QuoteReplyTopic: GOOD BY MR. BUSH!!! Posted: 24-Dec-2008 at 14:25
That's certainly a good reason to consider losing control of your emotions shameful. So in fact it makes perfect sense, and you discovered it yourself.
Further, a war waged on emotions rather than cold reasoning will be lost. Keeping control of your emotions is more important in war than anything, and murder is as they say best served cold.
Now, the real question is, did it accomplish anything? Sure, we are talking about it, but the act is not bringing up anything that we didn't know. We are just discussing how one man got to do what so many in the world want.
But in the big scheme of things the shoe throwing doesn't change anything.
Of course it accomplished things. It countered propaganda by the lying dickheads in the Western press who write that 'although Iraq is a mess, the Iraqis are better off today than they were under Saddam'. It increased the morale of the Iraqi resistance and reduced that of the occupiers. It was a protest action, clear and loud. If you still don't understand, what it means is 'even the president of the invaders is not safe from the reaction of the Iraqi people, not even in his stronghold'.
In the big scheme of things, he accomplished far more than an American voting for Obama, for instance.
Originally posted by Reginmund
My my, it seems this is an emotional topic. I thought of it as more of a rare moment of comedy in the world of politics; from the hilarious act of throwing shoes, which does make one look much like a clown, to Bush dodging and commenting on the shoe size.
The protester said that he was doing it for the dead Iraqis. If you still think this is funny with Iraqi deaths in the hundreds of thousands,
a. you'll learn to be respectful when you stop playing with your toy tanks and grow up,
b. or if you are a teenager; stop watching too much Hollywood,
c. or if you are an adult; you should be ashamed of yourself.
From a serious POV it must be said I'm no fan of Bush, the republicans or the conservative right in the US, but in this particular case I can't help but sympathise more with Bush who handled the situation with style and came out on top, rather than some hothead who couldn't control his emotions and embarassed himself with a futile and comical act.
I have a hard time believing that anyone can be 'naive' enough to believe that this action was a spontanous outburst of violence by someone who couldn't control his emotions. That man knew exactly what he was going to do before he came to that conference room. He knew that he is in occupied Iraq and he was to attack the man responsible (at least symbolicly). He was risking being shot on the spot, tortured, or imprisoned. He knew all this, and he still did it. It was clearly a calculated action, far more so than the invasion of Iraq itself.
I understand from that a different cultural point of view having shoes thrown at one might be seen as something terrible, but I doubt anyone outside that particular circle will be aware of this. In European and East Asian cultures losing control of your emotions is seen as shameful.
No, you don't understand anything at all. You just believe that some eye-rab behaved like a clown because he was unable to control his emotions due to his racial inferiority, but Bush, being white, maintained his dignity and showed the world the superiority of the western culture and the white race...
And before anybody starts whining 'don't call him racist', I'll just mention that I have a backup of a nice little post where Reginmund brags that he is aware of current race-superiority theories and explains why he believes racial stereotypes on IQ are correct (i.e. believes that the niggers and wogs are idiots), practically confirming that he is a racist. So since he says that he does not like the Bush (neither do the white supremacists), I think it is likely that he is trying to use this protest to further his racist agenda.
The protester said that he is doing this for the dead Iraqis. If you still think this is funny with Iraqi deaths in the hundreds of thousands,
a. you'll learn to be respectful when you stop playing with your toy tanks and grow up,
b. or if you are a teenager, stop watching too much Hollywood,
c. or if you are an adult, you should be ashamed of yourself.
I would like to just add one more rule/guideline that I think would be more accurate for Reginmund:
Or D: Respectfully disagree with Bey's views on the subject and like an adult have your own perception of a situation.
No one needs to be pigeon holed, no need to go after someone based on their views. You want to defeat someone, defeat their arguement, don't disrespect them. Views differ, just because he sees things differently doesn't mean he has to be some option that you conjured up.
Can we please try to keep this civil? I don't get why there has be arguements made to belittle people instead of arguements against a point of views.
Edited by SearchAndDestroy - 24-Dec-2008 at 17:54
"A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government." E.Abbey
The first US President not to walk in the inaugural parade was George Washington, who rode a horse. The first one to ride in a car (automobile) was Warren Harding. And the first one to walk was Jimmy Carter.
Thanks alot dear gcle2003,
As I had stated that I was not sure of it so thanks alot for correcting me and by the way I had got that view from Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, and didn't think that a director of a documentry movie wouldn't miss out on those infos, but still he is a human isn't he???
Of course it accomplished things. It countered propaganda by the lying dickheads in the Western press who write that 'although Iraq is a mess, the Iraqis are better off today than they were under Saddam'. It increased the morale of the Iraqi resistance and reduced that of the occupiers. It was a protest action, clear and loud. If you still don't understand, what it means is 'even the president of the invaders is not safe from the reaction of the Iraqi people, not even in his stronghold'.
In the big scheme of things, he accomplished far more than an American voting for Obama, for instance.
Come on, Bey!
You know well that this was an empty symbolic act. First, most people in the U.S. don't like or believe Bush; about 70% of Americans. So none of these people are learning anything new by the journalist throwing his shoe at Bush. And the rest of the West had figured this one before the U.S., so there isn't a change there: the U.S. isn't any closer to leave Iraq because of those flying shoes.
And your second comment is ridiculous: McCain was for the war and would probably have surrounded himself with the same people that created the war. Removing these people from power is a lot more significant than throwing shoes at an unpopular president.
A rather poor calculation then, given his present state.
You still don't understand do you? He knew this would happen, he still did it.
You seem to overanalyse me here, though I appreciate the attention. I did not have the IQ survey of Lynn and Vanhanen in mind when I wrote that post, neither would I jump from an isolated incident of an Iraqi shoe thrower to generalisations about the intelligence of his people.
Yes, you would. That's exactly what the racists like you do.
I do have some faith in these IQ surveys however; there is much that speaks in favour of them, little to contradict them, and seeing as the East Asians score higher than anyone it can hardly be accused of being culturally biased in favour of Europeans. But, this incident had no impact on my attitude towards the study.
Those 'surveys' are non-scientific bollocks. I know since I happen to be a scientist. That's another nice excuse of your kind, 'East Asians score slightly higher, so we are not racist, but blacks score still much lower, so let's keep them in ghettos'.
Whether or not you call me a racist doesn’t matter to me, neither should it to anyone.
Unless you haven't noticed, people get banned from this forum for being racist. If you are racist towards Jews or blacks you'll get banned, if you are racist towards Arabs/Muslims, that's mostly OK, following the current trends in the West. It is therefore up to members such as me to keep an eye on the racists in the forum who don't get banned. And confront them when they get too carried away with their eye-rab hating.
What matters is who is right, not who is the most PC.
Ha, yet another refuge of the Western racist 'I'm not racist, I'm just not PC'. Not only you know the details of the racist theories, you also know all the excuses, must be reading the stormfront org everyday.
To clear things up right here; I do believe there are biological differences between humans who have evolved in different parts of the world under different conditions, in fact it would be more shocking if there weren’t, and it shouldn’t surprise anyone in the slightest that this also has an impact on intelligence.
There are no such differences in intelligence. No respectable study ever found any so-called IQ difference between human populations that can be attributed to differences in DNA. Even with biased IQ tests. I will give you a sample question from a modern IQ test (used in the UK to assess young students):
'finish this sentence: Mona Lisa is to Leonardo da Vinci as The Thinking Man is to ...' Wow, that's really non-biased, a truly scientific test... Just imagine older tests: they were asking questions about baseball players to recent immigrants to the US to test their IQ...
Thus, anyone who claims to have discovered IQ differences accross the nations (let alone that explains their economic situation) by comparing their test performances over the decades is either a retard himself, no need for a test, or has a racist agenda.
That is not to say that one type of human has an inherent worth higher than that of another, unless you set intelligence as the sole measuring stick.
There are no such things as 'types of humans' or races. There is a genetic continuum gradually changing. As to intelligence being the 'measuring stick' it is how your kind measure people not us.
Hugo,
I already wrote why that was a perfectly meaningful and useful protest action, I won't repeat myself, as it is still up there.
And your second comment is ridiculous: McCain was for the war and would probably have surrounded himself with the same people that created the war. Removing these people from power is a lot more significant than throwing shoes at an unpopular president.
I will comment on this, though. Just how delusional are you? McCain would have surrounded himself with the same people, but Obama surrounds himself with with who exactly? Who was the secretary of Defence under Bush? Who had that job under Obama? Gates, the same f**king man. Who is the anti-war dove who will be Obama's Secretary of State? Hillary Clinton...
In other words, these IQ surveys are part of one big conspiracy by White Westerners who praise one non-White people in order to discriminate another. Sounds like a stretch to me. I won't claim full understanding of the premises on which this particular survey is based, and for all I know it could very well be off, but based on what I do know the results add up with what can be observed in these societies both historically and contemporarily, and hence I find it more likely than not that this survey is on to something.
As for being racist, I already explained that unless you put IQ as a measuring stick there is no reason to believe one type of human is more worth than another. But yes there are different biological types of humans, you need only go from a brother to his sister to find biological variety, if you go further you will find even greater variety, and at some point the differences will be so evident you can draw a line and group the different types into races for the sake of systematization. If this is your definition of what a racist does then very well, call me one.
I'm not particularly afraid of being banned. I wouldn't be so spineless as to let regulations decide what my opinions should be, and even if my viewpoints may be controversial I always try to relate to opposing views in an open and friendly manner, even when greeted with insults, patronising and anger.
I will comment on this, though. Just how delusional are you? McCain would have surrounded himself with the same people, but Obama surrounds himself with with who exactly? Who was the secretary of Defence under Bush? Who had that job under Obama? Gates, the same f**king man. Who is the anti-war dove who will be Obama's Secretary of State? Hillary Clinton...
Bey,
You know well that neither Gates nor Clinton were the architects of the war in Iraq. Gates wasn't the secretary of Defense when the war was being planned. Clinton wasn't involved in creating the war either. McCain was going to be surrounded by imperialistic neocons who are still deeply in denial about the failure of their empire wars.
Also, you know that this latest argument is a cheap attempt to distract us from the fact that you made a a ridiculous argument when you said that changing a government is less important than the symbolic act of throwing shoes to Bush.
n other words, these IQ surveys are part of one big conspiracy by White Westerners who praise one non-White people in order to discriminate another.
What conspiracy? They want to do that and they make or find some faulty research to support that. That's it.
I won't claim full understanding of the premises on which this particular survey is based, and for all I know it could very well be off, but based on what I do know the results add up with what can be observed in these societies both historically and contemporarily, and hence I find it more likely than not that this survey is on to something.
In other words, you don't know anything, but believe what you want to believe.
As for being racist, I already explained that unless you put IQ as a measuring stick there is no reason to believe one type of human is more worth than another.
If you invent 'races' and inferiorities between them (where none exists), you are a racist. You don't have to campaign for apartheid or for extermination camps. We all know you will do that when the time is right. I follow the Taoist school myself: deal with the problem when it's small. Or as the Turks say 'crush the snake's head when it is young', as it better applies to your case.
But yes there are different biological types of humans, you need only go from a brother to his sister to find biological variety, if you go further you will find even greater variety, and at some point the differences will be so evident you can draw a line and group the different types into races for the sake of systematization.
Differences within a population of humans are far greater than differences between populations. There are no such things as 'different biological types' of humans. As I have written before genetic variety forms a continuum. As such there is no such thing as a white race or a black race genetically speaking. African populations have more genetic difference between them than some have with the European populations, but they are all considered 'Black', because the races are social constructs.
If this is your definition of what a racist does then very well, call me one.
You are a racist by anybody's definition and I call you one.
I'm not particularly afraid of being banned. I wouldn't be so spineless as to let regulations decide what my opinions should be, and even if my viewpoints may be controversial I always try to relate to opposing views in an open and friendly manner, even when greeted with insults, patronising and anger.
I will be happy to greet your kind with insults, patronising and anger, whenever you come to an anti-Bush thread to just to bash Arabs.
Yeah, I was distracting you, you got me. Of course Obama the messiah will change everything. Wolves will lie together with the sheep. Hallelujah, brother!
Whether there are biological types or not depends on whether you are willing to see them or define them into non-existence. Races are but tools of systematization, and there is nothing unreasonable with taking one biological phenotype and classifying it as typical of a particular race, and classifying another phenotype as typical of a different race. Even if the transition from one defined race to another is blurry one can still find workable definitions by starting with the extreme phenotypes and drawing a line somewhere along the way to another extreme. I am well-aware of the genetic diversity of Africa, yet the most common markers of race are pigmentation and bone structure, and in most cases these will distinguish the Black Africans from other groups.
Concerning apartheid, if I am right there is no reason to institutionalize it, it will manifest itself naturally, as it long since has.
I am well-aware of the genetic diversity of Africa, yet the most common markers of race are pigmentation and bone structure, and in most cases these will distinguish the Black Africans from other groups.
Pigmentation and bone structure are completely arbitrary criteria chosen only to further the racist agenda. One can as well define so-called 'races' by blood groups which would make Norwegians and some Africans the same race. This is applicable to all genetic differences. You can define races by anything and say any two populations on the planet are the same race. But racists choose pigmentation. Why? Because it is visible. It is like believing the sun rotates around the world, because that is what it looks like. Unscientific bollocks not worth replying, really.
Concerning apartheid, if I am right there is no reason to institutionalize it, it will manifest itself naturally, as it long since has.
? Apartheid used to be in many places, today it is mostly extinct. And if you try to bring it back we will bash your heads in like we did before, don't you worry.
Yeah, I was distracting you, you got me. Of course Obama the messiah will change everything. Wolves will lie together with the sheep. Hallelujah, brother!
Hide it however you want it, you made a claim that was false, and you seem to not be able to handle my pointing it out well. Your changing the subject doesn't change that. Don't worry about it; we are actually both on the same side, even though we disagree on the means to change the world. Now, where is the Kumbaya smiley?
We can discuss Obama's team in another thread, if you wish, but that was not the comment that triggered this exchanged. Bey said that throwing a shoe to Bush was more important than having Republicans out of the White House by the result of the last election.
I am sorry, this is nonsense. Getting rid of the Republican architects of the war has a lot more impact in the Iraqi war than a man throwing a shoe to Bush.
Bey said that throwing a shoe to Bush was more important than having Republicans out of the White House by the result of the last election.
Just to clarify, I said no such thing. I said he accomplished far more than any one person voting for Obama. He is an individual and his actions can be compared to those of an individual in a similar context.
Obama is, like Al Jassas says Clinton 2.0. If you expect more, you'll be disappointed.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum