I dont think he likes W too much

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Why do you keep avoiding the self reflection?

You're doing it for me.

I do NOT equate throwing a shoe with ordering the bombing of a city. You have done in this thread.

What city did we carpet bomb?

Here is a tidbit for ya. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/

Not only does that have nothing to do with orders to carpet bomb a city, but it records every civilian death regardless of who is to blame.

Policeman killed by roadside bomb
One by roadside bomb
Man killed by bomb strapped to bike

Those are just 3 in the first ten I read. Were you just chiming in or do you seriously think all of those are America's fault?

Not all but a whole fuckin lot. We started this shit so who's to blame?

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Nipple Boy
A-19820

Holy fucking shit! [Marv Albert voice] YES!!! [/Marv Albert voice]

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Not all but a whole fuckin lot. We started this shit so who's to blame?

Cause nobody ever died in Iraq before we got there? I think the kurds would disagree.

I still don't deny civilian deaths exist and are tragic. I'm just fucking tired of hearing the constant over statement of horrible things America has done. We didn't order the carpet bombing of a city, we didn't kill hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children, and we damn sure didn't cause all (and I would venture to say not even most) of the deaths on that site you posted. You'd rather blame us than the idiot strapping a bomb to his bike. If you think Iraq was all peace and love before we got there then pull the blanket back over your eyes and take a nap.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[billvon 2,991]

>We didn't order the carpet bombing of a city . . .

Yes, we have. Google Dresden.

>we didn't kill hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children . . .

Yes, we have. Google Hiroshima.

>and we damn sure didn't cause all (and I would venture to say not even
>most) of the deaths on that site you posted.

We didn't kill all those people. By most estimates we killed about a third of them; the war we started killed the rest.

>You'd rather blame us than the idiot strapping a bomb to his bike.

And you think that if someone else kills someone it's ok if we kill someone too. I disagree. We are wrong when we kill civilians for political reasons. The idiot on the bike is wrong for killing people for his reasons. One does not excuse the other.

>If you think Iraq was all peace and love before we got there then pull the
>blanket back over your eyes and take a nap.

That's like burning someone's house down and then making the excuse "hey, not my fault; there were other arsons in that neighborhood before I got there!" You are not responsible for what other arsonists do. You are, however, responsible for what YOU do.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Yes, we have. Google Dresden. Yes, we have. Google Hiroshima.

I didn't realize Dresden and Hiroshima were in Iraq. My geography must suck. I'll pass along your concern for ending WWII.


I said nothing about excusing a person's actions. I have a problem with claims that Americans are responsible for people who suicide bomb a market place like that website insinuates.

Quote

the war we started killed the rest.

And there's my problem. "The war we started" didn't kill them. The stupid fuck with the chest bomb did. Some civilians were unintentionally killed by coalition troops. Many more were intentionally killed by our enemy. I'm not justifying one because of the other. I'm saying you blame the US for all of those deaths. I blame the people who killed them.

Quote

That's like burning someone's house down and then making the excuse "hey, not my fault; there were other arsons in that neighborhood before I got there!" You are not responsible for what other arsonists do. You are, however, responsible for what YOU do

It's not even close to that. It's more like we put out several fires but a few houses are still burning. The houses that are still burning are not our fault. There are less houses burning now than there were before. The problem I have is people calling the firefighter an arsonist.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[SpeedRacer 1]

question for everyone:

How long will it be before someone comes out with a web video game where you try to hit Bush with a shoe?

Oh nevermind it's already happened.

http://www.sockandawe.com/

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

question for everyone:

How long will it be before someone comes out with a web video game where you try to hit Bush with a shoe?

Oh nevermind it's already happened.

http://www.sockandawe.com/

Some googling turned up this:

http://bushbash.flashgressive.de/

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[skydyvr 0]

Wired has an article pointing to a couple games and animations.

http://blog.wired.com/underwire/2008/12/bush-shoe-toss.html

. . =(_8^(1)

[Ron 10]

Quote

Now you've got it!

What I got is that you will argue anything and will never admit when you are wrong.

You are the one that refuses to see that throwing something at someone in anger *IS* a violent act. You have not been able to prove otherwise and instead bring inane arguments.

Quote

It was in reply to your nonsense suggestion that if someone throws a shoe at me I ban them.

Its not nonsense since frankly I think you would do it.

I guess since you will not admit that throwing something at someone is an act of violence there is no real point in even trying to have this discussion with you.

But I bet if someone threw something at you in anger, that you would consider it an act of violence. Further, I bet you would say it was an act of violence if someone had thrown a shoe at Obama.

The fact you can't see such a simple fact that throwing something at someone IS an act of violence can only be explained by you just not wanting it to be in THIS case since it was Bush who was the target.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 2,991]

>You are the one that refuses to see that throwing something at someone
>in anger *IS* a violent act.

Even though you admit that sometimes it isn't.

Let's take an example that might be more real to you.

You're doing a big way. You are in an outer wacker and are chatting up a woman next to you. Kate is organizing and says "HEY! Listen up!" You ignore her and continue chatting. She gets annoyed and throws her sandal at you to get you to listen.

At that point, would you:

a) pull a gun on her (if you had one, of course) to protect yourself from a violent attack

b) run to a phone, call 911 and get the police out to arrest her for her violent crime

c) stop chatting up the woman and listen to Kate?

You would, of course, choose option C. Because although you seem to enjoy arguing anything and everything on the net, in the real world you most likely have common sense.

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

>You are the one that refuses to see that throwing something at someone
>in anger *IS* a violent act.

Even though you admit that sometimes it isn't.

Let's take an example that might be more real to you.

You're doing a big way. You are in an outer wacker and are chatting up a woman next to you. Kate is organizing and says "HEY! Listen up!" You ignore her and continue chatting. She gets annoyed and throws her sandal at you to get you to listen.

At that point, would you:

a) pull a gun on her (if you had one, of course) to protect yourself from a violent attack

b) run to a phone, call 911 and get the police out to arrest her for her violent crime

c) stop chatting up the woman and listen to Kate?

You would, of course, choose option C. Because although you seem to enjoy arguing anything and everything on the net, in the real world you most likely have common sense.

A more prudent example would be you're standing in a bar and some stranger chucks a beer bottle at your head. Then he chucks another one.

a) its a violent act and you take it as such
b) laugh it off as good clean fun

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[akarunway 1]

Quote

Quote

Not all but a whole fuckin lot. We started this shit so who's to blame?

Cause nobody ever died in Iraq before we got there? I think the kurds would disagree.

I still don't deny civilian deaths exist and are tragic. I'm just fucking tired of hearing the constant over statement of horrible things America has done. We didn't order the carpet bombing of a city, we didn't kill hundreds of thousands of innocent women and children, and we damn sure didn't cause all (and I would venture to say not even most) of the deaths on that site you posted. You'd rather blame us than the idiot strapping a bomb to his bike. If you think Iraq was all peace and love before we got there then pull the blanket back over your eyes and take a nap.

So. Back to the bottom line. What fuckin business is it of ours what Saddamn did in his own country. And we were a a major supplier of his weapons when he was our puppet. Now we want the countries oil and invaded and killed LOTS of innocents under false pretenses. I am done w/ you. You are too brainwashed to argue w/.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[jimmytavino 16]

"Folk hero fame is His now..."


Does that makes him the Iraqi equivilent of Joe the Plumber,,,???

for sure Both the Yankees and the METS will be bidding for HIS services...

jmy

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

>He had no intent to hurt you and he didn't hate you or wish you ill.

Precisely! He was annoyed at me and wanted to indicate that. It was not intended to harm me, but instead make a statement - and thus was not a violent attack.

Regardless of his intent by the definition of the word it was a violent attack.

Quote

1. violent


Main Entry:
vi·o·lent
Pronunciation:
\-lənt\
Function:
adjective
Etymology:
Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin violentus; akin to Latin vis strength — more at vim
Date:
14th century

1: marked by extreme force or sudden intense activity
2 a: notably furious or vehement b: extreme , intense
3: caused by force : not natural
4 a: emotionally agitated to the point of loss of self-control b: prone to commit acts of violence

Retrieved December 17, 2008, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/violent

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[Ron 10]

Quote

Even though you admit that sometimes it isn't.

Let's take an example that might be more real to you.

Again you dance around trying to distract. Was the guy that threw a shoe at Bush trying to get Bush to listen to him? No! Once again you prove that you would rather bring irrelevant situations than admit you are wrong.

Silly. The fact you can't see that this situation is 100% different than the hundreds of the ones you make up is amazing and just shows to what extent you will go to defend someone that shares your hatred of Bush.

I can see that you will continue your irrelevant arguments to defend your hatred of Bush by proxy...So you may of course have the last word here.

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[skydyvr 0]

Quote

for sure Both the Yankees and the METS will be bidding for HIS services...

. . =(_8^(1)

[jakee 1,489]

Quote

Regardless of his intent by the definition of the word it was a violent attack.

The probalem with dictionary definitions of commonly used words is that they tend to have become unfeasibly broad.

Going by those definitions, there is actually nothing wrong per se with violence.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[DanG 1]

Quote

Was the guy that threw a shoe at Bush trying to get Bush to listen to him?

He was trying to get the whole world to listen to him.

He succeeded.

- Dan G

[FallingOsh 0]

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Even though you admit that sometimes it isn't.

Let's take an example that might be more real to you.

Again you dance around trying to distract. Was the guy that threw a shoe at Bush trying to get Bush to listen to him? No! Once again you prove that you would rather bring irrelevant situations than admit you are wrong.

Silly. The fact you can't see that this situation is 100% different than the hundreds of the ones you make up is amazing and just shows to what extent you will go to defend someone that shares your hatred of Bush.

I can see that you will continue your irrelevant arguments to defend your hatred of Bush by proxy...So you may of course have the last word here.

The irrelevance here is any comparison between throwing a shoe (or two) and ordering the invasion of a sovereign nation under false pretenses with the full knowledge that many innocent civilians will be killed in the process.

Your love of Bush is so great that you will go to any lengths to defend his actions, no matter how egregious.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Halfpastniner 0]

So. Back to the bottom line. What fuckin business is it of ours what Saddamn did in his own country.

So were you against going into WWII to liberate millions of Jews in concentration camps in Germany.

After all, who gives a shit what Hitler was doing in his own country.

Really?

BASE 1384

[Amazon 7]

Quote

So were you against going into WWII to liberate millions of Jews in concentration camps in Germany.

After all, who gives a shit what Hitler was doing in his own country.

Really?

Pssst.. the US did not enter WW II against Germany.. Germany declared war on the US.

We certainly did not go to war to liberate the concentration camps...

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

So. Back to the bottom line. What fuckin business is it of ours what Saddamn did in his own country.

So were you against going into WWII to liberate millions of Jews in concentration camps in Germany.

After all, who gives a shit what Hitler was doing in his own country.

Really?



Since NO NATION did that, you lose.

You should read more real history books.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[riddler 0]

Her comment about the incident:

"Sure I would take a shoe for the President."

Trapped on the surface of a sphere. XKCD

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Her comment about the incident:

"Sure I would take a shoe for the President."

Well, Bush did say:
"
There are some who feel like the conditions are such that they can attack us there. My answer is, bring 'em on."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.