« Obama Warns British Petroleum Not To Pay Big Dividends: Louisiana Shareholders Hardest Hit | Main | Major League Baseball needs instant replay »

It's great to have a President who knows what a calendar is

Smart diplomacy. Competence. Hallmarks of the Obama administration.

Queen's birthday gaffe leaves Hillary Clinton red faced

Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State, has been left red faced after mistakenly sending a birthday message to the Queen a week early.

An official statement from the US foreign policy chief paid tribute to the "Queen's life and legacy," despite the fact that the Monarch does not celebrate her official birthday until next weekend.

The diplomatic faux pas, sent on behalf of President Barack Obama and the American people on Friday, also celebrated the "special relationship" between the British and US governments.

...

A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman added: "It was obviously a genuine mistake and there was no offence taken whatsoever". She declined to say whether the State Department had apologised.

Silly stuff, right, but attention to detail is what separates winners and losers. The fact it happened concurrent to former Wings frontman Paul McCartney lauding Obama's vaunted intellect is...just what we've come to expect from the current inhabitants of the White House.

Too bad they played their ace-in-the-hole early on because an iPod pre-loaded with Obama speeches would really smooth things over right about now. I see a collection of improperly-formatted-for-use-in-the-UK DVDs in some lucky monarch's future.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/39268.

Comments (52)

"The diplomatic faux pas, s... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"The diplomatic faux pas, sent on behalf of President Barack Obama and the American people on Friday, also celebrated the "special relationship" between the British and US governments."

Considering all the 'faux' that this administration has been passing, this is nothing new. Just more of that there 'smart diplomacy'.

Nah, he wouldn't do that to... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Nah, he wouldn't do that to her. Now sending her a nice selection of 4th of July fireworks, that I could believe.

Uh, Hillary, the upcoming e... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Uh, Hillary, the upcoming event is the Queen's official birthday, not her real birthday, you stupid bitch. It's effectively the date on which the monarch "Troops the Colours," i.e., traditionally shows him/herself to the troops so they know whom not to kill in the chaos of battle, a holdover from days when the monarch would be on the battlefield.

We might as well have Monica Lewinsky as SecState. At least she has one talent. What a sorry bunch of rubes we have trying to run things.

Start with the "Smart Diplomacy(TM)" anytime now.

Monica Lewinsky as SecState... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Monica Lewinsky as SecState; hell, why not. They've brought Billy Bob back, haven't they?

Given Monica's 'special talents' and the predominance of men in leadership positions in foreign countries, SHE MIGHT GET SOMETHING ACCOMPLISHED!

Yep, and for POTUS we could... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Yep, and for POTUS we could just draft any shoeshine guy at O'Hare. If nothing else, he could produce an American birth certificate, and at least everyone in the Administration would have well-shined shoes.

It's effectively the dat... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

It's effectively the date on which the monarch "Troops the Colours," i.e., traditionally shows him/herself to the troops so they know whom not to kill in the chaos of battle, a holdover from days when the monarch would be on the battlefield.

Of course, with Democrats in charge, we should call it "Bathhousing the Colours," wherein Obama shows his rear end to all of his supporters so they know not to infect him with AIDS.

Ah, how we all long for the... (Below threshold)

Ah, how we all long for the flawless diplomacy of the Bush years.

"Ah, how we all long for th... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Ah, how we all long for the flawless diplomacy of the Bush years."

Yeah, when even our own allies didn't piss on us.

'Course you 'golden shower' boys are really into it, aren't you?

Hillary....hit the reset bu... (Below threshold)
ODA315:

Hillary....hit the reset button, quick!

Great to know we have a pre... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Great to know we have a president who knows what a library is. Too bad he only reads one book, by Saul Alinsky. And since everything is always about HIM, I can see where he'd be a couple of days off on birthdays and such.

Yeah, when even our own ... (Below threshold)

Yeah, when even our own allies didn't piss on us.

Yeah, Germany, France, the EU, and Russia doing exactly what we wanted. Those were the days...

Too bad he only reads on... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Too bad he only reads one book, by Saul Alinsky.

That's unkind, GarandFan. He's also read the Classic Comics of Das Kapital. In Indonesian, of course. He's still learning Austrian.

Yeah, Germany, France, t... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Yeah, Germany, France, the EU, and Russia doing exactly what we wanted. Those were the days...

Now they're getting shines from Obama, his natural station in life. That's why he bows to everyone: he's checking whether they need a shine.

Where Bush was either liter... (Below threshold)

Where Bush was either literally kissing them or literally trying to rub their backs. How times change...

I understand Bush actually ... (Below threshold)

I understand Bush actually once read the back of a pretzel bag. After it nearly killed him...

McCartney's gaffe - making ... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

McCartney's gaffe - making a library joke about Bush - showed his ignorance, but we love Paul for his musical talent, not his intelligence. Remember this is the fellow who having had probably a current worth of billions stolen from him in his career, spurned the entreaties of every friend and financial adviser he had on the payroll to execute a pre-nup before marrying a woman he had known only a short time. Not the brightest star in the galaxy, Sir Paul.

jim_x ~ You seem to have trouble focusing on the topic - have you had your dosage checked lately? And shouldn't you be with your terrorist pals on that boat trying to run the Israeli blockade? Or does the prospect of attacking an armed Jew make you wet yourself?

Wings? Really? This is th... (Below threshold)
Greg:

Wings? Really? This is the band that you think most people will remember Paul McCartney being in. :-)


Not saying I agree with his comments the other day because I don't. I just thought it was funny that you mentioned he was the former Wings frontman.


Hilarious!jim x: "... (Below threshold)
Drago:

Hilarious!

jim x: "I understand Bush actually once read the back of a pretzel bag. After it nearly killed him..."

Wow. You mean the pretzel bag nearly killed Bush?!

Oh, no. That's not right. The truth is that Bush choked on a pretzel, which had nothing to do with the bag.

If only English was jim x's primary language!

It's richly ironic when a moronic lefty makes such a basic mistake while insulting the intelligence of W.

jim x. Idiot.

Drago, it's pretty sad that... (Below threshold)

Drago, it's pretty sad that your defense of a President who was dumb enough to nearly die by not swallowing right, is "it wasn't the bag that nearly killed him, it was the pretzel."

But yes, I misspoke. I can admit it. To be fully correct I should have said,

"I understand Bush actually once read the back of a pretzel bag. After one of it's pretzels nearly killed him..."

Hopefully that fills in the blanks enough.

God, I love it when people ... (Below threshold)

God, I love it when people are obviously projecting. Case in point:

First the setup:

jim_x ~ You seem to have trouble focusing on the topic

And then the punchline:

...And shouldn't you be with your terrorist pals on that boat trying to run the Israeli blockade?

So I'm wandering off topic, which means I must be on drugs...oh, by the way, why don't we talk about something from an entirely different thread?

lol.

Moving further, here's some more great projection:


Or does the prospect of attacking an armed Jew make you wet yourself?

No, haven't really thought about it. Apparently you have.

Does the prospect of facing an armed terrorist make you wet yourself?

Because while we're on the subject that you brought up - facing armed people - you conservatives seem to be the people who yell the loudest about how tough you are, and yet seem quite willing to sell the Constitution out at the first hint of trouble from terrorist bogeymen.

I remember who sold America the fear to get the Patriot Act passed. And who supported all of the other travesties of the Constitution brought by the Bush administration, and told us these antiquated ideas of "due process" just wouldn't work in this scary modern world. And it wasn't liberals.

Greg ~ I interpreted the Ba... (Below threshold)
Jim Addison:

Greg ~ I interpreted the Baron's "Wings frontman" characterization as a mocking one.

~~~~~~~

jim_x ~ Until your medication can be adjusted, allow me to explain: you were hijacking the thread to avoid the issue raised. I addressed the issue, but then added a personal query to you at the end. This might be recognized as "an aside" to anyone not suffering from a cognitive disorder.

Your following rant about the Patriot Act and Bush just underlines your unwillingness to inconvenience your terrorist heroes. Now, I and many other conservative have reservations about aspects of the Patriot Act and have expressed them, but we recognize the threat and the need to meet it.

And the need to use means beyond apologizing to the enemy, bowing to the enemy, endowing the enemy with new special rights, embracing his goals, and giving him the benefit of domestic criminal courts to put on a show.

We've already seen three terrorist attacks on our soil by those with foreign known terrorist connections in the 16 months since Obama took over. Bush was at least able to thwart those after 9/11 - which could only have been thwarted in a system without the "Gorelick Wall" in place between intelligence services.

Jim Addison, until you can ... (Below threshold)

Jim Addison, until you can straighten out your mind, allow me to straighten it out for you: you're wrong. See, I was responding to this line, in the article:

Silly stuff, right, but attention to detail is what separates winners and losers. The fact it happened concurrent to former Wings frontman Paul McCartney lauding Obama's vaunted intellect is...just what we've come to expect from the current inhabitants of the White House.

And my response was:

Ah, how we all long for the flawless diplomacy of the Bush years.

Because, to anyone not suffering from some sort of head wound, saying that the Bush years were the epitome of attention to detail in diplomacy is like saying Batman 3 is the epitome of great cinema.

Now perhaps I overestimated you as an audience, but I did credit you with enough intelligence to make this leap. Short hop, really.

If you go through and do this thing called "reading" some more, you will see my posts responding to the posts of others. That's why its called responding.

And finally, if you go through and read my response to you, you'll see that it's actually a response to the topic you introduced.

Its a rather convenient definition, then, for it to be "an aside" when its introduced but "hijacking the thread" when I respond to it, don't you think? And so its not a definition that I accept.

Your following rant about the Patriot Act and Bush just underlines your unwillingness to inconvenience your terrorist heroes.

Your current rant about me having "terrorist heroes" is completely insane. That you would accuse me of something this evil because I value our country's honor, just underlines your unwillingness to recognize that I can think differently without being America's enemy.

John Adams defended our literal enemy, British soldiers, in court. I guess in that time you would have called him a British sympathizer?

Now, I and many other conservative have reservations about aspects of the Patriot Act and have expressed them, but we recognize the threat and the need to meet it.

Well, I consider the threat not worth the risk to our freedoms. It not only undermines our honor as a nation, it also undermines our own individual freedoms and liberties as American citizens in fundamental ways. Rights all our forefathers died to protect.

I'm sorry, but I don't see how terrorists are such scary warlocks that they can't be tried in a court. They're not worse than the Nazis, and we tried them.

Bush was at least able to thwart those after 9/11...

No. Not true. Anthrax attacks, remember?

And if the underwear bomber counts against Obama the shoe bomber counts against Bush.

McCartney's gaffe - maki... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

McCartney's gaffe - making a library joke about Bush - showed his ignorance, but we love Paul for his musical talent, not his intelligence.

I don't. Never liked the Beatles music, and inasmuch as talent, John was much further ahead of Paul, followed by Ringo.

Maybe she'd like a nice set... (Below threshold)

Maybe she'd like a nice set of commemorative Shrek glasses?

Come on, let's face it. Oba... (Below threshold)
Weegie:

Come on, let's face it. Obama filled the posts based on political expediency and ideological purity, not competence.

I though Hillary as SoS was a terrible choice. She had ZERO diplomatic experience. And she's shown repeatedly that her tin political ear is a global phenomenon.

Incompetence and corruption and failure will be the hallmarks of Obama's one-term presidency.

Barry wouldn't know his hea... (Below threshold)
Heinz 57 state sauce!:

Barry wouldn't know his head from his arse! They were never separated at birth. He bows to catch a breather.

Weegie -"I thou... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Weegie -

"I though Hillary as SoS was a terrible choice. She had ZERO diplomatic experience. And she's shown repeatedly that her tin political ear is a global phenomenon."

When a politician is defined by the media, usually the definition is 180 degrees off.

It's not a bad rule of thumb, actually. Consider that Palin's characterized as barely being able to walk and breath at the same time, Bush was reviled as the dumbest President ever, while Hillary was touted as being absolutely excellent in whatever job she would be given by the Administration and Obama was going to be super-cool, super-capable, and super-competent.

Hmmm. Well...

You ever look at a critic's reviews of a movie, and think - "If he hates it that much, it's probably a decent flick"? And you go - and it's a whole lot better than the critic's evaluation?

Have you ever gone to a movie that was critically acclaimed and thought "I want my two hours AND my money back"? (I remember being dragged to see the movie "Barton Fink" a long time back. The critics gushed, my girlfriend loved the director's work (before she saw the movie) - and she apologized afterward. Even SHE thought it stunk.)

Everyone's got a different criteria for political potential and success. It would be hard to argue that Hillary has NOT been personally successful - it seems to me, however, that her 'success' to date has had a heavy cost for the rest of the country, and possibly the world as a whole.

(I'm staying on topic fo... (Below threshold)
Shawn:

(I'm staying on topic for this one.)

jim x,

I came a bit late to this thread, but, what exactly does George Bush choking on a pretzel have to do with getting the date of the Queen's birthday right?

The history of this administration, when it comes to the usual polite diplomatic formalities, has been embarrassing.

British PM Gordon Brown, upon their first meeting, gave Obama an ornamental pen holder constructed from the timbers of the anti-slavery ship HMS Gannet, once also named HMS President.

He also gave a framed commission for the HMS Resolute. The desk in the Oval Office is itself made from the timbers of the HMS Resolute. The Resolute has symbolic history between the two countries.

Lastly, Mr. Brown gave Obama a first edition set of the seven-volume classic biography of Winston Churchill, written by Sir Martin Gilbert.

Pretty sincere and solemn stuff.

Obama, in return, gave Brown a 25 DVD set of classic American movies. (Which, due to a different format, didn't even work.)

He also gave the Queen an iPod with some show tunes on it.

Then, when "thawing" out relations with our trust-worthy Russian allies, Sec of State Clinton presented Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov a button (!) to press which supposedly said "Reset," ushering in a new, happy era with Russia.

Problem is, they screwed up the translation on the button. Instead of "reset," it said "overcharge."

These simple diplomatic screw-ups are like forgetting to put your pants on before you go to the store.

Your contribution to the running commentary here: Invoke sarcastic dislike of President Bush.

It's supposed to be hot out today. Go take a refreshing dip in your Kool-aid pool.

Don't worry: Your deranged liberal troll posse's got your back.


Shawn, you might also add t... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

Shawn, you might also add that the Brown's presented Barry's kids with expensive clothing from some of the toniest shops of London.

In exchange, someone on Barry's staff ran down to the White House gift shop and picked up a couple of plastic models of Air Force One for Brown's sons. (Rumor has it, they at least removed the price tags).

Barry got 'CLASS' don't he?

"It's great to have a Pr... (Below threshold)
Heinz 57 State Sauce:

"It's great to have a President who knows what a calendar is"


Now if he could just figure out how many states there are in the U.S.!!

I came a bit late to thi... (Below threshold)

I came a bit late to this thread, but, what exactly does George Bush choking on a pretzel have to do with getting the date of the Queen's birthday right?

The original reference is to Bush reading the back of a pretzel bag, in response to Garandfan's # 10. It also responds to Jay Guevera's quote of # 10 in # 12.

Go read them for context if you like.

Your contribution to the... (Below threshold)

Your contribution to the running commentary here: Invoke sarcastic dislike of President Bush.

Actually, it's to poke holes in this article's ludicrous assertion that the G.W. Bush administration is somehow the epitome of great diplomacy.

"Actually, it's to poke hol... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

"Actually, it's to poke holes in this article's ludicrous assertion that the G.W. Bush administration is somehow the epitome of great diplomacy."

Where I you jim, I wouldn't be mentioning 'holes' in any context with the Obama administration right now.

As for a diplomatic comparison - Bush has you buddy beat hands down. That is, of course, as previously pointed out, you enjoy getting pissed on.

jim x,"The orig... (Below threshold)
Shawn:

jim x,

"The original reference is to Bush reading the back of a pretzel bag"

My apologies.

Now it makes complete sense.

Sheesh.

this article's ... (Below threshold)
this article's ludicrous assertion that the G.W. Bush administration is somehow the epitome of great diplomacy
"Better than Obama" == "great"...?

No, jimx -- "better than Obama" == "adequate."

Because, for th... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Because, for the 10,000th time, an ordinary bankruptcy procedure would have not only put all of GM and Chrysler out of work, it would have put all the industries that **Depend** on them for work - supply shops, repair shops, shipping, and on and on.

Behold the source of liberal "thought:" profound ignorance and more than a little stupidity. Comrade jim seems to think that bankruptcy necessarily means the business closes its doors forever. Grownups, however, realize that companies declare bankruptcy all the time - and continue to exist, after reorganizing under bankruptcy protection. See, e.g., any airline.

So get your facts straight. It was perfectly possible for GM and Chrysler to declare bankruptcy, reorganize under Chapter 11, and not put a single person out of work. Bankruptcy would have let them renegotiate the onerous union and other contracts that helped to put them in bankruptcy, which is why Buraq and the Reds wanted to avoid it.

And just going ... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

And just going to say, once again, that no one here can actually find anything wrong with Obama's statement. Which you would think is easy, since he's so evil and all.

We have, but you're apparently too fucking stupid to grasp the point: it's not Obama's place to dictate BP's business and financial strategy. The government does not run the economy - not yet, anyway - so it's no more appropriate for the government to tell industry what to do than the converse.

"In American's very bloody labor history, when corporations hired thugs to attack unions and their civilian families with bats, bricks and guns, was that thuggery? Just curious."

And unions were pure as the driven snow, and never engaged in any violence. The Teamsters were and are choirboys. SEIU thugs can cry from reading poetry. Kenneth Gladney will be pleased to learn of this.

Actually, it's to poke holes in this article's ludicrous assertion that the G.W. Bush administration is somehow the epitome of great diplomacy.

You bet. Bush even forgot to check whether foreign dignitaries even needed a shoeshine, but Barry doesn't. He bends right over groveling in submission to his betters, which would be...just about everyone (except you). No American bows to anybody. And none ever has, to this day. Servility apparently comes easily to Indonesians.

Sorry, wrong thread.... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Sorry, wrong thread.

where did jim x come fro... (Below threshold)
MF:

where did jim x come from?

where did jim x come fro... (Below threshold)

where did jim x come from?

A land called reality.

As for a diplomati... (Below threshold)
As for a diplomatic comparison - Bush has you buddy beat hands down.

As previously noted, and as you previously ignored, except for France, Germany, Russia and the entire EU.

If you ever want to see a true diplomatic faux pas, you might want to look up Bush giving an unasked for backrub to Germany's chancellor. Her reaction was quite awesome.

But hey, you're welcome to think that stacks up to some ipod nonsense.

No, jimx -- "better than... (Below threshold)

No, jimx -- "better than Obama" == "adequate."

OK, sure. That then defines Bush as "inadequate". I didn't want to be that harsh on the former President, but you're setting the definition.

I was going to say Project ... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

I was going to say Project X, but those chimps could fling poo AND fly a plane. You're not a pilot are you, jim?

Seriously though, if gettin... (Below threshold)
Baron Von Ottomatic:

Seriously though, if getting played for a chump is the definition of successful diplomacy then Obama and crew are aces.

Behold the source of lib... (Below threshold)

Behold the source of liberal "thought:" profound ignorance and more than a little stupidity.

Behold the source of conservative "thought": yell around some insults and accuse others of ignorance and stupidity, while presenting no facts of your own.

Comrade jim seems to think that bankruptcy necessarily means the business closes its doors forever.

Ortsgruppenleiter Jay seems to think that bankruptcy is a quick and easy legal process that wouldn't have even slowed down any factories for a day.

Grownups, however, realize that companies declare bankruptcy all the time - and continue to exist, after reorganizing under bankruptcy protection. See, e.g., any airline.

Reasoning and logical grownups, however, realize that there are no airlines which employ nearly as many people, or use as many resources and third-party vendors, as GM. See, e.g., any listing of the yearly income for any airline compared to GM, as only one yardstick.

So get YOUR facts straight. There are no actual experts in this area who suggest that a non-government-intervention bankruptcy would have been some easy simple think that wouldn't have put any workers out of work. It's an interesting fantasy world you live in, but it doesn't have any resemblance to this world. Which is why your Bushite and the Neocons screwed it up so bad - they were applying the same wishful-thinking that you are.

Well Baron, if that's the d... (Below threshold)

Well Baron, if that's the definition that makes Bush the Red Baron.

Sorry, wrong thread.... (Below threshold)

Sorry, wrong thread.

What's this? Someone who starts off accusing someone being too fucking stupid to get something, posting to the wrong thread?

Nice.

Ortsgruppenleit... (Below threshold)
Jay Guevara:

Ortsgruppenleiter Jay seems to think that bankruptcy is a quick and easy legal process that wouldn't have even slowed down any factories for a day.

Straw man alert. Bankruptcy is not a quick or easy legal process. Didn't say it was. But it needn't "slow down any factories for a day," either. Airlines operate under bankruptcy protection all the time.

Reasoning and logical grownups, however, realize that there are no airlines which employ nearly as many people, or use as many resources and third-party vendors, as GM. See, e.g., any listing of the yearly income for any airline compared to GM, as only one yardstick.

That blur going by must be the goalposts you're moving. Let's review the bidding, shall we?

Previously you said:

Because, for the 10,000th time, an ordinary bankruptcy procedure would have not only put all of GM and Chrysler out of work, it would have put all the industries that **Depend** on them for work - supply shops, repair shops, shipping, and on and on.

The operative phrase is " put ALL of GM and Chrysler out of work...[along with] ALL the industries that **Depend** on them for work." And that simply was crap.

(If a company has any value at all, it will continue running after restructuring. You're thinking of Air America, which was so worthless that no one wanted anything to do with it, and so it went into Chapter 7 - liquidation - rather than Chapter 11 - reorganization. )

Now you're saying:

There are no actual experts in this area who suggest that a non-government-intervention bankruptcy would have been some easy simple think that wouldn't have put ANY [emphasis added] workers out of work.

Another straw man alert. You went from ALL to ANY.

Employing fewer people != putting the entire company out of business.

Using fewer resources != using no resources.

Of course there's going to be pain. You can't live beyond your means indefinitely. Eventually, as Greece is finding out, you have to cut back to make ends meet. The point, for those who missed it, is that the company cannot continue its current rate of outgo (e.g., hire as many people and/or pay them as much, pay as much for its resources, etc.) because that's what drove it into bankruptcy in the first place. They've got to cut back and restructure their finances such that income > outgo. And the biggest single problem GM and Chrysler had was onerous union contracts.

Neither the recidivist, tre... (Below threshold)

Neither the recidivist, treasonous, lying, looting, thieving co-serial-raping sycophant pretending to the SecState's office nor, apparently, the court fool sucking up for his supper, ever heard that the world never has believed its Jesters. Not even when they knew more than its kings.

Straw man alert. B... (Below threshold)
Straw man alert. Bankruptcy is not a quick or easy legal process. Didn't say it was. But it needn't "slow down any factories for a day," either.

BS alert. If you think a bankruptcy process for a company as large as GM wouldn't slow down any factories for a day, you're crazy.

That blur going by must be the goalposts you're moving.

No, that blur is you avoiding my complete destruction of the "Airplane travel industry == GM car construction industry" analogy.

(If a company has any value at all, it will continue running after restructuring.

Let's say that's true, at the level of absolute certainty you claim.

That still is no certainty that it won't shut down for at least days, most likely weeks and probably even months - which means disasters for those workers and side industries which depend on a ***constant stream*** of work from GM.

Now let's review your argument that I responded to.

You said:

So get your facts straight. It was perfectly possible for GM and Chrysler to declare bankruptcy, reorganize under Chapter 11, and not put a single person out of work.

Your key claim bolded.

But when I respond to this statement,

There are no actual experts in this area who suggest that a non-government-intervention bankruptcy would have been some easy simple think that wouldn't have put any workers out of work.

...you claim "straw man alert" - WHEN I'M RESPONDING DIRECTLY TO YOUR WORDING.

So, shall I accuse you of a straw man, because you went from "all" to "any"?

Or will you admit that your claim I'm responding to, which I'm now quoting above for the second time, was wrong?

Preview is my friend. The e... (Below threshold)

Preview is my friend. The exact change of your argument would be "not put a single person out of work"(#36) to "Employing fewer people != putting the entire company out of business. " (#48)

And please note that I'm going to this level of detail, because you are the one accusing me of shifting my arguments - when I'm actually responding to your shifting arguments.

The function of Trolls is t... (Below threshold)
Constitution First:

The function of Trolls is to get people off topic.

Don't Feed The Tolls.

If they don't get fed, they'll wonder away and find another blog to ambush.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

[email protected]

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy