Hi Eric been reading your blog on liberal blogs and violence, either
you are a more patient man than me or have a lot thicker skin,as I have
never tried to reason with those of rabid tongue and mind in their own
pits. About your assertion that we……

Says it all, Eric. While providing little solace, we conduct ourselves accordingly, as the Left embraces “fairness”, we embrace “liberty”. I don’t recall “fairness” in the founding documents, but, then again, I’m not on a Federal Bench.

J-

As a Desert Storm Vet i can honestly tell you we needed to go into Iraq. When we left Desert Storm and came back home, I told everyone I knew that we would be back in ten years. I was wrong it was 12. We should have finished the job when we where there the first time.

Invading Iraq was not a mistake, but in the early planning of the war mistakes were made. This has since turned around with a better battle plan. Conditions are getting better on the ground and for the Iraqi People.

I would also like to say thank you to all my military Brothers and Sisters for a job well done and to keep up the good work. I wish i could be there with you, but i was injured in 97 and was med boarded out.

Semper Fidelis

USMC 89-95 Army 96-98

Have you seen these photos circulated before? By GAWKER? Time Man of the Year a real Trend Setter. Well he does have a big following among the Pot Smokers..I don’t know if they remember to vote though.

Oh No, how is this going to help Michelle’s children?

http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2008/12/obamas-panama-gold-time-one-toke-over.html

Says who ? You ?
That’ll go a long way, but only in a court of opinion.
The fact is that it was our problem in many ways other than WMD’s.
The bleeding hearts cried to Clinton over the Kurds being gassed and he did nothing. If he did, it would of been the old cliche` that liberals start wars out of peace and the right only starts them out of selfish greed.
Had Clinton done something about it you would of been in the same situation we are in now, but under Clinton you would of said that its the intentions that justified it.
With liberals, intentions are all that counts.

You guys cant have it both ways. Acts against humanity are just that, no matter where they are.
Iraq was perceived, and rightly so, to be a future threat and had already been deemed a threat after shooting at our pilots and sending homicide bombers our way.
Parts of South Africa are not our problem but the bleeding hearts are asking why we don’t make it our problem. Neither was Indonesia during the earth quakes.

Jersey, take your condescending more knowledgeable than thou crap and shove it.
It just makes you look like a pompous a$$.
Many people know more about middle eastern culture than you think, we just don’t use it as a tool of arrogant display in order to question the validity of ones argument.
Most people are aware of the meaning behind the Arab use of shoes now only because of the little boy that was seen during the initial invasion repeatedly slapping the toppled statue of Saddam in the face with his slippers.
O.K ? You are not as enlightened as you would like to have us all believe.
The shoes represent one of the filthiest elements in an Arabs life which is why they also carry the same tradition as many Asian cultures do and we do here in Hawaii. That would be to take your shoes off before entering yours or any other house.
I grew up knowing this before you were even born as I’ve had to explain the tradition and its roots to many visitors.
Whether its about physically hurting someone or culture is irrelevant.
Please, try to pay attention.
Regardless of the cultural aspects the shoe STILL COULD OF INJURED BUSH !!!!
Get it ?
This lame a$$ justification of yours where you excuse the action by placing the cultural aspect up front only proves what I said up above.
And that is that intentions are the only thing that matter with liberals, not the means or the outcome.

Our good host would not ask a man to do something with his property that he did not want to do.
Ill go out on a limb and bet money that Eric would just leave if he thought he were being treated unfairly in the name of someone else’s posterity.

I know I would. Sure, you can ask them to change but have no right to b*tch if they say no..

And then you try to justify yourself with blatant hypocrisy.
You say ethics are ethics and they are not arbitrary and subjective morays or personal rules.
Yet right behind that you say the golden rule “IS” subjective.

You cannot and never ever will be able to legislate morals or ethics.
Liberals have tried this repeatedly by dictating what morals and ethics should apply simply according to what their perspective is of moral and ethical behavior are.
You cant make people think the way you think they’re supposed to think.

It would be highly immoral and unethical if someone were to come along and tell Eric how he must cater to his readers based on one mans interpretation of ethics.

First: It was not for us to “give” the Iraqis anything. We don’t belong there and we never did. It was not our problem. I understand the contempt that man felt for Bush. Personally, I wouldn’t stand in the same room with the president. I’d just up and walk out. I wouldn’t throw my shoes at him, though. He’s not worth the statement. But to that Iraqi, apparently it was worth it. If you knew anything about Middle Eastern culture, you’d understand what the throwing of shoes means, and it’s not about physically hurting anyone.

Second; ethics are ethics, they are not arbitrary and subjective morays or personal rules. But if you’re going to follow rules, the Golden Rule, subjective though it may be, is a good place to start. I don’t think our good host would like his words changed for posterity without so much as a notation.

JMJ