Thread: The Great 'I told you so" Thread

I told em Mr, brown would eat that stoner sculpin even though it was missin an eye

Also tellin ya get ready for four more years of OBUMMER.
Aint no way a cult of the latter day kookalas is gonna inhabit the whitehouse
Likewise for that other religous Texas TURD
And
the callin his Baby RUTH presidental shot dreamer CAIN
SO SAD TOO BAD 4 YOU

Look...Toadays headlines...

JOBLESS CLAIMS TOP 400,000 -- AGAIN...

'Under-employed' rate soars...

'The economic disappointment of Generation O'...

'Misery Index' Rises to Highest Since 1983...

Americans' Standard of Living Drops Sharply...

See, I told you so

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

'Misery Index' Rises to Highest Since 1983...

I blame Reagan

Originally Posted by PNWbrit

I blame Reagan

for the 25 years of unbridled prosperity failing to prepare us for the pelosi/obama regime?

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

for the 25 years of unbridled prosperity failing to prepare us for the pelosi/obama regime?

oh my god what a fucking homer...

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Look...Toadays headlines...

JOBLESS CLAIMS TOP 400,000 -- AGAIN......

this is disingenuous, but factually correct.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...from-stimulus/

Despite receiving more than $885 million in federal economic stimulus funds since 2009, the D.C. government — whose residents face one of the highest unemployment rates in the nation — cannot say how many jobs it actually created for those who live in the District.

If anything, the employment picture has worsened in the District. At the end of 2011, according to the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, the city’s unemployment rate was 10.4 percent, ahead of only three states: Nevada (12.6 percent), California (11.1 percent) and Rhode Island (10.8 percent).

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/gm-b...nch-automaker/

I'm sure there were no politics involved here. Government run companies can make business decisions with OUR MONEY at least as well as private firms can...

Although General Motors still owes U.S. taxpayers $25 billion, that didn’t stop the Detroit automaker from investing more than $400 million in a French car company that’s “drowning in red ink.”

Yep. As of last week, GM has a 7 percent stake in PSA Peugeot Citroen. And because U.S. taxpayers still own approximately one-quarter of GM, they technically own part of Peugeot.

“Peugeot can undoubtedly use the cash,” ABC News report, “Last year, Peugeot’s auto making division lost $123 million.”

Make matters worse, on March 1 (one day after GM spent over $400 on the French company) Moody’s downgraded Peugeot’s credit rating to junk status with a “negative outlook,” citing “severe deterioration” of its finances.

Translation: “General Motors essentially just dumped more than $400 million of taxpayer assets on junk bonds,” ABC reports

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/noam...t-about-obama/

Probably the last person you’d expect to cite Sarah Palin favorably is Noam Chomsky. Yet in an interview with the Leftist news organization Democracy Now, Chomsky did precisely that, saying Palin was right to mock Obama for his lack of substance.

“I don’t usually admire Sarah Palin,” Chomsky said, “but when she was making fun of this ‘hopey changey stuff,’ she was right, there was nothing there.”

Watch Chomsky’s surprisingly honest admission below: Video

Originally Posted by Ripzalot

Very interesting take on Obama's hypocracy. Laugh it up Obama. Smoking pot and doing a little blow is such a funny joke when you are on Jimmy Kimmel. You are so "hip" Obama.

But if the laws YOU support had been used against YOU, and YOU got busted for that pot or blow, you'd be just another brother in the hood right now. No Harvard, No political career, no books, no nothing.

You dodged the bullet, now it's funny. Kids watching you encourage recreational drug use might not be so lucky.

Fucking President Douche.

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Look...Toadays headlines...

See, I told you so

Once again DBT proves that not only doesn't he know anything about history or politics, but that he is to stupid to spell simple words or use spell-check.

Thanks for proving that we need to increase educational spending.

Originally Posted by Lash LaRue

Once again DBT proves that not only doesn't he know anything about history or politics, but that he is to stupid to spell simple words or use spell-check.

Thanks for proving that we need to increase educational spending.

That's obviously a typo, not a spelling error. But that's a pretty old post. Any comment on Obama the drug hypocrite?

Originally Posted by Ripzalot

Not much to argue with there.

Originally Posted by Dantheman

Not much to argue with there.

it's just sick. hypocrisy + political expediency = failure of leadership

This is where PC liberalism leads...

Subject: FW: PHOTO TAKEN AT LA BASTILLE PLAZA IN PARIS



La Bastille yesterday, Washington DC tomorrow?
This photo was taken at La Bastille Plaza in Paris, during the election celebration for the comradesocialist president Hollande. See any French flags? Anywhere? Actually, there is ONE towards the bottom right. The other flags are in order of appurtenance, Palestinian (2 flags top right+1 center left), Algerian, Turkish (towards center), Syrian (towards left of pic + below Palestinian flag), Moroccan (w. star in center), and European Union flag. The other flags I can’t recognize, there are also Syndicates or Unions’ flags. That's France in a nutshell.
Also please read below the picture from a French citizen.

This e-mail was sent from a friend in France - Maxime Lépante, through Stuart Kaufman
Hello to my American friends,
As you know, the Socialist François Hollande won the presidential elections in France, last Sunday. It is a catastrophe for France.
Hollande was elected by the Muslims:
A survey (of 10,000 Muslims) shows that 93% of the Muslims voted for him.
As 2 million Muslims participated in this election, Hollande got 1,720,000 Muslim votes more than Sarkozy did: (0.93-0.07) x 2,000,000 = 1,720,000. But at the end, from the entire population, he got only 1,139,316 votes more than Sarkozy. So, without the Muslims' votes, Sarkozy would have been re-elected.
All the Muslim criminals feel now empowered. Criminality is already on the rise (1,700 cars were burnt in France for the first night). Muslims are screaming anti-French and anti-Jews watchwords in our streets.
Veiled women, wearing the illegal burqa, are strolling in our streets.
And, as if this wasn't enough, Hollande wants to give to all the foreigners the right to vote in our elections!!
France will face a very hard situation. We are heading for civil war in a few years.
That's the last news from occupied France.
Maxime Lépante

I guess I'm smarter than you and Obama.

Muslim Brotherhood win Egypt election.
Vow to establish new muslim capital....in Jerusalem
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...06-17-23-11-03

Obama = Setting up the next hollocaust = More like Hitler than you thought =The enemy within.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

There is an ever increasing number of things that are happening that show a side of Obama or his associations that many people before the election were shouted down for mentioning.

This thread is for those things.

This seems like a good place for this...the current SCOTUS will go down as the most activist in the history of our nation.
http://m.npr.org/news/front/155148102

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

That's as big a joke as anything you've posted here. The right specializes in untrue smear campaigns--sometimes against their own (if they're not crazy right-wing enough, as John McCain and his numerous illegitimate dark-skinned children can tell you--gotta scare that white Republican, southern base, as Lee Atwater will attest to).

Swiftboat Veterans for 'Truth' (fictional truth, but WTF, once you put it out there no one knows the difference).

Obama as a close associate of Bill Ayers (went to a fundraiser at his house once, but that makes Obama a terrorist supporter--now if he had embraced SAddam Hussein he'd have been an American hero eligible for Bush admin. posting).

Obama pretending to be a citizen (which one of you guys here tried to further propagate that lie? And you were so sure of it, too. Never mind that there was never any evidence for this, just throw all the lies at the wall and see what sticks. Fox 'News' strategy.).

Obama as a secret Muslim/terrorist/anti-American.

Obama the socialist (still trying to get that one to stick--probably plays OK among Americans who don't know what socialism is).

Rebublican claims that the CBO issued a report that stimulus money wouldn't be spent until after 2010, when no such report was ever made (again, just make shit up regardless of the truth).

Obama wanted to teach kindergartners about sex (more making shit up).

Palin rejected money for that AK bridge (same as above).

This could go on for pages, and since Palin HAD been a small town mayor before her brief time as governor (of a state with a population smaller than that of Cleveland or Detroit--hey, I bet both those guys are ready to be president!--which I guess impresses people like you) and the media almost unfailingly mentioned both jobs, you have no point. Again. But please keep posting drivel--I know you will. Part of the right-wing M.O. to just repeat lies until they seem true...

Originally Posted by Rubicon

I'll get to the rest of your post later. This one just jumped out at me.

Three years later and still nothing but obfuscation on that one point. Pretty telling.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

This seems like a good place for this...the current SCOTUS will go down as the most activist in the history of our nation.
http://m.npr.org/news/front/155148102

Hey Doodah, "Activist" means they legislate from the bench or strech the meaning of the founders in ways that no one with an honest interpretation could.

Properly interpreting the Constitution in ways that fuck with your Anti-constitutional beliefs is different.

Typical leftie strategy. Change the meaning of words to mean the opposite of what they really mean. Very 1984. (Orwellian 1984 that is)

Please quote the portion of the First Ammendment that specifically indicates that corporations are people?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Three years later and still nothing but obfuscation on that one point. Pretty telling.

Dumbass

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Back in June Rubicon promised to respond to these, as he claimed lying about the opposition was a specialty of the 'left.' All he could do was invent a chronology that might have justified one of them and blame Pelosi's spokesman to 'address' the same Republican falsehood. Coming up on a year with no response--we'll consider the point conceded and move on. But no more outrageous lies about what those you disagree with are doing, OK?

Of course, based on what I skimmed of Rubi's posts above he's gone completely around the bend with his Tea Bagging fear of a black planet, so maybe someone else should take up the cause (someone who doesn't sound quite so hysterical and crazed). Shit, I'll bet even Jer's AIDS!! posts sound more reasonable.

You are an intellectual coward dexter, but you are just bright enough to understand that if you run away from something long enough, and then revisit it far enough down the road, you can twist the truth and make events seem like the opposite of what actually happened and people are unlikely to challenge you on it, creating the illusion that you are correct. A hell of a lot like your buddy Barney Frank is fond of doing.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

01-09-2010, 12:13 PM

That is the problem I have with you Dexter. You keep trying to portray me as that, when I am not. I used to just ignore you but you are persisting in your shit slinging so now I feel I need to press you to back up what you say; something you have continued to be unable to do.

Those questions you are referring to were criticisms of republicans(a group I feel very little inclination to tow the line for) and much of it was spot on and valid. I chose to address the ones that were not. I told you in that thread to quote any question you had of me that you felt I hadn't adequately addressed and I would address it. But your response was to pull your usual dissappearing act. If you want to resurrect that thread and quote any of the questions I will be happy to respond to them, providing you do the same to the questions I asked you. Ball is in your court.





It is right above your post in plain English. Please answer it.

You never did. Instead you disappeared for a couple of months and here you are again, slinging shit.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

Back in June Rubicon promised to respond to these,

No, I said

Originally Posted by Rubicon

I'll get to the rest of your post later. This one just jumped out at me.

When I got around to reading the rest of your post I didn't have anything to say about it. As I said, that one point stood out to me so I took issue with it. That doesn't mean that I either agree or disagree with the rest of it, I simply feel no need to comment on it, now or then.

Is this really what you have been bitching about this entire time?

as he claimed lying about the opposition was a specialty of the 'left.'

No, I said

Originally Posted by Rubicon

I guess honest discourse has become too much to ask from many on the Left, you and the media included.

All he could do was invent a chronology that might have justified one of them and blame Pelosi's spokesman to 'address' the same Republican falsehood. Coming up on a year with no response--we'll consider the point conceded and move on.

You repeatedly got your ass handed to you on this topic. Here is an example:

Originally Posted by Obama Nate

I don't intend to speak for Rubi, but you're either being intentionally dense, or you are having trouble understanding a simple point. The CBO released a detailed compilation of data with projected discretionary outlays over a ten year period. (Or do you actually believe someone just pulled those numbers out of their ass?) Most people would simply refer to that as a report, jackass.



I don't know to which Rubi posts you are referring, but I posted two official reports published by the CBO to refute the idiotic assertions of your disciples of stupidity in this thread that the initial compilation of data with a detailed, projected discretionary outlays for the next ten years was innacurate insofar as the assertion made in the Bloomberg article was concerned. Guess what? When the "report" became official a week later, the premise of the article was backed by the report. The legislation passed, and the CBO released another report some time later, and that report still supported this big lie you speak of.



So exactly what was the lie?

What more is there to say? You are an idiot who has the reading comprehension of a five year old. How many different ways do you need the same thing explained to you?



...you never answered that question, BTW.

All the links are intact so you can go back and read it for yourself. Have fun...again.

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Please quote the portion of the First Ammendment that specifically indicates that corporations are people?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

There you go.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Dumbass








All the links are intact so you can go back and read it for yourself. Have fun...again.

I remember this "argument". Not to speak for Dex but the problem for me wasn't that you were able to produce a CBO memo or letter...it was that you intentionally disregarded the updated analysis from the CBO and only made reference to the old data analysis in order to make your point.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

Corporations are made up of people...

Correct, but a coproration is not a "person"...thus they are not entitled civil rights afforded to "people" via the constitution...the dissent is pretty clear on this...and I agree with the dissent.

Legal entities, Stevens wrote, are not "We the People" for whom our Constitution was established.[21] Therefore, he argued, they should not be given speech protections under the First Amendment. The First Amendment, he argued, protects individual self-expression, self-realization and the communication of ideas. Corporate spending is the "furthest from the core of political expression" protected by the Constitution, he argued, citing Federal Election Commission v. Beaumont, 539 U.S. 146 (2003), and corporate spending on politics should be viewed as a business transaction designed by the officers or the boards of directors for no purpose other than profit-making. Stevens called corporate spending "more transactional than ideological". Stevens also pointed out that any member of a corporation may spend personal money on promoting a campaign because BCRA only prohibited the use of general treasury money.

Do you really think a corporation is a "person"? Furthermore, do you want corporations to be able to contribute whatever amount of money they like to a candidate/politician? For me it's a no brainer that this leads to corruption on both sides. The activism of the SCOTUS came from them addressing an issue that was not brought up in the Citizens United case.

the right of the people peaceably to assemble

Nice try. That doesn't mean that corporations are people.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

There you go.

Um, Rube, they already had personhood before becoming part of the corporation. The corporation isn't a single person, it's a business. It has tools at it's disposal because of that corporate status, money, money and money that individual vitiate often do not.

A corporation cannot vote (yet) it can only contribute to those who it chooses to support. I always thought it was one man one vote not one corporation one bought politician.