Joe the Plumber vs. Colin Powell

Status
Not open for further replies.
darkdog said:
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:


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.
Click to expand...

I've already answered your question, darkdog. I stated that this fictitious Fred you have dreamed up out of your overactive imagination would be subject to the same scrutiny as good ole Joe has been under the same circumstances. What part of that are you having difficulty understanding?

Thing is, the Obama camp doesn't play the same games as the McCain camp. McCain attempted to turn the situation to his advantage, and in doing so, managed to come under ridicule yet again for his tactics, not to mention turning what I'm sure he thought would be Joe's 15 minutes of fame into discussion of national impact that exposes McCain for the poor choices he continues to make.

And just because you don't get the answer you are looking for the first time around does not mean that the question is not understood. It simply means that the answer was one you did not want nor were expecting. That's what happens when you ask questions. You often get an answer you don't want. I'd suggest you prepare yourself for that possibility in the future.
 
BradB08 said:
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?
Click to expand...
No, Fred's talking to McCain. I should have been more clear. Fred's asking McCain about McCain's tax plan, not Obama's. Fred's actual question and McCain's actual response doesn't really matter. Here's the point- do we base our views of the right way to treat someone and the wrong way to treat someone on how much we like that person's opinion on taxes? You said you would not dismiss what Reba says about Fred, but in this thread, you dismissed her when she said it about Joe. That's a natural human tendency. I've been guilty of that sort of thinking before and I think it's something to watch out for.

To be accurate, Reba didn't claim anything, because she doesn't know if Joe refused to pay his taxes or couldn't because of hardship. Neither do you nor I. I think that's the reasonable view to take for both Joe and Fred.

The reason I find this situation troubling is because the guy just asks a question of a candidate and within days, people are doing whatever they can to find dirt on him and broadcast it to the world. Some are even breaking the law to do so (Clerk charged with unlawful search of Joe the Plumber : News : WNWO NBC24). Joe himself probably didn't even know about the tax lien (Joe The Plumber: Not A Tax Expert). And it's all because Obama happened to say something controversial. This isn't just about one guy nor is it just about people criticizing his views. People should feel free to ask questions of political candidates without fear of retribution. If I see a candidate walk down the street with a news crew and I have a question to ask, I might ask myself "Should I put on a hat and fake glasses and give him a fake name?" or I might just say "Screw it. It's not worth people digging to find dirt on me."

Also, I don't think he told Obama his current income. He said he was thinking about buying a business that would bring in $250,000 to $280,000 a year and asked if he would be taxed more. He later said he didn't really have plans to buy the business. It's just something that he started casually thinking about and he decided to ask Obama out it. I see nothing wrong with asking about a hypothetical situation the guy would like to see realized, even if it's not in the near-future. Under Obama, he may benefit now, perhaps with a negative income tax, but that doesn't mean he has to like Obama's tax plan. I also make less than $250,000, but I don't care for Obama's tax plan either for a number of reasons. I'd go into more detail, but this post is long enough. If you're interested in hearing my rationale, just let me know.
 
Hey, it's all good. I'm not trying to stress you out here. If I knew you in person, I'd give you some warm chamomile tea with honey. OK, on to the response.
jillio said:
I've already answered your question, darkdog. I stated that this fictitious Fred you have dreamed up out of your overactive imagination would be subject to the same scrutiny as good ole Joe has been under the same circumstances. What part of that are you having difficulty understanding?
Click to expand...
I understand that, but I wasn't asking about the likelihood of Fred receiving scrutiny. That's already part of the hypothetical situation. I was asking which side you would be on. If that's buried somewhere in one of your answers, my magical powers apparently missed it (I'm out of practice). Can you spell it out simply and directly for me? Please? :ty:

jillio said:
And just because you don't get the answer you are looking for the first time around does not mean that the question is not understood. It simply means that the answer was one you did not want nor were expecting. That's what happens when you ask questions. You often get an answer you don't want. I'd suggest you prepare yourself for that possibility in the future.
Click to expand...
Just because I rephrase a question doesn't mean I'm trying to trick you or anyone into giving me an answer I want to hear. You can take my word that I don't pull that stuff. I'm only looking for an honest answer that actually answers the question I posed. If I can't find a clear answer from a response, then I tend to assume that I either misunderstood or my question was not clear enough or both. So then I rephrase the question hoping to make it more clear and ask for clarification. Then, when I get a clear answer, I comment on it or I ask more questions to delve further into the matter. Sounds like a reasonable MO to me.
 
darkdog said:
No, Fred's talking to McCain. I should have been more clear. Fred's asking McCain about McCain's tax plan, not Obama's. Fred's actual question and McCain's actual response doesn't really matter. Here's the point- do we base our views of the right way to treat someone and the wrong way to treat someone on how much we like that person's opinion on taxes? You said you would not dismiss what Reba says about Fred, but in this thread, you dismissed her when she said it about Joe. That's a natural human tendency. I've been guilty of that sort of thinking before and I think it's something to watch out for.

To be accurate, Reba didn't claim anything, because she doesn't know if Joe refused to pay his taxes or couldn't because of hardship. Neither do you nor I. I think that's the reasonable view to take for both Joe and Fred.

The reason I find this situation troubling is because the guy just asks a question of a candidate and within days, people are doing whatever they can to find dirt on him and broadcast it to the world. Some are even breaking the law to do so (Clerk charged with unlawful search of Joe the Plumber : News : WNWO NBC24). Joe himself probably didn't even know about the tax lien (Joe The Plumber: Not A Tax Expert). And it's all because Obama happened to say something controversial. This isn't just about one guy nor is it just about people criticizing his views. People should feel free to ask questions of political candidates without fear of retribution. If I see a candidate walk down the street with a news crew and I have a question to ask, I might ask myself "Should I put on a hat and fake glasses and give him a fake name?" or I might just say "Screw it. It's not worth people digging to find dirt on me."

Also, I don't think he told Obama his current income. He said he was thinking about buying a business that would bring in $250,000 to $280,000 a year and asked if he would be taxed more. He later said he didn't really have plans to buy the business. It's just something that he started casually thinking about and he decided to ask Obama out it. I see nothing wrong with asking about a hypothetical situation the guy would like to see realized, even if it's not in the near-future. Under Obama, he may benefit now, perhaps with a negative income tax, but that doesn't mean he has to like Obama's tax plan. I also make less than $250,000, but I don't care for Obama's tax plan either for a number of reasons. I'd go into more detail, but this post is long enough. If you're interested in hearing my rationale, just let me know.
Click to expand...

I think it's easier to just accept that this is another one of McCain's failed stunts and to let it go.
 
darkdog said:
Hey, it's all good. I'm not trying to stress you out here. If I knew you in person, I'd give you some warm chamomile tea with honey. OK, on to the response.

I understand that, but I wasn't asking about the likelihood of Fred receiving scrutiny. That's already part of the hypothetical situation. I was asking which side you would be on. If that's buried somewhere in one of your answers, my magical powers apparently missed it (I'm out of practice). Can you spell it out simply and directly for me? Please? :ty:


Just because I rephrase a question doesn't mean I'm trying to trick you or anyone into giving me an answer I want to hear. You can take my word that I don't pull that stuff. I'm only looking for an honest answer that actually answers the question I posed. If I can't find a clear answer from a response, then I tend to assume that I either misunderstood or my question was not clear enough or both. So then I rephrase the question hoping to make it more clear and ask for clarification. Then, when I get a clear answer, I comment on it or I ask more questions to delve further into the matter. Sounds like a reasonable MO to me.
Click to expand...

That's the problem: when you ask a hypothetical question, you get a hypothetical answer. Maybe you should stick to reality.
 
jillio said:
That's the problem: when you ask a hypothetical question, you get a hypothetical answer. Maybe you should stick to reality.
Click to expand...

214t45j.jpg
 
darkdog said:
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.
Click to expand...
I don't see the need for either side to dig up dirt on Fred or Joe. They should just take it for what it was. Take the question from "the man on the street" and answer it. It doesn't matter who asked it. The content of the question is valid, and the candidate (whichever one) should answer it. Done.

It's kind of a "shoot the messenger" tactic to put the blame on the street questions rather than focus on the candidate's answer to the question.
 
Let's get real, folks. The national average salary for plumber has a median of $37,514. A plumber does not make $250,000 and McCain/Palin's use of "Joe the Plumber" as the average American "Joe" is an epic fail.

"Joe the Plumber" asked a question of his own and, after the press made light of Obama's answer, McCain took it upon himself to mention "Joe the Plumber" 3/4 times more than Obama with the first four times being McCain. (Some say 25 mentions and some say 26 mentions.)

If anything, McCain made sure that "Joe the Plumber" would be subjected to a media frenzy and celebrity status by singling him out during the Presidential debate.

Does McCain actually think that the average American makes $250,000 a year? Is the media scrutiny that followed McCain's stunt during the debate blamed on the "liberals"? Let's get real, folks.
 
jillio said:
That's the problem: when you ask a hypothetical question, you get a hypothetical answer. Maybe you should stick to reality.
Click to expand...
Actually, a hypothetical answer is exactly what I was looking for. My issue is that I also wanted something coherent. You know, something like "I would say the same things about Fred because..." or "I would go easier on Fred because..." or even "I'm not really sure how I would feel about people doing the same thing to Fred because...". Those are all hypothetical and coherent.
 
darkdog said:
Actually, a hypothetical answer is exactly what I was looking for. My issue is that I also wanted something coherent. You know, something like "I would say the same things about Fred because..." or "I would go easier on Fred because..." or even "I'm not really sure how I would feel about people doing the same thing to Fred because...". Those are all hypothetical and coherent.
Click to expand...

You got coherence. All it needed was some logical thought and critical thinking to see the coherence. What you wanted was for it to be completely spelled out for you, and to state what you wanted to hear.
 
Reba said:
I don't see the need for either side to dig up dirt on Fred or Joe. They should just take it for what it was. Take the question from "the man on the street" and answer it. It doesn't matter who asked it. The content of the question is valid, and the candidate (whichever one) should answer it. Done.

It's kind of a "shoot the messenger" tactic to put the blame on the street questions rather than focus on the candidate's answer to the question.
Click to expand...
Oh, my bad, Reba. I was actually directing all those questions at jillio. I should have been more clear.

I agree with you 100% by the way. I would be equally alarmed if McCain supporters did the same thing.
 
darkdog said:
Oh, my bad, Reba. I was actually directing all those questions at jillio. I should have been more clear.

I agree with you 100% by the way. I would be equally alarmed if McCain supporters did the same thing.
Click to expand...

You seem to be conveniently forgetting that McCain is the very one that made Joe the Plumber as issue. He tried to discredit Obama's tax plan by using Joe as an example, and it ended up backfiring on both McCain and Joe. His ineptness continues!:giggle:
 
jillio said:
You seem to be conveniently forgetting that McCain is the very one that made Joe the Plumber as issue. He tried to discredit Obama's tax plan by using Joe as an example, and it ended up backfiring on both McCain and Joe. His ineptness continues!:giggle:
Click to expand...

:gpost:
 
jillio said:
You got coherence. All it needed was some logical thought and critical thinking to see the coherence. What you wanted was for it to be completely spelled out for you, and to state what you wanted to hear.
Click to expand...
Why are you telling me what my motive is after I already explained it to you? I am not trying to manipulate you into saying something you don't mean. All your "professional training" does not qualify you to know my intentions better than I do. And completely spelling it out for me might be a good idea if your goal is for me to understand your position. It would save us both a lot of time in these conversations.

jillio said:
You seem to be conveniently forgetting that McCain is the very one that made Joe the Plumber as issue. He tried to discredit Obama's tax plan by using Joe as an example, and it ended up backfiring on both McCain and Joe. His ineptness continues!:giggle:
Click to expand...
And I would be alarmed just the same if all the sides were reversed.
 
darkdog said:
Why are you telling me what my motive is after I already explained it to you? I am not trying to manipulate you into saying something you don't mean. All your "professional training" does not qualify you to know my intentions better than I do. And completely spelling it out for me might be a good idea if your goal is for me to understand your position. It would save us both a lot of time in these conversations.


And I would be alarmed just the same if all the sides were reversed.
Click to expand...

Actually, it does.:giggle:
 
...and I'm Hear Again the university student and I support Barack Obama because of his plan to make college more affordable.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top