Patriotism means opposing those who would turn our democracy into a unitary executive(Dictatorship).

Thank God my State of Ohio thought that turd Kerry should not be President. I am so very proud of my fellow Buckeyes.

I used to be proud of being an American (served our country as an Infantry Platoon Leader)but how can I be now, when are leader is a fool with the education level of a third grader. He is embarrasing to the American public, to his party and the world. When I travel out of the country I tell people I am a Canadian. I would finally have some respect for this idiot if he admited he started something that he cannot finish in Iraq and withdrew our troops. He can't even take care of the mess in this country (Katrina after seven months)let alone world politics. Are you people oblivious to what is going on in the world? Stupid people attract stupid people!

My comments will be reviewed - how first ammendment of you - just like Nazi Germany - what ever happened to freedom of the press?

Ed NoteI thought about deleting this, then I thought, hey! even folks dumber than a box of rocks should have their say.

What amazes me is the fact that Kerry's allegations of Viet Nam misconduct have been thoroughly debunked, and he has even admitted to lying about much of what he said---UNDER OATH---TO CONGRESS.

It has been established that the atrocities he cited simply did not happen. It has been established that many of the so-called Viet Nam Vets Against the War were never, in fact, in Viet Nam, and many never served in the military at all. It has been establised that Kerry never threw his medals over any fence, anywhere---they still hang in his office. As a matter of fact, it has been established that the bogus group of bogus vets "cleaned out" thrift stores and pawn shops to put together a motley assortment of medals, some from Korea, to throw over the White House fence in one of many acts of radical theater.

It stuns me to see Kerry revisiting the old glory days of being a lefty media star, and trying to parlay that into a current position of stardom, after being so completely humiliated by the truth when it came out last time.

If he was so wrong then, why should we think he is right now?

If he was such a total liar then, why should we believe him now?

If he was such a media whore, and political whore, then, why should we hesitate to think he would sell off whatever might be left of his reputation now?

Oh, and if he was willing to betray his country while slipping away to North Viet Nam---TWICE--while still an officer in the United States Navy, to negotiate with the enemy, why SHOULDN'T we question his patriotism now?

Two images say all we need to know about Jumpin' John: His photo, as a national hero, in a museum in North Viet Nam, and the photo on the cover of his disgraceful book, in which he has the American flag turned upside down.

If John Kerry and Jane Fonda had been charged and convicted for their crimes during the Vietnam War, I doubt if the world would be in the mess it is today.

Kerry is irrelevent. I wonder if he still misses one half to 2/3rds of Senate sessions. Its too bad we have to pay his salary.

If stupid people attract stupid people, then Mr. Bloom should be are (our) President's number one fan. I can never understand why those who are embarrassed by our country and its leaders don't leave. I'm sure that Canada would love to have them.

Dissent is one of the inherent rights of this country as long as one has the facts to back it up. To dissent just because the MSM tells you to is not patriotism. It's the herd mentality. Kerry's dissent is politics, plain and simple.

Al Bloom,

Presenting yourself as a Canadian rather than an American, when you travel is out of cowardice, not shame or embarassment. If you don't have the spine to say you are an american but disagree with the president then you have no spine at all. You are a sniveling coward. Perhaps it time for you to find a new flag to hide behind.

Al Bloom,

Presenting yourself as a Canadian rather than an American, when you travel is an act of cowardice, not shame or embarassment. If you don't have the spine to say you are an american but disagree with the president then you have no spine at all. You are a sniveling coward. Perhaps it time for you to find a new flag to hide behind.

"I used to be proud of being an American (served our country as an Infantry Platoon Leader)but how can I be now, when are leader is a fool with the education level of a third grader."

1. Most third graders do not have degrees from two of the most prestigious universities in the world, Yale and Harvard.

2. Even a third grader knows the difference between "are" and "our".

3. How sad that your s-called pride in your country is so superficial that it is so easily tossed aside.

"He is embarrasing to the American public, to his party and the world. When I travel out of the country I tell people I am a Canadian."

Having bragged about being a liar, you expect to be believed about anything?

"I would finally have some respect for this idiot if he admited he started something that he cannot finish in Iraq and withdrew our troops."

The only thing you could bring yourself to admit would be betrayal of our friends and allies, cowardice, and lack of commitment to a worthy cause. And you think the sacrifices of those who really DID serve in the military should be made irrelevant by making them futile. Thank you for no longer representing our country, or our military, if you ever did either.

"He can't even take care of the mess in this country (Katrina after seven months)let alone world politics."

And it is his job, and the federal government's, to do every single thing that needs to be done in New Orleans? Don't claim that nothing has been done about "Katrina". Most of those affected have started to rebuild, with the help of the government. But Bush can't change a flabby dependent welfare mentality overnight, nor can he change the deeply entrenched corruption of (Democratic) Louisiana politics overnight. What happened in New Orleans was only partly due to Katrina.

"Are you people oblivious to what is going on in the world?"

No, that oblivion is saved for those who get all their "information" from Ranty Rhodes and the Daily Kos.

"Stupid people attract stupid people!"

Says the Kerry defender.

"The only thing you could bring yourself to admit..."

Should be "admire"

I like how much time and effort Almiranta puts into his comments.

I say the longer we keep this hoser away from doing anything productive the better.

DAV,
Almiranta takes the time to collect his thoughts, prepare his argument then back it up. You, on the other hand, with the attention span of a greeting card, post monosyllabic contrarianism then congratulate yourself for being pithy.

Patriotism doesn’t mean a person must be encumbered with facts; I’ve long held that many of my patriotic feelings are just that; feelings. My father’s generation gave me this inherently and I’ll never have to defend it with facts.

The issue is whether or not it is patriotic to dissent when that dissent will weaken our efforts to win this conflagration we’re engaged in. There are ways to disagree with the country’s direction while the soldiers are in harms way; merely dissenting because your political party is not in power is not patriotism, it’s political opportunism.

Oh, and DAV, still waiting for my apology, do you have the class to admit you were wrong?

I find it outrageous that Kerry is implying that the troops who have died to bring freedom to Iraq and Afghanistan have been "squandered"...this is the sort of vile, hate-filled beliefs that we see all too often on the left; a left Kerry in pandering to in hopes of getting the Democratic nomination in 2008.

I grew up in western Mass. during the Viet Nam war. My extremely liberal nuns had Kerry (and two other VVAW's) in to talk to us when I was 8th grade. I was one of a VERY small number of conservatives in that school.

I asked then citizen Kerry if he didn't feel he was selling out the soldiers still in Viet nam. No - he was not. He wanted them home. I asked him if he didn't think that the anti-war movement wasn't actually making it harder to negotiate a peace with Viet Nam. No - it was not. But, how do you negotiate from a position of strength with an active movement trying to undermine you? Can someone else ask a question?

OK - So I was only 14 and I got it. He did not. And, he does not get it. He lives in a bubble of privilege and opulence undreamed of by just about any poster here. He sees the world through a warped set of glasses colored by immense wealth. This is what liberal accuse Republicans of. Yet - Kerry is the husband in a Billionaire family. Just as many of the Democrats in power are extremely rich (yet few earned the money themselves, interesting).

I hope, I hope, I hope that he runs for President again. I wonder if he will FINALLY release his military records. SOMETHING HE HAS STILL REFUSED TO DO!

Bane said:

Something about an Apology being needed:

Uh no...I guess I need to filter back through your previous manifestos to find where I would be proven wrong, and that would take too much effort for someone who doesn't care too much. I think you better bring it to my attention which one if any I should read and then I'll respond. Politely I assure you.

On the issue of criticisizing Bush:

Where to start...where to start?

I think an analogy for Republicans still blindly supportive of Bush is in order(33% and a droppin).

You're the type of guys who would stay loyal to their brand of beverage even after high levels of Arsenic are found in it. Sure most of us would switch to Pepsi, but you view your beverage brand as a part of you. To say anything bad about it would be like saying something bad about yourself or mom. This is the dilema facing Republicans today. Brand Loyalty against common sense, and don't you dare say anything about the book of Romans, or I'll have to giggle.

I know after Renu announced it had a fungal contamination in it's vats, I threw out all the bottles of its contact solution I owned, and replaced them with a different, uncorrupted brand. If I were a Republican I would keep using the solution until there were puff balls on my cornea.

"Kerry is irrelevent."

Dang Tina, a lot of stuff is irrelevant in your world. Do you believe the following statement, or is this too an irrelevant question:

"It is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a president

Kerry is a pandering, leftist phony whose opinions on Iraq are less than worthless. He didn’t spend enough time in Vietnam to even qualify for R&R and his post Vietnam antics were both cowardly and traitorous.

Ash,

"It is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a president"

Is it a right? Yes. Is it an obligation? No. Especially since how one perceives what is right and what is wrong is primarily determined on what information they receive on the subject at hand. Downplaying information that denotes that perhaps actions to halt the administration's actions or removing them from office is not the best solution, while overemphasizing trivial information to villainize the administration and its goals, is not an honest representation of facts.

99% of the nation could believe that life is wrong because they've been told since birth all of the hardships of life and haven't had much exposure about the good. So should this 99% of people elect a pro-human extinction candidate on their beliefs?

As usual, this debate degrades into an argument over whose set of facts is correct and whose is false.

Omega Destructor: that was a very good perspective on it all and nicely put.

Ash, he is irrelevent because I choose not to even read what he has to say. Who is he? Just another senator from MA that lost a Presidential bid and goes on CNN, CBS, ABC and spouts out 1 cent of balloney. Who cares what he has to say. He has accomplished almost nill in the Senate.

Tina.

How many times have you been elected a representative for you community?

John Kerry, please keep talking. MSM, please keeping giving him plenty of air time and loads of column inches.

kerry on.

John Kerry: Patriotism Is Opposing Bush

In that case, the opposite is also true. Opposing ANYTHING the Democrats do is not only patriotic but also a duty. Must be a hell of a lot of patriotic Americans as they have booted the Liberals from the Senate, Governorships, House, SCOTUS, and the White House.

I have been doing my duty to my country since I went from being a Democrat in 1980 and switched to the GOP at the same time - Thanks to Jimmy Carter

Kerry's time has come & gone. Isn't there anyone at all who can rally the support of the American people, to once again bring your citizens together. The division you are currently experiencing is tearing your country apart. Bush & his administration will leave a terrible legacy. To those of you who love the U.S.A., you must do your best to bring honor back to your great land. I hope you are up to the task.

(deleted) NO CLASS

Every minute John Kerry spent in Viet Nam was one minute longer than our fearless leader.

John Kerry served his time.

George Bush, took our taxpayers dollars to learn to fly and then didn't fly. When he did, it was one of those dangerous combat air patrols over south texas

-Joe

George Bush, took our taxpayers dollars to learn to fly and then didn't fly. When he did, it was one of those dangerous combat air patrols over south texas

well, which is it? he flew, but he didn't fly?

typical Kerry speak. I voted for it before I voted against it.

Joe

What did you fearless leader Bill Clinton do again in the military. I seem to have forgotten.

Bill Clinton didn't invade any countries...

"Patriotism is opposing bush", the people in 46 out of 50 states get it. Only the people in Idaho, Nebraska, Utah and Wyoming give busy more then a 50% approval rate. Do the people in those 4 states have access to the news? Peace

Steve,

Interesting question you asked Tina.

Maybe if I married and divorced a very rich woman, then married another very rich woman I could afford to run for office.

Or, maybe if my father was an alcohol smuugling ganster - I'd figure that power was mine by birthright. I'd ignore the fact he was forced from his post as ambassador to England for trying to extort wiskey import exclusivity for support for their fight against Hitler. That is a minor detail.

Or, maybe if my name was Gore, Rockefeller, or Byrd - I'd figure that since daddy was rich or a senator or both then power was mine as a birthright.

But you're right. Being Republican means we're just middle class working people. Hardly able to afford a house, some cars, and college for the kids. Hardly able to stand the Democrats who are constantly trying to buy votes with money they tax from us.

Yep. You're right. We can't afford to buy ignorant Democrat votes like the Kerry's, or Kennedy's, or anyone else in the Democrat super rich club. I wonder who is conning who about being for the poor?

Um Steve,

Actually he did. But he did a crappy job of it. He already had plans to leave Somalia BEFORE he let those Rangers get killed. We are still in the Balkans - thanks to him. He bombed, and fired missiles. He had a factory blown up that may well have produced milk. But you know what? I'm OK with that. What I'm not OK with is Kool-Aid drinking fanatics who choose to ignore and twist history. Like You.

Bush did not lie us into Iraq. Based upon the facts as presented to him - any responsible leader would have done the same. And, do you have a problem with him crushing the Taliban? Because I don't.

You wonder why we don't trust the Democrats on national defense? It’s because you are clowns.

Well I frankly disagree with you at the core level omega. It is our obligation to hold our presidents accountable, and disagreeing is part of the process. Surely even you don't agree with everything President Bush does. You are failing in your contract as a member of a democratic society if you don't make your disagreement known.

"Ash, he is irrelevent because I choose not to even read what he has to say."

And that is fair enough, except you should have said he wasn't relevant to you. But that doesn't make him irrelevant to the rest of the country.

That's all I meant.

I guess Steve forgets that Der Schlickmeister was President in the middle 90's when he agreed to have US troops bear the brunt of the action in Bosnia and said they'd be out of there in six months.

"What did you fearless leader Bill Clinton do again in the military. I seem to have forgotten"

Well it always goes back to Clinton, eh. Your just jealous 'cause he did better with the ladies, CJ. The greatest President in my lifetime has been JFK. He was also good with the ladies. Maybe there's a correlation.

W. has the Stepford First Lady, Laura.

Ash -
"disagreeing is part of the process." Yes. absolutely. But, when all the Democrats have is disagreement with no suggestions or plans of their own, then it is petty and hurts our nation. No real defense plans - they have disagreed with nearly every anti-terrorist action taken. No plan for social security. No plan for energy independence. No plans for anything. Only criticism. Is THAT helpful? Or is that hateful? It’s like the Monty Python “argument sketch”.

We have heard a litany of anti-Bush and anti-Republican chants from the rest. One after another after another. When the Right disproves the facts in one - its on to the next one. And THAT Ash is what makes John Kerry and the left irrelevant. The fact that they never really have anything to say. The fact that they all make wild accusations and when disproven, just move on to the new ones. The fact that they are willing to expose and destroy national security programs with no alternative plan to deal with the problem. That is why we don't trust them.

Can you – or anyone here actually explain to me in a simple paragraph just what the hell John Kerry proposes we do? I actually try to read his crap – and honestly I can’t figure out what he’s proposing. Please

Um Ash - just what did JFK accomplish?

Yes - he started the Peace Corps. He also started the Green Berets - I guess thats cool. He lost us some bases in Turkey. He let a radical wacko America hateing regime stand in Cuba - 90 miles from the USA. He let the Russians build a wall around Berlin (which came down under Reagan), and ALMOST BLEW UP THE WORLD IN A NUCLEAR WAR!!!!!!! So great!

But - he did agree that cutting taxes was the way to stimulate the economy. Today - he would be more Republican on economics than he would be Democrat.

Please - name some of his accomplishments. FYI - Reagan was the greates president in your lifetime.

Ash,

"Well I frankly disagree with you at the core level omega. It is our obligation to hold our presidents accountable, and disagreeing is part of the process. Surely even you don't agree with everything President Bush does. You are failing in your contract as a member of a democratic society if you don't make your disagreement known."

I suppose I was unaware of how you defined "obligation." In the way you're implying it, I suppose that it is an obligation to disagree with him in the same way that it's an obligation to vote. That is, it's not really an obligation, but one that one feels everyone should have.

I certainly do not agree with everything Bush does. But does that mean I disagree with him on a whole? No, it does not. I disagree with some of his immigration policies and some of his foreign relation policies, but I agree with him in many other areas. So, disagreeing with some of what he says does not mean I should freak out, call for impeachment, and switch parties. In fact, if I were to do that, I could guarantee that I'd run out of parties to go to, since every single one doesn't fit my exact ideals.

The problem with Kerry's assertion is that it implies that many people support Bush simply because he is Bush, and not because of his policy. In other words, he's saying that none of Bush's policies are worth defending, so the people have to base their vote on his personal qualities. It's a clever thing to say, but I don't think it's true. You can say the same thing about any politician, and it could come off as true.

John Kerry stated,

"...It is both a right and an obligation for Americans today to disagree with a president who is wrong, a policy that is wrong, and a course in Iraq that weakens the nation. Again, we must refuse to sit quietly and watch our troops sacrificed for a policy that isn't working while Americans who dissent and ask tough questions are branded unpatriotic."

It is, indeed, a RIGHT to disagree with the president - or anyone - whom you believe is wrong. But along with that right, there comes a RESPONSIBILITY. The disagreement must be rational, focused, and offer constructive alternatives to that which is deemed unacceptable. So far, I've heard little in the form of dissent that fits into the criteria just listed.

It is NOT an obligation to disagree with the president - or anyone - whom you believe is wrong if you are not pointing out a clear alternative to the path upon which you disagree.

I disagree with John Kerry's premise that the policy in Iraq is weakening this nation. I disagree with his premise that the policy being pursued by the President is wrong, or that the President himself is wrong. The President's policy in pursuing the Global War On Terror is yielding significant progress in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East. This progress is not immediately evident, but for those who are willing to find it, it is occurring.

I don't question Mr. Kerry's patriotism. There's no question in my mind where his agenda lies with regard to this nation's security and progress. He's on the opposition's side, with no qualms about it. He's a fifth columnist partisan. Every vote, every speech, every political act he's undertaken for the past 35 years shows who he is and what he stands for. It's good to have him in the Senate. He's a great example of what this nation must overcome as part of our Global War On Terror. We must overcome the quislings along with the jihad warriors. They also play a part in the equation, for without them, the jihadists wouldn't see a light at the end of their long, long tunnel. Ask the North Vietnamese how psychologically important it was for them to have people like John Kerry and Jane Fonda cheering for their side in the midst of the darkest days of their struggle. It kept them going. And so, even today, the snake in the grass hasn't changed its skin. It's simply slid into another newer, larger one called the U.S. Senate. But it's still filled with poison, and ready to do its damage at the appropriate time.

John Kerry also stated,

"...True patriots must defend the right of dissent and listen to the dissenters. Dissenters are not always right, but it is always a warning sign when they are accused of unpatriotic sentiments by politicians trying to avoid accountability or debate on their own policies. We should know by now that those who are right should never fear scrutiny of their policy and thorough debate."

True patriots who dissent and have aired their grievances and found other patriots unmoved by their arguments should get the message. Sometimes they are wrong. We have listened patiently for the past five years while the drive-by media, democratic operatives, and a variety of self-anointed spokespeople in the blogosphere have repeated their claims of disagreement and dissent. We have disagreed with many of their presumptions, and pointed out why. The dissent is repeated, even as we are attacked for disagreeing with the dissenters. We point out again, why we disagree and occasionally attack them back because we also have human feelings and emotions. Then the dissent is repeated again, as if we didn't hear them the first three or four times. And the process continues, ad naseum.

The fact that this particular blogsite exists and only rarely strikes comments from publication should point to the fallacy in John Kerry's entire argument. There IS active dissent and debate occuring. It's not just here on the blogsforbush site. It's on all kinds of public fora. The entire crux of John Kerry's comments seem to imply that dissent isnt' occurring enough, or is somehow being squelched. That's nonsense, and he knows it.

Bane of Liberals' Existence put it as succinctly as anyone I've read thus far, when he stated,

"...merely dissenting because your political party is not in power is not patriotism, it’s political opportunism."

That's John Kerry, for sure. America sees it for what it is.

Alimaranta's eloquent and well-thought-out statements about who John Kerry was, is, and will always be, is stinging, yet bitterly truthful.

"If he was so wrong then, why should we think he is right now?

If he was such a total liar then, why should we believe him now?

If he was such a media whore, and political whore, then, why should we hesitate to think he would sell off whatever might be left of his reputation now?

...why SHOULDN'T we question his patriotism now?"

The same holds true for those who mouth the same words as John Kerry without understanding their meaning, their basis in fact, or the consequences of their utterances to emboldening our nation's enemies. Calling all of those "dissenters" unpatriotric is nothing compared to what would be their fates had they been "dissenting" in Saddam Hussein's Iraq, or the Taliban's Afghanistan, or in what would be a worldwide caliphate under the jihadist vision of Usama Bin Laden, Musab Al-Zarqawi, Pres. Ahmadinejahde of Iran, or any number of their ilk. The reality is - the can be called unpatriotic and still keep their lives. That their personal integrity is shot full of holes is not insignificant, yet they still have their heads intact.

To John Kerry and all the "patriotic dissenters" on the left of the politically relevant stream of American politics, I say: "Just keep on chanting. Keep on protesting. Keep on pitching the same, tired, old, worn out pitch to the American public that doesn't give a damn about you or your opinion.

In today's world, you either Lead, Follow, or Get Out Of The Way.

The Democrats have thus far refused to do any of the above. Despite their best efforts, this nation WILL move forward. We WILL wage the successful Global War On Terror, and we WILL make the world a more secure, more just one for everyone - including your sorry asses...

Loyalty to country means allegiance to the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and the separation of powers. It does not mean blind support for a president, an administration, or a political party.
-Dr. Paul Craig Roberts

Yes, thats exactly right. It IS patriotic to undermine the war on terror. Say it again slowly.... it is patriotic to undermine the war on terror. Thank you for summing it up so neatly! The sooner you get your mind wrapped around that reality the sooner you can stop wasting your time writing this nonsense.

Or, maybe if my name was Gore, Rockefeller, or Byrd - I'd figure that since daddy was rich or a senator or both then power was mine as a birthright.

But you're right. Being Republican means we're just middle class working people. Hardly able to afford a house, some cars, and college for the kids. Hardly able to stand the Democrats who are constantly trying to buy votes with money they tax from us.

Yep. You're right. We can't afford to buy ignorant Democrat votes like the Kerry's, or Kennedy's, or anyone else in the Democrat super rich club. I wonder who is conning who about being for the poor?

Delicious. You do know that the current president's main qualification for being president is that he is the SON of a president right? Do you have any idea what you are talking about? Are you aware of how rich your the leaders of your party are? HELLO?!?!

Ash,

I'm with Kahn - JFK was a disaster from start to finish; a completely incapable man thrust into a position far beyond his ability, and advised by men who couldn't tell the difference between sh** and shinola...and maybe there is a correlation; because the only 20th century President worse than JFK is Clinton (he's tied with Carter for "worst President ever" - its kinda "six of one, half dozen of the other" between them).

Steve,

Oh, we've got a few rich people in the GOP...not nearly as many as the Democrats have...more importantly, most people who INHERIT vast wealth are Democrats...not having had to work for a living, they don't understand how wealth is created...meanwhile, they feel guilty for their privileged existence, and so advocate massive spending on the poor to make themselves feel better...but, of course, they don't think that they should pay for it....when they want to tax "the rich" you'll never find them taxing un-earned income or inherited wealth...

Libertarian,

Loyalty to country means loyalty to country...our Constitution is changable, but America is an ideal which cannot be amended or abolished. I am loyal to the American ideal, not dry words on paper...

Mark that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. You are seriously mistaken. Maybe that is why Republican campaign funds always eclipse democrats?

Steve,

If you check, you'll find that the bulk of GOP money always has come in from smaller donors - it was the Democrats who have been supported by a small number of very large donations...these days, it is a bit more tricky with campaign finance laws, but an example of how this is got around is out here in Las Vegas - recently, the owner of Rhodes Builders had to fess up to making illegal donations to Harry Reid and other Democrats...this was done by Rhodes having his employees make donations, and then reimbursing them for it.

Think about it - Rockefeller, Kennedy...names soaked in money; both Democrats...

BOTH parties are comprised overwhelming of the wealthiest members of society. This is something that needs to change if we can ever hope to have all Americans accurately represented for by our leaders.

Nelson A Rockefeller - Republican governor of New York

Winthorp Rockefeller - Republican governor of Arkansas

Hmmm... So of the 3 Rockefellers that have held office, 66% have been Republican. Interesting that you would see them as examples of the left.

As for republican getting their money from "the people" that is flat out wrong. Look at any of the contribution summaries and what sectors gave to what party. Financial Sector to Republicans 23.4 million. Financial Sector to Dems 16.5 Contributions from Labor for Republicans 346,904 dollars. Contributions from Labor for Democrats 2.5 million. I suppose if you think the majority of people own businesses not WORK at them, then you would be correct. Why doesn't everyone who owns their own business raise their hand.

It saddens me that the party of the fat cat and the tycoon were able to fool the little people only by picking up a bible. But I suppose I can't really expect more from you. You know there was a time when we made an effort to educate and better our populace, now we are just sinking further into our comfort zones.

Regan? Puh-leez. Well he was a great communicator. Class B actor. Second worst president, ever. (Behind W.)

Mark, you're nuts. Kennedy was a great President.

Based on his record, opposing Bush is every patriot's duty.

"The entire crux of John Kerry's comments seem to imply that dissent isnt' occurring enough, or is somehow being squelched. That's nonsense, and he knows it."

That's not at all the crux of John Kerry's comments. The crux is that dissenters must not be intimidated by Republican strategies that try to paint dissenters as unpatriotic. I find myself again referring to perhaps the most succint expression republican strategy:

"We must continue to propel the propaganda...."

Ash - so, name some of JFK's accomplishments? I challenged you to before – and you could not.

I remember my parents (and indeed the nations) panic scramble for batteries, water, and canned food during the Cuban missile crisis. Besides sleeping with anyone wearing a skirt - it turns out one of his later partners was an East German spy. Nice. Thinking with his rich inherited money muscle. He so antagonized the Russians and Germans that they built a wall around Berlin and tried to starve out the western sections. Brilliant. Oh, and he managed to escalate the few observers Eisenhower sent to Viet Nam into the beginnings of the disaster his successor (LBJ) would turn it into. Great.

Name his accomplishments. You can’t. Admit it.

And Steve, since we’re on the subject of the Kennedy’s how about running that same analysis on them? Include all the nieces and nephews who think they have the RIGHT to rule. All because grandpa Joe was scum. Look into the fact that FDR had to threaten him with arrest for treason if he didn’t resign from his ambassador post. The Brit’s absolutely hated the man.

Reagan had to carry a police issued pistol when as a union leader he blew the whistle on union corruption. He was a totally great and loved governor of California, and Reagan turned the economy around and started the boom that gave us years of prosperity. He decided to escalate the arms race knowing that the Soviets would have to fold. And, he was right. And - though called stupid and worse by asshole lefties - finished much of his second term AFTER TAKING A BULLET for this nation. The only decent argument I’ve ever heard a lefty make against him is the Iran-Contra thing. And that is a whole different argument.

Ash,

Psh! That expression isn't limited to Republicans. It's the manifesto of politics itself, no matter what side you're on. You can bet that even a party whose sole issue is to be against propaganda will propagandize what propaganda is in order to stop the propaganda from propagating.

Oh and Steve? You left out the Hollywood crowd and the trial lawyers.

The VERY rich - who keep their money in untaxable trusts and offshore (like the Kennedy's and Kerry's) use the gifts they dole out through government to stay in power. The Republican party takes it support from the middle class. The limited analysis you wrote proves nothing.

Kahn,

Steve doesn't want to know about all that trial lawyer money flowing to Democrats, nor does he want to know about Hollywood money, nor all the money Democrats rake in from Martha's Vineyard, Marin County, Beverly Hills, Manhattan and other extraordinarily rich areas of the country...and how little money Democrats get from, say, Oklahoma City or Tupelo.

Mark, two words.

1. George
2. Soros
studies say there is more millionaires that donate to the Dems than the GOP The GOP has more of the smaller I.E. $25 or less donors

And who are the oil companies giving to?

"1. George
2. Soros
studies say there is more millionaires that donate to the Dems than the GOP The GOP has more of the smaller I.E. $25 or less donors"

Ever heard of Reverend Moon or Richard Mellon Scaife or Steve Forbes?

Well gee DAV. You tell us. You are short on facts and long on inuendo.

The oil companies give to everyone. They are global. So, I mean EVERYONE. Republican, Democrat, Christian Democrat, Soicialist, Communist, Royal families, Labour, Torrie... EVERYONE. In Louisia, they give to Democrats. In Texas - Democrats and Republicans. The Arabs gave a HUGE chunk of money to build the Clinton Library.

But let me ask you - what of the trial lawyers? Why exactly do you think they support Democrats. Think they want higher taxes? And what about Hollywood? and Marthas Vineyard? and the Hamptons? Who do THEY give to?

And, lets see - what else do these people control? The press, the movies, the TV shows.....who the press does and Google give to? The people who control the access to information? Who do they give to?

They give to Democrats. Because - they want to rule. They want power. And controlling information IS power. Keeping the poor poor and feeding them scraps keep them dependent and voting Democrat. That is the sad legacy of your pathetic party DAV. You are pimps.

Look at cities controlled for decades by Democratic power machines: L.A., Detroit, Philadelphia, New Orleans, Washington, D.C. - they should be Democratic utopias by now - if your system worked. But, um, well they aren't are they?

"Psh! That expression isn't limited to Republicans."

And who was dumb enough to (try to) verbalize it? None other than W. It is just blowback from a culture of corruption that stigmatizes the term when he uses it.

Well Kahn, you got me with this one:

(Regean) finished much of his second term AFTER TAKING A BULLET for this nation.

That slacker Kennedy didn't even work the next day after taking a bullet for his country.

Kahn, let me ask you a question: are you insane?
The Dems control the media?!
That's a joke; Fox, MSNBC, CNBC, NBC are flat out Republican appopligists.
Keith Olbermann, Jon Stewart, Air America, the media watchdogs, and liberal blogs are the only media we have!
And when did Clooney, Moore, Baldwin, Penn, Fonda, and the other liberal actors take over Hollywood and cinema?
TV shows???????? Name five TV shows that are considered liberal.
To quote Bill Maker on your nutjob post: "If you guys are going to be paranoid all the time, why don't you just get high?"

Kahn:

The Cuban Missle Crisis
Sent troops to fight the commies in Viet Nam.
Established the Peace Corps
Set physical fitness as a priority for young people.
Served his country even though in serious pain.
Never used cocaine.
Was never a drunk.
Was a wonderful statesman representing this country.
Took a bullet for this country.
Gave his life for this country.
Was a decorated war hero.

I have this "blogs for bush" web site set up on my yahoo home page and often read it along with other perspectives (as conservatives are notoriously uninterested in doing)...and it just blows my mind to think that there are people here that are so willing to "fall on the sword" per se, how does one consistently and passionately defend a leader who’s approval rating is 33%?? im not a fan of kerry myself, but really folks... are we that blinded by the ideals of patriotism that we cannot see the corruption that is ALL around us??

33% ??? “blogs for bush”... “boobs for bush is more like it”. ha ha

On the matter of war crimes in Vietnam... I wonder if the people who are so adamantly opposed to the idea that they ever happened have been to Vietnam? my wife and I spent a good deal of time there last year, and I can assure you...they did happen. We’ve seen it with our own eyes. a flag sewn on the sleeves of your jacket does not make you impervious to amoral acts or being the products of the horrors of war. Americans are humans...it all a matter of the psyche, once that flips, anyone is capible of doing ANYTHING.

Chris,

Normally I'm not this blunt - and I'll probably regret doing this - but, are you stupid? Seriously - were you born that dumb, or did you have to work at it?

You when to a totalitarian dictatorship which once warred with the US and they advised you that we committed war crimes...and you believed them!?!?!?!

This is 2006, and just can't believe that we've still got people who will believe what a communist tells them...

Ash,

The Cuban Missile Crisis was a complete botch job on Kennedy's part - risking a nuclear war when a surprise bombing attack on the missile sites would have done the trick...and, of course, had he not pulled the plug on the Cuban patriots who were willing to fight to overthrow Castro...

Oh, we've got a few rich people in the GOP...not nearly as many as the Democrats have...more importantly, most people who INHERIT vast wealth are Democrats...not having had to work for a living, they don't understand how wealth is created...meanwhile, they feel guilty for their privileged existence, and so advocate massive spending on the poor to make themselves feel better...but, of course, they don't think that they should pay for it....when they want to tax "the rich" you'll never find them taxing un-earned income or inherited wealth...

It's sad and unsuprising that you believe this, Noonan--after all, you seem to live in a bizarre fantasyland, so making up stuff is pretty much par for the course. Can you substantiate any of this? I mean, I know substantiating your claims is generally un-Noonanlike behavior, but I figure it's worth a shot to watch you try.

Mark,

To recipicate your love for others who don’t think like you, "are you so stupid" to think that just because a country's government is a democracy that you (we) are not lied to? It is said that the first casualty of war is truth and that goes for any style of government.

Power corrupts man, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

================================================

as far as Vietnam, check it out someday. Sure beats Disney and its $9 hamburgers...(in terms of vacations)...you also might learn a thing or two while your at it...get to see the result of foreign policy gone bad. you'll learn that there always two sides to every story. Because I tell you what Mark, I'm not saying that it wasn’t propaganda, but you'll see things that are not in ANY US history book. Its just a different perspective. (again - something that Bushies generally aren’t interested in)

paul

"studies say there is more millionaires that donate to the Dems than the GOP"

cite the study. provide a link. I would like the opportunity to review it.

Ash,

You list one "accomplishment" - the Peace Corps. He also reactivated the Green Berets. Kind of an alternative to the Peace Corpos. My point about Reagan taking a bullet was that he was ridiculed for getting sleepy and having a hard time concentrating AFTER getting shot well into his seventies.

Kennedy came closer to causing a nuclear holocaust than any other American leader. Mark is right. It's not like the crisis just happened and he got us out of it. He led us into it.

How did he do that? By showing weakness in actions and negotiations with the East. They assumed they could get away with it. Hmmmm, I guess he was a good Democrat leader. Typical anyways.

Short of it is - the Democrats TODAY have nothing. No understanding of history and no solutions. You only have a blind hatred of Republicans. You demonize every Repulican leader as stupid or evil or both. Yet, you propose no solutions. Where you have ruled for decades - you rule hellholes of corruption and poverty. You rule vast Democratic populaces dependent on corruption and government hand-outs. That is your legacy.

"You when to a totalitarian dictatorship which once warred with the US and they advised you that we committed war crimes...and you believed them!?!?!?!"

Mark,
I guess My Lai was a total fabrication...

Believe whatever you want to believe.

"a disaster from start to finish; a completely incapable man thrust into a position far beyond his ability, and advised by men who couldn't tell the difference between sh** and shinola..."

Where have I heard that before?
hmmm...

Parker - but WE nailed the people responsible for mai lai. Just as we released the pictures of Abu Graihb and prosecuted those responsible. Meanwhile - The PRV of committed atrocities like torturing Marines and then gutting them live. Cutting off the arms of southern sympathizers, and more. And yet - you are willing to believe any crap these people tell you. Great. No wonder you vote Democrat.

Bush has revitalized a flagging economy left him by Clinton. This despite it getting worse after 9/11. He has toppled the Taliban and severely restricted Al-Quada. He toppled Sadaam - and though ONE of the reason (WMD) for going to Iraq proved false, the rest did not. Meanwhile - the Democrats have stood (proudly) in the way of laws to foster energy independence and cure a sick Social security system. You have sunk to new lows and mudslinging to attack court nominees. You criticize EVERYTHING and propose solutions for NOTHING.

Kahn,
DOWN BOY! I am simply pointing out the according to Mark's post there were no war crimes commited by US troops simply because it seems that he refuses to believe it, coming from "a totalitarian dictatorship which once warred with the US". War crimes are committed by all warring nations and sadly we are not immune. Yes, WE did nail some of the people responsible for these crimes and I agree that demonstrates some of the great strengths of this country. That makes the denial all the more absurd. My point is that people are going to beleive what they want to believe.

By the way, I vote Republican. I just believe that it's ok to point out what I perceive as bad as well as the good and not to blindly follow like lemmings over a cliff. Also, Where did you read anything I posted about court nominees or Social Security? Your anger is making you delusional.

Ok, I'm Irish, so I guess I have no right to criticise the man in the Big House. No, wait. I'm a citizen of the world, and since the man in the Big House seems to be intent on making the 21st century the American century, I guess I DO have the right.

I'm not going to repeat facts here, but it does make me wonder sometimes what the American people are doing all day. I mean, if this guy was in charge in any other 'free' country, there'd be rioting in the streets! Are the burgers that good?

it's something to do with your insular world-view I think. You should really try to get to know your fellow citizens a bit. You might be surprised at how they see you these days.

"Every minute John Kerry spent in Viet Nam was one minute longer than our fearless leader.

John Kerry served his time.

George Bush, took our taxpayers dollars to learn to fly and then didn't fly. When he did, it was one of those dangerous combat air patrols over south texas"

-Joe

**********

Good memory, Joe---got all the old talking points from the '04 election.

But, Joe, merely BEING in Viet Nam didn't matter---unless you are one of those "form over function" lib types. It is what you did while you were there that matters.

JFK the Second did go to Viet Nam. It wasn't quite the way he had in mind, but he did go. When he got turned down, repeatedly, for the deferrals he so desperately wanted and applied for, repeatedly, he had to join the service or be drafted. He ended up applying for Swift Boat duty--it was a short cut to a captaincy, and it was safe (the Swift Boats at that time merely shuttled between the shore and offshore ships). Unfortunately for this Fortunate Son, they pulled a fast one and reassigned the Swift Boats to river patrol duty after he was accepted and assigned. Officers at the time remember him pitching a major hissy fit when he found out he might actually get shot at, but it was too late.

But there was always that little-known rule about getting 3 Purple Hearts and getting to go home. So he managed to game the system, and was home in three months, without ever being treated in a hospital, but with his three trophies.

Each of his Purple Hearts was suspect, as was his Bronze Star. It's all in the records---read about it. The Swift Boat vets told it like it was---and they signed their names, and challenged Kerry to take them to court if he thought he could prove they were lying. He backed down. Why? Well, maybe it was because he knew that if it got into the court system, he would have to provide all sorts of documents he had been trying to keep hidden---including the reason he did not get his Honorable Discharge until March of 2001. 23 years after he should have gotten it. Or he might have had to explain what he was doing for the remainder of his six-year tour of duty.

That would have been unpleasant, as at least part of that time he was traveling, at least twice, while still a Naval officer, to North Viet Nam, for cozy chats with the enemy. True, we don't know exactly what they said, exactly what he promised them, but we do know he ended up with his photo in their museum, and named a hero of the country. (THEIR country, not ours.)

And we do know that he did return to create a shameful and despicable group he called Viet Nam Veterans Against the War, though most of its members were not only not Viet Nam veterans but were not veterans at all. We know he lied under oath to Congress about invented atrocities, that he slandered and libeled the honorable men and women who actually DID serve in Viet Nam, that he created totally fake events such as throwing medals over the White House fence to supposedly show how disgusted the medal recipients were with the way the war was going when in fact the medals were bought in pawn shops---we know a lot about what he did. And we know the end effect was to demoralize the nation, and the military, and to create a fog of lies that ended up in our disgraceful retreat from fields of victory, leaving millions of allies and friends to be slaughtered. So I guess when you say "John Kerry served his time" you are right---you just didn't bother to mention which country he was serving.

Kahn, Read the entire post.

"ALMOST BLEW UP THE WORLD IN A NUCLEAR WAR"

So I assume you are against nuking Iran?

"when a surprise bombing attack on the missile sites would have done the trick"

Damn Mark you sure like to bomb people! It takes more courage to face down an opponent than bomb them to oblivion. Because of that old adage- live by the sword, die by the sword. I don't want you military nuts getting me killed.

Ash (Heap of Society)

Reagan was the second worst president ever?

You've basically confirmed idiot status with that one.

I'd love to know where Carter ranks with you, especially since Reagan had to clean up after him, end the cold war, bring this country back to greatness, get people employed, rebuild the military, etc, etc.

What are you...26 years old and still looking for that first job?

"George Bush, took our taxpayers dollars to learn to fly and then didn't fly. When he did, it was one of those dangerous combat air patrols over south texas"

-Joe

**********

Nice try, Joe. George Bush served nearly two years on active duty, assigned to the Air Force, for his pilot training. Basic Traing, pilot training, the whole ball of wax.

He then flew for the Air National Guard for about three and a half years. While you sneeringly refer to him flying "ONE" 'combat air patro; over south texas" you, as expected, could not be more wrong.

We were in the Cold War then, and any unidentified aircraft coming in over the Gulf was a potential danger---to those intercepting it, and to the country. It took a lot of courage to go out every time you were scrambled and fly out to meet and possibly engage an unknown airplane. This was done to protect the country, not just to jaunt around the skies "over Texas" for fun or to play fighter pilot. It was serious business.

Ask any Highway Patrol officer about the most dangerous aspect of his/her job, and you will be told it is the approach to vehicles in routine traffic stops. Approaching aircraft which have declined to identify themselves, which might be armed and with the intent to attack interceptors and then country, is far more dangerous. And Bush did it, over and over again, every time he was scrambled.

He served most of his tour of duty, he served it honorably and well, and he only got out early because so many others were also offered the same opportunity. The Viet Nam war was winding down,and career pilots were returning home to do the sork Bush and his other ANG pilots had been doing. He served more than twice the amount of service required of him.

Oh, and he served OUR country.

Psssst

Kennedy couldn't even be elected as a Democrat in today's day and age. Truman, Kennedy, etc....the Democrats would crush them in their own primaries.

Kennedy cut taxes by the second most in US history. Truman was a man's man who understood the role of the military.

Ironically just today it was reported that Democrats took in more money from Wall Street than Republicans did.

-----------

Democrats Top GOP in Wall Street Fund Raising

Democrats beat Republicans last year in raising political donations from a traditional GOP stronghold – Wall Street.

Democrats got $13.6 million, or 52 percent of the $26.3 million in donations from investment banks, brokerages and fund managers in 2005 – the first time the party outdid Republicans since 1994, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan Washington group.

In the two years leading up to the 2004 presidential election, Republicans received 52 percent of the $91.6 million given by the industry, Bloomberg.com reports.

Republicans’ share of donations from the financial industry peaked at 58 percent in 1996.

Jonathon Holmes

The only media you have? You are joking. How about CNN? How about CBS? How about the NY Times? How about the Washington Post, LA Times? How about Chrissy Matthews? Give me a break.

How about 80% of journalists ADMITTING they are liberal? What point of view do you think their stories will take...a conservative one?

Good grief.

Warrior Nation in his own words

Ash (Heap of Society)

You've basically confirmed idiot status with that one.

Like ditto to you, dude.

Neil, Thanks for your thoughts. I wish we could rally together and riot in the streets. You are right. We are insulated and frankly know little of our fellow citizens. Except who can help our bottom line and who controls the oil.

– the first time the party outdid Republicans since 1994, according to the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan Washington group.
- Warrior

Uh dude read your own post. Republicans have consistently drawn more money from the financial sector, YOU SAID IT.

Thaks for the kind words, guys. Just a small note---

Almiranta is the Spanish word for "admiral"--but the feminine version.

Yep, guys, I'm jess a gurl.

The source of the name is a longish story, but when people who know me find out I use it, they laugh and think it appropriate.

And no, unlike other posters here, I am not going to lay claim to military service. I did not serve. As a matter of fact, I was a hot hippie chick with long hair parted in the middle, huge bell bottoms, an "old man" who was in an acid rock band, I lived in Haight Ashbury (nothing like dating myself) and attended the SDS Convention, I believed every word Joe McDonald said, and I was what I now refer to as an "unexamined liberal".

I was a liberal because it FELT good. Because it was a short cut to The Higher Moral Ground. I didn't have to know anything, or even really believe in anything---I just had to be against the right things, and I was morally and intellectually superior. Because not only could you be ignorant and be a liberal, it actually helped.

But for some reason I started listening to the dreaded Talk Radio. And I realized that when my fellow travellers called in, they sounded like idiots. While I agreed with their positions, it frustrated me that they could not define or defend them. I noticed that they depended on evasivenes, on answering a question with a question or trying to deflect the talk to a different topic. I kept yelling at the radio.."Answer the damned question!" And then I realized they couldn't answer the damned questions.

In short, liberals made me a conservative.

I am now a rancher, ridin' and ropin' and shootin' and drivin' big trucks and operating heavy equipment when necessary. I can and do kick ass when it needs kickin' I still clean up nice, and can get off a backhoe and put on a little black dress and pass for a city chick. I'm one of those Western Women---six feet tall, or thereabouts, lean mean and damned good-lookin'.

Well, I fudged on the roping and the good looking.

But my point is, and my "outing" is, because I came to the conservative side originally as the result of the fake feminists of the Clinton era, who talked the talk till THEIR guy was the one accused of rape, of sexual harrassment in the office, of various sexual misdeeds, and then they indulged in every vile and evil Blame The Victim tatctic ever used by anyone, anywhere. The rest followed, but I think the perspective of one who defended liberalism and then saw evolved to conservatism can be a valuable one.

Almiranta,

Well, chop ma' legs an' call me "shorty"

I apologize for jumpin' to the "dude" conclusion, but I was correct in my assessment of your thought processes before posting. (Fillies do tend to be more thoughtful before shootin' off their mouths.)

Well, butter my butt and call me a biscuit, Bane---no apology needed for the "dude" conclusion, just didn't want to let it slide---being tetchy about lies of omission as well as COmission, dontcha know?

Aha!

I long suspected that Almiranta was of the she persuasion, and originally started referencing her comments with the PC he/she, his/her possessive terminology. But there was always something in the manner of her writing that still suggested to me that the intellect displayed a more feminine form of logic.....

Now that that's out of t