I dont think he likes W too much

[Ron 10]

Quote

Lots of PAs

You mean like yours?

Quote

but still no explanation of why you consider throwing a shoe to be the equivalent of ordering the military invasion of a country, or why you think Guantanamo and Auschwitz are equivalent.

Simple, because they are not, and I never claimed they were. But YOU support and in fact encourage violence against someone when it fits YOUR desires, and bemoan it when it does not fit your PERSONAL values.

All this is just more emotional babel from you.

I would not support throwing something in anger at either Bush NOR Obama....You can't say the same....THAT is the measure of your hypocrisy.

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

I can't help it if you don't pay attention.

And we can't help it if you make up things and then go off about them.

If you can prove such claims...Present them, or at least man up and admit you made them up.

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

[billvon 2,991]

Your one warning.

[billvon 2,991]

And yours. Speak to the subject; do not go after the person.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I can't help it if you don't pay attention.

And we can't help it if you make up things and then go off about them.

If you can prove such claims...Present them, or at least man up and admit you made them up.

I didn't make anything up - the shoe thrower told the world that his reason was the US invasion and occupation.

Apparently some people were not listening.

...

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

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I can't help it if you don't pay attention.

And we can't help it if you make up things and then go off about them.

If you can prove such claims...Present them, or at least man up and admit you made them up.

I didn't make anything up - the shoe thrower told the world that his reason was the US invasion and occupation.

Apparently some people were not listening.

The question isn't his motivation. That part is clear. The questions is whether or not throwing your shoes at a visiting President is A) an act of violence and B) appropriate behavior.

Do you think it was a violent act?
Do you think it was appropriate?

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I can't help it if you don't pay attention.

And we can't help it if you make up things and then go off about them.

If you can prove such claims...Present them, or at least man up and admit you made them up.

I didn't make anything up - the shoe thrower told the world that his reason was the US invasion and occupation.

Apparently some people were not listening.

The question isn't his motivation. That part is clear. The questions is whether or not throwing your shoes at a visiting President is A) an act of violence and B) appropriate behavior.

Do you think it was a violent act?
Do you think it was appropriate?

It was a rather mild form of protest considering it was against a visiting invader. I suggest you would have thrown a shoe at Tojo if you'd had a chance.



.

...

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

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I can't help it if you don't pay attention.

And we can't help it if you make up things and then go off about them.

If you can prove such claims...Present them, or at least man up and admit you made them up.

I didn't make anything up - the shoe thrower told the world that his reason was the US invasion and occupation.

Apparently some people were not listening.

The question isn't his motivation. That part is clear. The questions is whether or not throwing your shoes at a visiting President is A) an act of violence and B) appropriate behavior.

Do you think it was a violent act?
Do you think it was appropriate?

It was a rather mild form of protest considering it was against a visiting invader. I suggest you would have thrown a shoe at Tojo if you'd had a chance.



.

I guess I should have known better than to expect a direct answer. I gather you think it was a violent act and it was appropriate. That's all you had to say.

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

[Ron 10]

Quote

I didn't make anything up

Sure ya did, right here:

Quote

but still no explanation of why you consider throwing a shoe to be the equivalent of ordering the military invasion of a country, or why you think Guantanamo and Auschwitz are equivalent.

Care to show where I made that claim you said I did?

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

[Royd 0]

Quote

It was a rather mild form of protest considering it was against a visiting invader. I suggest you would have thrown a shoe at Tojo if you'd had a chance.

So an object weighing about 24 oz., being thrown at about 60mph, directly at someone's head, is a mild form of protest?
Something tells me if one of your students decided to do the same, toward you, your reaction wouldn't be the same.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

It was a rather mild form of protest considering it was against a visiting invader. I suggest you would have thrown a shoe at Tojo if you'd had a chance.

So an object weighing about 24 oz., being thrown at about 60mph, directly at someone's head, is a mild form of protest?
Something tells me if one of your students decided to do the same, toward you, your reaction wouldn't be the same.

Its' a whole lot milder than a cluster bomb, which is among the things Bush lobbed at Iraqis.

...

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

I didn't make anything up

Sure ya did, right here:

Quote

but still no explanation of why you consider throwing a shoe to be the equivalent of ordering the military invasion of a country, or why you think Guantanamo and Auschwitz are equivalent.

Care to show where I made that claim you said I did?

Since you're on the topic of fabrications, who wrote this:

"And following Kallend-logic, Auschwitz-Birkenau would have been fine if it was filled with Republicans or anyone else he disagrees with."

...

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

[rehmwa 2]

Normal liberal logic there Ron.

He understands "why" someone would do it. Therefore, even if it's the wrong thing to do, it's ok because he "understands".

It goes like this - I understand 'why' that man killed 7 babies and bathed in their blood, therefore, since I understand, he must be innocent.

In this case, it's like this "I sure would like to throw my shoe at GWB" - therefore, it's ok if someone else does it.

Actually, I wouldn't mind throwing a shoe - or my empty checkbook at GWB myself. But I won't because it's rude and wrong.

Discussions of right or wrong on lost on lefties. They only discuss subjectivities and relativeness. Especially if there is any opportunity for partisanship.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Normal liberal logic there Ron.

He understands "why" someone would do it. Therefore, even if it's the wrong thing to do, it's ok because he "understands".

It goes like this - I understand 'why' that man killed 7 babies and bathed in their blood, therefore, since I understand, he must be innocent.

In this case, it's like this "I sure would like to throw my shoe at GWB" - therefore, it's ok if someone else does it.

Actually, I wouldn't mind throwing a shoe - or my empty checkbook at GWB myself. But I won't because it's rude and wrong.

Discussions of right or wrong on lost on lefties. They only discuss subjectivities and relativeness. Especially if there is any opportunity for partisanship.

If someone broke into your house, trashed it and killed your family members, I expect you'd be inclined to do more extreme things than just throw shoes at the perpetrator.

...

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

[rehmwa 2]

Following that scenario. here's your example:

The criminal is caught and is sitting in court. I sneak a weapon in and kill him right then and there. (And I might just do that, understanding that it would be revenge, not justice)

By your logic, since you 'understand' my grief and 'why' I did it, then it's ok and I should be awarded the medal of honor. And no jail time.

It would still be wrong.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[nerdgirl 0]

Quote

Discussions of right or wrong on lost on lefties. They only discuss subjectivities and relativeness. Especially if there is any opportunity for partisanship.

Really? You think/perceive/see it that black & white? Perhaps there are many shades of partisan lenses, eh?

One only has to look as far as the issue of use of torture in interrogation to find moral relativism by the right. *Not all on the right.*

It's wrong if "they" do it to us ... but those who are proponents can come up with all sorts of subjective rationalizations to make it 'right' and 'just' for "us" to do it, from Jack Bauer-esque ticking time bomb scenarios to Jesus Christ (all rationalizations put forth on SC by individuals who identify as conservatives).

VR/Marg

Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters.
Tibetan Buddhist saying

[DanG 1]

All this crap about the act of shoe throwing being a violent act, therefore a priori "wrong" is quite disingenuous. I think we all agree (whether we will admit it or not) that the moral standing of certain acts of violence are dependant upon circumstances. For example, killing someone in one context (by a criminal during the commission of a robbery) is undeniably "wrong". Killing someone in a different context (by a police officer to stop the imminent murder of small children) is undeniably "right". To accept that, you must admit that certain acts, whether violent or not, can be considered acceptable or at least justified in certain contexts.

The fact that shoe thtowing is a violent act is not the point. I admit that throwing an object at someone else in anger is a violent act. The question is one of context. I do not believe that the throwing of the shoe by the reporter at President Bust was "right" or "good". I do believe, however, that it was justifiable given the context.

In a perfect world, the reporter would not have throw his shoe at President Bush because he would not have felt the anger and frustration felt by many of his countymen regarding the state of their nation. Whether this anger is President Bush's fault or not is the subject of many debates around the world. Perhaps, the argument can be made, and I believe it has here many times, that the violence committed by the US on Iraq is also justifiable and "right". But the validity of that argument notwithstanding, the reporter was in fact angry at the President, and did believe that he was the cause of thousands of Iraqi deaths. Throwing a shoe at him was, in my opinion, not a morally right way of expressing that anger, but it was also wholly justifiable.

- Dan G

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Following that scenario. here's your example:

The criminal is caught and is sitting in court.

Incorrect! The criminal was giving a press conference.

...

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

[FallingOsh 0]

Good post

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

[shropshire 0]

The idea of journalists lounging around in press pools distributing footwear, is not a suitable basis for a form of intellectual argument....

But hey, they could be dangerous, laced with poison so you need to tread carefully......

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Following that scenario. here's your example:

The criminal is caught and is sitting in court.

Incorrect! The criminal was giving a press conference.

As sentenced by Judge Kallend and his kangaroo court of public opinion.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Following that scenario. here's your example:

The criminal is caught and is sitting in court.

Incorrect! The criminal was giving a press conference.

As sentenced by Judge Kallend and his kangaroo court of public opinion.

Could this be a post from the same Judge Neal that wrote so much about the guilt of Ayers and Acorn?

...

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

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Following that scenario. here's your example:

The criminal is caught and is sitting in court.

Incorrect! The criminal was giving a press conference.

As sentenced by Judge Kallend and his kangaroo court of public opinion.

Could this be a post from the same Judge Neal that wrote so much about the guilt of Ayers and Acorn?

Ayers and ACORN people were arrested for crimes - Bush was not.

You need some new red herrings - those same old ones are starting to really smell bad.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[ryoder 1,590]

Quote

Quote

Following that scenario. here's your example:

The criminal is caught and is sitting in court.

Incorrect! The criminal was giving a press conference.

"We understand that after his apprehension, he was beaten by Iraqi security, although it is not clear if that was because he threw the shoe...or because he missed."

-- Peter Sagal on NPR's "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me"

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

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Following that scenario. here's your example:

The criminal is caught and is sitting in court.

Incorrect! The criminal was giving a press conference.

As sentenced by Judge Kallend and his kangaroo court of public opinion.

Could this be a post from the same Judge Neal that wrote so much about the guilt of Ayers and Acorn?

Ayers and ACORN people were arrested for crimes - Bush was not.

You need some new red herrings - those same old ones are starting to really smell bad.

You do know the difference between arrest and conviction, don't you? No, maybe you don't.

...

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