What some of the Brits think:

I simply cannot believe what complete idiots voted for Kerry Cohen. It is beyond me

I don't like the man, Craig. I think he's done a poor job. In fact, I think he's been a disaster. Reasons why:

Osama bin Laden is somewhere on the Afghan-Pakistan border. We have 13,000 troops in Afghanistan. We have 130,000 troops in Iraq. We shouldn't be in Iraq.

America now has the biggest budget deficits in its history. When you spend trillions of dollars more than you have, your economy is a house of cards. Bush created those deficits. He had a budget surplus when he took office.

He was the first president since Herbert Hoover (the one in office during the crash that caused the Great Depression) to have presided over a net loss of jobs for Americans. The economy is growing while jobs are decreasing. That means the fat-cat elite rich corporate friends of Bush and his cronies are walking with the money while average working Americans are losing their jobs.

There are more, but you asked me to keep it short and simple.

Listening to Loburt is like listening to a Kerry campaign commercial. Gimme a break

That's why I respect you, Craig.

I never dig that much into american politics, so I'm NOT an expert. But my humble opinion is that it would have been good with a change. So many people in the world hate Bush and what he stands for. Alone the invasion of Iraq was a catastrophe - even if I think it was good that Saddam Hussein was removed (he got what he deserved). But the cost of this operation was /is huge, both in economical and worldpeace terms (if you know what I mean). If Kerry had won I think it could have loosended up a bit.

I agree with Jase 100% on this and respectively disagree with Loburt.

But I am so tired of debate and just hope we can move forward.

For the record anyone who reads the daily mirror is at the top end of the stupidity scale.

well said loburt

As Sprite sparkingly put it elsewhere:

"I asked my friend who lives in CA if he voted for Bush, he said yes coz he is such an idiot. Then I asked him if he voted for Kerry, he said yes coz he is such an idiot..." lol

So it's official > the motherf**cker puppet of all puppets is back "ruling da world", may all fat weapon-bearing redneck bigots rejoice (and I won't even mention any pshycozteve thiz time, will I...)

None of my biz...really

Life's beautiful HERE

- Roberto Benigni

Jaseaj "To think that the US couldn't spend any money on security post-9/11 is plain silly. "

No one said that.

Jaseaj - I'll give you Iraq has been costly, but the justifications -were- there. "

Not according to every panel, including the one appointed by Bush to investigate it. They said Saddam's WMD program started falling apart in the early 1990s. Granted, he still wanted them, but that doesn't justify an invasion. The War in Iraq can not be excused. It is one of the biggest blunders in modern history.

Jasesaj - "As far as job losses go, I'll argue from outsourcing: I sincerely doubt that there was much to be done about that regardless of who is in office since it is just good business sense. There is no way I'd want to see legislation against it, or punishing companies... that's a sure way to kick yourself in the a$$ economically.'

But why should they be rewarded for doing so with tax breaks? That's just plain wrong. Virtually every country takes some measures to protect domestic jobs. Few give out tax breaks for taking them away and giving them to workers overseas. Does the consumer benefit? Not likely. Let's take a look at Nike. What do they pay their Indonesian factory workers, something like $3 a day? What does an average pair of Nike Air Jordans cost, $150? $150 dollar sneakers made by $3 a day factory workers in Indonesia with $5 worth of materials. How does the consumer win? He doesn't. Phil Knight and Michael Jordan sure are rich, though.

You might be able to make a case for not penalizing companies for shifting jobs overseas (although I doubt I'd buy it, but I'd listen with an open mind). But I don't see how you can make a case for rewarding it. And I don't think many American workers would see it your way either.

By the way, your post in the other journal about 9/11 security measures causing the budget deficits is also factually incorrect. Bush's tax cuts and non-9/11 spending wiped out the surplus and pushed the budget into deficit before a dime was spent on post 9/11 security measures.

If you like Bush, that's your right and perogative, but you should acknowledge what his record really is. And it's certainly not one of a fiscal conservative who wants smaller government.

Surveys of those who voted - for Bush or Kerry - showed that an overwhelming majority said Bush has done a bad job on the economy and disapproved of the war in Iraq. A majority, however, said he did a good job on fighting terrorism and they preferred his "moral values."

I don't want to open the can of worms that is moral values and also the influence of Christian fundamentalists.

As far as protecting the US against terrorism is concerned, I think most Americans don't realize how little has actually been done to protect us. God forbid we get attacked again, but if we do I think only then will many Americans realize just how inept Tom Ridge and his Homeland Security department is and how underfunded the efforts to protect us are. But I certainly do pray that we never have to have that discussion or debate.

I am from New York. New York will most likely be the target if we are attacked again. People there are on the front line, so to speak. And I can tell you that most New Yorkers do not feel this president has made us safer.

Hmmm.....No attacks on USA since 9/11, must be doing something right......or shear luck I guess.

POC, i live in the biggest target in the US (new york) and i think that 'no attacks' is a little of both. and i have my doubts that it will last four more years, but it would be difficult to pull off another attack on the scale of 9/11 without nukes.

there is some very good stuff going on, and some obvious stuff being overlooked (WHEN ARE THESE NUMBNUTS GONNA GET THE IDEA THAT WE NEED TO SCREEN CONTAINER FREIGHT MORE AGGRESSIVELY??? and that we dont need to spend the same amount of anti-terrorist security money on the corn palace as on nuclear plants, chemical factorys, and new york and washington??).

there's a great deal that's going on that's just to make bureaucrats feel like they're doing something about security in my opinion, which will happen in any bureaucracy under threat, here's an example:

the case of cat stevens (nee stevens, converted to islam, i forget what his new name is) is pretty telling:

first, the guy who wrote "peace train" is on the no-fly watch list. that in itself strikes me as hilarious yet sad.

SKIP THIS PARAGHRAPH IF YOU DONT WANT THE DETAILS : allegedly for contributing to islamic charities that support terrorism. some of the money migh thave ended up there, but he claims to have not done this knowingly and i believe him---i was involved in putting together financing for a short film by an israeli arab, and much money was raised privately, arab charities and how money changes hands is too complicated to take that simplistic of an approach. that's blaming the victim in my opinion (of course i may be on the no fly list for getting money from arab charities with secrets LOL).

second, if he's on the no fly list for whatever reason, WHAT NUMBNUTS LET HIM ON THE PLANE IN THE FIRST PLACE??? damn i feel so much safer.

third, once he's on the plane you land adn send him back? ummm. what's going on here? apparently curly moe and larry are in charge of anti-terrorist planning?

PS hasnt happened recently but most of the visible anti-terrorist stuff, when there were threats that there might be gas and bio and bomb attacks on hte subway (i ride the subway a minimum of 4 days a week) consisted of a bunch of national guardsmen standing around at union square and 42nd street stations. really if someone wanted to attack the subway not much these guys could do, especially considering that the attacker isnt likely to care if they survive.

u wont see too many guys with machine guns guarding the subway any more probably they've all been sent to iraq. speaking of riaq nbody misses saddam but put them to reagan's famous question: "are you better off than you were 4 years ago?" and "to a man" to use cheney's phrase i'd put my money that the iraqis would say no...

JASE: i too am interested in the cabinet, unfortunately it seems bush favors rumsfeld over powell, and i believe this has led to the mess in iraq. this is just rumor but i expect powell and ashcroft to be gone, and, unfortunately rumsfeld to stay. i think buying rumsfeld's fantasy that we will transform the middle east by forcing iraq to become a model democracy and the rest of the middle east will autmoatically overthrow their gov'ts and become democracies.

where have we heard this kind of bullshit before? anyone heard of the 'domino theory' that got us into that other famously useless and tragic quagmire, the viet nam war? it's the same damn thing just this time it's supposed to work for us rather than against us. hopefully he'll wise up and replace rumsfeld rather than powell but i doubt it. i think it's a good move replacing ashcroft though. he's off in his own little fantasyland.

Jase,

There's not doubt invadeing countries, justified or not, is going to cost money and that will account for some of the deficit. But as I said already, Bush blew the surplus before the wars.

As for WMDs, I'm not talking pre-War intel committees. Enough people in the CIA have already talked about being pressured to alter their interpretations and conclusions of what evidence was there to fit the administration's demands that those conclusions fall in line with their predeterminatin to go war in Iraq. Powell was used and abused. The neocons adivising Bush cooked up this Iraq invasion during the mid 1990s and tried to sell it to Clinton who told them to take a walk. That's all been well documented.

This war can not be excused. Not while bin Laden was still at large. Sorry, you can't explain or excuse it away. No one around the world is buying it. Most Americans didn't buy it either.

If people are stupid enough to want to pay$150 for sneakers, that's their right. But my argument certainly isn't crap to Nike workers who have protested the company's treatment of them here in Thailand or many out of work Americans. There is a lot more to be said about this whole phenomenon, especially of $150 sneakers (and just because some newly-wealthy Chinese kids want them doesn't make the whole phenomenon right or healthy.) but it takes us further away from the point about not doing more to protect domestic jobs and American industry. I'm not looking for some utopia. I know many American manufacturing jobs can't say in America forever or for long. But the pendulum has swung too far when it comes to a laissez faire approach.

By the way, I didn't use any negative terms to describe your arguments, no matter how off base I found them. If you're going to go that way, we can end any discussion and you can hang with SteveUSAbkk and the other members of the KKK.

The BBC poll you refer to is not the exit poll I refered to. And its apples and oranges. The poll you refered to asked which candidate they would be handle the economy better. The poll I refered to asked only how Bush did on the economy. I dont' remember off the top of my head which polling agency conducted it, Gallup, Zogby or whoever, but it wasn't the BBC which doesn't have huge polling resources in America.

Bush is not responsible for the tech skid, but his policies in the wake of it have made the economy worse. He didn't adjust. He stuck to ideology. We would have all been better off if he would have shown some flexibility and adapted his position to the real situation. But I guess that would be "flip flopping."

I tend to not read closely anything SteveUSAbkk writes in his journal because it's pure lies, frequently movtivated by hate and intended to insult people. I do enjoy reading the comments, as the majority of people commenting recognize what an ass Steve is. So Steve shouldn't be flattered.

If you're proud to have Steve on your side, well then I think a lot of us lose respect for you.

Okay Jase, fuhgedaboutdit. I don't agree with you, but by and large your put forward your views politely without name calling, so you get my respect. Unlike Zeus I don't necessarily think these kinds of discussions should be a streetfight (sorry if I'm misinterpreting you, Zeus). I think the labelling and name calling is bad for our country. I'm actually pretty conservative on some issues, liberal on others. But I really resent the way the word liberal is thrown around as an insult by some who now ask that we all be united behind this president - who does not follow conservative principles on many issues. There are conservatives and republicans who would get my vote, but not Bush. Never in a million years.

In Loburt's mind anyone who is not a left wing lunatic is a KKK member. I guess that means that he is a communist using that logic. Hey Lobby, there's always Cuba for you man.

Oh and I am so certain that you would ever cast a vote for a consevative republicano. gimme a break. if you could, you'd install Castro as prez