jump to last post 1-23 of 23 discussions (113 posts)

The Journalist who threw the shoes to Bush. Do you ap

  1. dentist83 profile image60
    dentist83posted 7 years ago

    The Journalist who threw the 2 shoes to Bush.  Do you approve his action.  Tell Why.

    1. Pr0metheus profile image59
      Pr0metheusposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No, just like I don't approve of the congress man yelling 'liar' at Obama.  It doesn't matter how much you like or dislike the president, he's still the commander in chief.  Treat him with respect or get the hell out.

      1. tksensei profile image61
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Get the hell out of where? The incident took place in Iraq.

        1. Pr0metheus profile image59
          Pr0metheusposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Congress meets in Iraq?  News to me.

          1. tksensei profile image61
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            ??? Come again?

      2. profile image0
        F. Kenneth Taylorposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I approve of the journalist's action, Bush deserved to get hit, I'm just mad the guy missed.  Pr0metheus, it doesn't matter if Bush was President/'Commander-In-Chief', that doesn't automatically grant him 'respect'.  Respect is EARNED - not given simply because of a title someone holds.  Bush did nothing respectable in 8yrs but be relieved of duty as President of the United States

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I agree with you, by that I mean I agree that Joe Wilson did the right thing by calling Obama a liar! He deserves no respect simply because he is the President!

      3. skylinerj34 profile image60
        skylinerj34posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sorry! I don't care who you are. If you're a criminal, you're a criminal. I'm just tired of the double standard in the way treat the poor or average Joe criminal and the rich or "prestigious" one.

    2. marinealways24 profile image60
      marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I think it's funny how the secret service got no coverage for failing. Bush would have been screwed if those shoe's had bombs in them.

      1. darkside profile image79
        darksideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I'd assume that scanning and sniffing procedures were in place. It's hard to detect a whiff of an impending throw though.

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          lol agreed

          Don't you think they should have reacted in between the first and second shoe?

          Remember, they have missed shoe bombs going onto airplanes. This is government workers we are talking about.

    3. profile image0
      sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      How would you feel if they did it to President Obama?

      1. egiv profile image76
        egivposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        If Obama invaded my country for made-up reasons, destroyed everything and called it a victory because now I could live a better life I would throw my shoe at him.

        1. profile image0
          sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Thats not what I asked.

          1. egiv profile image76
            egivposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Because your question takes for granted that the policies of Bush and Obama are comparable. I believe Bush's actions in this situation were wrong, and I believe that Obama's in this situation are not wrong. So given Obama's current actions, I would feel it unjustified to throw a shoe at him. In Bush's situation, while I would not personally do it or recommend it, I can sympathize more with the man who threw it than with the person it was thrown at.

        2. tksensei profile image61
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          What if he liberated your people from a ruthless, brutal dictator and gave you your first ever opportunity for real democracy?

          1. egiv profile image76
            egivposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            What if he killed your family and friends in the process?

            When are people going to learn that the USA is NOT THE WORLD POLICE. We did not invade Iraq for the sake of Iraqis, we did it for UNITED STATES INTERESTS.

            1. profile image0
              Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              So what? That doesn't mitigate the benefits that came to the Iraqis as a result.

              1. egiv profile image76
                egivposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                What benefits? Democracy? What does democracy matter when your friends and family are dead? It's easy to talk about life, death and war from your comfy computer chair.

                1. profile image0
                  Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Yeah, you're right. Why should I give a hoot that 40 million people are longer at the whim of a vicious dictator? Especially since I'm so "comfortable"

                  1. egiv profile image76
                    egivposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    And where is all this compassion for Africans in Sudan, Zimbabwe, Congo, etc?

                2. Valerie F profile image60
                  Valerie Fposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  You are assuming that the people posting here aren't willing to put their own lives on the line for their freedom and the freedom of others.

                  1. profile image0
                    Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    Exactly

                  2. profile image0
                    A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    you are also assuming that none of us have served in combat situations.

                3. tksensei profile image61
                  tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  Dictators count on thinking like that. Freedom requires a higher sort of human being.

                  1. egiv profile image76
                    egivposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    And who are YOU to decide who is a "higher sort of human being??" You just prove the stereotype of Americans who think they are better than the rest of the world. I never said I have something against democracy; I have something against invading countries for false reasons.

            2. tksensei profile image61
              tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Answer my question first.

    4. fishskinfreak2008 profile image32
      fishskinfreak2008posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Absolutely not. He's essentially DEMANDING Bush put his foot in his mouth. Also, THIS IS EXTREMELY UNCIVILIZED

    5. dutchman1951 profile image60
      dutchman1951posted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No I do not approve, especially for a trained Journalist, no. Write the facts as you find them. Like the sign says in the Student Newspaper office at Auburn University; "if your mama says she loves you...check it out!" In Other words verify the sources, ask your questions and keep the personal emotions out of it.

      Jon

    6. profile image0
      cosetteposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ooh tough question

      one side of me says 'hells yeah!' and the other side says 'no of course not no one should throw their shoe at an ex-President no matter how revolting'. i guess since it was probably a shoe thrown against America then, no.

      plus it was highly unprofessional of that so-called journalist.

    7. Make  Money profile image74
      Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      No I don't approve.  He missed.  A little high and to the left. lol

      1. profile image0
        sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Ditto.

        1. Make  Money profile image74
          Make Moneyposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Oh you don't approve because you think the journalist should have hit him too?  lol

          1. profile image0
            sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Yea, you know it.

    8. LiamBean profile image89
      LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Actually, I was impressed with Bush's ducking skills. A skill he might have acquired as a baseball team manager/owner.

    9. Lifes Joke profile image54
      Lifes Jokeposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      ....Lmao of course...

    10. T_Augustus profile image61
      T_Augustusposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      I am in no way a fan of George Bush, or his Republican cohorts, but I am an American first.  I do not approve his action because it was a blatant show of disrespect for our country and our president.

    11. Jackson Riddle profile image66
      Jackson Riddleposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      If it is worth going to jail for a year

  2. profile image0
    ralwusposted 7 years ago

    I approve of anyone with good aim. I aim to stay away from dentists.

  3. profile image0
    ralwusposted 7 years ago

    Maybe you're right, but at least it were better than throwing a backpack.

  4. Flightkeeper profile image79
    Flightkeeperposted 7 years ago

    Did you see those shoes? They had no style whatsoever. I would have ducked too.  No way would I have let those ugly shoes brush my person.

  5. profile image0
    ralwusposted 7 years ago

    Yeah me too. Funny how all  Presidents are most artful at that.

  6. darkside profile image79
    darksideposted 7 years ago

    They should have given the guy a Nobel Peace Prize.

    1. tksensei profile image61
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      They 'should have' given the guy what they probably did give him after he was dragged out of there - a viscious beating.

      1. darkside profile image79
        darksideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Did he hit Bush with the shoes or did he miss?

        1. marinealways24 profile image60
          marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Not sure, but I think Bush dodged them.

          1. rebekahELLE profile image91
            rebekahELLEposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Bush dodged him , he was quick.

        2. tksensei profile image61
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          He missed. Good thing for him that he did.

          1. darkside profile image79
            darksideposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            A vicious beating for a miss, what would he have got for a non-lethal shoe to the face?

            1. tksensei profile image61
              tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Hopefully, the beating plus 20 years. At least.

      2. marinealways24 profile image60
        marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Bush is the anti-christ.

        1. profile image0
          A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          Now you're a believer?

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            lol You believe everything you read marine?

        2. tksensei profile image61
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          And people here keep complaining about Obama being criticized...

          1. marinealways24 profile image60
            marinealways24posted 7 years ago in reply to this

            He is the second anti-christ.

            1. profile image0
              A Texanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Ah...Jesus oops

      3. Uninvited Writer profile image81
        Uninvited Writerposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I'm sure he got a few of those while he was spending the year or so in prison.

        1. tksensei profile image61
          tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I sure hope so.

      4. LiamBean profile image89
        LiamBeanposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Funny you should say that. Muntadar al-Zaidi said that's exactly what happened to him.

        Throw a shoe and miss and get the s&^% beaten out of you. Hey, maybe they beat him for missing. Just a thought. big_smile

  7. Valerie F profile image60
    Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

    That the shoe-thrower, his family, and his neighborhood weren't all killed in reprisal is a testimony to the fact that we did something right in Iraq.

    Imagine what would have happened to him if he'd directed such an insulting gesture to Saddam Hussein.

    1. egiv profile image76
      egivposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      And all we needed to do was kill 655,000 people. We are so much better! Go USA!

      ps. Can you guess who sold chemical weapons to Saddam in the 80's to use against Iran?

    2. profile image60
      C.J. Wrightposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Ok....Best answer so far.

  8. emdi profile image72
    emdiposted 7 years ago

    It proves two personalities.

    Shoe thrower - Not an expert thrower. Did not have skils to hit the target. Needs more training. Good luck next time.

    Bush - Expert ducker. Focused and alert against imminent dangers. Has great future.

  9. Valerie F profile image60
    Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

    We also don't have our troops use civilian populations as human shields.

    1. egiv profile image76
      egivposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You are trying to take the moral high ground where it simply is not there. If you argue that Iraq was in the United States' long-term interests, you might have something, but you are saying that we are morally better than them. Does 655,000 people mean anything? That's over 102,000 DOCUMENTED CIVILIAN DEATHS. Note that 3,500 died in 9/11. How can you possibly argue that we are morally better than "them"?

      1. tksensei profile image61
        tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        Who is "them"?

        1. egiv profile image76
          egivposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          An undefined generalization of Iraqis, differentiated only by the fact that they are not "us." (i.e. "we" don't use human shields)

          1. tksensei profile image61
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            I don't think the reference was to Iraqis but to terrorists. We were never out to make war against the Iraqi civilian population.

            1. egiv profile image76
              egivposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You have perfected the art of taking a quote out of context to change the subject.

      2. Valerie F profile image60
        Valerie Fposted 7 years ago in reply to this

        I can argue because our general rules in wartime are better. We're not the ones intentionally hiding among civilians. Do you think the insurgents in Iraq or Afghanistan care about civilian deaths besides using them as an excuse to bash the US? If they did, they'd come out and fight like real men instead of deliberately hiding out where the battle is likely to rack up the most civilian casualties.

        How about those civilian casualties during WW2?

        1. egiv profile image76
          egivposted 7 years ago in reply to this

          I agree that hiding among civilians is immoral and it is not right that terrorist groups do it. Our soldiers were thrown into a ridiculous situation; they should not have been there. The war was unjustified, so the deaths are our fault. Who is worse, al-Qaeda for doing these horrible things, or us for being there and killing everyone when we should not be there?

          The British said the same thing -- "come out and fight like real men" -- to Americans in the revolutionary war. WWII doesn't have anything to do with it because it was a just cause.

          1. profile image0
            Madame Xposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            Your analogy is inaccurate. No one was hiding behind civilians in the American Revolution, nor behind women and children - or wearing burqas to escape fire.

            1. egiv profile image76
              egivposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              Point taken. Dinner's ready, I'm out. My argument is just that we have no right to claim the moral high ground based on Iraq; it's just not accurate.

            2. Friendlyword profile image60
              Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              You were there? Regardless of what you think about warfare, the first rule is to survive to fight another day. Are you saying our soldiers should stand still and  throw rocks at an approching tank?  There's a real man for ya!

              1. tksensei profile image61
                tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                By hiding behind groups of children? Shooting out from Mosques and hospitals and schools? That part of your first rule?

                1. Friendlyword profile image60
                  Friendlywordposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                  As horrifying as it is. It is a rule of war. Not my rule. And of course hiding behind children is beyond punk action. It's just crazy to think somebody is gonna make it easy for you to kill them.

                  1. tksensei profile image61
                    tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                    No, that's cowardly terrorism.

          2. Valerie F profile image60
            Valerie Fposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            You are acting as if the war in Afghanistan was completely unprovoked. I suppose you think we should have never gotten involved in WW2, and the attack on Pearl Harbor as well as an attempted invasion should have gone completely unanswered.

            I regret that the US was the first to use atomic weapons. I hope it won't happen again. But it's the US's business to protect US citizens first and foremost. It's not the US' fault if another country fails to do the same for their citizens.

            1. egiv profile image76
              egivposted 7 years ago in reply to this

              We're talking about Iraq. The shoe-thrower was not from Afghanistan.

              1. Valerie F profile image60
                Valerie Fposted 7 years ago in reply to this

                As for Iraq, the conflict there began after Saddam Hussein had spent 12 years thumbing his nose at the UN weapons inspectors. If he really had no WMD's- other than what he dumped on the Kurds- he made no effort to prove it.

          3. tksensei profile image61
            tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

            How nice that we have YOU to tell us what is 'a just cause' and what is not. Since you don't find democracy all that important I guess you'd like to see an enlightened dictator control the world and do everyone's thinking for them.

  10. kirstenblog profile image78
    kirstenblogposted 7 years ago

    Not sure if I approve or disapprove but I found it funny as heck! I guess I would say I would rather people angry at american policy throw their shoes at the pres. then commit an act of terrorism.

  11. Valerie F profile image60
    Valerie Fposted 7 years ago

    To some people, it makes no difference if we're talking about Bush or Obama. One American is just as bad as another.

    Of course I don't approve of shoe-throwing, but it's easier and far safer to dodge shoes than RPG's.

  12. habee profile image91
    habeeposted 7 years ago

    I don't approve of the show-throwing, but I don't think the perpetrator should have received harsh punishment. No harm, no foul.

    Heck, I was just impressed with W's reflexes!

    I've seen plenty of politicians I wanted to lob missiles at!

  13. Francis911 profile image59
    Francis911posted 7 years ago

    No.
    We must respect one another.

  14. aware profile image70
    awareposted 7 years ago

    no . attacks on my president are direct attempts to topple my nation in my view. like him or not i wont have it.on a side note did anyone see that a Saudi offered   a million dollars for the shoe? how crazy is that.

  15. dentist83 profile image60
    dentist83posted 7 years ago

    Someone knows which were the last numbers of <new Iraqis orphans/ per hours> of Bush government during war?  Don't you think those orphan deserve to throw at least a shoe to the face of the president bush?

  16. profile image0
    sneakorocksolidposted 7 years ago

    You don't make sense and you don't have an arguement.

  17. Make  Money profile image74
    Make Moneyposted 7 years ago

    Well we finally agree on something sneak.  How about that. smile

  18. rae1001 profile image60
    rae1001posted 7 years ago

    Yes, I approve. Bush deserved it.

  19. akeejaho profile image61
    akeejahoposted 7 years ago

    Well, since throwing a shoe is considered an insult, I have a whole box of old ones in the closet earmarked for Good Will, but now I wonder if a shoe bombing in Texas is in order. 

    Mr. Bush would you care to step out on the deck a moment?

    1. tksensei profile image61
      tksenseiposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      You might end up worse off than the Iraqi guy did.

  20. akeejaho profile image61
    akeejahoposted 7 years ago

    True, perhaps just a shoe drop?

  21. tksensei profile image61
    tksenseiposted 7 years ago

    How about just supporting and voting for candidates you agree with and organizing with like minded citizens to advocate for positions you feel are important?

  22. profile image0
    Go Writerposted 7 years ago

    I thought journalists were supposed to be objective.

    He's fired.

  23. Lisa HW profile image83
    Lisa HWposted 7 years ago

    We're still talking about that pea-brain?  His behavior was bizarre, offensive, and worthy of prosecution -  no matter which President or leader of any other nation was involved.  What an infantile and moronic way to "show disapproval".

    1. Sara Tonyn profile image60
      Sara Tonynposted 7 years ago in reply to this

      Shoe-throwing is a customary way of showing disapproval in Iraq though.

      Here in America, we use bullets.

      Who's worse?

 
working