August 23, 2008:
Which Deficit Would That Be Again?
Forecasted federal deficit fails to materialize, ideologues set to eat words
In politics, there are few things more satisfying than seeing a fervent ideologue get theirs...
That's the trouble with blinkered ideologues like Lindsay Stewart. Fact doesn't factor very deeply into their ruminations. Not when they've invested so much time and mental energy in flinging accusations of "Canada hatred" at their political opponents.
Of course, both Ralph Goodale and Lindsay Stewart could have saved themselves the embarrassment if they had waited for a deficit to actually pop into existence before ranting and raving about it.
At the very least, Goodale's and Stewart's comments should make for a fairly substantial meal.
Reality:
Conservatives to table $40 billion deficit: CTV
Updated Fri. Jan. 9 2009 11:01 PM ET
CTV.ca News Staff
The Conservatives are planning on tabling a federal budget with a $40 billion deficit, CTV News has learned.
The deficit would be the highest since the 1993 budget and $10 billion more than Prime Minister Stephen Harper indicated in a late 2008 interview with CTV.
At this point, any additional snark would be just cruel.
Oh, what the hell:
WOW. JUST ... WOW. Twatsy comes out swinging in the comments section:
Is there something you think you're proving here -- aside from once again demonstrating that you're too stupid to comprehend the point?
Take it away, Edmund:
17 comments:
Great - a massive deficit that will be mismanaged..
Can't we draft Paul Martin back or something?
I hear that Acme Corporation is looking for a federal bailout.
Careful now CC, or Patsy will think you are threatening him with a bow and arrow or something. He has a history.
Huh. Interesting.
Is there something you think you're proving here -- aside from once again demonstrating that you're too stupid to comprehend the point?
Sheesh. What a worthless idiot.
"Careful now CC, or Patsy will think you are threatening him with a bow and arrow or something. He has a history."
Just like Mike has a history of threatening people with guns, musing about being the "sergeant at arms", then lying about it repeatedly afterwards.
And just like Cynic and Lindsay Stewart have a history of getting their sorry asses kicked on economic issues.
But I suppose you think that writing posts entitled "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA" is somehow going to obfuscate that.
Maybe for the worthless groupthinkers you refer to as your readers, but not for people with a shred of sense.
I see we've moved on to the Lalalalalalala, I can't hear youuuuuuu ... which also makes me right. Blar-har-har-har! portion of Patsy's routine. Awesome.
P.S. The New York Times likes me better than youuuuuuuuuuuuuuu.
Or, Lulu, you clowns could abandon the counter-factual triumphalism, and address the facts.
Unfortunately, that would require you all to spontaneously decide to be honest. And we all know that will never happen.
I hear that Acme Corporation is looking for a federal bailout.
They can't be. With all the orders they've been receiving from Wile E. GOP/CPoC, "Super Genius" lately, they'll be in the black from here to infinity.
oh dear patticakes, where did all of your rotfls go? the fact is that you are a disingenuous goof. you're the one that brayed long and loud that your team did not and would not run into deficit. you honked and beeped about how dishonest and wrong i was for noting that they had been in deficit and that the likelihood was that after sneaking back into the black, they would indeed drive this country back into the ditch called deficit. you were fooking wrong. i was right. you hauled the goalposts all over the field to squirm into an awkward pose you could call victory. i stood by and stand by what i have written. now do be a big boy and either admit your error or shut your beer hole.
So you stood by and continue to stand by something that was proven to be counter-factual on the very same day it was written.
You claimed that the government was, at the time, in a deficit. That was proven to be false. It was proven to be false within hours of you writing it.
You can continue to stand by this if you choose. But the fact of the matter is that if you do, you are being incredibly dishonest about the entire issue.
You don't get to both choose to be dishonest then accuse those who point out your dishonesty of being disingenuous. Maybe that's how things work here at the Groupthink Temple, but it's not how things work in the real world.
Twatsy lies:
"You claimed that the government was, at the time, in a deficit."
I'll make this one easy for you, Twats -- show us, in PSA's original post, where he was claiming that the government was running a deficit at the time he wrote that post.
Seriously, that's the claim you're making, so feel free to back it up. Here's the post. Show us the words.
And now, we wait ...
Hello? Twats? Still waiting for that reference to PSA's claim that the government was running a deficit at the time PSA wrote that post.
That's your claim, right? We can all read it right up there:
"You claimed that the government was, at the time, in a deficit."
Yup, all of us literate people can see quite clearly what you're claiming. So, any time you feel like it, we're ready for that reference.
Take your time. No hurry. No pressure ...
Twatsy must get into a lot of brawls. Or maybe not enough of them.
What a stupid fuck.
"Just like Mike has a history of threatening people with guns, musing about being the "sergeant at arms", then lying about it repeatedly afterwards."
Yes Patsy you are right, if by "lying about it repeatedly" you mean "linking back to the post in question at JJ's and letting people draw their own conclusion".
Otherwise, no you aren't right at all.
And "Sgt at Arms"? Of the "Coalition of the Swilling"...are you really that stupid or is it Aspergers?
No, that would be an insult to people with Aspergers. You are really that stupid...
counter-factual triumphalism
Is that anything like counterpole psychological manipulatism?
now, now people, settle down. Patticakes does have a point...but if he combs his mullet just the right way, you can hardly see it.
Post a Comment