I say it again, Joe the Plumber, te kind of guy who Obama and the Democrats claim to be working for and are now dragging all over the floor. I guess not only did Obama get "caught in an accidental, unscripted moment of honesty, and he blurted out his real agenda" (thanks Humbordt), but now we know that Obama and the Democrats are the defenders of people like Joe the POlumber only if they are Democrats or Liberals. Make me wonder if Obama's economic plans will exclude Liberal and/or Democratic businesses who make more than $250,000 from raising their taxes and raise taxes on those who make less than $250,000 that are Conservative and/or Republican.

Darn double post, guess my comment was so good it was worth a second mention.

JOA posts #29

Right..Obama was in Joe's neighborhood cadging votes and happened upon Joe Wurzlelbacher who asked Obama about his tax plan and why he (Joe) should be "taxed more and more for fulfilling the American dream"?

JOA posts #29

Evidently not, if you sucessfully get Obama to paint himself as a Marxist Socialist espousing the socialist policy of "spreading the wealth around becasue it's good for everybody".

humbordt posts #34

Exactly....yet, we know  Obama and the Left's ways....their standard operating procedures....it is the same as Clinton's....Obama can't handle the truth of the message....so......have your Leftists goonies (mainstream media included) attack the messenger... 

sodaiho posts #45

The issue is that Obama if elected will bring change all right....he'll try his level best to bring in his Marxist Socialist ideas that have been ingrained in him by his longtime pal like Weather Underground terrorist Bill Ayers.... Gone will be government by the people for the people of the people....

Depends on what the motivation was. If it was to distract from what Obama said, than yes, it was dishonorable. If it wasn't that... than what was it? There are a lot of unlicensed tax deadbeats out there. Who cares? Why do we have to have to know the gory details about the one who asked Obama a real question? You don't like Joe being used as a model, but you seem to be fine with him being used as a smoke-screen.

You said it was "unwise" of Obama to say what he said, and that disturbs me. It's now unwise for a presidential candidate to say what he's really thinking--to tell the truth. The issue here, as I see it, isn't even about what his policies are, but about how the only time he'll come right out and say what they are, is when he does it accidentally. And then his supporters swoop in and try and hide it. "That guy Joe isn't perfect, so whatever Obama told him doesn't count."

Obama is a socialist. That's fine, he's allowed to be. But I do wish he'd just come clean about it.

This is very interesting to me.  The article is actually about Joe, and McCain's repeated use of Joe, as an exemplar.  Obama says something about redistributing the wealth and conservative defender's of McCain slip into attack mode avoiding the Joe issue altogether.  Talk about hiding. Actually, its the old bait and switch. So it goes.

The Joe issue, folks, is whether or not McCain should have set up Joe as an exemplar in the first place!  Goodness. 

Unfortunately, as I really am enjoying this thread as we twist in the wind of politics, I am leaving for my mountain refuge. On the otherhand, a weekend without news and the escallating screach of one party against another, may be a real blessing.

Be well

well mr. lulapilgrim, if your insinuation is that it was all staged, i'm throwing in the towel completely.  I am so sick and tired of the lack of integrity within this country I want to vomit.  If we have come to the point where in order to find truth we need to question everything and everyone, then tell me, how are we any different than the communist countries where every man was held in suspicion.

It may be gulable of me to actually think Joe is just Joe, however, if he is not, and what you allude to is actual, neither candidate is worthy of presidency and participation in this election is participation in a nation wide sham to convince us that we are still a democracy.

if our candidates are such decievers as this, perhaps being more honest about the state of our union is appropriate.  The people who are for socialism or marxism should just say so.

joa

be well

joa

That's because there is no Joe issue. I really don't see why you can't understand that. His bona fides have been questioned and distorted beyond all reason to try and hide what Obama said.

McCain used him because he asked Obama a direct question, and because of the answer Obama gave.  It was Joe's question, not Joe himself, that matters. If Joe isn't completely on the up and up (and the more we hear about that, the more it looks like a complete distortion), there are still a lot of real life Joes out there who have all their ducks in a row and who perfectly fit the Joe model that you don't like. Joe is just a guy, imperfect just like the rest of us. "Joe the Plumber" (or "Joe the Model" if you prefer) is a whole bunch of people.

Have a good weekend.

That was my point exactly. But nobody is going to admit, in their own mind, that if they have to hide their real intentions in order to get elected, then they shouldn't be running.

Wow, you really touched a nerve there! How dare you say anything against the person McCain used to base so many points around? It's just not allowed! You can only try and point out discrediting facts about someone if they're a democrat/liberal here it seems .

Either way, I bet 'Joe' is regretting asking that question given all the attention he's received (+hence dirt thats been dug up)! I wonder what the odds are now on a new McCain add attacking Obama for taking advice from a fraud and tax evader for the final debate .

Oh and just before all the attacks come, I really don't care about Joe's background in the grand scheme of things, to me it's just a funny story.

Excuse me but what the fuck is going on here?  Allow me to be frank with you all...I read comments up to page two and I'm not reading any further because you guys are behaving worse than the news reporters in trying to discredit Sadaho!  He was obviously gleeful in what he read about Joe the Plumber, did we really not expect the news people to go find out who he really was since McCain made such a big deal about him throughout his entire debate?  Of course they would. McCain wants us all to know how intouch he is with the masses, look them in the eyes, call them by their names and tell them what they want to hear to relate to them.  And we think this was going to not get any further? 

Now that some things are being said about Mr Joe the Plumber, instead of discussing and stating facts, this has become a way to discredit the writer of this blog.  That is so wrong!  Taking it to a level like this is inexcusable!

This is bullshit Charles!  Joe the Plumber was called out and identified again and again by McCain who wanted to make a point.  As usual he jumps with both feet into the river before really looking.  The better to impress you with!

Goodness is right.  McCain didn't 'set up Joe' as an 'exemplar' - an event happened, McCain used that event to pin Obama on a economic political point, justifiably so.  Rather than defend Obama on the issue, people like you have chosen to waterboard Joe.

As for those defending Sodaiho's position, talk about twisting!  You have made a Gordian Knot out of the event and twisted it inside out, all to avoid the obvious.  Pathetic, simply pathetic.

I hope Sodaiho's weekend of reflection brings him some insight.

Also, this is rich. The "conservative defenders of McCain" are using a statement by Barack Obama, a presidential candidate who pretty much came right out and said he's a socialist, to avoid discussing a plumber from Ohio.

The old bait and switch. 

Come on, really?

That's just it. Things are being said about Mr Joe the Plumber, istead of discussing and stating facts. 

And nobody's trying to "discredit" Sodaiho (well, at least I'm not, I can't speak for everybody, but I don't think they are). I haven't said a thing about his credentials, or attacked him personally. I'm just arguing with him about what he calls "the Joe issue." 

I argue with my wife all the time. Doesn't mean I'm trying to discredit her.

What Joe "issue"? Is Joe running for office or something?

There is no Joe "issue".  The issue is Obama's answer to the question.  Obama has stated that he believes that the government's role is to "spread the wealth".

JOANOFARC POSTS:

Excuse me, but I think you have misunderstood my point or have me mixed up with someone else...

You said:

and I agreed.....saying:

Obama was campainging in Joe's Toledo neighborhood and Joe asked him some questions that got shown on TV. Obama's answer by his saying his plan would "sharing the wealth around" revealed his Marxist Socialist leanings.....by mentioning Joe's question and Obama's answer, McCain brilliantly exposed Obama true leanings.

Instead of discussing Obama's Marxist leanings, we are discussing this and that about Joe...an average citizen who is now being dumped on by the media, etc. 

btw, Joe will be interviewed by Mike Huckabee on his program tonight at 8PM. (Fox news cable).  

thanks for clarifying, my mistake

joa

not rocket science, but well said.

joa

They are non-profit which is good enough.   Anyways charities can discriminate.  Do childrens charities have to give toys to adults?  I can no longer go to shriners hospital for my CP as an adult (not that I mind they did great for me as a kid time to help out others).  Chuches can help out members of their church before others too.

Considering how much some churches own, I find the notion that they are "non-profit" laughable. Especially in the case of Scientology even the idea is ridiculous.

I didn't think charities were allowed to discriminate if they made use of tax breaks, since I thought the reason they weren't taxed was because they were good for society (as opposed to good for some group). I don't think differentiating between children and adults is "discrimination" in the legal sense.

some are nothing but businesses disquised as churches, but please don't group them all as the same. Just like anything else some give a bad name for the rest of the bunch.

Just about every church I've been involved in over the years had nothing but a church building and their lot as owned property.  In the cases of very old churches quite often all they had was a postage size lot after selling off surrounding property to pay the bills. 

Some of these mega churches today, I have to wonder about tho. 

"Spread the wealth" does not mean take the money from the rich and give that money directly to the poor.  Sure there are programs and initiatives in place to actually provide money for those in need - welfare, food stamps, bail-out plans, etc.  I, in the middle class, also help out those individuals with my taxes, but I would like to keep much more of my money too.  Obama is not talking about giving all the wealth to the poor in this country; people still do have to work to get out of whatever hole or trouble they are in.  Fairness cannot be equated to Socialism.  It's time we started helping out the ones that need help instead of just expecting that the ones with money should get the same breaks as those without.  Keep in mind also that tax money doesn't just go to people.  What about the social programs, research, defense, grants, etc.  The American Dream should be available for everyone, but we don't have to be selfish to attain it or maintain an excessive lifestyle.  If Joe can't start up his business right away, well maybe he'll have to save some more, make adjustments to his plan, or just look for something else he might find to be an easier pursuit of wealth if those may be his true intentions for the business; this is the land of opportunity, is it not?

Yes, I used the word "church" for any organisation that claims to be religious. Don't misunderstand me. I have no doubt that your run-of-the-mill Christian church is legitimate and working for the good of society. It's organisations like Scientology and other pseudo-religions that I accuse of being fronts.

The Christian church with its Sunday services, its minister or priest, its Sunday school, and Christian teachings is not the problem. I know Christian churches will happily give their teachings and services to people for free. It's not a business, holy secrets against money, it's a mission.

Yepp.

Exactly. It doesn't seem like they give away much of their money for good causes other than investing into the organisation that is supposed to give to the good causes.

Good Afternoon All,

It was wonderful being at the Refuge without media or computer.  I recommend a few days off from the news to each of you. Its so toxic.

May you each be a blessing in the universe.

Be well.

Helping a small section of society helps all of society. "Discrimination" in the legal sense is a funny subject.

Wouldn't the title be registered somewhere, by both the seller and the buyer?