Texsox

That was pretty sweet. That also reminds me of Goochi's

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 25, 2008 -> 04:44 PM) Applause again for fair knight Brave. Well done.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 25, 2008 -> 07:27 PM) Because of the symbolism. Just because the object is symbolic, that doesn't make it or or not make it assault. The two facts are wholly independent of one another. If I throw a brick through your window, its criminal damage to property. If the brick has some symbol painted on it, its still criminal damage to property. By any reasonable interperetation of US or common law, this was an assault. Iraqi law? I have no idea. But how could you see that shoe go right where his head had been and think it wasn't meant to hit him? Because you asked . . . Great point regarding symbolism. I don't have a good answer for that besides it speaks of intent. And there are a number of laws that hinge on intent. The brick analogy doesn't fit unless there was a custom of throwing bricks on your lawn and this one sailed high and to the right. Then I agree, throw the book at the brick thrower. (pun intended) Same as if you are flipping someone off, trip, and poke their eye out. Easy. A slow wind up and slow toss from the front versus waiting until he wasn't looking.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 25, 2008 -> 08:57 PM) So where did the 100 votes just show up from, and why have they never been subtracted? From what I know, most states do not count the write in and absentee votes unless the election is close enough for those votes to determine the winner. Minny requires, if possible, that those ballots we counted in the precint where the voter is registered, and by the same process as the rest of the ballots. So once it is decided that those ballots need to be counted, they transport the ballots to the polling place to be counted. Some polling places were closed before the ballots could arrive. Again, Minny's laws then require those ballots to be brought back and a manual count is conducted. So the ballots go from a central mail box, to the precint, and back again. Only these need to be counted separate because the polls had closed before they could get there. I am not saying that the GOP is spinning this or some Dem is breaking the law. But the explanation of the law matches the trail of the ballots, as I read it. It could still be ballot fraud, but there is a legal and plausable explanation.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 25, 2008 -> 04:56 PM) Question is... at what level is it government's job to make sure we can't make a mistake by banning things, rather than taking steps to give people a chance to do what they want to do? (perhaps while also providing ways to fix things if people do make mistakes) In a broad sense we are the government and decide what we want to do. It seems we have tasked the government with assuring our collective futures and perhaps with helping US business and their employees with being successful on a world scale. So we ask for security, in terms of physical threats, and some form of financial security. Then we ask them to stop others from infringing on what we consider to be our rights. I believe that victimiless crimes may fall under keeping us secure and law and order. When a reasonable claim can be made that by allowing X we are creating a nuisance that infringes on our Y, we ask the government to intervene. We don't want hookers walking the streets in front of our homes. We do not want 20 year olds drinking alcohol. We have found that certain drugs eventually create a cost to us when people become addicted. We find a sociatal cost to gambling. When health care costs become an issue we look for ways to lower costs as a society, so we require safer cars, seatbelt usage, lower speed limits, restrict teen driving, etc. It benefits the greater good.

The alcohol lobby will never allow marijuana. There are already smoking bans in almost every public place, I'm not certain if that helps or hurts the efforts. The on-line gambling seems much more doable. But I do not see multi-player games. It will be more along the lines of video poker, slots, etc. I doubt sports book would happen right away, the pro leagues are generally against it. Unleashing a few more vices is also problematic for me. I've always felt we will fail from within.

QUOTE (bmags @ Dec 24, 2008 -> 11:51 PM) http://www.minnpost.com/davidbrauer/2008/1...car_story_false One thing about living in the US, our elections are about as fair as humanly possible. When something makes zero sense and seems totally wrong, there is usually an honest and believable explanation. Many of the problems come from absentee ballots. The root of this is our strong desire to allow everyone to cast a ballot. How sad would it be if we excluded the men and women of our military from voting? Excluded those patients who could not vote because of illness or death (Illinois Dems only) So we must accept that the very few close elections will look biased and ugly and everything else. But the truth of the matter is there is a margin of error in everything that humans do. With as close as this election is, a .1% error is enough for the "wrong" person to be elected.

QUOTE (knightni @ Dec 25, 2008 -> 08:44 AM) Good thing that he wasn't Richard Reid. Nice touch. Did you have to google that?

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Dec 25, 2008 -> 07:43 AM) So because I feel personally offended that that jagbag threw a shoe at our President, that is wrong? I thought that AT THAT TIME, right when it happened, the secret service should have been a little faster on the ball and beat the crap out of the guy. As for now, he is in an Iraqi jail, being subject to iraqi laws, not our laws, so i am not sure what you are complaing about? Over there, insulting a foreign leader is apparently a big deal, since they had that law already onthe books and it wasn't just thought up for this occasion. Or do you want us to respect the custom but not the law? You were really offended? You must spend a lot of time being offended, our Presidents are insulted every day. There are a lot of things over there that Americans found offensive in Iraq's legal system, so offensive in fact, we have lost thousands of US lives trying to fix them. Right after the WMD argument was exposed as based on faulty intelligence, we started looking at how Iraq treated people who insulted the country's leaders. It isn't so amazing we embraced those laws now. Imagine if Saddam had someone beaten for throwing a shoe at him. Something you yourself advocated in this post. I believe this detour of the conversation started with what an appropriate punishment would be. I offered a counter to those that looked through a US lens and felt this was a simple case of assault. That he randomly used a shoe. I read a few articles that pointed out the tradition around that particular symbol and why there are mitigating reasons for Iraq to consider doing nothing instead of a harsh sentence. I thought it was an interesting discussion. Anthropology is a fascinating area of study.

Wow, a white guy driving an F-150 in Texas. s***, that's half the state. The other half has a real truck. A F-250 or F-350

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 24, 2008 -> 11:23 AM) I don't see how you can think he didn't intend to hit Bush. The shoe sailed right where Bush's head was, if he hadn't quickly (and, I must admit, deftly) dodged it. Why did he use a shoe and not something like a cell phone?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 24, 2008 -> 11:39 AM) So we should just ignore the laws as they are in Iraq because it isn't a big deal here? Just the opposite. We should ignore our laws and respect their social customs and accept this was a protest insult and not intended as an assault. We are applying our laws there. Flip off the Pres? no big deal. Flip off the Pres, trip, and poke his eye out? Big deal. If the guy threw a feather pillow, helium balloon, or anything other than a shoe, I'm all for locking him up and calling it assault. From what I read, this shoe thing is intended the same as you flipping me off and not meant to harm anyone. Again, from my understanding of this custom, their is a right way and a wrong way. The correct way results in no physical harm, which is what happened here. So based on that, getting beaten and spending a few years in jail is more like why we were told we went over there to stop.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 10:49 AM) I can't speak for Iraqi law, but by US and general common law, what he did is textbook definition of assault. He threw a potentially harmful object at another person. That is assault. So I wonder how many Iraqi's Saddam locked up for their traditional gesture. I hope we freed all of them when we liberated the country. No wait, we need to beat them. I am so confused. Why did we invade and bomb the hell out of their country again?

This guy did not invent some new insult. The intent, as is the long standing custom there, was to insult and not to actually hit him. Just like flipping him off is not to actually hit anyone with your finger. This seems to be the point that many people are overlooking. This was a traditional gesture. The man had many other objects available to throw at Bush if the intent was to assault him. He did throw a cell phone, clipboard, lap top, chair, he threw a shoe, because that is the custom. Basically you guys would be saying that flipping someone off should result in jailtime. But yes, if Bush was actually hit and died, or any other silly what if you want to come up with, it would be different. Just as if someone was flipping someone off and accidentally killed them or caused them to need stitches. But instead, just like when you flip someone off, no one is hurt, this guy managed the traditional and long standing custom perfectly, and no one was hurt.

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 10:29 AM) Just curious about what you think here. What do you think would happen to an American charged with spitting on the leader of a China/Russia/North Korea/Cuba/Palestine/Canada type country during an official visit of theirs to our country? Disorderly conduct, a fine, 1 year probation. I don't see getting beaten and spending two years at taxpayer's expense, in a federal prison. What would you expect?

Basically it doesn't seem to rise to the level of assault in my estimation. I can't think of anyone doing hard time for throwing a shoe. From what I read, the charges all stemmed from insulting, and that just seems wrong to give someone two years for what is tantamount to flipping him off.

QUOTE (dasox24 @ Dec 22, 2008 -> 11:36 PM) Heading down to Texas to visit my sister/brother-in-law and my brother. My brother-in-law and brother both recently got new jobs, so they don't really have the ability to take off extra days to come here, so my parents and I are heading there. Probably stop by this house too. Saw it the last Christmas I spent down there, 2 years ago. Most Christmas lights I've ever seen on one house. That is smart. I, on the other hand, am stupid. I'm here in Chicago freezing my nuts off everytime I go outside. I swear on the honor of Sam Houston, Milam Smith, Stephen F. Austin, and all the founding fathers of the Great Lonestar State, I will never leave and head north in winter again.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 09:43 AM) Nobody cares about the insult though. Hell, I'm certain that Bush gets insulted much worse than that on a daily basis. But throwing an object at someone is assault, plain and simple (I just threw a pen at my gov't boss a few minutes ago though, lol). I believe SS just posted he's being tried for insulting a foreign leader, not assault.

QUOTE (lostfan @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 09:22 AM) If an American threw a shoe at Bush, Blagojevich, or Obama, they'd be facing charges, too. Plus it would be stupid because it does not have the same connotation here. How about if they flipped him off? Perhaps they would be tried as a hate crime? I do wonder if that was a Saddam era law that was held over or something we insisted they add to their laws when they wrote their new Constitution? Could you image if they locked up an American in Saddam's Iraq for "insulting" a foreign leader by flipping him off? Perhaps beating and torturing him in the process?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 08:23 AM) In Iraq insulting a foreign leader is a crime, and this is what he is being charged with. Which is interesting. Wouldn't this be an example of Saddam era laws? I wonder if we have a similar law here which provides jail time for insulting a foreign leader?

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 08:37 AM) No it wouldnt. Throwing an object at someone and making a gesture are not the same thing. Spitting at someone is an insult. Throwing your shoes at someone is an insult in Arab countries. Who cares what it is the equivalent of? If throwing gum at someone in Iraq was the equivalent of punching someone in the face here should they be judged the same way too? So? I'd be willing to bet assault is assault in pretty much every country around the world and that assault is not just a US law. Furthermore, when has Bush demanded that that Iraqi citizen be jailed? I havent seen that or heard that anywhere. From what I remember, didnt GWB say it wasnt a big deal? Who cares? An earlier analogy was someone spitting on someone here. I agree, what is allowed, not allowed here is not relevant. So, how many people have been jailed for throwing a shoe at someone? Imagine if someone threw a shoe at Rod B. How many citizens of Illinois would be clammering for jail time for the criminal?

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 08:05 AM) It was assault. Assault does not fall under the grounds of freedom of speech. Period. You want a good analogy? What if someone spits on the president while in the US? You think they are just gonna be allowed to walk away without any repercussion? A good analogy would be a foreign President demanding a US citizen be jailed for flipping him off while he is here in the US. Imagine if the President of Turkey expected Turkish laws be followed in the US while he is here. Again, from what I am reading, where it happened, which is the point of the conversation, it is the equivalent of flipping someone off and not a jailable offense. Are you suggesting that US laws should be enforced around the world? It may be assault based on US laws. But this did not happen in the US.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Dec 23, 2008 -> 07:54 AM) If it wasn't meant to harm, why throw it? He could have held it up and made his point all of same, by pointing at the bottom of it and telling him what he was saying. Why did raising the middle finger come to mean something? Why is thumbs up an insult in some parts of the world? I don't know why they chose flinging shoes, it seems kind of stupid, you may have to walk home barefooted. Or perhaps tthat is why, you want to insult them so much you will walk home barefooted. Kind of the opposite of crawling a mile on broken glass. But it seems if you flung your shoe at your neighbor, you would not be locked up.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Dec 20, 2008 -> 08:36 PM) Gigantic surge in demand for this brand of shoes. I wonder sometimes if Mr. Bush truly understands how unpopular he is. He bought two pairs

QUOTE (ChiSox_Sonix @ Dec 19, 2008 -> 08:23 AM) Freedom of speech and throwing objects at a head of state are not the same thing. Imagine the outrage if someone throws a shoe at Obama during his inauguration. Bush was in a foreign country where their traditional insult is to throw a shoe. The shoe is clearly not meant to cause physical harm and you would not be imprisoned for doing that to a random person. If a visiting President was here, do the laws and customs of his country apply, or the US?