How exactly is Kerry being a self-parody?

He's talking about flag burning. He says people who do it are being stupid, but they still have the right to do it.

In the United States of America, you have a right to be stupid.

Which goes along way in explaining the Democrat party. I mean why else would they be a Democrat? I mean really?

Disclaimer, yeah I used to be stupid too, untill Reagan showed me the way. Him and Jimmy Carter made it easy to switch from stupid.

Tom,
JFnnK is saying people who burn the American flag are stupid.

People who burn the American flag are...liberal moonbat democrats...his voting base...he is calling you moonbats STUPID!

Get it

I finally find something I can agree on with JFnnK

From what I understand...

John Kerry (by the way - did you know that he served heroically in Vietnam?) was against being stupid before he was for it...

That's why the Dems nominated him to be their candidate for Presidency...

In America we even have the right to elect the most stupid people into public office.

People's exhibit one: George W. Bush.

Not only is he dumb, he is proud of it!

Meanwhile the truly intelligent and educated are ridiculed as being "intellectual elitists" and cowards.

I have had enough -- ENOUGH -- of ignorant and arrogant Republicans ruining this country.

Wade

I haven't had this many laughs since JK couldn't decide whether he wanted to be a candidate or an oompa loompa.

Nebraska: LOL!!! Congrats to your daughter and her friend!

Ahhhh, I remember Kerry the Ooompa Loompa

Ahhhhhhh, I remember Kerry the Ooompa Looompa.

CJ: ROFLOL!!! Thanks for the memories ...

Wade,

Yep, we have the right to elect dimwits...as we proved in 1992 and 1996...

Tom,

There are just so many ways to use this Kerry statement....I hope to God it was recorded on video just in case he gets the Donk nomination in '08...

I thought Kerry voted for the flag burning amendment ...

Mark:

Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar.

Wade

I kind of liked Kerry the Condom myself. Bwahahahahaha!!!!

I kind of liked Kerry the Condom myself.

Think of the campaign slogans:

"In the United States of America, you have a right to be stupid. I'm John Kerry, and I exercise my rights."

"In the United States of America, you have a right to be stupid. Vote Kerry."

"In the United States of America, you have a right to be stupid. How do you think he gets reelected? Vote Kerry."

"In the United States of America, you have a right to be stupid. But don't overdo it - Anyone But Kerry."

Damn, I hate it when that happens

Stupid is insisting on doing the same thing and expecting different results.

Or, as Republicans say, "Stay the Course."

Yep. Stupid.

Wade

Kim, CJ, etc.

Bush supporters may think the democrats are stupid, but when the world witnessed the re-election of the "you're either with us or your're with the terrorists" idiot, you became the laughing stock of the planet. Before branding others for their lack of little grey cells, take a good look in the mirror, it's not a pretty sight.

Sometimes they just make it so easy. Libs want the right to burn flags, so a lib dem says they have the right to be stupid. And the libs posting to this website do not see the irony in that. Maybe that is part of being a lib.

Oh this is too great. Do you Bushbots really want to turn this in to a game of stupid quotes? Let's start with this one:

"There's an old saying in Tennessee — I know it's in Texas, probably in Tennessee — that says, fool me once, shame on — shame on you. Fool me — you can't get fooled again." - Dubya

I'm sure my fellow liberals would be more than glad to add to the legendary list of Bushisms.

"Bill Clinton was a Rhodes Scholar.
Wade"

Actually, Clinton was awarded a Rhodes Scholarship but he never completed that. He never acheived being a Rhodes Scholar.

"That's George Washington, the first president, of course. The interesting thing about him is that I read three — three or four books about him last year. Isn't that interesting?"

"I'm the decider, and I decide what is best."

"Brownie, you're doing a heck of a job."

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda."

Is that what Clinton was doing as he was evading the draft?

Kimberly, remember Kerrys football prowess?

Bwahahahahahaha!!!!!

CJ,
No, actually he didn't complete the Rhodes Scholarship because he left to go to Moscow and make speeches against the US during war.

Wake up Wade, and Canadian Whimper(why are you maple leafer always into OUR business? always spewing sh*t, er commenting on OUR politics, OUR president, OUR Republican/Democrat Parties, OUR country, US conservatives? Like a nosy and annoying neighbor who is always looking over the fence and talking crap this and crap that about you. Could it be that you are obsessed with Bush? or could it be that your own country's government leaves too much to be desired?),

...if Bush is so stupid, so moronic, so chimp of a dude, so "lacking of little grey cells", then how was he witty enough to trick the Congress, the UN, and the world into allowing him to start an illegal war? Can someone SO stupid fool so many people? If he is so stupid but fooled all of you into letting him play his little war game, what does that say about you dim donkey donks?? hahahaha

And Wade, if you've had ENOUGH of us arrogant conservative Republicans, why don't you wade over to your more humble, tolerant, kind hearted, all loving, enlightened beings at kos and DU, permanently?!

CJ: I'm so glad we have a great sense of humor, unlike those living to the north of us. What a bunch of hosers!!

I'm not responding to one of them today because I exercise my right to ignore losers(you know ... hockey ... election ... ). :-)

Bill Clinton actually FLUNKED out of Oxford... but whateve! If he's your hero... go right ahead and worship the liar and alleged rapist.

Kimberly

I can't help but laugh every time I see the Canadian Coast Guard.

We must also never forget John Kerry in his bunny suit: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-kerrybunnysuit.htm

Wade...yep, a Rhodes Scholar and yet did some of the DUMBEST things a president has ever done.

Just goes to show.

Canadian Observer....you're comments always do humor me.

So let me get this straight, the world believes we are a laughing stock because Bush was re-elected. Exactly how does that not mean the liberals in this country, and the Democrats in particular, are so incredibly underwhelming and insignificant?

If the Dems couldn't beat Bush then what does that say about them?

Thanks for playing. I hope you are enjoying Harper up there. It's July tomorrow...winter will be there in a few weeks.

I won't argue that Kerry is an idiot, but this statement is actually very logical. He's just saying that burning the flag is a stupid thing to do, but if that happens to be your form of nonviolent, political expression, it is your right.

Republican43VER

"..if Bush is so stupid....then how was he witty enough to trick the Congress, the UN, and the world into allowing him to start an illegal war?"

He did not have to trick anybody. War profitering is a really easy sell to a congress that owes favors to the defense industry.

Bush had to lie to the American people, but that is not such a hard thing to do with a Republican congress and compliant, profit driven media.

Wade

Republican

I'll stop looking over the fence and posting at this site when either GW Bush is no longer President or when the American occupation of Iraq is over; whichever comes first.

If the U.S. would have kept it's nose out of Iraq, I would have happily kept mine out of the business of the United States.

Warriornation

Yes, unfortunately the Democrats fell asleep at the wheel. Hopefully, they are awakening from their slumber and will win back the government, putting it back on track and will regain some of the respect your great nation has lost.

I have no problem with Harper as long as he doesn't suck up to Bush. If he continues to maintain Canada's good name and remains committed to peace, I can live under a minority
conservative government.

July 1st. is Canada Day. We will celebrate our birthday with joy and give thanks for this wonderful country. Weather forecast - no snow!

Wade, of course, is NOT being either elitist OR arrogant when he says:
"Meanwhile the truly intelligent and educated are ridiculed as being "intellectual elitists" and cowards."

Including himself, no doubt, in the cateogry of the "truly intelligent and educated". Hmmmm.

It is a fallback position to call Bush stupid. Of course, he is not at all. He earned above average grades at Yale (the equivalent of Kerry's), he handled the very demanding and technical aspects of learning how to fly and maneuver a suprsonic fighter jet, and he got an MBA from Harvard. Flying the plane he flew not only required intelligence, it required split-second thinking and decision-making. A lot of otherwise bright people have not been able to become jet pilots.

I have to wonder about the educational achievements of self-styled intellectual Wade.

After the 2004 election, I heard an outraged Lib whining on talk radio about how the ignorant peasants in the Heartland should simply NOT be ALLOWED to choose a President when it is only the highly intelligent, highly educated, people on the coasts who are qualified to do so. You know, the really smart ones!

Yet these are the people who voted for a man who flunked out of DIVINITY SCHOOL!!!! How dumb do you have to be to flunk DIVINITY SCHOOL?? It seems that that is pretty basic stuff.

And then they flocked to genuflect at the feet of a man whose lies were so bizarre and convoluted he couldn't even keep track of them himself, who is incapable of keeping his foot out of his mouth, and who passes for an "intellectual" merely by talking as if his jaw is wired shut, in some effete imitation of a Boston Brahmin/British hybrid that merely sounds pompous. JhenJiss Khan? Give me a break!

So butter mah butt an call me a biscuit, Wade, but even a good ole gal rancher from out West like me can outsmart you, outtalk you, outargue you, and for danged shure outthink you. You're only ahead on arrogance and egotism.

outsmart you, outtalk you, outargue you, and for danged shure outthink you.

Uh-oh--intellectual elitism! You've become what you hate! Your hero Sean Hannity would be appalled!

Almiranta

They're only "truly intelligent" in their own minds. They know they're spineless cowards and have to project a faux intelligencia to cover for their obvious shortcomings. It's really quite sad and pathetic but oh so transparent.

"If the U.S. would have kept it's nose out of Iraq, I would have happily kept mine out of the business of the United States." Canadian Observer

So tell us aside from being a Baathist, a terrorist sympathizer, or having contracts under the now discredited "oil for food program", why would our involvement in Iraq even interest you at all. How has it affected your life in any tangible way?

Specifics please.

"If the U.S. would have kept it's nose out of Iraq, I would have happily kept mine out of the business of the United States." Canadian Observer

So tell us aside from being a Baathist, a terrorist sympathizer, or having contracts under the now discredited "oil for food program", why would our involvement in Iraq even interest you at all. How has it affected your life in any tangible way?

Specifics please.

Almiranta: I know I've said this before, but GIRL, YOU ROCK!!!

CJ: I couldn't get to that link on the Canadian NG. However, I do have to say that my father knows a lot of the past guard and they are all stand up gentlemen. Don't forget most military are conservative. :-) And thank God for that!

"In the United States of America, you have a right to be stupid."

....and President all at the same time. LOL

And also Ash, you have the right to say the stupid things you are saying too. But libs and dems are becoming a solid minority of citizens. So, if you ever want to vote and actually win, you'll have to come up with some ideas that don't get people outraged and want to whomp on your ass. So far nothing like that is occurring. The dems are now in a corner with the Supreme Court decision....they are about to look like the Al Qaeda rights party, and woe be it for them this fall. Minority status in perpetual motion...I love it....keep on sliming Bush and your ass is grass!

Ash that must be true, atleast if you are a dem prez, as in Clinton. I mean, in this day and age, you would think he would know better than to chase skirts in the white house (atleast if they did not belong to Hillary).

Ah, that old tired canard that Billy Jeff was a R.Scholar.
when is the press going to do their homework? of course, if they did both to research it, they still wouldn't print it.
Then you have old AlBore...the flunk out king!!!and I still want to read Hillary's senior Marxist thesis...I wonder if she runs for POTUS if someone with balls will leak it???

Remember, people:

"Seldom is the question asked: Is our children learning?" GWB

phnxbmed

I guess aside from being a Baathist, a terrorist sympathizer and having contracts under the now discredited "oil for food program" my interest in your involvement in Iraq would be on humanitarian grounds.

Don't you think the Iraqi people suffered enough under Saddam? Every day, under the American occupation, innocent citizens are killed or wounded. Why is this ok with you? You must know that an Iraqi life has just as much value as an American life. The families and loved ones grieve their loss as much as you would.

Your intentions may have been good, but the results have been disastrous. Whatever your goals were Iraq, let's say they were met. The time has come to end the occupation.

"my interest in your involvement in Iraq would be on humanitarian grounds."

I wonder where your interest in humanitarian grounds when Saddam was slaughtering tens of thousands every month? Does anyone think that these left wing lunatics see their own stunning hypocrisy?

CJ

We all agree, removing Saddam was a good thing. However, by prolonging the fighting and continuing the occupation, you are destroying whatever the positive results of that action were.

Another 66 have died today with dozens more injured. Do you think the survivors are happy they are burying their loved ones, not under Saddam but under the American occupation?

Canada,

If the US were to cut and run like some dems want, within the year Iraq would be ruled by another dictator, more innocent people would die, and nothing would have changed. We must work to stem the tide of secular violence in Iraq, not run away because some people are affraid of the cost of war.

Is that what Clinton was doing as he was evading the draft?

Now, now CJ. You KNOW you don't want to play that game. What with chickenhawks Bush and Cheney so prominent in your party. Remember Clinton never put on a flight suit and "played" soldier.

"cut and run" Take this buzz phrase and stick it where the sun don't shine.

dickdee: "keep on sliming Bush and your ass is grass!"

Just look at the polls, little fella!

If the left are crying about Obama and Hillary, I hope they put their efforts into getting Kerry nominated. That would be fun.

Ash: Why do you keep bringing up the flight suit nonsense? It's been debated to death on this blog (and on your favorite channel ;-) and, IMHO, the right won that debate.

Happy Canada Day, CO.

Ash,

"Remember Clinton never put on a flight suit and 'played' soldier."

AAR

Canadian Observer,

No one expected the liberal [progressive] Democrats to mount such an anti-American, pro-terrorist propaganda campaign to encourage the terrorists to kill American soldiers and Iraqi families as a means to help Democrats regain power!

Yes, 66 were killed in that blast. That was 66 votes cast by terrorists for Democrats in this November's election!

Each American soldier and Iraqi death is a "vote for the Democrat promise" to "cut and run" -- to leave Iraq as the new terrorist homeland, training ground, and center of terrorist operations against the United states.

Yep. Terrorists support Democrats. I wonder why!

AAR

Canadian Observer,

From a June 2006 article...

"The U.S. plans to withdraw about 6,500 of its 23,000 soldiers now in Afghanistan as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and Afghan security forces assume a larger role. NATO will take control of military operations in the south by the end of next month."

If I recall, Canada has about 2,000 troops in Afghanistan. Does this mean Canada will be helping out a little more in Afghanistan and sending more troops to fight the Taliban since Canada has refused to help the United States in Iraq?

AAR

Canadian Observer,

How soon we forget...
Here are just a few quotes about some of the killing of Saddam, his two sadistic sons, and his regime. There are likely others we haven't learned about yet. How many more mass graves will Iraqis find in the future when they start work on some building or construction project?

The figures are a little misleading in that they don't describe how the people were killed. It doesn't describe how many were tortured, carved up or skinned alive, had their arms and limbs chopped or pulled off, had their eyes or ears poked out, had their tongues cut out, were sexually mutilated, and worse -- all while they were still alive to "appreciate" Saddam's interrogation techniques.

"...history may judge that the stronger case was the one that needed no inspectors to confirm: that Saddam Hussein, in his 23 years in power, plunged this country into a bloodbath of medieval proportions, and exported some of that terror to his neighbors."

"...Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

"...suggested that the number of those who have "disappeared" into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000."

"Kurdish groups estimate Anfal's victims were ... up to 180,000 ... Human Rights Watch concluded that 'the Iraqi regime committed the crime of genocide.' Anfal's intense phase lasted three months in the spring of 1988. If we estimate its victims at 100,000, the regime was killing Kurds alone at a rate of around 30,000 each month, or a thousand a day.

"The number of Kurds who died in 1991--killed by Saddam's forces or fleeing them--is estimated at 50,000 to 80,000. This range would have been much higher, except that the Gulf War Allies intervened in Iraq's north in response to the massive flow of desperate Kurdish refugees escaping the regime's onslaught."

"Saddam Hussein's government may have executed 61,000 Baghdad residents, a number significantly higher than previously believed..."

"...occupation authority in Iraq has said that at least 300,000 people are buried in mass graves in Iraq. Human rights officials put the number closer to 500,000, and some Iraqi political parties estimate more than 1 million were executed."

"Another 60,000 people are believed to have been killed when Saddam violently suppressed rebellions by Shiite Muslims in the south and Kurds in the north at the close of the 1991 Gulf War."

This doesn't include the estimated 5,000 to 6,000 children who were dying each month as a direct result of the ongoing efforts to "contain" Saddam and his murderous regime.

Yep. If it were up to our liberal-progressives and Canadians like you, Saddam would have many more years "doing his work" before his even more murderous and torturing sons took over to continue their father's legacy!

AAR

AAR

A statement from our former Prime Minister, Jean Chretien:

The Prime Minster also stated that Canada would only join a possible U.S. military attack on Iraq if evidence were offered linking that country to terrorism. “At this time ... there is no link between Al Qaeda and Iraq that I know of," the Prime Minister said. "But if you give me the proof that there is a link between Al Qaeda and the terrorists and Iraq then the situation would change.”

He was referring earlier in the quote to the troops we sent to Afghanistan, where the al qaeda and taliban were.
We were going after the terrorists where they trained. Since there was no proof of terrorist activity (outside of the Saddam regimen) in Iraq, we declined Bush's invitation to join the coalition of the willing.

The situation in Afghanistan is not improving much, so there is the possibility that Canada will send more troops. Harper is upgrading military equipment to complement the forces serving in Afghanistan.

You said:

"No one expected the liberal [progressive] Democrats to mount such an anti-American, pro-terrorist propaganda campaign to encourage the terrorists to kill American soldiers and Iraqi families as a means to help Democrats regain power!"

AAR, do you honestly believe that if we woke up tomorrow and found that 100% of the American people backed Bush and his policies in Iraq, the terrorists and insurgents would magically lay down their weapons?

To supress dissent in a free democracy is going against your most basic principles and fundamental rights.

Canadian Observer

Yes, "former Prime Minister, Jean Chretien" -- a LIBERAL (a.k.a. progressive)!

RE: "... do you honestly believe that if we woke up tomorrow and found that 100% of the American people backed Bush and his policies in Iraq, the terrorists and insurgents would magically lay down their weapons?"

No. Not anymore. It is not possible to instantly turn off what the liberal [progressives] turned on and agressively fuelled for 5 years! The terrorism has now become self sustaining, but still encouraged by the constant Democratic pro-terrorism (cut and run) rhetoric and propaganda!

If, however, liberal [progressive] Democrats had supported our efforts in the beginning, let the world know that everyone stood behind America's effort, that we would not stop or settle for defeat, the terrorists in Iraq and around the world would not have been encouraged by the weakness advocated by Democrats.

If, all Americans had stood behind America's efforts, we might very well be on our way out of Iraq by now. We would still be dealing with Iran, North Korea, Syria, and terrorists from a unified position of strength, resolve, and determination to win. Libya saw that from the beginning and they did "lay down their [nuclear] weapons.

If Iran, North Korea, Syria, and others KNEW that ALL Americans stood behind our efforts, the situation would likely be very different now. You do not deal with bullies, thugs, criminals, murderers, and terrorists from weakness. You deal with them from a position of strength -- that is IF YOU WANT TO WIN! This is something that [bleeding heart] liberals [progressives] seem incapable of understanding!

It's one thing to dissent and disagree. It's quite another, however, to do it in the manner in which the liberal [progressive] Democrats have done it, particularly when dealing with an enemy which has vowed to destroy us and which does not follow the Geneva Convention. The sheer anti-American, anti-Bush, anti-military hate propaganda that the Democrats have spread literally around the world has done great damage to the United States -- all because of their vile hatred of President Bush.

It will take many, many years -- generations -- to repair the damage the liberal [progressive] Democrats have done to the image, security, influence, and respect of the United States. Dissent, disagreement, free speech, and free press don't work without at least some corresponding responsibility (and perhaps accountability) for ones actions. The fact is, Democrats DON'T CARE about the damage their actions and incessant hate filled anti-American propaganda has caused to this nation as long as it may help them regain power. To them, the end justifies their means -- regardless of the damage it causes to America and it's security!

AAR

"Seldom is the question asked: Is our children learning?" GWB

Obviously, steve the question was never asked of you.

How long has libs been in charge of education? How much money has been spent in the Dept of Education? Has the results improved or not! Obviously NOT!

But, you libs love doing the same thing over and over and expect different results. AND IF ANYONE TRIES TO CHANGE IT, the wrath of liberals will be plastered all over the media!

Steve, you are like a one-legged man at an ass-kicking contest! PEACE!

Kimberly, I think that flight suit bugs Ash and his ilk because the Pres just looked so damned GOOD in it! They like to try to diminish the appeal of seeing a President who actually did perform military service, who wore a flight suit for five years as part of his uniform a a fighter jet pilot, and who clearly loved flying. His exuberance at being in a fighter jet again was very appealing. This was a huge contrast to President Pudge, toddling off the grannycopter on his 28 flights to aircraft carriers. And it rankled, and it still does.

The only thing a radical knows how to do, knowing that their side has nothing positive to offer, is to try to diminish and undermine the opposition. That is why they are so determined to continue with their efforts at disinformation. Look at the cluster of lies about this one simple visit to congralulate a ship's crew on a job well done:

The claim that the Mission Accomplished sign was a claim about the entire success of the entire Iraq War
The claim that Bush pretended to have landed the jet he flew in on
The ridicule of a man actually wearing a miltary flight suit on a military flight

And they are OBSESSED with this.

I guess if Bush had been more Clintonesque, they would have been happy.

Bush could have landed in a grannycopter with two gorgeous flight attendants at his side, pulling up the zipper on his elastic-backed trousers as he exited the aircraft.

He could have given a three hour speech in which he kind of tepidly complimented the ship's crew on a job that was done OK, as he really hates them all anyway, being as he "loathes the military" and all.

He could have talked about the need for a legally controlling authority to go after Bin Laden, and explained that without a subpeona, there was just nothing he can do.

He could have hit on a cute ensign, rubbing up against her as he took a tour of the ship.

Now THAT'S the kind of President a guy like Ash could get behind! (I wouldn't recommend getting in front of him.)

Kimberley, thanks for the accolade...coming from you, much appreciated. But let's face it, These guys are too easy to make fun of.

Look at ole Sees Nothing...he completely missed the point that I was making fun of self-styled "intellectual elites" and at the same time making the point that the people in the Heartland are easily as smart as the smug neorad bragging about his superior intellect. I keep forgetting, you can't joke with the humor-impaired.

The Canadian Observer not only observes nothing, being a mere parrot for the neorad element, but he is working under a distinct disadvantage. Well, several, being a neorad accounting for a few. But Canada never had to fight for its freedom. Now that you/I mention it, it never GOT its freedom. It's still a part of the monarchy that we separated from a couple of hundred years ago. So of course there might be a little envy involved, like the guy whose big brother has become very powerful and successful while he's still living in Mom's basement.

But the thing is, if you don't have a history of fighting for freedom, and making sacrifices for it, you simply cannot understand a mindset like that of most Iraqis, which is that now, for the first time, they are dying for something meaningful, not for the entertainment of a maniac.

To put it in its most basic terms, we conservatives identify with a people willing to fight and die for freedom, because this is a very meaningful part of our own heritage--which we are celebrating this very weekend.

And those satisfied with the status quo and not demanding or standing up for freedom and liberty will focus on the deaths and not on the goal. Which fits in so very nicely with the neorad world view, which is negativism and doom and gloom anyway.

Happy INDEPENDENCE DAY !!

"Seldom is the question asked: Is our children learning?" GWB

Obviously, steve the question was never asked of you.

How long has libs been in charge of education? How much money has been spent in the Dept of Education? Has the results improved or not! Obviously NOT!

But, you libs love doing the same thing over and over and expect different results. AND IF ANYONE TRIES TO CHANGE IT, the wrath of liberals will be plastered all over the media!

Steve, you are like a one-legged man at an ass-kicking contest! PEACE!

Almiranta

Your ignorance is laughable. Canada fought for it's freedom during WWI & WWII, heroically; before, I might add the U.S. decided to join other nations in the fight against tyranny.

Canada remained loyal to England during your fight for independence but today is a self-governing nation and a member of the British Commonwealth, as is Australia, for instance. Our freedom was negotiated diplomatically, without violence.

When Tony Blair joined the coalition to fight in Iraq, Canada, being an independent country, was free to make it's own decision. We were not bound to follow him into a illegitimate war.

You can ridicule our peaceful nature all you want, but you need to get your facts straight before doing so.

CO, glad you got a chuckle at what you call my 'ignorance'.

So Canada fought for its freedom in two World Wars? As a matter of fact, I studied the valiant Canadian effort on Normandy and visited the beach where they landed. I've always had the hightest respect for the Canadian military, and understand that their special ops people are outstanding.

I also understand that Canada is able to have a standing military much smaller than would be indicated by its size and population, mostly due to the protection offered by its strong and loyal neighbor and ally, the United States of America. (In much the same way many European countries, such as Germany, have been able to use the military of the Unites States as a defensive force, meaning they did not have to mount, train, and support a large standing army of their own.)

And, by the way, Canada's involvement in WW Two was because of her relationship with England, not because of any noble worldwide commitment to freedom.

And, by the way, thousands of Americans went to Canada to join in the fight, being forced to fight for worldwide freedom in this roundabout manner precisely because the United States was being held back by isolationists who refused to fight a war because it was the right thing to do, and demanded that we only fight if we were attacked ourselves. (Gee, that sounds familiar. Something about history repeating itself.... And didn't history prove THOSE isolationists wrong?)

So make up your mind....in 1940 and 41, Canada was better than the United States because she was already fighting in a war that was taking place across the ocean, against a beliggerent nation which had never attacked her, in a conflict in which she had never been named. And the United States was inferior because she was held back by isolationists who demanded that this was not our war, and that we should not fight unless personally attacked.

But in 2003, Canada was superior because she took the position that Iraq was not a threat to her and refused to get involved, and the United States was wrong for fighting a war across the ocean because of a perceived threat from a beliggerent nation which had not yet attacked her.

But that's right----on the Left, it's all relative. Relative, that is, to which side you're taking at any point in time.

However, I do not agree that participating in the world wars was a "fight for freedom", at least not in the way I was talking about fighting for independence. Yes, if the attempts at world domination that resulted in the two world wars had succeeded, Canada's freedom would have been threatened. But I was talking about the desire, the drive, to be independent. And Canada did not have that.

Yes, Canada, through negotiations, did eventually achieve a degree of independence, as you mention, becoming a member of the Commonwealth and not just a colony. But you never craved true and total independence---and, more to the point, you never FOUGHT for it. Therefore, you have a different historical perspective. "You" meaning Canadians in general. "You" as a radical lefty have your own pespective, which is evidently that it shows some moral superiority to ask permission to have a degree of freedom rather than to fight to be totally free.

What tickles me is the smug sense of superiority you project about not fighting for your independence. While Canada took the path which seemed best to her, this does not convey any superiority to that path. Your efforts to feel smug about not fighting for your freedom is silly. And not relevant to what I said. I said that a country which never fought to attain freedom and independence can't have the same persepective as a country which did.

Yes, Cretin did manage to finesse the matter of helping us in Iraq by falling back on the Lefty position that only if Sadaam was connected to Al-Queda could Canada involve herself in matters Iraqi. Again, referencing a Lefty to back up a neorad position is not very convincing. But I doubt that he ever claimed there was no connection between Iraq and terrorism. That would have been way too silly even for a socialist like your beloved Cretin. And, as our invasion of Iraq was NOT in retaliation for 9/11, it was also irrelevant---another description of the Left.

Our invasion of Iraq was a preemptive strike against a nation which had proven itself to be a danger and a threat, which had openly been developing and using weapons of mass destruction and then refusing to prove their destruction, which had been supportive of various terrorist movements, and which was seen as a prospective source of weapons, financing, training and materiel for terrorists in future attacks. Cutting off these sources of weapons, financing, training and materiel has served to make Canada more secure as well.

You may indulge in all the Lefty game-playing you like, including simply redefining terms to make them fit your agenda----"illegitimate war" is a fine example----but the fact is, you PERSONALLY are a radical left-winger, full of hate for all that is conservative, and evidently full of hate for your neighboring country. And for some reason you think that your perspective is so valuable, so relevant, so important, that you can just march in and tell us what is wrong with OUR country.

What I'm trying to tell you is that, as a Canadian, and especially as a radical left-wing Canadian, you have nothing to offer here. It's not your country, it's not your business, and you are simply irrelevant here. You can sit up there and seethe all you want to at your percpetion of all that is wrong down here, but that's just tough. You don't have a voice.

And the voice you try to impose on us is whining, peevish, wimpy, annoying, illogical, historically inaccurate, and generally unwelcome. You have plenty to snivel about in your own country. Work on getting another Cretin back in office. Campaign for signs in French all over the country. Indulge in your simplictic socialist agendas up there. I suggest starting with an improvement to the educational system that teaches Canadians about the misuse of the rogue apostophe, and its use only to replace a letter in a contraction and NOT as part of a possessive.

Note that we are not charging into Canadian affairs to impose our unwanted opinions. Please be so kind as to return the favor.

".......the misuse of the rogue apostophe, and its use only to replace a letter in a contraction and NOT as part of a possessive."

My error---the phone rang and I forgot to change this.

Not to go into too much detail on the proper uses of the apostrophe---just the one regarding the word "it".

It IS contracted calls for an apostrophe----it's.

The possessive of 'it' does not call for an apostrophe----its

"It's obvious that its thinking is flawed."

But sometimes it can be used as part of a possessive---just not with the word "it".

"It's obvious that the Observer's thinking is flawed."

Reading a post full of rogue apostrophes is tough when the trained mind sees every IT'S to mean IT IS and then has to regroup and say to itself, "Oh, this really means ITS." Not a big problem---to those who have to plow through illogical and inaccurate Lefty rhetoric, it's minor by comparison. Just an American Observation.

Almiranta

Thank you for responding to my rant, and for the grammar lesson. I know the rule well, but for some reason did not apply it to that post. Will try to be more careful in the future and I apologize for the distress I caused you in trying to understand the text.

You do raise many valid points and I see where you are coming from on the majority of them. However, I take issue with the idea that expressing my views on American foreign policy, however hurtful you may find them, is somehow unjustfied.

Contrary to what you may want to believe, the United States does not inhabit this planet alone. You share it with many different nations, peoples, and ideals. When one country tries to dominate the others, with military might, for example, it makes a peace-loving person such as myself nervous. There appears to be a global opinion right now that the actions of the US is making the world less safe. Inside your own borders there is growing dissension toward this administration's policies. I see that as a hopeful indicator for the future.

You may think I am anti-American but the truth is I greatly admire the achievements and contributions Americans have given the world. No other country can come close. So, when I see the trouble Bush has brought to your great land and the division he has created between family, friends & neighbors, I have no option but to speak out. Right now you are experiencing a low period in your history, but I am optimistic that you will come out of it, just as you have in the past.

I will just remind you that during the horrific events of 9-11, Canada was there for you, providing support and aiding in anyway it could. When you invaded Afghanistan, we sent troops to root out the terrorists who attacked you. Our troops are still there today.

No, Almiranta, I am not anti-American. Canada is still your ally and we are hoping all this heartache will soon end.

Oberserver,

The only division that President Bush has made is successfully dividing the terrorists from their leaders. While he has not captured or killed all of these leaders, it is an ongoing process that takes time. After all, they have a second in command ready to take another ones place at a moments notice. And they take the position gladly, without giveing a thought to his former leaders life, that is how evil these people are. Seeing this, that is why this war takes time, to successfully route these men to justice.

War never has been, and never will be a popular thing. People have always griped and complained that America has gone to war for all the wrong reasons when they did, during the time of the war that is. But, after the wars were completed, and victory was achieved, the people look back and hail such Presidents for staying the course.

While this isn't ALWAYS the case, it still proves the point that at times it takes aggressive, and sometimes unpopular and unprecedented action, to successfully root out and effectively destroy evil. Had it not been for the Presidents that had the will to fight against the forces of evil, America and probably a lot of our allies, wouldn't have the freedoms we have today. Forgive me if I have stated the obvious anywhere in this post, but it seems to me that you don't much care for people who stand up for freedom, by saying that "America is going through a low period" and "This President is causing division amongst its [people]."

I hope you will think over what I have said, if you read this. And I hope you will know that, while this war hasn't been, shall we say "popular" it is a war that has justified reasons.

Lucas.