I'm surprised that no one is talking about Joe the Plumber...

[LisaKinVA]

Has anyone here looked into books which focus on the art of argumentation? Some of these titles can be helpful when exploring logic through debate -- and/or you can pull the logic portions from these materials:

 

Strategic Debate (National Textbook Company, by Wood/Goodnight)

Elements of Argument (I have the 1988 edition, by Rottenberg, a Bedford Book)

Argumentation, Inquiry & Advocacy (Ziegelmueller & Kay pub by Allen and Bacon)

 

I have those on my shelf currently -- but I pulled a bibliography of some titles which might be worth looking into:

 

Dialectic by Adler

Arguments & Arguing by Hollihan & Baaske

Argument & Const. Rhetoric by Kahare

Reasoning & Communication by Makau

Teaching Critical Thinking: Dialogue & Dialectic by McPeak

Uses of Argument by Toulmin

Foundations of Argument by Reinard

Informal Logic by Copi

The Logic of Choice by Gottlieb

Intro to Reasoning by Rieke & Janik

 

Just wasn't going to Amazon to look these up tonight.

 

Being a former debater and coach, I plan to teach most of the critical thinking/logic through mostly debate materials :D

[Jumping In Puddles]

 

Every once in a while someone brings up that Philip Berg, former PA attorney, yada yada yada making it seem like he is a respected US attorney, not an extreme conspiracy theorist. He is.

 

quote]

 

Why can't he be both;)? Isn't "extreme conspiracy theorist" redundant?

 

I don't agree with him on 9/11 (and actually was unaware of that case, shame on me for not fleshing out my research more fully) but I do think there are enough questions surrounding the dreaded birth certificate, testimonies of family members, etc. to warrant a lawsuit. Anybody with nothing to hide would hold a press conference and release a genuine birth certificate to the media and the FEC. Instead Obama and the DNC submit a motion for dismissal. If the document is really residing safely in Obama's home (as Factcheck claims) then why doesn't he just produce it to election officials and put to rest all of these suspicions. Instead he gives a copy to Factcheck and the DailyKos, two really reliable sources:glare:. I just don't get it and I think the American people deserve constitutionally sound candidates on their ballots. I do not want to see this election in the courts for months on end. It would be really refreshing if all the candidates would be as candid as possible.

 

I will stop beating this dead horse. I took an oath against that kind of thing.:001_smile:

 

Ok Soph, this will be the last I post on this too - I just want to get this out. :) I don't believe this is about a birth certificate.

 

Honestly, if the McCain campaign, or the US Secret Service really thought that Obama was NOT a US citizen, this would be HUGE!, and I mean HUGE! not just ignored by the liberal media and posted on right wing blogs and a frivolous law suit by a conspiracy theorist. I believe before he even got the nomination, when he was given SS security detail that it would be revealed that he was not eligible. Really, is that hard to believe?

 

Obama's candidacy was approved by his state legislature in Hawaii. Barack says this on his website:

 

"Smears claiming Barack Obama doesn’t have a birth certificate aren’t actually about that piece of paper — they’re about manipulating people into thinking Barack is not an American citizen.

 

The truth is, Barack Obama was born in the state of Hawaii in 1961, a native citizen of the United States of America."

 

and includes a picture of his birth certificate. I disagree that there is "enough question" about his birth. If you look at Mr. Berg's 911 site, he sure does present a lot of "evidence" and many people believe there is "enough evidence". I disagree with that too.

 

I just think that here is this guy that is being touted as this prominent democrat who has uncovered this great scandal but when he wanted to sue Bush/Cheney he was seen as a leftist wingnut.

 

Why can't he be both? It could be "Very Interesting" when is is against your opponent but "Absurd!" when it is against you own? KWIM?

 

you can’t sue an Illinois resident in Pennsylvania UNLESS they committed so wrongdoing in Pennsylvania, such as crashing a car. There is no grounds for Joe Blow to sue him in Pennsylvania because he thinks Obama has duel citizenship . . . especially when there is no evidence he wasn’t born outside the US. In fact, I doubt there is any forum for such a challenge.

Second, the judge has not ruled, nonetheless ordered him to turn over anything. Such an order would come through a motion to compel discovery. A motion to dismiss would trump a motion to compel production of that document. And guess what else? Obama can only be ordered to produce what he has. If he does not have a birth certificate or that other document, he can’t produce it, can he?

Last, don’t be surprised if the judge doesn’t rule until sometime after the election. This b.s. litigation would not be very high on the average judge’s “to do†list. [quote

[Jean too]

Here it is on you tube along with a clip of Biden on the Tonight Show discussing Joe the Plumber.

It sounded pretty snarky and petty to me as did Biden's bit on the Tonight Show.

 

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=mSHqxosjyLY

 

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=_u8vyZQwrnw&feature=related

Edited October 18, 2008 by Jean too

[Annabel Lee]

For all of those bashing Obama, as usual, and cheering McCain, as usual, please take a look at some of the news, not blogs, about "Joe the Plumber"--here is an article that tells the background, including the fact that:

 

"In fact, Obama, his running mate Joe Biden and their campaign have barely mentioned Wurzelbacher. Obama and Biden both attacked McCain for portraying Wurzelbacher as representative of most blue-collar workers, asking how many plumbers make $250,000 a year."

 

Here is the link:

 

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081017/ap_on_el_pr/mccain

 

to this article:

 

McCain Challenges Obama's Tax Cut Promise

 

As it states, news crews are the ones digging through this guys life and background, not Obama. McCain is the one who made this guy famous, not Obama, because McCain quotes him all the time, brings him up all the time. If you are looking for someone to blame for this guy's fame, blame McCain; as for the guy owing back taxes, he has no one to blame but himself.

 

On a thread like this I'll admit, I should have read each and every page before posting. However, I only read to page 4 and saw how many pages were left to go. So, forgive me if this issue has already been brought up, but here goes.

 

As far as I know, and I haven't gone back to listen to the clips to check exact language, Joe didn't say he currently makes $250,000 per year, did he? I thought he wanted to buy the company or move up in it in order to do so, but was dismayed at the idea of moving into Sn. Obama's "upper 5%" tax bracket. Please fill me in on this - did Joe say he does make that much or that he would if he went forward with his career plans?

 

After speaking with 3 friends tonight who work in construction contracting, they said that it would not be hard as a plumber to make that much if you have 6 or 7 large projects going. They cited the long hours plumbers work, often being on-call afterhours.

 

The uproar is that the redistribution of wealth in this manner has never been done in this country before (the US not being socialist and all :tongue_smilie:). People in the U.S. are free to move up the career ladder, get raises, become the manager or president of a company, etc. without their hard-earned $$ being "redistributed". Ideally, we are free to get what we earn - be it a big fat 0 for no work or as much as is possible for ingenuity and effort. Is $250,000 the cap on how 'rich' we're allowed to be under an Obama presidency? My concern is exactly that: putting a 'cap' on capitalism.

[Laurie4b]

We all know that anyone who runs for public office has to be prepared to have every bit of their own and their spouse's and their kids' dirty laundry aired in public, and that this most likely has a chilling effect on who will decide to run. I wonder if we might not get a higher caliber of politician if it was otherwise...but it's probably always been this way.

 

However, it is really chilling to me to find people digging up dirt on a citizen who asked a question. How many of us would want the media, the party who didn't like our question, or anyone else going through our private lives and proclaiming it all over the media? THis is not good, whether you are a McCain supporter, Obama supporter, opt out because you can't stand to vote for either or whatever.

 

Suppose that one of us asked a question that someone didn't like? How many of us would want people sharing our private information? To me, it feels like a punishment for asking the question and a potential squelching of First Amendment rights--not by the government, but by the actions of the press. They really should be ashamed of themselves, as should the O campaign if they provided any of the private information. (I'm not alleging that. I don't know if they have said they did or not. But if they did, they should be ashamed.)

[Susie in CA]

ETA: NevadaRabbit, not only do I feel those things have been done to death, but I spent way too much time this morning searching out references related to a YouTube video of Hannity's big "expose" of Obama's radical ties. I could not find one credible connection. I spent a lot of time looking at Palin when she first appeared on the scene, and I'm content that I've found what there is. The conclusion I've come to is that the grey area in Obama's life is most likely incidental, and the grey area in Palin's is because people knew they were doing wrong when they did it, and therefore hemmed, hawwed, and covered things up. I completely understand that people on this board will disagree with me, I'm just making it clear that I'm not being diverted by Joe, he's a new issue and I'm following up.

 

 

How can anyone say 'the gray area in Obama's life is most likely incidental?' This is truly beyond me! I don't mean to be offensive here but the truth is that both candidates have dirt, both have exaggerated and understated many times. Both even have outright lied. How anyone can say that one is better than the other is just unbelievable. Our taxes will go up no matter which canditate wins the election!

 

I guess, now I have to stay away from this board, too.

 

Susie

[Annabel Lee]

Our taxes will go up no matter which canditate wins the election!

 

 

:iagree: Anyone who believes otherwise is in for a rude awakening.

[Perry]

I would also like to find a solid secular logic course for children (or teens).

 

When I reviewed The Art of Argument I found that the topics that they chose as examples were slanted toward a Christian agenda, things like as Darwin and abortion (I think I'm remembering this right). These are topics that aren't really even on my son's radar yet (yes, he knows about Darwin and evolution and that some people don't believe in evolution). It also seemed that they were being disrespectful towards Darwin, which to me indicates a bias. I decided not to use it because I didn't want to be constantly having to explain the particular issues they used as examples. I just don't have the energy to "secularize" Christian materials.

 

 

I'll have to go back and look at it again. I recall the abortion issue, because I had some explaining to do when that came up. But I only remember it being discussed once. I don't remember anything about evolution. I didn't go over it with a fine toothed comb though, so I probably missed it.

 

I did feel that it had a mild bias, but we discussed it when it came up and it made for some interesting conversations. I'd love to see a purely secular logic course, but I don't know if there is one that is appropriate for late elementary/ early middle school.

[Jenny in Atl]

 

The uproar is that the redistribution of wealth in this manner has never been done in this country before (the US not being socialist and all :tongue_smilie:). People in the U.S. are free to move up the career ladder, get raises, become the manager or president of a company, etc. without their hard-earned $$ being "redistributed". Ideally, we are free to get what we earn - be it a big fat 0 for no work or as much as is possible for ingenuity and effort. Is $250,000 the cap on how 'rich' we're allowed to be under an Obama presidency? My concern is exactly that: putting a 'cap' on capitalism.

 

People need to do research on the history of tax rates in the US. There have been years where the tops rates were in the 70's and 80's. So this notion that there has never been a progressive tax rate before is false. Here are just a couple sites.

 

http://www.taxfoundation.org/files/federalindividualratehistory-20080107.pdf

 

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php

 

There is no cap on how rich one can be. 250k was the point in which taxes would go back up a bit... a progressive tax. We have one now.

[LisaNY]

He's not a plant from the McCain; he's apparently a real plumber, a sub-contractor, who has hopes to buy a business someday. Yes, he needs to take care of his back taxes, but that doesn't preclude his right to question Senator Obama about his tax plan.

 

I don't think he had any idea, when he questioned Obama, what a can of worms he was opening up.

 

I hope the press stops hounding him. If I were questioning a presidential candidate, I wouldn't necessarily presume that suddenly I would become the focal point of controversy.

 

The main point is, of course, Senator Obama's answer.

 

That's it, exactly. People can spin it all they want, and discredit the questioner, the fact remains that Obama gave the man an honest answer about his thoughts on the issue.

[Jackie in AR]

I've got to disagree on this one. Obama has been vetted within an inch of his life, IMO. And I think, if McCain is going to make this guy a symbol of all that's wrong with Obama, then he'd better know who he's talking about. I feel much the same way about this that I do about the Palin nomination: he didn't do due diligence, and it makes me doubt his judgement, and the judgement of his advisors.

 

He made an illogical, poorly researched emotional appeal his cornerstone in the third debate. The fact that he held a man up as an example who seems to have some ethical and logical issues, the fact that McCain's supporters (and veep) keep painting Obama as a radical when Joe, an American "good guy", has some pretty radical views, the fact that Wurzelbacher may in fact have ties which call into question his motivation for being in that Obama rally in the first place, are all pretty relevant issues.

 

All the guy did was ask Barack Obama a simple question about his proposed tax plan. Obama's answer directly reflected the difference between his and McCain's ideologies.

 

To suggest that John McCain is incompetent (he didn't do due diligence; you doubt his judgment as well as the judgment of his advisors; Joe the Plumber has some "pretty radical views" and "questionable" motivation for being at the rally) because he mentioned this man and Obama's answer is laughable, and, in your words, an "illogical, poorly-researched, emotional appeal."

[LisaNY]

Logic by Copi

 

Jenny, this is suitable for use with Logic Stage children?

[LisaNY]

Everyone?

 

When I have disposable income, I donate to libraries and other organizations. If I had my taxes back, I'd happily help to support the institutions I think are worth supporting.

 

However, taxing the rich at a higher rate, and deliberately redistributing the wealth, is not necessary to fund those programs you mentioned. Sen. Obama was talking about wealth redistribution, as in taking MORE money from the wealthy and "spreading it around." I'm not for it, and I don't believe that we need it to make this country work.

 

We can keep discussing if you like, but I'm not at all likely to go past "I'm not for it." I'm not. Therefore, I don't like his answer. Many people don't like his answer. I guess many others do. That's why we're voting.

 

Exactly! This is one of my main misgivings about an Obama presidency.

[lovemyboys]

We all know that anyone who runs for public office has to be prepared to have every bit of their own and their spouse's and their kids' dirty laundry aired in public, and that this most likely has a chilling effect on who will decide to run. I wonder if we might not get a higher caliber of politician if it was otherwise...but it's probably always been this way.

 

However, it is really chilling to me to find people digging up dirt on a citizen who asked a question. How many of us would want the media, the party who didn't like our question, or anyone else going through our private lives and proclaiming it all over the media? THis is not good, whether you are a McCain supporter, Obama supporter, opt out because you can't stand to vote for either or whatever.

 

Suppose that one of us asked a question that someone didn't like? How many of us would want people sharing our private information? To me, it feels like a punishment for asking the question and a potential squelching of First Amendment rights--not by the government, but by the actions of the press. They really should be ashamed of themselves, as should the O campaign if they provided any of the private information. (I'm not alleging that. I don't know if they have said they did or not. But if they did, they should be ashamed.)

 

Your point reminded me of the email situation about a month ago. There wasn't much of an outcry about that when Palin's yahoo account was hacked and then spread all over the internet, scrutinized and discussed at length.

 

No disgust, no cries for privacy issues or dirty politics. It all depends on who's doing the invading or denigrating and who might benefit it seems. It's all relative. bleh.

 

Like I said to Bill, this was a campaign moment that McCain used as a metaphor. For the press to then dig through this person's life is ridiculous and it's wrong and dishonest if Obama/Biden use this information to discredit this person, as you said, for asking a question of a candidate. Stategy aside, we can see the effort to get off of Obama's answer, it's just wrong. double bleh.

[Jenny in Atl]

Jenny, this is suitable for use with Logic Stage children?

 

More high school to college level or with modification jr. high (that's what I'm doing very slowly). :)

[LizzyBee]

I was actually there at the rally where Obama said "plumber" and then everyone laughed. You see, he was speaking to a bunch of hardworking mostly blue-collars and very lower class people of whom many had been laid off. So, to them "plumber" did not mean anything derogatory, but merely just another job that they could id with. And being there in the crowd (I am more academia than blue-collar and we are not lower middle class fyi), it was clear that Obama sounded pretty sincere -and not at all sarcastic-when he said this. Especially when you know his background.

 

That's all.

 

Thanks for clarifying this. I watched the youtube link, but it didn't include any context. Even though I'm not going to vote for Obama, I can't very well get upset when soundbites of conservatives are taken out of context and distorted, and then not get just as upset when the same is done to liberal candidates. I don't know if the smear tactics are worse this year (not just at the presidential level) or if I'm just more sensitive to it, but I am really disgusted with a lot of people on both sides of the aisle and I can't wait for this election season to be OVER!

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Here it is on you tube along with a clip of Biden on the Tonight Show discussing Joe the Plumber.

It sounded pretty snarky and petty to me as did Biden's bit on the Tonight Show.

 

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=mSHqxosjyLY

 

http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=_u8vyZQwrnw&feature=related

 

It certainly DOES sound snarky and petty. Horribly so. I wouldn't have believed it. What a nasty, nasty thing to say. Except for it is CLIPPED to make it seem so.

 

Did you watch the link I embedded in my post? Did you read the whole quote? Do you still think he is being petty?

 

As for Biden on Leno? It's LENO. I don't take anything that John McCain did on Letterman or off Letterman or while being spoken about on Letterman as having anything to do with the actual John McCain the candidate. Do you take Biden on Leno seriously?

[Pam "SFSOM" in TN]

Your point reminded me of the email situation about a month ago. There wasn't much of an outcry about that when Palin's yahoo account was hacked and then spread all over the internet, scrutinized and discussed at length.

 

No disgust, no cries for privacy issues or dirty politics. It all depends on who's doing the invading or denigrating and who might benefit it seems. It's all relative. bleh.

 

 

There was an outcry, and now the kid has now been indicted. He will be PUNISHED. We didn't need to cry very loudly. The rule of law took over.

[LisaNY]

More high school to college level or with modification jr. high (that's what I'm doing very slowly). :)

 

Thanks, Jenny! :001_smile:

[Saille]

All the guy did was ask Barack Obama a simple question about his proposed tax plan. Obama's answer directly reflected the difference between his and McCain's ideologies.

 

Here, we agree.

 

To suggest that John McCain is incompetent (he didn't do due diligence; you doubt his judgment as well as the judgment of his advisors; Joe the Plumber has some "pretty radical views" and "questionable" motivation for being at the rally) because he mentioned this man and Obama's answer is laughable, and, in your words, an "illogical, poorly-researched, emotional appeal."

 

I disagree. McCain wished to showcase an average American down on his luck. It was a tactic meant to appeal to the emotions and neighborly sensibilities of American voters. Poor, poor Joe, who's going to get shafted on taxes. Joe, as presented by McCain, was not a person, he was a symbol. The American people, who expect a presidential candidate to know what he's talking about, have a reasonable expectation that Joe will actually BE what John McCain says he is. The press are naturally going to follow up.

 

Joe Wurzelbacher, it transpires, does not actually pay his taxes.

 

Joe has not met the state's legal requirements to work as a plumber, which include an apprenticeship and a license.

 

Joe's original question, although it may be relevant to other voters, was misrepresentative of his actual situation. (See article in previous paragraph.)

 

The only thing about Joe that does evince sympathy is that, because his name is misspelled on the voter rolls and the deadline to change it is past, he may not actually be able to VOTE.

 

If John McCain is going to make such an example of Joe Wurzelbacher (whose name he couldn't even say correctly) that he's mentioned 26 times in a 90 minute debate (ten more times than the economy), he had better make doggone sure that his chosen example of "everyman" isn't terribly flawed. McCain has millions of dollars and a myriad of staffers to ask questions and do a brief check of public records, which is all it took to uncover the tax liens and other irregularities. He didn't do it. This was his last chance to impress the American people on a national stage before the election, and he didn't do the basic prep work involved. That's unacceptable.

 

Here's an actual, complete video of the entire discussion Obama and Wurzelbacher had. It's thoughtful, substantive, and there's nothing socialist about it. Obama even mentions eliminating the capital gains tax for people in the bracket Joe claimed he'd be in. Please, actually watch it.

Edited October 18, 2008 by Saille