It's pretty obvious who Joe the Plumber is voting for - Page 2 - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 10-17-2008, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Look, if he's a shill, he's a shill. The people are not as dumb as you want to believe.

Perhaps, just perhaps he started out truly asking a question he believed. He got all kinds of attention for it, attention he did not expect. Then he starts talking and people see he spoke on emotion and may not be all that informed. But instead of letting McCain roll with it and looking a fool bringing him up.... you have to destroy this guy.

Why?

You're way ahead in the polls, I seriously doubt what he says will change many votes.... it's not exactly a Willie Horton/Swift Boat/Donna Rice issue that will hurt or even dent Obama's campaign..... unless he continues to rip this guy.

My feeling is most people can see what Joe the Plumber has become.... however, they still maybe able to somehow identify with him {which is what the GOP want} and by ripping him, destroying him.... you end up hurting yourself.... if you acknowledge his original question and answer it and let your answer be all the acknowledgment that he gets..... you pretty much end the whole Joe the Plumber issue and it goes away.

If people didn't fact check Joe's story then people would never know it was a lie and McCain would get a free pass on using false information. Hate the people digging as much as you want but as long as they aren't making stuff up and are telling the TRUTH then there is nothing wrong.

smooth · 10-17-2008, 10:45 AM

The thing I don't understand is what you are referring to when you are claiming that the Obama campaign is ripping into this Joe guy.
The only thing I saw the campaign say specifically in regards to the matter was during the debate when Obama spoke to Joe at the same level McCain spoke to Joe. He told him that he wouldn't face any fees or fine, and that he would receive a tax credit if he wanted to give his employees health care. He never doubted his belief that if he bought the company that he would actually make 250,000, in fact he responded to that dream as saying that if he was making that much, Obama feels it's fair to spread some wealth around to those less fortunate. I don't think Obama did or wants to rip Joe, I suspect he feels compassion for him and that's one of the reasons he tells McCain to his face that he doesn't mind paying higher taxes to help the middle class.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/2008-us...ml#post2540204

pan6467 · 10-17-2008, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

pan....so you want the media and the Obama supporters to continue to let McCain and Palin perpetuate bullshit about the guy and Obama's tax plan rather than present the FACTS to the American people.

Nope..I dont believe in perpetuating ignorance.

But if you are secure enough in your position then you stand by it and stop attacking the guy.

Like I said we all make mistakes, perhaps Joe just asked something he believed and Obama answered it. Bt people picked up on it and he bacame an attention whore.

In desperation McCain tried to use him. Now, Obama has 2 choices... "I answered that question and would be more than happy to further explain any further questions. OR........ "Let's just destroy this man..... let's have Biden insinuate he isn't even a licensed plumber..... let's make sure no one will ever want to do business with this man again... long after the election people will stay away from this poor schmuck."

I think this campaign went for the latter and that is cheap and very W/Rovish.... which I thought Obama was supposed to be above.

dc_dux · 10-17-2008, 10:52 AM

pan....the Obama campaign is not attacking the guy (can you point to a "rove-like" attack?).

The media and supporters are not attacking the guy by fact checking his story.

They are questioning how McCain continues to falsely present the impact of Obama's tax plan on Joe and businessmen and women like Joe.

Rekna · 10-17-2008, 10:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

let's have Biden insinuate he isn't even a licensed plumber.....

The thing is he isn't a licensed plumber!!!!!

This is the only thing out of the Obama camp about the guy and it is true. The rest is from the media, bloggers, and other online wackjobs like us.

pan6467 · 10-17-2008, 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

The thing is he isn't a licensed plumber!!!!!

This is the only thing out of the Obama camp about the guy and it is true. The rest is from the media, bloggers, and other online wackjobs like us.

LOL..... well then hog tie him and burn him in effigy.

I guess living in Ohio where it is always such a battleground state we get more negative ads than most and in turn many start tuning out long before the election.

I'm just sad to see someone who may or may not have voiced a legitimate question to him, be destroyed for doing so. I find it sad that our politicians are so eager and willing to do so.

To say Obama's camp hasn't and that he is above such things, you are fooling only yourself. I'm sure there are some bloggers and we know quite a few of he media members get Tingling sensations up their legs with Obama. So they are far far from unbiased.

Just as McCain jumping at this and trying to use the man is just as pathetic but in a far different way.

Who knows, Joe the Plumber could have been a Democratic plant so they could destroy the man as McCain used him. Would make McCain look mighty foolish.

smooth · 10-18-2008, 12:33 AM

The only thing I hold McCain responsible for are the ads that say, "I'm John McCain and I approve of this message" and I would have disappointed if he hadn't taken the mic from those people at his rally and said something to them. I do also think that he should reign in Palin more, but as far as the RNC's BS I don't hold that as a blight on his personal character.

I do think that a leader can't just say or be a leader without the followers' support. I mean, you can get promoted to the manager in your workplace but still have the rest of the employees not particularly care for your personally or your authority. When that happens, projects can become a clusterfuck because there are these little clicks and power struggles over who really has authority over the group of people. So in this respect, I just don't see McCain having that kind of authority over his political party, and it makes sense because he is actually trying to use that to his advantage by arguing he's never been the doll of the RNC...which would work if he was being followed by someone, such as, the democrats. Because in Washington, you can't just do things on your own, no matter which position you hold.

So this inability of McCain's to put an end to the personal attacks that should be under his direct control is a testament to his lack of moral authority over the Republicans as a party, in my opinion. And I think that will present problems in his leadership capacity. I don't think he'll be able to lead effectively, not because he can't, but because it doesn't look like they respect him as their ultimate authority and won't listen when he says this is how it has to be.

Obama can't be held liable for things private people write on their blogs, anymore than McCain can be blamed for loons shouting bizarre shit at rallies. Now, if Obama had said we should check this guy out, rather than simply addressing his concerns during the debate, I'd impart some responsibility to him. Just like some people can do so about how McCain agitated people to concern over the Ayers connection to Obama.

For myself, however, I give McCain a pass on the Ayers issue. I do so because I really believe he's in between a rock and a hard place rather than just slinging mud for political expediency. I suspect he really, truly believes that Ayers is a piece of shit. But he can't say that publicly because he'd look petty and unforgiving to a huge chunk of people, and a lot of people who were sympathetic to Vietnam protestors in whatever flavor they came in. But to McCain, a man who endured torture for a cause he *must* believe was just or his predicament was for naught, and to come from a long line of military family members, to a person like that, someone bombing things on domestic soil to protest the war he personally suffered in a way that no one can really know the depth of how it affected him, that person will never be forgiven in his mind...such a person can't be forgiven by McCain.

If McCain were my next door neighbor, I wouldn't even try to talk to him about the reasoning of rehabilitation or unjustness of Vietnam. I wouldn't even go there, much like we know that murderers get out of prison and go work as landscapers but I wouldn't try and have a dispassionate discussion about rehabilitation or forgiveness to the father of a murdered daughter about the guy mowing his lawn. I'd keep my mouth shut regardless of how I felt about the subject. I would never let theory trump personal experience...I might believe it, I might believe it to be true, but I would not make someone who was personally affected by something believe their experience was less valuable than what the rest of the data shows. This isn't about anecdotal evidence, but the very specific instances of people who are negatively and personally affected by something that happened in their own lives that comprises who they are as a human being.

Rekna · 10-18-2008, 06:53 AM

pan you have yet to comment on how you or you think others would respond if the role was reversed with a lady asking about being pregnant from rape. Or if rape is to polarizing for you what if she said that the doctors give her a 75% chance of dieing if she goes through with the pregnancy, she is a single mother with 2 kids (father died in Iraq), and if she dies the kids will be put in homes.

But then it comes out she isn't pregnant and doesn't have kids...

dc_dux · 10-18-2008, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

I'm just sad to see someone who may or may not have voiced a legitimate question to him, be destroyed for doing so. I find it sad that our politicians are so eager and willing to do so.

To say Obama's camp hasn't and that he is above such things, you are fooling only yourself. I'm sure there are some bloggers and we know quite a few of he media members get Tingling sensations up their legs with Obama. So they are far far from unbiased.

I'm still trying to understand how fact checking his story and the Obama campaign noting that he would pay less taxes under Obama's plan is "destroying" the guy.

BTW, McCain has invited Joe to join him on the campaign trail.

Tully Mars · 10-18-2008, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I'm still trying to understand how fact checking his story and the Obama campaign noting that he would pay less taxes under Obama's plan is "destroying" the guy.

BTW, McCain has invited Joe to join him on the campaign trail.

McCain railed against Obama destroying the guy privacy after he brought the guy up during the debates some 20 times. This is a basic GOP political move- do or say something and then blame the other side of doing it.

pan6467 · 10-18-2008, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

pan you have yet to comment on how you or you think others would respond if the role was reversed with a lady asking about being pregnant from rape. Or if rape is to polarizing for you what if she said that the doctors give her a 75% chance of dieing if she goes through with the pregnancy, she is a single mother with 2 kids (father died in Iraq), and if she dies the kids will be put in homes.

But then it comes out she isn't pregnant and doesn't have kids...

How the fuck do you compare something like that to this????????

WOW.

Paq · 10-18-2008, 11:31 PM

i have to say..the guy has to be something...

i mean, from what i've read and understood about his business, etc, he would still be taxed LESS under obama than mccain, but he likes mccain more bc he's afraid obama will eventually tax people making 100K or less more....

just be up front and say that and he'd be fine, but to try to loop it around like it has been so that 'gee, i'm working hard to buy a business that will be taxed more under mccain than obama...but i'm ok with that bc i'm afraid of something obama may do in the future..."
just kinda odd.

i'm all for checking it out, but i think the general populace has seen it for the nonevent that it is.

to quote the Great Taz: 'just anotha victim'

dogzilla · 10-19-2008, 01:57 AM

What difference does it make whether Joe the Plumber was really planning to buy a plumbing business or whether he was a phony trying to trap Obama? The fact is that he got Obama to admit on camera that his plan was to redistribute people's wealth. That's wrong. If I want to redistribute any wealth I might have, that's my right. It's not the government's right to redistribute it for me.

flstf · 10-19-2008, 03:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dogzilla

What difference does it make whether Joe the Plumber was really planning to buy a plumbing business or whether he was a phony trying to trap Obama? The fact is that he got Obama to admit on camera that his plan was to redistribute people's wealth. That's wrong. If I want to redistribute any wealth I might have, that's my right. It's not the government's right to redistribute it for me.

So any income tax system that results in someone paying a higher amount than someone else is wrong and violates their rights? The only way to implement such a system would be to send a tax bill for the same amount to everyone regardless of income. Even a flat rate tax would result in redistribution of income. I think when Obama mentioned redistribution of wealth he really meant income, as there is was no discussion about taxing net worth. I imagine even McCain would admit to being in favor of high income groups paying more than lower ones since he was against the Bush tax cuts.

dogzilla · 10-19-2008, 04:15 AM

A tax plan that bills everyone an equal amount is also wrong since lower income people would pay a higher percentage of their income than higher income people would. I would support a flat tax rate across the board for everyone. Why should a person be penalized for earning enough to move into an increased tax bracket. If I move into a higher tax bracket, I don't magically get more or better services from the government.

You're right about wealth/income. I'm just recalling Obama's statement from memory and could have substituted wealth for income.

If Joe the Plumber, real or fictional, has managed to become more successful, Obama has no right to redistribute Joe's income. That right is Joe's.

Rekna · 10-19-2008, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

How the fuck do you compare something like that to this????????

WOW.

Easy, I just used the keyboard and typed the question.

The reason they are equatable is one of the major issues the right says about the left is that they will raise your taxes. And one of the major issues the left says about the right is that they will ban abortion. They are equatable in this sense. Now please tell me what would fox news do if this happened.

tisonlyi · 10-19-2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pan6467

Look, if he's a shill, he's a shill. The people are not as dumb as you want to believe.

*cough, splutter* 2 terms of Bush The Younger.

How long can some of the people be fooled for?

[

just for otto]

smooth · 10-19-2008, 05:25 PM

maybe you mean, shouldn't have the right to redistribute wealth rather than doesn't have the right, because the government certainly does have the right to do so. and contrary to some posts, it's not your personal wealth. you do realize that the greenbacks in your wallet are owned by the government that prints them?

amend the claim to, "the government should not have the right to distribute wealth I've earned" and the argument starts to gain traction as an ideal. but the claim that the government does not have the right to do what it wants with your personal wealth is factually wrong on both counts.

Thelonius · 10-19-2008, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

maybe you mean, shouldn't have the right to redistribute wealth rather than doesn't have the right, because the government certainly does have the right to do so. and contrary to some posts, it's not your personal wealth. you do realize that the greenbacks in your wallet are owned by the government that prints them?

amend the claim to, "the government should not have the right to distribute wealth I've earned" and the argument starts to gain traction as an ideal. but the claim that the government does not have the right to do what it wants with your personal wealth is factually wrong on both counts.

I would also point (though I believe it was mentioned above) that ALL taxation is a redistribution of wealth. The conservative philosophy, generally, is one of "fairness" - that each person should have an equivalent portion of their wealth redistributed. That the conservative method is to claim that non-conservatives are the only ones who desire redistribution is simply disingenuous.

To the point of redistributing wealth less from those that presently have more redistributed (i.e. lowering taxes on the wealthy) as an issue of restoring "fairness", my question is: why is that fair? What is the determination of fairness when it comes to tax brackets (flat, progressive or regressive)? Often a conservative will point to the figures which demonstrate (and I'm paraphrasing them here) that the top 1% pay 50% of the taxes collected as evidence that they are treated unfairly. I fail to see the congruency between that statistic and the definition of fairness. Why is 75% not the fair amount? Or 90%?

Do wealthy people not benefit more from a well funded military, public infrastructure, police, fire fighters, etc. vs. non-wealthy people? Wealthy people have more to lose, for one thing. For another, without a stable and far reaching society wealthy people acquire less - less means of distribution equals less sales. To loosely capture this in a sound bite: it takes money to make money.

Since wealthy people benefit the most from society and have the most to lose, "fairness" would indicate they should pay the lion's share of costs of maintaining society which is, by extension, their own collection of wealth and the ability to collect it.

pan6467 · 10-20-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rekna

Easy, I just used the keyboard and typed the question.

The reason they are equatable is one of the major issues the right says about the left is that they will raise your taxes. And one of the major issues the left says about the right is that they will ban abortion. They are equatable in this sense. Now please tell me what would fox news do if this happened.

I don't know I don't watch Faux News.

The right will never ban abortion because it keeps one issued pro lifers voting for them.... you ban abortion, you lose some of those votes because they will latch onto a new issue that the other side will have.
-----Added 20/10/2008 at 01 : 41 : 28-----

Quote:

Originally Posted by tisonlyi

*cough, splutter* 2 terms of Bush The Younger.

How long can some of the people be fooled for?

[

just for otto]

Good question...... given the 2 candidates we have this time around obviously they can be fooled this election......

roachboy · 10-20-2008, 12:28 PM

paul krugman's edito from this morning's ny times says what is to my mind the obvious about this joe-the-plumber-the-shill as over against actual working people...and about the republicans in relation to actually existing working people:

Quote:

The Real Plumbers of Ohio
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Forty years ago, Richard Nixon made a remarkable marketing discovery. By exploiting America’s divisions — divisions over Vietnam, divisions over cultural change and, above all, racial divisions — he was able to reinvent the Republican brand. The party of plutocrats was repackaged as the party of the “silent majority,” the regular guys — white guys, it went without saying — who didn’t like the social changes taking place.

It was a winning formula. And the great thing was that the new packaging didn’t require any change in the product’s actual contents — in fact, the G.O.P. was able to keep winning elections even as its actual policies became more pro-plutocrat, and less favorable to working Americans, than ever.

John McCain’s strategy, in this final stretch, is based on the belief that the old formula still has life in it.

Thus we have Sarah Palin expressing her joy at visiting the “pro-America” parts of the country — yep, we’re all traitors here in central New Jersey. Meanwhile we’ve got Mr. McCain making Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, a k a Joe the Plumber — who had confronted Barack Obama on the campaign trail, alleging that the Democratic candidate would raise his taxes — the centerpiece of his attack on Mr. Obama’s economic proposals.

And when it turned out that the right’s new icon had a few issues, like not being licensed and comparing Mr. Obama to Sammy Davis Jr., conservatives played victim: see how much those snooty elitists hate the common man?

But what’s really happening to the plumbers of Ohio, and to working Americans in general?

First of all, they aren’t making a lot of money. You may recall that in one of the early Democratic debates Charles Gibson of ABC suggested that $200,000 a year was a middle-class income. Tell that to Ohio plumbers: according to the May 2007 occupational earnings report from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the average annual income of “plumbers, pipefitters and steamfitters” in Ohio was $47,930.

Second, their real incomes have stagnated or fallen, even in supposedly good years. The Bush administration assured us that the economy was booming in 2007 — but the average Ohio plumber’s income in that 2007 report was only 15.5 percent higher than in the 2000 report, not enough to keep up with the 17.7 percent rise in consumer prices in the Midwest. As Ohio plumbers went, so went the nation: median household income, adjusted for inflation, was lower in 2007 than it had been in 2000.

Third, Ohio plumbers have been having growing trouble getting health insurance, especially if, like many craftsmen, they work for small firms. According to the Kaiser Family Foundation, in 2007 only 45 percent of companies with fewer than 10 employees offered health benefits, down from 57 percent in 2000.

And bear in mind that all these data pertain to 2007 — which was as good as it got in recent years. Now that the “Bush boom,” such as it was, is over, we can see that it achieved a dismal distinction: for the first time on record, an economic expansion failed to raise most Americans’ incomes above their previous peak.

Since then, of course, things have gone rapidly downhill, as millions of working Americans have lost their jobs and their homes. And all indicators suggest that things will get much worse in the months and years ahead.

So what does all this say about the candidates? Who’s really standing up for Ohio’s plumbers?

Mr. McCain claims that Mr. Obama’s policies would lead to economic disaster. But President Bush’s policies have already led to disaster — and whatever he may say, Mr. McCain proposes continuing Mr. Bush’s policies in all essential respects, and he shares Mr. Bush’s anti-government, anti-regulation philosophy.

What about the claim, based on Joe the Plumber’s complaint, that ordinary working Americans would face higher taxes under Mr. Obama? Well, Mr. Obama proposes raising rates on only the top two income tax brackets — and the second-highest bracket for a head of household starts at an income, after deductions, of $182,400 a year.

Maybe there are plumbers out there who earn that much, or who would end up suffering from Mr. Obama’s proposed modest increases in taxes on dividends and capital gains — America is a big country, and there’s probably a high-income plumber with a huge stock market portfolio out there somewhere. But the typical plumber would pay lower, not higher, taxes under an Obama administration, and would have a much better chance of getting health insurance.

I don’t want to suggest that everyone would be better off under the Obama tax plan. Joe the plumber would almost certainly be better off, but Richie the hedge fund manager would take a serious hit.

But that’s the point. Whatever today’s G.O.P. is, it isn’t the party of working Americans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/20/op...rugman.html?hp

Paq · 10-20-2008, 12:37 PM

awesome editorial an just states the obvious ...loved it

Tully Mars · 10-20-2008, 12:48 PM

Nice article, someone ought to give that Krugman guy some kind of award.

matthew330 · 10-20-2008, 05:06 PM

1. It really is terrible that Samuel J. (PK - it stands for "Joe") Wurzelbacher goes by his middle name, he's obviously trying to be someone he's not. Jerk - he had no business asking that question.

2. He's not even a licensed plumber in his state because he's moved around a bit following his ex-wife so he can be near his kid as she has custody, so he's getting on the job training working under his bosses license. Damn his 15 years experience, he shouldn't have asked that question.

3. He doesn't even know how to pay taxes, he's freakin 1300 behind. I'm sure we'll hear Mr. Rangle offer some insights on his behalf on how something so that appears so egregious might be an honest mistake, but until he pays it off - he has no business asking questions about taxes. As Samuel might say "that's one good thing about this, I didn't have to find out the next time I bought a house.

4. He and his boss had recently discussed the possibility of him taking over the business, but until that happens, he had absolutely no business asking that question.

I'm sorry I can't provide any direct links to the above quotes, it's just something I heard from Samuel when he was being interviewed. He must not have mentioned these insignificant details to the media. They're just excuses anyway. Joe Biden and Barack Obama have every right to be mocking him, as do all of you.

Spread the wealth! It's patriotic to do something the goverment forces you to do. Until that time, you have every right as a wealthy senator to donate some 3300 dollars in total to charity. You've done your part. Anything I do more than what the government asks, consider it my little treat to the little guy.

Liberals HATE Joe for the same reason they hate Sara Palin. They're both threats to their party. It has nothing to do with either inexperience or not going by your first name. Liberal reaction to them is as you would expect. The awards shouldn't stop with Paul Krugman.

filtherton · 10-20-2008, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by matthew330

Liberals HATE Joe for the same reason they hate Sara Palin. They're both threats to their party. It has nothing to do with either inexperience or not going by your first name. Liberal reaction to them is as you would expect. The awards shouldn't stop with Paul Krugman.

Liberals don't hate Joe, they just see him for what he obviously is: a very poor poster boy for the "people who will suffer if Obama become president" demographic. It's a shame that McCain sought to exploit Joe because it is precisely because he did that we're here talking about Joe.

It's too bad that there weren't any money managers confronting Obama on the campaign trail...

If there are liberals who hate Palin, it would take a real douche to be unable to see that the feeling was mutual. I don't like Palin as a politician, perhaps she is a nice person... That being said, I'm pretty sure Joe the Plumber would make a better president than her.

Paq · 10-20-2008, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by filtherton

If there are liberals who hate Palin, it would take a real douche to be unable to see that the feeling was mutual. I don't like Palin as a politician, perhaps she is a nice person... That being said, I'm pretty sure Joe the Plumber would make a better president than her.

'
of course he would: he's already been vetted more than palin, he's given more interviews, and from what he's said, i actually kinda know where he stands on issues..unlike with palin

he also doesn't need cue cards and if he was a puppet for mccain/ shill, spokes person 'joe sixpack' then he learned his role more quickly and delivers it with more conviction than palin....

so yea, he'd beat her horribly in a general election

10-17-2008, 10:45 AM	#42 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	The thing I don't understand is what you are referring to when you are claiming that the Obama campaign is ripping into this Joe guy. The only thing I saw the campaign say specifically in regards to the matter was during the debate when Obama spoke to Joe at the same level McCain spoke to Joe. He told him that he wouldn't face any fees or fine, and that he would receive a tax credit if he wanted to give his employees health care. He never doubted his belief that if he bought the company that he would actually make 250,000, in fact he responded to that dream as saying that if he was making that much, Obama feels it's fair to spread some wealth around to those less fortunate. I don't think Obama did or wants to rip Joe, I suspect he feels compassion for him and that's one of the reasons he tells McCain to his face that he doesn't mind paying higher taxes to help the middle class. http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/2008-us...ml#post2540204 __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman Last edited by smooth; 10-17-2008 at 10:48 AM..

10-17-2008, 10:52 AM	#44 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	pan....the Obama campaign is not attacking the guy (can you point to a "rove-like" attack?). The media and supporters are not attacking the guy by fact checking his story. They are questioning how McCain continues to falsely present the impact of Obama's tax plan on Joe and businessmen and women like Joe. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 10-17-2008 at 10:54 AM..

10-18-2008, 12:33 AM	#47 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	The only thing I hold McCain responsible for are the ads that say, "I'm John McCain and I approve of this message" and I would have disappointed if he hadn't taken the mic from those people at his rally and said something to them. I do also think that he should reign in Palin more, but as far as the RNC's BS I don't hold that as a blight on his personal character. I do think that a leader can't just say or be a leader without the followers' support. I mean, you can get promoted to the manager in your workplace but still have the rest of the employees not particularly care for your personally or your authority. When that happens, projects can become a clusterfuck because there are these little clicks and power struggles over who really has authority over the group of people. So in this respect, I just don't see McCain having that kind of authority over his political party, and it makes sense because he is actually trying to use that to his advantage by arguing he's never been the doll of the RNC...which would work if he was being followed by someone, such as, the democrats. Because in Washington, you can't just do things on your own, no matter which position you hold. So this inability of McCain's to put an end to the personal attacks that should be under his direct control is a testament to his lack of moral authority over the Republicans as a party, in my opinion. And I think that will present problems in his leadership capacity. I don't think he'll be able to lead effectively, not because he can't, but because it doesn't look like they respect him as their ultimate authority and won't listen when he says this is how it has to be. Obama can't be held liable for things private people write on their blogs, anymore than McCain can be blamed for loons shouting bizarre shit at rallies. Now, if Obama had said we should check this guy out, rather than simply addressing his concerns during the debate, I'd impart some responsibility to him. Just like some people can do so about how McCain agitated people to concern over the Ayers connection to Obama. For myself, however, I give McCain a pass on the Ayers issue. I do so because I really believe he's in between a rock and a hard place rather than just slinging mud for political expediency. I suspect he really, truly believes that Ayers is a piece of shit. But he can't say that publicly because he'd look petty and unforgiving to a huge chunk of people, and a lot of people who were sympathetic to Vietnam protestors in whatever flavor they came in. But to McCain, a man who endured torture for a cause he must believe was just or his predicament was for naught, and to come from a long line of military family members, to a person like that, someone bombing things on domestic soil to protest the war he personally suffered in a way that no one can really know the depth of how it affected him, that person will never be forgiven in his mind...such a person can't be forgiven by McCain. If McCain were my next door neighbor, I wouldn't even try to talk to him about the reasoning of rehabilitation or unjustness of Vietnam. I wouldn't even go there, much like we know that murderers get out of prison and go work as landscapers but I wouldn't try and have a dispassionate discussion about rehabilitation or forgiveness to the father of a murdered daughter about the guy mowing his lawn. I'd keep my mouth shut regardless of how I felt about the subject. I would never let theory trump personal experience...I might believe it, I might believe it to be true, but I would not make someone who was personally affected by something believe their experience was less valuable than what the rest of the data shows. This isn't about anecdotal evidence, but the very specific instances of people who are negatively and personally affected by something that happened in their own lives that comprises who they are as a human being. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

10-18-2008, 11:31 PM	#52 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	i have to say..the guy has to be something... i mean, from what i've read and understood about his business, etc, he would still be taxed LESS under obama than mccain, but he likes mccain more bc he's afraid obama will eventually tax people making 100K or less more.... just be up front and say that and he'd be fine, but to try to loop it around like it has been so that 'gee, i'm working hard to buy a business that will be taxed more under mccain than obama...but i'm ok with that bc i'm afraid of something obama may do in the future..." just kinda odd. i'm all for checking it out, but i think the general populace has seen it for the nonevent that it is. to quote the Great Taz: 'just anotha victim' __________________ Live. Chris

10-19-2008, 05:25 PM	#58 (permalink)
smooth Junkie Location: Right here	maybe you mean, shouldn't have the right to redistribute wealth rather than doesn't have the right, because the government certainly does have the right to do so. and contrary to some posts, it's not your personal wealth. you do realize that the greenbacks in your wallet are owned by the government that prints them? amend the claim to, "the government should not have the right to distribute wealth I've earned" and the argument starts to gain traction as an ideal. but the claim that the government does not have the right to do what it wants with your personal wealth is factually wrong on both counts. __________________ "The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann "You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

10-18-2008, 06:53 AM	#48 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	pan you have yet to comment on how you or you think others would respond if the role was reversed with a lady asking about being pregnant from rape. Or if rape is to polarizing for you what if she said that the doctors give her a 75% chance of dieing if she goes through with the pregnancy, she is a single mother with 2 kids (father died in Iraq), and if she dies the kids will be put in homes. But then it comes out she isn't pregnant and doesn't have kids...

10-19-2008, 01:57 AM	#53 (permalink)
dogzilla Junkie Location: New York	What difference does it make whether Joe the Plumber was really planning to buy a plumbing business or whether he was a phony trying to trap Obama? The fact is that he got Obama to admit on camera that his plan was to redistribute people's wealth. That's wrong. If I want to redistribute any wealth I might have, that's my right. It's not the government's right to redistribute it for me.

10-19-2008, 04:15 AM	#55 (permalink)
dogzilla Junkie Location: New York	A tax plan that bills everyone an equal amount is also wrong since lower income people would pay a higher percentage of their income than higher income people would. I would support a flat tax rate across the board for everyone. Why should a person be penalized for earning enough to move into an increased tax bracket. If I move into a higher tax bracket, I don't magically get more or better services from the government. You're right about wealth/income. I'm just recalling Obama's statement from memory and could have substituted wealth for income. If Joe the Plumber, real or fictional, has managed to become more successful, Obama has no right to redistribute Joe's income. That right is Joe's.

10-20-2008, 12:37 PM	#62 (permalink)
Paq Junkie Location: South Carolina	awesome editorial an just states the obvious ...loved it __________________ Live. Chris

10-20-2008, 12:48 PM	#63 (permalink)
Tully Mars Living in a Warmer Insanity Super Moderator Location: Yucatan, Mexico	Nice article, someone ought to give that Krugman guy some kind of award. __________________ I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

10-20-2008, 05:06 PM	#64 (permalink)
matthew330 Banned	1. It really is terrible that Samuel J. (PK - it stands for "Joe") Wurzelbacher goes by his middle name, he's obviously trying to be someone he's not. Jerk - he had no business asking that question. 2. He's not even a licensed plumber in his state because he's moved around a bit following his ex-wife so he can be near his kid as she has custody, so he's getting on the job training working under his bosses license. Damn his 15 years experience, he shouldn't have asked that question. 3. He doesn't even know how to pay taxes, he's freakin 1300 behind. I'm sure we'll hear Mr. Rangle offer some insights on his behalf on how something so that appears so egregious might be an honest mistake, but until he pays it off - he has no business asking questions about taxes. As Samuel might say "that's one good thing about this, I didn't have to find out the next time I bought a house. 4. He and his boss had recently discussed the possibility of him taking over the business, but until that happens, he had absolutely no business asking that question. I'm sorry I can't provide any direct links to the above quotes, it's just something I heard from Samuel when he was being interviewed. He must not have mentioned these insignificant details to the media. They're just excuses anyway. Joe Biden and Barack Obama have every right to be mocking him, as do all of you. Spread the wealth! It's patriotic to do something the goverment forces you to do. Until that time, you have every right as a wealthy senator to donate some 3300 dollars in total to charity. You've done your part. Anything I do more than what the government asks, consider it my little treat to the little guy. Liberals HATE Joe for the same reason they hate Sara Palin. They're both threats to their party. It has nothing to do with either inexperience or not going by your first name. Liberal reaction to them is as you would expect. The awards shouldn't stop with Paul Krugman. Last edited by matthew330; 10-20-2008 at 05:08 PM..