PimpAss, your a real punk, i don't need to come into a public forum (like you) and brag how much money my family may have, but if it makes you feel any better our family business had sales in excess of $55 million last year. I'm not impressed and could care less, but maybe it makes your pathetic ass feel better.:finger:
What the rest of the world wants is a weaker United States, financially and otherwise, besides why do we care what the human rights violaters from China think? Why do we care what a mafia based govt. in Russia thinks, or those double -dealing phonies from France, or the Jack-booted thug from Germany Gerhard schroder ( do some research on that guys past ).
I agree these things mean little except go tell that to all the Congress folk and pundits who came out wailing about the Spanish election. They sure didn't think twice about passing negative judgement on a democratic election there, but boy do they get peeved when the world comments back.
Americans should.blue edwards said:
I suspect it would be a bit easier to capture terrorists if we had a global effort, no?
It's a little hard to get intelligence cooperation (as there was during the pre-genocidal strikes in Iraq) when you've alieniated everyone.
france was in bed with saddam...that's the reason they opposed the invasion. the countries in the middle east will hate us no matter who is in charge of this country. even if kerry is somehow elected and pulls all troops from the middle east, stops supporting israel, and apologizes to whoever he feels the u.s. has wronged...those countries will still hate us. we are infidels, you see.
my vote is not subject to a global test.
my vote is not subject to a global test.
Cute rhetoric, but the fact is that allienating the world during a global "war on terror" can only make America more vulnerable.
Of course, our vote is our vote -- and always should be, but this is something that needs to be considered . This, along with the declining economy, the gaping budget deficit, the job loss, SS policy, abortion stance, environment etc ...
My personal score card goes something like this :
Foreign policy : Kerry
Economy : Kerry
Defense : Kerry
SS : Undecided
Abortion : Bush
Environment : Kerry
Hence, my position.
But if you just like big elephants no matter who's sitting on the cute little beast, then more power to you.
Of course, our vote is our vote -- and always should be, but this is something that needs to be considered . This, along with the declining economy, the gaping budget deficit, the job loss, SS policy, abortion stance, environment etc ...
My personal score card goes something like this :
Foreign policy : Kerry
Economy : Kerry
Defense : Kerry
SS : Undecided
Abortion : Bush
Environment : Kerry
Hence, my position.
But if you just like big elephants no matter who's sitting on the cute little beast, then more power to you.
Blue,
I find it interesting that you'd rather joke about than support your position with facts -- assuming any exist.
Economy.
Bush will be the first president in 80 years to lose net jobs, and he's turned a record surplus into a record deficit. Kerry helped drive the balanced budget initiative.
No contest -- Kerry, as sad as that is, is by far the better president for the economy.
Defense.
Bush ignored pre-9/11 memos, invaded the wrong country in response to 9/11 (which in turn has created more terrorist), let the 9/11 mastermind reign free, destroyed most of the US's good foreign relations, and has inspired the "enemy" by daring them to "bring it on".
Not to mention, ignored countless intelligence reports indicating what we all know -- Iraq was not a threat.
Now instead of capturing Bin Laden, we've spread our troop too thin across the middle east, lost our foreign allies (and their valuable intelligence) and spent money we dont' have doing such.
Blue, no offense -- but only a retard would think Bush has a good job with Economy and Defense.
I find it interesting that you'd rather joke about than support your position with facts -- assuming any exist.
Economy.
Bush will be the first president in 80 years to lose net jobs, and he's turned a record surplus into a record deficit. Kerry helped drive the balanced budget initiative.
No contest -- Kerry, as sad as that is, is by far the better president for the economy.
Defense.
Bush ignored pre-9/11 memos, invaded the wrong country in response to 9/11 (which in turn has created more terrorist), let the 9/11 mastermind reign free, destroyed most of the US's good foreign relations, and has inspired the "enemy" by daring them to "bring it on".
Not to mention, ignored countless intelligence reports indicating what we all know -- Iraq was not a threat.
Now instead of capturing Bin Laden, we've spread our troop too thin across the middle east, lost our foreign allies (and their valuable intelligence) and spent money we dont' have doing such.
Blue, no offense -- but only a retard would think Bush has a good job with Economy and Defense.
