How many Dems would be up in Arms if shoe would have been thrown at Ahmudimajud at Columbia U?
A lot more than are because Bush was.
This entry was posted
on Friday, March 5th, 2010 at 8:11 am and is filed under columbia shoes.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
March 5th, 2010 at 1:30 pm
Probably none, since your question implies an invalid assumption that Democrats support him in any way.
References :
March 5th, 2010 at 1:48 pm
Yes.
There is that whole 1st amendment thingamajig in the Constitution.
References :
March 5th, 2010 at 2:24 pm
This Democrat would have been the one to throw his shoes at him.
References :
March 5th, 2010 at 3:11 pm
A lot more than are because Bush was.
References :
March 5th, 2010 at 3:58 pm
They only care about their own–the Democrats have turned against even the most basic American Ideals..it’s very depressing really–to see them go like Hitler fans–toward the ideology of nationalistic socialism–ie: nazism.
God damned america!with BO for 4years.
References :
March 5th, 2010 at 4:45 pm
Bush apologists keep asking inane questions like you just did instead of the real question:
Why, nearly 6 years after we were told the Iraqi’s would welcome us with open arms, are shoes being thrown at not only effigies of the president of the United States but at the man himself? The right criticizes the left for laughing at the incident while they, the right, attempt to brush off its significance.
References :
March 5th, 2010 at 5:06 pm
You know that most of them would have been and it would have been a very loud cry at that.
References :
March 5th, 2010 at 5:39 pm
the difference is bush deserves a lot worst then a shoe being throw at him. there could be a war crimes trial.
References :
March 5th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Every last one of them. And they would probably have stoned the conservative that threw the shoe.
References :
March 5th, 2010 at 6:55 pm
Democrats would have considered it part of the "vast right wing conspiracy" and an attack on his 1st amendment rights.
References :