GatewayRedbirds.com

KyCardinalFan wrote:

BW23 wrote:

Popeye_Card wrote:

BW23 wrote:I love how someone can ask a presidential candidate a question on the campaign trail and have themselves dragged through the mud by the media. The scrutiny of Joe is beyond the ridiculous level.

I think people are just annoyed by his self-promotion and obvious grabbing of his 15 minutes of fame.

I will freely admit that I don't like it that news outlets immediately investigate these instant celebrities within minutes. I'm sure he's just an average Joe. It's the Republicans who made him a huge story, when there's not all that much particularly interesting about his situation.

The scrutiny took place immediately...digging into his past, looking for ways to put him down. And it wasn't just the news outlets.

Did the Republicans make him a huge story? Yeah, I guess. But it was because of the answer that Obama gave that set them off. "Spread the wealth". That's what started it all. And now, the best way to get people to ignore that is to paint Joe in a bad light.

Disgusting.

That is simply, unequivocally, undeniably, emphatically untrue. Obama spoke to Joe the Plumber on Sunday, October 12. Every dateline of every story about Joe the Plumber starts the evening of the debate, Oct. 15 because McCain mentioned him 20+ times. McCain first brought him up to the country. The stories that delve into Joe's history - lack of a license, owes taxes, etc. - the ones that you find disgusting, are usually dated at the earliest October 16. October 16. Which is four days after Obama talked to him, one day after McCain dragged him out for all of America to endure. Of course that didn't stop McCain from complaining a day or two later that the Obama campaign had ruined this poor guy's life. Which is probably the 'report' that you are basing this mistaken opinion on, I can only guess.

Provide a credible news source that has a dateline before October 15 that 'smears' Joe the Plumber and I will apologize profusely.

At least four background checks on Joe by Ohio state employees on state of Ohio computers in the databases searching for information about Joe. The woman who heads up the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services acknowledged the checks...more than was initially reported. The woman is a supporter of Obama (donating the maximum she could to him). I'm not saying she did this or authorized this with political motivations, but it does seem odd to me that she openly supports Obama, wasn't truthful at first, had those in her office (if not her) check into child support payments or welfare payments or unemployment compensation.

It could all be legit checks, but excuse me if I have my doubts.

Also, why does it still give the right for the left to blast him like they have?

Obama's answer is what bothered me and most people on the right. I don't care if someone that asked it was a child molester, doesn't have a plumbing license (heaven forbid!!!!) or is as clean as a whistle. That person, while clearly not ready for office, isn't the one that answered (who also is clearly not ready for office).

UK wrote:

Hungary Jack wrote:

Freed Roger wrote:

UK wrote:As far as Joe the plumber, he's a liar, how was he going to the money to pay for a business that would earn over 250K?

Do you know how much in assets and payroll he would have to pay for to accumulate that amount of income especially in OH?

He couldn't afford to pay 1200 in taxes, hell, I avg. that every 2 months and I don't make near 250K. His house is worth around 120K and he's behind in his taxes and had to rely on people paying 1200 to save his home.

He probably couldn't qualify for a used car loan.

Yeah - some people shouldn't run a small business. A guy like Joe would get in there and not turn in the payroll withholdings and would go bankrupt screwing over his vendors, lenders and the rest of us.

politicians clamor over generic clowns like Joe the Plumber, and ignore concerns of real business owners like Cards2468's dad. Both campaigns pay such reverence to small business like they are some magical machines. Its an election though so we expect this. But frankly, half of them are out of business within a couple years, causing more harm than good.

I honestly think Joe was confusing revenues and profits when he discussed this with Obama. I could see a small plumbing business with maybe 5 employees generating $250K in annual sales, but profits would very likely be less than $50K on sales at that level. As an owner, he'd be nowhere near the Obama threshold, and would actually benefit slightly from lower withholding payments on worker salaries (the lower withholding would reduce his monthly cash outflow).

He knew what he was getting at as he tried to put Obama in an awkward situation by getting Obama to tell him that he would raise his taxes of an avg. Joe.

Perhaps. I think his math is all f--ed up, and most Americans don't know enough about the economics of small businesses to have their BS meter go off.

Perhaps. I think his math is all f--ed up, and most Americans don't know enough about the economics of small businesses to have their BS meter go off.

Obviously he isn't good at math or he'd be able to allocate his resources to where he wouldn't be $1200.00 in debt with his taxes.

The bold part is true, there's prob. a decent % of Americans that believe he was telling the truth as him wanting to buy that business and that he would that amount.

UK wrote:Obviously he isn't good at math or he'd be able to allocate his resources to where he wouldn't be $1200.00 in debt with his taxes.

Yeah, that's the most important thing about his question. Clearly.

That's my point.

BW23 wrote:

UK wrote:Obviously he isn't good at math or he'd be able to allocate his resources to where he wouldn't be $1200.00 in debt with his taxes.

Yeah, that's the most important thing about his question. Clearly.

That's my point.

Did you not see where I said I had nothing wrong his question?

Clearly.

UK wrote:

BW23 wrote:

UK wrote:Obviously he isn't good at math or he'd be able to allocate his resources to where he wouldn't be $1200.00 in debt with his taxes.

Yeah, that's the most important thing about his question. Clearly.

That's my point.

Did you not see where I said I had nothing wrong his question?

Clearly.

Why is this an issue? Seriously. I'd like to understand why the left is doing all they can to discredit this guy. Both sides do it, don't get me wrong, but the level of this is ridiculous.

It's wrong if any state employee or other person illegally or improperly gained access to Joe T.P.'s personal records, regardless of their political affiliation.

But beyond that, as far as the media scrutiny goes, it just goes with the territory. McCain put him in the spotlight, not Obama. In fact, McCain went on Letterman the next night and said to Joe, "I'm sorry!". The day after his 20+ mentions in the debate he invited Joe to campaign with him in Ohio. Joe had to turn him down because he had already agreed to go to NY to do a round of interviews on various talk shows and to appear on Mike Huckabee's political talkshow on Fox.

So he was scrutinized by the media because he was injected into the campaign by McCain and his question to Obama was politicized by the McCain campaign. If the McCain campaign had simply focused on Obama's answer to Joe's question, he wouldn't have been politicized. But the McCain camp decided to directly use Joe himself by repeatedly mentioning his name in speech after speech and every interview they were doing.

It's certainly not Obama's fault that we later found out that Joe is not even licensed, that he owes back taxes on his home, that he is not in fact an independent undecided voter, that he presently doesn't earn anywhere near $250,000 per year, and contrary to what he claimed in his question to Obama, he wasn't actually about to buy a business that earns $278,000 a year.

And you'll have to forgive many Americans for taking offense at this guy shamelessly hamming it up in the spotlight, especially when he says completely outrageous and offensive things like "a vote for Obama is a vote for the destruction of Israel". Even the Fox News anchor took him to task for that remark.

BW23 wrote:

UK wrote:

BW23 wrote:

UK wrote:Obviously he isn't good at math or he'd be able to allocate his resources to where he wouldn't be $1200.00 in debt with his taxes.

Yeah, that's the most important thing about his question. Clearly.

That's my point.

Did you not see where I said I had nothing wrong his question?

Clearly.

Why is this an issue? Seriously. I'd like to understand why the left is doing all they can to discredit this guy. Both sides do it, don't get me wrong, but the level of this is ridiculous.

Why is what an issue? That he's discredited himself by lying about his financial situation to play stump the candidate? He put his financial data out there and it proved to be false and has to rely on other people's charities to get himself out of debt.

I don't feel sympathy for someone trying to milk this for everything it's worth. If he didn't want this, he would pull a Bartman but he's all over the news b/c he knows he can profit from this.

why are we supposed to feel sorry for the guy who's whoring himself out to the media again?

We'll just all agree to disagree on this, too.

I'm waiting on the discrediting of the anchor who asked Biden about Marxism.