Pokémon TCG: Sword and Shield—Brilliant Stars

Joe the Faker?

PokemansForGeeks

New Member
Since I work alone in the forest for 4 hours straight I have a lot of time on my hands to think about higher thoughts ;x

Anyway, I was just thinking today - what if Joe the Plumber was just another fake political stunt just like Palin being picked as the VP?

I mean, the media played it off like he was split between the two candidates 50/50 then he talks to the candidates, listens to the debates, and all of a sudden is a McCain supporter when he knows Obama's tax plan would help him more than McCain's? That doesn't strike me as right. Now he's suddenly spending his life campaigning for the man? I thought he was a working class individual.

Don't be surprised if you hear after the election that Joe the Plumber got paid off to play the media like that and help McCain sway more middle/working class votes.

I'm guessing he took upwards of $500k from McCain. I could be wrong though. It is just speculation (as of now). ;/
 
If he was fake, then all the negative stuff that came up about him. Not having a plumber's license, for example, probably wouldn't have come up.
 
Yeah, I find it highly unlikely that this was faked. It is a seemingly fake name, when a guy is named "Joe" the plumber. I kinda wished they had found someone named Bob....I like that name better.:biggrin:

One night I was watching a debate, and this was before I had heard about Joe the Plumber or any of that, and at first I thought they were just using him as a term to refer to your average Joe, middle class guy, just trying to make ends meat. It wasn't until later I realised they were refering to a real person. But still, I don't think they'd stoop so low to pull something like this, especially since it hasn't really affected the polls, or atleast from what I can see.
 
I guess it's just me but I wouldn't put it past McCain/the GOP to pull something like this when they're using everything else in their arsenal to try to win the election.
 
I heard he's been offered a contract for his own country music record or something ridiculous like that. The whole thing is a joke... now he won't even be "working class" if he turns into the next William Hung. Personally I'm sick of hearing of Joe the Plumber.

Nah, I think it is legit, the story of Joe the plumber is really flawed so I doubt they fabricated it.... on second though.... maybe it's another screwup :wink:
 
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/10/30/joe-the-plumber-stands-up-john-mccain/?mod=googlenews_wsj

October 30, 2008, 1:42 pm
Joe the Plumber Stands Up John McCain

“Joe’s with us today,” McCain said. “Joe where are you? Where is Joe? Is Joe here with us today? Joe, I thought you were here today.”

After a four second pause, he realized that Joe was not present this chilly morning at Defiance Junior High

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/1...-future-dismisses-country-music-star-chatter/

A scheduling mix-up Thursday left McCain calling out for Joe the Plumber at a rally in Defiance, Ohio, only to learn that Wurzelbacher was nowhere to be found. Wurzelbacher told a cable news network that he never got the call to be in Defiance.*

Joe the "Plumber" facts:
Joe isn't really Joe. His first name is Samuel.

Joe isn't really a plumber. Joe does not possess a plumber's license.

Joe did not complete an apprentice program for plumbers that he started in 2003.

Divorce court records show that Joe Wurzelbacher made $40,000 in 2006.

Like 99.9% of real plumbers, Joe would do better under Sen. Obama's tax plan.

Joe has considered a run for congress on Ohio's 9th district and has said he is "up for it." Joewurzelbacher2010.com

Joe was unaware of a lien for non-payment of $1,182 in Ohio state income tax dating back to January 2007.

Joe had his wages garnished for not paying a hospital bill.

Joe has stood John up before: "The [McCain] campaign extended a special invitation to Joe, whose real name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher, to attend John McCain’s campaign rally in Wurzelbacher’s hometown of Toledo on Sunday afternoon, but were told that Joe had other plans. It turns out that Wurzelbacher, his teenage son and his father decided to accept an invitation from Fox TV to fly to New York City so Joe could tape a sit-down interview with former Republican presidential contender Mike Huckabee, host of a new Saturday evening talk show, as well as Sunday and Monday segments for the networks’ early morning Fox and Friends show.

Joe has signed with Jim Della Croce of Pathfinder Management group, a publicity management agent.

Joe is a hard-core country music fan, and his publicist wants to get him into a studio to record some music.

sources:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_the_Plumber
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2008/10/17/joe-the-plumber-call-your-agent.aspx
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/10/29/joe-you-know-who-gets-a-manager/
 
Nice info. Pokedad.

It seems like Joe is just using McCain and his 15 minutes of fame to further his career. That's the American way!
 
I have some good Joe the Plumber jokes/ad-libs.....

These are Joe the Plumber ad-libs.

You know Joe the Plumber?
But Joe the Plumber isn't really a plumber he's really __________.

Ex: Mario, Luigi, a fire breathing dragon, Bob the builder, a rabid squirrel.....

That's all I have for now......
 
I have some good Joe the Plumber jokes/ad-libs.....

These are Joe the Plumber ad-libs.

You know Joe the Plumber?
But Joe the Plumber isn't really a plumber he's really __________.

Ex: Mario, Luigi, a fire breathing dragon, Bob the builder, a rabid squirrel.....

That's all I have for now......

Wow dude. That ad-lib is sooo good, I am literally rofl'ing right now.

(Sorry for off-topic, I don't really have much to say in this thread.)
 
Even though I don't think he is a fake, I think things like this are always possible in politics. However, whether he is or is not a fake really is not important. Barrack Obama was the one who screwed up his answer and that is what we should be talking about.

Spread the wealth = Redistribution of wealth = Marxist idea

I think the Obama campaign is trying to use Joe's biography as a weapon of mass distraction from the real issue: Whether or not we should "Spread the wealth around."
 
Can you please tell me what's so wrong with spreading wealth around? I guess our current tax system is Marxist then? If our tax system is based on a Marxist idea then isn't our government Marxist? Are we Marxists, then? =\

And don't give me that, "I made it with hard work so I should keep it" argument because you sound like a selfish capitalistic pig. When I hear people say that I immediately think of Gollum from the Lord of the Rings..."My precious, my precious!"

Give me a break.

That's actually a really good description of the GOP. Man I'm creative...
 
Yes, I do think that the current income tax system has a marxist essence to it. However, Obama's tax plan explicitly works toward the goal of redistribution.

Obama's tax plan:
Step 1: Tax the rich more (btw, the top 1% of income earners currently shoulder 40% of the tax burden).
Step 2: Give tax "rebate" checks to lower income earners that aren't necessarily having problems paying their bills in the first place. The interesting part is that in a lot of cases, these "rebate" checks will be greater than the amount that individual paid in taxes.

It is a clever way to achieve the goal of redistribution with attractive words like "tax-cut".




Obama in 2001: said:
If you look at the victories and failures of the civil rights movement and its litigation strategy in the court. I think where it succeeded was to invest formal rights in previously dispossessed people, so that now I would have the right to vote. I would now be able to sit at the lunch counter and order as long as I could pay for it I’d be o.k. But, the Supreme Court never ventured into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and of more basic issues such as political and economic justice in society. To that extent, as radical as I think people try to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the founding fathers in the Constitution, at least as its been interpreted and Warren Court interpreted in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties. Says what the states can’t do to you. Says what the Federal government can’t do to you, but doesn’t say what the Federal government or State government must do on your behalf, and that hasn’t shifted and one of the, I think, tragedies of the civil rights movement was, um, because the civil rights movement became so court focused I think there was a tendancy to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalition of powers through which you bring about redistributive change. In some ways we still suffer from that.


P.S.
I made it with hard work so I should keep it.

I would prefer to be a happy capitalistic pig eating at the trough of my own earnings than a servant to caesar's charitable pet projects.

by the way, you sound like a Hugo Chavez when you use the word "capitalist" as a derogatory term.
 
Thank you for the cacophonous sentiment by comparing me to Hugo Chavez ;x

Now you sound like McCain.

But I guess we just differ in our philosophies...

You still honestly think widening the gap between the rich and the poor is the best solution? I'm sorry but I don't understand that.

I belong in Canada/Europe where people live in communities rather than "sitting on their money with a gun in hand." aka GOP

Yes, I just quoted myself. =)

Back to back posts merged. The following information has been added:

Oh, and I don't want to bring religion into this, but if you call yourself a Christian (which I'm sure you do since you live in TX), would you go so far as to call Jesus the ultimate Marxist? How does that affect your view of Christianity now?
 
Last edited:
Thank you for the cacophonous sentiment by comparing me to Hugo Chavez ;x

It just sounded like something Chavez would say.

You still honestly think widening the gap between the rich and the poor is the best solution? I'm sorry but I don't understand that.

I honestly don't care what the gap is as long as people aren't starving to death. Obama's definition of rich is completely arbitrary. I just wish the government would get out of the way, leave us alone, and do only what is necessary to maintain an orderly society.

I belong in Canada/Europe where people live in communities rather than "sitting on their money with a gun in hand." aka GOP

Whats wrong with having your own money, and defending it? Am I somehow evil for owning private property and protecting said property? Absolutely not. Is there something wrong with exercising our rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment? not at all.

Oh, and I don't want to bring religion into this, but if you call yourself a Christian (which I'm sure you do since you live in TX), would you go so far as to call Jesus the ultimate Marxist? How does that affect your view of Christianity now?

Jesus was perfect. Mankind is not perfect. I would not give man the ability to have unabashed control over other men and the fruits of their labor.

I think you have a misconception about me and other conservatives that we are somehow against charity, sharing, volunteering, good deeds, etc. You will find some of the most charitable people are conservatives (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html). Stop being charitable with other people's money. There is a tendency by liberals to assume that if there is a problem in society, the government needs to be involved. I have a newsflash: Government involvement often leads to more problems, and it inherently coerces somebody, somewhere to do something they don't want to do (aka, pay higher taxes so that someone else can afford their xbox360). Political solutions always lead to political coercion. True conservatives would use government as a LAST RESORT to solve these problems. If it can be solved through voluntary action, or through the free-market which inherently is made up of voluntary exchanges, then there is absolutely no political coercion. The government is the only entity which has the ability to use force, Pokemans. It needs to be used carefully and rarely.

BTW, the "poor" in America have a car and cable TV.
 
really? then how was it that so many people had no way to get out when katrina hit new orleans?

'mom

Cuz neither LA nor the US Gov't told them to get out when Katrina became forecasted to hit Cat 4. They only gave the Get Out order a day before Katrina hit. From what I remember, there were a LOT of people stuck in highway traffic cuz nobody had the foresight to say, "hey, let's block the inbound traffic and open all lanes outbound". People saw the traffic, and opted to simply sit and wait.
 
I honestly don't care what the gap is as long as people aren't starving to death. Obama's definition of rich is completely arbitrary. I just wish the government would get out of the way, leave us alone, and do only what is necessary to maintain an orderly society.



Whats wrong with having your own money, and defending it? Am I somehow evil for owning private property and protecting said property? Absolutely not. Is there something wrong with exercising our rights guaranteed by the 2nd amendment? not at all.



Jesus was perfect. Mankind is not perfect. I would not give man the ability to have unabashed control over other men and the fruits of their labor.

I think you have a misconception about me and other conservatives that we are somehow against charity, sharing, volunteering, good deeds, etc. You will find some of the most charitable people are conservatives (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/conservatives_more_liberal_giv.html). Stop being charitable with other people's money. There is a tendency by liberals to assume that if there is a problem in society, the government needs to be involved. I have a newsflash: Government involvement often leads to more problems, and it inherently coerces somebody, somewhere to do something they don't want to do (aka, pay higher taxes so that someone else can afford their xbox360). Political solutions always lead to political coercion. True conservatives would use government as a LAST RESORT to solve these problems. If it can be solved through voluntary action, or through the free-market which inherently is made up of voluntary exchanges, then there is absolutely no political coercion. The government is the only entity which has the ability to use force, Pokemans. It needs to be used carefully and rarely.

BTW, the "poor" in America have a car and cable TV.

This is where I attack you because I have a lot of personal investment here.

What you're suggesting is anarchy. You're suggesting that the government not do what it is supposed to do. Do you know where the Republican philosophy of doing nothing started? It started with Warren G. Harding, the man who became President in order to make his wife happy. In exchange, he was allowed a mistress, and spent very little time in the Oval Office. Because doing nothing seemed to work, his VP, when he took over, decided too that this was a good idea and did nothing, And since then it's been the Republican tradition to do nothing for their own country(just other countries.)

So, you should monger money if you have have extra, and not give anything back to society? I think Christianity frowns up on greed and gluttony, which is essentially what you're suggesting.

And Jesus asked each and every person to do their best to help others. I forgot you were exempt.

Waiting until the last second to do something when people are suffering is wrong. Will the system be abused? Of course, but at least the people who need help and deserve it will get it. The system has always been misused and abused. Of course, people high up already misuse the system for their own greed, so you might as well see this as fair play.
 
Boofu is back! Hurray! I always enjoy your posts.

Well, Boofu has done a great job summing up the Republican argument. Here is something to think about from the other side of the aisle:

The cost of one gallon of gasoline is not lower for a poor person than it is for a wealthy person.

The cost of one gallon of milk is not lower for a poor person than it is for a wealthy person.

The cost of one gallon of heating oil is not lower for a poor person than it is for a wealthy person.

The cost of a pack of Pokemon cards is not lower for a poor person than it is for a wealthy person.

The average household income in the United States is about $50,000. The average expenditures for a household are about $40,000.

To survive, everyone family, poor or wealthy, need to spend money on the basics: housing, transportation, food, utilities, health care. These costs are born by the poor and wealthy roughly equally.

A household bringing in the average, spending the average, would see $10,000 left over, before taxes.

A household, defined by Obama as rich, earning $250,000, spending the national average, would see $210,000 left over.

A household, defined by McCain as rich, earning $5,000,000, spending the national average, would see $4,960,000 left over.

A flat, mythically fair, tax on all purchases of goods and services, to replace the existing sales tax, and eliminate property and income tax, of 20% would result mean:

If your household income is $50,000, your tax on $40,000 expenditure would be $8000, your actual tax rate is 16%, and you would be left with $2,000.

If your household income is $250,000, your tax on $40,000 expenditure would be $8000, your actual tax rate is 3.2%, and you would be left with $202,000.

If your household income is $5,000,000, your tax on $40,000 expenditure would be $8000, your actual tax rate is .16%, and you would be left with $4,952,000.

This grossly unfair flat tax is trotted out by, surprise, the wealthy, and those who hope to become wealthy, for one reason only: they want to free themselves from their fair responsibility for taxes.

The wealthy have had their taxes cut, and our nation is at war. At no other time in our nations history have the wealthy contributed so little to the war effort.

The majority of serving military families are not wealthy, but our nation's true elite, the wealthy, would tax those military families even more while reducing their own tax burden to even less.

Speaking of which, how many of the McCain supporting Republicans in these threads have served their country in the active military?

I served 4 years in the US Army, I am an honorably discharged ROK Ranger, Air Assault qualified, Infantry Sergeant, having served in the most forward deployed Infantry Battalion in the US Army, with a Top Secret, compartmentalized, security clearance. I was expert qualified in Rifle, Pistol, Mortar, and Grenade. I was twice awarded the Army commendation medal, twice awarded the Army Achievement medal, and awarded the Good Conduct Medal, NCO Professional Development, Army Service, Overseas Service, and UN Korean Service Ribbons. I earned the Expert Infantry Badge, The Imjin Scout Badge. I met and briefed the Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee and the Army Chief of Staff.

I would venture that very few, if any, that advocate here for McCain and his war without end have any military service at all. I loath chicken hawks.

I know about military service. I know about leadership. I am a veteran for Obama.

The progressive tax originates with Adam Smith (if you have taken economics in college, he's the first economist you heard of) in The Wealth of Nations. Although Republicans like to cite Karl Marx as a example of why the progressive tax is socialist/communist, the argument against the progressive tax in Karl Marx and the Close of his System is the one most often used (Republicans are Marxists). In the United States, the vast majority of economists (81%) support progressive taxation.

In 1907, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt urged Congress to adopt a progressive income tax.

This is not class warfare. Class warfare is practiced by the wealthy, and by the Republicans, upon the poor and middle class everyday.

You'll hear that the wealthy are taxed higher in America than anywhere else; this is not true. Because of lobbyists, our tax codes have so many loopholes that most wealthy people pay among the lowest taxes in the world, while some pay no taxes at all.

sources:
http://www.bts.gov/publications/pocket_guide_to_transportation/2005/html/figure_10.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_tax
 
Last edited:
Yes Pokedad, I am back. I have been BUSY managing a state house campaign in Iowa. We nicknamed our direct mail campaign of 40 thousand pieces "operation insomniac." The direct mail dropped on Thursday, so I will have a lot more free time to bring truth to the Gym. :)


There are 2 different tax systems I would like to see:

1st one is the flat tax which would garnish a fixed percentage across all income levels.

So in the separate cases of your three scenarios, Pokedad:

Family making 50k/year with 15% tax rate = $7,500 tax burden

Family making 250k/year with 15% tax rate = $37,500 tax burden

Family making 5M/year with 15% tax rate = $750,000 tax burden


2nd Scenario is the fair tax which you addressed.

One commonly unknown fact about the fair-tax is that it really IS progressive. There is a tax rebate on spending until the spending passes the poverty line.

So, let's arbitrarily say the poverty line is $20k/year. $20k X .20 = $4000 given back as a rebate check. Spending past that is not given back. Therefore, the rich, spending more on their house, their car, entertainment, out dining, etc etc is GOING to be taxed more as a percentage of income because their spending will most definitely go further past the poverty line than lower income earners. What I like about this system, is that it encourages savings and investment because it gets rid of the capital gains taxes. Taxation is based on actions of the person being taxed. It brings people into the system like Illegal immigrants. Taxation is mostly on luxuries... and the system doesn't so grossly favor one group over another.

When were we talking about war, Pokedad?

Anyways, I applied for the Airforce Academy out of highschool, and thought I was going to get in, but was rejected because of previous bouts with asthma. I went through all the Physical Aptitude Tests, Physicals, and Eye examinations and then in May of my senior year of high school, I got word that I wouldn't be going. So, I went to Texas Tech instead. By the way, thank you for your service to our country. My act of arguing with you on this forum is a tribute to your service, lol.

@ The Supes: What I propose is not anarchy. I stated that I think government should maintain an orderly society and let me add that laws should uphold justice and only justice. But yes, I do love the idea of a do-nothing government. I love government gridlock. Also, I didn't say that we should monger money and not give back to society, if you would have read my post you would have realized that I just don't want the government involved. You are exactly displaying my point that the liberal's default viewpoint is to have the government take care of it. Well, I say NO to the nanny-state. Let me be charitable, but don't force me to be charitable.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top