Ah man pelt Bush wid a shoe!!

[daryn]

I'm hardpressed to locate an equivalent ... let's face it ... this rests with Bush and the character of his presidency ...

I think this is a bit of a stretch.  attention-seekers do these kinda things all the time, throwing pies in politicians' faces and what not.

Please note, I did not extend my comments to 'politicians' in general but to the U.S. President in specific ... precisely because of the empirical evidence to the contrary. Hence, I'm not incorporating something like the "don't tase me, bro" incident.

the tasing incident didn't even cross my mind.  I think that making a distinction between the U.S. president and other powerful people is somewhat arbitrary and very convenient for the purpose of corroborating one's own opinion of Bush.

Bush has been in office for 8 years, admittedly being unpopular of a large percentage of that time.  A fool threw a pair of shoes.  let's not make it any more than it is.

[asylumseeker]

I'm hardpressed to locate an equivalent ... let's face it ... this rests with Bush and the character of his presidency ...

I think this is a bit of a stretch.  attention-seekers do these kinda things all the time, throwing pies in politicians' faces and what not.

Please note, I did not extend my comments to 'politicians' in general but to the U.S. President in specific ... precisely because of the empirical evidence to the contrary. Hence, I'm not incorporating something like the "don't tase me, bro" incident.

the tasing incident didn't even cross my mind.  I think that making a distinction between the U.S. president and other powerful people is somewhat arbitrary and very convenient for the purpose of corroborating one's own opinion of Bush.

Bush has been in office for 8 years, admittedly being unpopular of a large percentage of that time.  A fool threw a pair of shoes.  let's not make it any more than it is.

You make sense ... that is, if my intention was to secure a convenient distinction tending to the corroboration of my opinion of Bush. (Parenthetically, let me suggest that "other powerful people" is more arbitrary than what you have proposed). There should be an obvious reason why a firm distinction applies to the US President. The position I have promoted has less to do with Bush, and more to do with the office he'll hold until January 20.

So now the guy's a fool? You don't ascribe any rationality to his actions?

[ZANDOLIE]

 Not to stereotype, but it certainly did cross my mind that something like this would be normal in the Middle East where if you disagree strongly enough with somebody then it's okay to be violent towards them.  Passion and emotion rules the day and rationality is afforded only cursory consideration.

I also fail to see how I'm being "zealous" in protecting the office of the President... I am neither in position nor the mindset to 'protect' anything.  If you recall I voiced similar disapproval in the incident with Manning and the overzealous traffic cop.  I firmly expect to be in the minority on this and that's fine with me... I don't advocate blind deference to customs and institutions, but at the end of a day a certain amount of decorum is both reflective of and central to organized (and civilized) societies.

I am no Bush fan, but I certainly agree that ratonality is an ingredient sorely lacking in human interactions accross the globe. Imagine if a man were to pelt a shoe at P-E Obama during one of his overseas missions. Some of his supporters would have a fit. Can't have it both ways.

However IMO you are being somewhat irrational yourself by associating an entire region with the actions of one man. After all is a shoe he pelt, not bullets  

Fact is President elect Obama probably stands the same chance of being executed in the US that Bush does in the middle east. When the FBI arrested those neo nazi extremists for plotting to decapitate the heads of 88 or so children and quench their final bloodlust on Obama himself I had to struggle against those nagging thoughts in the back of my head that such evil was reflective of white America.

My point is that rationality is not only a tool for dissecting the actions of others but for checking our own internal passions, which we often like to pass off as rationalism. As I see it decorum is affordable; one of the spoils accorded to history's victors. Maybe that was Assylumseekers point. And it is certainly not limited to White nations. By many reports the Middle East pre-modern to Israel was noted for its cultural complexity.

No person, institution or nation has a monopoly on civilized behaviour. Some just so nasty (African conflicts) they make the others look good. As the saying goes "The veneer of civilization is one inch thick, man still thinks with club and prick."

[daryn]

I'm hardpressed to locate an equivalent ... let's face it ... this rests with Bush and the character of his presidency ...

I think this is a bit of a stretch.  attention-seekers do these kinda things all the time, throwing pies in politicians' faces and what not.

Please note, I did not extend my comments to 'politicians' in general but to the U.S. President in specific ... precisely because of the empirical evidence to the contrary. Hence, I'm not incorporating something like the "don't tase me, bro" incident.

the tasing incident didn't even cross my mind.  I think that making a distinction between the U.S. president and other powerful people is somewhat arbitrary and very convenient for the purpose of corroborating one's own opinion of Bush.

Bush has been in office for 8 years, admittedly being unpopular of a large percentage of that time.  A fool threw a pair of shoes.  let's not make it any more than it is.

You make sense ... that is, if my intention was to secure a convenient distinction tending to the corroboration of my opinion of Bush. (Parenthetically, let me suggest that "other powerful people" is more arbitrary than what you have proposed). There should be an obvious reason why a firm distinction applies to the US President. The position I have promoted has less to do with Bush, and more to do with the office he'll hold until January 20.

your argument as I understand it is that this incident is down to Bush's presidency.  That's not a plausible argument unless you apply the filter of a pre-existing anti-Bush bias.  Somebody thought Kennedy was so bad that they thought it best to kill him. 

So now the guy's a fool? You don't ascribe any rationality to his actions?

not entirely sure if yuh serious here but... him having a rationale excludes the possibility of him being foolish? I'm sure he knew what the consequences would be and he might very well still think it was worth it.  good for him.  Still poor judgment and a silly course of action.

[asylumseeker]

I don't condone the attack on the President.

However, I decline to frame it, as you have done, through the lens of civility. You do recognise that some folks are unmotivated by visa privileges?

...and this relates to the issue, how?

Come nah man ...

[Brownsugar]

I haven't read all the replies in detail yet but ah just want to go back a bit to Bakes' point of respecting the Office..

Bakes...ah have to disagree wid yuh when yuh say that Bush hasn't lowered the Office of the President (to the extent that Clinton did I think is what you said)....I understand your point overall about disrespecting the Office, but just think about what this man VIA his Office has done to Iraq and the Iraqi people.  And this Iraqi thing is only one facet of the many hideous things he's done VIA his office thereby brining the Office into disrepute.

To be honest, if it were any one else I probably would not have found this episode funny....I most likely would have recoiled in horror...but this is Bush!!...Bush!!....a man after whom Comedy Central made an entire cartoon series over.....that and this shoe episode is something I NEVER thought I would have seen in my lifetime!!......NOBODY holds this man in high regard....but that's whose fault??....

In the circumstances its almost impossible to disassociate him and the office he holds....and I guess that's why its so easy for a man to ACTUALLY formulate de thought of taking off he shoe and sailing it after him...
In a way this will probably sum up his Presidency.....and to be honest it will be fitting....
One more thing, Cheney shoulda be standing next to him to collect one too...

[morvant]

ah president get pelt with ah shoe and duck it and that not funny???  you hatto be related to the grinch boy

If that's the silly-ass criteria you offer on which to judge my disposition... then I might be similarly justified in questioning your intellect, and on the body of the evidence I might actually be right.

Now when all de laughter die down, that will be de sad part of the whole thing.....that he, Bush brought de office down to such a low level that a man could fathom pelting a shoe after him....if we didn't know before we know now, the US Presidency and its office has hit rock bottom, in fact it reach subterranean level...
Thank God, redemption coming Jan 20th....

Bush has made some poor executive decisions but I'd hardly say that he has reduced the office... arguably Clinton did much worse.  He's an unpopular president so people will take whatever opportunity to join in anything that makes him look bad.  I hardly think anybody would be laughing had it been Obama standing at the lectern instead.  I just find it shocking... and unnecessary, but at the same time typical of today's mindset... you disagree with someone or you're frustrated at them and the next thing that comes to mind is to attack them physically.

bakes. at first we was just looking at it for face value. ah ma pelt ah shoe and ah man duck it at point blank range. that's what i was laffin at. now you want to say you more intellectually inclined than me. you rell full ah yuhself dan. and i wasnt judging yuh disposition. just your ablilty to laff at ah joke

anyways take win

[asylumseeker]

I'm hardpressed to locate an equivalent ... let's face it ... this rests with Bush and the character of his presidency ...

I think this is a bit of a stretch.  attention-seekers do these kinda things all the time, throwing pies in politicians' faces and what not.

Please note, I did not extend my comments to 'politicians' in general but to the U.S. President in specific ... precisely because of the empirical evidence to the contrary. Hence, I'm not incorporating something like the "don't tase me, bro" incident.

the tasing incident didn't even cross my mind.  I think that making a distinction between the U.S. president and other powerful people is somewhat arbitrary and very convenient for the purpose of corroborating one's own opinion of Bush.

Bush has been in office for 8 years, admittedly being unpopular of a large percentage of that time.  A fool threw a pair of shoes.  let's not make it any more than it is.

You make sense ... that is, if my intention was to secure a convenient distinction tending to the corroboration of my opinion of Bush. (Parenthetically, let me suggest that "other powerful people" is more arbitrary than what you have proposed). There should be an obvious reason why a firm distinction applies to the US President. The position I have promoted has less to do with Bush, and more to do with the office he'll hold until January 20.

your argument as I understand it is that this incident is down to Bush's presidency.  That's not a plausible argument unless you apply the filter of a pre-existing anti-Bush bias.  Somebody thought Kennedy was so bad that they thought it best to kill him. 

So now the guy's a fool? You don't ascribe any rationality to his actions?

not entirely sure if yuh serious here but... him having a rationale excludes the possibility of him being foolish? I'm sure he knew what the consequences would be and he might very well still think it was worth it.  good for him.  Still poor judgment and a silly course of action.

If you're going to proffer a contention, at least make it one that survives the scrutiny of a second read.

Me and you couldna "reason" during apartheid.

[dinho]

I wasn't aware that Iraq was under US jurisdiction such that the US presidency is a sovereign office they could disrespect...

but anyhow.. that shit was funny but not unprecedented.

Nuff british politicians does get wet with pies and eggs on a regular.

[asylumseeker]

I haven't read all the replies in detail yet but ah just want to go back a bit to Bakes' point of respecting the Office..

Bakes...ah have to disagree wid yuh when yuh say that Bush hasn't lowered the Office of the President (to the extent that Clinton did I think is what you said)....I understand your point overall about disrespecting the Office, but just think about what this man VIA his Office has done to Iraq and the Iraqi people.  And this Iraqi thing is only one facet of the many hideous things he's done VIA his office thereby brining the Office into disrepute.

To be honest, if it were any one else I probably would not have found this episode funny....I most likely would have recoiled in horror...but this is Bush!!...Bush!!....a man after whom Comedy Central made an entire cartoon series over.....that and this shoe episode is something I NEVER thought I would have seen in my lifetime!!......NOBODY holds this man in high regard....but that's whose fault??....

In the circumstances its almost impossible to disassociate him and the office he holds....and I guess that's why its so easy for a man to ACTUALLY formulate de thought of taking off he shoe and sailing it after him...
In a way this will probably sum up his Presidency.....and to be honest it will be fitting....
One more thing, Cheney shoulda be standing next to him to collect one too...

'Sugar, if yuh can, go to the NYT website and listen to the first-hand account by Atheer Kakan ... it's entitled Podcast: An Account of the Shoe-Throwing Incident ... You'll love his closing comment.

[Bourbon]

I jus imagining de reporter giving de iraqi equivalent of....

"BUSH...YUH CUDDERS MUNT !!" *PELT*

Dahs wha makin it funny fuh me. Den again i under exam stress..i lookin for any kicks.

[dinho]

I jus imagining de reporter giving de iraqi equivalent of....

"BUSH...YUH CUDDERS MUNT !!" *PELT*

Dahs wha makin it funny fuh me. Den again i under exam stress..i lookin for any kicks.

you eh alone...

and for the record if the shoe had connect with him then i would not have found it as funny.

[dinho]

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/9uIj0YvDBKE&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/9uIj0YvDBKE&amp;hl=en&amp;fs=1</a>

[Bakes]

 Not to stereotype, but it certainly did cross my mind that something like this would be normal in the Middle East where if you disagree strongly enough with somebody then it's okay to be violent towards them.  Passion and emotion rules the day and rationality is afforded only cursory consideration.

I also fail to see how I'm being "zealous" in protecting the office of the President... I am neither in position nor the mindset to 'protect' anything.  If you recall I voiced similar disapproval in the incident with Manning and the overzealous traffic cop.  I firmly expect to be in the minority on this and that's fine with me... I don't advocate blind deference to customs and institutions, but at the end of a day a certain amount of decorum is both reflective of and central to organized (and civilized) societies.

I am no Bush fan, but I certainly agree that ratonality is an ingredient sorely lacking in human interactions accross the globe. Imagine if a man were to pelt a shoe at P-E Obama during one of his overseas missions. Some of his supporters would have a fit. Can't have it both ways.

However IMO you are being somewhat irrational yourself by associating an entire region with the actions of one man. After all is a shoe he pelt, not bullets  

My point should not have been that complicated that it should escape you so spectacularly.  

I didn't 'associate an entire region' with his actions... I placed his actions within its proper societal context... in parts of the ME devoid of rigid social formalism, people have become so inured to violence that it has crept into the very fabric of their existence and interactions... much as it has in certain parts of the US where all manners of slights and insults are read into the most innocuous of exchanges (wrong stare, wrong hand gesture, wrong color clothes), and a swift violent reprimand is often the response of choice.  I see no need to get into the details, but let's not pretend that in a society where revenge and honor killings are often treated with state acquiescence that violence isn't pervasive in the region.

Fact is President elect Obama probably stands the same chance of being executed in the US that Bush does in the middle east. When the FBI arrested those neo nazi extremists for plotting to decapitate the heads of 88 or so children and quench their final bloodlust on Obama himself I had to struggle against those nagging thoughts in the back of my head that such evil was reflective of white America.

I fail to see the correlation to the discussion.  Anything can possibly happen anywhere.. no point in stating the obvious.

My point is that rationality is not only a tool for dissecting the actions of others but for checking our own internal passions, which we often like to pass off as rationalism. As I see it decorum is affordable; one of the spoils accorded to history's victors. Maybe that was Assylumseekers point. And it is certainly not limited to White nations. By many reports the Middle East pre-modern to Israel was noted for its cultural complexity.

No person, institution or nation has a monopoly on civilized behaviour. Some just so nasty (African conflicts) they make the others look good. As the saying goes "The veneer of civilization is one inch thick, man still thinks with club and prick."

You presume too much.  Read my words and not INTO my words.  All of this talk of "internal passions" being passed off as rationalism is both nonsensical and tangential.  You can disagree with my conclusions buth there is nothing irrational about the process by which it was reached.  I gave full consideration to the fact that Iraq is pretty much a lawless state and that in many other parts of the Middle East that the function of law is but a facade which readily gives way to tribal and other ad hoc customs and manners of effecting 'justice'.

I also never said anything about anyone or anything having monopoly on civilized behavior... true today is Sunday, but keep that sermon for the pulpit.

[Brownsugar]

I'll check it out Asylumseeker.....I was just checking out the comments on huffingtonpost....we aren't de only ones who think dis shit funny as hell!!!...

[asylumseeker]

I'll check it out Asylumseeker.....I was just checking out the comments on huffingtonpost....we aren't de only ones who think dis shit funny as hell!!!...

There's a page (doh recall which one) that has an article dissecting the fact that the guy missed ... how could he ... why didn't he take both shoes off at the same time etc. ... I haven't had a look at Ariana sweetie's page yet ... not a regular visitor but I will check it out

[Bakes]

...and this relates to the issue, how?

Come nah man ...

You discussing "motivation"... I am talking about his actions.

I don't know his motives and don't care to speculate.  

I haven't read all the replies in detail yet but ah just want to go back a bit to Bakes' point of respecting the Office..

Bakes...ah have to disagree wid yuh when yuh say that Bush hasn't lowered the Office of the President (to the extent that Clinton did I think is what you said)....I understand your point overall about disrespecting the Office, but just think about what this man VIA his Office has done to Iraq and the Iraqi people.  And this Iraqi thing is only one facet of the many hideous things he's done VIA his office thereby brining the Office into disrepute.

To be honest, if it were any one else I probably would not have found this episode funny....I most likely would have recoiled in horror...but this is Bush!!...Bush!!....a man after whom Comedy Central made an entire cartoon series over.....that and this shoe episode is something I NEVER thought I would have seen in my lifetime!!......NOBODY holds this man in high regard....but that's whose fault??....

In the circumstances its almost impossible to disassociate him and the office he holds....and I guess that's why its so easy for a man to ACTUALLY formulate de thought of taking off he shoe and sailing it after him...
In a way this will probably sum up his Presidency.....and to be honest it will be fitting....
One more thing, Cheney shoulda be standing next to him to collect one too...

Brownsugar... it's certain a matter of opinion/perspective.  In my opinion one would reduce the office by committing acts that are unbecoming of the office, doing things you wouldn't expect "a President" to do.  You don't reduce the office by acting within the scope of your presidential powers, and within the scope of expectations that accompany them.

Nixon encouraged behavior that was clearly illegal... then lied.  Clinton engaged in behavior that was immoral... and then lied.

Bush, acting within the proper scope of his powers simply made poor decisions in formulating and then executing policy.  You can say that he too also lied about the premise upon which war was waged... but I personally put the actual lies at the feet of his advisors.  I believe Bush was clueless enough to actual think he was justified and telling the truth.

But that's my personal perspective.

[Bakes]

bakes. at first we was just looking at it for face value. ah ma pelt ah shoe and ah man duck it at point blank range. that's what i was laffin at. now you want to say you more intellectually inclined than me. you rell full ah yuhself dan. and i wasnt judging yuh disposition. just your ablilty to laff at ah joke

anyways take win

Where did I say that?  I does have to seriously wonder sometimes yes.

What I DID say is that IF you want to use the fact that I can't laff at this as the basis for judging my disposition, then I MIGHT be justified in questioning your intellect.  The point being that you would have to be a fool to use something so unreliable to reach such a conclusion.  Maybe I should have just said that instead.


aside from that I can't read your intent... a 'grinch' as I understand it is someone with a curmudgeonly disposition, incapable of appreciating any form of humor.  Because I don't share your notion of humor, that doesn't mean that I can't appreciate humor.

[asylumseeker]

 Not to stereotype, but it certainly did cross my mind that something like this would be normal in the Middle East where if you disagree strongly enough with somebody then it's okay to be violent towards them.  Passion and emotion rules the day and rationality is afforded only cursory consideration.

I also fail to see how I'm being "zealous" in protecting the office of the President... I am neither in position nor the mindset to 'protect' anything.  If you recall I voiced similar disapproval in the incident with Manning and the overzealous traffic cop.  I firmly expect to be in the minority on this and that's fine with me... I don't advocate blind deference to customs and institutions, but at the end of a day a certain amount of decorum is both reflective of and central to organized (and civilized) societies.

I am no Bush fan, but I certainly agree that ratonality is an ingredient sorely lacking in human interactions accross the globe. Imagine if a man were to pelt a shoe at P-E Obama during one of his overseas missions. Some of his supporters would have a fit. Can't have it both ways.

However IMO you are being somewhat irrational yourself by associating an entire region with the actions of one man. After all is a shoe he pelt, not bullets  

My point should not have been that complicated that it should escape you so spectacularly.  

I didn't 'associate an entire region' with his actions... I placed his actions within its proper societal context... in parts of the ME devoid of rigid social formalism, people have become so inured to violence that it has crept into the very fabric of their existence and interactions... much as it has in certain parts of the US where all manners of slights and insults are read into the most innocuous of exchanges (wrong stare, wrong hand gesture, wrong color clothes), and a swift violent reprimand is often the response of choice.  I see no need to get into the details, but let's not pretend that in a society where revenge and honor killings are often treated with state acquiescence that violence isn't pervasive in the region.

Fact is President elect Obama probably stands the same chance of being executed in the US that Bush does in the middle east. When the FBI arrested those neo nazi extremists for plotting to decapitate the heads of 88 or so children and quench their final bloodlust on Obama himself I had to struggle against those nagging thoughts in the back of my head that such evil was reflective of white America.

I fail to see the correlation to the discussion.  Anything can possibly happen anywhere.. no point in stating the obvious.

My point is that rationality is not only a tool for dissecting the actions of others but for checking our own internal passions, which we often like to pass off as rationalism. As I see it decorum is affordable; one of the spoils accorded to history's victors. Maybe that was Assylumseekers point. And it is certainly not limited to White nations. By many reports the Middle East pre-modern to Israel was noted for its cultural complexity.
[size=10pt]
No person, institution or nation has a monopoly on civilized behaviour.[/size] Some just so nasty (African conflicts) they make the others look good. As the saying goes "The veneer of civilization is one inch thick, man still thinks with club and prick."

You presume too much.  Read my words and not INTO my words.  All of this talk of "internal passions" being passed off as rationalism is both nonsensical and tangential.  You can disagree with my conclusions buth there is nothing irrational about the process by which it was reached.  I gave full consideration to the fact that Iraq is pretty much a lawless state and that in many other parts of the Middle East that the function of law is but a facade which readily gives way to tribal and other ad hoc customs and manners of effecting 'justice'.

I also never said anything about anyone or anything having monopoly on civilized behavior... true today is Sunday, but keep that sermon for the pulpit.

A fair reading of everything you wrote constitutes a pejorative judgement, bias, aspersion, mass indictment on the Middle East and Arabs. Where is Zandolie's presumption? The critical mass of his response is in no way tangential or nonsensical. Your "I gave full consideration ..." sentence is an exclamation point on an unwarranted extrapolation of this political act of expression to your view on the culture. No point in addressing your narrow response to the 'monopoly of civilized behavior' contribution.

[ZANDOLIE]

You presume too much.  Read my words and not INTO my words.  All of this talk of "internal passions" being passed off as rationalism is both nonsensical and tangential.  You can disagree with my conclusions buth there is nothing irrational about the process by which it was reached.  I gave full consideration to the fact that Iraq is pretty much a lawless state and that in many other parts of the Middle East that the function of law is but a facade which readily gives way to tribal and other ad hoc customs and manners of effecting 'justice'.

I also never said anything about anyone or anything having monopoly on civilized behavior... true today is Sunday, but keep that sermon for the pulpit.

  Testy are we? I actually agree with your conclusions, but as a man who seems to enjoy the smell his own farts you obviously can't distinguish between "rationality" and flatulence.

The reasoned debate going on inside your head somehow magically getting transformed into short wind borne noises as it hit your keyboard. Just make sure you wipe off you fingers after you type. Febreeze does work good after I indulge in a long hard rant shit.

[ZANDOLIE]

A fair reading of everything you wrote constitutes a pejorative judgement, bias, aspersion, mass indictment on the Middle East and Arabs. Where is Zandolie's presumption? The critical mass of his response is in no way tangential or nonsensical. Your "I gave full consideration ..." sentence is an exclamation point on an unwarranted extrapolation of this political act of expression to your view on the culture. No point in addressing your narrow response to the 'monopoly of civilized behavior' contribution.

Alluy doh mind Bakes nah.....he smart too bad...who yuh feel teach Bush to duck He does latch onto throwaway references and pound that as the meat of the matter. I was trying to ketch him with the "Obama has as much chance to be assassinated as Bush" reference but he eh bite it.

[weary1969]

Finally a WMD

[Bakes]

A fair reading of everything you wrote constitutes a pejorative judgement, bias, aspersion, mass indictment on the Middle East and Arabs. Where is Zandolie's presumption? The critical mass of his response is in no way tangential or nonsensical. Your "I gave full consideration ..." sentence is an exclamation point on an unwarranted extrapolation of this political act of expression to your view on the culture. No point in addressing your narrow response to the 'monopoly of civilized behavior' contribution.

By whose standards... yours? lol.  Fella please.

As I said... there's no need for me to enumerate the many reasons why I have come to think that the society in which the event occurred is a functionally lawless one. I similarly see no need to sit here and recount for your pleasure the many instances of ad hoc and outright arbitrary 'justice' that's handed out on the regular throughout much of the Middle East.... an upon the basis of which my statements were made.  If you choose to be obtuse and construe it as an "unwarranted extrapolation" blah blah blah... then I can't help you there.

You presume too much.  Read my words and not INTO my words.  All of this talk of "internal passions" being passed off as rationalism is both nonsensical and tangential.  You can disagree with my conclusions buth there is nothing irrational about the process by which it was reached.  I gave full consideration to the fact that Iraq is pretty much a lawless state and that in many other parts of the Middle East that the function of law is but a facade which readily gives way to tribal and other ad hoc customs and manners of effecting 'justice'.

I also never said anything about anyone or anything having monopoly on civilized behavior... true today is Sunday, but keep that sermon for the pulpit.

  Testy are we? I actually agree with your conclusions, but as a man who seems to enjoy the smell his own farts you obviously can't distinguish between "rationality" and flatulence.
The reasoned debate going on inside your head somehow magically getting transformed into short wind borne noises as it hit your keyboard. Just make sure you wipe off you fingers after you type. Febreeze does work good after I indulge in a long hard rant shit.

And you come by this conclusion how??  Given the focus of your response on flatulence and excrement... it really does beg the question as to where your head is.

Literally.

[asylumseeker]

...and this relates to the issue, how?

Come nah man ...

You discussing "motivation"... I am talking about his actions.

I don't know his motives and don't care to speculate.  

I haven't read all the replies in detail yet but ah just want to go back a bit to Bakes' point of respecting the Office..

Bakes...ah have to disagree wid yuh when yuh say that Bush hasn't lowered the Office of the President (to the extent that Clinton did I think is what you said)....I understand your point overall about disrespecting the Office, but just think about what this man VIA his Office has done to Iraq and the Iraqi people.  And this Iraqi thing is only one facet of the many hideous things he's done VIA his office thereby brining the Office into disrepute.

To be honest, if it were any one else I probably would not have found this episode funny....I most likely would have recoiled in horror...but this is Bush!!...Bush!!....a man after whom Comedy Central made an entire cartoon series over.....that and this shoe episode is something I NEVER thought I would have seen in my lifetime!!......NOBODY holds this man in high regard....but that's whose fault??....

In the circumstances its almost impossible to disassociate him and the office he holds....and I guess that's why its so easy for a man to ACTUALLY formulate de thought of taking off he shoe and sailing it after him...
In a way this will probably sum up his Presidency.....and to be honest it will be fitting....
One more thing, Cheney shoulda be standing next to him to collect one too...

Brownsugar... it's certain a matter of opinion/perspective.  In my opinion one would reduce the office by committing acts that are unbecoming of the office, doing things you wouldn't expect "a President" to do.  You don't reduce the office by acting within the scope of your presidential powers, and within the scope of expectations that accompany them.

Nixon encouraged behavior that was clearly illegal... then lied.  Clinton engaged in behavior that was immoral... and then lied.

Bush, acting within the proper scope of his powers simply made poor decisions in formulating and then executing policy.  You can say that he too also lied about the premise upon which war was waged... but I personally put the actual lies at the feet of his advisors.  I believe Bush was clueless enough to actual think he was justified and telling the truth.

But that's my personal perspective.

I'll address your second contention first. You have presented an attractive and substantive delineation. However, policy has LONG been viewed as incorporated within the gamut of condemnation inuring to the level of the diminution of political office ... it's the very reason protesters take to the street or engage in radical mass action. I'll suggest Reagan and Iran-Contra as an example ... without reaching the 'knowledge' reservation you have regarding Bush (b/c there is a nexus here re: what Reagan knew or didn't know) ...the very reason Presidents are purposefully insulated from 'knowledge' is so as not to drag them into questionable affairs that bring the office into disrepute ... regardless of the status of said policy.

As to the first contention ...Political acts are informed by motivation. And, frankly, the journalist removed the role of speculation from our analysis by virtue of his words, the context, the background, his experience inter alia.

[asylumseeker]

Rendered by Bakes:

As I said... there's no need for me to enumerate the many reasons why I have come to think that the society in which the event occurred is a functionally lawless one. I similarly see no need to sit here and recount for your pleasure the many instances of ad hoc and outright arbitrary 'justice' that's handed out on the regular throughout much of the Middle East.... an upon the basis of which my statements were made.  If you choose to be obtuse and construe it as an "unwarranted extrapolation" blah blah blah... then I can't help you there.

Yet you (and Daryn) seem to gloss over that this 'functionally lawless' journalist falls squarely within the affected class ... or did you miss that he was kidnapped last year?

What of the symbolism of Bush's final press conference? Come nah man ... Bakes you always make most sense when you don't deliberately prioritize semantic dissection and argument for argument's sake ....

[elan]

ah president get pelt with ah shoe and duck it and that not funny???  you hatto be related to the grinch boy

If that's the silly-ass criteria you offer on which to judge my disposition... then I might be similarly justified in questioning your intellect, and on the body of the evidence I might actually be right.

Now when all de laughter die down, that will be de sad part of the whole thing.....that he, Bush brought de office down to such a low level that a man could fathom pelting a shoe after him....if we didn't know before we know now, the US Presidency and its office has hit rock bottom, in fact it reach subterranean level...
Thank God, redemption coming Jan 20th....

Bush has made some poor executive decisions but I'd hardly say that he has reduced the office... arguably Clinton did much worse.  He's an unpopular president so people will take whatever opportunity to join in anything that makes him look bad.  I hardly think anybody would be laughing had it been Obama standing at the lectern instead.  I just find it shocking... and unnecessary, but at the same time typical of today's mindset... you disagree with someone or you're frustrated at them and the next thing that comes to mind is to attack them physically.

I don't understand. Clinton arguably did worse, but Bush is unpopular. For all the "worse" that Clinton do, you can argue that he was well received around the world. Think about the amount of disrespect a person has to have to even attempt such a thing (throwing a shoe). This is the President of the United States of America, and you have a person who believe that he can just toss his shoes at the President. How much lower can it get?

NOw I understand what you saying, but from a layman point of view, what happened was disrespectful and embarassing to the President office.

[elan]

...and this relates to the issue, how?

Come nah man ...

You discussing "motivation"... I am talking about his actions.

I don't know his motives and don't care to speculate.  

I haven't read all the replies in detail yet but ah just want to go back a bit to Bakes' point of respecting the Office..

Bakes...ah have to disagree wid yuh when yuh say that Bush hasn't lowered the Office of the President (to the extent that Clinton did I think is what you said)....I understand your point overall about disrespecting the Office, but just think about what this man VIA his Office has done to Iraq and the Iraqi people.  And this Iraqi thing is only one facet of the many hideous things he's done VIA his office thereby brining the Office into disrepute.

To be honest, if it were any one else I probably would not have found this episode funny....I most likely would have recoiled in horror...but this is Bush!!...Bush!!....a man after whom Comedy Central made an entire cartoon series over.....that and this shoe episode is something I NEVER thought I would have seen in my lifetime!!......NOBODY holds this man in high regard....but that's whose fault??....

In the circumstances its almost impossible to disassociate him and the office he holds....and I guess that's why its so easy for a man to ACTUALLY formulate de thought of taking off he shoe and sailing it after him...
In a way this will probably sum up his Presidency.....and to be honest it will be fitting....
One more thing, Cheney shoulda be standing next to him to collect one too...

Brownsugar... it's certain a matter of opinion/perspective.  In my opinion one would reduce the office by committing acts that are unbecoming of the office, doing things you wouldn't expect "a President" to do.  You don't reduce the office by acting within the scope of your presidential powers, and within the scope of expectations that accompany them.

Nixon encouraged behavior that was clearly illegal... then lied.  Clinton engaged in behavior that was immoral... and then lied.

Bush, acting within the proper scope of his powers simply made poor decisions in formulating and then executing policy.  You can say that he too also lied about the premise upon which war was waged... but I personally put the actual lies at the feet of his advisors.  I believe Bush was clueless enough to actual think he was justified and telling the truth.

But that's my personal perspective.

Bush new there were no relation berween 9-11 and Iraq yet HE CHOOSE" to go down that road. You can argue that the people around him fed him bad info, however he is the President and should have insight into what is really happening. I certainly believe that he knew exactly what he was doing when, he entered Afghanistan and Iraq.

He therfeore also ordered the killing of many innocent people and lied about it. 

[ZANDOLIE]

I don't understand. Clinton arguably did worse, but Bush is unpopular.

How so?

[asylumseeker]

...and this relates to the issue, how?

Come nah man ...

You discussing "motivation"... I am talking about his actions.

I don't know his motives and don't care to speculate.  

I haven't read all the replies in detail yet but ah just want to go back a bit to Bakes' point of respecting the Office..

Bakes...ah have to disagree wid yuh when yuh say that Bush hasn't lowered the Office of the President (to the extent that Clinton did I think is what you said)....I understand your point overall about disrespecting the Office, but just think about what this man VIA his Office has done to Iraq and the Iraqi people.  And this Iraqi thing is only one facet of the many hideous things he's done VIA his office thereby brining the Office into disrepute.

To be honest, if it were any one else I probably would not have found this episode funny....I most likely would have recoiled in horror...but this is Bush!!...Bush!!....a man after whom Comedy Central made an entire cartoon series over.....that and this shoe episode is something I NEVER thought I would have seen in my lifetime!!......NOBODY holds this man in high regard....but that's whose fault??....

In the circumstances its almost impossible to disassociate him and the office he holds....and I guess that's why its so easy for a man to ACTUALLY formulate de thought of taking off he shoe and sailing it after him...
In a way this will probably sum up his Presidency.....and to be honest it will be fitting....
One more thing, Cheney shoulda be standing next to him to collect one too...

Brownsugar... it's certain a matter of opinion/perspective.  In my opinion one would reduce the office by committing acts that are unbecoming of the office, doing things you wouldn't expect "a President" to do.  You don't reduce the office by acting within the scope of your presidential powers, and within the scope of expectations that accompany them.

Nixon encouraged behavior that was clearly illegal... then lied.  Clinton engaged in behavior that was immoral... and then lied.

Bush, acting within the proper scope of his powers simply made poor decisions in formulating and then executing policy.  You can say that he too also lied about the premise upon which war was waged... but I personally put the actual lies at the feet of his advisors.  I believe Bush was clueless enough to actual think he was justified and telling the truth.

But that's my personal perspective.

Bush new there were no relation berween 9-11 and Iraq yet HE CHOOSE" to go down that road. You can argue that the people around him fed him bad info, however he is the President and should have insight into what is really happening. I certainly believe that he knew exactly what he was doing when, he entered Afghanistan and Iraq.

He therfeore also ordered the killing of many innocent people and lied about it. 

Consequently, he himself could well reason ... two flung shoes are par for de course ... along with the middle fingers etc. he referenced ...

To tack onto the 'policy' comment made by Bakes ... the difference is, Bush could walk away to his new home in Dallas and whatever awaiting luxuries he chooses to occupy himself with ... countless Iraqis and US servicemen and relations have to plod on with the payment of ongoing consequences, while President Bush considers the legacy of a presidential library ... the prerogative of his insulation.

[asylumseeker]

"Sugar, yuh eh lie bout dem Huffington comments ...

Bush needs to do some sole searching.
 
Why did Bush come back up for more after the first shoe was thrown?
Doesn't he know those things usually come in pairs?
   
Perfect metaphor for the Bush years: Shoe first and ask questions later.
   
Why doesn't he just stay at home, turn the lights off, and sleep until January 20?
   
starting leave shoes at the white house!!!! until he is gone i hope there are millions of shoes they have clean up around the clock!!!! can i mail them there?!?!?!?!?!

It is typical of the Bush, that he interprets the incident in terms of himself. "I wasn't worried, blah blah..."
The gesture wasn't done to get attention. It was done to show the contempt that Iraquis and most everyone in the world feels toward this monster. The fact that the press hasn't reported on Bush's unpopularity throughout the world is a huge failing. It also points out the big lie the Aamericans will be "welcomed us as liberators." Let's hope that when the other shoe falls it will be at the Hague.

Somebody! Quick! Get me the name of that reporter -- I want to send him some shoes.   
he's a shoe in for best reporter of the year.