David Axelrod puts it bluntly:"I'm sure that there will be discrete assignments over time... But I think his fundamental role is as a trusted counselor. I think that when Obama selected him, he selected him to be a counselor and an adviser on a broad range of issues."
Or do you think that's tactful?
“I don’t think there’s any risk of Vice President-elect Biden being marginalized, regardless of who else is in the cabinet,” said Valerie Jarrett, a senior adviser to Mr. Obama. “Regardless of who is selected, there will be plenty of talent around the table.”
Non sequiturs are revealing, aren't they?
Aides say Mr. Biden and Mr. Obama sometimes rib each other in private meetings, and they maintain that Mr. Obama was not unduly angry at Mr. Biden for his gaffe predicting that Mr. Obama would be tested by a world crisis in his first six months in office.
Since then, however, Mr. Biden has not had much to say to the news media.
Not
unduly angry.
पोस्ट्स
८१ टिप्पण्या:
“Regardless of who is selected, there will be plenty of talent around the table.”
It's a cabinet spin script, is why.
Sad for Sen. Biden, sadder for America.
He was all window dressing to give Obama the illusion of experience.
Worrisome.
I guess I was wrong: they did find an assignment commensurate with Biden's talents.
Perhaps they could give him a pipe to blow into, hard? That would play to his other skill.
Am I the only one who thinks this is a good thing?
'trusted counselor' sounds so Wilfred Brimley...will he be providing the White House press corps enough roughage?
Chris:
"Am I the only one who thinks this is a good thing?"
I second your motion.
All those in favor say "Aye".
...the 'ayes' have it.
Next order of business.....
I too, belive this could be a good thing. Biden may not know everything, but I don't see anything wrong with him being able to give some illuminati counsel to those who are in need, including President-elect Obama.
Counselor and advisor? Discrete assignments over time?
That’s not a Vice-President. That’s a consigliere.
Who gets to be Jack Woltz?
far better mr. biden then the ya'betcha witch from the north.
i just love the republican spirit...never admitting defeat and finding something silly to say.
when you don't have anything to say, don't say it. right Simon?
Jack Woltz? Who gets to be Moe Greene?
Ann Coulter had her mouth wired shut, and suddenly the Obama camp got an idea.
I hope none of you will be unduly angry with me when I tell you - you guys are cracking me up this morning.
A gentle answer turns away undue anger.
makes ya wonder if there's a Presidential Barcalounger! If there is, let's just bedazzle 'Joe Biden' right there on the back...
You’re Out Joe.
- Barack Corleone
This is going to be a fun administration!
I picture Biden sitting in some spacious office with one of those propeller hats like Spanky wore playing with Hot Wheels or making paper airplanes.
hdhouse saod when you don't have anything to say, don't say it. right Simon?
That's funny coming from the guy whose posts are the equivalent of white noise on the blogosphere.
'Counselor and advisor on a broad range of issues.'
How about "Into the closed mouth the bug does not fly?" Biden gives a good "As long as the sky is blue, the grass is green and the buffalo roam" speech. Most of what he says holds up about as well as a cheap suit.
One thing he and the "Chosen One" have in common is a chilling and stark bright smile. I am not convinced either one of these two have much substance unless it pertains to real politik.
Biden: "Mr. President, my office is cold."
Obama: "Basements usually are."
They must believe that Cheney's position on the status of the VP is correct - that he's part of the legislative branch. And, being more committed to the spirit of the Constitution than the hateful Republicans, they honor the separation of powers that forbids giving a legislative VP any executive functions whatsoever.
Or maybe they just realize what a lump Biden is.
AllenS said...
Biden: "Mr. President, my office is cold."
Obama: "Basements usually are."
Ha, ha.....never try to pit a Delaware pol against a Chicago pol.
OBAMA: WHAT YOU SEE... YOU MAY NOT GET
It's nice to see some traditions returning in these troubled times:
Vice President Alexander Throttlebottom.
At least Biden knows where the Senate is.
AllenS -- Office in the basement? They better not take away his Swingline.
Big house. No responsibilities. Could be worse.
Like this was a surprise?
At least people wondered where Cheney was while he was in an undisclosed location. Now no one will care where Biden is even if in plain sight.
I suspect Joe will rather enjoy doing almost nothing....kind of like being a semi-retired consultant.
I have to go along with the majority of posters who think Biden was window dressing to start with and are happy he wont be able to screw anything up when in office.
Just our luck, Joe Biden will probably drag us into nuclear war for some silly ass reason someday!
Biden's job can be summed up by this movie scene.
Sam: I have a stack of paper on my desk--
Whitaker: Work with Kaffee on this.
Sam: Doing what? Kaffee'll finish this up in four days.
Whitaker: Do various... administrative... you know... things. Back-up. Whatever.
Sam: In other words I have no responsibilities whatsoever.
Whitaker: Right.
Sam: My kinda case.
A Few Good Men, 1992
"Biden will be given nothing to do."
Yay!
I don't even really work here.
-Cosmo Biden
I think that President-elect Obama realized that the best thing to do with Biden is to make sure that Biden spends the next four years in an undisclosed location where Biden can't talk to the Sunday TV punditry.
I think that President-elect Obama realized that the best thing to do with Biden is to make sure that Biden spends the next four years in an undisclosed location where Biden can't talk to the Sunday TV punditry.
I don't see why considering they gave him a pass on every dumbass thing that came out of his mouth before.
Corporate accounts payable, Biden speaking, just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Biden speaking, just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Biden speaking, just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Biden speaking, just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Biden speaking, just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Biden speaking, just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Biden speaking, just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Biden speaking, just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Biden speaking, just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Biden speaking, just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Biden speaking, just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Biden speaking, just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Biden speaking, just a moment.
Corporate accounts payable, Biden speaking, just a moment....
Politico points out that McCain's VP pick dissed the job only a month ago:
In an interview just a month ago, she dissed the job, saying it didn't seem "productive."
In fact, she said she didn't know what the vice president does.
Larry Kudlow of CNBC's "Kudlow & Co." asked her about the possibility of becoming McCain's ticket mate.
Palin replied: "As for that VP talk all the time, I'll tell you, I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day? I'm used to being very productive and working real hard in an administration. We want to make sure that that VP slot would be a fruitful type of position, especially for Alaskans and for the things that we're trying to accomplish up here for the rest of the U.S., before I can even start addressing that question."
Nothing in the world that's funnier to me than watching cynical right-wingers trying to make fun of Obama's team. Nothing at all.
And someone said something about the Democratic vice presidential nominee blowing hard? That's funny.
All your base are belong to us.
If only it were just about winning and defending the appearances of things though. If. Only.
Perhaps a lot of phone calls will be placed from Number One Observatory Circle to Alaska. Joe could use some lessons in the art of polishing verbal bullshit and making golden turds with which to dazzle a whole base full of fans who are delighted by bright, shiny objects with no substance.
On second thought, maybe he should just switch his political affiliation.
"I don't see why considering they gave him a pass on every dumbass thing that came out of his mouth before."
It's funny. Now that some of the saner Republicans have reconciled themselves with their recent losses and the sustained political downfall that's accompanied it, I heard Joe Scarborough sentimentally pining for the days when the media did the same for W. during his 2000 election campaign. Good times.
Joe Biden. The George Costanza of the Obama administration.
He'll be in charge of Vandelay Industries.
Palin: .. I still can't answer that question until somebody answers for me what is it exactly that the VP does every day?
Too bad Biden didn't think to ask this before he signed on.
Biden will last one term. Then he will step down in late 2011.
Hillary will be the VP going into 2012 election.
MUL-
You got want you wanted and all you can do is carp about what might have been.
You should just move on, just like the rest of us.
Paddy, sounds likely. I'll back that wager....
"far better mr. biden then the ya'betcha witch from the north."
I would be fascinated to know how you reconcile the enormous amount of stupid things Mr Biden said during the election.
"In fact, she said she didn't know what the vice president does."
Why dont you explain what it is to us MUL. What does, in fact, the VP do. Bonus points if you use the wrong article to explain it, as did Biden.
President-elect Obama has certainly brought change. We have gone from a strong vice presidency to an empty one. Imagine, if you can, what continuity would follow if Biden were to succeed. Further, please, imagine how much he would feel obligated to continue the policies of a man who simply used him and then cast him aside for the 'crime' of speaking his mind. I thought that was exactly what one needed in a chosen successor.
The blogs will suffer without Biden's RSS feed.
http://www.usefulopinions.blogspot.com
If he's good boy, they'll let him prepare SCOTUS nominees with 20 minute yes and no questions to make sure they can stay awake and act like they give a shit.
That's a job he's exceptional well qualified for.
Centrist economic, foreign policy, and military advisers signing on, Biden given nothing to do...this is working out better than I expected so far.
Maybe Biden can put his foreign policy expertise to good use writing the heretofore unknown history of how the U.S. and French expelled Hezbollah from Lebanon...-
Maybe Biden can put his foreign policy expertise to good use writing the heretofore unknown history of how the U.S. and French expelled Hezbollah from Lebanon...
Or, if that doesn't work out, maybe the Iraqi government would like to hire him as a consultant to help them partition their country.
"Counselor and advisor? Discrete assignments over time?"
Biden will become First Lady?
Obama said what he had to say and did what he had to do to get elected.
Now that he is elected and can stop campaigning, a question to all those who supported him: What are you left with when you subtract "useful" from "useful idiot"?
A phone rings at 3:00 am...
Obama: "Hello?"
Biden: "How long do I have to stay down here?"
Just stick him in an office with a glass door with the following on it:
"Offfice of the Vice-President of the United States:
In case of emergency (or tie vote in the Senate) break glass"
Montana UL,
In fact, she said she didn't know what the vice president does.
Now you see why Palin said that. Nobody knows what the Vice President does until the President tells them what to do. The only duties spelled out in the constitution are legislative.
Picking Biden was the stupidest thing Obama has done yet, sidelining him is the smartest thing he has done so far. I didn't vote for Obama but I want him to do well. He is a smart guy and picks up on things fast, and this move helps to show that. Smart guys can learn, stupid guys can't and should not be given important things to do.
He was all window dressing to give Obama the illusion of experience.
He's perfect for that role --- his whole career has been window dressing.
I guess it would be nice if The Omnivore (Rich B.) would care to explain whatever he is trying to say.
I'm going to have to disagree with you, Berwick. At least in part. Picking Biden wasn't stupid, as it allowed Obama inroads with white, blue collar Catholics and the like - not an insignificant demographic. I know a few people here like to pretend that only certain ethnic groups ever vote with bloc-like, in-group sympathies at play. But alas, this is not true at all.
So Biden was the dopey old white guy foil for whatever insecurities every paranoid nativist wanted to project onto Obama. No one's saying that Biden had to have any clear responsibilities in the administration and no one's crowing over his not getting any now. It was an electoral consideration that Obama calculated at least as well as McCain calculated his (or that he calculated better by exponential degrees of magnitude, depending on how you look at it). And as a professor of constitutional law, I'm sure Obama understands that it's not a problem to avoid delegating much if anything to Biden, formally or informally.
However, Biden was smart enough to realize, unlike Palin, that regardless of the responsibilities, being VP confers not only much prestige to the occupant of the office, but experience that goes far beyond running a corrupt, frozen fiefdom and making it more corrupt. He's much further along in his career than she is, so it might not do him that much more good in four or eight years had he not been offered and accepted the role. But too bad for her. She either didn't know that or thought she could use an interview to jostle for becoming the next Dick Cheney. Poor little thing. Sweet little wolf-killing lamb that she is.
Biden's job is to hang in there until somebody takes Obama's head off with a Barrett .50 from about 1200 yards.
Hoosier Daddy said...
"That's funny coming from the guy whose posts are the equivalent of white noise on the blogosphere."
I have to admire you HoosierDaddy...you are the emblem of mediocrity and you stick with it!
Jeff, I was just itching for a fight with you on the nitty gritty details of constitutional law - which I'd wager neither of us are experts in - but I figured instead that I'd just drop a reminder about why it doesn't make sense to attribute a column in The Huffington Post to me. Or why it doesn't make sense to attribute the opposite of Palin's weird statements to me. Or why... oh well.
Greetings:
I always felt that Joe Biden was a life assurance pick.
Kill me and numbnuts takes over.
Good. VPs shouldn't be extraconstitutional quasi-executives.
Let's make Cheney an outlier instead of a part of a trend.
Besides which, Biden isn't someone who should have executive power. He might actually do something stupid, instead of just talking about doing something stupid.
"Biden will be given nothing to do".
Don't worry he will fuck that up too.
President Chauncey Gardener and his comic relief sidekick buffoon.
What a pair.
I like Biden's Indian name. It translates to this: When He Opens His Mouth Bats Fly Out.
If I was Biden I would avoid Chicago until Barack is safely re-elected in 2012. No matter what happens they will call it "natural causes". It is Chicago after all.
"Biden will be given nothing to do".
Don't worry he will fuck that up too. - AJ Lynch
HA!
"... being VP confers not only much prestige to the occupant of the office, but experience that goes far beyond running a corrupt, frozen fiefdom and making it more corrupt."
Yes, if Obama wants advice on running a corrupt, frozen fiefdom and making it more corrupt, he needs only to ask his good friend Mayor Daley. Biden offers so much more than that ... He can inflate the balloons at Sasha's and Malia's birthday parties!
Not taking long for Axelrod to go Rove on us. Well, we'll see Joe once on January 20th and then a couple of times over the next four years for some funerals.
The pick of Joe Biden was the moment when there ceased to be any doubt in my mind that Obama was not serious about "hope and change".
It was also the moment that I became convinced that his treatment of Hillary was no accident, but just an example of his disrespect for women in general. If you can't find a single woman in the Democratice party with relevant experience and better intellectual and political skills than Joe Biden, then you aren't looking very hard .... or, for that matter, at all.
Joe's role is to give even the most crazies pause before considering an attack on President-to-be Obama. When you consider that Nancy Pelosi is Biden's back-up, President Obama - who is a decent man despite being incredibly inexperienced both on the national stage and in running anything larger than a lemonade stand - starts to look pretty good in comparison.
This is just perfect encapsulation of Obama. When he was picked the right wing commentariat concluded that Obama was just picking Biden to fulfill the requirements of Article II of the US Constitution that there had to be someone in the VP slot, without offending Obama's precious specialness. Hence Biden. Now that the One has been steered into office by the LMSM, Biden's usefulness is over, and like those Kremlinologists of old, people will have to scour photos to determine Where's Biden, the new pundit game.
Wow Anne. If I was convinced that women in general were so stupid as to think that Biden's "intellectual and political skills" were what mattered in his nomination, or that they all believed that running the most profitable presidential campaign in history didn't prove Obama to have experience "running anything larger than a lemonade stand," then I might not have much respect for them either.
Thankfully, this is not the case - at least not outside of the flyover.
MUL-
You gotta clean up your comments. Too convoluted. If I wanted to read such, I would rather read Sam Johnson.
montana urban legend said...
Wow Anne. If I was convinced that women in general were so stupid as to think that Biden's "intellectual and political skills" were what mattered in his nomination, or that they all believed that running the most profitable presidential campaign in history didn't prove Obama to have experience "running anything larger than a lemonade stand," then I might not have much respect for them either.
Thankfully, this is not the case - at least not outside of the flyover.
Somehow "urban legend" is a good name for you Montana. LOL!
One thing we can do in "flyover" country is read. Before you demonstrate your disdain for your fellow countrymen again, you might want to try it. Then you wouldn't look so foolish.
Of course, Biden wasn't chosen for his "intellectual or political skills" - they don't exist. There is no rational reason for Biden to have been chosen over any one of dozens of other people ... including dozens of well-qualified women.
That was what I said.
In one of the very few - if not the first - decision made by Obama that he didn't vote "present" or completely disavow as soon as he could, he picked Joe Biden to be Vice-President. Either Joe knows when Obama's bodies are buried or Obama wanted to signal he would rather choose someone he could marginalize rather than risk having a woman demonstrate that she was more competent than him.
As to running "the most profitable presidential campaign in history", you might want to look up the word "profitable" ... or take a basic management class at your local community college.
Taking in X$ and spending X$ dollars does not equal "profitable". In fact, if you want to use business terms, Obama's campaign was remarkable in how poorly managed it was. Throwing every dime you get at what you perceive to be a problem is not a sign of "good managment". Prioritizing resources is. Maybe, then, the city of Chicage would not be out millions of dollars for his post-election party.
Not that I believe that Obama actually managed his campaign, but if he had, his only clear success is that he managed to single-handedly destroy "public financing" - something he claimed (along with so many other things) to be something he believed in.
Rich -
I empathize with you regarding the fact that compound sentences (and, by extension, complex thoughts) hurt your brain. However, I won't be dumbing down my comments in order to accommodate your shortcoming. If you don't like it, you can pay to read something else.
Anne -
If you want to claim that you stated something that obviates half of what you wrote, you should expect to be called out on it. Perhaps you didn't mean to say that Obama wasn't looking hard enough when he neglected to find a woman with better intellectual and political skills than Biden to put on his ticket - a statement which assumes that those are the qualities that should have mattered. But that's what you wrote. Pretending that you can change your original sentiment from a normative to a positive one doesn't seem like a maneuver that can be taken seriously by anyone who read your comment. Of course, I assume you know what I mean when I use the terms "normative" and "positive", and that you aren't trying to make a case for yourself in a sneaky way - or that you might unwittingly do so by accidentally confusing yourself.
I have yet to read from one political commenter who agrees with your assessment of Obama's allegedly "poorly managed" campaign, community college experience - or lack thereof - notwithstanding.
The point of public financing was to diminish the importance of concentrated wealthy donors to political campaigns. The fact that Obama happened to achieve this by other means is obviously lost on people who do not understand that rationale.
Montana Urban Legend ...
I see that reading comprehension is still a problem for you.
Very sad.
Since I have a life I will dispense with trying to explain - again - the obvious to you.
Nor will I try to explain the word "profit" to you. You clearly haven't taken time to look up the definition yet so there is no reason for me to expect you to learn it now. You seem to have ... wisely .... abandoned your attempt to make that claim, anyway.
However, I must acknowledge the moment of amusement that you provided.
The fact is that Obama - in his supposedly well managed campaign - managed to increase his small donor base exactly .... drum roll, please .... one percent from that achieved by George W. Bush in his last campaign.
Yeah, quite an accomplishment.
Yawn ....
Well then you are quite obviously an idiot.
Since your oh-so-full-and-exhilarating-life affords you with the opportunity to check back on comment threads that have nearly disappeared from a website's main screen, but prevents you from responding to the particulars in it, I will ignore your weasel-like attempts to squirm out of what you said earlier and instead point out the following basic facts:
For a one-term senator to have a small-donor base larger than that achieved by a sitting, incumbent president in a time of war is an achievement. (And that's assuming I accept your facts in the first place. Since it's likely that they're as faulty as your reasoning is, for me to do so would be a generous act indeed).
This still doesn't change the fact that Obama broke previous fundraising records for presidential primary and general campaigns, or the fact that he won, which is the only benchmark that ultimately matters from a managerial standpoint, or that his strategies consistently placed him ahead of his competitors throughout the campaign (which is also what matters), and that he still had money left over to donate to the DNC after he won. And this was after he had so much unspent money left over in the final days of the campaign that the campaign decided to take out prime-time advertising programs on network TV. You could contrast this to Hillary's demand to borrow $5 million from her own pocket to lend to her campaign, perhaps leaving her supporters to wonder what the terms would be for paying her oh-so-generous loan. She left the race having lost and indebted it to the tune of $22.5 million. That doesn't sound like a very profitable venture to me. But what do I know? After all, I never attended community college.
For someone to criticize Obama's campain against John McCain's, one would have to show how the latter's funds were well-spent. One would probably have to do this at various points in the campaign, because by the ultimate benchmark, (again), he ultimately failed. In community-college terms, this means "he lost the race." I doubt he had much money left over, either.
Obama's campaign was consistently better organized, with volunteers or staff quite visible and available at offices in all 50 states, working to inform voters of the issues important to them and to ensure an adequate turn-out. This hardly sounds like poor management of one's resources. But again, perhaps the community colleges gave you a different understanding of effective management than they or any other institution gave to everyone else.
Or perhaps you just hate Obama so much that you don't have much of a grasp on reality, if you ever did. Either way, nothing you assert stands up to scrutiny according to anyone's facts. But if it enriches your full and exhilarating life to live in a fantasy and opine otherwise, then to each her own.
But just don't bullshit me and pretend that your fantasy life is a substitute for facts. It isn't. And don't respond until you have read each and every one of these facts and accounted for precisely how you wish to dismiss or live in denial of them.
Or just be an honest loser and accept that you have nothing meaningful to say, which seems to be the much more likely case.
Montana,
Let me add something else that died during this election:
Critical thinking skills.
Do you honestly believe everything that Obama/his campaign tells you without question?
Put down the kool-aid and T-H-I-N-K for yourself for a moment.
One does not have to hate Obama (or, for that matter, support McCain) to disagree with Obama.
The thing that I find truly odd is I don't get the sense that Obama himself has a problem with people thinking him less than god-like and even daring to disagree with him on occasion.
It's some of his supporters - like you, apparently - who cannot tolerate even the slightest deviation from what you perceive (erroneously) to be his perfection.
Obama ran a "politician's campaign". Promise everything to everyone so that you get their money and vote and then do what you want anyway. Thousands of politicians have done it before and thousands will do it again.
The "hope and change" thing was a myth, but, it worked with guilible people. I don't "hate" him for that. He's a politician.
I just reserve the opportunity to question statements like your claim that he ran a "profitable" campaign.
There are certain objective, standard criteria for use of the word "profit". There is no evidence to demonstrate it to be true with Obama's campaign.
Which is good, because it would have also most likely been illegal.
;-)
I have stated a number of facts that were widely reported, not just put out by his campaign. I have even cited facts that had nothing to do with Obama. Hence, this has nothing to do with agreeing or disagreeing with Obama. If you have evidence that they are in error, then show or cite it!
Of course, if you were interested in having a rational discussion (which would involve critical thinking skills), then you would have done that. Instead, you are more interested in trying to show that you have some kind of deep insight into Obama's character that proves everyone who supported/supports him to be beneath you.
You have not put forward anything other than a bunch of strange assertions, that sometimes contradict your own arguments. My assertion is that based on what I remember being reported, and just reviewed, the Obama campaign had money left over to spare after the election and donated it to the DNC. This is not a controversial assertion. If you disagree (which you must in order to make your tenuous case) then you should show evidence for that. If you can't, then it is you who simply believe what you want to believe with no empirical basis for it.
To prove that Obama allegedly finished his campaign in debt wouldn't be hard -- if there was any evidence for it.
My guess is that you don't trust anything you read about him in this regard (if you've even read anything about him in this regard), that wasn't filtered to you through some wacky, Right-wing fringe site and are hence too embarrassed to report your "sources", let alone their actual "findings". Not that they've been feeding you any "kool-aid" or anything. You just happen to believe what they told you through the help of your critical (and evidence-bereft) thinking skills. Right.
What an excellent example of what I have been discussing.
I have stated a number of facts that were widely reported, not just put out by his campaign.
No, you haven't been reporting facts - you have been recycling opinion and reporting them as "fact".
Your inability to tell the difference supports my previous post. Provide a source if you want to be taken seriously.
My assertion is that based on what I remember being reported, and just reviewed, the Obama campaign had money left over to spare after the election and donated it to the DNC.
Start with this "fact". Provide a link that states this with documentation. If Pennsylvania Democrats are to be believed, Obama was notoriously stingy with his money. Who knows? Maybe you are right and the Pennsylvania Democrats are the ones who are wrong.
To prove that Obama allegedly finished his campaign in debt wouldn't be hard -- if there was any evidence for it.
You still aren't grasping the definition of "profitable", are you?
By the way, this comment is an example of why I have ignored most of what you have said. You have repeatedly demanded that I respond (and prove) to YOUR version of what you think I said.
Obama finishing his campaign with money has ZERO to do with whether his campaign was "profitable" or not - which is why I have never made such a claim. You did.
And now for one of my "wacky" "right-wing" sources .....
"Everybody knows how President-elect Barack Obama's amazing campaign money machine was dominated by several million regular folks sending in hard-earned amounts under $200, a real sign of his broadbased grassroots support.
Except, it turns out, that's not really true.
In fact, Obama's base of small donors was almost exactly the same percent as George W. Bush's in 2004 -- Obama had 26% and the great Republican satan 25%. Obviously, this is unacceptable to current popular thinking.
.....
"
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/11/obama-money.html
Those wacky neo-cons at the LA Times.....
:-D
You are clearly a rank idiot as you do not even know the difference between an opinion and a fact. By the way, not that it matters, but "stingy" is an opinion, not a fact. And you cannot prove someone else wrong unless you respond to what they say, no matter how much you find such an act to be beneath the thick and pompous likes of you.
A fact is a fact regardless of who reports it.
I just spoke to two business owners and an investor (a very successful investor) who have no problem referring to the surplus funds that one presumes were available to the Obama campaign after they won and covered their operating expenses as a "profit", or that the campaign was therefore a "profitable" undertaking. Just out of curiosity, how would you define surplus funds left over after all operating expenses are covered?
Any more semantic games you wish to play? I'm getting a bit bored.
Oh, that's right. You have a life to live.
Wow!
All those links .... and not a single one of them states that Obama is donating even $1 of his leftover campaign money to the DNC.
I suspected you simply made that claim up and now you have proven it.
I did appreciate the link, by the way, that proved what I have been saying all along - that Obama's campaign was many things, but "profitable" was not one of them.
The funniest part, of course, is that you STILL don't understand the concept and, as a result, provided the proof of what I was saying without even realizing it.
I just spoke to two business owners and an investor (a very successful investor) ....
Sure you did.
;-D
Between me and one of them, we've made more than enough to buy and sell someone who can't speak English. Provide the quote that claims Obama's campaign took in less funds than it owed in expenses. Of course, you can't.
Main Entry: 1prof·it
Pronunciation: \ˈprä-fət\
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin profectus advance, profit, from proficere
Date: 14th century
1: a valuable return : gain
2: the excess of returns over expenditure in a transaction or series of transactions ; especially : the excess of the selling price of goods over their cost
3: net income usually for a given period of time
4: the ratio of profit for a given year to the amount of capital invested or to the value of sales
5: the compensation accruing to entrepreneurs for the assumption of risk in business enterprise as distinguished from wages or rent
— prof·it·less \-ləs\ adjective
— prof·it·wise \-ˌwīz\ adverb
Main Entry: 1proof
Pronunciation: \ˈprüf\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English prof, prove, alteration of preve, from Anglo-French preove, from Late Latin proba, from Latin probare to prove — more at prove
Date: 13th century
1 a: the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance by the mind of a truth or a fact b: the process or an instance of establishing the validity of a statement especially by derivation from other statements in accordance with principles of reasoning
2obsolete : experience
3: something that induces certainty or establishes validity
4archaic : the quality or state of having been tested or tried ; especially : unyielding hardness
5: evidence operating to determine the finding or judgment of a tribunal
6 aplural proofs or proof : a copy (as of typeset text) made for examination or correction b: a test impression of an engraving, etching, or lithograph c: a coin that is struck from a highly polished die on a polished planchet, is not intended for circulation, and sometimes differs in metallic content from coins of identical design struck for circulation d: a test photographic print made from a negative
7: a test applied to articles or substances to determine whether they are of standard or satisfactory quality
8 a: the minimum alcoholic strength of proof spirit b: strength with reference to the standard for proof spirit ; specifically : alcoholic strength indicated by a number that is twice the percent by volume of alcohol present (whiskey of 90 proof is 45 percent alcohol)
Did the flirtatious little "tee-hees" and other emoticons work well when you fell as flat on your face as this with the community college professors? Well, perhaps their standards were lower - providing you with the idea that this kind of nitpicking nonsense is intellectually redeeming. What line of work prepared you to amuse yourself so steadily by saying absolutely nothing?
Still can't find a clipping that proves Obama took in less than he owed? Oh well, here's a clipping on what he can do with the profits, er sorry! NOT-profits. Of course, no one knows if that's how you define money left over, or if such a concept even exists for you, but here's what CNN has to say about what Obama could do with all the money that you don't believe he had left over after the campaign paid its expenses, money that you either believe doesn't exist or that you prefer not to define. Whichever makes you feel smarter, Anne from Ohio - land of the retarded low-wage earners who like to argue until they're blue in the face about God knows what.
You really are making yourself look dumber and dumber every time you post a comment. It's really quite remarkable. I should stop saying anything. Doing so apparently only encourages your ego to act in place of your brain - something you seem quite accustomed to doing.
Thank you, Montana Urban Legend, for giving us all a glimpse into the mind of an Obama supporter.
In this thread, you have denigrated:
*Alaska
*A female state governor:
Poor little thing. Sweet little wolf-killing lamb that she is.
*All the women in flyover country
*Community colleges, their students and alumni
*Republicans and right-wing sites (including - oddly - assuming the LATimes was a "right-wing" site)
*People for whom English is not a first language
*Ohioans
*Low income wage earners
AND
actually said:
"retarded" as a form of insult
Whichever makes you feel smarter, Anne from Ohio - land of the retarded low-wage earners who like to argue until they're blue in the face about God knows what.
I don't need to say a thing - you have said more than enough ....
One should not dish out insults if they cannot accept them in return, OhioAnne. And one should not argue hypotheticals when they want to condescend to their interlocutor for having a stronger case. And making generalizations can be problematic - if you take them seriously. And, oh yeah - people who live in glass houses should not throw stones.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा