Zelda Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 No I don't. We keep looking for those...but it is an illusive hunt. Play on! Seriously? We're headed into the logic stage next year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Our opinions differ on the vetting of Obama. Where are his college & law school records? Where are his law school papers? Where are President Bush's college records? Where are Sen. McCain's? Where are Governor Palin's? Where are Sen. Biden's? President Carter's? President Clinton's? Where? They're not public. That's where. As to Sen. Obama's law school papers, check publications. Did he publish in the HLR or just edit? Did he publish while on faculty at UofC? If so, they're published. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saille Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Popping in to say thank you to Mom to Aly, b/c that article clarified that Obama was walking through Joe's neighborhood, which means Joe was not a plant at a rally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 No I don't. We keep looking for those...but it is an illusive hunt. Play on! Logic by Copi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle in MO Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 (edited) we called a moratorium on political threads. It's getting to the point where I'm seeing more and more rabbit trails, illogical answers, attacking the messenger, etc. If I have to read one more thread like this: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62587&highlight=%24250%2C000 or this: http://www.welltrainedmind.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62605&highlight=%24250%2C000 or some of the others that have cropped up lately, I'm going to do this: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: These issues have been discussed ad nauseam (there's a good Latin word for you). Can't we all just agree to disagree, go out and vote on Nov. 4th, and get back to discussing more pertinent topics, like homeschooling or our kids' education in general? Please????? Edited October 17, 2008 by Michelle in MO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alenee Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Last night on NBC news my husband heard that they (NBC) did some checking into the Joe the Plumber thing and found out that he isn't a real plumber!! How's that, folks. Some are speculating that he was a "plant" from the Mccain camp, too. The guy (Joe) is just a plain and simple liar trying to get his 15 minutes of fame. What a jerk! I smell a troll..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I smell a troll..... Not at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 OK this is a bit rich. After raising Joe's profile in a huge way, John McCain is now blaming Barack Obama for the media frenzy that's turning the poor man's world upside down. Come on John! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Bothers me. This whole thing is very Kos Kids. Yes, Joe the Plumbing Apprentice is not voting for Obama...let it go. Can you define a Kos Kid? (And I know what Kos is, I just don't know what a Kos Kid is.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovemyboys Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 What matters is Obama's answer. Whoever Joe is or is not, it does not change Obama's answer. And I have a huge problem with Obama's answer. I also have a huge problem with the sound bite I heard today, in which Obama said, in a laughing voice, "A *plumber* is who McCain is fighting for!" and then his audience laughed. That was one of the strongest points that Sen. McCain made in the debates. You have to listen to what Sen. Obama actually says, not what you want to hear. When he's talking about something watch for the words like "will consider" and "looking at" etc. I've said it before, if we watch for the candid moments and off the cuff remarks, we get a truer picture of what this candidate is all about. I hope people are watching. Particularly anyone who is thinking they won't bother voting or who is going to cast a 3rd party ballot, it might matter a whole lot more than you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jejily Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Again, the news has been hounding "Joe", not Obama, McCain is the one that is making "Joe" famous, not Obama, and, I must agree with Obama on this, if someone is worried about paying taxes on an income of $250,000+ a year, I'd hardly call them blue collar, no matter their profession. No one has implied it was Obama trying to dig up dirt on Joe the Plumber. It is all about the media, and their rabid response to anything that makes Obama look bad. The point most people are making, in response to the OP, is that: 1. The media seems far more interested in vetting this guy than they do in vetting some of Obama's not-so-past acquaintances. 2. The media seems far more interested in trying to examine why Joe asked the questions (was he plant?!) than in examining why Obama gave the response he did. There is no way Joe the Plumber could have "forced" that response from Obama, or "tricked" him into saying it, even if Joe were a "plant" paid to be there by John McCain himself. That has to be evident to anyone with a brain. Also, if he were a plant, there's no way McCain would have invoked his name in the debates as the symbol for "every man" -- he (McCain) would have to know that Joe's "true identity" would be revealed. So, in spite of this overwhlemingly obvious scenario, the press has gone after Joe in a manner unprecendented in past elections. It's unnerving, to say the least. An acquaintance of mine wrote this, and I thought it was well-stated: It is egregious, because the press never, ever does that kind of "digging" on people who publicly oppose McCain. The media's behavior this election cycle has been nothing short of scandalous. Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner has been covered to death, even dubbed a "-gate." But somehow Biden's son being given a lucrative job by MBNA while Biden was working hard to make sure legislation that would line MBNA's pockets passed is really not at all interesting. Completely insignificant. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along. That's just one example. I've never seen anything approaching this level of bias in my life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 :iagree:And now the Obama camp is trying to dig up dirt on the guy. Pretty brazen of them, IMO. They are vetting this poor plumber more than Obama has been vetted himself. The Obama camp? Really? Or maybe the media wanted to know about whom Sen. McCain was talking (I sure did) and went to find out more about Joe the Plumber, as reporters in a free society are wont to do. I agree about the poor plumber part. But I can't imagine a more microscopically scrutinized candidate than Sen. Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 This is ridiculous. McCain should have vetted Joe the Plumber before mentioning his name in the debate? I saw it as mostly symbolic of blue collar America, not him specifically. He used his example to draw comparisons between tax plans, that's all. The fact that this has become about him, with his life being scrutinized, to me is very ugly. He asked a question without any way of knowing it would be latched on to by the politicians. Whether you are for McCain or Obama, surely that should be evident. I have no doubt that if, when questioned after the debate, Joe the Plumber said he supported Obama, none of this personal information would be deemed relevant. If he were for Obama, it would be an Obama campaign plant. Since he's a McCain supporter, he surely must be a McCain plant. Poor Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelda Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Can you define a Kos Kid? (And I know what Kos is, I just don't know what a Kos Kid is.) Sure! Its a pejorative term used to describe the rabble rousers at Daily Kos. The scoundrels. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 No one has implied it was Obama trying to dig up dirt on Joe the Plumber. It is all about the media, and their rabid response to anything that makes Obama look bad. The point most people are making, in response to the OP, is that: 1. The media seems far more interested in vetting this guy than they do in vetting some of Obama's not-so-past acquaintances. 2. The media seems far more interested in trying to examine why Joe asked the questions (was he plant?!) than in examining why Obama gave the response he did. There is no way Joe the Plumber could have "forced" that response from Obama, or "tricked" him into saying it, even if Joe were a "plant" paid to be there by John McCain himself. That has to be evident to anyone with a brain. Also, if he were a plant, there's no way McCain would have invoked his name in the debates as the symbol for "every man" -- he (McCain) would have to know that Joe's "true identity" would be revealed. So, in spite of this overwhlemingly obvious scenario, the press has gone after Joe in a manner unprecendented in past elections. It's unnerving, to say the least. An acquaintance of mine wrote this, and I thought it was well-stated: It is egregious, because the press never, ever does that kind of "digging" on people who publicly oppose McCain. The media's behavior this election cycle has been nothing short of scandalous. Palin's firing of her public safety commissioner has been covered to death, even dubbed a "-gate." But somehow Biden's son being given a lucrative job by MBNA while Biden was working hard to make sure legislation that would line MBNA's pockets passed is really not at all interesting. Completely insignificant. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along, move along. That's just one example. I've never seen anything approaching this level of bias in my life. Then you have not studies past elections. A number make this one pale in comparison. The press used to be far more biased that even now. What about Fox News, National Review, TownHall.com? Also McCain's ops are doing a great job trying to dig up every last thing they can throw at Obama. Since most Americans hate the main stream media, it should not make much difference in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Sure! Its a pejorative term used to describe the rabble rousers at Daily Kos. The scoundrels. Ah. I suppose since the shoe fits, I should just put it on, or something. It's probably a cute shoe, right? Or are not all the folks at Kos rabble rousers? Are we only talking about the Rabble Rousers at Kos, or *all* the folks at Kos? Or if you only *read* Kos but not post, are you exempt? Or guilty by association, or what? How does that work, exactly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sleepy Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Logic by Copi Cool beans! Never would have thought that Joe the plumber would help me find secular logic materials. :D Thanks, Jenny! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soph the vet Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 The Obama camp? Really? Or maybe the media wanted to know about whom Sen. McCain was talking (I sure did) and went to find out more about Joe the Plumber, as reporters in a free society are wont to do. I agree about the poor plumber part. But I can't imagine a more microscopically scrutinized candidate than Sen. Obama. I'm sorry, Pam, I made the mistake of lumping the media into Sen. Obama's camp;). You already know how I feel about the scrutiny of Sen. Obama. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lovemyboys Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 OK this is a bit rich. After raising Joe's profile in a huge way, John McCain is now blaming Barack Obama for the media frenzy that's turning the poor man's world upside down. Come on John! Joe the Plumber was a guy asking the candidate a question. Then he became a metaphor. I think we all got that. But anything to keep people's attention focused away from the troubling answer that Obama gave. (Kinda like keeping the eye off the hobbits. ) ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelda Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Ah. I suppose since the shoe fits, I should just put it on, or something. It's probably a cute shoe, right? Or are not all the folks at Kos rabble rousers? Are we only talking about the Rabble Rousers at Kos, or *all* the folks at Kos? Or if you only *read* Kos but not post, are you exempt? Or guilty by association, or what? How does that work, exactly? I wouldn't put too much thought into it, Alphabet Pam (I love that). Its a throw-away term from a rival camp that reflects how I, predictably, feel about their site. Its like my husband's old basketball team used to play a team from Scottville and they called them the Scottville "Villains". Then after the game everyone shook hands and went for ice cream. I hadn't read further down and didn't realize how ugly this thread had gotten or I wouldn't have posted at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I wouldn't put too much thought into it, Alphabet Pam (I love that). Its a throw-away term from a rival camp that reflects how I, predictably, feel about their site. Its like my husband's old basketball team used to play a team from Scottville and they called them the Scottville "Villains". Then after the game everyone shook hands and went for ice cream. I hadn't read further down and didn't realize how ugly this thread had gotten or I wouldn't have posted at all. I won't, then. Thanks! I hadn't heard the term before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I'm sorry, Pam, I made the mistake of lumping the media into Sen. Obama's camp;). You already know how I feel about the scrutiny of Sen. Obama. Grrrrr. :glare: :D :grouphug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CAMom Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 This is unbelievabe. Truly unbelievable!:mad: Seems like the average American can now no longer even ask a question of a candidate without getting his own name dragged through the mud. I cannot believe that the media would dig up a guy's tax records simply because he asked a presidential candidate a question and then was mentioned in a debate! What an incredible invasion of privacy! Both candidates need to go on record and tell the media to knock it off right now. Not that they will comply but if they both don't do it, they are more morally corrupt than I ever dreamed they were. BTW, my name is misspelled on official documents ALL.THE.TIME! My first name nearly always appears with two "n's" and both my maiden and current last name are always misspelled because they are so unusual. Did you check out the guy's name? No wonder it's misspelled. Also, a "simple" pumber could easily be making $250K as a *business*! That's not what he'd be bringing home as an individual! Business people do re-invest their profit into their business to make it better. Shaking my head and truly unable to believe that a citizen is being raked over the coals...:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JudoMom Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 But we won't tell, will we JudoMom? We will just chuckle softly the next time someone asks "You want fries with that??" :lol: In order to keep my fingers under control and not tattle on NevadaRabbit, I took a nap. Mmmmmm.......french fries. Yes, please. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jejily Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 T... What about Fox News, National Review, TownHall.com? ... What about MSNBC, Huffington Post, Salon, DailyKos, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The New Yorker, ad nauseum? Please. There are far more liberal / left-leaning publications, news sites, and opinion writers than there are right-leaning. As for studying past elections, nope. I'll confess, I'm not a poli-sci major, and I don't spend enormous amounts of time comparing (in a scholarly way) the 2008 election to the elections in the 60s or 70s. I'm only comparing it to the elections in which I've been old enough to vote (1988 and later), and stating the way I see it. It's my analysis, not a formal analysis (which would be difficult to complete, no matter how objective you tried to be, because much of this is subjective). Of course, that's both the beauty and the harsh reality of it all, isn't it -- that each of us views events through our own lens of understanding and with our own perspective. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Seriously? We're headed into the logic stage next year. If you find something that is not obnoxious in the extreme, and doesn't use "logic" to advance a political ideology or a particularist version of religious faith, please let me know. There is a huge hole for a "logic" program that actually intends to teach logic rather than scoring ideological or theological points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle in MO Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Then you have not studies past elections. A number make this one pale in comparison. The press used to be far more biased that even now. What about Fox News, National Review, TownHall.com? Also McCain's ops are doing a great job trying to dig up every last thing they can throw at Obama. Since most Americans hate the main stream media, it should not make much difference in the end. National Review are not claiming to be unbiased; NR was founded by William F. Buckley, an avowed conservative. I would not expect them to proclaim any other viewpoint than their own. Nor would I expect New Republic to be anything but liberal. What is more troubling is when a news media, which is supposed to be unbiased, continually takes a slant on events. Those who lean towards the liberal end of things believe that Fox News always slants conservative; those who lean towards the conservative viewpoint believe that MSNBC always slants liberal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LizzyBee Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I'm not sure he understood the part about "the net amount OVER $250,000 will be taxed at a higher rate" -- say he earned $280K: $30K would be taxed at 39% instead of the current 36%, for an additional yearly tax of ~$750. Not that it makes a huge difference, but the highest current rate on individuals is 35%, not 36%. Someone who is married filing separate with taxable income of $280,000 would be in the 35% bracket, while someone who is married filing joint, single, or head of household would be in the 33% bracket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 National Review are not claiming to be unbiased; NR was founded by William F. Buckley, an avowed conservative. I would not expect them to proclaim any other viewpoint than their own. Nor would I expect New Republic to be anything but liberal. What is more troubling is when a news media, which is supposed to be unbiased, continually takes a slant on events. Those who lean towards the liberal end of things believe that Fox News always slants conservative; those who lean towards the conservative viewpoint believe that MSNBC always slants liberal. I slant liberal, and I believe MSNBC always slants liberal. I don't watch it for my news. And my FIL, staunch conservative extraordinaire, won't watch Fox for news because of its conservative bias. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Not that it makes a huge difference, but the highest current rate on individuals is 35%, not 36%. Someone who is married filing separate with taxable income of $280,000 would be in the 35% bracket, while someone who is married filing joint, single, or head of household would be in the 33% bracket. Thanks, Liz. I will go back and correct that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendi Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Although it sounds like "plumber" is a pretty accurate description of the guy after all, I'm not sure why it matters so much WHO Joe is. As far as Sen. Obama knew when they had their conversation, Joe was a plumber hoping to go into business for himself, and concerned that Sen. Obama's tax plan would penalize him (Joe) for improving his economic situation, right? And Sen. Obama's answer was, in part, that he wants to "spread the wealth around". This is what concerns those who are conservatives: the idea that it is government's role to take money from successful citizens in order to give it to less successful Americans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michelle in MO Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 I slant liberal, and I believe MSNBC always slants liberal. I don't watch it for my news. And my FIL, staunch conservative extraordinaire, won't watch Fox for news because of its conservative bias. and you sound very much like my dh; he's conservative, but he watches MSNBC, CNN, and all the news channels. I think he likes to take in the "full mix" of political viewpoints. He is a political junkie, though! :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 and you sound very much like my dh; he's conservative, but he watches MSNBC, CNN, and all the news channels. I think he likes to take in the "full mix" of political viewpoints. He is a political junkie, though! :) I'll listen to anyone I feel isn't foaming at the mouth or rude to guests. O'Reilly is out, for example, but so is Olbermann. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Perry Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 If you find something that is not obnoxious in the extreme, and doesn't use "logic" to advance a political ideology or a particularist version of religious faith, please let me know. There is a huge hole for a "logic" program that actually intends to teach logic rather than scoring ideological or theological points. Art of Argument isn't completely secular, but we were happy with it. It's the best I've been able to find. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Art of Argument isn't completely secular, but we were happy with it. It's the best I've been able to find. Thanks Perry. I found it a little "painful" that Tiffany was asking the questions and Socrates was providing the "answers" rather than vice-versa, but (nit-pick aside) it did seem to present the beginnings of informal logic without the heavy-hand I've seen is so many other children's logic books. I really want to like the materials from "Classical Academic Press". Yet, they have a certain flavor that makes it difficult for me to embrace. Maybe that's unfair of me? Thank you for the link! Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jumping In Puddles Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 Unsinkable also brought up where are the records? Yeah, Philip Berg would like to know too? Where are they? Oh yes, Philip Berg. Conspiracy theorist, extraordinaire! I particularly liked the headline: Philip Berg Calls on World Community To Arrest and Try Bush & Cheney for Global Crimes of 9/11! link: Berg continued there is overwhelming evidence that: “Bush and his cronies made 9/11 happen or let it happen. And, if they let it happen, then they made it happen. Either way, they are responsible; and more important, they have completely and unequivocally covered-it-up!” 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. I actually would loved to have seen G. W. Bush's records from his time in the military. Sadly, they were destroyed in a fire while his father was President. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 What about MSNBC, Huffington Post, Salon, DailyKos, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, The New Yorker, ad nauseum? Please. There are far more liberal / left-leaning publications, news sites, and opinion writers than there are right-leaning. As for studying past elections, nope. I'll confess, I'm not a poli-sci major, and I don't spend enormous amounts of time comparing (in a scholarly way) the 2008 election to the elections in the 60s or 70s. I'm only comparing it to the elections in which I've been old enough to vote (1988 and later), and stating the way I see it. It's my analysis, not a formal analysis (which would be difficult to complete, no matter how objective you tried to be, because much of this is subjective). Of course, that's both the beauty and the harsh reality of it all, isn't it -- that each of us views events through our own lens of understanding and with our own perspective. Most Americans don't read of any of those. Ratings for network news is very low, and most all newspapers are laying off writers and moving towards online only. Some of the latest surveys report only an estimated 19% of the American public read national papers. It's around 38% for local. Cable on the other hand has more viewers. Fox is top rated; the O'Rielly's show bets CNN, MSNBC... who is left? Glen Beck, who was on CNN, is moving to Fox. CNN still has Lou Dobbs (I think he just hates everyone). MSNBC is the lowest rated, so where is their great power? The AJC is a joke of a paper, made fun of often by the residents of my fair city. The grammar is so bad, I even notice the constant typos, misspelling, etc. And their sales are so bad that they often send out free Sunday additions (most popular day because of coupons). Most outside the "liberal" east cost establishment don't trust the NYT, and unless you are left leaning, why would you even read the Huffington Post or the DailKos? I bet most Americans have never even heard of either. Even if your average American watched only the old three stand by networks (NBC, CBS, ABC), they have been so demonized as being left leaning, so would they trust what they heard? I'm not even going to talk about talk radio, Rush, Beck, Libby, Hannity, (I listen to Boortz) which is huge in the US, with only a tiny joke called Air America, the "liberal" equivalent, which is struggling to survive. I watch and read sources from all angles (left, right, and in between). I have read nasty stuff about both sides. Not convinced that the so-called established leftist media is getting their bias across better than the right and all the so-called right wing media. I'm just guessing most are not listening to any of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 We're all sick of it, too. However, I hope you can understand my point, and the point of many who have posted so far. It DOES NOT MATTER if Joe is a plumber, or owes taxes, or even if he turns out to be McCain's long-lost love child. None of that matters. What matters is Obama's answer. Whoever Joe is or is not, it does not change Obama's answer. And I have a huge problem with Obama's answer. I also have a huge problem with the sound bite I heard today, in which Obama said, in a laughing voice, "A *plumber* is who McCain is fighting for!" and then his audience laughed. Since it was a sound bite, I'd like to give Sn. Obama the benefit of the doubt, and to believe that there is more to the speech that doesn't make that bit sound as unbelievably ridiculous as it does. I'll have to see if there is more to the speech on You Tube. Because ... surely he didn't mean that, right? Surely? Ooooh, I would be angry, too. That's HORRIBLE. Where, in fact, did you hear that sound bite? Someone had an agenda on that one. Because this is what he said, in context: "The fact of the matter is that he is blowing a hole through the budget on tax breaks that are the exact same kind of tax cuts that George Bush offered. Same argument. Same philosophy. That if we give more and more to millionaires and billionaires, that prosperity will trickle down on all of us somehow. And then he's trying to suggest that a plumber is the guy he's fighting for. " It's precisely the opposite of what whoever played the soundbite intended it to be made to mean. That stinks. :glare: I so agree with the first part of your post. It is the ANSWER that matters. And he gave a sincere answer based on his platform and ideology. (And I know you don't agree with it, but that's fine. We agree on the civility aspect of this.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Osmosis Mom Posted October 17, 2008 Share Posted October 17, 2008 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. Ooooh, I would be angry, too. That's HORRIBLE. Where, in fact, did you hear that sound bite? Someone had an agenda on that one. Because this is what he said, in context: "The fact of the matter is that he is blowing a hole through the budget on tax breaks that are the exact same kind of tax cuts that George Bush offered. Same argument. Same philosophy. That if we give more and more to millionaires and billionaires, that prosperity will trickle down on all of us somehow. And then he's trying to suggest that a plumber is the guy he's fighting for. " It's precisely the opposite of what whoever played the soundbite intended it to be made to mean. That stinks. :glare: I so agree with the first part of your post. It is the ANSWER that matters. And he gave a sincere answer based on his platform and ideology. (And I know you don't agree with it, but that's fine. We agree on the civility aspect of this.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zelda Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 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. If you find something that is not obnoxious in the extreme, and doesn't use "logic" to advance a political ideology or a particularist version of religious faith, please let me know. There is a huge hole for a "logic" program that actually intends to teach logic rather than scoring ideological or theological points. Well, that all sounds a bit discouraging. I also prefer to not have to secularize materials but I guess I will if I have to. Thanks for the heads up. I will start looking at my options now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 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). Is it possible you are confusing this with the Bluedorn (Trivium Pursuit) materials. Those do drag in abortion into elementary aged texts. And don't get me started on Nance/Wilson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendi Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Ooooh, I would be angry, too. That's HORRIBLE. Where, in fact, did you hear that sound bite? Someone had an agenda on that one. Because this is what he said, in context: "The fact of the matter is that he is blowing a hole through the budget on tax breaks that are the exact same kind of tax cuts that George Bush offered. Same argument. Same philosophy. That if we give more and more to millionaires and billionaires, that prosperity will trickle down on all of us somehow. And then he's trying to suggest that a plumber is the guy he's fighting for. " It's precisely the opposite of what whoever played the soundbite intended it to be made to mean. That stinks. :glare: I so agree with the first part of your post. It is the ANSWER that matters. And he gave a sincere answer based on his platform and ideology. (And I know you don't agree with it, but that's fine. We agree on the civility aspect of this.) It rubs me the wrong way when a political leader talks about "giving more and more", when he should say "letting them keep more of the money they earn". It suggests to me that Sen. Obama doesn't see people's money as theirs, but as the government's, and citizens are given what the government deems appropriate. Obviously, we need to pay taxes, and we can debate and discuss how much people should pay, and where the money should go, but it raises a red flag in my mind when a candidate seems to think ALL of my money belongs to the government, and he can decide how much of it to "give" to me. (Disclaimer: I'm not a millionaire or a billionaire, and not even as wealthy as Joe the Plumber!) Wendi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pam "SFSOM" in TN Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 It rubs me the wrong way when a political leader talks about "giving more and more", when he should say "letting them keep more of the money they earn". It suggests to me that Sen. Obama doesn't see people's money as theirs, but as the government's, and citizens are given what the government deems appropriate. Obviously, we need to pay taxes, and we can debate and discuss how much people should pay, and where the money should go, but it raises a red flag in my mind when a candidate seems to think ALL of my money belongs to the government, and he can decide how much of it to "give" to me. (Disclaimer: I'm not a millionaire or a billionaire, and not even as wealthy as Joe the Plumber!) Wendi Sure, ok, fine, but the point of my post was NOT the content of the speech, or my view of what the content means politically. It's all good that people want to keep the tax cut the Pres. Bush passed. The point of my post was that the quote in question was taken SO out of context as to be a LIE reported as TRUTH. (Not by Mama Lynx, but by whomever she heard it from.) Of course that would be worrisome. Obama laughs at Joe, crowd roars with laughter in agreement. Lovely. Completely out of character in my eyes, but for those who see in Sen. Obama a Bad Bad Man, completely expected. Does that make more sense? The reason I posted wasn't to advance Sen. Obama's ideas. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wendi Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Oh, I totally agree with you about that. Despicable. One of the things I hate about our "sound bite culture". Wendi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKS Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Nope. It's the Art of Argument books. It has to be because I was giving it a chance and actually bought it. It's the only one I've actually reviewed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soph the vet Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 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: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Melinda in VT Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 I will stop beating this dead horse. I took an oath against that kind of thing.:001_smile: *snort* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Nope. It's the Art of Argument books. It has to be because I was giving it a chance and actually bought it. It's the only one I've actually reviewed. Groan :ack2: Thanks for the warning. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LisaKinVA Posted October 18, 2008 Share Posted October 18, 2008 Eww, I wouldn't send Bluedorn materials to my worst enemy :001_huh: Yet another time we find ourselves on the same side of an issue :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts