I told you so!

With his accent, the Israeli guy almost sounds retarded, doesn't he? He would have been better off with a UN interpreter.

Sooner or later we'll find out if they are building nuclear weapons or not. At that point one of those guys will be able to say "I told you so", but by then, it won't matter, will it...

Thank you for the promote.

In reply to this comment by rasch187:
great song, let's *promote it

That's right, give the insects something to do-pour through tomes of data for I told you sos'-If you look hard enough, there is never an end to all manner of diversion and mind-wasting endeavor.

I'm awfully happy I did, too. I'm happy you've come to see Rachel as truthful, and not fatally biased, by the way.

Personally I think she's jumping the gun a bit, but it's good to know "the left" isn't going to be like the Republicans and defend everything their leader does.

If you watched the whole Obama speech, you can tell he's got concerns about the legal framework for holding these people. The issue is that the torture program left us with people we know are threats, but the evidence of that is tainted by the methods used to collect it. He could of course argue that the evidence gained via torture should be legally admissible in some way, but that leads us to the dark side.

So does indefinite detention without trial though, but that's what they've had for 8 years, and I think it's probably tolerable to let that continue while we settle the legal and political struggles over what to do with them.

Personally I say giving them their fair day in court, letting them get acquitted, and then keeping tabs on them once released is the right way to go -- collect new evidence, or just plain do the whole ugly war thing and kill them on the field of battle. I'm sure that's not a popular plan, but I suspect Obama wouldn't put up a massive fight if the legal tussle worked out that way.

Much as I wish Obama used all the Bushian "I'm the decider" tactics to undo all of Bush's messes, I'm okay with a return to the Presidency having limits on what it can do by executive fiat.

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
You know, I hate to be the person to say I told you so, but... I told you so. And you even campaigned for that cretin.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Rachel-Maddow-Obama-Advocates-Indefinite-Detention

You know, I hate to be the person to say I told you so, but... I told you so. And you even campaigned for that cretin.

http://www.videosift.com/video/Rachel-Maddow-Obama-Advocates-Indefinite-Detention

Tags for this video have been changed from 'mitchell, rant, consensus, agree, false, told you so' to 'mitchell, rant, consensus, agree, false, told you so, stanley, the somme' - edited by calvados

Then again, if he's accurate about how every good plan they had to actually get Osama was mysteriously rejected at the top levels, 9/11 conspiracy theorists are probably jumping up and down, shouting "HA! Told you so!".

What if atheists are wrong?

Then you should pray for God to have mercy on them, and judge them by how they've touched the lives of others, and not by whether or not they've heard His call.

Should work as a response to a questioner from any monotheistic faith I'm familiar with.

If you're looking for something less nice:

"Then you'll get to say 'I told you so' while we're both burning in hell."

Then there's always some choice Gallileo Galilei:

"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use."

If you're looking for famous quotes, I know a good place to find them.

The "activist judges" argument is so much more fundamentally problematic than just prop8.

The rhetoric of "democracy", as envisioned by Regan has taken over. Most of the citizens of the US believe that the majority rules. We have a constitutional republic of constitutional democracies (for the most part), and these forms of government are based on having courts and laws which limit the authority of both the elected and the electors.

It in my view that the GOP in its "tare down the state" rampage has undermined the cultural understanding of how our government was designed to work. The whole fear campaign of the poor voting themselves the money of the rich is absurd in consideration of the real mechanisms of balance in play. For the GOP to gain traction they had to undermine the public knowledge of our governmental system, because their arguments did not stand informed scrutiny.

I agree a little bit with lessig about public understanding, but I think the courts have a part to play as a teaching tool. I think that the anti-8 lawyers should go to the court, demand that prop-8 be enacted, and that it's necessary consequence, the banning of all marriage licenses issued by the state of California, should be forced into place. Then let everybody in CA feel the pain of having their rights revoked, and reflect on the consequences of trying to revoke rights through (poorly worded) constitutional amendment.

Then the prop-8 folks can say "we told you so" and then propose an amendment to lift prop-8, thereby re-legalizing all two-party marriage in CA.

I told you so. Not that that makes me any happier.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

>> ^MINK:
as someone who predicted this i feel it is now necessary to say i told you so.
and don't just blame the concept... maybe it the execution was lacking too


You are such a misunderstood genius Mink. If only people understood your brilliance.

as someone who predicted this i feel it is now necessary to say i told you so.

and don't just blame the concept... maybe it the execution was lacking too

You're a true prophet!

In reply to this comment by rottenseed:
told you so...

...I was getting worried that my top 15 radar was out of calibration

told you so...

...I was getting worried that my top 15 radar was out of calibration