|
Joe the Plumber (pg. 6)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
yeah, it's painfully obvious you think the "relevancy" of Obama's answer to Joe's question is directly proportional how many times its mentioned. so not mention it at all and everything will be fine is your defence? tell me something thats not so obvious:haha:
more to the point though...my God you people never cease to amaze me.
how many times have politicians invoked people they've met on the campaign trail in a stump speech or debate of some sort? people like this are invoked because of their common connection with not only the electorate at large but whatever percieved connection they have to that particular candidate's viewpoint. how is this guy any different? i'll tell you why...
this time the person who was invoked revealed something very telling about Obama, now he's targeted like a public official instead of who he really is or represents, the electorate.
McCain brought up this guy because of what it revealed about your candidate, plain and simple. if anything is telling now it's how people like you tolerate, even condone, the personal destuction of people for what they believe in or what they expect out of the people THEY want working for THEM.
if you can't step out of the f**king box and see how f**ked up that is then you are what's wrong with this country not guys like Joe the Plumber or even Obama for that matter |
This has absolutely nothing to do with Obama. lol.
"Joe the Plumber" was mentioned 21 times in the space of an hour and a half by John McCain in front of 50 million or more viewers. Of course people were going to want to find out who he was since McCain made him such a central figure.
I don't 'tolerate' the personal destruction of anybody (even though that's hardly been the case here, as Joe himself has said he's tickled by the attention) - but the question isn't what garnered the attention - it's McCain's utilization of the question and Joe's good name to score political points 21 times in that debate. |
|
|
| LatinLover |
I'm sick and tired of the far left portaying people that earn an income of 250K+ a year being labeled as extremely wealthy. That is BS! These individuals we can say have more financial flexibility than others earning less. But the notion that these people should be taxed even more its a truly dissapointing. I mean, all americans work hard for their money. Some work more and are rewarded a bit more, guess what? thats life and they should be able to enjoy the fruits of their work and not be taken away from them.
Obama talks about they can afford to be taxed a bit more.... Obama should raise the bracket and tax those that earn tens and hundreds of million of dollars. There is no doubt that those individuals can afford to pay more to uncle sam. But to those earning 250k+ that includes the doctor, the lawyer & the small business owner etc. is truly dilussional view from his part |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by LatinLover
I'm sick and tired of the far left portaying people that earn an income of 250K+ a year being labeled as extremely wealthy. That is BS! These individuals we can say have more financial flexibility than others earning less. But the notion that these people should be taxed even more its a truly dissapointing. I mean, all americans work hard for their money. Some work more and are rewarded a bit more, guess what? thats life and they should be able to enjoy the fruits of their work and not be taken away from them.
Obama talks about they can afford to be taxed a bit more.... Obama should raise the bracket and tax those that earn tens and hundreds of million of dollars. There is no doubt that those individuals can afford to pay more to uncle sam. But to those earning 250k+ that includes the doctor, the lawyer & the small business owner etc. is truly dilussional view from his part |
Yeah, cause for those making $250,000 a year, an increase in annual taxation by $740 is definitely an undue hindrance to their ability to enjoy the fruits of their labor. |
|
|
| jerZ07002 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Shakka
Ever heard the phrase "give him an inch and he'll take a mile?" |
i sure have. the problem with that phrase in this context is the president can't actually take anything. its not like he can unilaterally increase the rate or lower the bracket thresholds.
i think the obama plan is simply to allow the expiration of the rate reductions introduced by bush and now codified in IRC section 1(i)(2). If you actually look at the rates in the internal revenue code, the code includes the 39.6% rate for those making over 250K. Noone is even giving Obama anything, the higher rates will apply after 2010 simply by inaction on the part of Congress. On the other hand, in order for the lower rates to apply past 2010, Obama would actually have to ask congress to pass law. In summary, no one is giving him an inch, so he has no opportunity to take a mile.
as an aside: taxes during most the reagan administration were much higher for the rich. the rate for the top bracket was 50% for most of his admin, and the threshold amount was much much lower (ranging from about 30K to 170K) than the top threshold amount today. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lebezniatnikov
This has absolutely nothing to do with Obama. lol. |
yeah, you don't want this to be about Obama. i get it.
Obama's answer to this guy's question is the distraction, right. even the question itself is a distration, right? you would rather this be about the plumber, no, i get it. funny though, was that was the context in which McCain brought him up in the debate. what's even funnier is somehow that context escapes you while you advocate the vetting of this man.
so what is the non sequitur here? i'll tell you
Joe the plumber's past party affiliations is a non sequitur
Joe the Plumbers potential vote is a non sequitur
Joe the plumber's divorce is a non sequitur.
Joe the Plumber's current income is a non sequitur.
Joe the Plumber's $1200 tax lien is a non sequitur.
Joe the Plumber's relationship with his neighbors is a non sequitur.
whatever criminal background Joe the Plumber has or doesn't have is a non sequitur
IOW Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher born December 3, 1973 is a non sequitur.
| quote: | "Joe the Plumber" was mentioned 21 times in the space of an hour and a half by John McCain in front of 50 million or more viewers. Of course people were going to want to find out who he was since McCain made him such a central figure.
I don't 'tolerate' the personal destruction of anybody (even though that's hardly been the case here, as Joe himself has said he's tickled by the attention) - but the question isn't what garnered the attention - it's McCain's utilization of the question and Joe's good name to score political points 21 times in that debate. |
you realize you're entire argument advocating the vetting this guy is how many times his name was said during one debate? silly, almost childish IMO. |
|
|
| MisterOpus1 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Q5echo
yeah, you don't want this to be about Obama. i get it.
Obama's answer to this guy's question is the distraction, right. even the question itself is a distration, right? you would rather this be about the plumber, no, i get it. funny though, was that was the context in which McCain brought him up in the debate. what's even funnier is somehow that context escapes you while you advocate the vetting of this man.
so what is the non sequitur here? i'll tell you
Joe the plumber's past party affiliations is a non sequitur
Joe the Plumbers potential vote is a non sequitur
Joe the plumber's divorce is a non sequitur.
Joe the Plumber's current income is a non sequitur.
Joe the Plumber's $1200 tax lien is a non sequitur.
Joe the Plumber's relationship with his neighbors is a non sequitur.
whatever criminal background Joe the Plumber has or doesn't have is a non sequitur
IOW Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher born December 3, 1973 is a non sequitur.
you realize you're entire argument advocating the vetting this guy is how many times his name was said during one debate? silly, almost childish IMO. |
So IOW, the person's background, shortcomings in the past, and "character" that defines him by his past actions are nothing shy of non sequiturs?
Excellent point, Q. Thanks for the ultimate irony. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| quote: | Originally posted by MisterOpus1
So IOW, the person's background, shortcomings in the past, and "character" that defines him by his past actions are nothing shy of non sequiturs? |
look we got another one pissed that Obama was questioned.
no Opus, in your haste to somehow nail me as a hypocrite you've failed to realize that Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher is not asking for our vote.
i don't know man, maybe if i were hiring a plumber "background and character" would be relevant or if we were hiring a plumber to be the POTUS it would be relevant...but we're not. he's the one thats actually doing the hiring therefore he deserves all due respect |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
Since when is the observation that this was inevitable because John McCain placed Joe the Plumber front and center in his campaign become synonymous with ADVOCATING investigation into his personal life? This whole thing is ridiculous - the fact that Obama's answer was dead right and McCain's assertion at the debate dead wrong AND the fact that McCain supporters are somehow blaming Obama for the fact that everyone now knows who Joe the Plumber is.
In all honesty, I'd think I was watching a sketch comedy if this was played out in person. |
|
|
| Q5echo |
| i've said my peace...or piece whatever |
|
|
| Magnetonium |
I realized something really scary yesterday. At my co-op job, I have a co-worker who is pretty much like LatinLover. I only realized it after we somehow over lunch talked about Bush and then he dropped the bomb on us by voicing his support of the Bush administration (and McCain and the likes). And he is very open about it and loves Bush and thinks he is a great leader. The guy is a jerk, but he is a senior worker in charge of a specific section, hence we just ignore him.
Cant believe there's actually quite a few people out there that absolutely adore Bush Jr., despite of all the horrendous crap he's done
:eek: :disbelief |
|
|
| Krypton |
| quote: | Originally posted by Magnetonium
I realized something really scary yesterday. At my co-op job, I have a co-worker who is pretty much like LatinLover. I only realized it after we somehow over lunch talked about Bush and then he dropped the bomb on us by voicing his support of the Bush administration (and McCain and the likes). And he is very open about it and loves Bush and thinks he is a great leader. The guy is a jerk, but he is a senior worker in charge of a specific section, hence we just ignore him.
Cant believe there's actually quite a few people out there that absolutely adore Bush Jr., despite of all the horrendous crap he's done
:eek: :disbelief |
Yea, I really can't stand those people. If I have to encounter them, or if one of them turns out to be my friend, I make it clear, no discussion of politics please. If me and Q were friends, we'de have to come to that kind of agreement. Unless we were baked...:happy2: |
|
|
| Lebezniatnikov |
| quote: | Originally posted by Krypton
Yea, I really can't stand those people. If I have to encounter them, or if one of them turns out to be my friend, I make it clear, no discussion of politics please. If me and Q were friends, we'de have to come to that kind of agreement. Unless we were baked...:happy2: |
And to think you used to be just like them. :) |
|
|
|
|
