NEVER be condoned dude.

I happen to loathe Jane Fonda with a vengeance, but I would not support assaulting or attempting in injure her.

As I said in a previous thread, he should be throwing shoes as the true killers of Iraqi insurgents, like the Baathist holdouts.

But was it not armed intervention against a hated head of state (albeit on a slightly larger scale) that engendered America to begin with? If all the other founding fathers save one had gathered around the one and said "Disrespect of King George is wrong. Much as we may disapprove of his government and person, armed violence is never justified", would you still feel the same way? It may be that this one guy might have done the shoe throw heard around the world, from his example (and how he's been treated), governments all over the middle east are overturned in a huge revolution. So my complaint with your line of reason is, you don't like it when it's your guy getting shoed and shooed, but every 4th of July, you have little problem celebrating something very similar being done to another guy.

There is a distinction from engaging in declared conflict against another power that results in war, to assaulting an individual.

There is not comparison.