Well, Joe may be a plumber, but at least he’s not a bitter clinger
I don’t know what it will take to wake America up to Obama. It’s not as though ample evidence of his Leftist history, lying, close associations with shady/radical/hateful characters, arrogance, and elitism hasn’t been available for some time now. If the majority of people haven’t perceived him clearly by now, maybe nothing will cause them to do so by the time the election rolls around.
But if further demonstration of the last two characteristics in the list would help, I hereby offer up the following video of a sneering and condescending Obama, besotted with his own coolness:
[ADDENDUM: Revenge on Joe.]
That should go over big with all the little people. Dear Lord, please help Obama make fun of plumbers right up until election day.
Oh, and media, please, please blow Joe up as big as you can. Scorn him. Belittle him. Make sure you point out each and every of his faults. Please????
Antimedia: It would upset people, I think—but they’d have to see it first. How many people do you think will?
Joe the plumber.
J D Drew the miracle worker.
Wow.
He is already destroyed by the dirty, dirty leftists:
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/10/16/good-news-toledo-moves-to-shut-down-joe-the-plumber/
I am really more angry now than I’ve ever been about political events. What these thugs have done to this man’s life. I am so pissed off about it that it may just carry over into my feelings for Obama supporters, the bootlicking, goose-stepping parasites they are.
Obama is evil. There is no other way to finesse it.
This man just asked a simple honest question. He got some publicity for it, and now the Chicago gangsters are ripping his life apart and destroying it.
People, wake the f**k up. If this is not chilling, then you haven’t a brain and definitely no soul.
And the people who collaborate in this project are filth. What right does Obama and his gangsters have to the information they are getting about Joe? The people who hold that information in confidence who give it to Obama’s agents are scum. They contaminate the environment and culture.
I now have a very different take on Obama’s supporters. It is decidedly negative, because if they have no problem with this evil act then what does that make them? I’m not kidding around here; I’m dead serious with my moral accusations. It is deserved. Any Obama supporter who does not condemn this forfeits good standing in the human race.
Pingback:Why Joe Matters | curtis schweitzer (dot) net
Fred, I’m with you! This has me disgusted! And even as all the voter fraud has been revealed, I hadn’t reached this point!!!
Does anyone else think that this type of Obama policy (reverse Robin Hood legalized via political ascension) is EXACTLY what Obama learned at the knee of the good Reverend Wright.
Me thinks Obama leapt way ahead of Dr. Wright. Under the guise of doing for the poor — he doesn’t mask a thing — he’s taking from the rich “to spread the wealth around” while getting wa-a-ay ahead for himself in the bargain. (He bought his own 2 1/2 million dollar mansion how many years ago? W/ Reczko’s, let’s not forget!) Now it’s on to the White House….and beyond????
And the Left think he walks on water because of this (until they get their notices that Obama’s gonna need their money, too for all is grand Nation Re-Building).
Meanwhile, McCain does not want to mention the Rev. Wright again because he feels it’s played out. WHY DOES THE MAN NOT UNDERSTAND THAT NO ONE (except maybe Wright) THINKS THIS IS NOBLE? WHY DOES HE NOT GET THAT IT”S MORE IMPORTANT THAT PEOPLE KNOW WHO OBAMA IS…. THAT THEY SEE IN LIVING COLOR (really, no pun intended) THAT THIS GUY HAS LEARNED FROM THE WORST/SHADIEST/MOST RADICAL BUNCH and continues to do so. In fact, if people don’t do some quick waking up and realize that they could just as soon be “Joe… And by giving this man the Presidency (with White-House warming gifts of a Democratic majority Senate and House) which + unfettered power to do almost anything he wants. And his arrogance will certainly not get in his way, that’s for sure!
(I’m passionate, but I don’t blow up at just anything. I can smile at the conspiracy theorists but always also taken them with a grain of salt, while muttering under my breath “Thank God it could never happen here …..”)
Someone — please reassure me I’m right!
Add me to the disgusted list. Out in functional America, where I come from, it is the small businessmen and women who are generous with time, money and their business resources. Obama only knows dysfunctional America, and he is too stupid or narcissistic to realize that he and Wright and Phleger are keeping it dysfunctional with their poison.
BTW, Huckabee is interviewing Joe Saturday night at 8 on Fox. I hope his ratings go through the ceiling. Tell everyone you know to tune in. Let the cool one sweat through the weekend.
Whatever it takes to bring the elistist snob Obama down. I hope it does…
Obama’s economic proposals are classic fallacy of social engineers: they never take into account how markets will REACT to changing rules of the game, they believe that market participants will do business as usial, only pay another way, as required. Stalin, for example, confiscated all wheat that peasants grew, at fixed government price – too low for farmers to survive. What peasants did the next spring? They did not sow above their family needs, and mass starvation resulted.
In taxation what really counts is not the net tax burden, but marginal costs, that is, costs of expanding buisness. In USA, the growth points are not big companies, which usually do not grow, but small buisnesses, seeking expanding, and middle-class workers who plan to became entrepreneurs. They would be the first victims of his taxation plans, so this is the surest way to inhibit growth and turn recession into depression.
I’d like to see McCain and Palin buy tv time to do a power point presentation on this very subject. They’ve got two weeks to expose this sonofabitch for the arrogant piece of crap that he is.
I don’t know whether i’m more pissed about Obama, or the 1/2 of Americans who see ANYTHING of value in this man.
If I needed a lawyer to represent my case in a court, I could have choosen Obama – eloquent, unscrupulous and shameless in distorting facts. But as President? Never!
I am so angry about the treatment Joe the Plumber has received that I can hardly contain myself. The man asked an intelligent, sincere question on an important issue, in a polite and decent manner. As a result he has been personally savaged by the media coast to coast, and that’s not enough: now the candidate of whom he asked the question sneers at him for the way he earns a living. Why are they like this? Is it that they realize they can’t answer the man on the issues, so they must destroy him as a person? Or is this simply all they know how to do — if we disagree, then we must destroy?
I have not been a registered Democrat since the end of the Clinton administration, but I’ve had mixed feelings about it. I come from a many-generation Democratic tradition. My grandfather and uncles and great-uncles were old-style Democratic legislators on the local and state level. Good and decent people, old-fashioned Democrats of the type that, apparently, no longer exists. I can’t help feeling some deep-lodged loyalty. But. After this — and after the blood feed that followed the selection of Sarah Palin, from demanding her infant’s birth certificate to prove its maternity to publishing her pregnant daughter’s cell phone number on the web so that boors could leave obscene messages — and after Acorn and Ayers and Rezko — and after the blatant lies in the media — and after watching Obama wink and nod and let it all happen — and now this — when they are WINNING –the Democrats will never have my party registration again. And it will be a long, dark night in hell before they ever have another chance at my vote.
Wow am I mad.
Despite enormous problems with voter registration, Ohio has managed to find time to check on Joe’s licensing.
Imagine how this would work if Obama were president.
Yet once again the McCain campaign seems incapable of offering more than a very impotent response.
The Joe story is a high hanging curve ball that the McCain campaign just weakly hits over to first base. Where is the outrage from McCain at how this innocent man is being savaged by the Obama campaign? The one McCain ad I’ve seen on the “wealth distribution” aspect of Joe is so weak I can’t see how anyone would really get the point. The gross incompetence of the McCain campaign is going to be responsible for sending this country in a direction from which we may never recover.
A commenter on my blog suggested that I rethink my idea to write-in Joe the Plumber, and included a link to the Why Joe is Evil Laundry List. To which I replied:
Rethink? Why? Because he’s a registered Republican? Because he doesn’t pay the government for a license that he doesn’t need in his current job?
But if gets you through the day, I’ll agree that Joe shouldn’t be president simply because he made an error in his taxes and owes less than $2,000. I can agree that an infraction like that is far more egregious than, say, getting a sweetheart land deal from some indicted fella up in Chicago. I’m really open-minded that way, although it helps that he isn’t actually running.
Yes, we have to be much more careful with our voting decisions than to rush into voting for a fake plumber who, for all we know, could be Trig Palin’s real father. Someone ought to look into that. In fact, someone probably already is.
None of this has anything to do with Obama’s answer, of course. But let’s save time and agree that what Obama said is being taken out of context and spun by McCain’s opportunistic campaign, since that argument invariably comes next whenever the reputedly erudite Obama mis-speaks, yet again. 57 states, you know. Could happen to anyone.
In fact, let’s ignore the accidental admission entirely.
Let’s instead go back a little earlier in his answer and talk about how an economy is “grown from the bottom up” to, you know, put it back into context.
When we’re done figuring that out, we can talk about how water flows uphill.
The gross incompetence of the McCain campaign is going to be responsible for sending this country in a direction from which we may never recover.
Nothing against you, PhysicsGuy, but I was wondering who an incompetent Obama, filibuster-proof Reid Senate, and veto-proof Pelosi/Hoyer House would blame for their epic fail.
Now I know.
Pingback:Amused Cynic » Blog Archive » Has Joe the Plumber caused an uprising of the Bitter Clingers?
And it will be a long, dark night in hell before they ever have another chance at my vote.
All it took for me was agitating to surrender and lose a war for political gain. I guess I have a shorter fuse.
“Nothing against you, PhysicsGuy, but I was wondering who an incompetent Obama, filibuster-proof Reid Senate, and veto-proof Pelosi/Hoyer House would blame for their epic fail. ”
They will somehow manage to blame Bush in their usual twisting of logic. However, I am starting to blame McCain for letting this election come to the scenario you describe above.
Daveg: “talk about how an economy is “grown from the bottom up” to, you know, put it back into context…
This is no “57 states” mistake or off the cuff blather. They (Obama et al) are serious about growing the economy from bottom up. They even have a book out, authored by one of those Goldman Sachs geniuses that helped bring you the credit debacle of ’08. See:
Obamanomics: How Bottom-Up Economic Prosperity Will Replace Trickle-Down Economics by John R. Talbott.
Haven’t read it. Afraid to. Afraid of having my head messed with and my common senses assaulted.
I could never see McCain being so grossly ARROGANT, this is STUNNING– and it helps me in what I will ultimately decide.
THANKS NEO!
Not saying I won’t continue to to totter to this decision or that decision before I get the ballot in my hand, but it helps!
Can you imagine Sarah Palin making a comment as stupid as Obama did?
What the Obama people are doing to Joe the Plumber is reminiscent of the NKVD or “chekists” in the Soviet Union.
May Obama’s toilet overflow at 3am on a Sunday in the middle of winter. Maybe, just maybe, he’d have a bit of respect for the man who came out and fixed it. Then again, probably not.
Turns out that “Joe” is probably not registered to vote, owes $1200 in back taxes to the State of O-HI-O, and is distantly, but not TOO distantly related to Charles Keating. THAT “Chuckie” Keating.
A big, Palinesque “You Betcha!”
Oops.
Probably used the same “vetting” loophole Palin did.
Just waiting for Faux News to out the erstwhile hero as an Obama double-agent….
jackscrow, since when did anyone have to be “vetted” before asking a reasonable question of a presidential candidate? who the he** cares whether he is registered to vote or who he’s related to? He is a citizen who asked a question of a candidate who came into his neighborhood. Should you be shredded if you dared to ask a question of McCain?
How about if you try to address the issue he raised in his question instead of proving via character assassination that you know you can’t do a creditable job of that — any more than your candidate can?
It hardly matters who Joe is.
Worrying about that is a distraction, deliberate distraction, from the real question, which is Obama’s answer.
Joe could have been a plant, an escapee from a group home, or a genuine whohesaysheis guy. Mox nix. The issue is Obama’s answer
So keep flailng away at Joe, dems.
I have a question…….
If so much damning evidence about Joe the plumber can be acquired so quickly, and dispersed everywhere so quickly, how come no one knows anything about Obama yet?
Vote McCain-Palin! Watch the heads explode!
Ack -Ack!
Pingback:Going after Joe the Plumber & America - UPDATED | The Anchoress
Ms. Whatshit,
No, you don’t have to be vetted to ask a question, but… if your candidate is gonna make the questioner a centerpiece of his campaign pub, you’d think he would vet.
Of course the whole McCain campaign is a amatuer act.
How could the ‘pubs pick one of the worst two of eight? Amazing.
And I’ll be voting for Bob Barr, not Obamamania.
Ms. Whatshit,
No, you don’t have to be vetted to ask a question, but… if your candidate is gonna make the questioner a centerpiece of his campaign pub, you’d think he would vet.
Of course the whole McCain campaign is a amatuer act.
How could the ‘pubs pick one of the worst two of eight? Amazing.
And I’ll be voting for Bob Barr, not Obamamania.
Mr. Jackschit –
McCain didn’t need to vet Joe. The topic of discussion is Obama’s answer. How can that possibly be so hard to understand?
So a LIBERTARIAN thinks it’s just fine for the national media, a political [party and the State of Ohio to join forces to destroy an ordinary person because he asked a question of a candidate, and the justification is that the other candidate’s an amateur and should have vetted the person before the rest of the country savaged him?
ooooookay.
I wonder if the Secret Service will let folks bring plungers into rallys? A sea of plungers and American flags at the next rally would be such a sweet picture!!
Nice metaphor too…
Mrs Whatsit Says:
“He is a citizen who asked a question of a candidate who came into his neighborhood.”
A hard question that made O look bad, for which he must be punished. 🙂
A lot of the information that the Obama people got about Samuel Joseph is not the kind you can just pull up on the web. You have to call people who work in offices to get that information. It may have been technically legal for this information to be requested and handed over, but was it ethical?
I maintain it was not ethical. I work in the financial services industry and there are certain kinds of information that by law we cannot give to anyone except by government and court order. But you know, even if there were no laws covering this, I still would never give the kind of information out that was apparently obtained with ease about Joe the Plumber.
And so I submit to all of you, and to you neo, and to everyone else here, a perfectly valid question for discussion: Do you think that the people who gave that information over to the Obama campaign were behaving unethically?
I think they were. And what does that say about those people? I think it says those people are as filthy as the Obama thugs.
“I think it says those people are as filthy as the Obama thugs.”
Hmmm, you are a charmer, aren’t you Fred? Look at al that manufactured outrage buttressed with impotent but real anger. So cute.
You should not call them Obama thugs. Call them Obama workers. That they are thugs is simply understood. No need for redundancies.
Look at al that manufactured outrage buttressed with impotent but real anger. So cute.
I, for one, would be angry even if the dirty Obama thugs released your information and tried to destroy you.
It’s wrong for a campaign to damage a private citizen just for asking a question.
Fred’s posting here are especially relevant to the experience that attracted many of us to Neo’s blog in the first place. He has documented in it’s horrible and scary depth the ultimate results of the Left’s turning the personal political. Let it not be forgotten that Sen. Obama came to Joe’s house, and Joe did not seek out the Senator. Yet it is the private citizen who’s life is being ruined for simply disagreeing with one candidate for President.
This is the pattern of exposure to liberals. Disagreement is taken as hostility and even assult. Agreement or neutrality is taken as assent to their whole manure cart of bullshit ideas: pacifism, third-worldies, and vegetarianism. In most cases it’s not a public or life ruining matter, but with just one call to certain agencies, such as Child Protective Services, a simple disagreement turns into a near criminal procuedure.
What has been seen in this blog has been at an even more personal level, involving close friends and family. It is creepy, but when dealing with the liberal in your personal life you’d better be ready to back up your opinion with lawyers, at least. Otherwise it is better to avoid this group of people.
Pingback:Chicago Boyz » Blog Archive » Obamian Acolytes vs Joe the Plumber
Pingback:Chicago Boyz » Blog Archive » Obamian Acolytes vs Joe the Plumber
Once again, I’m with you, Fred! The whole deal about Obama is about his morality and ethical standards — which seem to be nonexistent. As one after another shady mentor (Wright)/boss(Ayers)/house-purchasing partner cum mentor(Reczko)/advisors Raines/Johnson who ran Fannie Mae & Freddie Mac into the ground this beginning this entire credit debacle — and incidentally two cos. that contributed more money to Barack Obama in his 3 yrs. in the Senate (if you want to count the last 2 when he’s been out campaigning) than the combined amount received of 8 other Senators/Congressman over a 10-yr period — excepting Chris Dodd who topped Obama/employer A.C.O.R.N. whose leaders he taught in the art of pressuring lg. corporations, banks, et al. to accede to A.C.O.R.N. demands? And now this flagrant attack of “Joe” — which I think is one of the few dumb moves Obama’s campaign has made since this guy was brought to the attention of a good part of the American public during the debates. But they’ll prob. get away with it. Just as Ohio’s Secretary of State is now going to the Supreme Court to request that an order of Federal Court be reversed, which requires her to hook up her registration system to the DMV (altho’ how any illegals do YOU know who have drivers’ licences) and the Social Security Administration) as required by law. She is hoping to delay the verification of all “registered voters” until AFTER the election — what can be done then? Finally, apparently Obama’s new schtik — throwing red meant to his hungry acolytes — is bashing Fox News as the outfit that is trying it’s best to destroy him and portray him as a guy that “even [he] wouldn’t like!” He has done this 3 days in a row so apparently it is a new mode of attack.
As for SF, don’t know how frequently you visit here (hopefully often as neo’s articles and writing are exceedingly good), but don’t seem to remember you as a regular in “discussions.” FredHjr, however, does contribute often — contribute in a positive way. He’s been venting more lately — but I think many of us understand exactly why. Our frustration at the continued obfuscation and deflection of questions concerning Barack Obama, his background and associations (besides the Talking Point narrative he regularly parrots), refusal to release very basic documents relevant to understanding his background (a birth certificate — what is the big deal UNLESS there is a BIG DEAL he’s hiding); school records which would provide some insight into his intelligence and capabiities. Everyone knows Obama is a good public speaker (especially when he has pre-written speeches and Talking Points, or notes), but who is the man behind this orator?
Since he began running, he has shifted his positions on so many key issues. Certainly,much has occurred over the last year and a half, and adjusting some positions is understandable, even appropriate. However he has shifted on everything from free trade to energy policy, to education and foreign policy, etc. and evades a number of key issues very important to the population: his tie to Unions and the very significant consequences of the Card Check Rule, the outrageous problems caused by A.C.O.R.N. whom he has even PAID to do work for him, and many more.
So SF — on behalf of other readers who enjoy this blog and real discussions (even disagreement so long as there’s basis to your arguments which you share) please grow up and keep your personal attacks to yourself
Do you think that the people who gave that information over to the Obama campaign were behaving unethically?
yes
though it matters what premise you start with. If you start with the concept of judeo christian type morals, then its immoral. its just wrong.
however if you do not have that basis, then what is your arbiter of moral?
their first moral arbiter is law… if its illegal it must be immoral (Except the laws they dont agree with of course), and if its not illegal, then its permitted.
after that, their next arbiter is probably politically correct thought. what would the collective say or what has it pronounced so they wont be wrong, cause so many cant be wrong, right?
they are in a moral quandry. to help someone is a moral good, so if they turn the person down, they commit what is to them an immoral act. if they give up the information, then they are free of one, but not the other. however, since the impetus is in the office, and joe is far away, guess who gets preference.
so in essence, they have a hard time with moral issues and really cant stand up to anything because how can you make a moral stand if you have no (fundemental) PRINCIPALS to build from, and only PREMISES.
the basis of a premise can be false, it allows us to enjoy and understand rules in worlds that dont exist.
and from wiki (for if you looked in a dictionary the way i am using the word would probably confuse.
A principle is an abstract object which signifies a point (or points) of probability on a subject (e.g., the principle of creativity), which allows for the concrete formation of rule or norm or law by (human) interpretation of the phenomena (events) that can be created. The rules, norms and laws depend on and co-create a particular context to formulate. A principle is the underlying part (or spirit) of the basis for an evolutionary normative or formative development, . For example, the ethics of someone may be seen as a set of principles that the individual obeys in the form of rules, as guidance or law. These principles thus form the basis for such ethics.
you can start from the premise that men and women are the same… but you cant start from a fundemental principal of such (unless you lie and pretend salient things dont matter – which is how a premise gets sucked in as a false principal).
guess which group follows which… 🙂
and the reason the guys going on premises dont get it is that they dont accept the base premise (men and women are the same/equal) as false. because premises can be arbitrarily true and false. since a principal is from experience, its grounded in an absolute interpretation of reality.
so when you start discussing things, and trying to show them evidence, you cant get anywhere because you cant show a different base premise because they are ideologically declared.
you cant give them a moral argument, since either answer can be moral depending on the state of the premise. there is nothing to base a consistent moral decision on.
in politics it seems weird, but its the same kind of thinking that would get one to believe that quartz crystals have the ability to record emotional events, or grant healing – and yet the person not be delusional or crazy as someone else that may have false ideas of the world.
they apply the same analysis to morals, which is why it breaks down based on the different arbiters and their imagined role (revolutionary may ignore law “for the cause”, and so a very immoral act is considered moral with literally no limit)
they are healthy, i think, they just have bad idea built on top of bad idea, and they cant figure out how things function, or why morals matter.
depending on the amount of bad informaiton, they exist on a spectrum… so you can have very healthy people, who are following a few weird ineffectual things… or you can have someone who has taken a left turn, and has built the premises of say magik, or lifestyle, or ideology… or all of them. maybe they use movies as the experience to create principals, but again, that isnt real, so they are really taking in a movies premise (that furthers an artificial story line)
a key thing is that this causes them to be less effective int the world. they dont understand or cant understand how a person can earn a lot by being effective in a way that they just cant be. so they accept the more paranoid or the more equality based base premise, and say they dont deserve it, they must have cheated, i am the same as them so it must be greed, etc.
the person at the desk probably thinks this way, and so, its not hard to reason to the end and let it justify whatever they ‘feel’ like doing, cause with this kind of thinking, their reasoning just doesnt get anywhere (but the stated end conclusions which they cant work to in their heads so they just accept it if they hear it enough). they just live on a stack of stated premises (many of which were declared a long time ago, and dont fit what we know from medicine, physics, statistics, etc.. and the news/schools, certainly dont help) from those that they feel are telling them the ‘facts;…
so for the person your talking about… it depends on what their basis is…
Artfldgr,
As a former student of Philosophy at Loyola of Chicago grad school (and it was my minor at UNH as an undergrad), I do understand that logic proceeds from the premise. If the premise is an error, then you build a house of cards on it. I am also a huge believer in the role of the Socratic dialog. A person who cannot peel himself like an onion – going backwards to the core of himself and what he thinks and believes – is useless. Worse than useless.
But today’s rank and file collectivists who are told by their teachers that what they are learning is “progressivism” are idiots. They know not the true provenance of their ideas and display a dearth of curiosity about those. And they are not encouraged to do so, which is par for the course in our post-modernist milieu.
These are the knaves who consent to and aid and abet the kind of rape done to Joe the Plumber. Yes, they believe that they are doing a good thing, but what is the true value of their conviction when properly adjudicated for its epistemological worth?
Bah!! Pathetic and spineless creatures who no doubt would need a political officer’s pistol or machine gun at their backs in a real fight.
Putting down someone who asks a simple question.That is not exactly a way to make friends and influence people, Senator Obama.
wow… thanks fred…
its nice to be understood…
though i can understand completely where your coming from, and your right as to their spines, dont be too harsh. (got that odd quality that maslow talked about and used this incredibly long word -chapter 11 and 12 i think in his book on motivation)
the same harshness is why the left deals so poorly with the losers. they cant imagine that this situaiton in them can be changed. that its fixed. (evne though their system has methods for unfixing, moving, and refreezing at will, they dont make the leap).
they will learn, but the hard way… even now naomi wolf is going off her deep end rocker… she is in the situation where she has discovered that they are making something wrong. got religion. but still thinks that the threat comes from the right… so she is half more astute than the other blind ones.
but she is going teeter totter as she hasnt figured out that if your going to slowly move from right (individualism, liberty, freedom), to the left (collectivism, control, manipulated), then your going to have to pass through a hybrid of the two since they exist on a spectrum.
she thinks that the spying protocols of bush come from the ideology of the right… they dont, its the left… and so she doesnt realize that it was her, and her other friends (as stated by them in terms that cant be argued with – like we endorse and wnat communism), had moved us from liberty and individual freedom with cultural marxism, into the area of over fascism (rather than just soem economic control) leading to socialist collectivism by whatever name you want to call it.
she and they dont realize that they have been played with the way a child at a pin the tail on the donkey party has been. they are ona path with us to liberty and preservation.. then someone confuses them, and spins them around… they are now facing the wrong way, but feel its going to bring them to where they were going before they were turned around.
the more they go, the more the few others not spun around tell them, your going the wrong way… your going back into the tyranny that was the normal state of man in the past… and htey get more an dmore militant trying to get the others to go the way they are..
without a moral compass, they dont know that they are walking backwards and regressing to an earlier more brutal time full of more misery precisely because they let themselves get soft, and didnt choose carefully without emotion who to listen to, they chose to choose the listener by the message, not by their ability to be right empirically.
they are like children… and not to realize this and have a love for them, is to then look down on them and be wiling to imprision them.
its the differrence in the core of the politics, its the difference in how the two systems, judeo christian, and athiest look at their stewardship. its the same as they see their own families… (athiests are willing to have someone else take care of them as a group, while judeo christians want a traditional family in where the parents are a buffer against the false teachings of the agenda’d)
i see that those who are more capable have a charge of stewardship, and care to the others as if they are family. however, a healthy family dont tame money from the good kids and give it to the drunkards….
someone taught them poorly by design… and someone or some set of circumstances will teach them in a way in which they have no choice as to which message appeals to them. which is really the gist of our points.
that we fear we will suffer with them. that they are going to take us on a joy ride from hell just so that they can learn the hard lesson. that our lives are not long enough for us to enjoy the luxury of this mistake and then get on track. our lives are not strong enough to withstand the deadly end that this leads to.
C’est la vie… has it really been any other way?
there was never any promise that it wouldnt always be that way… at least we got one generation maybe two that never experienced lifes norms, the real reasons why we are the way we are.
we would never be here fred and able to discuss this on the computer if our natures werent what they are. So for all its worth, we never really had the promise of a tomorrow coming faster than otherwise. so they arent cheating us out of that future since it never is.
this has to happen this way, because this is how people are, and this is who we let act, and how we want it to be a nicer place as individuals.
to have that, we have to accept its vulnerability.
just as to have love, we have to accept that we become vulnerable to the other in a way that no one else in our adult lives becomes.
so dont get to upset.. its not good for your health, and i wouldnt want you unhealthy AND crapped out on this.
for the most part, the most conservative people do quite well in all this. yes its rough, but you have the tools to live in both times. they dont, they seem not to be able to live in either time, and arent satisfied with it staying in the state its in.
you can live with little and the closeness of your friends and family… conservatives who love liberty eventually outbreed the others… and it does its thing again.
ultimately on a personal level you will probably do all right… and if it goes bad, still go better into that goodnight than others will… but ultimately, your quality of life and what it turns out to be is going to be what it is, not what you planned, wanted, desired, dreamed, worked for, or any other reason that we feel may justify us feeling cheated for not getting what we thing we deserve.
we got life… compared to just the abortions in the past 100 years, we been pretty lucky. we were born in the US.. compared to most, we have had the sweetest life ably to grouse that its not sweet enough living better than kings not 200 years back.
we have it great. greater than any other living thing that we have contact with has ever lived other than some slightly luckier humans than us (who seem to be more miserable. soros doesnt seem like a very kind or nice person)
take heart… the opera aint over till the fat lady sings
historically speaking they are frustrated since we have dogdged the bullets each time quite interestingly. and the nation instigating most of this wont last the century.
right now the system is fracturing and will reform, and will do so stronger than before…even if obama is in office. the best he and his lackies can actually do is delay things. even if they bombed us to the stone age. we would find parts quite quickly as populations rose, and we would figure out old techn and catch up quite quickly.
dark ages serve the dynasties of the feudal, but they are swept away by the masses they imprision over the long haul. in case nobody noticed, their breeding programs fail as the new socialist woman tends to abort more than be willing to live as nature intended (on some level).
globalism will be fractured by space travel. so its a waste of their time..
we will do ok fred… if we live…
and if we dont, it wont matter to us anyway..
by the way fred…
great writing!!!!!!
its why i come here. there seems to be enough of it here that its has that critical mass that squeezes out inanity quite quickly. i notice that if a place becomes populist enough, you end up not having this. a certain critical mass of antoher type of person (i guess), will build and they will then link up and complain upon the fulcrums of more cogent and thoughtful discourse. punctuation, adherence to sound bites, conformity to a certain format they dictate, etc…
So its really nice to come to a place where there is real discussion. who gives a rat’s butt as to the harmony of false consensus? the discourse of such conversation os ours tends to lead to the disovery of things we wnould never get to otherwise.
thanks Neo!!!
While previous attempts have disabused me of the idea that one can actually engage in a serious discussion on this echo chamber, now and again the nonsense factor becomes so high that I find myself tempted to inject just a tiny note of reality into the spin cycle.
It is telling that Neo uses a FOX clip in which a tiny fragment of Obama’s exchange with Joe Wurzelbacher [aka Joe the Plumber] is cycled over and over, along with a similarly repeated loop taken from a post debate stump speech in which Obama makes a jab at McCain’s obsessive invocation of Joe the Plumber during that debate. And, to complete the recipe, FOX’s editors add a shot of a poster in the Social Realism meets Andy Warhol style with Obama’s face above the label “SNOB’ … just in case anyone missed the point.
If Neo were actually interested in substance over spin she would have linked or embedded the full clip of the nearly six minute exchange between Obama and Wurzelbacher. In that clip Obama honestly engages “Joe the Plumber” in a discussion about his tax plan. The candidate is respectful and engages in a give and take conversation explaining his tax plan and discussing whether it might or might not have an adverse effect on Joe specifically.
The line seized upon by the McCain campaign was when Obama said, “I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody,” In context this was clearly about why he believes that some increase in the taxes on the top 5% can be justified to enable tax breaks for middle and working class citizens. It’s been spun to such a fare-thee-well you would think Obama was going to start collectivizing every American’s bank account as his first Presidential decree.
Now, if Neo wants to make the case for why trickle down economics has worked so well since Ronald Reagan won the primary debate with G.H.W. Bush (back in the day when it was also known as “Voodoo” economics), fine, make your case. Of course, the “trickle down” tax policies under all administrations from Reagan through Bush 43 have resulted in a dramatic redistribution of wealth from the lower and middle classes UPWARD with little to no measurable “trickle down” occurring, but why let facts stand in the way of a good partisan rhetorical point? Redistribution of wealth through tax policies that result in an ever-richer elite at the expense of the rest of us is now supposed to be the American Way? And any suggestion that it is not fair is supposed to be what, Communism? Let’s try to bring a little reality back into the debate, shall we?
If Neo simply wants to portray Obama as “sneering and condescending” it says a lot that she needs a partisan hatchet job from the skilled editors at FOX to do so, since the full clip of Obama and Joe the Plumber won’t serve that purpose. In fact, if one were to assemble a reasonably impartial audience to view all of the debates and ask them to pull clips in which a candidate appears to be “sneering and condescending” I dare suggest that McCain and Palin would rack up many more minutes than Obama and Biden … from the refused handshake to dismissively calling his opponent “that one” … there are plenty of sneers and condescension to be found in this campaign from the Pubs.
Maybe Neo could try to spin it that because Obama refused to take the bait, especially in the third debate, and fly off the handle after repeated jibes from McCain that this unflappable dignity proves Obama is “besotted with his own coolness”. It’s a real stretch, but in this echo chamber environment I’m sure it would be an easy pitch.
So, let’s see, do we want a guy in the White House who is cool under pressure and sticks to making their points without getting into a tit for tat volley of jabs and counter-jabs over every lobbed accusation or one who keeps beating a dead horse long after everyone else has tired of the exercise? You make your choice, I’ll make mine.
“While previous attempts have disabused me of the idea that one can actually engage in a serious discussion on this echo chamber, now and again the nonsense factor becomes so high that I find myself tempted to inject just a tiny note of reality into the spin cycle.”
I stopped reading half way into this opening paragraph. My scan of the rest of it confirms my suspicion that it’s an Obamabot who has not even dared to go near the crux of the topic: the Obama campaign’s and the NYT’s public rape of Joe.
Lenin was right about these people. You do and say whatever it takes to advance the revolution.
Obama has a respectful conversation with Joe Wurzelbacher, answering his questions about how the tax policies Obama is promoting in his campaign might affect Joe. The McCain campaign isolates and distorts a few sentences from their six-minute exchange to fuel an attack on Obama’s tax policies. McCain then makes Joe the Plumber the centerpiece of his strategy in the third debate. Joe says of this, “I think it helped them get their points across, so I was happy about that.” Then the press, the blog-o-sphere and every political junkie in America fires up Google and YouTube to see what they can find out about Joe the Plumber, some of which may not be entirely flattering to Joe. Joe becomes a hot interviewee getting his fifteen minutes of
So, how does one summarize this chain of events in a pithy sound bite? It becomes the “Obama campaign’s and the NYT’s public rape of Joe.” … by someone who can’t be bothered to read anything they don’t already agree with. You must be proud of your audience Neo. Yep, everyone here is more than ready for Oxford style debating on the level of Bill Buckley.
… fifteen minutes of fame.
Sorry about final proofing before hitting the “submit” button.
Chris White,
You still don’t answer the question: Why does Joe’s travails and wrinkles invalidate the question he posed to Obama?
Instead of being a snarky a**hole, and changing the subject, put up or shut up. HOW DO THE DETAILS OF JOE’S LIFE BEAR ANY RELEVANCE TO THE VALIDITY OF JOE’S QUESTION TO OBAMA?
So, say “Yes, Joe’s personal failures invalidate his questions because……….
or, “No, Joe’s personal failures do not invalidate his questions because…….
There. I’ve structured the logic for you. Use the template and commit to a position, or get thee hence to somewhere else and stop wasting our time.
Asked and answered, sir.
Joe asked a perfectly valid question of the candidate. I’ve never maintained otherwise. Obama did not duck the question nor belittle the questioner; he spent six minutes respectfully answering Joe and discussing the issue with him in a courteous and engaged manner. It’s easy to find a link to the original clip of the entire exchange. I suggest you watch it.
Joe essentially asked, “If I buy a small company doing $250,000 – $280,000 of business a year won’t my taxes go up?”
The short answer was, “You might pay a higher rate on the amount over $250,000 depending on the specifics of your particular company and situation.”
This is the place where Joe’s “travails and wrinkles” have some bearing on the topic at hand. What are those specifics that might have an impact on his taxes? (Is that figure gross or net? How many employees? Will he buy the business outright or need financing to become the owner?)
Soon after their exchange McCain’s campaign choose to use tiny snippets from it to make points against Obama’s proposals, which is a reasonable political tactic. Then McCain made “Joe the Plumber” his centerpiece in the final debate. This is what transformed the dynamic from it being about the question … the possible impact of Obama’s tax policies on a growing small business … and instead turned the focus of public interest to Joe as a unique individual with a distinct personality and story.
Joe’s personal failures have no bearing on the question but McCain made Joe himself the story. So some reporters, bloggers, etc. who have gone digging have discovered various other facts that might cast a not entirely flattering light on Joe. This is not, however, a “public rape of Joe” nor is it some sign that Lenin has been reincarnated as a U.S. Senator. These are just hyperbolic and absurd accusations to make your point. And just what is that point?
Sorry, Chris,
I’m throwing the B.S. flag on that one. It is a public rape of Joe. A discussion of the particulars of any hypothetical business he planned to start would have been appropriate. Rooting into his personal history for dirt (in order to distract the people from Obama’s answer) was not. He’s a private citizen who deserves (well, deserved; past tense) to remain private. He did not seek out Obama, nor streak the stage at an Obama rally. Why this need to publicize any “warts” he might have? The fact is, there is no way I would have known anything negative about Joe if the press and people working on behalf of Obama hadn’t started digging into his background. It wasn’t the McCain campaign that started looking into Joe’s personal history. Regardless, that history is of no relevance whatsoever to Obama’s answer. Let’s keep the discussion about Obama’s tax policy. Why is a progressive tax more “fair” than a flat rate tax? Why does the top rate need to be increased? Why is 250k the “magic number” for a marginal increase? All of these are reasonable questions that keep the focus where it belongs–on the issues, and on the views of a particular candidate. The fact that one citizen happened to generate an unguarded answer from Obama does not make that citizen a public figure who should then be subject to the type of muckraking that is typically reserved for Republican-nominated Supreme Court candidates.
Look at this Chris White trying to white wash Hussein Obola’s war crimes away, while pretending it’s merely about elections.
Those in 2015 may have figured things out by now that it ain’t about elections.