told you so I watched Kunsten å tenke negativt today, it's hilarious

In reply to this comment by blankfist:
I watched Die Falscher last night. You were right. Awesome movie.

I had to watch that thrice times!

I was fooled on the first one for about 3 seconds. Then i marveled at the ...simplicity.

If it was me on the beach, and I didn't know that was a Kite, I would have yelled out to every one: See I told you so.

Not to say "I told you so" to all those against stem cell research but.. hey.. you guys are fucking morons

Stem cells and bone marrow ftw

My Response:

Atheists get a bad name. We like to bake bread and take long walks observing the wonders of nature. We like to laugh and smile. We love our children and want what's best for them. We want a country/world that is united and working together despite the beliefs of the individual. Sure we'll give you a hug...just not next to you in church. If you don't see me in church it's simply because I look at the world differently than you. Sure your way is the true way and the only way. Sure you're right and I'm wrong. I hope you do go to heaven, and I'm sure I'll be banished to hell, in which case you can point down from your cloud village with your fancy garb and say "I told you so". At which point I will scream in pain and agony longing to be up in heaven with you. But until then, let's just try to not make this place more unbearable than it already is.

XOXO,
RottenSeed Satan Lucifer, III, esq.

According to YT, it's June 26, 2008. Yeah, it was painful.

I really hope Mr. Schiff has saved all these vids for some serious I-told-you-so ownage.

>> ^thepinky:
^ Oh, wow. Do the results of Bush's presidency have anything to do with whether or not the election was rigged? No, they don't. I am happy to hear you criticize Bush's Reign of Stupidity anytime you want, but I find it unhelpful and childish for people to whine about rigged elections. We've had much better things to complain about in the last 8 years.
The whole argument annoys me, though. It is incredibly easy for Democrats to sit back and say, "I told you so," but unless you're all-knowing, NetRunner, you have NO idea whatsoever what things would have been like under Gore. We could very well be at war in Iraq right now. Even Democrats supported the war in 2002. Of course I am just as unhappy as you are with the state of the nation and the world, but I'm not sitting around blaming other people and whining about a "rigged election" that ocurred 8 long years ago. Bush won fairly within our established electoral system. Please, if you're going to whine, whine about something else.


Boy what a straw man you put out there.

It'd be whining if Bush's presidency was like his dad's. I didn't like a lot of what he did, but he didn't violate the ethical and legal core of what I think America stands for, and then treat anyone who tried to stop him like a petulant child.

It's sort've like telling Al Qaeda to "quit whining" about troops in the Middle East.

I'm not sitting back and saying "I told you so", I'm campaigning to change what's happening every way I can, including trying to reach out to people like you who think there weren't any consequences worth getting mad about from having an election stolen like this.

As for Democrats supporting the war in 2002, I'm as pissed about that as anything else, and it's why I was dead-set against Hillary and her refusal to seek repentance for that vote during the Primaries. I think this country would have to be nuts to elect someone who still is one of the war's biggest cheerleaders.

As for parties themselves, yes, they do tend to encourage people to be more dogmatic, but who're these "intelligent Republicans" who opposed the war when we "ALL discovered that things weren't what they seemed"?

Democrats can't seem to find even 10 Republican votes to help them put an end to the war. Hell, they can't even get Joe Lieberman to vote to end the war.

There's just no factual evidence that the Republican party has learned from their mistakes over the last 8 years.

As for your self-righteous proclamation that I shouldn't be raising my voice -- just somehow "working" to fix it -- don't you think to fix it we need to be able to convince people like you to stop thinking of the two parties as being "euqally wrong"?

^ Oh, wow. Do the results of Bush's presidency have anything to do with whether or not the election was rigged? No, they don't. I am happy to hear you criticize Bush's Reign of Stupidity anytime you want, but I find it unhelpful and childish for people to whine about rigged elections. We've had much better things to complain about in the last 8 years.

The whole argument annoys me, though. It is incredibly easy for Democrats to sit back and say, "I told you so," but unless you're all-knowing, NetRunner, you have NO idea whatsoever what things would have been like under Gore. We could very well be at war in Iraq right now. Even Democrats supported the war in 2002. Of course I am just as unhappy as you are with the state of the nation and the world, but I'm not sitting around blaming other people and whining about a "rigged election" that ocurred 8 long years ago. Bush won fairly within our established electoral system. Please, if you're going to whine, whine about something else.

>> ^spoco2
I'm not in a position to really state whether any of that is true, but if it is, and the Republicans have been in power for the last 8 years... then surely it'd be stupid to vote in more of the same leadership?
No? And if you're going to try to suggest that all the problems are because of a democrat being in office in the 1930s... please, respectfully... f ck off.
If your chosen part has been in power for the past 8 years and has done nothing but help your country sink into its own financial abyss, then have the bloody balls to accept that, don't pull some shit about someone 70 years ago causing the trouble now.
That's some serious blinker you have on there.


Though it sounds like quantum doesn't really understand what he's parroting, to those learned libertarians in world who understand the problem, he's actually kind of right and it's not as ridiculous as it sounds. It's entirely a matter of socialist big government policies that have been building over a long period of time, just waiting for someone highly corrupt to abuse them. Are you aware of the benevolent dictator argument? The idea that just because it's possible to have a benevolent dictatorship for a certain period of time, the costs of that system ultimately catch up to it because as long as those highly centralized powers EXIST, they WILL be abused by an eventual regime change and destroy the country. This is why we embrace constitutional limits on government and a system of inefficiency in which it is (supposed to be) extremely difficult for any political group to do this. Those limits started to get ignored at the turn of the 20th century and are almost all violated in some fashion today. It doesn't matter how convinced you are that your candidate is telling you the truth, some powers shouldn't exist. The system should not come down to who can pick the best dictator, and then being left with the consolation of "I told you so" when the people finally screw up and elect the wrong guy. Because there are actually two ways to do harm: through stupidity or through deceit. It's perfectly possible to be a well-intentioned, charismatic guy that is just plain wrong or ignorant how to best solve a problem. It's also possible for someone to promise to do one thing to get elected, and do the opposite once elected. People on this forum are educated enough to see #2. They're not seeing #1.

Bush is a highly corrupt individual, no question about it. But to restrict the debate to a choice between liberalism and neo-conservatism is to restrict the debate to socialism, because that's exactly what both of them are with minor differences. This population needs to understand libertarian principles, and fast. Because make no mistake, these socialist enablements and crises and scandals have plagued politics in general over the years and it was bound to come to a head sooner or later. We are in the late stages of socialism, there is nothing "regulatory" that can be done about something that is inherently fraudulent or corruptible. You simply have to understand that markets are merely individuals making mutually agreeable transactions with one another. Government's main functions are very simple, it is to make sure rights are not infringed with police/fire/national defense, and to provide a system of courts for recourse and the settlement of disputes. It is not to have its hands in every part of the market to regulate "greed," this is a nonsensical statement that assumes politicians with privileged power to forcibly appropriate money are not themselves greedy. This is the kind of idealist thinking that enables lobbying, corporatism, etc, and it's stunning that people haven't figured this out yet. The only way a person or a company can turn a profit, without infringing on people's rights, and without colluding with government-specific powers that they do not have (see:below), is to create a product/service that people will want to improve their lives with. That's it. It doesn't matter that the primary goal in a business venture is to make money in a truly free market, because the only way to make money in that system and keep it is to meet the demands of someone else. The EFFECT is that both parties benefit, even though the goals are both driven by self-interest. People are also very generous and are more apt to give excesses to charity under this system, charity was at its highest in America in the late 19th century. Because we didn't have inflation and we didn't have an income tax. Here is a short list of things that have brought us here and Ron Paul was the only one talking about any of them.

1. Centralized price fixing of interest rates by the Federal Reserve System: sends the wrong signals to investors to prevent politically inconvenient recessions, incentivizing massive misallocations of capital investment. Enables catastrophic insolvency, market scapegoating and further socialist interventions. This is THE root cause of the two market bubbles which are now collapsing, as well as the bubble that formed in the 20s and crashed in 29. This one spanned both Clinton and Bush presidencies, started with the easy money policies of the 90s that led to the tech stocks collapsing, then the inflation was filtered into real estate by Greenspan's 1% artificially low interest rates in 2000 (he also egged on the market for years, completely oblivious to what he was doing), and finally the inflation is coming home to roost in basic commodities. Borrowers are walking away and banks that invested heavily in the housing mania with are now left with mortgages that are nowhere near worth the price that they could actually sell the home. The housing market mania was so intense that people were buying homes to flip them to other people who were buying homes to flip them, until eventually, all that was left was speculative sellers with no one buying to LIVE in them other than idiots with bad credit who bought with no down payments.
2. An unconstitutional, non-market determined money: easily manufactured at no labor or material cost by the banking industry that controls it, transferring purchasing power from those who have to work for them to the recipients of this free money in wall street and in the government without asking the working man. Morally reprehensible and enables bailout legislation to deal with the insolvency that #1 causes.
3. Fractional Reserve Banking: government enables the banking industry to fraudelently loan out credit many times what it actually has in reserves and earn interest off of it. The effect cascades as a result of successive deposits of this phantom credit between banks and enables bank runs and extremely unstable leverage, creating an environment that all but necessitates an FDIC and central bank to be lender of last resort in the event of a run, which of course leads to the creation of #1.
3. Heavy subsidization: enables corporate lobbying for government handouts of forcibly appropriated money as an anti-competitive advantage
4. Income-taxation, a direct tax on production, very difficult to enforce without intimidation tactics, enables special tax credits as an anti-competitive advantage
5. Anti-competitive regulation: who's regulating the regulator? Idealist FDA powers to ban products from being chosen on the market have led to anti-competitive bans such as Stevia, resulting in health repercussions unbecoming of an agency that is supposed to protect it. Special legislation such as NAFTA, a 100-page "free-trade" agreement acting as a pretense to lower tariffs to get the WTO to raise tariffs
6. Nationalization of industry: enables predatory anti-competitive takeovers for the largest institutions of smaller institutions, enables government monopoly in industry financed by forcibly appropriated money.
7. Medicare, SS: Unsustainable, government run ponzi schemes purporting to be welfare measures. New investors paying old investors in real time, continually increasing tax rates to prolong solvency, continually changing rules about retirement age to prolong solvency. Trust fund anually tapped by congress to spend the excess by replacing them with government promises of future dollars (bonds). CPI-adjusted payouts, allowing government to underpay by understating real inflation.

And after listing all of this shit, it should be obvious to see why I'm so incensed by simple little quips like charliem's that get rated up: "unethical" loans. You want to talk about ethical lending? You think the government doing the things above under either party gives one bloody shit about ethics? Lending money is a gamble, it's a gamble you implictly allowed that bank to take by giving them your money to gamble with. Banks aren't a free storing house for money, they immediately take the money you give them and loan most of it out to someone else at interest, that's how they pay YOU interest for keeping it on their books when you could otherwise put your savings in a lockbox for a fee. But seeing as how people are cheap, ignorant bastards that have no idea how fraudulent the current system is, they will continue to ask politicians to coo-coo them with "ethics reform" and other nonsense that do nothing to solve the fundamental problems.

And let me make this dirt simple if I haven't already: you can't "regulate" or "oversee" these activities any more than you can "regulate" or "oversee" murder. It is fundamentally fraudulent to loan out something you don't have, price fixing of interest rates creates shortages of capital when people otherwise would save it, and an easily inflatable currency is nothing more than legalized counterfeiting for government and anyone who colludes with them. Wake up already.

*sniff sniff* I smell a ban coming on... But maybe not yet, as SaneScienceOrg has yet to post any videos.

To mas8705, you're doing it wrong. You're supposed to make outrageous comments that no-one will be able to *dis*prove, not that no-one will be able to prove. Unless you believe in an afterlife and you want to be able to say "Told you so!" in which case go for it.

They haven't actually used it (to smash atoms) yet.... so to say "I told you so" is a bit premature... however I don't think it would cause a catastrophic end to us all just because they're smashing the shit out of some poor defenseless atoms.

^ Obama is for net neutrality and privacy, and I doubt he has a stated position on encryption. Biden won't be Dick Cheney.

You only get to say "I told you so" if you suggest who to vote for, and don't get your way.

Stamping your feet about the two party system less than 3 months before the Presidential election is just silly (not that you're the only one doing it).

Who did you vote for in the Congressional elections in 2006? Third parties need to start there, rather than trying to repeat Lincoln's hat trick.

He is a rip off. Anti privacy anti privacy and anti encryption. Not net neutral.

Screw this crap.

Why do people fall for the two party crap? There are more choices out there. When he gets elected and shit hits the fan... or MCcain for that matter Ill say "I fucking told you so."

Here are the details listed on the YouTube embeds for the original video listed:

"Parody Commercial Funny Domestic Abuse PSA Molester Nigger Ad Retard Racism Drugs Rape Murder Abortion Santa Predator Molested"

Real classy friends you have there Quantum. I retract my statements, go ahead and ban.

I hate to say "I told you so", but... no wait, what am I saying? I LIVE to say "I told you so."

The door is definitely open for a fifth film. It does what a good soap does. It takes advantage of the fact that you only know what the films have told you so far.