'Joe the Plumber'

[Pete Delkus]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUvwKVvp3-o

To add to the topic of “Wealth Redistribution”:

I attended a debate at the Cintas Center a few weeks about Catholicism and the Presidential Debate. The audience of well over 100 was made up of ¼ students (Who seemingly left after an hour) and then rest seemed to be retirees. The debate was slanted toward Obama due to the skill of the Democrat debaters, which heavily outweigh the representatives from the Right.

My issue was the openness and reception that the phrase “Redistribution of Wealth’ received and how often it was used and how it was encouraged throughout the Duff Center forum. I almost fell out of my chair at the Socialist tone.

I was reminded of the heavy dose of “service to the poor” that was preached during my grade school, high school and college years. This is something the Church should pride itself on and continue to promote. However, the step that seems to be taken moves way past service towards an agreement that it is time to GIVE people a portion of wealth INSTREAD of helping them create their own opportunities toward success.

[Snipe]

Catholics have served the poor forever. Nobody has built more schools and hospitals or provided education and health care to the world's poor than the Catholic Church. I am proud of that and it is something to remind the next person you hear that takes a cheap shot at a priest and an alter boy.

Charity is much different than being forced to give. The church believes that we should redistribute wealth to an extent by giving and helping other people. It is a voluntary action. Government tax and redistribution schemes are not voluntary, they are coersion by force.

I am for voluntary exchange and freedom.

[DC Muskie]

Catholics have the greatest reputation for social justice of any organization in the world.

However, anyone who belongs to a parish knows that giving is the lifeline of any church. It supports missions, overhead and possibly schools. It is expected og Catholics to give to sustain the missions, education and service of these churches.

Giving and providing people opportunities to improve their quality of life are not mutually exclusive ideas. Ultimately it comes down to what Jesus said when the issue of tax resistance was brought to him, "Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s."

[XtremeXfan]

As a devout Catholic, I feel I have to vote for Senator McCain. There are hundreds of important issues, and the economy is certainly at the top of the list, but how do any of them outweigh the importance of life? Catholics are supposed to be pro-life, and if you are pro-life, you believe over 4,000 children die every single day. Nothing is more important than that statistic. Even more so in this election, this issue is important because of Senator Obama's very radical view on the issue. Senator Obama supports a procedure called infantacide. Infantacide is when a child survives a botched abortion, the nurse injects it with a shot to kill it, and leaves it on a table until it dies. The most radical of pro-choice groups are even against this procedure, but Senator Obama has voted for it 3 times! Here is a video that shows what happens in the procedure and talks about Obama's record on it. WARNING- there are some disturbing images

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo&feature=related

[The Artist]

As a devout Catholic, I feel I have to vote for Senator McCain. There are hundreds of important issues, and the economy is certainly at the top of the list, but how do any of them outweigh the importance of life? Catholics are supposed to be pro-life, and if you are pro-life, you believe over 4,000 children die every single day. Nothing is more important than that statistic. Even more so in this election, this issue is important because of Senator Obama's very radical view on the issue. Senator Obama supports a procedure called infantacide. Infantacide is when a child survives a botched abortion, the nurse injects it with a shot to kill it, and leaves it on a table until it dies. The most radical of pro-choice groups are even against this procedure, but Senator Obama has voted for it 3 times! Here is a video that shows what happens in the procedure and talks about Obama's record on it. WARNING- there are some disturbing images

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIdbYjmbFzo&feature=related

Wow, looks like the mccain campaign has worked on you.

Here's a hint. If there's something that any candidate from any party believes that you find absolutely unbelievable, chances are it's not true.

I ask you, find a transcript where Obama defends such a procedure, and gives justification for it.

I never put ANY value into voting results like the ones you claim exist. For example, McCain called Obama pro-abortion last night because he voted against a bill to ban partial birth abortions. No bills are as cut and dry as they seem to be.

Obama voted against the bill because there was no protection for the health of the mother. Watching this made me think that there are some people out there who actually believe that candidates exist who like abortions.

Here's my guess: Obama voted against it 3 TIMES for technical reasons, like stated above, and does not actually favor the procedure. In fact, I'll actually put money on it, despite what a guest on fox news believes.

Seriously man, think for yourself, just once.

The Illinois Medical Society voted against it the same number of times that Obama did. Just think, if it passed, people would be able to sue doctors for botched abortions. WOOHOO!

Finally, no matter who the president is, there's no way that anybody could ever write a law to ban abortions.

[DC Muskie]

As a devout Catholic, I feel I have to vote for Senator McCain. There are hundreds of important issues, and the economy is certainly at the top of the list, but how do any of them outweigh the importance of life? Catholics are supposed to be pro-life, and if you are pro-life, you believe over 4,000 children die every single day. Nothing is more important than that statistic. Even more so in this election, this issue is important because of Senator Obama's very radical view on the issue. Senator Obama supports a procedure called infantacide. Infantacide is when a child survives a botched abortion, the nurse injects it with a shot to kill it, and leaves it on a table until it dies. The most radical of pro-choice groups are even against this procedure, but Senator Obama has voted for it 3 times! Here is a video that shows what happens in the procedure and talks about Obama's record on it. WARNING- there are some disturbing images

This is my single biggest issues with fellow Catholics. We allow ourselves to vote for a single issue, and issue that has never been resolved in favor of our teachings, and yet time and time again, it comes down this issue.

I'm also requesting the mods take this video off the site. There is not need for that on this site.

Those that allow themselves to vote on a single issue that has not been changed in the favor despite many candidates before them have promised, and allowed elected officials to promote war, and capital punishment and environmental destruction, must reevaluate their decisions.

The Democratic platform on this position has changed. The Republican party has not, nor have they delivered the verdict, you and other single issue voters believe they can and will chance.

[XtremeXfan]

I'm sorry, but I don't think life is an issue you can just toss around like that. The fact is, he voted against stopping it 3 times. I don't care if he was confused by the wording or didn't want it to lead to anything else, he was allowing the practice to continue by not voting to stop it. Do you understand the magnitude of that decision? Those are children who are actually born and then murdered. They recieve birth and death certificates within just a few hours because they cannot recieve medical attention that Sen Obama is blocking. Look at Obama's voting record in the state senate, he voted against it 3 times! Read the bill yourself and it is impossible to comprehend how he didn't understand what was going on.

As I said, I am NOT a single issue voter, but 4,000 children being killed everyday is the most important issue to me. Why must that video be taken down? Bishops across the country have continuously said, if you are a Catholic and you vote for a pro-choice candidate, you may not recieve the Eucharist.

[XU05and07]

Abortion is not the only right to life issue that a "pro-life" Catholic is supposed to care about and believe in. Pro-life Catholic views extend to euthanasia, death penalty, unjustified warfare, genocide, and many other areas. To focus on just one area and ignore others is hypocritical.

From Evangelium vitae

The Second Vatican Council, in a passage which retains all its relevance today, forcefully condemned a number of crimes and attacks against human life. Thirty years later, taking up the words of the Council and with the same forcefulness I repeat that condemnation in the name of the whole Church, certain that I am interpreting the genuine sentiment of every upright conscience: "Whatever is opposed to life itself, such as any type of murder, genocide, abortion, euthanasia, or wilful self-destruction, whatever violates the integrity of the human person, such as mutilation, torments inflicted on body or mind, attempts to coerce the will itself; whatever insults human dignity, such as subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere instruments of gain rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others like them are infamies indeed. They poison human society, and they do more harm to those who practise them than to those who suffer from the injury. Moreover, they are a supreme dishonour to the Creator".

I'm not advocating one-side or the other, but if you call yourself "pro-life" then you are against the death penalty, euthanasia, and anything stated in the papal encyclical.

[Muskie73]

After having two sons graduate St Xavier, one of which is currently attending XU, I have come to notice a determined swing in the rhetoric regarding a christian's duty to the poor. As Snipe has mentioned, in earlier days helping the poor to achieve their own economic independence was a goal to be strived for. In today's world, social justice is the buzz word and it has very strong socialistic meanings behind it. Wealth redistribution seems to be a central tenet with the understanding that individual success is no longer achievable by the have-nots and that government intervention is the preferred solution to the problem.

[XtremeXfan]

Yes, you are definitely correct. I am against President Bush on the death penalty, torture, and going into Iraq. However, 4,000 children dying everyday is the biggest genocide we've ever faced. I am completely pro-life and you have to vote for whichever candidate is the leser of two evils on that issue.

[Raoul Duke]

Finally, no matter who the president is, there's no way that anybody could ever write a law to ban abortions.

This is pretty much what it comes down to. The abortion issue, in the context of a presidential election, is a moot point.

[XU05and07]

Yes, you are definitely correct. I am against President Bush on the death penalty, torture, and going into Iraq. However, 4,000 children dying everyday is the biggest genocide we've ever faced. I am completely pro-life and you have to vote for whichever candidate is the leser of two evils on that issue.

And it's your views that I can respect and understand...I put that out there because some Catholics have been misguided in their beliefs, calling themselves pro-life while calling for the death penalty whenever possible. You are truly pro-life...I can't agree with those that say "pro-life" and they really mean "anti-abortion"

[taxpayer]

One/single issue voter? Add me to the list. If a candidate for America's highest public office is concerned more about verbiage or whether a doctor who botched an abortion can be sued overrules a concern to protect the most innocent and defenseless among us all then he/she will never get my vote.

[DC Muskie]

After having two sons graduate St Xavier, one of which is currently attending XU, I have come to notice a determined swing in the rhetoric regarding a christian's duty to the poor. As Snipe has mentioned, in earlier days helping the poor to achieve their own economic independence was a goal to be strived for. In today's world, social justice is the buzz word and it has very strong socialistic meanings behind it. Wealth redistribution seems to be a central tenet with the understanding that individual success is no longer achievable by the have-nots and that government intervention is the preferred solution to the problem.

Maybe you missed the fact that the wealth gap has increased by 60% in the last forty years.

You guys can talk about socialism all you want, but we continue on this path and you won't have to worry about a wealth redistribution, people will just come straight at you.

[DC Muskie]

As I said, I am NOT a single issue voter, but 4,000 children being killed everyday is the most important issue to me. Why must that video be taken down? Bishops across the country have continuously said, if you are a Catholic and you vote for a pro-choice candidate, you may not recieve the Eucharist.

You most certainly are a single issue voter. Absolutely. And you vote for someone who won't deduce the number of those deaths everyday, let alone save them all. That's what is so incredibly sad about this issue. The people who desperately want Roe V Wade overturned support people who have yet to overturn it and actually increase the number of abortions when in office. So I don't get it. Just like I don't get Bishops who decide not to distribute communion to people. They are not the judge and jury of people's salvation.

[Billy]

Maybe you missed the fact that the wealth gap has increased by 60% in the last forty years.

You guys can talk about socialism all you want, but we continue on this path and you won't have to worry about a wealth redistribution, people will just come straight at you.

Which path is that?

You're my guy DC, but isn't this nation already heavily socilaized? It's not like the "free market" yielded that wealth gap you speak of all by itself.

Healthcare is really just about the last field that the Feds aren't balls deep into at this point.

Banking and regulation? Check.
Education? Check
Welfare? Check
All kinds of various social programs meant to help the "disadvantaged"? Check.
Retriement? Check.

There are misnomers on both sides.

To Republicans: This country is not "free market", and hasn't been for most of it's history.

To Dems: Holy shit...hasn't the Federal government done enough already to protect the interests of those are viewed as being victims?? Does the Constitution mean anything to you...or should our elected officials continue to wipe their asses with it?

[XtremeXfan]

DC, I'm glad that you are trying to tell me the way I vote, but I am definitely not a single issue voter. I do prioritize my issues, but that is not being a single issue voter. When I ask myself if someone elses life or my financial situation is more important, I would definitely choose life as the more important issue.

[jcubspoe]

Here is what's going to happen and is happening as we speak in this country when it comes to charity and giving: The government is taking it over...as snipe said, it's forced government giving. The result, we as church goers are giving much less to charity because the government is doing it for us, at a much less effecient rate. Example, go give a homeless guy $1....he gets the whole $1? Yes. Have the government take your dollar and give it to the homeless guy...he gets what?.25 cents maybe?

continuing on with this....under these programs we are becoming more and more socialistic. To the point where the church (catholic, nondenmenational, ect) won't even matter in our society anymore. Look at other european nations where socialism has taken over...there is no church, other then a state sponsored church. It wouldn't shock me in the least if Obama were to try and finally pull the tax exemption status of churches in this country.

[jcubspoe]

DC, I'm glad that you are trying to tell me the way I vote, but I am definitely not a single issue voter. I do prioritize my issues, but that is not being a single issue voter. When I ask myself if someone elses life or my financial situation is more important, I would definitely choose life as the more important issue.


XtremeXfan...you are right to prioritize your issues...everyone does, not all just the same. The fact is , no matter how you slice it or how grisly it may look, McCain is pro life and Obabma is pro choice...plain and simple. We have never had this liberal of a candidate run for the highest office in this country. I'd talke Slick Willie in a heartbeat over this socialist.

[xudash]

Let's at least be clear on one thing, regardless of your political philosophy and desired candidate, the United States Constitution does not contain language that provides for the redistribution of wealth.

Having offered that, allow me to offer one other thought: the U.S. Tax Code does not exist explicitly or otherwise for the purpose of effecting any social agenda; it does not exist for purpose of redistributing wealth.

I am as mad as anyone at anyone who plays in pure capitalism. Examples being the CEOs who cash in massive stock options against increasing stock values that are driven by short-term decision that include, among other typical moves, reductions in force. Yes, some American jobs (e.g. textiles, etc.) were always headed off-shore because skilled labor wasn't required for the production of the goods or services they provided. But some jobs didn't have to be lost had a longer view and some backbone and some shared pain kept them around, which would have benefited everyone in the long run. Another example that burns me: the dipstick CEO who runs a company into the ground but still pulls a 7 or 8 digit shoot on the way out. How do boards get away with that? WHEN WILL SOMEONE COME AFTER FRANKLIN RAINES AND WHO WILL THAT BE?

This isn't about McCain and this isn't about Obama, but McCain stuck the landing last night when he talked about how foolish it would be to raise anyone's taxes right now.

It really comes down to that. Adjust tax policy to incentivize growth AND CUT SPENDING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Any "redistribution of wealth" effected through public activities will kick private sector philanthropy in the teeth. Count on it.

[vee4xu]

Here you go folks. The Faithful Citizenship document is put forth by the US Conference of Catholic Bishops and is the guiding document sanctioned by the US Catholic Church relative to voting. It is a fact that the Catholic Church is not a one issue group. It is all about conscience formation and voting one's conscience. I read this document ahead of every national election and use it as my guide to finding who best represents my positions. Please note that the culture of life only begins at the time of conception and it extends to a natural death. There is plenty that happens between conception and a natural death and this document addresses all of it. I trust that anyone reading it finds it a useful tool to helping form your conscience.

http://www.usccb.org/faithfulcitizenship/FCStatement.pdf

[vee4xu]

p.s. - I just read that Joe the Plumber isn't even a licenxed plummer. What does that make him me wonders?

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2008/10/joe_the_plumber_has_no_plumbin.html

[wkrq59]

As the king said, "It is a puzzlement."
Total right-to-life absolutely must include not only abortions but also euthanasia, the death penalty and I believe unjust wars.
But I find it odd and puzzling that each of the GOP administrations has campaigned on a Pro-life platform, but once elected did nothing to change roe v. wade.
For that matter, since rvw was adjudicated and ruled in 1973, I do not believe any of the administrations, R or D have done anything to change the law of the land which is what it is.
I would never counsel anyone to have an abortion. I don't believe in it. The same for the death penalty and euthanasia.
But I find it especially puzzling that George and Barbara Bush were allegedly pro life and they founded the Planned Parenthood clinics in Houston. Clinton was in neutral on everything but fellatio and "W" signed more execution orders than any governor in Texas history. All of them gave implicit promises to eliminate roe but none did.
I believe I heard Obama say Wednesday night that he did vote against the law banning partial birth abortions in Illinois because there was no protection for the life of the mother or her health. Prior to that he said, again paraphrasing , that he believed one solution to abortion was to prevent unwanted pregnancies through education and by correlation, birth control.
All of the "in depth" armchair discussion and argument here that has taken place or will occur, reminds me of the Sunday in the late 60s (I think '67) in St. Clare church. After he read a letter from the Archbishop (I forget which one) forbidding further discussion from the pulpit or in official church discussion groups of John 23rd's encyclical stating that the purpose of sexual union was more than the procreation and education of children, and called into question the use of artificial birth control, a Father Cooper added this statement.
(Parphrasing) We as priest and you as laity may be forbidden to conduct further discussion of this matter, but I can assure you further discussion will occur. Asked what he meant the good father said, "I just said discussion will continue."
Any abortion to me is intolerable, especially partial birth.
However, I also find it contradictory that many of the rabid pro lifers I have encountered have no qualms about euthanasia
or the death penalty or participating in an unjust war.
And as a real irony I found offensive the term on a hospital bill, a Good Samaritan Hospital bill, for a miscarriage, was
"spontaneous abortion." You can imagine how a woman brought up to be a devout practicing Catholic would react on seeing that bill back in the late 60s.
It's very easy to assume today that everything is either black or it's white. There are no gray areas of any kind. It's also very easy to hang an election on one issue and simply ignore the other problems.:(

[PM Thor]

I just saw on the national news a pic of Joe walking up his drive, and on the back of his SUV.....a Bengals sticker.

I am more than happy to give him my tickets to the Pittsburgh game, if he wants them.

[nickgyp]

FWIW:

Roe v. Wade is the law of the land since 1973. No legislative act by any Republican will undo it so anyone who faults the legislative or executive branches for not trying to overturn the decision does not understand how the legal system work. Save for a reversal of Roe by the U.S. Supreme Court, the only other way to overturn it is by constitutional amendment which would have to be ratified by most of the states. Since may feel Roe was wrongly decided on the dubious reading into the Constitution of a "right to privacy" the easier way to change the law is to have the Supreme Court revisit the issue via review of legislation that implicates Roe. Hence, the importance of the president who may appoint justices who are strict constuctionists.

Various legislators (ie. Steve Chabot) have helped pass laws such as the one dealing with partial birth abortion which often work their way to the Supreme Court. To say pro-life leaders haven't done what they can is simply not true,

Finally, the income redsitribution argument favored by the Democrats is not in keeping with Christ's commant to care for others. Witness the parable about the poor women who gave more than her rich counterpart since she made the real sacrifice giving her penny. There simply is no sacrifice on the Democrats' part to reach into someone else's pocket and give that money away. Sure they may feel good but as my brother is fond of saying, the Church has not made Robin Hood a saint.

When I donate directly to charity I feel good about it; when the government gives my money to people who don't deserve it, well, I'm pissed.

[Billy]

I am not a lawyer, but all I have been hearing in the media is that Roe v Wade is one vote, two at most, away from being overturned.

Yet, I keep reading on here that the presidential candidate (and by extension, his potential appointments) are immaterial. I'd be indebted to you law guys out there if you could explain what I'm missing.

In short...why would Roe stand up if McCain were to appoint two ultra-conservative Christian justices in place of Ginsberg, Breyer, et al. if they were to step aside?

[dc_x]

Could someone also explain what would happen if Roe v Wade were overturned? Would abortion law then be decided on a state by state basis?

[Juice]

Could someone also explain what would happen if Roe v Wade were overturned? Would abortion law then be decided on a state by state basis?

Most experts, politicians, etc. I have heard talk about the subject simply want each state to decide their own laws on abortion. Giuliani, who is pro-choice, said he would support a state by state basis for abortion.

As a pro-lifer I would be more than ok with that scenario. I really don't see it being fully repealed anytime soon.

[Stonebreaker]

At least we got Joe and "I'm not Bush" out of last nite's debate....made it more interesting. McCain will attack Obama on redistribution (involuntary) of wealth until the election. Obama just needs to keep looking halfway presidential.

[The Artist]

One/single issue voter? Add me to the list. If a candidate for America's highest public office is concerned more about verbiage or whether a doctor who botched an abortion can be sued overrules a concern to protect the most innocent and defenseless among us all then he/she will never get my vote.

I doubt you care, but here are the facts:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/16/fact-check-did-obama-vote-against-care-for-children-born-during-abortions/#more-25079


Fact Check: Did Obama vote against care for children born during abortions?

"Verdict: True, but incomplete. Obama did not vote for the legislation, but there was already an Illinois law that required treating babies born alive during abortions."

Don't let the facts get in the way of your political agendas, however.

[The Artist]

Seriously, it took me like 23 seconds to do the research on that. Try it sometime before you take everything as definitely true or definitely false.

[Stonebreaker]

Who cares. He's for abortions, McCain is against it. Everything else is window-dressing. This of course only matters for judicial nominations which is where some people like to see the constitution re-defined.
Everyone says there isn't a litmus test.....but I'm sure women's groups woulda (well, perhaps considered it) actually have been pro-Palin had she not been against their one core issue.
In any case, vote your conscious, vote your heart, and vote your wallet. We're all Americans, and we all have to live with who we chose.

[The Artist]

Who cares. He's for abortions, McCain is against it. Everything else is window-dressing. This of course only matters for judicial nominations which is where some people like to see the constitution re-defined.
Everyone says there isn't a litmus test.....but I'm sure women's groups woulda (well, perhaps considered it) actually have been pro-Palin had she not been against their one core issue.
In any case, vote your conscious, vote your heart, and vote your wallet. We're all Americans, and we all have to live with who we chose.

Again, it's misleading to say Obama is "for abortions". I don't know if that was an instigator or not...

..but you bring up an interesting point. Would the election be different if Palin was pro-choice?

[nickgyp]

Right now the Supreme Court is seen as being divided four "conservative justices' (Alito, Roberts, Scalia and Thomas) and four "liberal" (Breyer, Ginsberg, Souter and Stevens) with Anthony Kennedy (a Reagan appointee) seen as the swing vote. If Stevens (the oldest retires), his replacement could be the deciding vote in any review of a statute involving abortion (however, the Court in reviewing the staute may not necessarily revisit Roe itself). Past decisions involving abortion have not involved a revisiting of Roe ( a decsiion Justice Sandra Day O'Connor stated in Planned Parenthood v. Casey was on a collision course with itself (as the trimester scheme of Roe is implicated by medical technology which has allowed for the saving of unborn children at an early gestational age).

During the Senate nomination hearing process, no prospective justice would directly state how she or he might rule on Roe if such a case came up ( but usually judicial philosophy might hint at a direction (although Kennedy was viewed to be much more conservative than he has turned out)).

I myself think Roe was wrongly decided (how could justices come up with the trimester scheme in Roe where the unborn child's interest depend on the month of gestation). Roe overturned a Texas statute criminalizing abortion. If Roe is overturned, each state would be able to enact legislation as it sees fit via the legislative processs.

[Raoul Duke]

I am not a lawyer, but all I have been hearing in the media is that Roe v Wade is one vote, two at most, away from being overturned.

Yet, I keep reading on here that the presidential candidate (and by extension, his potential appointments) are immaterial. I'd be indebted to you law guys out there if you could explain what I'm missing.

In short...why would Roe stand up if McCain were to appoint two ultra-conservative Christian justices in place of Ginsberg, Breyer, et al. if they were to step aside?

First, Ginsberg and Breyer will stay on if McCain gets elected. Next, two ultra-conservative judges would not get approved by congress, especially a strongly democratic one.

Edit: oops, didn't look at nickgyp's response before I posted. See his, above.

[Stonebreaker]

Again, it's misleading to say Obama is "for abortions". I don't know if that was an instigator or not...

..but you bring up an interesting point. Would the election be different if Palin was pro-choice?

I think most Americans don't choose a candidate based on that. I think some groups (like NOW) or politicians on senate panels confirm or support solely based on that. Most Americans fall somewhere in the middle.......so I do think most people would not not change their vote.
I think the majority of people consider the matter as decided, like it or not. It's the politicians or extremists who want/expect the supremes to alter past decisions, or set new precedents (as they did before in offering new interpretations of 'privacy').
Don't ask, don't tell, don't ask me to pay for it, and let's have it not be the holy grail of politics. We have bigger issues to fry, is my opinion.

[nickgyp]

Re Obama and the Born Alive Act: my understanding is that he would not vote for it because it did not explicitly mention that Roe v. Wade was safeguarded. How tragic. Even many of the most ardent defenders of Roe sense the tragedy of late-term abortions. but not Obma. He told a California religious gathering that when life begins is above his paygrade. It is a biological fact that life begins at conception whether anyone wants to attach any significance to it.

As to whether the law was needed is besides the point. Sometimes legislators want to take a political stand (i.e, "hate crime law" which add an extra element to already existing criminal statute such as murdering someone due to his sexual orientation) Does it really matter why someone was murdered when the act itself is heinous for any reason? Even if the Illinois staute was superfluous, Obama could have been counted but he declined.

The real issue is the differnece over when people think unborn life deserves protection. Many of us draw the line at the very beginning but Obama does not have the gumption even to draw it at the end of nine months. Gee, how hard would it be to vote for the Born Alive Act notwithstanding Roe? Wouldn't this little chip off Roe have been acceptable?

I didn't attend Harvard Law but it seems that soneone who did (Obama) would have realized this.

[Stonebreaker]

That's one of the reasons why I do like McCain somewhat (not on everything, I assure you)...he takes on his own party, while Obama generally toes the party line, or voted 'present'. That's not leadership, that's being a politician. I would suggest we truly know very little about Obama, good or bad. If he wins, I hope we all don't find out the hard way.

[The Artist]

Re Obama and the Born Alive Act: my understanding is that he would not vote for it because it did not explicitly mention that Roe v. Wade was safeguarded. How tragic. Even many of the most ardent defenders of Roe sense the tragedy of late-term abortions. but not Obma. He told a California religious gathering that when life begins is above his paygrade. It is a biological fact that life begins at conception whether anyone wants to attach any significance to it.

As to whether the law was needed is besides the point. Sometimes legislators want to take a political stand (i.e, "hate crime law" which add an extra element to already existing criminal statute such as murdering someone due to his sexual orientation) Does it really matter why someone was murdered when the act itself is heinous for any reason? Even if the Illinois staute was superfluous, Obama could have been counted but he declined.

The real issue is the differnece over when people think unborn life deserves protection. Many of us draw the line at the very beginning but Obama does not have the gumption even to draw it at the end of nine months. Gee, how hard would it be to vote for the Born Alive Act notwithstanding Roe? Wouldn't this little chip off Roe have been acceptable?

I didn't attend Harvard Law but it seems that soneone who did (Obama) would have realized this.

Did you read my link? Or again, ignore it for your own agenda.

[The Artist]

Re Obama and the Born Alive Act: my understanding is that he would not vote for it because it did not explicitly mention that Roe v. Wade was safeguarded. How tragic. Even many of the most ardent defenders of Roe sense the tragedy of late-term abortions. but not Obma. He told a California religious gathering that when life begins is above his paygrade. It is a biological fact that life begins at conception whether anyone wants to attach any significance to it.

As to whether the law was needed is besides the point. Sometimes legislators want to take a political stand (i.e, "hate crime law" which add an extra element to already existing criminal statute such as murdering someone due to his sexual orientation) Does it really matter why someone was murdered when the act itself is heinous for any reason? Even if the Illinois staute was superfluous, Obama could have been counted but he declined.

The real issue is the differnece over when people think unborn life deserves protection. Many of us draw the line at the very beginning but Obama does not have the gumption even to draw it at the end of nine months. Gee, how hard would it be to vote for the Born Alive Act notwithstanding Roe? Wouldn't this little chip off Roe have been acceptable?

I didn't attend Harvard Law but it seems that soneone who did (Obama) would have realized this.

Here it is again so that you don't have to go back one page:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ns/#more-25079


Fact Check: Did Obama vote against care for children born during abortions?

"Verdict: True, but incomplete. Obama did not vote for the legislation, but there was already an Illinois law that required treating babies born alive during abortions."

I am specifically responding to your statements in bold:

1) Voting against he act does not support your first statement that I have bold - see the link. Such a law already exists. It would go against the doctor's oath to do otherwise.

2) Bold statement 2. See (1).

3) Bold statement 3. Why would he vote for it when such a law is already in place.

Ok everybody let's put the pieces together. I smell a Patriot Act type scenario.

So, we have this law that is already in place. Then we have this highly controversial bill that contains the law already in place, but also has language that would overturn a highly controversial ruling. So, in essence, people were voting to overturn the ruling. But, some, including Obama, chose not to, and they are attacked for not voting for the part of the bill that is already a law.

Honestly, not rocket science.

[MADXSTER]

Could we redistribute wins in the NFL?

The Bengals really don't deserve them, but they surely could use them.

[Firehose]

I am pro-death. Abortion, War, Drugs, Guns - up with all of them! Discuss.

[Strange Brew]

I doubt you care, but here are the facts:

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/10/16/fact-check-did-obama-vote-against-care-for-children-born-during-abortions/#more-25079


Fact Check: Did Obama vote against care for children born during abortions?

"Verdict: True, but incomplete. Obama did not vote for the legislation, but there was already an Illinois law that required treating babies born alive during abortions."

Don't let the facts get in the way of your political agendas, however.


It was not during abortions, it was after the BORN HUMAN BEING survived an attempted abortion. Thus, taking the life of an otherwise live person. Call it infantacide but it is technically homicide.

So, why vote for it? Either he truely believes it is a justifiable policy or he was pandering to his ultra left masters. Don't let common sense and critical thinking impede your blind faith to Obama.

[The Artist]

It was not during abortions, it was after the BORN HUMAN BEING survived an attempted abortion. Thus, taking the life of an otherwise live person. Call it infantacide but it is technically homicide.

So, why vote for it? Either he truely believes it is a justifiable policy or he was pandering to his ultra left masters. Don't let common sense and critical thinking impede your blind faith to Obama.

Wow. Seriously? Of all the posts on this board, this one takes the cake.

You're approaching LH territory. No, nevermind, he's well in your rearview.

I cannot wait until you have to live through 8 years of Obama. I hope somehow only your taxes increase by about 300%.

[Strange Brew]

Wow. Seriously? Of all the posts on this board, this one takes the cake.

You're approaching LH territory. No, nevermind, he's well in your rearview.

I cannot wait until you have to live through 8 years of Obama. I hope somehow only your taxes increase by about 300%.

That's a rational, well thought out response. Of course you attacked without addressing the point. That is, if the law was already in place, Obama voted to against it. Why? Logically, he either believes in his vote or he cast it to "impress" his far left voting block.

Either way it is an extremist posistion to take on the issue. Period.

[jdm2000]

p.s. - I just read that Joe the Plumber isn't even a licenxed plummer. What does that make him me wonders?

http://www.cleveland.com/nation/index.ssf/2008/10/joe_the_plumber_has_no_plumbin.html


An unlicensed plumber who owes back taxes, no less. I think he'll probably want to fade into obscurity pretty quickly.

[DC Muskie]

Keeping voting for Republicans presidents simply because they are anti abortion. They'll keep delivering you Roe vs. Wade.

[DC Muskie]

Which path is that?

The path I'm talking about is a severe wealth gap where a majority of people will need services, like say, affordable food, and there won't be places where people can get those services because only a select few have wealth.




You're my guy DC, but isn't this nation already heavily socilaized? It's not like the "free market" yielded that wealth gap you speak of all by itself.

I don't completely disagree, I will say this, this country has overextended itself in what it can afford. Who here is not in debt? Is that due to a heavily socialized society?


Healthcare is really just about the last field that the Feds aren't balls deep into at this point.

Banking and regulation? Check.
Education? Check
Welfare? Check
All kinds of various social programs meant to help the "disadvantaged"? Check.
Retriement? Check.

This is my biggest problem with people who feel government doesn't work. Now trust me I live in the most liberal county probably in the entire east coast, and business and property values are sky high. The county right next door where I work, not so much. But I have to deal with the same stupid government red state, and probably more, and it drives me nuts most times, but I don' throw up my hands and say, "Well, government sucks, there should be even less of it." I think there is a fair balance.

We should get out of banking as soon as we can. We should already be out of the education business until we can figure out the best road.

But there are millions of programs that are designed and work well that help people. One of the government's job is to protect you, right? Are you saying that all the wealth we supposedly produce, can't help those who are our most vulnerable?



To Dems: Holy shit...hasn't the Federal government done enough already to protect the interests of those are viewed as being victims?? Does the Constitution mean anything to you...or should our elected officials continue to wipe their asses with it?

Why can't we all decide our fate, including how to shape our government? The idea that we are all going to be socialists if we elect Obama is laughable. The guy isn't taking over government with tanks. He's doing it with people's votes. And if he does a horrible job, then everyone has the opportunity to vote him out, which I'm sure most of my friends here will do.

[Snipe]

I guess we can all check our own facts.

The born alive act was a piece of legislation put there to protect infants that were born alive and left to die. It was not a hypothetical case, it was actually happening. We can debate the Hippocratic Oath or laws on the books, but look at what was actually happening at Christ Hospital outside of Chicago.

A Registered Nurse who worked in the child delivery wing at Christ Hospital in Illinois came forward to blow the whistle: Some abortions were failing and babies were being born alive. These babies were wrapped in blankets and left to die alone in a closet. They were not given any medical care. They were simply left alone to die.

The parents didn't want to hold them. They came in for an abortion. Imagine the trauma of actually having to hold the baby you decided to kill until it died. Nobody wanted these babies. They were supposed to be dead. So they wrapped them up in a blanket and left them in a closet to die.

This isn't a theory, this was an ongoing practice. It was happening. This practice was what the Illinois legislature specifically sought to stop when it proposed the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. When the bill went to the floor of the Illinois Senate, only one Senator took the floor to speak against the bill. That Senator was Barack Obama. Six Senators did not vote for the bill, one of which was Barack Obama.

When I first heard of this I was shocked and surprised that this could even happen in America, let alone be a regular practice in a major hospital. Even among mainstream Democrats who favor 'reproductive choice', this practice is appalling and it turns their stomachs.

On this issue (as with many), Barack Obama is well outside the mainstream of even his own party. He may look like a centrist in an election year, but it is important to look at his record. As thin as his brief record of accomplishments is, the proof is in the pudding.

[Snipe]

This is the testimony of that nurse before the Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee:


I am a Registered Nurse who has worked in the Labor & Delivery Department at Christ Hospital in Oak Lawn, Illinois, for the past 5-1/2 years. Christ Hospital performs abortions during the second and even third trimesters of pregnancy.

The abortion method being called into question that Christ Hospital and other Illinois hospitals practice is called “induced labor abortion." This abortion technique sometimes results in infants being aborted alive. In the event that an infant is aborted alive at Christ Hospital, she or he is given no medical assessments or care whatsoever, but is left to die.

The induced labor abortion procedure can be performed using a couple different medications, but the goal always is to cause a pregnant woman's cervix to open so that she will deliver a premature baby who dies during the birth process or soon afterward. At Christ Hospital the physician inserts a medication called Cytotec into the mother's birth canal next to the cervix. The cervix is the opening at the bottom of the uterus that normally stays closed until a mother is about 40 weeks pregnant and ready to deliver. But Cytotec irritates the cervix and stimulates it to open early. When this happens, the pre-term baby drops out of the uterus, sometimes alive.

In the event that a baby is aborted alive at Christ Hospital, he or she is not given any medical care, but is rather given what my hospital calls “comfort care." “Comfort care” is defined as keeping the baby warm in a blanket until the baby dies, although until recently even this was not always done. The baby is then offered to the parents to hold until he or she dies.

If the parents do not want to hold their dying aborted baby, as is most often the case, it is left to nursing staff or support staff on the floor to hold the baby until he or she dies. And, until this past December, when staff did not have time or the desire to hold the baby, the baby was taken to our Soiled Utility Room and left there alone to die. Christ Hospital's comfort care policy, #WHS492, only requires that live aborted babies be checked for signs of life once an hour, or “as needed in order to verify time of death.”

It is not uncommon for a live aborted babies to linger for an hour or two or even longer. At Christ Hospital, one of these babies once lived for almost an entire eight-hour shift. Last year alone, of the 13 babies that I am aware of who were aborted at Christ Hospital, at least four lived between 1-1/2 to 3 hours, two boys and two girls. Christ Hospital says that it compassionately aborts babies with very serious mental or physical handicaps. But Christ Hospital will also abort for life or health of the mother. So at least two of the second-trimester babies who were aborted last year, for instance, were completely healthy.

One night, a nursing coworker was taking an aborted Down's Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old, weighed about ½ pound, and was about 10 inches long. He was too weak to move very much, expending any energy he had -- trying to breathe.

Toward the end, he was so quiet that I couldn't tell if he was still alive, unless I held him up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all of our dead patients are taken.

Other coworkers have told me about incidences of live aborted babies whom they have cared for. A Support Associate told me about a live aborted baby who was left to die on the counter of the Soiled Utility Room, wrapped in a disposable towel. This baby was accidentally thrown into the garbage, and when they later were going through the trash to find the baby, the baby fell out of the towel and on to the floor. A nursing coworker told me about an incident she was involved in last spring that she said “I just can't stop thinking about." She participated in the abortion of a healthy 23-1/7 week baby who was given no medical assessments or care after delivery, but was allowed to languish for 2-1/2 hours until she died, even though she showed early signs of thriving.

Just three weeks after this baby was aborted, another mother came to the hospital under similar circumstances, carrying an identically aged baby, and she was offered the same options. But she said that she wanted her baby. And so present at her delivery – because Christ Hospital is a Level III mother/baby care hospital -- was a neonatologist, a pediatric resident, a pediatric nurse, and a respiratory therapist – all assigned specifically to take care of that little girl at delivery. And for the two days that I tracked her, that little girl lived. Christ Hospital is one of only 11 hospitals that the State of Illinois has designated as a level III perinatal institution -- its highest ranking -- which means that Christ Hospital is considered to have both the best equipment and the most highly trained medical personnel care for the sickest of the sick mothers and babies.

Another nurse friend told me about the patient she was caring for who had chosen to abort her second trimester baby, having been told that the boy had gross internal and external fetal anomalies. When her baby was aborted alive, however, he looked fine. The mother became hysterical and screamed for someone to help her baby. A neonatologist was called over, but told the family that the baby had been born too early to help. The mother was so traumatized that she had to be tranquilized, and it was left to the grandparents to hold the little baby boy the ½ hour that he lived.

Last July, I was asked to testify before the U. S. House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution regarding the babies I knew about who were aborted alive and left to die at Christ Hospital. Another nurse who worked at the hospital, but who has since moved to Virginia, Allison Baker, also agreed to testify. Allison described walking into the Soiled Utility Room on two separate occasions to find babies left naked on a scale and the metal counter. She told about the patient, that she herself had, who didn't know that her aborted baby might be born alive, and after he was taken to the
Soiled Utility Room she kept asking, “Is he dead yet? Is he dead yet?”

Allison and I were called to testify in Washington in regard to a bill called the Born Alive Infants Protection Act. This bill simply clarifies an apparently confusing tenet -- that any baby born alive, completely separated from his or her mother, whether through abortion or not, has the same rights as American citizen human beings that you and I have. This would include the right to medical assessments and care -- and not just “comfort care” when a baby is not wanted.

The Born Alive Infants Protection Act flew through the Judiciary Subcommittee, which had some well-known pro-choice congresspersons on it such as Jerry Nadler and Maxine Waters. It then passed in the House by a large vote of 380-15. Almost everyone on both sides of the abortion debate clearly saw that what was being discussed was infanticide. It was still confounding that 15 Congresspersons could vote against this bill in favor of infanticide, but they did. World Magazine listed these people and called them “the Fanatical Fifteen." The congressional session did end before this bill could be introduced in the Senate last autumn and still stands to be reintroduced in the House very soon.

Meanwhile, here in Illinois, life and death go on. Four months ago, Christ Hospital unveiled its “Comfort Room.” So now I can no longer say that live aborted babies are left in our Soiled Utility Room to die. We now have this prettily wallpapered room complete with a First Foto machine, baptismal gowns, a footprinter, and baby bracelets, so that we can offer keepsakes to parents of their aborted babies. There is even a nice wooden rocker in the room to rock live aborted babies to death.

It is wrong that current Illinois law mandates a doctor to pronounce a born-alive aborted baby dead but does not mandate the doctor to assess that baby for life and chances of survival. It is wrong that Illinois law mandates both birth and death certificates be issued – admitting that these aborted babies are indeed human – but does not give these babies any rights whatsoever to medical care. No other children in Illinois or America are treated this way. It is just not right that a baby should be left to die simply because her mother does not want her. It is not right that the very doctors who may be miscalculating due dates and fetal birth weights or misdiagnosing fetal handicaps are the same ones deciding that these babies should not be assessed after delivery. They're being allowed to destroy the very evidence that might make them liable for lawsuits if they have been wrong.

What is the difference between a teen-age girl at her prom putting her unwanted baby in the garbage to die and the medical staff at a hospital putting an unwanted baby in a Comfort Room to die? There is no difference.

Barack Obama was the only Senator to take the floor to speak against giving these infants medical care. That says something.

[Kahns Krazy]

I like the widening wealth gap. It's a really important issue. I like it because on it's own, it's a totally meaningless statistic, but I can quote it.

Egads! The wealth gap is widening! We must do something about that! Yes we can!

Bill Gates singlehandedly has widened the wealth gap. He must be punished for his success.

[Stonebreaker]

I want some of Joe the Plumbers' money.

[xudash]

I have no problem with paying my fair share of taxes. Paying taxes isn't about being patriotic. Paying them comes with living in a modern society and, while it may be okay to joke and complain about it, this isn't the 18th Century; 21st Century government requires funding and a lot of it.

Nonetheless, we need to make some hard decisions about spending, especially in light of the dramatic effect the financial bailout will have on the the federal budget and the deficit.

Finally, I'll reiterate that using the tax code for social engineering isn't a good idea, period. Raising taxes under these current economic conditions is the equivalent of making a 300 pound man with blood pressure of 170/120 run a 100 yard dash as fast as he can. Raising anyone's taxes at this point would bring on an economic heart attack.

[Xman95]

I have nothing to add at this time regarding Joe the Plumber. But, as a favor to Raoul Duke (and others), I figured I would post something better. Enjoy...

http://spartacus.drogers.net/images/full/melissa-theuriau.jpg

Oh well, I tried!

[Stonebreaker]

Paying taxes isn't patriotic, nor is it time to kick in and do 'our share' It's about limited government, period (at least that's what the founders thought).

That's the main difference between cons and libs.....everything else is window dressing. Less is best, and more just causes us to have GSE like Fannie/Freddie, start the Great Society and entitlements, a powerful federal govt when the states should have more say, etc.
When did we start going against what our country stood for, and think this was acceptable?

[Snipe]

Originally Posted by vee4xu
p.s. - I just read that Joe the Plumber isn't even a licenxed plummer. What does that make him me wonders?


An unlicensed plumber who owes back taxes, no less. I think he'll probably want to fade into obscurity pretty quickly.

I think this sends a message to anyone that wants to ask a question to Barack Obama.

His question really wasn't controversial at all, what made the play was Barack's response to "Spread the Wealth". Barack is going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. But 40% of Americans don't pay taxes, so Barack is going to pay them and tell people that constitutes a tax cut. It is a socialist redistribution of wealth.

Even if Barack gives some people a tax cut and they don't pay much taxes they may not like the fact that the $500 they did pay in taxes went to some guy that didn't pay any taxes. It is a big deal to people and I don't think it is Joe the Plumber's fault.

Ask the Messiah the wrong question and people will rifle through your divorce records, your tax records and try to get you fired from your job because you don't have the proper government approved papers.

Joe the Plumber was standing outside his own house, and it was Barack Obama on a campaign that came walking down the street to talk to him. He isn't a Republican operative, and he didn't ask Barack to come to his house.

Ever since that question leftists have worked to belittle, marginalize and destroy Joe the Plumber.

What message does that send? What chilling effect does that have? Why does Joe deserve this?

Never question the Messiah.

[DC Muskie]

Paying taxes isn't patriotic, nor is it time to kick in and do 'our share' It's about limited government, period (at least that's what the founders thought).

That's the main difference between cons and libs.....everything else is window dressing. Less is best, and more just causes us to have GSE like Fannie/Freddie, start the Great Society and entitlements, a powerful federal govt when the states should have more say, etc.
When did we start going against what our country stood for, and think this was acceptable?

Even Reagan grew the government.

[DC Muskie]

Here are some other statistics that are meaningless on their own...

Unemployment is up 6.1

People working more then one job rose over the past year

Earnings are down for another consecutive quarter

I don't know what any of that means, but I like it! Simply because I can quote it and have the last word! Yes I can!

I met a woman last night at a presentation I gave at a church, she lost two jobs and her husband's medical costs skyrocketed over the last six months. If I knew, I would have told her that her wealth gap between Bill Gates and her family really doesn't mean much, that if we didn't punish him for his success, her failures will be taken care of if she only works harder! I'll have to get back to her on that I guess.

[dc_x]

Paying taxes isn't patriotic, nor is it time to kick in and do 'our share' It's about limited government, period (at least that's what the founders thought).

That's the main difference between cons and libs.....everything else is window dressing.

The problem is that both parties have become essentially the same. Used to be that Dems were high taxes, high spending and Repubs were low taxes, low spending.

These days both parties are for low taxes and high spending. They just have some different ideas on who to cut taxes for and where to spend.

God help us 50 years from now when the rest of the world stops lendind us money to fund our debt.

[jdm2000]

I think this sends a message to anyone that wants to ask a question to Barack Obama.

His question really wasn't controversial at all, what made the play was Barack's response to "Spread the Wealth". Barack is going to cut taxes for 95% of Americans. But 40% of Americans don't pay taxes, so Barack is going to pay them and tell people that constitutes a tax cut. It is a socialist redistribution of wealth.

Even if Barack gives some people a tax cut and they don't pay much taxes they may not like the fact that the $500 they did pay in taxes went to some guy that didn't pay any taxes. It is a big deal to people and I don't think it is Joe the Plumber's fault.

Ask the Messiah the wrong question and people will rifle through your divorce records, your tax records and try to get you fired from your job because you don't have the proper government approved papers.

Joe the Plumber was standing outside his own house, and it was Barack Obama on a campaign that came walking down the street to talk to him. He isn't a Republican operative, and he didn't ask Barack to come to his house.

Ever since that question leftists have worked to belittle, marginalize and destroy Joe the Plumber.

What message does that send? What chilling effect does that have? Why does Joe deserve this?

Never question the Messiah.


Snipe, I know you are hardcore about this--hardcore enough to post comments at Cincinnati.com, which is essentially an insane asylum where anyone can join--but this is where we disagree. The media isn't on Joe the Plumber because he had the temerity to ask a question of Obama. The media is on Joe the Plumber because McCain made him the star of the 3rd debate. And this is what the media does: finds out everything it possibly can about someone who has achieved instant celebrity, good or bad.

I'm guessing there are thousands upon thousands of people who have asked Obama (and McCain) questions at campaign events, small meet and greets, coffee shops, etc. And I would guess that thousands and thousands of those questions have been videotaped for posterity. But this is the guy who was lucky enough to get singled out by McCain and become a celebrity because of the third debate. And I (and I assume many other Americans) had never heard of Joe the Plumber before the debate. But once he got that modicum of celebrity, I don't think there's any dispute how we overexpose (and overinquire) on celebrities in America. It's why every American Idol contestant who's done any sort of risque anything in their past eventually finds their way on to TV and into the papers as part of the controversy.

I saw on the cnn.com political ticker that McCain has called ot apologize to him. Seems even he realizes that he's thrust JTP into the spotlight.

[jcubspoe]

That's one of the reasons why I do like McCain somewhat (not on everything, I assure you)...he takes on his own party, while Obama generally toes the party line, or voted 'present'. That's not leadership, that's being a politician. I would suggest we truly know very little about Obama, good or bad. If he wins, I hope we all don't find out the hard way.

Everything Obama has done in his life has been for political expediency. His relationships, which he's all denying now, his church, everything....has been for this moment...disgusting really, imo.

[jcubspoe]

Here are some other statistics that are meaningless on their own...

Unemployment is up 6.1

People working more then one job rose over the past year

Earnings are down for another consecutive quarter

I don't know what any of that means, but I like it! Simply because I can quote it and have the last word! Yes I can!

I met a woman last night at a presentation I gave at a church, she lost two jobs and her husband's medical costs skyrocketed over the last six months. If I knew, I would have told her that her wealth gap between Bill Gates and her family really doesn't mean much, that if we didn't punish him for his success, her failures will be taken care of if she only works harder! I'll have to get back to her on that I guess.

For all of these sob stories out there like this one i can come up with a success story.. hell, my own...i made more money then i ever did in the 8 years that Bush was president...i landed a great job, bought a house which *gasP* i continue to pay the mortgage on, started a family, got divorced and survived that financially. But lets punish me and and tax me more for somebody else's benefit. You guys want this? Go live in Canada or France, they already have it.

[jcubspoe]

Snipe, I know you are hardcore about this--hardcore enough to post comments at Cincinnati.com, which is essentially an insane asylum where anyone can join--but this is where we disagree. The media isn't on Joe the Plumber because he had the temerity to ask a question of Obama. The media is on Joe the Plumber because McCain made him the star of the 3rd debate. And this is what the media does: finds out everything it possibly can about someone who has achieved instant celebrity, good or bad.

I'm guessing there are thousands upon thousands of people who have asked Obama (and McCain) questions at campaign events, small meet and greets, coffee shops, etc. And I would guess that thousands and thousands of those questions have been videotaped for posterity. But this is the guy who was lucky enough to get singled out by McCain and become a celebrity because of the third debate. And I (and I assume many other Americans) had never heard of Joe the Plumber before the debate. But once he got that modicum of celebrity, I don't think there's any dispute how we overexpose (and overinquire) on celebrities in America. It's why every American Idol contestant who's done any sort of risque anything in their past eventually finds their way on to TV and into the papers as part of the controversy.

I saw on the cnn.com political ticker that McCain has called ot apologize to him. Seems even he realizes that he's thrust JTP into the spotlight.

This isn't about the actual "Joe the Plummer" anymore....this is about everyday American's trying to live the dream and start up a business.....BO (lol) is for taking successful americans money and giving it to other people, people who may not be trying as hard as the previous person....what will be the test for this? there won't be a test.

Now we have Joe Gaffe Biden (who if his name were Dan Quayle would have ended his political career 20 years ago) saying stuff like "I don't know any 250,000 plummers in my neighborhood". No shit Joe....there arent anyone in your neighborhood making less 1 million a year....what a goof. But the media is so for Obama/Biden all we hear about is McCains seven houses. I could care less, all these politicians are filthy rich, but the media will only report on the money that mccain has. Did John Kerry have any less money when he married into the Heinz family???? The media in this country has completely overstepped their bounds and single handily gonna decide this election.

[jdm2000]

jcubspoe, I was just responding to Snipe's point that "Joe the Plumber" didn't deserve to be 'taken down' by the media. In that regard, Joe's like every other brief celebrity out there. And the reason he's a "celebrity" is because McCain, not Obama, used him at the last debate. And that's a pretty political thing to do when you think about it.

[DC Muskie]

For all of these sob stories out there like this one i can come up with a success story.. hell, my own...i made more money then i ever did in the 8 years that Bush was president...i landed a great job, bought a house which *gasP* i continue to pay the mortgage on, started a family, got divorced and survived that financially. But lets punish me and and tax me more for somebody else's benefit. You guys want this? Go live in Canada or France, they already have it.

Yeah, go live somewhere else! Yeah! That will show all the poor people!

[DC Muskie]

The media in this country has completely overstepped their bounds and single handily gonna decide this election.

It's about time the media did it's just and single handily decide who the majority of people should vote for. Since they failed miserably in 2000 and 2004.

Last word! Yes I can!

[Snipe]

Government computers used to find information on Joe the Plumber (http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/24/joe.html?sid=101)

"State and local officials are investigating if state and law-enforcement computer systems were illegally accessed when they were tapped for personal information about "Joe the Plumber."

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher became part of the national political lexicon Oct. 15 when Republican presidential candidate John McCain mentioned him frequently during his final debate with Democrat Barack Obama.

The 34-year-old from the Toledo suburb of Holland is held out by McCain as an example of an American who would be harmed by Obama's tax proposals.

Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate.

Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.

It has not been determined who checked on Wurzelbacher, or why. Direct access to driver's license and vehicle registration information from BMV computers is restricted to legitimate law enforcement and government business.

Tell me that doesn't send a message. Tell me that isn't a doesn't give a "chilling effect" to all Americans that care about 1st Amendment Rights of Freedom of Expression.

Let me give you a timeline:

Barack Obama was on the campaign trail. He was walking down a street and talking to people.

Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher (Joe The Plumber) was standing in his front yard when Barack Obama came walking down his street on the campaign trail. Obama was walking down his street and talking to people.

Wurzelbacher asked Obama a question that is not out of the ordinary. (How could your tax plan affect me?) It was the response to the question ("let's spread the wealth") that caused the controversy.

For asking a simple and basic question in his front yard Samuel Joseph Wurzelbacher found himself under investigation by both the government and the press.

That is sad. What does that tell us? If you dare to ask the wrong questions, they will come after you. Don't question the government, and don't dare question the Messiah.

[wkrq59]

My little bitty voice inside me tells me not to enter this exercise. But I notice a few things that say "Speak up."
The "media" which includes print, as well as electronic and don't forget bloggers who play a very important part in today's communications industry, was simply doing what WE have demanded they do by our often insatiable desire for dirt.
That is no excuse for prying into every nook and cranny of a person's life and mores to find out every salient detail, asking everything but "When was the last time you came and with whom?"
I said a while back that regardless of whether Barack Obama wins or loses this contest for the presidency, race will be one of the deciding factors.
In my 72 years, which included a period of militancy as a Xavier University sophomore, junior and senior, I've learned most of the "code words and phrases." You don't have to be smart to know them:
"He's not like us," He's not like good God-fearing Americans. He's an arab. He's a muslim. I've heard John McCain called senile, doddering, shaky, showing signs of the onset of Alzheimers (as if the talking head saying that had given the man thorough physical and psychological exams or whatever the tests are for that infliction).
I've heard national radio talking heads say, not even indirectly, that Obama didn't go to Hawaii to see his critically ill grandmother but instead for an assignation. And Friday morning I heard and read a release by a McCain campaign official saying as if it were fact that a McCain staff worker was assaulted and given a black eye and had a red B carved on her face by a 6-foot-4 black man, an accusation which police proved and she admitted was completely untrue.
I have heard from a once reliable source that "If Obama wins, the blacks will party and if Obama loses the blacks will really p;arty, and as a result, police departments in every big city in the country are putting extra men on and preparing for riots."
I have heard a candidate for vice president accuse Obama of being a terrorist, a socialist and "Not like other God-fearing Americans" and people in the crowds at her rallies scream "Terrorist,' Traitor, and Kill him." And the Secret Service, which investigated the "Kill him" shouts said they were unable to prove that happened. All they had to do was look at the tapes and listen.
Please don't try to tell me that Obama's people are over-reacting, please don't try to tell me the girl was a plant and please don't try to offer all the bullshit for what is painfully obvious.
There a few things of which I am certain of the past 60 years and that's because I've seen them--A president, his brother and a man of peace who advocated non-violence gunned down in their prime. I have seen men who served their country proudly and with distinction, John Kerry and John McCain belittled, made fun of and shown utter disrespect and one flat lied about and called a traitor by an unscrupulous man who specializes in lies and intimidation.
It's enough to make you want to puke.
One thing I am absolutely certain of is I can truthfully say the past eight years have possibly been the worst I and my family have ever been through fiscally.
I have no idea what will happen Nov. 4 but I know things have to get better and I'm not optimistic no matter who wins. Why?
Well, 24 hours after Jan. 20 or maybe sooner, the crap will start to flow and so will the accusations and the words taken out of context and on and on.
For better or worse, since I have already voted, my only concern is will my vote be counted, or will there be some discrepancy found, or manufactured, to rob me of that vote? I just wonder what I would do if I had no drivers license, couldn't remember my social digits or had put down a number that could easily be changed. And I know that one of the reasons I have voted early was so I wouldn't have to wait maybe two or three or four hours or more to vote, only to be told "We've run out of ballots so If you'll be patient we're trying to get more. " And I know I won't have to pass by uniformed policemen or rent-a-cops tethering guard dogs trying to intimidate me to keep me from voting. But that wouldn't have happened to me if I waited until Nov. 4, because I'm like most Americans. At least I look like them.:(

[jdm2000]

Nicely said, Q.

[Snipe]

My little bitty voice inside me tells me not to enter this exercise. But I notice a few things that say "Speak up."
The "media" which includes print, as well as electronic and don't forget bloggers who play a very important part in today's communications industry, was simply doing what WE have demanded they do by our often insatiable desire for dirt. (

Your desire for dirt isn't against the law. This is:


Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate.

Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.

It has not been determined who checked on Wurzelbacher, or why. Direct access to driver's license and vehicle registration information from BMV computers is restricted to legitimate law enforcement and government business.



I said a while back that regardless of whether Barack Obama wins or loses this contest for the presidency, race will be one of the deciding factors.

In my 72 years, which included a period of militancy as a Xavier University sophomore, junior and senior, I've learned most of the "code words and phrases." You don't have to be smart to know them:
"He's not like us," He's not like good God-fearing Americans. He's an arab. He's a muslim.(

Barack is a socialist and he was a member of the socialist party. I have not had one person tell me that he is an arab. When I say he is a socialist I am not using code words or phrases, I mean quite directly that he is a socialist and that he was a member of the socialist party.

That has nothing to do with Joe The Plumber, or why his records were illegally accessed, I am just noting that nobody I know is calling Barack Obama an Arab. His father was listed and an arab Muslim on his pasport, but that doesn't mean Barack Obama is an arab, just the son of an arab muslim from Kenya. Barack is a Christain in Jerimiah Wright's church, I read that in the news. Wright converted him and gave him his spiritual grounding.



I have heard a candidate for vice president accuse Obama of being a terrorist, a socialist and "Not like other God-fearing Americans" and people in the crowds at her rallies scream "Terrorist,' Traitor, and Kill him." And the Secret Service, which investigated the "Kill him" shouts said they were unable to prove that happened. All they had to do was look at the tapes and listen.

(

Palin didn't call him a terroist. You may not be savy enough to figure this out, but she was pointing out that one of his political mentors was a terrorist. He launched his political career at the house of an American terrorist who gives no apologies for killing Americans as part of the Weather Underground. Perhaps that doesn't mean anything to you because people change. I don't care how you feel. The fact is that she didn't call him a terrorist. As for calling him a socialist, he was and is a socialist, and he was a member of the socialist party. That isn't a code word. The man is a socialist.

As for the people that yelled out "terrorist", I think they were talking about Barack's friends (and he had more than one terrorist friend, one of which used to be a member of the PLO). As far as has been ivestigated, nobody was found to shout out "kill him". You can keep bringing it up though.




For better or worse, since I have already voted, my only concern is will my vote be counted, or will there be some discrepancy found, or manufactured, to rob me of that vote? I just wonder what I would do if I had no drivers license, couldn't remember my social digits or had put down a number that could easily be changed. And I know that one of the reasons I have voted early was so I wouldn't have to wait maybe two or three or four hours or more to vote, only to be told "We've run out of ballots so If you'll be patient we're trying to get more. " And I know I won't have to pass by uniformed policemen or rent-a-cops tethering guard dogs trying to intimidate me to keep me from voting. But that wouldn't have happened to me if I waited until Nov. 4, because I'm like most Americans. At least I look like them.:(


Q, I live in a community that is over 90% black. Do you even know what you are talking about? I have voted in primaries and the elections for quite a few cycles having lived down here for 9 years.

We don't have long lines down here. Everytime my wife and I (and others I know) go to the ballots there are no lines and you vote within 10 minutes. There was no line the last two Presidential elections. No line whatsoever. We also didn't have any policemen, let alone any "rent a cops" or police dogs trying to intimidate people.

Edit: I should not have been disrespectful to Q, I do get tired of the racial prism in which he sees the world.
-----------------------

You changed the subject with your racial blather. Let me change it back.


Public records requested by The Dispatch disclose that information on Wurzelbacher's driver's license or his sport-utility vehicle was pulled from the Ohio Bureau of Motor Vehicles database three times shortly after the debate.

Information on Wurzelbacher was accessed by accounts assigned to the office of Ohio Attorney General Nancy H. Rogers, the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency and the Toledo Police Department.

It has not been determined who checked on Wurzelbacher, or why. Direct access to driver's license and vehicle registration information from BMV computers is restricted to legitimate law enforcement and government business.

It is illegal for the state to do this to a private citizen. Joe the Plumber has rights like the rest of us. If he dares to question the Messiah he shouldn't have state employees breaking state laws trying to dig up dirt on them. This type of abuse has a chilling effect on all of our first amendment rights. You don't have freedom of expression if you can expect retaliation.

[kyxu]

You rant like you know the facts. You are an idiot. Listen to this, you are a complete idiot. You are ignorant of the facts.

You know, there is a way to make your point without being incredibly disrespectful.

[xudash]

For what it's worth, my position on this is clear:

A citizen of the United States asked a candidate for national office a simple question. The video shows a fairly candid individual. The video seems to show a guy who might be interested in making an informed vote. It most likely was nothing more than that. The candidate came walking down the street and this guy just happened to get a question in that was taped.

The content of the candidate's response to the citizen's question was packed with gun powder - the candidate revealed a key area of his philosophy and the effect it would have on tax policy and the Federal budget under his administration.

The candidate's RESPONSE should have been and should still be the point of focus.

Regardless of whether or not the competing party made the person who elicited the response a 'symbol' or 'brand image' or whatever, that party's conduct in doing that does not provide the 4th Estate the right to tear down that citizen or invade that citizen's privacy.

I thought we were taking all this in to evaluate these candidates in order to make an informed vote. How is the candidate's baseline response changed or altered by learning details of the citizen-questioner's private life?

[DAllen15]

You're correct as far as it goes, dash, but then McCain made Wurzelbacher into a symbol, and that point, you can fairly examine whether's he's really the symbol that McCain chose to make him.

If Wurzelbacher had simply asked Obama his question, and it didn't go any further, then the only thing to examine is the question and the answer. But McCain decided to run with it and make Wurzelbacher into something bigger, hence the look into his particular circumstances.

[Snipe]

You are correct and I am wrong. I apologize to Q. I get so tired of the racial angle. I don't even remember seeing a policeman at the polls in my neighborhood, let alone one with a dog. The place is a wasteland on election day.

We live in the Youtube era of cell phones that can record movies. I don't have one but some of my tenants do (they aren't rich). I have never heard anyone in my neighborhood complain about having their vote taken away.

Republicans have a hard time recruiting anyone to be an election monitor in the tougher black areas in town. Do you want to go to the roughest areas of town and tell some black man that he can't vote because he didn't bring any of the required identication? Who wants to do that job? Not a lot of people lining up.

I think it is dangerous to continue to stoke the racial fires. One of my fears would be a McCain win by a narrow margin in the election, with Ohio being the Florida of 2000. This city has had riots in the past, and they aren't that far behind us. We have a culture of spontaneous violence in Over the Rhine. I don't think it would surprise many people if a narrow McCain win sparked some violence. I don't want to be the token white guy in a black neighborhood when Al Sharpton comes to town telling people that the election was stolen. I don't plan on voting for Obama but I do plan on putting an Obama sign in my window on election day for insurance.

I also think that some people in the black community do not vote because they have been told over and over by Democrats that their votes don't count.

That is one reason that I like the Obama canidacy, it will be a huge STFU moment to all the liberals that constantly preach racism. Boy does that get old. I live in a black community and we have a lot of problems. Those problems are babies having babies, a culture of welfare dependancy and entitlement, horrible public schools and the drug war. By and large, those problems don't have much to do with white people. I am a big fan of Bill Cosby's message of self empowerment. The black community is a mess, and the only people that can fix it are black people. Well intentioned white liberals have been throwing money at social programs since Lydon Johnson started the "Great Society" programs back in the 60s. All those programs have done is make the problems worse. You can trace the breakdown of the black family to Congress deciding to pay money to single mothers. If you don't get a check if there is a man in the house you are paying the father to leave his own children. You can look at the statistics of kids born out of wedlock from the 60's until today, the effect has been devasting.

So I apologize to Q for being disrespectful. I don't think he should have come on this 'Joe the Plumber' thread and started making racial arguments. I have been called a racist by more than one person on this board in the last few weeks and that gets old.

[Snipe]

Here is a recording of Barack Obama on a radio show. Check out this audio file on You Tube:

Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iivL4c_3pck)

Obama talks about "Economic Justice" and "redistribution of wealth".

He says that the tragedy of the Civil Rights movement is that we didn't bring "redistributive change"? It was fine and nice to give people the right to vote and bar discrimination in employment. Equal opportunity was OK too. But the tragedy is that we didn't achieve "economic justice" by redistributing wealth to black people.

The guy is a socialist. That isn't a code word for racism, that is a code word for socialism.

Change is coming.

[DC Muskie]

That's why the slogan is Yes WE Can! Not, Yes I Can without any Government Interference.

[dc_x]

The guy is a socialist. That isn't a code word for racism, that is a code word for socialism.


I don't like Obama's tax plan, but calling it "socialist" is lazy.

We have had a progressive income tax system in this country since 1913. We have had welfare programs since the 1930s. If progressive income taxes and welfare are socialist, then this country has been socialist for a long time.

[Kahns Krazy]

So it's really "Yes we can, or at least you can for me."

[Kahns Krazy]

I don't like Obama's tax plan, but calling it "socialist" is lazy.

We have had a progressive income tax system in this country since 1913. We have had welfare programs since the 1930s. If progressive income taxes and welfare are socialist, then this country has been socialist for a long time.

I disagree. There are degrees of socialist programs, and Obama's are farther along that line than the current structure. Calling it what it is isn't lazy so much as it is accurate.

[Snipe]

I don't like Obama's tax plan, but calling it "socialist" is lazy.

We have had a progressive income tax system in this country since 1913. We have had welfare programs since the 1930s. If progressive income taxes and welfare are socialist, then this country has been socialist for a long time.

I am not calling his tax plan socialist, I am calling Barack Obama a socialist. He was a member of the socialist party. Here is part of the transcript of the audio link above:

Barack Obama, in 2001 (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YmFhYzIzMGQ1Y2FlMTA4N2M1N2VmZWUzM2Y4ZmNmYmI=):


You know, if you look at the victories and failures of the civil-rights movement, and its litigation strategy in the court, I think where it succeeded was to vest formal rights in previously dispossessed peoples. So that I would now have the right to vote, I would now be able to sit at a lunch counter and order and as long as I could pay for it, I’d be okay, but the Supreme Court never entered into the issues of redistribution of wealth, and sort of more basic issues of political and economic justice in this society.

And uh, to that extent, as radical as I think people tried to characterize the Warren Court, it wasn’t that radical. It didn’t break free from the essential constraints that were placed by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution — at least as it’s been interpreted, and Warren Court interpreted it in the same way, that generally the Constitution is a charter of negative liberties: [It] says what the states can’t do to you, says what the federal government can’t do to you, but it doesn’t say what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf.

And that hasn’t shifted, and one of the, I think, the tragedies of the civil-rights movement was because the civil-rights movement became so court-focused, uh, I think that there was a tendency to lose track of the political and community organizing and activities on the ground that are able to put together the actual coalitions of power through which you bring about redistributive change. And in some ways we still suffer from that.

You can call me lazy. In many ways I am.

I can call him a socialist, because Barack Obama is a socialist to the core. I don't know how else you would define it.

According to Obama the tragedy of the Civil Rights movement is that we didn't find a way around that limiting document entitled "THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION". We need to change the way we interpret that document in order to define "what the federal government or the state government must do on your behalf".

Is it lazy to call this man a socialist? Read his words. And I am well aware of social security and welfare and other aspects of our mixed economy. That doesn't make us all socialists.

Barack Obama is running as a centrist. People think he will be like Bill Clinton. Bill Clinton was a conservative southern Democrat with an impressive record and executive experience. I think that people need to be warned that Barack Obama isn't Bill Clinton, and that he isn't a centrist.

He couldn't run as a socialist, so he is running as a centrist. I have no doubt in my mind that he is a socialist. It is in this interview, it is in his books, and it is associations throughout his life. It doesn't get reported by the press and I think that is a crime. We deserve better.

[dc_x]

I'll take your word for it, Snipe. My point has to do with people who call his tax plan socialist.


I disagree. There are degrees of socialist programs, and Obama's are farther along that line than the current structure. Calling it what it is isn't lazy so much as it is accurate.

So are you saying that our current tax code is socialist? That also means that McCain's tax plan is socialist, right? We have all been living in a socialist country since 1913.

If you want to argue that the tax plan is unfair, places too large of a burden on the upper class, will hinder economic growth, then go at it. Those are great arguments. But just calling it socialist and moving on is lazy and is fear-mongering.

[jdm2000]

A couple snippets I found interesting today.


An exchange involving John McCain in 2000, talking about the high tax bracket her doctor father was in:

YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .

MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more.


Sarah Palin earlier this year, talking about Alaska's ownership of the oil fields:

"We’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”


And just for the hell of it, here's the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "socialism" (culled from dictionary.com):

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."


I have not seen anywhere that Obama has proposed nationalizing any of the means of production. You can say that Obama is an egalitarian, that he wants a more even distribution of income, but to say he's a socialist is to stretch the definition pretty far. Unless any kind of tax that doesn't go directly back to the taxpayer constitutes socialism, he's no more a socialist than McCain or Bush--or any of the other politicians we've had since we've had income (or other) taxes.

[jdm2000]

Or, put another way, check out these excerpts from the Pastoral Letter on Catholic Social Teaching and the U.S. Economy from the U.S. Catholic Bishops in 1986:

71. Justice also has implications for the way the larger social, economic, and political institutions of society are organized. Social justice implies that persons have an obligation to be active and productive participants in the life of society and that society has a duty to enable them to participate in this way. This form of justice can also be called "contributive," for it stresses the duty of all who are able to help create the goods, services, and other nonmaterial or spiritual values necessary for the welfare of the whole community. In the words of Pius XI, "It is of the very essence of social justice to demand from each individual all that is necessary for the common good" [27]. Productivity is essential if the community is to have the resources to serve the well-being of all. Productivity, however, cannot be measured solely by its output in goods and services. Patterns of production must also be measured in light of their impact on the fulfillment of basic needs, employment levels, patterns of discrimination, environmental quality, and sense of community.

74. Basic justice also calls for the establishment of a floor of material well-being on which all can stand. This is a duty of the whole of society and it creates particular obligations for those with greater resources. This duty calls into question extreme inequalities of income and consumption when so many lack basic necessities. Catholic social teaching does not maintain that a flat, arithmetical equality of income and wealth is a demand of justice, but it does challenge economic arrangements that leave large numbers of people impoverished. Further, it sees extreme inequality as a threat to the solidarity of the human community, for great disparities lead to deep social divisions and conflict [30].


114. The Catholic tradition has long defended the right to private ownership of productive property [64]. This right is an important element in a just economic policy. It enlarges our capacity for creativity and initiative [65]. Small and medium-sized farms, businesses, and entrepreneurial enterprises are among the most creative and efficient sectors of our economy. They should be highly valued by the people of the United States, as are land ownership and home ownership. Widespread distribution of property can help avoid excessive concentration of economic and political power. For these reasons ownership should be made possible for a broad sector of our population [66].

115. The common good may sometimes demand that the right to own be limited by public involvement in the planning or ownership of certain sectors of the economy. Support of private ownership does not mean that anyone has the right to unlimited accumulation of wealth. "Private property does not constitute for anyone an absolute or unconditional right. No one is justified in keeping for his exclusive use what he does not need, when others lack necessities" [67]. Pope John Paul II has referred to limits placed on ownership by the duty to serve the common good as a "social mortgage" on private property [68]. For example, these limits are the basis of society's exercise of eminent domain over privately owned land needed for roads or other essential public goods. The Church's teaching opposes collectivist and statist economic approaches. But it also rejects the notion that a free market automatically produces justice. Therefore, as Pope John Paul II has argued, "One cannot exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of production" [69]. The determination of when such conditions exist must be made on a case by case basis in light of the demands of the common good.

[Kahns Krazy]

A couple snippets I found interesting today.


An exchange involving John McCain in 2000, talking about the high tax bracket her doctor father was in:

YOUNG WOMAN: Are we getting closer and closer to, like, socialism and stuff?. . .

MCCAIN: Here’s what I really believe: That when you reach a certain level of comfort, there’s nothing wrong with paying somewhat more. .

I support that. I just don't support paying more and having my cash go directly to people who aren't working as hard. I don't really have a problem with the taxes at the top end of the bracket. It's the refunds at the bottom that I have a hard time with.



Sarah Palin earlier this year, talking about Alaska's ownership of the oil fields:

"We’re set up, unlike other states in the union, where it’s collectively Alaskans own the resources. So we share in the wealth when the development of these resources occurs.”

Alaska is weird. It's dark there for months at a time. You couldn't pay me to live there.

[DC Muskie]

Look, it's not fun unless we can call him names. So he is a socialist in the Jimmy Cater, Terrorist, Un-American way.

[jdm2000]

Kahn's, you'd be okay with the raising taxes on those making over $250k as long as the tax cut didn't go to those making below, say, $30k?

[Raoul Duke]

Alaska is weird. It's dark there for months at a time. You couldn't pay me to live there.

Plus, there are vampires.

http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:C3O2CWU95qQ_4M:http://www.sfsoc.com/images/movies/30daysofnight.jpg

[XU 87]

I'll take your word for it, Snipe. My point has to do with people who call his tax plan socialist.





Maybe a better characterization would be "Obama's tax plan is much more socialistic than previous tax plans".

[wkrq59]

This may be a waste of my time because a man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still, Oh mighty Snipe.
Following the 2000 elections, several instances of growling,, snarling German Shepherds at polling places were reported by both print and electronic media. And voter intimidation tactics have been quite evident in this state and elsewhere, especially in Florida for some time.
And please don't try to tell me that black voters aren't challenged more than others and delayed and often embarrassed here in Cincinnati at polling places. In 2006, I accidentally let my drivers license expire, voted and was not challenged. Three African-American neighbors were asked to step over to another line where their drivers licenses, social security cards and even CG&E (I never liked Cinergy) were checked and even held up in the air so they could be "Viewed through a light" 8 or 10-feet away. When I left the booth after voting, those three people were still standing there waiting for ballots, while their IDs were check by a supervisor in another room. I walked down the hall of the building and looked in the door window to see the "supervisor" was the same pole worker who had taken the IDs to the room and was sitting there drinking a Coke.
I left the poling place and waited for the three voters to come out of the building (an hour later) and I asked them what was the problem with their IDs. One woman told me they said "I didn't look like my drivers license picture because I wasn't wearing my glasses when the picture was taken." I said I was going to complain and was told, "Please don't. We don't want any trouble." All three were, incidentally, registered Democrats. At least that's what they told me.
I still say one of the major factors in this election will be race. And, my fellow poster, there are definitely code words and the subtle racism still exists.
I applaud you for your choice of residence and for your obvious allegiance to your beliefs. I might also say I agree completely with Leonard Pitts column in this morning's Enquirer.
Please tell me why you need to put an Obama-Biden sign in your window apparently for safety's sake if racism and its reverse doesn't exist. The mere thought of rioting--by anyone-- disgusts me.
Look, this country has progressed in so many ways, but still has a way to go as far as far as true freedom is concerned. And I mean freedom not license. We've a long way to go as far as the disparity between middle-class and poor is concerned and between wealthy and middle-class.
I totally agree with you on the matter of somebody making use of BMV information for political purposes. That somebody better be a policeman or other law enforcement person. But that may be very hard to do since proof of identity is required for voting, and a driver's license is one of the most common and often used means of identification.
For 40 years I've lived on a racially diversified street in a subdivision where blacks and whites have lived peacefully for at least 30 of those years. I seriously doubt I'll have to put an Obama-Biden sign in my window just in case. The children in our subdivision--black, white, Asian and Hispanic-- will walk around the four streets, two of which are cul de sacs enjoying another trick-or-treating Halloween night. Those who don't live on one of the four streets --or maybe some that do--will get out of their parents or neighbors cars and move among the houses in safety and generally have a good time.
Contrary to appearances, I am not obscessed with racism. I don't see a racist lurking around every tree and I have an equally difficult time branding people whose political beliefs are different from mine a socialist, or any other -ist.
I seem to recall Catholics are regarded as socialists. Doesn't one of our regular posters here speak of Xavier basketball, socialism that works? Oh, and for the past eight years, I have seen a pattern that when one party can't have success with concrete issues, they resort to name-calling, slurring, falsehoods and similar BS such as the young lady did the other day, accusing a mythical 6-ffoot-45 black man of assaulting her.
Since I have already voted I won't have to worry about long lines and delays. As I said, I hope my vote will be counted.:D

[Snipe]

And just for the hell of it, here's the American Heritage Dictionary definition of "socialism" (culled from dictionary.com):

"Any of various theories or systems of social organization in which the means of producing and distributing goods is owned collectively or by a centralized government that often plans and controls the economy."

I have not seen anywhere that Obama has proposed nationalizing any of the means of production. You can say that Obama is an egalitarian, that he wants a more even distribution of income, but to say he's a socialist is to stretch the definition pretty far. Unless any kind of tax that doesn't go directly back to the taxpayer constitutes socialism, he's no more a socialist than McCain or Bush--or any of the other politicians we've had since we've had income (or other) taxes.

Lots of definitions of socialism at Dictionary.com (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/socialism)


Socialism

So"cial*ism\, n. [Cf. F. socialisme.] A theory or system of social reform which contemplates a complete reconstruction of society, with a more just and equitable distribution of property and labor.


[Socialism] was first applied in England to Owen's theory of social reconstruction, and in France to those also of St. Simon and Fourier . . . The word, however, is used with a great variety of meaning, . . . even by economists and learned critics. The general tendency is to regard as socialistic any interference undertaken by society on behalf of the poor, . . . radical social reform which disturbs the present system of private property . . . The tendency of the present socialism is more and more to ally itself with the most advanced democracy. --Encyc. Brit.

I think of something like this when I hear Obama talk about "economic justice" and the redistribution of wealth.

We do have a mixed economy that incorporates some socialist policies. Things like social security and welfare are socialist. If you want to make a semantical argument Public Schools are socialist, as well as public libraries and public parks. I am quite the budding socialist when it comes to libraries and parks.

Barack Obama said that one of the tragedies of the civil rights movement is that it did not bring redistributive change. He says we still suffer from that. To bring redistributive change we would need to take private property from some and give to others.

The last Congress passed a "Stimulus package" where the government cut checks and sent them to people. Over 40% of the American people getting Baracks "tax cut" don't pay federal taxes. They aren't getting a tax cut, they are going to be paid with a government check. And the leaders of Congress like Nancy Pelosi are already talking about another $300 billion dollar stimulus package.

When the first Stimulus package went through I said this was only the begining. I can only imagine how far we will go down this road. I feel this is a real disaster.

You can call McCain or Palin a socialist on some counts. You can certainly make a case as I have that George Bush is a big government liberal. If you don't like the socialist label I don't know what you would prefer. Obama is not a centrist. He is a radical compared to the mainstream, but he is running as a centrist.

[Kahns Krazy]

Kahn's, you'd be okay with the raising taxes on those making over $250k as long as the tax cut didn't go to those making below, say, $30k?

Well, I don't know about raising them any higher than they are, but in general, yes, I support higher tax percentages for those in higher income brackets. I do not support giving taxpayer dollars directly to people who don't earn enough to be paying into the system. I don't think there should be any such thing as a refundable tax credit, like the earned income credit.

The fact that Obama is pushing the top tax bracket marginally higher doesn't really bother me. It's what he's proposing to do with that money that bothers me.

I support programs for the poor, but I do not support cash handouts for the lazy. Since it's impossible to distinguish between the lazy unemployed and the unfortunate hard luck cases, I don't support cash handouts for anyone.


Plus, there are vampires.

As I mentioned in another thread, I'm reading the Dark Tower series. I'm at the part of Wolves of the Calla where Pere Callahan is describing the vampires he saw in New York. I don't necessarily believe in ghosts, but I at least understand how the idea works. Vampires are just silly.

[Kahns Krazy]

To get back on topic, I don't support cash for poor people because I have first hand exposure to how a good size portion of the poor population spend their money. I'm generalizing, but I'm not saying everyone in the sub $10k income bracket is the same. I had the misfortune to spend a couple years in close contact with a trailer park community. It was not at all uncommon to find a toddler wandering around, filthy from head to toe, with some important piece of clothing missing, while mommy or daddy or new daddy sit in the living room watching their new 60" screen they bought with their tax refund.

I'm all for making sure everyone has food and shelter and clothing, but I am way against buying them TV's.

[nuts4xu]

I am Joe the Plumber.......except the part about being named Joe, and the plumber part, and the part about making $40k per year, oh and I don't own nor do I plan to own my own business.

Other than that, I am soo Joe the Plumber.

[Snipe]

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080627WealthRedistibution1_djp2sljxa.gif

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080627WealthRedistibution2_d2aslxnza.gif

http://media.gallup.com/poll/graphs/080627WealthRedistibution3_69zxaaks.gif

Question of the day:

If Barack thinks that the tragedy of the civil rights movement is that black people got civil rights but did not get a transfer of wealth through government imposed redistribution, how is that different than reparations?

I think that IS reparations.