A non-humorous post from Iowahawk: "I am Joe."
There are two Americas: one that is Joe, and one that thinks that Joe should have to show his papers to question the Dear Leader.
[Afternoon update]
"I am Joe. Flush Socialism."
I can see this really taking off.
[Update a while later]
Mark Steyn says that Joe must be punished because he didn't go with the flow.
And McCain used the S-word in his radio address this morning. Why not? When you take money from high earners, and hand it over to low earners, and say that you're doing it to "spread the wealth," in what way does that differ from "to each according to his need, from each according to his ability"?
The hero of the classic Orwellian movie, "Brazil" was a undercover, unlicensed plumber.
I'll agree that Joe should be left alone. I don't care about him, and he's irrelevant to the discussion about the country and this election.
Now, of course you guys roundly condemned -- or will do so now -- the treatment of the family of Graeme Frost back when health care was being discussed. For those with short memories, here's a link: http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1670210,00.html
And of course you think that Scott Beauchamp had a little too much scrutiny, too. Right?
See, we can all play this game.
New obsession?
From Ayers to Joe.
Grasping for straws again?
Joe doesn't even know the difference between income and gross receipts now does he? Just the kinda guy to lead the GOP.
Sarah and Joe - 2012.
Heh!
"Dindsdale," refresh my memory. Did people post Graeme Frost's home phone number, current and previous addresses, tax liens and so on?
II, Joe isn't leading the GOP, he's just some guy. I guess that's too clear for you to understand, though.
"And of course you think that Scott Beauchamp had a little too much scrutiny, too. Right?"
Nope, he got way too little.
Beauchamp was a dumbfuck, he shit on his fellow soldiers by perpertrating outright lies about them in exchange for his thrity pieces of silver and totaly asked for it.
Joe the plumber was minding his own business in his own driveway when Obambi came by and asked him a question. Obambi gave a dumb answer and now it is Joe's fault for playing with Senator Government in the first place.
Unlike the Demotrolls who seek out the lielight, Joe did not seek out the limelight.
Dindsdale, I realize this point may be lost on you, because you'e so sunk in the post-modern process-oriented moral relativism of the modern Left, but there are profound differences between ol' Joe and either young Master Frost (or more particularly the Frost family), and especially the repulsive Mr. Beauchamp.
First, Joe didn't try to make a national statement endorsing a particular political point of view, unlike the Frosts and Beauchamp. He was approached by Obama, who asked for his vote. In return, Joe asked a question. A pretty ordinary question, a perfectly reasonable question, not in the least a gotcha question. And it's Obama's answer that has embarassed the Obama campaign, not Joe's question.
Second, the scrutiny surrounding the Frost family, and Beauchamp, bore directly on whether either had the bona fides to be making the statement they did. The Frost family claimed they couldn't afford health care. The scrutinty determined that, actually, they're probably better off than 75% of Americans, which makes it hard to see why we should pay for their health care. In the case of Beauchamp, the scrutiny was more basic still: was he actually telling the truth? Turns out, he wasn't.
Remember now, the key difference is: the Frosts and Beauchamp made provocative political statement, while ol' Joe merely asked an embarassing question. It's only those with something to hide that fear questions so much.
What's your guy got to hide? Why is he so afraid of questions?
Rand, I don't think Plan Obama rightfully deserves to be called "socialism" -- that's an insult to socialists, of whom the best are thoughtful and humane (if gravely mistaken about the nature of things). I think it's simply naked big-city power politics, slightly furtive Stalinism.
Socialists admit up front that it's liberty that creates wealth, and that their redistributionist schemes will inevitably compromise economic growth. They make the argument that the rich should contribute to the poor not on economic grounds, but on grounds of humanity, because we are all, in some sense, brothers, and we should help our brother when he's in a pit, even if he fell into the pit on his own, fair and square, after being warned about it.
The new Left is not tied to this reality. They argue -- indeed Obama argued in his response to the plumber -- that their redistributionist schemes are good on economic grounds. That if you tax the most productive and give to the least, you will increase the wealth of the nation.
In order to arrive at that viewpoint they must consciously ignore the evidence of history and even common but educated good sense. That makes them liars. They know perfectly well that their plans will compromise wealth creation, but they don't mind, because they plan to be those on top, who thrive no matter how poorly the peasantry do. That makes them social Darwinists, folks who believe there's nothing wrong with those who will succeed profiting by accelerating the failure of those who will fail. Finally, they conceal their awareness of the conflict between empirical evidence and their elegant theories, and rely on the ignorance of the audience, to win. This is why they target the young, the newly immigrated, those insulated from reality in the college cocoon. That makes them cynical.
Although the socialists were dreadfully wrong, they were not, as a rule, liars and cynics, nor social Darwinists. The Stalinists, of course, were all these things, and arguably it was their very ruthlessness and lack of the constraint implied by having an actual governing philosophy (other than I win, you lose) which led to their remarkable success in the last century.
The new Left has many similar advantages, and, really, the same kind of pedigree. They draw much of their support from the same "useful idiots" -- students, intellectuals -- that undewrote their success in the last century. It makes all kinds of sense that this movement should emerge from the seamy dark underbelly of Chicago big-city gangsta politics.
"Dindsdale," refresh my memory. Did people post Graeme Frost's home phone number, current and previous addresses, tax liens and so on?
For the sake of civil discourse, I'd like to say that I'm not trying to troll here. I don't like the blogosphere/media attention to the Joe the Plumber either. It's stupid and puts a normal citizen under undeserved scrutiny. But the right is quite capable of this, too.
I'll let you decide if this is on a par. From a 2007 USA Today article ( http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-10-09-schip_N.htm ):
Bloggers showed a photo of the couple's glass-front cabinets and 1992 wedding announcement in The New York Times. Democrats "filled this kid's head with lies," Rush Limbaugh said on his radio show.
The blogs were "pretty insulting stuff, and really just low," Halsey Frost, Graeme's father, said Tuesday.
Bloggers said the house was worth more than $400,000. It turns out it was bought for $55,000 in 1991 in a Baltimore neighborhood where "there were drug dealers and prostitutes on our street," Bonnie Frost said. Halsey Frost, a woodworker, did most of the renovations, which are "still not done," Bonnie said.
Bloggers said Graeme and Gemma go to private Park School, where tuition costs about $20,000. Graeme gets a scholarship, while Gemma's brain injuries were so severe that the city pays to educate her at a school for children with disabilities, the couple say.
The commercial property, which bloggers noted was bought for $160,000 in 1999, was intended to house Frostworks, Halsey's business. It folded soon after, he said — partly because of the cost of health insurance.
He has worked for small companies and is trying to restart his own business. She works part time for a consulting firm. The couple — who have four children in all —earned about $45,000 last year, well below the $55,220 limit for a family of six set under the original SCHIP program. Maryland's program goes higher, to nearly $83,000 for a family of six. "We are struggling," Bonnie Frost said. "We live paycheck to paycheck. "
Bloggers who helped circulate financial information about the family over the weekend backed off a bit Tuesday. "It's the difference between Google and journalism," said Rick Moran, who penned a piece for The American Thinker. "It's been proven that the family was means-eligible." His editor, Thomas Lifson, said, "It's just more complicated than might have appeared in the first round of investigation."
Both said the Frosts became fair game by putting their family in the political arena. They questioned Democrats' decision to use a 12-year-old as their spokesman. "It just smacked me as being unfair," Moran said. "You cannot criticize the program without being accused of going after the boy."
It's tiresome how the rebuttal is always "But someone else does it too!"
No wonder you're anonymous.
Grame Frost's parents allow him to be used as a figurehead to hawk a "health care for poverty-stricken children" boondoggle, when his mother was driving a SUV that cost more than the average family makes in a year and his family home was valued at almost half a MILLION dollars. Michelle Malkin brought to light the fact that not only was Grame Frost NOT poverty-stricken, but that his parents could very easily afford his health care... except they thought their lifestyle and image among the neighbors was more important. She was, of course, attacked for doing so and one fellow-traveler of the Cancerous Hemerrhoid even posted her personal information online "in retaliation" (the kind of mindset that feels the need to "retaliate" against someone for speaking the truth must be considered here).
Joe- a voter who Barack Obama was courting and that Barack Obama hopes to represent- asked Barack Obama a question that the press should have been asking him for the past year; Barack answered honestly. As a result, the press corps has done its level best to discredit... JOE, who asked a simple question they coudn't; and the same kind of brownshirts who posted Michelle's home address and home phone number and urged "retaliation"... have posted Joe's.
Nothing about Joe was fake, as opposed to the Frosts: he wasn't making a political advertisement; there was no script; no-one had asked him to volunteer (except Barack Obama); he wasn't asking for anyone else to support his pretensions or pay for his upkeep. He didn't even embarass Obama; Obama managed that one for himself by actually speaking the truth about his intentions.
The only parallel that a rational mind can draw between the two cases is this:
Michelle Malkin unhinged a political campaign run by the Democratic Party by asking "unscripted" questions about one of the participants... and was attacked by the Left;
Joe the Plumber unhinged a political campaign run by the Democratic Party by asking an "unscripted" question... and has been attacked by the Left.
Carl, a very good analysis of the totalitarian aspects of this struggle.
If the city of Chicago was an isolated system (closed box) then we would see the more of the "Gotham" dystopia shown in Batman movies, with super wealthy among the poverty. The minions would then move or revolt over those conditions.
However, what presently keeps Chicago (New Orleans, Detroit, etc.) going is tax money from outside the area, both State and Federal. When the same people get to Washington, where does the outside tax money come from? What can the Chicago guys actually accomplish, assuming it is not a rerun of Venezuela?
Obama is black, black, black, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, black, socialist, terrorist, Muslim, black, terrorist, socialist, Muslim!, black.
Keep at it guys!
I like the way your party is getting smaller, smaller, whiter, whiter, nastier, nastier.
Really, do keep at it.
Obama is black, black, black, terrorist, terrorist, terrorist, black, socialist, terrorist, Muslim, black, terrorist, socialist, Muslim!, black.
Obama is black? Who knew?
Who has said anything here about Obama's race, or called him a terrorist or a Muslim, Anonymous Moron?
Or are you just trolling and making an idiot of yourself (again)?
No, I was just trying to summarize what Fox News, Sarah Palin, Limbaugh-Hannity-Levin, the general Republican slime-machine, the Corner at NRO, and the echo chamber you run seem to want to shove into the general subconscious.
Did I miss in my summary? Well, whoops if I did !
How long before the sliming of Colin Powell begins? Looking forward to your post on the topic!
The only people who care about the color of Obama's skin are his fanatic cult followers. We're more concerned with the fact that his associates of any color and creed all seem to be much too comfortable with the idea of destroying America in the pursuit of some sort of communistic utopia.
Did I miss in my summary? Well, whoops if I did !
Another one of those "fake but accurate" arguments, eh?
Or are you just projecting your own unpleasant interior nature? That is, do you feel in your secret heart like a racist bastard, and compensate for that shameful secret by rabidly promoting a man for President merely because he's black? And then attribute any opposition to the same secret prejudice you feel?
If so, bad news. The rest of us are not like that. We're perfectly capable of disliking a Presidential candidate because he represents a totalitarian movement intensely hostile to individual liberty and success. His skin color does not inoculate him against cold objective judgment, as it may for...um...racists.
Andrea, Carl,
Obama's supposed associations do not bother Colin Powell, Warren Buffett, Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Susan Eisenhower or Susan Collins the tineist bit. They know that the indignation on the right is BS.
John McCain the other day referred to Obama as a patriotic great American. Yes, he momentarily messed up his talking points. He has recovered, no fears, he indignantly defended himslef today on Fox News.
How long do you plan to keep up this pretense in your pathetically shrinking little Party?
It's getting nastier, smaller and whiter in Sarah Palin's tent. You might want to considering joining Kathleen Parker and Christopher Buckley in a little reflection on the sorry state of the GOP.
Obama may still lose this election, suffering the campaign of lies that your party wallows in. No matter. The future is decidedly ours. Your numbers continue to fall. Ours increase.
Colin Powell, Warren Buffett, Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Susan Eisenhower or Susan Collins the tineist bit.
Wow.
A whole list of people whose opinions on politics I hold to be utterly without value. Susan Collins and Chuck Hagel in particular I consider to be morons.
Obama's supposed associations do not bother Colin Powell, Warren Buffett, Dick Lugar, Chuck Hagel, Susan Eisenhower or Susan Collins the tineist bit.
Well now, would anyone expect a military general, the granddaughter of a general (also former wife of a high-ranking Soviet physicist, and "international security consultant"), one of the wealthiest men in the world, and a handful of Senators to be bothered by the prospect of a substantial increase in central government?
Why no, of course not. The fox is always of the opinion that the hens have every right to vote to leave the henhouse unguarded at night. Each of the people you cite is, and plans to be, part of the ruling elite. They're not in the least troubled by the idea that power is about to get a lot more centralized and concentrated.
Now, if you want to go out and find some large number of small-business owners and entrepreneurs that are "untroubled" by how comfortable Mr. Obama is with the idea of taking from each according to his abilities so that he can give to each according to his needs, you might have a point.
Now, if you want to go out and find some large number of small-business owners and entrepreneurs that are "untroubled" by how comfortable Mr. Obama is with the idea of taking from each according to his abilities so ...
Well, you can't find a large number of such since the vast majority of small businesses will see a tax decrease. So you are simply spouting again - which of course is nothing new.
I won't bother commenting on your centralized power arguments. If Obama wins you can expect the most transparent government in US history. His campaign has been from the ground up as will be his governing. Yes, it's that community organizer thing that you and Sarah were guffawing about.
...the vast majority of small businesses will see a tax decrease.
Not the ones that create most of the jobs.
> of the wealthiest men in the world
That would be the guy who advocated raising inheritance taxes that his estate won't pay....
That's right. Buffet has moved is wealth out of his taxable estate, so it won't be subject to inheritance tax.
So, when he said that he thought that the inheritance tax should be retained and increased, he wasn't talking about his taxes, he was talking about taxing other people.
Given that, it's not surprising that he'd endorse a Democrat.
To that little POS II,
This is also true about the One,
Obama is white, white, white, socialist, terrorist friends, white, white, liar, white. The keys here are not color.
What a rube you are. Transparent government? That worked real well with the House and Senate. The Dems started the most secretive rules in the history of both Houses. What makes you think the Executive will be any different? You sound like a would be actress asking if she will really get a screen test. If Obama wins, we'll get the same result.
Well, you can't find a large number of such since the vast majority of small businesses will see a tax decrease.
Um...say what? You're saying it's not possible to find a large number of small business owners who support Obama for President because The One's tax plan will mostly reduce their taxes?
Remember to replace the logic fuse with a fuse of equal rating. Do not simply short it out with a piece of wire.
I won't bother commenting on your centralized power arguments.
I can imagine. I wouldn't bother playing Magic Johnson in a little one-on-one, either.
If Obama wins you can expect the most transparent government in US history.
WTF? In the first place, what is so opaque about government now? Anybody out there not really know what government is doing, where the money goes? Do we have a Gestapo nobody but you knows about?
In the second place, why is "transparency" so important? You speak as if the biggest threat to economic security, or even individual liberty, is some sneaky secret government action, which is laughable. The greatest threat to economic security is the incompetence of the central authority to manage more of the economy than it already does, and the greatest threat to individual liberty is the fact that central economic management always leads to central social management -- to a constriction of individual liberty. Read a little F. A. Hayek, maybe.
Or just use some common sense. If President Obama wants the US transportation system to be free of any dependence on imported oil by 2019, how much constraint on individual choice is going to be necessary? A whole heck of a lot. Maybe you think that's not a problem, because it will turn out that every constraint proposed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama will just magically turn out to be exactly what you would have wanted yourself. If you believe that, I've got some mortgage-backed securities I'd like to sell you.