Printable View
Insinuation
Note in this article,they make it sound like he owns the place,not renting it. Thats why the 4$million tag is repeatedly mentioned,the fact that he's only renting it for a family vacation is glossed right over.
Renting a pad like that,for the weekend,should be well within a US Senators price tag
But it doesnt read like that does it?
Newsmax.com – 'Average Joe' Biden Rents $4 Million Home
well that just made my day :mad:
My house is over 3000 square feet, and it cost 28K,and I own it,not just rent it for thanksgiving.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheChosenOne
It was such a BS insinuation article I had to point it out.
Because as your sitting there right now,some moron republican is going to start bitching about Joe Bidens 4 million dollar mansion within the next week or so.
I sure wish I woulda known this sooner! I woulda cast my imaginary vote for old the dude with the 7 houses then...
Palin probably made more on her tax abatement when she sold her property then that place costs to rent for five yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by Youngblood
Another one for the haves vs the have nots.
....same people made a big fuss over Palin's clothes and there wasn't anything wrong with that although some jack asses think that taxpayers paid for her clothes now while that may be true in that the people who gave money to the GOP to spend as they saw fit pay taxes, the money used was not tax payer money in the since that it could have been used to build bridges or buy school books.
But that's the way the media catches your attention and sells magazines and gets people to watch their programs or read their websites.
But Lyle there was something wrong with that. Palin was spending money on clothes she wasn't supposed to. The guy who was paying for them was shocked when he got the bill. Now that isn't a Republican/Democrat thing, that's just somebody turning into a diva and doing whatever she wanted to do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lyle
The fact that more money was spent on her clothes than what they paid their foreign policy advisor, while bad, is really just their business.
It's like you should start reading things twice before you post shit like this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
1. In this statement, you say: "Note in this article,they make it sound like he owns the place,not renting it." Point to a place in the article that backs up what you're saying, because the article mentions twice that he's renting it, and then goes on to call it a "pricey vacation"... but no where is an implication of ownership. The article even cites the owner.
2. "Thats why the 4$million tag is repeatedly mentioned"... It's mentioned ONE TIME in the article. ONE TIME.
3. "the fact that he's only renting it for a family vacation is glossed right over." THERE ARE THIRTEEN PARAGRAPHS IN THIS STORY. FIVE OF THEM CONTAIN TOPIC SENTENCES THAT SAY THANKSGIVING OR VACATION.
4. "Renting a pad like that,for the weekend,should be well within a US Senators price tag..." Probably, but not the point of the article.
5. "But it doesnt read like that does it?" No it doesn't. But that's not the point of the article, the point is that he portrayed himself as a "working class hero" and "average joe" when in fact he's someone who vacations at the same place a lot of the wealthy elite vacation.
It's just another article pointing out how politicians get elected on deception, and I have no idea why it got under your skin so bad.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer MonkeyPalin probably made more on her tax abatement when she sold her property then that place costs to rent for five yearsQuote:
Originally Posted by Youngblood
How about every Thanksgiving for the last 33 years?
Actually you should learn to read,its mentioned twice,once right in the banner headline,thats supposed to be the eye catcherQuote:
Originally Posted by hfahrenheitIt's like you should start reading things twice before you post shit like this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
1. In this statement, you say: "Note in this article,they make it sound like he owns the place,not renting it." Point to a place in the article that backs up what you're saying, because the article mentions twice that he's renting it, and then goes on to call it a "pricey vacation"... but no where is an implication of ownership. The article even cites the owner.
2. "Thats why the 4$million tag is repeatedly mentioned"... It's mentioned ONE TIME in the article. ONE TIME.
3. "the fact that he's only renting it for a family vacation is glossed right over." THERE ARE THIRTEEN PARAGRAPHS IN THIS STORY. FIVE OF THEM CONTAIN TOPIC SENTENCES THAT SAY THANKSGIVING OR VACATION.
4. "Renting a pad like that,for the weekend,should be well within a US Senators price tag..." Probably, but not the point of the article.
5. "But it doesnt read like that does it?" No it doesn't. But that's not the point of the article, the point is that he portrayed himself as a "working class hero" and "average joe" when in fact he's someone who vacations at the same place a lot of the wealthy elite vacation.
It's just another article pointing out how politicians get elected on deception, and I have no idea why it got under your skin so bad.
THE GUY?!?!?! are you fucking kidding me?!?!?! Do you know how many people give money to the GOP? THE GUY...give me a break.....oh this just in THE GUY who writes Obama's speeches is amazed he's never given props whenever Obama speaks :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Killface
GROW UP!
IN THE ARTICLE... YOU FOLLOW ME? IN THE ARTICLE IT SAYS 4 MILLION ONE TIME.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer MonkeyActually you should learn to read,its mentioned twice,once right in the banner headline,thats supposed to be the eye catcherQuote:
Originally Posted by hfahrenheitIt's like you should start reading things twice before you post shit like this...Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey
1. In this statement, you say: "Note in this article,they make it sound like he owns the place,not renting it." Point to a place in the article that backs up what you're saying, because the article mentions twice that he's renting it, and then goes on to call it a "pricey vacation"... but no where is an implication of ownership. The article even cites the owner.
2. "Thats why the 4$million tag is repeatedly mentioned"... It's mentioned ONE TIME in the article. ONE TIME.
3. "the fact that he's only renting it for a family vacation is glossed right over." THERE ARE THIRTEEN PARAGRAPHS IN THIS STORY. FIVE OF THEM CONTAIN TOPIC SENTENCES THAT SAY THANKSGIVING OR VACATION.
4. "Renting a pad like that,for the weekend,should be well within a US Senators price tag..." Probably, but not the point of the article.
5. "But it doesnt read like that does it?" No it doesn't. But that's not the point of the article, the point is that he portrayed himself as a "working class hero" and "average joe" when in fact he's someone who vacations at the same place a lot of the wealthy elite vacation.
It's just another article pointing out how politicians get elected on deception, and I have no idea why it got under your skin so bad.
IN THE HEADLINE,YOU FOLLOW ME,ITS RIGHT IN THE HEADLINE,WHICH HALF THE TIME IS ALL ANYONE READSQuote:
Originally Posted by hfahrenheitIN THE ARTICLE... YOU FOLLOW ME? IN THE ARTICLE IT SAYS 4 MILLION ONE TIME.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer MonkeyActually you should learn to read,its mentioned twice,once right in the banner headline,thats supposed to be the eye catcherQuote:
Originally Posted by hfahrenheit
Agreed, most people only read the headline. But, I specifically stated "in the article."Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer MonkeyIN THE HEADLINE,YOU FOLLOW ME,ITS RIGHT IN THE HEADLINE,WHICH HALF THE TIME IS ALL ANYONE READSQuote:
Originally Posted by hfahrenheitIN THE ARTICLE... YOU FOLLOW ME? IN THE ARTICLE IT SAYS 4 MILLION ONE TIME.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainer Monkey