| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Joe the Plumber?; Not a plumber. And not even called Joe | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Oct 17 2008, 06:00 AM (2,539 Views) | |
| RTW | Oct 18 2008, 02:13 PM Post #31 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
Actually, I heard that Joes lives in one of McCain's houses. Apparently McCain owns a house on every street in America and has blue collar workers planted in all of them just for this purpose.
|
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| ds9074 | Oct 18 2008, 03:34 PM Post #32 |
|
Admiral
|
Why not just say "Personally I disagree with 'Joe the Plummer'", rather than try to discredit the man? I disagree with him. My opinion is that if you are earning a lot you can afford to give up some of that to help others advance. I think we are stronger when we work together and have solidarity with our fellow citizens rather than just focusing on our personal wealth. As I understand it the current tax system in America already does the above. If Obama wants to extend this a bit further in order to help people who are struggling to live day to day sounds like a plan. I do not understand the way cries of "socialism" go up when anything like this is mentioned in America. If you think this is socialism then by that definition the United States of America is already a socialist nation. The thing is its not socialism at all thats being proposed, just a marginally more redistributive tax policy than the one that already exists. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Wichita | Oct 18 2008, 04:22 PM Post #33 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
Impulse Engine, I understand what you are trying to say, but I do not want his (Joe's) home address posted here just to prove a point. I did find this source that may enable you to find out the answer for yourself:
The video appears to show a pretty middle class neighborhood as opposed to a convention center, urban area, or a hotel meeting room. The article demonstrates that Obama's campaign chose the street. Given the level of security Obama is under, it is doubtful - to me at least - that Joe (sorry, I'm calling him that rather than trying to spell his real last name) heard that Obama was in his small town and got across town in time to go there, get through security and the inevitable traffic, and still have time to ask Obama a question. It wasn't designed to be a long stop - just a photo-op as the article says. If Obama was not on his specific street, most likely Joe, at least, lived in the same neighborhood and could walk over when he heard the commotion. Truthfully, I have heard this story dozens of times this week and none of the local news media have questioned that Obama essentially came to Joe. (I am currently involved in a project - a GOOD project - that has the unfortunate side effect of me hearing the evening news from multiple stations each evening. I haven't listened to broadcast news in the last ten years as much as I have in the last 3 weeks. I do, however, remember why I stopped watching it. More on that later.) |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Minuet | Oct 18 2008, 04:44 PM Post #34 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
O/T I just wanted to note that if you find you have the need to continually clarify that you are not being insulting then maybe you should take a step back, reword your comments and truthfully try not to be insulting. When you make these types of comments you only hurt your own credibility with people from all sides of the issue. Continue....... |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Dwayne | Oct 18 2008, 04:48 PM Post #35 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
You said, "If you think this is socialism then by that definition the United States of America is already a socialist nation." Well, you're right, America already has become that to a degree. We're trying to stop it from going any further. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| RTW | Oct 18 2008, 07:04 PM Post #36 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
People earning "a lot" are already giving at more than 3x the rate than those others your speak about. Redistribution has never helped in the past. Where are all the poor people who have been "redistributed" to the middle class. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| ds9074 | Oct 18 2008, 07:21 PM Post #37 |
|
Admiral
|
^^^ I have to disagree that redistribution "has never helped in the past". Just talking about my own country but redistribution of wealth here means people get services like education and healthcare they would not otherwise be able to afford and there are fewer people living in extreme poverty than would be the case. The majority of people have benefited from redistributed wealth at some point in their lives. Edited by ds9074, Oct 18 2008, 07:22 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| RTW | Oct 18 2008, 09:06 PM Post #38 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
People on the receiving end rarely seem progress to the giving side of the equation. Giving just enough money to eek by is akin to sentencing them to a life of poverty. Anything they do to improve their lot often causes the free money to get taken away ... like kicking the ladder out from underneath them. The message is clear, "stay poor and continue to vote for the people who promise the most but have never delivered." These people received education and healthcare with the current tax rates as well of times of lower tax rates. Obama himself admitted that higher tax rates usually decrease government revenue. "It's an issue of fairness" was the answer. It's a punishment on success. Wouldn't fairness be everyone paying the same percentage? |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| ImpulseEngine | Oct 18 2008, 11:15 PM Post #39 |
|
Admiral
|
No problem. I have already seen what evidence is out there anyway. I know what the address is right down to the house number. And I know that Obama was campaigning in that neighborhood. What I don't have though is proof that "Joe" really lives at that address. Just because a few blogs and blog commenters say so doesn't make it so. Thanks, but this only establishes where Obama was campaigning and where "Joe" was that day. It doesn't prove to me that he lives there. I realize you weren't providing it as proof, but as a direction for me to find the answer. However, I don't think it provides any more than I already know unless I'm missing your point. I'm not questioning that Obama was in this neighborhood nor am I questioning that Obama chose to go to that neighborhood. But that's where it ends. I am questioning what "Joe" was doing there that day. If he doesn't really live there, then he came to that neighborhood too. But, even if he does live in that neighborhood, that doesn't mean Obama approached him. He clearly had made some indication to Obama that he wanted to speak with him. It was "Joe" who initiated that dialog. In fact, I saw somewhere in the reading I have done on this that he himself stated that he wanted to speak with Obama specifically because he wanted to trip Obama up on the tax subject. He clearly initiated that contact. And, if you're wondering why I keep putting "Joe" in quotes, it's because his name is really Samuel (and I'm aware that his middle name is Joseph). There have been all kinds of fabrications with this guy, but McCain just jumped right on his bandwagon. I wonder if McCain plans to do such poor background research before he jumps on other bandwagons if he becomes President. Edited by ImpulseEngine, Oct 18 2008, 11:17 PM.
|
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Minuet | Oct 19 2008, 12:13 AM Post #40 |
|
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
|
Simple answer. No. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| RTW | Oct 19 2008, 12:42 AM Post #41 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
What do we make of Joe embracing his middle name publicly and Obamaniacs being upset when his is mentioned? |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Dwayne | Oct 19 2008, 01:49 AM Post #42 |
|
Profanity deleted by Hoss
|
You're attitide is part of what's wrong with the world... it's envy, plain and simple. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| RTW | Oct 19 2008, 03:36 AM Post #43 |
![]()
Vice Admiral
|
Nothing prevents anyone from paying additional taxes. In Kerry's home state, for example, the state income tax form had a line specifically for that purpose. He never used it. Another "I didn't mean me" moment? |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Wichita | Oct 19 2008, 07:03 AM Post #44 |
|
The Adminstrator wRench
|
I might be the one who is missing something, but your response does not appear to be consistent to me. As a result, I guess I really don't understand what your point is after all.
If you have looked at every single source of evidence, then you have seen the stories that include that Joe was tossing the football with his son in the front yard of the house that Obama walked up to in the process of going door-to-door. Are you saying that Joe put himself and his son in the front yard of a total stranger in the hopes that Obama would come to him? Or did you leave a qualfier out in front of the word "evidence"? If that is the case, what is your criteria for "evidence"?
If you don't believe that Joe lives in the neighborhood, what address are you referring to? The video doesn't establish a specific house where the interview took place. In fact, to me it looks like it took place literally in the street.
I either am REALLY not getting your point here. Frankly, as I understand it now, I find it rather frightening. If Obama came to the neighborhood with the intent of talking to people who live in the neighborhood, do you honestly think that the people should wait until he decides who he considers worthy of being talked to? It's THEIR neighborhood. Even taking into account Joe's tax lien (which, BTW, the treasurer of the Obama campaign also has), if he lives in the neighborhood he has paid more taxes and mortgage on the house that Obama does. The same goes for every other person who lives in the neighborhood. You agree that Obama picked the area. There is no evidence that he sought the permission of the residents before he did so. So why in the world should they have to wait to go where they choose when they choose in their own neighborhood and even potentially on their own properties? He came to the neighborhood with the intent to talk to talk to people. If someone lived in the neighborhood, why are they wrong simply because they walked up to him? Not getting that reasoning at all.
If you are implying that Joe made that statement PRIOR to Obama picking the street in the neighborhood that he picked, then I would love to see that source. I'm sorry, if a guy is standing across from my house or in front of the house behind me or I can see him down the block at the cross street, I do not agree that my walking up to the guy and asking him a polite question in a civil manner justifies every aspect of my personal life and information being gone through with a fine tooth comb and then broadcast to the world just because I didn't wait for him to walk up to me.
I pray that regardless of who is elected president that he does not demand a thorough background check of every private citizen before that citizen is permitted to talk to the President in public. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| ds9074 | Oct 19 2008, 08:27 AM Post #45 |
|
Admiral
|
Not everyone is going to get to the "giving side of the equation". Redistributed wealth helps people to make the most of their potential and it also helps those at the bottom to live more comfortable lives than they would otherwise. It’s a matter of fairness. There are many, many people who will work very hard in their jobs all their lives. Because the market sees these jobs as unskilled and therefore easy to fill they are not paid well. Frankly these people may be doing the best they can and may have lived up to their personal potential. They work damn hard, harder in many ways than people in more skilled professions where the wages are higher. They deserve to have some of the comforts that they would otherwise not be able to afford because of their low income. Their children also deserve not to be tied down by the low income of their parents, to not be forced into working at a young age to boost the family income as happened in the past, they deserve to be able to explore their potential through education and freedom from treatable illness. My grandfather was denied the chance to stay on at school despite being an intelligent man. Why? Because his parents could not afford to pay for his school uniform. They had to make a priority of things like food and rent. Was that fair? No it was not. It was wasted potential. He ended up doing semi-manual work and never had a great deal of money. He never owned his own home and left his wife a modest pension. His daughter however, living under the new welfare state, did get to go to school, then got to go to college and then spent 40 years doing highly skilled professional work. She does own her own home. She has been able to fulfil her potential and countless people have benefited from the job she has done helping disabled children. |
| Offline | Profile | ^ |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic » |



2:14 PM Jul 11