Thread: The Great 'I told you so" Thread

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

edit: to wit (which you both lack), Rubi's link went to a 1/20 Bloomberg story (which unquestioningly accepted the Republican misrepresentations), and the CBO report is from 1/26.


What's become clear is, first and most important, there was no CBO "report," a definition that office takes seriously.

That's all good and fine, but (just to keep this on track) How is this dishonesty from the GOP when Nancy Pelosi's spokesman is talking about this "report"? From the Bloomberg article:

Jan. 20

A spokesman for House Speaker Nancy Pelosi defended the plan, saying it was “crafted based on the advice of some of our nation’s leading economists.” Spokesman Nadeam Elshami said the CBO report did not examine the tax and mandatory-spending provisions in the plan, which he said could be more quickly enacted.

For everyone who scoffed at the notion that Obama is a power hungry authoritarian who sees the constitution as a obstacle to be overcome:

Byrd: Obama in power grab



Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.), the longest-serving Democratic senator, is criticizing President Obama’s appointment of White House “czars” to oversee federal policy, saying these executive positions amount to a power grab by the executive branch.

In a letter to Obama on Wednesday, Byrd complained about Obama’s decision to create White House offices on health reform, urban affairs policy, and energy and climate change. Byrd said such positions “can threaten the Constitutional system of checks and balances. At the worst, White House staff have taken direction and control of programmatic areas that are the statutory responsibility of Senate-confirmed officials.”

In too many instances, White House staff have been allowed to inhibit openness and transparency, and reduce accountability.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0209/19303.html

Rub-

You keep saying that Pelosi's spokesperson keeps backing the initial "report". Yet every quote you've provided has said exactly the opposite. Please show us where Pelosi backs the initial "report". Even that last one, you highlighted where they said there were problems with the "report" but backed the plan.

Originally Posted by gonehuckin

Rub-

You keep saying that Pelosi's spokesperson keeps backing the initial "report". Yet every quote you've provided has said exactly the opposite. Please show us where Pelosi backs the initial "report". Even that last one, you highlighted where they said there were problems with the "report" but backed the plan.

I have not said they back the contents of the report, I have said they acknowledged the existence of the report; the report Dexter said didn't exist. So I'll ask you again, how can the "report" be a dishonest fabrication of the GOP(as Dex is asserting) when both Pelosi's staff and the Washinghton Post acknowledged it's existence?

the pwnage continues.......................

And you fucking dumbass libdopes keep parroting that Obama isn't owned by the banks or special interests

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...home_headlines

butthurt...

Originally Posted by carpathian

Wait... what does CBO stand for again?

Cambria Bicycle Outfitters

Originally Posted by Rip'nStick

butthurt...

retarded...

Originally Posted by whatcomridaz

And you fucking dumbass libdopes keep parroting that Obama isn't owned by the banks or special interests

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...home_headlines

He's not owned by the banks....He OWNS the banks.

Originally Posted by Rubicon

I have not said they back the contents of the report, I have said they acknowledged the existence of the report; the report Dexter said didn't exist. So I'll ask you again, how can the "report" be a dishonest fabrication of the GOP(as Dex is asserting) when both Pelosi's staff and the Washinghton Post acknowledged it's existence?

They admit to there being an old report that was never official that has now been updated with another official report? This is bad of them how?

Hey everybody - want to see a true butthurt stalker at work? Go to my profile and look at the recent visitors - for like the past 9 months Assbush hasn't fallen off that list once. The guy's obsessed with me.


Assbush - read what you typed in your last post. It doesn't make any sense. I'm not saying I'm surprised, I'm just pointing that out.

Originally Posted by smitchell333

Still 100% a Bush Administration deal. All the players were Bush appointees and the deal was conceived, constructed, and closed under GW Bush.

Originally Posted by Tippster

I see Obama now owns shit in your opinion that happened before his Presidency. Yes Bernanke is still the Fed Chairman, but Barack Hussein Obama was a Senator in December, not the "administration."

I thought you were sane. I am wrong.

Have fun with whatever the fuck you do to get yourself to look at yourself in the mirror, but your spittle is showing.

You are both wrong.

Hands of Obama Officials Seen in 2008 BofA Talks

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration is being drawn into the drama over Bank of America Corp. because of notes taken by bank executives suggesting Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner and Lawrence Summers, the president's top economic adviser, supported efforts last year to pressure the bank to consummate its merger with Merrill Lynch & Co.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124476761129508565.html

Anybody else notice how easily Tipper gets all worked up? Male menopause?

Originally Posted by Rubicon

You are both wrong.

Who owns the WSJ? that liberal biased media again!

The WSJ became insignificant when Murdoch purchased it. Just another form of Faux news. That said I certainly am not going to subsrcibe to it so that I can read your link so do you have any other sources?

Originally Posted by Dexter Rutecki

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).

When Obama made his first run for political office, articles in both the Chicago Defender and the Hyde Park Herald featured among his qualifications his position as chairman of the board of the Chicago Annenberg Challenge, a foundation where Ayers was a founder and guiding force. Obama assumed the Annenberg board chairmanship only months before his first run for office, and almost certainly received the job at the behest of Bill Ayers.

With Obama heading up the board and Ayers heading up the other key operating body of the Annenberg Challenge, the two would necessarily have had a close working relationship for years...

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q...ZlM2Y2OGI0NDM=

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

If you want to put the alphabet media and H-Wood on the same level as the redneck contingent on the Right, by all means, go right ahead. I'm not sure what H-Wood is going to think of that but he can take that up with you if he doesn't like being compared to them.

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

"Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude."

-Alexis de Tocqueville


"I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody."

-Obama

jeezuz people. It turns out Obama is a typical politician and is full of shit and probably at least partially corrupt most of the time. Who would have thunk it. All repubs and dems are fulil of shit and corrupt most of the time. Stop fucking voting for them. Assholes.

Hi there--sorry I missed all the excellent tangentry.

Rubicon, I've only read bits of Alinsky's stuff, but I've read enough, and enough background to say that I don't find him or his ideas frightening, or even very radical. Frankly, I feel the same way about Ayers. You've got every right to your opinion, but my point is that most people don't find Obama's "associations" "troubling"--even after Fox, etc. and the alphabet media flogged it relentlessly during the campaign.

After the last eight years where the boys running the show (Nixon disciples like Cheney, Rove, and Rumsfeld) were associating with creepy evangelists, criminal lobbyists like Jack Abrahamoff, and criminal corporations like Enron... holding up boogeymen like Ayers and Alinsky while muttering darkly about socialism just isn't going to get any traction. In fact, it actually gives a lot people a little glimmer of hope that maybe they won't get fucked quite as badly as they did during last round.

dumbasses

Here's a good I told you so.....

As I said before, the Museum shooter who the media claimed was "Right Wing" is really a Main Stream Democrat.

Finally, heres rock solid proof...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090618/...useum_shooting

Originally Posted by Downbound Train

Here's a good I told you so.....

As I said before, the Museum shooter who the media claimed was "Right Wing" is really a Main Stream Democrat.

Finally, heres rock solid proof...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090618/...useum_shooting

I clicked on it...you got me! And a snippet from your article.

Investigators said they also found a notebook in the car with handwritten notes saying, "The Holocaust is a lie. Obama was created by Jews. Obama does what his Jew owners tell him to do. Jews captured America's money. Jews control the mass media."

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yay! The short bus has arrived!

Originally Posted by Jer

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Yay! The short bus has arrived!

Where are you going? Trip to the Target food court?

Originally Posted by Adolf Allerbush

Where are you going? Trip to the Target food court?

Target has a food court?

See - this is why I took you off ignore.

Originally Posted by H-wood

Rubicon, I've only read bits of Alinsky's stuff, but I've read enough, and enough background to say that I don't find him or his ideas frightening, or even very radical.

So you have only read "bits" of his stuff, But you got lucky because the bits you have read just happened to be the bits that were quoted in the article I posted which is why you could say with authority:

Originally Posted by H-wood

That op/ed is as worthless as the source--a bunch of out of context quotes and vague smears.

I've read more than "bits" of Alinsky's stuff which is why I knew you hadn't when you made the above statement.

Dude, you just made that up out of thin air. How are you not full of shit on this?

Fox News hosts are wondering aloud, why Obama keeps bringing up Their Network. So far they don't get it. Here's the reason. Rule #13 from Rules for Radicals....

13. Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...

"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When your 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'

"One acts decisively only in the conviction that all the angels are on one side and all the devils on the other." (pps.127-134)

He's in the early stages of setting them Fox up to be vilifyed, marginalized and format dismantled through the use of the fairness doctrine or some other method of eliminating opposition. Fox isn't FAIR.

http://www.crossroad.to/Quotes/communism/alinsky.htm