Mark Steyn: Plumber Joe didn't go with the flow

[mmorpheuss]

Especially when you accuse another person! Its a riot Alice!

:afro:

Well you could start the power point presentation illustrating where you claim I am twisting words, and then I can explain my rationale illustrating the areas in which I draw direct correlation to grey areas at the very least, in which your claim of absolutes is completely and totally invalid.

Or you could just keep resorting to humor and the "gosh darn gum...he's twistin' words!"

That's ridiculous.

Ask for clarification if you don't understand, rather than accusing someone of being overtly disingenuous.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Reform- to change to a better state, form, etc.; improve by alteration, substitution, abolition, etc.

Oh no. He used a different word, regardless of the fact that the word Obama is using is in the definition of the word McCain is using, there must be a difference!

All this talk of word twisting and then you lay this stuff on me.

Well now....that clears it all up.

For a minute there I thought the candidates actually meant a change other than the literal meaning.

Who knew that you could rally a crowd of 100k in St. Louis by simply running a campaign on:

"to change to a better state, form, etc.; improve by alteration, substitution, abolition, etc."

I mean I'm sure both campaigns are using the exact same versaion of interpretation of the word!


:toofunny:

Huckster- a person who employs showy methods to effect a sale, win votes, etc.: the crass methods of political hucksters.

So being a Huckster is the "politics of change" and can attract 100k people in St. Louis?

You really are making this a bit too easy

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Well you could start the power point presentation illustrating where you claim I am twisting words, and then I can explain my rationale illustrating the areas in which I draw direct correlation to grey areas at the very least, in which your claim of absolutes is completely and totally invalid.

Or you could just keep resorting to humor and the "gosh darn gum...he's twistin' words!"

That's ridiculous.

Ask for clarification if you don't understand, rather than accusing someone of being overtly disingenuous.

Actually Rob stated it. Then you accused him. So I think the problem lies between you two. I just happened to agree with him and thought it was humorous.


:lol:

See?

 

[mmorpheuss]

Actually Rob stated it. Then you accused him. So I think the problem lies between you two. I just happened to agree with him and thought it was humorous.


:lol:

See?

Not really. You established that point of view as well, so the onus would be on you as well when asked to validate your position.

Just because you aren't the originator of an idea doesn't mean you can agree with it and be free from the burden of rationalizing it.

 

[mmorpheuss]

Well now....that clears it all up.

For a minute there I thought the candidates actually meant a change other than the literal meaning.

Who knew that you could rally a crowd of 100k in St. Louis by simply running a campaign on:

"to change to a better state, form, etc.; improve by alteration, substitution, abolition, etc."

I mean I'm sure both campaigns are using the exact same versaion of interpretation of the word!


:toofunny:

The fault is not mine that you chose to differentiate between both candidates by using two synonymous words.

So being a Huckster is the "politics of change" and can attract 100k people in St. Louis?

You really are making this a bit too easy

I'm uncertain of what you think I am apparently making "easy".



All this stuff-

"politics of change" and can attract 100k people in St. Louis?

Your words, not mine. I laid out a standard definition of the word "huckster", which is certainly applicable to both candidates.

All that other stuff is apparently an attempt on your part to obfuscate or an inability to be succinct.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Not really.

:lol: <----me finding it funny. See now?

You established that point of view as well, so the onus would be on you as well when asked to validate your position.

I didn't really establish it at all. I simply agreed with a statement that already established it. I'm sorry if you aren't getting your validation though. :lol:

Just because you aren't the originator of an idea doesn't mean you can agree with it and be free from the burden of rationalizing it.

Sure I can. If you believe I twist words, that's your right. I could care less why you believe it nor do I need a statement of validation from you....the feeling won't change either way. Maybe Rob can valdiate it...if he feels like it.

:afro:

 

[Dwight Schrute]

The fault is not mine that you chose to differentiate between both candidates by using two synonymous words.

Did I blame you? I simply threw out the option that both used the term in a different manner? I'm glad you were here to tell us all they were not

I'm uncertain of what you think I am apparently making "easy".

Establishing that people are falling for a "huckster"?

Given the demographic of voters and public opinion, that would mean Obama is a better "huckster" than McCain.

Is that succinct enough for you?

:lol:

Your words, not mine. I laid out a standard definition of the word "huckster", which is certainly applicable to both candidates.

If its applicable to both candidates, then it would certainly be a factor in drawing such a crowd. The better the "huckster" the more people you can convince.

All that other stuff is apparently an attempt on your part to obfuscate or an inability to be succinct.

What other stuff?

 

[mmorpheuss]

:lol: <----me finding it funny. See now?



I didn't really establish it all. I simply agreed with a statement that already established it. I'm sorry if you aren't getting your validation though. :lol:

ergo you established your position, or point of view, concerning that subject.

Sure I can. If you believe I twist words, that's your right. I could care less why you believe it nor do I need a statement of validation from you....the feeling won't change either way. Maybe Rob can valdiate it...if he feels like it.

:afro:

In the long run you have to be true to yourself.

Whether you share it with others or not has no bearing on it's place as a cognitive function. It's still happening, exactly as I stated.

I am more than willing to explain my rationale and clarify my point of view.

I will concede that you are free not to. IMO, however, your refusal to do it now when you are more than willing to do so in situations where you are both knowledgeable and right, further supports my impression that we both know you don't really have a valid point at all.

 

[mmorpheuss]

Did I blame you? I simply threw out the option that both used the term in a different manner? I'm glad you were here to tell us all they were not

Actually you used both words in an attempt to differentiate between the two candidates.

Forget that already?

Establishing that people are falling for a "huckster"?

Given the demographic of voters and public opinion, that would mean Obama is a better "huckster" than McCain.

Is that succinct enough for you?

:lol:

Not really. I established that I felt both candidates were hucksters with my first post.

For some reason you felt the need to ask the question again, but excluding one guy. I conceded that that guy would definitely fall under the definition of huckster, to which I got this nonsense.

So being a Huckster is the "politics of change" and can attract 100k people in St. Louis?

Say what?

I already made it clear how I felt. Both guys are the same in my book. You keep harking back to this despite getting a direct answer from me.

That is obfuscation- to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information. Which is exactly what you did, over and over again, with needless repeated "100k in St Louis" nonsense.

What other stuff?

This-

So being a Huckster is the "politics of change" and can attract 100k people in St. Louis?

and this

Who knew that you could rally a crowd of 100k in St. Louis

Which for some reason known only to you served as a direct response to me clarifying my use of a word with it's definition.

Obfuscation.

Have a nice day.

 

[CDB]

If your net profit is only 40k after 250k, you are looking at alot of business expenses.

There are plenty of ways for that guy to get well under the 250k bracket of taxable income.

Actually with a profit rate of 10% 250K invested capital will return only 25K annually. Push that rate to 40%, which is high, you're still just breaking 60K return.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

ergo you established your position, or point of view, concerning that subject.

To an already established position...So its not really a reach

In the long run you have to be true to yourself.

Whether you share it with others or not has no bearing on it's place as a cognitive function. It's still happening, exactly as I stated.

I am more than willing to explain my rationale and clarify my point of view.



I will concede that you are free not to. IMO, however, your refusal to do it now when you are more than willing to do so in situations where you are both knowledgeable and right, further supports my impression that we both know you don't really have a valid point at all.

This really isn't a situation about facts or philosophy, its a personal belief on how I see you express yourself at times so therefore to associate this type of conversation to say one of economics or an area of knowledge, is another example of an extreme reach. Its imply a personal opinion based on reactions to points of view. Never did I state your point of view was right/wrong or factually incorrect. The art of politics is the art of twisting words so to represent yourself as one who does not take part in this would be rather....disingenuous.

"In the long run you have to be true to yourself."

So true.

 

[mmorpheuss]

Actually with a profit rate of 10% 250K invested capital will return only 25K annually. Push that rate to 40%, which is high, you're still just breaking 60K return.

We're not talking about invested capital, we're talking about an independent businessman in the 250k tax bracket not knowing how to write off his overhead.

 

[bigcuz]

The story of Joe the unlicensed plumber is actually sad. He was already going on right wing radio discussing his view on Obama's tax plan. There the audience he had, had no reason to challenge him, because they all shared the same view. But once he and John Mccain decided to go public with his fairy tale, he soon had to realize, that all the America people aren't just going to buy his story without fact checking. And as with any celebrity which he is, an unlicensed plumber/ celebrity, when your in the public eye, people tend to want to know more about you. Did he really think that he could pretend to make 250k, pretend to be licensed, and that nobody would find out that he really makes about 40k and owes back taxes. Mr im the average American, No JOE YOUR NOT THE AVERAGE AMERICAN, THE AVERAGE AMERICAN PAYS THERE ****ING TAXES.

 

[mmorpheuss]

Never did I state your point of view was right/wrong or factually incorrect.

But that is what we're talking about, isn't it?

To posit a purely theoretical analogy here-

A guy picked up a snake and got bitten, so now everyone is trying to blame the snake.

I'm saying that a snake is a snake, and the guy should have known he might get bitten. Don't blame the snake for doing what comes natural to it.

It makes no sense to claim any sort of agenda either. The snake is doing what is does. End of story.

 

[mmorpheuss]

This really isn't a situation about facts or philosophy, its a personal belief on how I see you express yourself at times so therefore to associate this type of conversation to say one of economics or an area of knowledge, is another example of an extreme reach.

At times? This isn't an implication that you are beyond repute is it?

I can't say I am on the same level as you when it comes to passing off one of many biomechanical or biochemical opinions and theories as cold hard engraved in stone fact.

If anything I push possibilities and discount claims of absolutes. Unless someone is being misquoted or attributed to something they didn't do.

I will concede that I might adopt your style if I ran my own board, but I doubt it.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Actually you used both words in an attempt to differentiate between the two candidates.

Forget that already?

As I stated before, you clearly showed that both candidates were using the term as one in the same. Or did you forget that?

You're right. They simply don't use the term in a different manner. I know you fully believe that!

:lol:

Not really. I established that I felt both candidates were hucksters with my first post.

Actually, your first post says nothing of the sort.

For some reason you felt the need to ask the question again, but excluding one guy. I conceded that that guy would definitely fall under the definition of huckster, to which I got this nonsense.

Ah..yes. Nonsense.

"It's okay to come down off the horse mmorpheuss. You're getting pretty agitated up there. "

And your answer validated my point.


Say what?

I already made it clear how I felt. Both guys are the same in my book. You keep harking back to this despite getting a direct answer from me.

That is obfuscation- to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.

Actually it was attempt to clarify your position. For us who have the inability to be succinct and obfuscate at times, we just wanted a simple yes or no answer....a succinct one.


:lol:

Have a nice day.

Already having it!!

:afro:

 

[Dwight Schrute]

But that is what we're talking about, isn't it?

I'm not. Maybe that's your problem

 

[Dwight Schrute]

At times? This isn't an implication that you are beyond repute is it?

Of course it is! How could you possibly think otherwise?!?!?

:lol:

I can't say I am on the same level as you when it comes to passing off one of many biomechanical or biochemical opinions and theories as cold hard engraved in stone fact.

Well I have so many of them..its tough to tell which ones are and are not fact.

But I am in 2008...I can't really remember the last time I passed off one of my facts...but I'm glad you remember!!!!

If anything I push possibilities and discount claims of absolutes.

I will concede that I might adopt your style if I ran my own board, but I doubt it.

It's okay to come down off the horse mmorpheuss. You're getting pretty agitated up there.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

[nomedia="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5gMeXz2YMw"]YouTube - Broadcast Yourself.[/nomedia]

 

[mmorpheuss]

As I stated before, you clearly showed that both candidates were using the term as one in the same. Or did you forget that?

You're right. They simply don't use the term in a different manner. I know you fully believe that!

Nice roundabout to nothing.

I think once you eliminate all of your needless segues and get right back to me defining two words you attempted to use to illustrate a difference, you'll understand the point I made.

Actually, your first post says nothing of the sort.

My first post that uses the word "huckster" makes it perfectly clear that the word pertained to both individuals in question.

Ah..yes. Nonsense.

"It's okay to come down off the horse mmorpheuss. You're getting pretty agitated up there. "

Not likely.

I'm not preaching from a moral highground. Don't mistake my use of the word nonsense as agitation. It happens to be, if only because of your refusal to explain why, the only word I have to describe your repeated allusions to this deal about 100k people in St Louis.

I'm assuming you're talking about Obama. I really don't know. That's how much I care. Its hard to get agitated when you really don't care Kruger.

Actually it was attempt to clarify your position.

Wow. What a doozy!
I had already clarified it, before you ever started in with your 100k St Louis mumbo jumbo.

Nice try.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Nice roundabout to nothing.

We've been doing that for a page and half...you just noticing now?

I think you eliminate all of your needless segues and get right back to me defining two words you attempted to use to illustrate a difference, you'll understand the point I made.

In terms of politics, there is sort of a difference. But alas, you were right in that they were using the literal definition.

My first post that uses the word "huckster" makes it perfectly clear that the word pertained to both individuals in question.

Thanks for clarifying that. See, its those pesky details again.

Not likely.

I'm not preaching from a moral highground. Don't mistake my use of the word nonsense as agitation.

Never would I do such a thing. I wouldn't want you to bring up those facts I was pushing on people 5 years ago...:lol:

:stick:

It happens to be, if only because of your refusal to explain why, the only word I have to describe your repeated allusions to this deal about 100k people in St Louis.

I'm assuming you're talking about Obama.

Well, we are in the politics forum during an election.

really don't know. That's how much I care.

Yet Joe the Plumber gets your attention. :lol:

Its hard to get agitated when you really don't care Kruger.

Glad you joined me. It only took 30 minutes.

Wow. What a doozy!
I had already clarified it, before you ever started in with your 100k St Louis mumbo jumbo.

Nice try.

Actually I assumed you knew Obama drew 100k in St. Louis. Next time, I will assume you do not know of such things.


Mumbo jumbo!!!

 

[CDB]

We're not talking about invested capital, we're talking about an independent businessman in the 250k tax bracket not knowing how to write off his overhead.

Actually we are. Labor, equipment, etc. Anyway my point was a 40K return with 250K of expenses in terms of the business is not unheard of or unreasonable.

 

[Arrogant]

Agreed... Plumber or not... I thought he was American and entitled to privacy and his words.

Licensing, and tax liens are public record.

Thanks for playing.

 

[CDB]

Licensing, and tax liens are public record.

Thanks for playing.

Oh bullshit. If some Democrat had asked John McCaine an equally provocative question and gotten a **** answer and Fox News dug into the questioner's background, public or private, the lefties would be screaming FEAR STATE and POLICE STATE and FIRST AMMENDMENT at the top of their lungs. The bottom line is, be it be public or private records, no one should have to worry about being 'investigated' for asking a legitimate question of someone running for office, and I don't give a **** what the questioner's or the pol's ideology is. The press really ****ed the dog on this one.

As a side note, I love how Joe's actual skill set viz a vi plumbing is irrelevant to all the libs out there, but the license is key. "Ah yeah, maybe he is skilled enough to do all the work, but has the state approved him?!?!?" Really demonstrative of some of the underlying issues that separate liberals and (some) conservatives.

 

[Arrogant]

Oh bullshit. If some Democrat had asked John McCaine an equally provocative question and gotten a **** answer and Fox News dug into the questioner's background, public or private, the lefties would be screaming FEAR STATE and POLICE STATE and FIRST AMMENDMENT at the top of their lungs. The bottom line is, be it be public or private records, no one should have to worry about being 'investigated' for asking a legitimate question of someone running for office, and I don't give a **** what the questioner's or the pol's ideology is. The press really ****ed the dog on this one.

As a side note, I love how Joe's actual skill set viz a vi plumbing is irrelevant to all the libs out there, but the license is key. "Ah yeah, maybe he is skilled enough to do all the work, but has the state approved him?!?!?" Really demonstrative of some of the underlying issues that separate liberals and (some) conservatives.

It's public record and speaks to his character.

Nobody broke down his door and asked him to speak -- HE HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE.

You're a public figure when that happens, and it's open season on everything you've done.

The fact that the media checked out his story surprises you?
How often do we hear about planted stories in the news? It's their job to investigate things, which is how we found out about the above facts, and that he'd benefit from Obama's tax plan.

 

[DAdams91982]

It's public record and speaks to his character.

Nobody broke down his door and asked him to speak -- HE HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE.

You're a public figure when that happens, and it's open season on everything you've done.

The fact that the media checked out his story surprises you?
How often do we hear about planted stories in the news? It's their job to investigate things, which is how we found out about the above facts, and that he'd benefit from Obama's tax plan.

HE ASKED A QUESTION.

I really dont understand how ANYONE can say what is happening to him is right. Public record or not, I wouldnt expect my information plastered all over the news cause I posed a question to a presidential hopeful.

Oh, and they may as well have drug him out of his house for questions, I mean they did perch themselves nicely on his lawn forever. Simply ridiculous... leave the man alone.

Adams

 

[Arrogant]

HE ASKED A QUESTION.

I really dont understand how ANYONE can say what is happening to him is right. Public record or not, I wouldnt expect my information plastered all over the news cause I posed a question to a presidential hopeful.

Oh, and they may as well have drug him out of his house for questions, I mean they did perch themselves nicely on his lawn forever. Simply ridiculous... leave the man alone.

Adams

He asked a question, and as it turns out - the company that he doesn't own, and apparently can't even afford, would benefit from an Obama tax cut.

Not being licensed in the county, and having a tax lien is public record.

He could have called the police to have the reporters removed. Instead, he called Fox Business News minutes after the debate....which then led to a call with Katie Couric.

He welcomed the media, until they DARED to do their job.

BTW -- do you feel as though McSame should have "left him alone" as well, or was it ok to exploit this guy for his campaign?

 

[CDB]

It's public record and speaks to his character.

Then I assume you are for any and all investigations into anyone's background so long as it speaks to their character, such as who a presidential candidate does regular business with, listens to in church for 20 years, etc., etc.?

Nobody broke down his door and asked him to speak -- HE HELD A PRESS CONFERENCE.

You're a public figure when that happens, and it's open season on everything you've done.

It has what the SC calls a chilling effect on freedom of speech. If the only people who feel comfortable questioning politicians are those who have perfect pasts with no blemishes, no mistakes, and no deviations in life that they wouldn't mind posted on a billboard for all to see, the politicians may as well run unopposed.

The fact that the media checked out his story surprises you? How often do we hear about planted stories in the news? It's their job to investigate things, which is how we found out about the above facts, and that he'd benefit from Obama's tax plan.

Here's hoping you never have to ask a politician anything yourself, you run the risk of getting noticed then.

 

[Arrogant]

Then I assume you are for any and all investigations into anyone's background so long as it speaks to their character, such as who a presidential candidate does regular business with, listens to in church for 20 years, etc., etc.?



It has what the SC calls a chilling effect on freedom of speech. If the only people who feel comfortable questioning politicians are those who have perfect pasts with no blemishes, no mistakes, and no deviations in life that they wouldn't mind posted on a billboard for all to see, the politicians may as well run unopposed.



Here's hoping you never have to ask a politician anything yourself, you run the risk of getting noticed then.

Your title speaks volumes.

Now run along, and make sure the tin foil is on extra tight.

 

[CDB]

BTW -- do you feel as though McSame should have "left him alone" as well, or was it ok to exploit this guy for his campaign?

Yes, he should have, for two reasons. One, he should have had some decency and left the guy to his own devices. A Thank You note would have been sufficient. Two, he should have known better to risk stepping in a pile of **** that deep. It speaks to his, McCaine's, character and judgement as far I can see.

 

[DAdams91982]

Your title speaks volumes.

Now run along, and make sure the tin foil is on extra tight.

Wow... you are really deflecting here. CDB posed pertinent questions, that counterbalanced your notions.

Apparently you dont know when to where your tin foil hat. Now if we start a discussion saying how bush personally collapsed the economic system, or remote controlled two planes into the towers, THEN put on your hat.

Adams

 

[CDB]

Your title speaks volumes.

As does your name. I'd rather be with the tin foil hat brigade than with those who don't realize their own **** does indeed stink, not to mention someone who mentally vacant enough not to realize what an opening this kind of behavior on the part of the media leaves for ideological hatchet jobs to become more prevalent.

 

[BodyWizard]

I thought he was American and entitled to privacy and his words.

Don't you remember? Robert Bork declared that the Constitution contains no right to privacy (though I can't make out the point behind the 4th Amendment, absent a presumed right to privacy).

And the Miranda ruling was only supposed to apply to law-enforcement's dealings w/ suspects, but for many years now, it's been true: whatever you say can and will be taken down and used against you. The internet has been a great boon to this tendency.

 

[EasyEJL]

yeah, no real "right" to privacy in terms of your public dealings and filings.

 

[BodyWizard]

It's a completely absurd notion, true: but still, there's a well-appreciated slippery slope where the violation of any right is concerned. You can't decry erosion on the 'left' while turning a blind eye to erosion on the 'right' - it makes one worse than a hypocrite.

It makes one complicit in the destruction of that right - and of all those rights that subsequently come under attack.

 

[DAdams91982]

It's a completely absurd notion, true: but still, there's a well-appreciated slippery slope where the violation of any right is concerned. You can't decry erosion on the 'left' while turning a blind eye to erosion on the 'right' - it makes one worse than a hypocrite.

It makes one complicit in the destruction of that right - and of all those rights that subsequently come under attack.

There was no cry of erosion on the left... none what so ever. The man just questioned Obama's tax policy. Is it policy paramount to erosion on the left?

Adams