Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Locked Topic
Joe the Plumber?; Not a plumber. And not even called Joe
Topic Started: Oct 17 2008, 06:00 AM (2,535 Views)
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 20 2008, 08:32 AM
Minuet
Oct 20 2008, 08:04 AM
Really? I know much is made of the connection between some Fundamentalist Christian groups and the Republicans, but I was unaware of any prosecutions. Could you link to some specific cases?
Democrats campaign from churches during EVERY election cycle. No one calls them on it. This has been going on for decades.

Of course it is couched by the media as, "Bob Schlobotnik attended the African Methodist Church of Evanston, Illinois, where he gave a brief invocation." Or addressed a congregation. Yadda, yadda, yadda. In reality, Candidate Schlobotnik went to a church and asked for their vote.

Hell, here's one:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-takes-ebe.html

Was this investigated? No.
So are you telling me that a Republican candidate never does the same thing that Obama did? A Republican has never spoken to a church group?

From Dwayne's link it appears to me that the law states that the Pastor, Minister, Rabbi, etc... is not to name a specific candidate and tell people to vote for them. It does not seem to disallow the invitation of a candidate to speak for themselves and frankly I don't believe for a minute that ONLY Democrat leaning churches do this.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
http://www.star-telegram.com/religion/story/968453.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/02/27/politics/fromtheroad/entry3885063.shtml

http://www.publicopiniononline.com/ci_10634397
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Minuet
Oct 20 2008, 08:37 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 20 2008, 08:32 AM
Minuet
Oct 20 2008, 08:04 AM
Really? I know much is made of the connection between some Fundamentalist Christian groups and the Republicans, but I was unaware of any prosecutions. Could you link to some specific cases?
Democrats campaign from churches during EVERY election cycle. No one calls them on it. This has been going on for decades.

Of course it is couched by the media as, "Bob Schlobotnik attended the African Methodist Church of Evanston, Illinois, where he gave a brief invocation." Or addressed a congregation. Yadda, yadda, yadda. In reality, Candidate Schlobotnik went to a church and asked for their vote.

Hell, here's one:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-takes-ebe.html

Was this investigated? No.
So are you telling me that a Republican candidate never does the same thing that Obama did? A Republican has never spoken to a church group?

From Dwayne's link it appears to me that the law states that the Pastor, Minister, Rabbi, etc... is not to name a specific candidate and tell people to vote for them. It does not seem to disallow the invitation of a candidate to speak for themselves and frankly I don't believe for a minute that ONLY Democrat leaning churches do this.
No, I didn't say that. I said that Democrats are the ones more likely to do that, and in fact DO do this on a regular basis.
Offline | Profile ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Wichita
Oct 19 2008, 07:03 AM
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.
The gist of my point is that I'm not convinced Joe isn't a plant. If Joe doesn't live in that neighborhood, then one would have to ask what he was doing there that day and it would lend support to the possibility of him being a plant. So I asked if there is proof that he actually lives in that neighborhood because, if so, that would negate the notion that he came there that day from someplace else. But the absence of such proof also leaves the possibility open. Furthermore, if he's a plant, he would almost inevitably have to speak first, not Obama. That doesn't mean speaking first makes him a plant only that, if Obama truly spoke first, it's unlikely that he would be a plant.

Quote:
 
ImpulseEngine
 
I have already seen what evidence is out there anyway.


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"?
Of course I haven't seen EVERYTHING that's out there nor did I intend to claim to have. I meant that I doubt anyone is going to produce something I haven't seen, but I also would never have asked for evidence if I didn't think it was still possible. As for Joe and his son tossing a football, I hadn't heard that, but I also have no idea where that claim came from. If Joe is a plant, then he knew Obama was coming that way and it certainly is possible he started playing catch on a stranger's lawn just before Obama arrived.

Quote:
 
ImpulseEngine
 
I know what the address is right down to the house number.


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 thought you said you didn't want that posted here. The interview looks like it's in the street to me too. I was talking about where Joe supposedly lives, not where the interview took place. I'm not sure what your point is here.

Quote:
 
ImpulseEngine
 
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.


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.
Hopefully, you understand my point now from what I stated above. Of course, people are allowed to initiate talking to Obama. But a plant would likely have to initiate it. So the point is, if Obama initiated it, Joe is likely not a plant. If Joe initiated it, then he could be a plant, but it would tell us nothing because he could easily not be too just based on him initiating it and nothing else. This came up because I had said he approached Obama and Dwayne claimed it was the other way around. Which is correct makes a difference.

Quote:
 
ImpulseEngine
 
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.


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.
Joe's statement was in an interview that happened after this encounter with Obama. I looked at so many articles I have no idea where I saw this one now. And why are you blaming Obama for the examination Joe is receiving? What has caused that examination is the publication of the encounter on Youtube and the debate, not the encounter itself. I would guess the debate probably had the most influence and it was McCain who brought this guy up there. I'm not blaming McCain for the scrutiny either, but the point is Obama doesn't deserve that blame. The blame goes to the media.

Quote:
 
ImpulseEngine
 
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.


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.
What I was talking about is McCain apparently didn't check him out before making him his debate poster guy. It was predictable that anyone brought up in the debate as the average Joe (no pun intended) who would be negatively impacted by something from either campaign would receive public scrutiny. Since the intent of bringing up this guy was obviously to help McCain's campaign effort, it would have been prudent of him to make sure there wasn't anything about this guy that could end up hurting instead. But the guy's name isn't really Joe, he has two liens on his house for unpaid taxes, he doesn't have a plumber's license, and he isn't in the financial position to be able to purchase the business he claims he is "getting ready" to do. In short, he was lying through his teeth just to try to trip Obama up and this is who McCain wants to use as an example? That's why McCain should have done the background check, not simply because Joe spoke with Obama.


And that last part brings me to my whole point. With this guy lying about so much, why should I believe anything from him at face value? Just because he said he lives in that neighborhood, doesn't mean he really does? There is proof that someone named Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher lives in that neighborhood on that street, but how do I even know this guy IS Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher? He didn't introduce himself as Samuel. Sure, "Joe" could be a nickname, but then again, he might not even be Joe Wurzelbacher at all. What's to have stopped him from looking up this guy's name before he dropped by the neighborhood that morning so it would appear authentic? Oh wait, the real Samuel would complain that it wasn't him. But then this guy didn't introduce himself as Samuel... I admit it sounds unlikely, but then "unlikely" often becomes fact in an election.

And let's say this guy really is Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher and really does live on that street. That still doesn't rule out his being a plant. Obama visits many places. The Republican party knows of it's active Republican members. It could have been just waiting for Obama to visit a neighborhood where it knew somebody like Joe and asked or paid this Joe to do them a favor when they finally found one.

Regardless, in the end, it doesn't matter much whether Joe is a plant anyway; it would only make the matter somewhat worse. Even if he isn't a plant, the McCain campaign saw what they thought was an opportunity and tried to use it. They didn't care about the scrutiny that Joe would receive nor did they care enough to do the background checking. Or maybe they did and they were simply ok with lies making a point that was politically convenient. Anyway you look at it, it doesn't speak very well for the McCain campaign at all.

Offline | Profile ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
And I never said that leftists are never called to the carpet for campaigning from the pulpet, I just said there is a disparity of enforcement.
Edited by Dwayne, Oct 20 2008, 11:33 AM.
Offline | Profile ^
 
ImpulseEngine
Admiral
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 19 2008, 09:29 AM
ImpulseEngine
Oct 18 2008, 11:15 PM
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.
Isn't that just a bit petty?

After all, William is my middle name, but you've never typed my name as "Bill" before, now have you? You've heard of nicknames before, haven't you?

This sounds like, and I'm sorry to say this, you using the DNC talking points.

How convenient that you completely ignored the context in which I mentioned the name issue. Please see what I just wrote toward the bottom of my reply to Wichita. The guy apparently lies and, as such, I question the use of "Joe" when his name is "Samuel". Sure, it could be a nickname, and in the absence of anything else I probably wouldn't have thought twice about it. But it certainly isn't in the absence of anything else.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 20 2008, 11:08 AM
whitestar
Oct 19 2008, 09:32 PM
Your obsession with evils of the left is irrational Dwayne, look around the world some, there are examples of nations who have had some influence of socialistic policies and still manage to do just fine, retain freedoms and manage a government budget with surplus.
Joe the plumber, what a storm in a tea cup, don't be so shocked at the efforts used by either side to discredit or embellish his questions. The very first political tactic (of any political flavour) when faced with any seemingly credible opposition is to discredit that credibility, it's standard practice, nothing personal even if it includes shredding someone's personal life. It's just a fact of life.
We had a similar incident here regarding a whistle blower inside our military and intelligence ranks. He contradicted the Government's (conservative govt) position regarding their assesment of Saddam's WMD, setting out in public completely the intelligence ranks assesment and advise given to the govt. It throughly contradicted what the govt claimed (it's opinion falling in line with US claims). The Govt's reaction was to discredit this man in public, drag his personal life into full scrutiny, throw in rumours of mental incompentance, ruined his career in the military and attempted to ruin any future employment prospects with false accusations of immoral behavior. Politics Dwayne, is a ruthless game.. no matter the colour of the political party.
Here's something that could happen when you "spread the wealth around."

http://www.newsobserver.com/news/story/1260755-p2.html

:no:

This is scare mongering of the worst kind. Instead of looking to a country which has a long history of social ills why don't you make a REALISTIC comparison to Canada, Australia or a Western European country.

Offline | Profile ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Dwayne
Oct 20 2008, 11:32 AM
And I never said that leftists are never called to the carpet for campaigning from the pulpet, I just said there is a disparity of enforcement.
Ummmm - yes you did.

Dwayne
 
Church-State separation... democrats using church pews to recruit... they've been doing it for years, but only the right gets in trouble for it.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 20 2008, 11:08 AM
Minuet
Oct 20 2008, 08:37 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 20 2008, 08:32 AM
Minuet
Oct 20 2008, 08:04 AM
Really? I know much is made of the connection between some Fundamentalist Christian groups and the Republicans, but I was unaware of any prosecutions. Could you link to some specific cases?
Democrats campaign from churches during EVERY election cycle. No one calls them on it. This has been going on for decades.

Of course it is couched by the media as, "Bob Schlobotnik attended the African Methodist Church of Evanston, Illinois, where he gave a brief invocation." Or addressed a congregation. Yadda, yadda, yadda. In reality, Candidate Schlobotnik went to a church and asked for their vote.

Hell, here's one:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-takes-ebe.html

Was this investigated? No.
So are you telling me that a Republican candidate never does the same thing that Obama did? A Republican has never spoken to a church group?

From Dwayne's link it appears to me that the law states that the Pastor, Minister, Rabbi, etc... is not to name a specific candidate and tell people to vote for them. It does not seem to disallow the invitation of a candidate to speak for themselves and frankly I don't believe for a minute that ONLY Democrat leaning churches do this.
No, I didn't say that. I said that Democrats are the ones more likely to do that, and in fact DO do this on a regular basis.
Who does it "more often" is not at issue if they are not breaking the law.

I will repeat what I wrote earlier and ask if I am interpreting the law correctly. I believe the law states that a CLERGYPERSON is not allowed to tell people who they should vote for. From what you guys have written here I don't believe it is illegal for a POLITICIAN to speak from the pulpit.

With that said - did you miss the link I posted about Sarah Palin and her preaching from the pulpit? I honestly don't believe for a second that one side does it more or less then the other. The only issue here is if anyone has broken the law. The IRS has clearly gone after churches on both sides of the issues according to Dwayne's links. Neither of you has proven that one side broke the law more then the other, nor have you proven that one side gets picked on by the authorities more then the other.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Dwayne
Profanity deleted by Hoss
^^^ Oh, my gosh, I forgot to qualify my statement down to it's narrowest meaning. Oh no, my whole argument has collapsed now!

Now, address the disparity or...

Oh, just forget about it... I'm taking the advice and putting you on ignore.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
What disparity should I address? You have not PROVEN that one exists.

You can put me on ignore if you like but it will only hurt your own credibility when you refuse to answer my questions and prove your assertions.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
ImpulseEngine
Oct 20 2008, 11:35 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 19 2008, 09:29 AM
ImpulseEngine
Oct 18 2008, 11:15 PM
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.
Isn't that just a bit petty?

After all, William is my middle name, but you've never typed my name as "Bill" before, now have you? You've heard of nicknames before, haven't you?

This sounds like, and I'm sorry to say this, you using the DNC talking points.

How convenient that you completely ignored the context in which I mentioned the name issue. Please see what I just wrote toward the bottom of my reply to Wichita. The guy apparently lies and, as such, I question the use of "Joe" when his name is "Samuel". Sure, it could be a nickname, and in the absence of anything else I probably wouldn't have thought twice about it. But it certainly isn't in the absence of anything else.
Wow, nice tapdance.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Minuet
Oct 20 2008, 11:47 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 20 2008, 11:08 AM
Minuet
Oct 20 2008, 08:37 AM
Admiralbill_gomec
Oct 20 2008, 08:32 AM
Minuet
Oct 20 2008, 08:04 AM
Really? I know much is made of the connection between some Fundamentalist Christian groups and the Republicans, but I was unaware of any prosecutions. Could you link to some specific cases?
Democrats campaign from churches during EVERY election cycle. No one calls them on it. This has been going on for decades.

Of course it is couched by the media as, "Bob Schlobotnik attended the African Methodist Church of Evanston, Illinois, where he gave a brief invocation." Or addressed a congregation. Yadda, yadda, yadda. In reality, Candidate Schlobotnik went to a church and asked for their vote.

Hell, here's one:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2008/01/obama-takes-ebe.html

Was this investigated? No.
So are you telling me that a Republican candidate never does the same thing that Obama did? A Republican has never spoken to a church group?

From Dwayne's link it appears to me that the law states that the Pastor, Minister, Rabbi, etc... is not to name a specific candidate and tell people to vote for them. It does not seem to disallow the invitation of a candidate to speak for themselves and frankly I don't believe for a minute that ONLY Democrat leaning churches do this.
No, I didn't say that. I said that Democrats are the ones more likely to do that, and in fact DO do this on a regular basis.
Who does it "more often" is not at issue if they are not breaking the law.

I will repeat what I wrote earlier and ask if I am interpreting the law correctly. I believe the law states that a CLERGYPERSON is not allowed to tell people who they should vote for. From what you guys have written here I don't believe it is illegal for a POLITICIAN to speak from the pulpit.

With that said - did you miss the link I posted about Sarah Palin and her preaching from the pulpit? I honestly don't believe for a second that one side does it more or less then the other. The only issue here is if anyone has broken the law. The IRS has clearly gone after churches on both sides of the issues according to Dwayne's links. Neither of you has proven that one side broke the law more then the other, nor have you proven that one side gets picked on by the authorities more then the other.
Of course you don't believe it, but I've lived here too long and actually seen it.

The problem is that you're one step removed from the US, and something that me (or Dwayne or RTW) sees every day doesn't pop up on your radar, so you seem to assume that it just doesn't happen that way.

This reminds me of the Pauline Kael (society dowager/film critic) in New York City who expressed shock that Nixon had been re-elected in 1972. "Nixon can't have won; no one I know voted for him."
Offline | Profile ^
 
Minuet
Member Avatar
Fleet Admiral Assistant wRench, Chief Supper Officer
What have you seen? I keep asking for specifics and all I get in response is "Believe me I know".

Not good enough. I am willing to look at real evidence. But I have dealt with some of you long enough to know that the perception of people on either the right or the left doesn't always match reality.

Don't give me your perception. Give me facts. And try to open your own mind to some facts too. I direct you once again to the link I provided with the article about Sarah Palin. It is irrefutable proof that Republicans speak from the pulpit without recourse.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Admiralbill_gomec
UberAdmiral
Minuet
Oct 20 2008, 01:54 PM
What have you seen? I keep asking for specifics and all I get in response is "Believe me I know".

Not good enough. I am willing to look at real evidence. But I have dealt with some of you long enough to know that the perception of people on either the right or the left doesn't always match reality.

Don't give me your perception. Give me facts. And try to open your own mind to some facts too. I direct you once again to the link I provided with the article about Sarah Palin. It is irrefutable proof that Republicans speak from the pulpit without recourse.
I saw the link. So what. She did it too. That DOES NOT mean that Republicans "preach from the pulpit" more than Democrats do.
Offline | Profile ^
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Politics and World Events Forum · Next Topic »
Locked Topic

Tweet
comments powered by Disqus