I'll just take on one topic. The energy issue did not just happen 10 years ago -- it was more like 25 years ago when Pres Reagan bartered our freedom for his election. And what about Cheney's secret energy policy meetings almost five years ago? I guess that was all about screwing Californians early in the Bush term and then hoping the entire state would forget after 9/11. I'm ready for the retorts and excuses . . . just don't blame it on someone else.

He actually had the nerve to say...

"I've traveled the country to talk with the American people. They understand that Social Security is headed for serious financial trouble and they expect their leaders in Washington to address the problem."

and not one "journalist" called him on it.

C-Span had a split screen presentation. As Bush was yacking in one box the house was voting on the budget in the other. The nays led from anywhere from 5 to 10 votes and about 15 Republicans voted against Bush. There must have been some real arm twisting going on for in the end the yeas won 215-212.

I agree Bush's performance was hard to watch. My country must endure 4 more years of this, oh my country!

I thought Bush's remarks about Putin being "helpful" by trafficking in uranium with Iran were extremely silly. Then again, John Kerry and other losers thought that was the way to go, too. As well as with North Korea, no less.

I wouldn't trust "Vladimir" with a sack of shit. This is a great time to have a Secretary of State who knows show to tell someone to sod off in fluent Russian.

The point of the question about Russia and Nort Korea is that we do not have the ability to oppose them other than on diplomatic grounds because we are stretched thin in Iraq and oh yeah, the hunt for obl. The boy king is left with no option but diplomacy at this point. Even though he wants all nations to follow his lead, he has no one left to enforce it.

Joining up is up? I think the boy king said that enlistment was up. Show me where and who.

Clearly, Toby you have never been to the former USSR. You just don't get it.

You will love this. Here a site with more pictures of Bush and the Saudi Royal nearly kissing and holding hands.

http://www.electablog.com/oharm.html

BUSH: It would have 10 years ago.

Did I hear a collective cry "it's Clinton's fault" from the left all over America when he said that?

Donnie:

The boy king is left with no option but diplomacy at this point.

Right, tough guy. Because you're all about kicking some ass, right? Get serious.

The anti-Bush Left have no fucking idea how to deal with North Korea, but that doesn't keep them from holding forth on it. Do you have an actual reason to reject the sexpartite talks? Of course not. The only reason you do is because Bush is for them. You know who the only people who want bilateral talks with Kim are? Kim himself, John Kerry, and other such rectal probes who think bribery of a psychopathic regime is the best way to go.

I knew you wankers were going to lose the election when your candidate's positions became indiscernable from our enemies'.

It was a pathetic show. There was nothing new. It was the same bull, with a lot of funny pronunciations. What a joke. Still believe that Bolton is the best for the UN. A tough guy like me! Yea, in your dream!
There was no real hard question from our Corporate Medias. Some seem to be a little more then the usual “softball” one of the preceding 3 press conferences in 5 years.
John Stewart is the best money can buy. Yesterday, JW show bush walking hand in hand with his Saudi friend and said it shows how bush is queer………..for oil.

Stupid:

bush is queer………..for oil.

Right. So what's the make of your wind-powered car? Mine is a 2005 Gofuckyourself.

Toby,

Just because I obliquely referenced your post didn't mean I was talking with you.

Post your tripe and leave my name out of it, please.

Not Stupid,

The one different thing I heard was "voluntary" in front of private err personal accounts. That's their new tack. The game is on. Just hope dems are up to it. :)

Soto:

That's when you know that you're a lame duck.

No, that's when you know it's sweeps week.

toby got nothin

Soto:

So consulting with allies is OK for North Korea, but not for Iraq because....

Don't forget, Steve: it's the Kerrion who want bilateral talks with North Korea that would exclude other allies. Is that even supposed to make sense? When Bush gathers together a coalition that you don't want to admit is a coalition because it doesn't include the goddamned French, you call him a unilateralist. When Bush tries multilateral diplomacy with Kim, you say he should engage him solo.

I am right about this: your inconsistency is glaring.

Toby, you obviously haven't read my recent posts on North Korea.

Should that by lame fuck not lame duck.

Toby,

>>"I knew you wankers were going to lose the election when your candidate's positions became indiscernable from our enemies'."

Um, I guess you need a slight refresher course:

-------
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/3/11/12137/1913

...Now, however, our international enemy -- Islamic radicalism -- is actually the polar opposite of what liberals stand for -- their actions on women rights are deplorable, they insist on theocracy, they loooveee torture and the death penalty, they demand to control the culture (TV, movies, music), they rail against rampant sexuality, they seek to spread their ideology via force, and they have a well-defined black-and-white sense of truth.

Remind you of a certain American party?

That's why hysterical assertions by the wingers that liberals hate America and want the terrorists to win are so absurd. As absurd as it would've been to claim that Reagan wanted the Communists to win the Cold War. The Taliban/Al Qaida/Hezbollah/Jihadists of the world are the exact embodiment of evil in the liberal mind. They are everything we are against, and against everything we are for.

In fact, they are exactly what we see in the Republican Party as the GOP continues to consolidate power -- creeping theocracy, moralizing, us versus them, embrace of torture, the need to constantly declare jihad on someone, hysterics over football-game nipples, control over "decency" on the airwaves, lyrics censorship, hostility to women freedoms, curtaling of civil liberties, and so on.

So it's pretty obvious -- we don't love terrorists. We don't want them to win. For them to win would be to realize our greatest fears. The muslim terrorist is truly the anti-liberal. Like matter and anti-matter.

Republicans, on the other hand, hate the terrorists because they're Muslim. But aside from that, they've got far more in common than they'll ever admit to themselves.

-------

per usual not right

sorry left off who was who -- toby tag you are it

Refresher, well you just sumed it up perfectly. Thanks.

About 90 seconds into his speech, on the day when Exxon announced a 44% increase in profits,the boy king said he wouldn't allow profiteering at the gas pump. Yeah, right.

ok, next topic

SS is never going to die with this one because he has been given the torch and he will run to the end. Please, this one is pleading the case of the under class? Yeah right. There are many options on the table that could have been on the table two, three years from now with the same response. The economy? Who cares? Medicare/Medicaid, who cares? Energy policy? Who cares? Social Security? Thanks to the boy king we all care.

For those who care: exempt the first 10K of all salaries from SS taxes. Then, tax all wages. Cut the 1/2 of employer contribution to 1/4. And we would make it, decent benefits and all. Cover everyone, hard working poor and sponge elite. You all are covered.

Crunch those numbers and come on back.

Sorry, I'm late to the party.

Toby, perhaps you should read this article about the stooge that is Condoleezza.

Refresher-

In fact, it was American feminists who were the only ones taking a hardliner approach against the Taliban, pre-9/11. Maybe not Clinton, but definitely not Bush.

Hmm, bigdog stayed up all last night it seems to argue with anon. And he's got nothin on the night I can stay up. Forget your growth and investment nonsense. SS is about every last one of us, with or without a voice.

late
Donnie

This is a great time to have a Secretary of State who knows show to tell someone to sod off in fluent Russian.

Are you telling me that Strobe Talbott became Secretary of State while I was taking a nap? Because, Toby, m'boy, Condi's vaunted Russian language skills are so rusty that the Russians are presently spending their time during her current tour by laughing at her whenever she tries to say anything more complicated than "nyet" or "da". This would be kind of funny if it weren't so sad, 'cause ex-KGB agent Putin totally has her number. You can see him trying to hold in the snicker whenever he has to talk to the woman.

third topic

Iran and the "nucular" thang. Putin is rubbing the boy king's face in it. Reminds me of my dogs. Putin has the upper hand. Put nukes in Iran and see what happens with Isreal. He's working it and the boy king has less than toby.

I at least know how to say I don't understand and it doesn't matter pa ruski.

I knew you wankers were going to lose the election when your candidate's positions became indiscernable from our enemies'.

LOL! Toby your ability to be continually duped by the Bush administration becomes more amazing with every post. Bush wants to make this country over into the very mirror image of Saudi Arabia.

Who do you think would have won the election if pictures of Bush holding hands and playing kissy face with the terrorist supporter Bandar were all over the airwaves?

It doesn't bother you one bit that the terrorists have undue influence over the Bush administration does it? Did you know that the Bush Administration is allowing the Saudis to pass out anti-american jihadist literature all over the country as reported by the Pittsburgh newspaper? I'm beginning to believe that Bush doesn't want to catch OBL because it would be too embarrassing to the Saudis.

Keep making love to those Sauds Toby.

The comment I loved best was Bush's reference to private accounts..."And, you know, you've heard me say -- I like to say this, if it's good enough for the Congress, it ought to be good enough for the workers to give them that option."

Does that apply to health care benefits as well, Mr. President?

Why is that whenever someone from the left criticizes Bush on anything the Reps have to come back with either an insult about Clinton or Kerry? Neither Clinton nor Kerry have anything to do with the fact that Bush's ideas are bad. I suppose even the Reps can't defend Bush's lame ass ideas. And it's not enough to say, "well, have you got a better idea?" We should't pick a bad idea because no one else has come up with an alternative; we should go back to the drawing board and try again.

Hey, Toby's back! It seemed like you'd been away for a while.

Those were the days.

So how long does George Bush's multilateral talks approach to North Korea and how many more nukes does North Korea have to produce before Bush's policy can be considered a failure?

If you use Bush's Social Security criteria for bankruptcy than his North Korea policy is bankrupt. Were talking a lot with a lot of people about how to stop Kim Jong Il from making nukes while Kim Jong Il is producing more nukes every day. Sounds like a bankrupt policy to me.

hi, everybody. new freelance gig actually wants me to work all the time. the nerve!

This is a great time to have a Secretary of State who knows show to tell someone to sod off in fluent Russian.

come on, toby, do you really think condi is gonna do anything other than kiss vladimir's neo-brezhnevian ass?

Anyone have some of that liquified natural gas in solid form? Bunnypants is such a moron, and if you voted for him you're gonna get what's coming to you. One helluva screw.

Of the many lies he told last night, I particularly liked his explanation for the partisan and nasty tone in Washington.......

"I've thought long and hard about that."

His every campaign tactic and his direction of Republican strategy show that to be a lie.

I guess we scared Toby off... No smartass comebacks after faced with facts refuting his claims... Interesting.

Well, since "marty" decided to post under my name, I guess I'll have to choose another. Jerk! (~8

Good to have you back benjoya, I hope the gig works out for you. NONE of the trolls are defending the Bush performance tonight- they're showing intellegence. Yes Judith, I too heard 'it's Clinton's fault' right after he said '10 years.'

Toby, By the way NK got the Uranium for our friend Pakastan not Russia. Accurate as always.

Judith:

Refresher, well you just sumed it up perfectly. Thanks.

You may now be disrespected.

chris:

In fact, it was American feminists who were the only ones taking a hardliner approach against the Taliban, pre-9/11. Maybe not Clinton, but definitely not Bush.

Wow. Really? What a bold position for an American feminist to take. Now answer the next question: who did something about it?

ga6thdem:

Keep making love to those Sauds Toby.

I'm going to show mercy and just tell you to shove off, piker.

On N.Korea we have to have talks with them because it was us that gave them the technology to build their weapons of mass destruction. Its that simple. Look I loved Clinton, but the finger needs to be pointed at him on this one. It was a terrible decision by his admin.

bigdog,

Look I loved Clinton, but the finger needs to be pointed at him on this one. It was a terrible decision by his admin.

Please elaborate.

Last I heard it was a Pakistani dealer. When did Clinton get in on it? I don't mean to send you out to do the research for me . . . I guess I just am too inept to find it myself . . .

Clinton was a great President. Know how I know? The right hates him so much.

It seems bigdog is a little short on facts.

Perhaps he was refering to the light water reactors that the Clinton administration negotiated to be built in North Korea so they could produce electricity without making it easy for them to use the byproducts to make bombs. That's my guess.

Problem is those light water reactors were never built.

No the reactors were never built, but the money was given (i believe 4.6 billion; not 100% sure) and the plans were given.

It was a mistake, hopefully we learned a lesson.

bigdog,

The North Koreans already had access to plutonium. The "plans" that we gave them did nothing for them.

So tell me again how Clinton is to blame for the North Koreans having nukes?

bigdog,

Everything you ever wanted to know about North Korea's Nuclear programs

If your interested.

Muckcat,

I'm glad you were there to know everything that happened. Look your hurting yourself and sounding like a reverse Rush Limbaugh by pretending that Clinton did nothing wrong in his dealings with the North Koreans. The Money we gave them did nothing, seriously, at least be objective.

It was a huge blunder by the Clinton Administration, one that was done in hopes of appeasing the Communists. But if there is one thing history has shown us, is that appeasment does not work.

As state before, I'm not knocking him, he was a decent president. But this was an error of judgement and one that he should not be allowed to escape. As I have said a few hundred times on this site, Crappy policy is Crappy Policy, it is not crapppy becasue of whose policy it is.

bigdog,

I'm glad you were there to know everything that happened.

So my ability to interpret the information available in CLinon's defense is somehow inferior to your ability to "point the finger at him"? You were there I suppose? Do you actually think about some of the things you write? LOL!

Look your hurting yourself and sounding like a reverse Rush Limbaugh by pretending that Clinton did nothing wrong in his dealings with the North Koreans.

Rush Limbaugh? What a joke. Your the one pointing fingers and laying blame here. Get a grip. All I've done is provide documentation. I neither exhonorated Clinton or charged him. Just corrected you.

The Money we gave them did nothing, seriously, at least be objective.

Please tell me what money. It's my understanding that the money for the light water reactors was to be provided by Japan, SOuth Korea and the EU. THe U.S. responsibility in the agreement was to provide light crude oil for electricity production until the reactors came on line. The reactors barely got off the drawing board and you sure as hell can't make nukes out of crude oil.

It was a huge blunder by the Clinton Administration, one that was done in hopes of appeasing the Communists. But if there is one thing history has shown us, is that appeasment does not work.

Funny. I thought it was meant to shut down North Korea's nuclear reactors and keep them under observation by the IAEA, which it did. They didn't start them up again until George Bush called them the "evil empire". Glad you where there to know how it all went down.

As state before, I'm not knocking him, he was a decent president. But this was an error of judgement and one that he should not be allowed to escape. As I have said a few hundred times on this site, Crappy policy is Crappy Policy, it is not crapppy becasue of whose policy it is.

You expressly laid blame for the Koreans having nukes at Bill Clinton's feet and have not provided a single iota of evidence to back it up.
The day you back up your charges against people with some real evidence perhaps you'll have more to say than someone's "sounding like a reverse Rush Limbaugh".