I maintain that the day will come, and will come soon, when Democrats will regret dissing the Clinton wing of the party. I predict that Barack Obama will one day be seen as the worst thing ever to happen to the Democratic party.Well...?
Granted, it'll be a while before the progs permit themselves to confess that they were wrong to mount a divisive hate campaign during a primary -- although Moulitsas came parlously close to taking that step recently.
Another such step is this Daily Kos diary, written by elizabethgurly. (Must I spell that name as one word?) The short post references Austan Goolsbee, Obama's long-time economics adviser, whose first name is misspelled by elizabethgurley. I'll bet you'll quickly guess why my jaw dropped while reading this:
Now, I know the primary seems like a hundred years ago--and in "another country" as James Baldwin once said--but Mr Goolsbee, who was then a major economic advisor to Obama, got caught secretly assuring the Canadians that Obama supported "free trade," with its benefits to corporations for abandoning American workers and American industry, with its brutal crackdowns on organizing among foreign workers.
Needless to say, backtracking occurred, Hillary voiced her concern that NAFTA be modified, and it was laid to rest. For then.
What's wrong with this picture? It's missing something. The past.The Kossacks are trying to erase their own vile history. The brie-n-chablis progs want us working-class liberals to forget how they ruined our Democratic party in 2008. But, in the words of Richard Pryor, I ain't gonna never forget.
Here's the history that the odious, disgusting Kossacks are now trying to erase: When Goolsbee was caught giving back-channel re-assurances to the Canadians, Kos front-paged an enormously popular diary (more than one, actually) which spread the lie that Obama was not the Janus-faced party, that Hillary was the one who had given the Canadians assurances varying from those she gave to the American public.
A Canadian commission of inquiry set the matter straight. They proved that Obama was guilty as charged. Hillary Clinton was 100 percent innocent.
Did Marcos Moulitsas and his minions ever publish one diary about the findings of that commission? To the best of my knowledge, a correction never appeared. Instead, Moulitsas allowed the original lie to stand.
Keith Olbermann did one of his patented tirades against Hillary Clinton, based on the misinformation published in the Daily Kos. Olbermann, to the best of my knowledge, never mentioned the Canadian inquiry, and never apologized for getting his facts wrong.
I exposed this Big Lie at length here. That post may be the best thing I've ever written.
When Daily Kos published the Big Lie, the Kossacks fulminated thusly:
Obama did not reassure Canada of anything...It was all bullshit to cover up the leak that Hillary DID reassure Canada
Billary, started it all by telling Canada that even though she was bad mouthing NAFTA on the campaign trail, do not worry I really still support NAFTA. Politicians like to talk out of both sides of their mouths. Right Billary?
Hillary has joined the ranks of George Bush in lying every time she opens her mouth.
The Clinton's are dangerous, lying, neocon, corporate/MIC enablers.There were dozens, hundreds of similar comments. All of them were based on a fraud. Hillary Clinton had no secret dealings with the Canadians. Obama did.
Obama was the one who won primaries by printing ads with this message:
"I don't think NAFTA has been good for America -- and I never have."Yet in 2004, he had told an interviewer:
“The United States benefits enormously from exports under the WTO and NAFTA.”(I give links for all this in my original story.) We now know that the 2004 quote reflects Obama's true stance. It has been said that all politicians lie, but I don't think I've ever seen a lie quite so bald-faced as this one -- not even a lie told by a Republican.
The current Kos story by Eli -- excuse me: by elizabethgurley -- notes that Obama's Trade Representative Ron Kirk is pushing for trade deals with South Korea, Colombia and Panama that will offshore even more American jobs. Will Kos readers ever come to grips with the fact that they created this situation?
The only way for them to re-unite the party is for the progs to give up on Obama, once and for all, and then APOLOGIZE. No ifs, ands or buts. I don't want to hear a single syllable of weasle-wording. Let's have no attempts to sneak in some Clinton Derangement Syndrome through the back door. No "But Hillary would have..."
No. None of that. Not even a whisper of that.
What we want from you, Kossacks, is 100 percent loss of face. Humiliate yourselves. Grovel. Drink our piss. Eat our shit. Stand there and take it when we spit in your eye, and then say: "Thank you sir; may I please have another?"
Because that is what you deserve for destroying the Democratic Party.
You were wrong about Obama. We were right when we said that he was a conservative in progressive clothing. Just admit it, and do not try to slip in any of your damnable counter-insults.
For god's sake, Kossacks, can't you lose your grip on your damnable arrogance just once?
APOLOGIZE. No excuses. No rationalizations. No "Well, there were problems on both sides..." None of that. JUST APOLOGIZE, YOU SMUG SANCTIMONIOUS ARROGANT FUCKS!
Update: An asshole "Whole Foods" Kossack responds to this post here. Be careful before you click that link: The smarm will hit you like a whiff of pure ammonia.
No matter how badly they fail, those clowns will never apologize. They will never give up their arrogant attitude. Smug is their crack. They would rather slice off their nipples with a rusty potato peeler than admit that they got it wrong.
Well, thanks to Obama -- and thanks to that supremely alienating Kossack-brand smugness -- the Democratic Party is going to lose huge in 2010 and probably in 2012. After the failures of W, the Democratic party should have had a run comparable to 1933-1952. Instead, they are back on track to permanent minority party status.
How's that smugness working out for ya, you Kossack fuck-faces?
Sure, you can snicker and lie about your history. But nothing can change the fact that you ruined the party. During a primary, you mounted a smear campaign and acted like Freepers. You created a Mao-like cult of personality. You lied and fabricated and tossed mud in an unabashedly Rovian fahion.
History is going to make you eat a mountain of shit before this is over, jackasses. I will always have the ability to crow, because I was right all along. You will always be unable to alter history's harsh judgment. You are, in a word, impotent.
Nevertheless, despite your record of failure, and even know you know damned well that your arrogance only alienates, you'll keep reaching for that bottle marked "HUBRIS" while disdaining the tonic labeled "HUMILITY."
38 comments:
The current mythology that they're trying to foist on us is that any of the Democrats would have been as bad as Obama. The fact that he is, by far, the most rightwing Democrat in over one hundred years escapes these people.
What Obama does that hoodwinks these geniuses everytime, is to mouth a liberal sentiment - such as his support for the so-called public option that would provide, if designed to do so, competition within the market place and, in the end, provide better, less expensive health care for all Americans. After voicing his support, he then steps out of the way entirely and refuses to participate in the way that only the president, who is the head of the Democratic party, can, by using his bully pulpit to keep the American people on board, and by providing help, incentives and threats necessary to get the required number of Democrats (and maybe Republicans in a better world) on board to pass the bill. Instead, he does nothing and in his place, the health insurance companies, who have just had a threat to their profit margin voiced by the President of the United States, go to work protecting their industry. They're the ones offering incentives and threats - not the head of the Democratic party. They're the ones offering leadership. Not the president. When it's all over, Obama shakes his head and says he did what he could and points to his speeches as evidence. And the geniuses who supported him fall for it and assure us that Hillary would have been at least as bad.
He creates a void in leadership, which allows the worst, most corrupt, entities to fill the void and their leadership then moves the nation farther right - and all this with a Democrat in the White House and a Democratic majority in the House and Senate. Amazing.
Thankfully, he has a few really good cabinet secretaries but other than that, his presidency is every bit as catastrophically bad for the nation as the presidencies of Reagan and Bush Jr. were.
Standing O.
My sentiments exactly.
Grovel, kossucks. Nice try, but you will be spanked every time you try to rewrite history.
Mr.Cannon, if you would quit sugarcoating your disdain for the PusMinions your writing would be even more dramatic. Seriously, bravo. What Cannon said. Amen.
The Littlest O has done exactly what the GOP has done for a generation, but to a different audience. The GOPers depict themselves as the virtuous defenders of the Little Man while doing everything in their power to screw him. So Doeth Obama.
My disappointment in progressives is infinitely greater than their disappointment in Obama.
I honestly thought we were a smarter breed of cat. This last election has proven me abysmally wrong.
The O-holes are triple political screw-ups, to wit:
1) They showed poor judgment--stupidity, if you will--in voting for Obama.
2) They ignored repeated warnings. Joe, the PUMAs, me, and others tried to explain to them, and I thought we were very nice about it. We know how well that went...
3) And they still refuse to admit their mistake. This is the classic sign of a screw-up.
Indeed, the very progs who helped flush us down the toilet are still blogging merrily away, trying to explain how it was all the Clintons' fault. While we muse about the apologies they owe us, they're ready to march out and screw things up some more. Go, progs!
{{applauds}}
Sing it, Joe.
The last fallback position is prove that Hillary would have been better.
You just sort of have to step back and realize that these are natures losers. They managed for once in their livs to get their guy in office, and it turned out they failed again; their guy tricked them and was someone else.
But this crowd has such a history of failure that there is no turning back, they will never admit they were wrong about Obama because they were never right about anything else-and in the end there is no victory for them no matter what they do.
The democratic party has to move on and get rid of the dead weight and start over.
Amen.
Peg
I still say NAFTA-gate was a tempest in a teapot. There wasn't a dimes worth of difference between Hillary and Barack on NAFTA. Both postured against it, or tried to appear doing so for political gain. Hillary, as I recall, said she had never favored NAFTA. The Obama campaign may have tried to reassure the Canadians not to take it all too seriously, although as I recall there was some dispute as to whether Goolsbee spoke on behalf of the campaign and as to what he said. I don't doubt though that he said something that conveyed the message that Obama wasn't really all that against NAFTA. That's apparently how they took it anyway. The Clinton campaign may or may not have done the same, although the only evidence was an anonymous source. Maybe I have my facts wrong, it's been a while and I didn't follow it all that closely the first time.
Maybe Hillary will run against Barack. Maybe I'll support her, I don't know, depends what happens. I don't think though that she is any further to the left than Obama. More likely she will support Barack in 2012 and he will likely win re-election.
Obama played to win in the campaign. I just wish he would do the same now against the Republicans.
A tempest in a teapot? Are you out of your mind?
If Obama had not loudly blared his opposition to NAFTA in Ohio and other key states -- if he had not put out false pamphlets claiming that he had ALWAYS opposed NAFTA -- he would not be in the oval office today. Hillary would have demolished him in those states.
I've seen many political lies. But I've never before seen one so brazen -- at least, not on the Democratic side of the aisle.
The Kos Krowd played a huge role in spreading that lie. I'll be damned before I see them rewrite their own history on that score.
And if they had not tried to rewrite their history, I would never have written this post.
At this point there are 2 GOPs, and no Democratic Party at all.
There's the GOP we're used to, represented by the elephants, and the GOP (Grotesque Obama Perfidies) represented by the jackasses.
Yes, mythology #1 is that Obama is just as bad as any dem would have been.
So mythology #2 must be: "the Administration" is somehow separate from the leader, Obama. I find this absolutely amazing! They make Obama look like he's the little school boy who can't keep the bullies in line, although he tries really really hard.
How can the progbots not realize that the POTUS calls the shots in his administration???? HE sets the policy and the others follow it. Kirk is the peon, not Obama.
For fun, go to the site and vote in her poll. At least 24 voters realize Obama wants to make the Dems a corporate party.
The link in the update is hilarious. That's sociopathy on display there. That's a guy who really thinks he got you. Never mind that he's using racism to make his point - a point that he's too pathological to understand.
This is what Obama and his supporters are all about - using tricks and smears to make the opposition look bad to their kindred spirits and then congratulating themselves on how clever they are.
Obama brought the stupidest, most gullible people into the Democratic party. What do you want to bet the yahoo that made that post at DK voted for Bush?
Gary,
Not only did Hillary say she opposed it, she talked about why she opposed in informed detail. She also had people who knew her when Bill signed the bill talking about the fact that she opposed it back then. And she voted against CAFTA in the senate. So, yes, she opposed NAFTA and she had an actual history that supported that opposition and displayed the knowledge that one has taken a stand on something would display. Pols who don't actually oppose a specific policy can rarely articulate in detail what's wrong with the policy. Obama couldn't wonk out on opposition to NAFTA. Clinton could.
You cannot square Clinton's actual voting record in the senate, where she votes in sync with Boxer, Durbin, Lautenberg, and Kennedy about 95% of the time (literally) with the idea that she would be, as president, as far right as Obama and Bush. That's just stupid. Do you think Boxer would be this far right? if not, then your claim about Clinton is absolute bullshit. And if so, you're an idiot.
The problem is Obama's refusal to lead. Clinton has no such hesitations. We're as far right as we are now because Obama doesn't have the political courage to lead anywhere else. We're stuck right where we were with Bush, pretty much. That simply wouldn't be the case if any other Democrat had won. If Clinton has ever displayed anything, it's political courage. She didn't back down when the thugs supporting Obama and the media were hammering at her and calling her racist for not stepping down. She leads. She has principles and backbone. Obama has neither. Don't assign his shortcomings to someone else.
Joe, an interesting side issue:
Pornography bookstore has $30 sex 'party room'
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/2048459,CST-NWS-sexparty15.article
Although being salacious there is something else involved here that later should be more than interesting.
Marty Didier
Northbrook, IL
My favorite part was this:
"So why this bizarre demand that we ingest your excrement? Because you were correct that Obama said one thing but did another? Well, we knew about that right after his telecom immunity vote and we cast our ballots for him anyway. Surely any buyer's remorse that some of us now feel is punishment enough - without bringing your bodily fluids into it?"
Actually, claiming to have known Obama was a liar and voting for him anyway is far worse than claiming one was hoodwinked. And if he was onto Obama's lies... WHAT buyer's remorse? I'd post a comment over at DailyKos twit's post if I didn't have to register to do it (that might be the very first time I've even gone there)
The argument being made is basically "Sure I knowingly voted for a liar - isn't the fact that he won the election punishment enough for me?"
I don't have any time to read all the comments. But when I get home I will do so. I just want to say that I never read Daily Kos, probably because I was uncomfortable with the format. The very few times I tried, I was so put off by the content that I turned away immediately. I can truly say that I am one grateful person. I think that had I been a Kossack(?) I'd have been banned just as so many others. What I have read (quoted on this and other sites) has been odious and obnoxious. Kos would have been on my list of dropped sites. And it would probably have been the first.
Haahahah, oh, man. Bravo, Cannon, my man. I bet that idiot espousing the reverse, double summersault logic would eat that piece of Bella Love if Barack said it was really a sausage and use that same logic to defend his fecal folly. Ohhh, damnit.
Oh fuck, here we go AGAIN!
Your campaign to impugn Obama continues unabated, which is your right. BUT.... you don't have the right to alter the truth in your pursuit, OK?
As I pointed out to you nearly two years ago, and several times since, it WAS Hillary Clinton who WAS named by Stephen Harper's toadie Ian Brodie as 'reassuring' Canada re: NAFTA.
As I said at the time, that DOESN'T make it correct information, and it DOESN'T mean Brodie was telling the truth. He is a fuckin' liar, just as much as the PM for whom he fagged.
But it WAS what HE SAID, as reported by both the Globe & Mail (for which I've written, so I CAN ASSURE YOU that NO single-sourced bullshit makes its way into that rag, contrary to your uninformed assertions otherwise) AND by Tom Clark on the national newscast of CTV (owned by the same company as the G&M) on the same night, before changing the culprit the following day, after schmoozing with Canada's then-ambassador to the US. Soon thereafter, the story became Obama, but that was the SECOND story, NOT the first.
When I have pointed this out in the past, you've ignored it, pretended it wasn't written here, and otherwise elided your way around it, but facts are stubborn things, Joe.
IAN BRODIE SAID IT WAS HILLARY. No matter what his nominal boss Stephen Harper later claimed, no matter what the subsequent bullshit parliamentary inquiry concluded, no matter what obfuscatory crap was uttered by Canada's ambassador to DC (none of 'em exactly distinterested parties, eh?), IAN BRODIE SAID IT. And then compounded it by switching the focus to Obama.
Hence, it is completely erroneous of you to suggest that this was something "made up" by Obama's supporters. It might have been repeated by them, ad nauseam, and it might have been used to obfuscate whatever the fuck Goolsbee said, but PLEASE, for the love of fairness, decency, and accuracy in reportage - which you claim to prize as a high priority - STOP repeating the bullshit meme that HILLARY WAS FINGERED BY THE OBOTS erroneously, because she was fingered by the Candian prime minister's chief of staff. (Who subsequently resigned in order to toil for CIA proprietary Hill & Knowlton, so you KNOW what a "good" guy HE IS.)
You may think this is small cheese, but to anyone north of the 49th parallel it makes you look like a complete dickweed whose own animus for Obama has trumped ALL his own best instincts.
STOP DOING IT! Your point stands without having to invent an alternate genesis in Chicago.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/06/738264.aspx
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/article672457.ece
http://www.britannica.com/bps/additionalcontent/18/33930428/On-the-outs-with-CTV
Wrong, wrong, wrong, Careful JFK Guy. The original report, documented by the notes from the meeting, was that the Obama campaign made the remarks and then the phone call. It was three days after that story was released that Brodie said it was Clinton. Brodie only changed the focus of the story AFTER the story was released. And in response to him saying it was Clinton, the notes from the meeting were released clearly identifying Obama.
the accusation first was that Obama did it. Then Brodie tried to pretend it was Clinton and got his ass busted. Then the government released the notes of the meeting to prove it was Obama.
Here is Slate from March 4 talking about Obama:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/06/738264.aspx
The article in your link, which makes the accusation, is from the 6th:
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/06/738264.aspx
Oh my Gods. I don't even. That rant was epic. I love it so hard, Joseph. You're the man.
lori~I think you posted the same link twice. What is the link for the Slate piece?
Leslie,
D'oh! Here's the Slate piece:
http://www.slate.com/id/2185753/
And here's an ABC story from February 29th:
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/more-on-that-ca.html
As much as the above yahoo wants to make it about Hillary, it was about Obama from the get go and the Obama camp decided to smear Hillary days later.
Ahhh, here, the story about Obama on CTV ran on February 27th. Clinton wasn't smeared until March 4th.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20080228/turkey_Gates_080228/20080229?hub=TopStories
Speaking of failed predictions, here's an update on my take on the situation with Bayh. A repeat meditation indicates one reason he bailed was a fear of being in office when The Big O Scandal finally hits. Sadly, I don't pick up anything about Bayh wanting to make a primary challenge to whoever has the presidency by 2012.
Lori, you are MISSING THE POINT.
Brodie's a liar, period, so the issue isn't WHO he fingered, because he fingered both candidtates.
The POINT is, the Obama camp didn't INVENT this comment about Hillary because Brodie DID say it. Unless you reside in Canada, with all due respect, you're piecing this stuff together AFTER the fact, not a witness to what actually transpired at the time.
Nor, apparently, did you actually READ the cites I provided, or you would have seen THIS:
"The Canadian leaks began as a remark that Mr. Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie, made to CTV reporters during the Feb. 26 budget lock-up.
Mr. Brodie told the reporters that Ms. Clinton's campaign contacted Canadian diplomats to say her calls for renegotiating NAFTA were not serious. When CTV's Washington reporter, Tom Clark, went to air with a story the next day, he reported it was Mr. Obama's campaign that had contacted diplomats."
What this doesn't include is the fact that CTV's Tom Clark was on air THAT NIGHT, id-ing Hillary as the NAFTA culprit, only to change it to Obama the following day, AFTER a call from Canada's ambassador.
Don't presume to lecture on topics you don't actually know about. You don't KNOW the details and this ex post facto presentation of what you'd LIKE to think happened - because it feeds into your preferred but erroneous trope - only displays that accuracy is not your intent.
And thanks for calling me a "yahoo" for trying to ensure factual accuracy here. I should have known better, I suppose. Why do most of you here try to characterize non-combatants as Hillary haters? Nothing I've ever written here qualifies as such, and this chippy behaviour of yours is no way to win friends or influence people. It just invites mockery.
See my comment at the link below - which JC also provide in this very piece - and explain why you'd reach the conclusion that: "As much as the above yahoo wants to make it about Hillary, it was about Obama from the get go and the Obama camp decided to smear Hillary days later:"
http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/2008/06/nafta-double-think.html
A person of character would admit their error and offer an apology.
Not that I'm holding my breath or anything.....
JFK,
The notes from the meeting were released. Brodie is entirely irrelevant to the process except that he lied about Clinton to cover Obama's ass.
All you're doing is repeating Obama camp talking points.
Wow, I am standing up and applauding this post. And Lori's takedown of the increasingly desperate, quicksand-sinking apologist.
when The Big O Scandal finally hits
tqp, which one, in your view? Larry Sinclair affair? Kenyan birth? Financial corruption re: Tony Rezko?
Please elucidate, thank you.
XI
DO,
It's really kind of mind boggling, isn't it? Do you think he really believes that or is just a blatant lie to fool the remaining naifs?
BTW, JFKGuy, what your links do not validate is the notion that the story about Barack Obama originated with Brodie's claims. All we know is that Brodie is claiming that the day before the story ran, he told the reporter that Clinton had made the calls. That does not mean that the story began with that remark, or that the story wouldn't exist without that remark. What's clear, because of the meeting memo, is that the story was already out there and that's what the reporter had a hold of. Brodie walking up and claiming it was Clinton would be irrelevant to that process without third party validation. Even if Brodie had never made the Clinton claim, the story about Barack Obama was sourced and ready to go.
It's amazing how many conservatives are willing to lie on Obama's behalf.
Because of limitations on Blogger, I'll split my comments into two posts.
Lori:
For starters, I'm no conservative. Never have been, never will be. Nice try, but it isn't wise to ascribe to others what you cannot know or prove.
My point was, is and will remain that whatever else one might attribute to Obama, and feel free to ascribe anything that's accurate, inventing the Hillary-as-NAFTA-culprit bullshit can't be among them because HE DIDN'T DO IT.
Ian Brodie DID, as I've already proved to all but the most obdurately hateful.
Your grasp of the facts is non-existent. For example, you claim:
"Brodie is entirely irrelevant to the process except that he lied about Clinton to cover Obama's ass."
Since his first comments were made about CLINTON, not, repeat NOT Obama, you've got this ass-backwards. If he wanted to "cover Obama's ass," so you REALLY think he'd finger him as well?
Dear, you clearly don't know the order of events, let alone what you're talking about.
Nor did you bother to read my comment from nearly two years back, describing how a Conservative Canadian government official put the screws to BOTH the leading Dem candidates, to the net benefit of Republicans. Care to illustrate how this was covering Obama's ass?
TBC.....
PT. 2
Further, you claim a whole series of fallacies:
"what your links do not validate is the notion that the story about Barack Obama originated with Brodie's claims."
Without "Brodie's claims," you'd never have heard about this story. If you can prove otherwise, feel free.
"All we know is that Brodie is claiming that the day before the story ran, he told the reporter that Clinton had made the calls."
You don't read. Brodie "claimed" no such thing, initially insisting that he didn't recall having made any such comments about either HRC OR BHO. He denied having said it at all.
The "claim" as you call it was made by two reporters (not one as JC keeps saying), BOTH of whom are named in the cites I provided above. Try reading them.
"That does not mean that the story began with that remark, or that the story wouldn't exist without that remark."
Oh? Geez, JC erroneously claims a single blind-item source, yet you claim contrarily that others - who DIDN'T run what they had, apparently - were also aware of this. Who, pray tell? You cannot name them, or you would have already done so, because IT ISN'T FUCKING TRUE.
"What's clear, because of the meeting memo, is that the story was already out there and that's what the reporter had a hold of."
Wrong again. You are nothing if not consistent. NO REPORTER IN CANADA had the slightest idea of what transpired in Chicago with Goolsbee. And wouldn't have done so had Brodie not blabbed about Hillary, with his government then and only then tacking toward Obama.
The reporters were sequestered (as is common practice) under lock and key because of a federal budget release. The topic of NAFTA was completely irrelevant to their reason for being present and NOBODY ASKED BRODIE A FUCKING THING ABOUT NAFTA. He blurted it out, apropos of nothing.
"Brodie walking up and claiming it was Clinton would be irrelevant to that process without third party validation."
Are you just making this shit up as you go along? Without Brodie's ill-considered comment, there'd BE nothing to validate.
You seem to think there was a story already brewing absent Brodie, but can't or won't name the reporter who had it. No suprise. Because it ISN'T FUCKING TRUE!
"Even if Brodie had never made the Clinton claim, the story about Barack Obama was sourced and ready to go."
In whose fantasy? I work for the organization that broke this story, a fact that seems lost on you, yet you intimate you know better.
If this story was "sourced and ready to go," who had it and who was ready to run with it? You cannot provide this information, because it ISN'T FUCKING TRUE.
Feel free to prove otherwise. Who had the story before Brodie's comments, and why did they not run it before Brodie's comments?
Like I said, I'm not holding my breath awaiting this revelation, let alone the apology that a person of character would have already proferred.
The problem with blind hatred is that those who suffer from it cannot see clearly.
JFK Guy - I wasn't referring to you as the conservative. I was referring to Ian Brodie and am amused, though not surprised, at his willingness to lie on behalf of Obama.
I've read the stories. I think you're out to lunch. I think the reporter had the story about Obama, and the conservative government got wind the story was in play, and preferring to see Obama, who had assured them who wouldn't tamper with NAFTA, win, decided to send Brodie out to lie about Clinton.
I've read your links. That makes a lot more sense to me. Your posts are nearly incoherent, y'know.
Right. So, just as I said, you've got NOTHING.
Plenty of supposition and spinning your own fave fantasy, but when it comes to actual fucking FACT, you've got NOTHING.
Thanks for playing, but you don't even get a consolation prize for such rank amateurism.
Ha ha...typical exchange with an Obamabot.
Rational Person: "I'm sorry, when you babble and spew gibberish I find it hard to follow what you're saying."
Obamabot: "HA! You got NOTHING! I win!"
It's kinda like trying to teach a dog to dance the waltz.
DO:
Like this site's host, my personal preference in the last cycle was neither HRC OR BHO. So much for me being an Obamabot. But then accuracy isn't the strong suit of PUMAs, is it? Anybody not howling for BHO's blood is the enemy, right?
Lori made a statement: the story about NAFTA would have been public without Brodie. I proved otherwise and said if she could disprove that point, she should do so. Instead of proof we got "I think."
With all due respect, nobody gives a flying fuck WHAT she "thinks." In the real world, you either offer proof for your assertions - as I have repeatedly done - or you STFU.
Feel free to prove Lori's assertion if you think you can. Simply name the reporter who would have revealed anything about NAFTA had Brodie not shot his mouth off.
Or, conversely, if you cannot do so, then YOU could STFU.
I'm sorry that Lori has trouble comprehending English. Or that you do. But those are YOUR problems, dear. Don't try to make them mine.
Post a Comment