Pajamas Media

SandRider · Post by **SandRider** » 13 Jan 2009 13:56

"Joe the Plumber" arrived in Israel today to "cover" the latest
go around for the Pajamas Media website.

I'd suppose that by now, most of you have seen something
about this mentioned in the "news".

I just wanted to point out that one of Pajamas Media's
constant contributors is : Andrew Ian Dodge.

Drunken Idaho · Post by **Drunken Idaho** » 13 Jan 2009 14:43

I don't know who Andrew Ian Dodge is, but this seems like a good opportunity to post my beef with the whole "Joe The Plumber" thing...

So this Joe guy had talked to Obama and then it was brought up at one of the presidential debates, and for the rest of the debate the two candidates wouldn't SHUT UP about him.

But here's what bugs me. At first, the term Joe the Plumber became a term applicable to any business owner. These are people who have very successful small businesses, who are pretty well-to-do. Then, as McCain's campaign carried on, he convoluted it and kept using it until it meant the everyday working man. And of course, all the working-men blindly cheer for him as they think McCain is sticking up for them, when really it was NEVER about the working-man. It was well-to-do business owners!!!

Ridiculous.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 13 Jan 2009 15:05

Drunken Idaho wrote:I don't know who Andrew Ian Dodge is, but this seems like a good opportunity to post my beef with the whole "Joe The Plumber" thing...

So this Joe guy had talked to Obama and then it was brought up at one of the presidential debates, and for the rest of the debate the two candidates wouldn't SHUT UP about him.

But here's what bugs me. At first, the term Joe the Plumber became a term applicable to any business owner. These are people who have very successful small businesses, who are pretty well-to-do. Then, as McCain's campaign carried on, he convoluted it and kept using it until it meant the everyday working man. And of course, all the working-men blindly cheer for him as they think McCain is sticking up for them, when really it was NEVER about the working-man. It was well-to-do business owners!!!

Ridiculous.

You totally missed the point, I guess the republicans deserved to lose.

The key sound bite in that Joe the Plumber interview was Obama admitting to him that he wanted to "redistribute the wealth".

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 13 Jan 2009 15:21

The goal should be a reaffirmation of fairness/opportunity/representation. When that happens, proper distribution of wealth will see to itself and those who earned wealth will justly have it (generally speaking, within the limits of any functional economic/political system). In the current climate of protected special interests and over-burdened tax payers, the wealth is distributed without fairness/opportunity/representation.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 13 Jan 2009 15:30

GamePlayer wrote:The goal should be a reaffirmation of fairness/opportunity/representation. When that happens, proper distribution of wealth will see to itself and those who earned wealth will justly have it (generally speaking, within the limits of any functional economic/political system). In the current climate of protected special interests and over-burdened tax payers, the wealth is distributed without fairness/opportunity/representation.

I have no love for special interests, but I don't think that applies to everybody.

I don't think people who live off the government and don't try to better themselves deserve money taken from people who work for it.

It may not be a perfect system but I think most people who work hard get what they deserve.

Drunken Idaho · Post by **Drunken Idaho** » 13 Jan 2009 15:40

Freakzilla wrote:
Drunken Idaho wrote:I don't know who Andrew Ian Dodge is, but this seems like a good opportunity to post my beef with the whole "Joe The Plumber" thing...

So this Joe guy had talked to Obama and then it was brought up at one of the presidential debates, and for the rest of the debate the two candidates wouldn't SHUT UP about him.

But here's what bugs me. At first, the term Joe the Plumber became a term applicable to any business owner. These are people who have very successful small businesses, who are pretty well-to-do. Then, as McCain's campaign carried on, he convoluted it and kept using it until it meant the everyday working man. And of course, all the working-men blindly cheer for him as they think McCain is sticking up for them, when really it was NEVER about the working-man. It was well-to-do business owners!!!

Ridiculous.
You totally missed the point, I guess the republicans deserved to lose.

The key sound bite in that Joe the Plumber interview was Obama admitting to him that he wanted to "redistribute the wealth".

Yeah, redistributing the wealth of the wealthy business owners. What I'm saying is that McCain convoluted it BEYOND that. He would talk about sticking up for Joe the Plumber, and he LET the ignorant masses THINK he was talking about the average Joe.

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 13 Jan 2009 15:43

Freakzilla wrote:It may not be a perfect system but I think most people who work hard get what they deserve.

I don't. If people really understood how much money is unjustly taken from their hands by our government, there would be a revolution. I will not defend a system that is no longer even trying to defend the rights of the people it taxes nor representing the people. Our democracies are no longer anything of the sort; they have been failing republics for nearly 40 years now and are functionally oligarchies.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 13 Jan 2009 15:48

GamePlayer wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:It may not be a perfect system but I think most people who work hard get what they deserve.
I don't. If people really understood how much money is unjustly taken from their hands by our government, there would be a revolution. I will not defend a system that is no longer even trying to defend the rights of the people it taxes nor representing the people. Our democracies are no longer anything of the sort; they have been failing republics for nearly 40 years now and are functionally oligarchies.

The money taken from us IS the redistribution of wealth.

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 13 Jan 2009 15:58

Exactly. And it should be coupled inviolably with fairness/opportunity/representation. Which it no longer is, not even close to being anywhere near the definition of "the best system we got". Not any more. Not by a long shot.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 13 Jan 2009 16:02

GamePlayer wrote:Exactly. And it should be coupled inviolably with fairness/opportunity/representation. Which it no longer is, not even close to being anywhere near the definition of "the best system we got". Not any more. Not by a long shot.

I don't think taxes should be used for redistributing wealth. They should pay for roads, utilities and defense, things we NEED.

Raising taxes on the rich so you can send a free check to the poor is stupid. They (like me) will spend that money on a months bills or mortgage and that doesn't stimulate the economy.

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 13 Jan 2009 16:11

In that, we most definitely agree. I've always worked or gone to school and don't see any reason why anyone else can't do the same (excluding medical reasons). Our government should be downsized and should be focused on running the functional aspects of our society. There should be no bailouts for failing business models or legislation of tragedy.

But I have to say hitting the rich is kinda funny in that it may affect change more than millions of voters ever could. Funny and also tragic.

Sole Man · Post by **Sole Man** » 13 Jan 2009 16:11

I wonder what all of the Media worshippers would do if Obama was assainated.

Drunken Idaho · Post by **Drunken Idaho** » 13 Jan 2009 16:18

Freakzilla wrote:
GamePlayer wrote:Exactly. And it should be coupled inviolably with fairness/opportunity/representation. Which it no longer is, not even close to being anywhere near the definition of "the best system we got". Not any more. Not by a long shot.
I don't think taxes should be used for redistributing wealth. They should pay for roads, utilities and defense, things we NEED.

Raising taxes on the rich so you can send a free check to the poor is stupid. They (like me) will spend that money on a months bills or mortgage and that doesn't stimulate the economy.

Don't you ever wonder if all that snazzy defense technology could be turned against you?

Back in the day, the idea of the right to bear arms was that so if government ever did become a police state, the citizens could defend themselves. But now, they have toys and weapons you've never heard of, and if you think guns can protect you from that, then you're hugely mistaken.

I don't mean you specifically, Freak. I know your position on guns. But I just thought I'd warn you against letting leaders convince you that the country NEEDS all this defense technology.

Drunken Idaho · Post by **Drunken Idaho** » 13 Jan 2009 16:19

Sole Man wrote:I wonder what all of the Media worshippers would do if Obama was assainated.

We all know that charismatic leaders can be more powerful in death than they were alive...

Post by **Freakzilla** » 13 Jan 2009 16:56

Drunken Idaho wrote:
Freakzilla wrote:
GamePlayer wrote:Exactly. And it should be coupled inviolably with fairness/opportunity/representation. Which it no longer is, not even close to being anywhere near the definition of "the best system we got". Not any more. Not by a long shot.
I don't think taxes should be used for redistributing wealth. They should pay for roads, utilities and defense, things we NEED.

Raising taxes on the rich so you can send a free check to the poor is stupid. They (like me) will spend that money on a months bills or mortgage and that doesn't stimulate the economy.
Don't you ever wonder if all that snazzy defense technology could be turned against you?

Back in the day, the idea of the right to bear arms was that so if government ever did become a police state, the citizens could defend themselves. But now, they have toys and weapons you've never heard of, and if you think guns can protect you from that, then you're hugely mistaken.

I don't mean you specifically, Freak. I know your position on guns. But I just thought I'd warn you against letting leaders convince you that the country NEEDS all this defense technology.

When I mentioned defense spending I didn't neccessarily mean on technology. I don't think we need stealth fighters to blow up mud huts.

But those guys in the infantry (those of us in Armor called them "crunchies") going house to house have to be paid too. Beyond that, for every man in the field there are like seven behind the lines to support him.

*waves cane in air*

Back in my day, we didn't have no new fangled GPS, we had a map, compass and protractor! And we liked it!

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 13 Jan 2009 17:11

There's a certain level of technological parity that is to be avoided by anyone in a superior position, so I think technology is simply natural to pursue. But I think we may be underestimating the power of a person with a gun. You don't need to have a $100k laser-guided bomb dropped from a $32 million fighter jet to win a war. I would have thought Vietnam proved that for any level-headed American.

Having said that, I will agree that all that technology in the hands of a government is not all that wise. Especially a government who is as controlling and interfering as those typified by our current over-sized "democracies". The last kind of government that should own a lot of high tech weapons is the government that is legislating people not to smoke, not to own guns, not to play video games and thinks that "teaching the controversy" is important school curriculum. That kind of government shouldn't exist.

But I digress and step down from off my soapbox

Post by **Freakzilla** » 14 Jan 2009 10:19

Agreed. No matter how much smart bombing you do, you can't win a war without the line-dogs and their rifles actually occupying the territory.

That's what this war lacked, a plan for occupation. Rumsfeld (SP?) was a dumbass.

GamePlayer · Post by **GamePlayer** » 14 Jan 2009 11:55

Yeah, what the hell was up with that?
I don't understand how the U.S. planned to fight this "war". There didn't seem to be any broad, long term solution. They go in, drop a lot of bombs and once that's over it's just a long drawn out fire fight in between shelled houses and counting roadside bombs in the headlines.

If the war in Iraq and all the other places can be won, then where is the battle plan? If it can't be won, why even charge forward in the first place? I'm all for fighting for Afghanistan, but all the rest makes no sense to me. I mean the U.S. military isn't stupid; they know what they can and can't do, especially after the recent experience of the Gulf War. So was it just dumb politicians that sent them forth without a practical strategy that could be won?

Post by **Freakzilla** » 14 Jan 2009 12:00

The generals told them all along we needed a plan for occupation and Rumsfeld didn't want to hear it.

There is NO WAY we could perform succesfull MOUT (Military Operations in Urban Terrain) with the number of troops we had there. That's why I say we should have done it in 1991 when we had 500,000 allied troops there.

Maybe they expected the Iraq people to be more supportive, but they broke that trust in the First Gulf War when they tried to rise up and we didn't support them.

Seraphan · Post by **Seraphan** » 14 Jan 2009 12:16

Is there anyway that the US troops can leave Iraq without it falling into total chaos and all out civil war? Isnt Obama planning on taking them out or was i just hearing the typical election speech?

Drunken Idaho · Post by **Drunken Idaho** » 14 Jan 2009 12:30

Well there was no exit strategy or occupation plan, simply because the war was meant to be stalled and stalled, for reasons I've already out into a lengthy post in a different thread.

What defines winning this war anyway? How is it won? What happens? They find WMDs? Iraq becomes a democracy? These are impossible things.

As far as Bush and Cheney are concerned, winning equals oil revenue. When business really gets going, it's Mission Accomplished.

Rumsfeld's function was to stall as much as possible. This is old news and extremely obvious to me. That's why every time I heard Palin and McCain talking about how "We can win this war" and "victory is in sight" it just made me sick how many people cheered and bought into this stupid puppet show that your government has orchestrated.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 14 Jan 2009 12:30

Seraphan wrote:Is there anyway that the US troops can leave Iraq without it falling into total chaos and all out civil war? Isnt Obama planning on taking them out or was i just hearing the typical election speech?

Not only is he planning to withdraw them, he's giving Al Qaeda a timetable so they know when to go back.

The idea is for the Iraqi army/police to take over as we leave, yeah... right...

Barack Obama's policy for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq as stated on his Web site:

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

How stupid do they think we are?

Better yet, how stupid does he think Al Qaeda is?

And they won't be coming home, maybe on leave for a few days, but they will surely be sent to Afghanastan.

Post by **Freakzilla** » 14 Jan 2009 12:32

Drunken Idaho wrote:As far as Bush and Cheney are concerned, winning equals oil revenue. When business really gets going, it's Mission Accomplished.

Where is all this oil revenue?

Seraphan · Post by **Seraphan** » 14 Jan 2009 12:54

Freakzilla wrote:
Seraphan wrote:Is there anyway that the US troops can leave Iraq without it falling into total chaos and all out civil war? Isnt Obama planning on taking them out or was i just hearing the typical election speech?
Not only is he planning to withdraw them, he's giving Al Qaeda a timetable so they know when to go back.

The idea is for the Iraqi army/police to take over as we leave, yeah... right...

Barack Obama's policy for bringing U.S. troops home from Iraq as stated on his Web site:

"Obama will immediately begin to remove our troops from Iraq. He will remove one to two combat brigades each month, and have all of our combat brigades out of Iraq within 16 months. Obama will make it clear that we will not build any permanent bases in Iraq. He will keep some troops in Iraq to protect our embassy and diplomats; if al Qaeda attempts to build a base within Iraq, he will keep troops in Iraq or elsewhere in the region to carry out targeted strikes on al Qaeda."

How stupid do they think we are?

Better yet, how stupid does he think Al Qaeda is?

And they won't be coming home, maybe on leave for a few days, but they will surely be sent to Afghanastan.

Thanks Freak.
I knew Obama was inexperienced, but naive? At that point? With that spineless Iraqui government "in power"? What is he, crazy?

Drunken Idaho · Post by **Drunken Idaho** » 14 Jan 2009 13:44

Freakzilla wrote:
Drunken Idaho wrote:As far as Bush and Cheney are concerned, winning equals oil revenue. When business really gets going, it's Mission Accomplished.
Where is all this oil revenue?

Over the next 30 years, the oil company Halliburton will make billions and billions from Iraqi oil. They are the only oil company that has been given access to the oil fields at this point, and they've had a slow start, due to unexpected geological complications. I haven't heard much about the situation lately. Halliburton and some subsidiaries are also contracted to work on Iraqi infrastructure.

Oh, by the way... Dick Cheney is the former CEO of Halliburton.

J A C U R U T U

Pajamas Media

Pajamas Media

on something completely different.

Re: on something completely different.