Joe the Plumber vs. Colin Powell

[jillio]

 

[Jiro]

maybe NRA should send that gift to McCain

 

[Foxrac]

Colin Powell is more smarter than Joe the Idiot.

 

[darkdog]

The difference would be in your claim that the Obama supporters found something to "successfully" attack McCain over with Fred. McCain was not successful in his attacks, and in fact, it completely backfired. Seems to be a habit with him and his running mate.

The degree of success of McCain's attack, or lack thereof, is irrelevant here. Are you avoiding the main point of my argument? Would you be fine with a similiar campaign to find every bit of dirt possible in order to embarrass and demean Fred the Roofer?

 

[netrox]

Joe's a fool. He has no friggen clue what he's talking about. He just made GOP look more ridiculous.

 

[Jiro]

 

[Tousi]

Jiro, what's this I am hearing about the tax cuts for making 250K, then 200K, and now 150K? Doubt this will be cleared up by Election Day.....

 

[Jiro]

Jiro, what's this I am hearing about the tax cuts for making 250K, then 200K, and now 150K? Doubt this will be cleared up by Election Day.....

better than $2,500,000.

 

[Beowulf]

Colin Powell is more smarter than Joe the Idiot.

Yup, Colin Powell is probably still numbed that we still kiss his arse in spite of his dishonorable lying to us about the war in Iraq. :P

 

[jillio]

The degree of success of McCain's attack, or lack thereof, is irrelevant here. Are you avoiding the main point of my argument? Would you be fine with a similiar campaign to find every bit of dirt possible in order to embarrass and demean Fred the Roofer?

I'm not avoiding your point at all. I addressed it. You simply failed to comprehend that it had been addressed.

 

[darkdog]

I'm not avoiding your point at all. I addressed it. You simply failed to comprehend that it had been addressed.

I looked at your post again, and decided to give you the benefit of the doubt that you did address my main point. There was no direct answer, so I had to read between the lines and do some interpretation. My interpretation is that you would not be fine with Fred the Roofer being demonized by the right. So that means you only respect people who happen to agree with you. Care to defend that position? Or if my interpretation is wrong, you may give me a more direct answer. After all, I'm only an amateur mind reader.

 

[jillio]

I looked at your post again, and decided to give you the benefit of the doubt that you did address my main point. There was no direct answer, so I had to read between the lines and do some interpretation. My interpretation is that you would not be fine with Fred the Roofer being demonized by the right. So that means you only respect people who happen to agree with you. Care to defend that position? Or if my interpretation is wrong, you may give me a more direct answer. After all, I'm only an amateur mind reader.

If you are only an amatuer, perhaps you should not attempt to engage in the activity in public.

The left haven't "demonized" Joe the Pluimber. His downfalls were there for all to see. The fact that the right decided to make him a focal point only opened it up for public discussion. Perhaps McCain should do a bit more research on his references before the throws them to the wolves.

 

[Reba]

EVidently he did. He has a delinquent tax bill, which means that he has been refusing to pay them since they were due.

A delinquent tax bill doesn't always mean someone has refused to pay.

 

[Reba]

Then try this little thought experiment. Suppose there's a roofer named Fred who had liberal leanings and supported Barack Obama. One day, John McCain walks down Fred's street and Fred asks him an honest question. While answering the question, McCain says something that Obama uses to attack him successfully. All of the sudden, McCain's supporters are trying to find everything they can to discredit and embarrass Fred the Roofer. In the process, they find a tax lien against him. Your fellow Obama supporters try to defend Fred offering reasonable benefit-of-the-doubt explanations, such as "...just because someone is behind in their taxes and debts doesn't necessarily mean they are intentionally trying to 'dodge' their taxes." Despite this, the attacks and demonization continue on a private citizen, imperfect as he may be, just trying to ask a question of a political candidate. Now ask yourself- which side would you be on? That of Fred's attackers? Or his defenders?

Neither side, for "Fred" or Joe. I prefer not to jump to conclusions on either guy.

 

[imdeafsowhat]

The real question is, did McCain pay his taxes? Or did he get paid by it?

 

[BradB08]

maybe NRA should send that gift to McCain

And tell him where to stick it as well.

 

[BradB08]

Then try this little thought experiment. Suppose there's a roofer named Fred who had liberal leanings and supported Barack Obama. One day, John McCain walks down Fred's street and Fred asks him an honest question. While answering the question, McCain says something that Obama uses to attack him successfully. All of the sudden, McCain's supporters are trying to find everything they can to discredit and embarrass Fred the Roofer. In the process, they find a tax lien against him. Your fellow Obama supporters try to defend Fred offering reasonable benefit-of-the-doubt explanations, such as "...just because someone is behind in their taxes and debts doesn't necessarily mean they are intentionally trying to 'dodge' their taxes." Despite this, the attacks and demonization continue on a private citizen, imperfect as he may be, just trying to ask a question of a political candidate. Now ask yourself- which side would you be on? That of Fred's attackers? Or his defenders?

The problem with your logic is that it doesn't include the possibility of Fred being a "plant", which means that he was told to ask that question by a member of a campaign while pretending to be undecided.

Also, if I found out that Fred wasn't paying his taxes, I'd question why he cares so much about taxes if he won't pay them?

Samuel (or Joe) is not being demonized by the left. He didn't pay his taxes. That is an outrage. That's no different from someone who makes six figures a year and decides that they are going to keep their money in an offshore bank instead of paying taxes.

In fact, did you see the part where Obama engaged him in conversation instead of ignoring him? Obama probably didn't realize he was a plant (and if he did, that was pretty damn clever to engage him) but he treated him like any other person who might ask a question.

 

[darkdog]

If you are only an amatuer, perhaps you should not attempt to engage in the activity in public.

The left haven't "demonized" Joe the Pluimber. His downfalls were there for all to see. The fact that the right decided to make him a focal point only opened it up for public discussion. Perhaps McCain should do a bit more research on his references before the throws them to the wolves.

When you nitpick on a red herring and then insist that you've already addressed the main point and I somehow missed it, I have no choice but to channel my special powers. This is the sort of answer I'm looking for:

Neither side, for "Fred" or Joe. I prefer not to jump to conclusions on either guy.

Thanks, Reba. That was refreshing. So what about you? Would you say the same things about Fred that you've said about Joe? Would you characterize the right's attacks on Fred as not demonizing, but fair game? Would you blame Obama for people trying to dig up dirt on Fred? Would you dismiss suggestions that Fred may simply have been in financial straits, and insist that he actively refused to pay his taxes? In other words, would you treat Fred and Joe equally, regardless of their political persuasions?

But hey, it's a free country. If you would prefer to obfuscate or opt out of answering altogether, it's your right.

 

[darkdog]

Also, if I found out that Fred wasn't paying his taxes, I'd question why he cares so much about taxes if he won't pay them?

So you would be consistent on questioning about Fred's taxes. That's cool.

The problem with your logic is that it doesn't include the possibility of Fred being a "plant", which means that he was told to ask that question by a member of a campaign while pretending to be undecided.

You can consider the possibility of Fred being a Democrat "plant" if you want. The story I outlined is the exact same as the story about Joe, except with all the sides reversed. So would you push the conspiracy theory that Fred was planted by Obama? Or would you argue against conservatives who tried to push it based on the fact that McCain was the one who came to Fred's street and McCain was the one who engaged Fred?

Samuel (or Joe) is not being demonized by the left. He didn't pay his taxes. That is an outrage. That's no different from someone who makes six figures a year and decides that they are going to keep their money in an offshore bank instead of paying taxes.

Then would you dismiss people like Reba trying to point out that Fred's delinquent tax bill could be a result of financial difficulty rather than a contempt for obeying tax laws? Would you accuse Fred of being a "middle class shyster [who] is actually a white-collar tax dodger"? Would you say that Fred was not being demonized by the right?

In fact, did you see the part where Obama engaged him in conversation instead of ignoring him? Obama probably didn't realize he was a plant (and if he did, that was pretty damn clever to engage him) but he treated him like any other person who might ask a question.

Yeah, I saw the whole video. It was interesting.

 

[BradB08]

Then would you dismiss people like Reba trying to point out that Fred's delinquent tax bill could be a result of financial difficulty rather than a contempt for obeying tax laws? Would you accuse Fred of being a "middle class shyster [who] is actually a white-collar tax dodger"? Would you say that Fred was not being demonized by the right?

No, I wouldn't dismiss her claims. I would however question why Fred didn't do his research on a candidate before claiming that they would raise his taxes. If Fred was a plant, he probably knew that Obama wouldn't raise his taxes but he brought it up to create the illusion of an undecided voter.

Instead, he would come off as a low-information voter. It's not that hard for people to look up this information, especially if they have a computer. If they have a computer and they know how to use the internet, why not look it up instead of swallowing every piece of crap that the right-wing media feeds them (especially Fox News)? Why do they rely on chain emails full of falsehoods when they can easily disprove those falsehoods by looking them up? People have no excuse to be low-information voters in this day and age.

Also, it doesn't make sense for Fred to support a candidate that would give him a smaller tax cut. If Fred has difficulty paying his taxes, wouldn't it make more sense for him to support the candidate that will give him the best possible tax cut?