• Expendable said on Dec 15, 2008....

  So you think the reporter should be denied the freedom of speech. Interesting.

• stopmediabias said on Dec 16, 2008....

  no he should be denied freedom of shoe throwing

• curmudgeon said on Dec 16, 2008....

  I never realized that shoe-throwing is freedom of "speech." I always thought that the freedom to throw one's shoes ends where my nose (or in this case President Bush's nose) begins.
  
  Apparently this incident got a lot of support from many corners of the Arab world. All the more reason we should find alternative energy sources. I'm so sick of having to give so much political power to people.who do nothing to earn their billions.
  

• kelly said on Dec 16, 2008....

  Whatever.  I say more power to the shoe thrower.  Bush does not represent freedom and democracy as much as he represents torture, secret government and violence.

• kelly said on Dec 16, 2008....

  "I'm so sick of having to give so much political power to people.who do nothing to earn their billions."
  
  
  Oh, for a minute there I thought you were referring to Bush.

• stopmediabias said on Dec 18, 2008....

  Kelly-In your tired tiny little existence George Bush will go down in history as one of the best Presidents in history because he thumbed his nose at people like you and liberated 50 million people.

• kelly said on Dec 19, 2008....

  Oh, he thumbed his nose at people like me alright.  Like when he illegally spied on Americans.  Like when he suspended habeas corpus.  Like when he spent $700 billion on a pointless war.  Like when he wrote secret laws to let him get away with torturing people.
  
  
  Worst.  President.  Ever.

• stopmediabias said on Dec 20, 2008....

  Like when he pulled us out of the flames of 9/11, Katrina, corporate meltdowns, wildfires, a Clinton recession, kept us safe for eight years, kept us working, took down thousands of terrorists, took down two violantly evil regimes, and provided us a cushion for the Democrat inspired financial crisis that you guys are going to make worse.

  And this is of course after eight years of what?  BJ's in the oval office, Our soldiers being dragged through the streets of Somalia, Clinton abuse of staff, tearing our military down, Clinton stealing of White House valuables, Clinton vandalism of the White House, Clinton impeachment, Clinton spying, Clinton suspension of habeas corpus (Waco, Ruby Ridge), Clinton a laughing stock as Saddam built more and more terrorist training camps,  etc etc etc.

  Sorry but history will judge who the worst President ever was and President Bush won't be on the list.

• curmudgeon said on Dec 20, 2008....

  Kelly - just because you don't like Bush that justifies someone throwing shoes at him?
  
  What other forms of assault are you willing to condone simply because you don't like someone, or the decisions they've made?
  
  Guess what - by supporting the shoe thrower, you're not on the side of civil rights either.
  

• kelly said on Dec 20, 2008....

  Good point.  I'd hate to think I'm willing to sink as low as Bush when it comes to condoning assault and torture on people.  Still, it's only a shoe and it would have been a nice symbolic point if it had struck the intended target.
  
  
  It's darkly amusing that someone who has been responsible for tens of thousands of innocents deaths and the torture and murder of many should be defended for anything.  Bush is a piece of garbage, but unfortunately his type is the kind that rules the world.  When you don't care about anything but yourself that gives you a lot of power.
  

  
  

  As for smb's fantasy history, the less said the better.

• bloc said on Dec 21, 2008....

  it is ironic that people are upset at shoe throwing and not torture.

• stopmediabias said on Dec 21, 2008....

  This debate would be so much better if you guys could even remotely prove any of the bullshit you are coming out with, especially with the torture issue.
   
  I wonder if we will see that kind of courage in the future from an American President.  If you watch the tape our President didn't run nor cower and kept control of that room by waiving off the secret service. 
   
  Kelly-The american people vote for leaders who make decisions.  Our leaders  from both sides pushed and shoved then voted to go into Iraq.  This irrational hatred you have for our President is unhealthy.
   
  Of course it is uncomfortable to look at Iraq now.  With Saddam and his son's dead how many people are being tortured and murdered now and in the future?  Imagine if the shoe-throwing incident happened under Saddam, youch!

• bloc said on Dec 21, 2008....

  the only thing that's irrational is claiming that Bush has done a good job and citing katrina as an example.

• stopmediabias said on Dec 21, 2008....

  I only mention it as just another obstacle we had to overcome.  Bill Clinton is propped up as the golden boy when what major disasters did he have to deal with?  Oklahoma city? Waco?  At the same time he inherited the internet boom.  President Bush had to deal with far more and he inherited a recession.

  What makes you guys irrational is your failure to acknowledge one single thing good that President Bush has done.  That is just plain weird.  You guys should at least point out what he has done in regards to AIDS in Africa and his attempt at passing immigration reform.  Both are liberal causes where he took a moderate stance.

• kelly said on Dec 22, 2008....

  It's terribly difficult to acknowledge anything positive Bush did when the negatives were so outstanding.  Yes, he spent a lot for AIDS prevention in Africa.  That's great.  He actually created one underwater national wildlife preserve.  That's also great.  But the amount of pain, death and constitution shredding that he generated is so astounding as to blot out the other achievements.

• stopmediabias said on Dec 22, 2008....

  You should have ended at "That's also great."  I heard all the other stuff before.

  Why does it have to be like this?  You make a outlandish statement: "But the amount of pain, death and constitution shredding that he generated" and If I ask you to clarify specifically you will probably drop of the face of the Earth or come up with yet another item from the Liberal bitch-list.  And everything on the Liberal bitch-list has been debunked more times than Michael Moore has wolfed down a bigmac.

  But also look logically at the way our modern world works.  We tried to impeach a President for a lie about a BJ and yet our current President supposedly does all these drastic things and a Democrat controlled congress doesn't impeach.

  It's like a dog chasing his tail then getting pist because she can't catch it.

• bloc said on Dec 23, 2008....

  the only thing that has been debunked is you.

• stopmediabias said on Dec 23, 2008....

  Bloc-but don't you think that is kind of strange?  According to you guys I can assume the best President ever versus the worst President ever and you guys stick with him for 8 years after all these atrocious things, even after getting Congress with hardly a moderate as speaker of the House and nothing.

  Could be because the only ones to mention impeachment were the nutcases and if all you guys actually went through with it, it would bring out all this stuff into the open.  Which means all the Democrats would have to explain why they agreed with Iraq, interogation methods, NSA stuff, all of it.  Am I getting to the heart of the issue here?

• kelly said on Dec 28, 2008....

  " According to you guys I can assume the best President ever versus the worst President ever and you guys stick with him for 8 years after all these atrocious things, even after getting Congress with hardly a moderate as speaker of the House and nothing."
  
  
  Could you rephrase that as an English sentence?

• stopmediabias said on Dec 28, 2008....

  It is very wordy.

  It seems to me if we tried to impeach President Clinton for a lie about a BJ, then  these terrible things you claim about President Bush would be impeachable offenses.

  For the last two years we've had Pelosi as House speaker, she's not a moderate, why didn't she call for impeachment?

  I think it is because you guys have drastically overblown a lot of things.

• kelly said on Dec 28, 2008....

  You're right.  Pelosi is not a moderate.  She practically belongs in the Republican party.  In the midterm elections I briefly entertained the idea that we did indeed have a two-party system.  Then the Democrats commenced to sit on their hands or give Bush everything he asked for.
  
  
  We will probably wait a long time in this country before we see anyone impeached for real crimes.  Instead, we'll save our outrage for sexual antics.

Comment on "Let The Shoes Fly!"

Currently tagged	shoe throwing iraq (Click to add tags below)
Tag this post	(Separate tags using commas, for example: New York, dating, vegetarian)
Your comment