« Layers Upon Layers of Female Conservative Derangement Syndrome | Main | Will Khalid Sheikh Mohammed call Charlie Sheen as a Witness? »

Full Disclosure

In our discussion yesterday about the proper treatment of "the little people," several commenters made the point -- repeatedly -- that people like S. Joseph Wurzelbacher and Carrie Prejean essentially forfeited any right to privacy by entering the public discourse. That once they made their political beliefs known, any and all details of their past was suddenly fit for public consumption so their lives could be scrutinized for the slightest sign of hypocrisy, moral failings, self-contradiction, or anything else that might discredit them and properly chastise them from daring to offer opinions -- especially opinions that might conflict with those of their betters.

And, never openly admitted by quite clear just below the surface, to serve as a warning for anyone else who might want to offer an opinion.

At first, I was resistant to that argument. But as the comments continued, I found it harder and harder to refute my detractors. Their thesis -- that those who choose to enter the public discourse have no right to claim any sort of privacy or secrecy -- gradually won me over.

Thank you, "steve green," jim x," "bryanD," "Tina S," and so on. I hereby rescind my prior position, and fully adopt your belief on this matter as correct.

Words, however, simply will not suffice on a matter of this magnitude. Only deeds will properly demonstrate my conversion.

So, in that spirit, below the fold I am listing the IPs each of you used in posting to Wizbang, the e-mail addresses you entered, and every other bit of personally identifying information I have managed to glean about each and every one of you four worthies. After all, you each freely chose to enter the public discourse here at Wizbang, you repeatedly declared that participants have no expectation of privacy, and any who offer opinions must be properly scrutinized and examined and studied for signs of hidden agendas, hypocrisy, past offenses, character flaws, and whatnot. I can only hope that the ever-resourceful Wizbang readership will be ready, willing, and able to continue the investigation into just who -- and what -- you are.

Oh, get real.

No, I'm not going to do that. I admit that I was tempted, but I don't do that sort of thing.

In my ideal world, people's arguments are judged purely on their own merits. I reject the idea that an argument's validity is based on who is making it. That smacks of "shooting the messenger," and I find that contemptible. Even the most obnoxious idiot can occasionally have a right idea, and the best debaters can sometimes be complete idiots. To attempt to refute an argument by "shooting the messenger" is the lazy and despicable approach.

No, I'm not perfect. In the comments thread to my earlier piece, I said some very vile things about Perez Hilton. I don't regret those, as he is a very vile human being and I spelled out just what I think is vile about him.

I also gave my stock answer to someone who tosses around the "teabagger" term as an insult -- "you'll have to speak up; I couldn't hear you with that scrotum in your mouth." For some reason, they don't like it when you take their juvenile giggle-fit and make it literal.

So no, "steve green," "jim x," "bryanD," and "Tina S" and the rest don't have to worry about having their privacy violated for the simple offense of disagreeing with me. That sort of conduct is part and parcel of their twisted form of ethics -- and I don't play that way.

Please, though, continue to demonstrate your persistent assholery. You do almost as good a job as discrediting yourselves and your positions as I do.


TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/37349.

Comments (83)

I think you may have made t... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

I think you may have made the offending lefty nit wits soil their drawers. Good job. Of course, Joe the Plumber asked a question so I guess that is making a political statement. The left is reprobate. ww

Congratulations. Investigat... (Below threshold)
Sabba Hillel:

Congratulations. Investigating for actual hypocrisy (such as pointing out what Barney Fram and Tim Geithner have done) is indeed different from what they attempt to do to any conservative who dares raise his head and express anything but abject groveling to "the One". Actually, they appear to be the types who will do well in the caliphate as they appear to have internalized "proper" dhimmi behavior already. Of course, they do not understand what their position in that society will be. It is like the leftists of the Communist era, they never understood that had Stalin won, they would have been among the first to be shot once they were no longer useful.

Well done, Jay Tea.<p... (Below threshold)
Hank:

Well done, Jay Tea.


Truth is, that if Joe-the-plumber had asked the "correct" question or if Prejean had given the "correct" answer, so-called full disclosure would never have taken place.

I would also like to ask wh... (Below threshold)

I would also like to ask what any possible reason for digging up Joe "The Plumber"'s past is.

If he isn't a plumber, does that make his question invalid even if it doesn't fit the mold for him?

I would hope people would think a little deeper into the answers given regardless of why the question was asked. Even if it was "Joe's" wealth being spread around, it is someones.

For all the words and bold,... (Below threshold)
jp2:

For all the words and bold, brave and brilliant points you think you are making, comparing a lower-tiered blog where a majority of people use anonymity to the national media is a bit silly.

Steve demolished your points with well reasoned arguments and lines of logic, and your only response entailed insults ("you suck balls") and now, apparently, pretend threats. Your last line here sums up your hypocrisy perfectly though - don't think anyone could have called you out any better.

Superb job JayTea! To delve... (Below threshold)
Madalyn:

Superb job JayTea! To delve into the past of Joe was a horrendous violation of his privacy. Carrie is a little different, although the way she has been treated is beyond shameful. I am very proud of those who will not bow to the left. Some of us still have integrity, class, honesty, and a backbone. The left needs to grow one.
Thanks for letting me vent.
Madalyn

Oh, jp2... you just can't t... (Below threshold)

Oh, jp2... you just can't to ever find the full context of a remark, can you?

Here, let me spell it out for you:

steve, comment #65:

"No, actually the term "teabagging" was chosen (there's that word again) by teabgger protesters."

my comment, #74:

"I'm sorry, Mr. Green, did you say something? It's hard to understand you with that scrotum in your mouth."

In retrospect, I should have directed it at angellight, who first brought it up, but I missed that at the time.

I was thinking specifically of you, jp2, when I said that those who snigger most fiercely at the "teabag" term are usually the ones who get the most bent out of shape when someone else takes it from the original intent in this context (sending literal bags of tea to DC as a symbolic reference to the Boston Tea Party) and instead put the term in the literal crude sexual context that the sniggerers are using.

Thanks, again, for helping me make my point.

Did you resent that I left you out of the list of those whse identities I was threatening to expose? I didn't because you weren't focusing on that theme, but instead were your standard blithering dolt self.

J.

I was slighted by my lack o... (Below threshold)
jp2:

I was slighted by my lack of shout out indeed. As you know, I aim to be the best troll evah.

I suppose if being associated with a gay sex act makes you feel superior, you are welcome to it. Unfortunately no one will ever take that turn into the national media. Would love to see it though.

All other points aside, I don't pay attention to celebrity gossip, but from what little I know I think we are in agreement on the character of a certain P. Hilton. (Though I do appreciate him asking a tough question of a pageant queen)

Jay: a different twist to t... (Below threshold)

Jay: a different twist to their argument: anyone entering the public sphere is stupid if they don't assume that opponents will dig into their lives and are prepared to live with the consequences of that disclosure. It doesn't make it right, it simply reflects reality.

Should Joe the Plumber be able to voice his opinion without his privacy being invaded? Sure, but it ain't going to happen. Should Prejean have been able to voice her opinion without being called all sorts of names? Sure, but it ain't going to happen.

And given how things are, while it doesn't make them responsible for what happens, it is akin to the woman who walks down the dark alley by herself, they stepped into it knowing full well what would happen and better be prepared for what comes next. It isn't as if gay marriage advocates don't have a long record of going after opponents... and it isn't as Obama nuts weren't known for doing the same.

That is why the above doesn't apply to "steve green," jim x," "bryanD," and "Tina S,"... there's never been a case of Wizbang outing a commenter (at least as far as I know) and thus they should be safe in assuming that their privacy was to be protected. If you want to change that policy, go ahead, but warn people first.

The libs here would be more... (Below threshold)
howcome:

The libs here would be more credible if they were as worried about the presidents past as they are about a plumber.

This is for all of you who ... (Below threshold)
Madalyn:

This is for all of you who swing left: If Joe asks a question and it is declared "open season" on his personal life, how come all those people on the left who asked Obama a question are still anonymous and nothing has been written about them? Fair is fair. Should we spy on them, put all their personal info on the internet and say filthy, nasty things about them? No, we won't for one simple reason: Fairness. Need I say more?
Madalyn

Jay Tea,Well playe... (Below threshold)
Pilgrim:

Jay Tea,

Well played, sir. Well played indeed.

Pilgrim

Steve demolished y... (Below threshold)
Eric:
Steve demolished your points with well reasoned arguments and lines of logic,...

Respectfully JP2, I disagree that Steve demolished anybody. All he kept repeating was hypocrisy which he repeated a dozen times. As if hypocrisy is the greatest sin of all.

I posed several questions which he never answered.

For example,
Steve made the point that nobody tried to destroy Joe the Plumber.

If not, why were there 18 searches of his private records if not to dig dirt on him?

What does Carrie Prejean's boob job have to do with gay marriage?

What does Joe's plumbing license have to do with the question he asked Obama?

What do Joe the Plumber's or Carrie Prejean's skeletons have to do with the questions they posed or were asked?

To people on the right it's not the skeletons that matter, it is the fact that people on the Left went out of their way to dig up the skeletons for no other apparant reason but to make them look bad rather than engage them on the issues.

It's amazing "who" ends up ... (Below threshold)
GarandFan:

It's amazing "who" ends up having their life examined under a microscope and the resulting outrage. JTP or Prejean get raked over the coals, libs think it "fair". One or two of Barry's Czars (people in positions of power) get called on their beliefs, suddenly it's "character assassination".

Garandfan -Think "... (Below threshold)
JLawson:

Garandfan -

Think "Animal Farm". All animals are equal - but some are more equal than others.

Steve Sturm, there was one ... (Below threshold)

Steve Sturm, there was one who I was sorely tempted to "out." I once banned a particularly obnoxious troll who responded by e-mailing me from his work address -- the clinic where he was a practicing pediatrician. He was remarkably civil in his letter of protest; I merely quoted back to him the comments that got the good doctor banned.

I kept his web page bookmarked, because I simply couldn't believe that Dr. XXX was also psycho raving commenter YYY. I decided in the end that he chooses to be a raving asshole online to purge that out of himself and he can better conduct himself with his patients.

J.

If that's the message you g... (Below threshold)
Jim x:

If that's the message you got, then you absolutely didn't get it.

The point isn't invading privacy, the point is exposing hypocrisy that ***specifically counters people's falsely crafted public images***.

If you can find any way that I or others have been presenting ourselves as something that we're not do, please do so.

In other words: epic fail.

I really agree with you her... (Below threshold)
Rick Caird:

I really agree with you here, Jay. The idea that someone can comment only in complete anonymity or otherwise their whole life is open to question is a real problem. That limits who, and whose idea, can actually enter the public sphere. We are the worse for it.

Rick

jim x:If... (Below threshold)
_Mike_:

jim x:

If you can find any way that I or others have been presenting ourselves as something that we're not do, please do so.

Sounds like a complete public airing of your personal life and details may be required to fulfill that request.

"If you can find any way th... (Below threshold)
Rodney:

"If you can find any way that I or others have been presenting ourselves as something that we're not do, please do so."

You have all put forth that you are reasonable, common everyday people with no bias other than through a rational thought arriving at the conclusion that the left is correct and the right is always wrong.

The point isn't in... (Below threshold)
Eric:
The point isn't invading privacy, the point is exposing hypocrisy that ***specifically counters people's falsely crafted public images***.

That's right Jim, finding hypocrisy is exactly the point, because as Alinsky says "the ends justify the means" to win by finding ways to use the opponents own rules against them, ridicule them, and personalize the attack, even lie in order to disregard rational arguments that can be a distraction.

These are tactics straight out of the Rules for Radicals.

1) "Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules. You can kill them with this, for they can no more obey their own rules than the Christian church can live up to Christianity."
This is why the term hypocrisy is the greatest sin to the Left. Because they can rub it in the faces of the Right any chance they get.

2) "Ridicule is man's most potent weapon. It is almost impossible to counteract ridicule. Also it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage."

Look at the attacks on Prejean's boob job. The term Tea Bagging. The point is not to engage in debate, it is to ridicule and incite a reaction.

3) Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. In conflict tactics there are certain rules that [should be regarded] as universalities. One is that the opposition must be singled out as the target and 'frozen.'...

"...any target can always say, 'Why do you center on me when there are others to blame as well?' When you 'freeze the target,' you disregard these [rational but distracting] arguments.... Then, as you zero in and freeze your target and carry out your attack, all the 'others' come out of the woodwork very soon. They become visible by their support of the target...'

Joe the Plumber, Carrie Prejean, and Sarah Palin were all people that the Left targeted, and attacked. The personalized attacks were no accident. Look again at Alinsky's defintion for freezing the target, it is to disregard rational arguments.

4) "If you push a negative hard and deep enough, it will break through into its counterside... every positive has its negative."

This is why the Left will never relent in their attacks. They know you can push a lie long enough it will become the "truth". Look at some of the "facts" about Sarah Palin. Ask most people the question, "Who said they could see Russia from their house." You willing likely be told that Sarah Palin said that. But she never said that, Tina Fey did. That lie has been pushed into being "true".

The hypocrisy charge is nothing more than a tactic to distract away from the actual argument.

Jim X,Does "The po... (Below threshold)
LoadTheMule:

Jim X,

Does "The point isn't invading privacy, the point is exposing hypocrisy that ***specifically counters people's falsely crafted public images***" apply equally to President Obama's appointees such as Tim Geitner, Vann Jones, etc?

If not, why not?

The suggestion that people ... (Below threshold)
Alan:

The suggestion that people who stick their foot into the debate should expect to get "investigated" ignores the fact that Joe the Plumber didn't: Obama walked into Joe's neighborhood and basically invited him to ask a question. When Joe asked the wrong question and got an unusually forthright answer he was demonized for sticking his foot in where it didn't belong. He didn't go outside planning to ask Obama a revealing question. Then when he got "the treatment" everyone acted as if he had asked for it.

That's the part that really gets my goat: go ahead, ask me a question. Ooohhh, wrong question, weasel.

The hunt into JTP's past an... (Below threshold)
SCSIwuzzy:

The hunt into JTP's past and details began the day he asked a question on his lawn. He had a crafted public image at this point?
How about the women targeted during Clinton's bimbo eruptions? They all had crafted public images when Carville et al went on the offensive?

Jim X "The point isn't inva... (Below threshold)
Upset Old Guy:

Jim X "The point isn't invading privacy, the point is exposing hypocrisy that ***specifically counters people's falsely crafted public images***.

If you can find any way that I or others have been presenting ourselves as something that we're not do, please do so."

Well Jay, that looks like tacit permission from Jim X for release of his personal information to me. Hell, the guy even said, please do so."

Jim X:The point in... (Below threshold)
JustRuss IT1(SW) USN [reitred]:

Jim X:

The point in Joe's case at least, is that rather than engage in honest debate about the Presidential candidates answer "spread the wealth" Joe was targeted for character assasination so that his QUESTION was the problem, not the ANSWER to the question.

It does not matter that Prejean is not a perfect christian, it matters that she stimply stated her belief that gays should not marry and was called a C*NT by a flaming homosexual troublemaker. That she eventually became some sort of poster child and was eventually shown not to be a poster child is not the point. Yes she was a hypocrite to a small degree (though boob jobs and making tapes for a loved one are not against any teaching in the bible) but she was still unfairly targeted specifically because she stated her beliefs.

Joe the plumber is not a hypocrite, you are using that word wrong. If anything he is a liar not a hypocrite. Sarah Palin was naive, not a hypocrite. Contradicting yourself in statements or being misinformed about something does not make you a hypocrite.

You once again use the wide brush and demonstrate your unthinking bias.

Isn't it amazing that JTP, ... (Below threshold)
Madalyn:

Isn't it amazing that JTP, Prejean and Ms. Palin are shredded by the left with NO reason, but how about Van Jones, an admitted communist, Anita Dunn, a Mao lover, Tim Geithner, a tax evader, Charles Rangel, a tax evader and a liar, but do you see the left even questioning them? Heck no. Reason? It would let the world know they care only about themselves, not the American people. If I had the time to do the research, I could probably come up with some pretty scorching stuff on just about any Democrat in office. Unfortunately, I do not have the time. So, in my opinion, you guys keep up with the hypocrisy and lying. Your true colors really jumped to the surface when Obama started campaigning and hasn't stopped. He said "I won". It has been almost a year. When is he going to start acting like a man and start leading? He's your guy. You voted him in. You are responsible for the shambles he is creating, so I blame YOU! I voted for a real man and an intelligent woman, even tho they both are human and have faults. Your man-child won't even admit to a few faults, much less admit he isn't even a man.
My opinion and I state it proudly.
Madalyn

Don't forget the left outcr... (Below threshold)
Wayne:

Don't forget the left outcry to leave the planted questioners alone during the Presidential primaries. The fact that they work for a candidate campaign or was in Democrat leadership was irrelevant. Just leave them alone. Imagine if the right tried to do thorough background checks on them and put dirt out on them.

Russ, why would you concede... (Below threshold)
Tim:

Russ, why would you concede that maybe JTP is a liar? Because he was an apprentice plumber for 5 years, just shy of the time needed to get his license to work by and for himself? I'd consider him to be a plumber. Because he went by the name 'Joe' and not his first name, 'Sam'? Lots of people use their middle names. Lots of people go by their nicknames. My dad's name is John. Everyone calls him Jack. Does that make him a liar, too? I will concede nothing to the libs and their despicable ways.

And while I am at it, may I... (Below threshold)
Madalyn:

And while I am at it, may I also say I really resent Geithner, rangel, etc not paying taxes, but insist I MUST PAY MINE so that I can support all the illegals these idiots are counting on to vote for them? What a travesty. I hope all you left libs get what is coming to you for what you have done to my country.
I am P*SSED and rightly so!
Madalyn

These four "steve green," j... (Below threshold)
Philip:

These four "steve green," jim x," "bryanD," "Tina S" should post their own personal contact information, maybe even a bio. Anything less at this point just proves them wrong and silly.

I have reason to believe th... (Below threshold)

I have reason to believe that "steve green" is Steven Green, alias "Vodkapundit," notorious conservative columnist. If so, he is a rank hypocrite and trolling this site for his own nefarious purposes.

Likewise, I suspect that "Tina S" is actually comedienne Tina Fey, "bryanD" is film and television director Bryan Singer, and "jim x" is notorious Democrat James Carville.

Would those commenters kindly verify their identities, so we can determine whether or not these allegations are valid?

I'm just asking questions...

J.

LoadTheMule: Yes, it does a... (Below threshold)
jim x:

LoadTheMule: Yes, it does apply to Obama's appointees too. I am completely fine with that.

So, yes, revealing hypocrisy wherever it stands, be it with would-be icons or political appointees of any stripe or any party, is 100% fine with me.

Jim X:The p... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Jim X:

The point in Joe's case at least, is that rather than engage in honest debate about the Presidential candidates answer "spread the wealth" Joe was targeted for character assasination so that his QUESTION was the problem, not the ANSWER to the question.

Justruss: that is a reading of history that occurs in a completely alternate reality.

Joe The Plumber asked this question; he received an answer; and then the McCain campaign seized upon him as a symbol to use in their campaign.

Joe The Plumber was then held up as an example of All That Is Good and Honest about Regular Folk Who Are Just Like Us White Conservatives And Not At All Like Them Other People If You Know What I Mean.

And then the media looked into his background. Just as they did to Obama, his appointees, and any other single person who became noticed.

And character assassination is **falsehood** - it is not character assassination to report the facts about anyone.

Oh, just go back to prison,... (Below threshold)

Oh, just go back to prison, "jim x"/Traficant, you corrupt scumbag.

J.

Oh - and Joe the Plumber is... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Oh - and Joe the Plumber is a liar because he, um, lied.

He said Obama would raise his taxes. It turned out that Obama's plan would lower his taxes. He refused to accept these facts.

This lie would not have been revealed if his background weren't looked into - and it was found out he was nowhere near the $250,000 a year income he'd need to be taxed more.

I will after you, Jay T - y... (Below threshold)
jim x:

I will after you, Jay T - you're not only a corrupt scumbag, you're a dooky-face poopyhead. Neeener neener neener.

I have no idea who "traficant" is supposed to be.

Don't worry Jay Tea. The da... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Don't worry Jay Tea. The day I run for office or am part of a campaign, you will know exactly who I am.

Mr. Traficant, I bet Joe is... (Below threshold)

Mr. Traficant, I bet Joe is one of the millions of Americans who are about to get screwed by Obama's "tax breaks:"

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2009/11/gao-obama-.html

And are you going to ever address the allegations that you're really a convicted felon and former Congressman from Ohio?

The readers here have a right to know the truth about you when they weigh what you have to say here...

J.

I appreciate your consisten... (Below threshold)
mantis:

I appreciate your consistency on this issue, Jay, like when you came to the defense of the Frost family in 2007 when Malkin and the rest of wingnuttia were going after them full-bore.

Oh wait, you didn't? You just joined the attack, repeating bullshit you read on other wingnut sites? Then, when called on it, you defended the attacks on the Frost family?

If they're going to make a public policy argument based on their particular circumstances, doesn't that then make their circumstances fully open to both sides of the argument? In other words, by pushing their son to be the spokesman (er... spokesboy) for their cause based on their troubles, haven't they forfeited the right to claim "privacy" when people start asking questions about those troubles?

By your own logic, Wurzelbacher forfeited his right to claim privacy by talking about his own situation in relation to policy. By your logic, Prejean forfeited her right to claim privacy by talking about her own situation (the moral way she was raised, which apparently never addressed sex tapes and fake tits), when talking about public policy argument.

I guess your indignation about the privacy of those who speak publicly is reserved entirely for conservatives.

Interesting how asshat litt... (Below threshold)
Michael:

Interesting how asshat little Stevie Green does not have the balls to comment here. Soooo typical.

If Traficant is somehow sup... (Below threshold)
jim x:

If Traficant is somehow supposed to refer to me? Then, um, ok, sure Mr. Jay T - or should I say SATAN??

Joe The Plumber wa... (Below threshold)
Eric:
Joe The Plumber was then held up as an example of All That Is Good and Honest about Regular Folk Who Are Just Like Us White Conservatives And Not At All Like Them Other People If You Know What I Mean.

Hey Jim, why are you introducing race into this discussion?

Consider it an offhand comm... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Consider it an offhand comment.

Jimx, Joe the Plumber wante... (Below threshold)
Tim:

Jimx, Joe the Plumber wanted to buy the business that his boss owned when he got his license, and hopefully make more money for himself. It's called entrepreneurialism, alternately known as "The American Way". You ought to look into it sometime.

That said, anyone who thinks they're getting a tax cut from Obama is an idiot. Oh, right. Sorry Jim, nothing personal.

I rather consider it a stup... (Below threshold)
Eric:

I rather consider it a stupid comment that introduces a sensitive and unnecessary element into the discussion.

Re: #40, Ooof, how... (Below threshold)
liberal troll:

Re: #40,

Ooof, how'd that mantis enema feel for ya, JT?


L.O.L.

Hey Liberal Troll, hypocris... (Below threshold)
Eric:

Hey Liberal Troll, hypocrisy tends to be a two way street when the positions are reversed. That Mantis enema also applies to the people who today were arguing a different way back then.

jim x "If you can find ... (Below threshold)
Marc:

jim x "If you can find any way that I or others have been presenting ourselves as something that we're not do, please do so."

So what you're attempting to foist off on the discerning public is you've never, I repeat NEVER done anything that counters your personal moral code, broken any law or treated others in any manor other than how you expect to be treated.

If so, you're full of more shit than 40 ares of cow pasture.

Jimx, Joe the Plumber wa... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Jimx, Joe the Plumber wanted to buy the business that his boss owned when he got his license, and hopefully make more money for himself.

Right, that was the rationale he fell back on. However, this doesn't work either in terms of taxes, because businesses are taxed on profit - so to have a profit of $250k it would have to be at least a $2 mil/yr business, and more likely a $5 mil. Which is not a 2-man plumbing operation such as what Wurzelbacher was talking about allegedly buying, once he paid back the taxes he already owed the IRS.

In short, he lied.

It's called entrepreneurialism, alternately known as "The American Way". You ought to look into it sometime.

I know all about it. You ought to look into how the GOP screwed up the country for entrepreneus and everyone else, from 2001-2009. It's never too late to wake up.

That said, anyone who thinks they're getting a tax cut from Obama is an idiot. Oh, right. Sorry Jim, nothing personal.

Oh, no offense taken, poopyhead. Some people think that the earth is flat, and anyone who thinks it's round is an idiot. So I don't mind if you put yourself in that category.

However if you care about FACTS, then go and look at them. You'll see that, even though you hate Obama, if you make under $250,000 a year he has lowered your taxes.

Sometimes facts aren't what we'd like them to be, you know? But that's your opportunity to get back in touch with reality.

So what you're attemptin... (Below threshold)
jim x:

So what you're attempting to foist off on the discerning public is you've never, I repeat NEVER done anything that counters your personal moral code, broken any law or treated others in any manor other than how you expect to be treated.

No. I have no idea where the hell you're getting that from, either.

I am not presenting myself in that way in any way, shape or form.

Are you?

OK, "jim x"/former Congress... (Below threshold)

OK, "jim x"/former Congressman Traficant, it might be time for us to implement a "no felonious former members of Congress" rule and ban you.

After all, you have yet to prove you are NOT Mr. Traficant... or even deny it.

J.

Jay Tea - Please post a ... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Jay Tea - Please post a correction

I never made any comments defending the people that attacked Joe & Carrie.

All I did was was question your characteriation of Obama & Carries position on gay marriage. Kind of ironic that you responded by mischaracterizing my position on those that attacked Joe & Carrie.

Well "JT", or Satan - which... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Well "JT", or Satan - which you haven't denied - you can do whatever you like in this world. But the Truth is Divine and can never be defeated.

Oh and ffs, I am not Trafic... (Below threshold)
jim x:

Oh and ffs, I am not Traficant. Nor have I ever held public office.

How about you all? How many of you are Traficant?

> Oh - and Joe the Plumber ... (Below threshold)
murgatroyd:

> Oh - and Joe the Plumber is a liar because
> he, um, lied.
>
> He said Obama would raise his taxes. It
> turned out that Obama's plan would lower
> his taxes. He refused to accept these facts.

Ah, that's where we have a disconnect. Unlike Jim X, the rest of us are too stupid to understand that The One never lies, that The One predicts the future with complete accuracy, that The One is godlike in His wisdom (except that God makes mistakes).

So it's a FACT, and we all should accept that Obama's tax plan will work out exactly as He says it will, just like the Stimulus created millions of jobs, the GM and Chrysler bailouts saved American industry, the bank bailouts gave us a sound economy and a strong dollar, and the Cash for Clunkers program lowered pollution and paid for itself through increased profits.

Posted by jim x:Po... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

Posted by jim x:

Post 54: "But the Truth is Divine and can never be defeated."
Post 36:"He said Obama would raise his taxes. It turned out that Obama's plan would lower his taxes. "

Uh, Obama HAS NOT changed the tax tables, only the withholding rates - so the tax stays the same.
This does mean that you have lied, and therefore (by YOUR logic) ALL posts by you are discredited. Forever. Past and future.

Personally, I think you should be banned. Again, usinfg your own logic.

jim x/Mr. Traficant:<... (Below threshold)
Sky Captain:

jim x/Mr. Traficant:

Re: 55.
I don't believe you. You are a proven liar, so what's one more lie to the like of you?

Tina S. (Tina Fey) you cert... (Below threshold)
WildWillie:

Tina S. (Tina Fey) you certainly did make those statements. Quite a few times. ww

Tina S. (Tina Fey) you c... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Tina S. (Tina Fey) you certainly did make those statements. Quite a few times. ww


Wild Willie,

I never made any such statements.

58. Uh, sky captain: Obama'... (Below threshold)
jim x:

58. Uh, sky captain: Obama's changes to tax rates haven't been put into effect yet.

That's because the President is in the Executive Branch, you see. And the Congress and Senate, aka the Legislative Branch, actually passes laws.

The changes to the tax code will most likely take place after this current Health Care debate. Until that time, tax rates are staying where they are.

BUT as you point out, withholding taxes *were* changed in the interrim, thus lowering the burden on the lower and middle class.

So, yes! You yourself have proved that Obama has lowered Joe The Plumber's taxes **even before** Obama's tax plan has moved through the Senate.

Epic Fail. Thank you for playing.

and 56. Please read again:<... (Below threshold)
jim x:

and 56. Please read again:

He said Obama would raise his taxes. It
> turned out that Obama's plan would lower
> his taxes. He refused to accept these facts.

Wurzelbacker was referring to Obama's **PLAN**. A look at Obama's PLAN reveals that Wurzelbacher was wrong.

This doesn't require any sort of belief that Obama never lies, OR that Wurzelbacher does. It only requires -

- wait for it -

LOOKING AT THE FACTS.

58. Sky Captain, you appare... (Below threshold)
jim x:

58. Sky Captain, you apparently might not believe me if I told you'd posted # 58 Sky Captain.

Nevertheless, please show **any thing** I've said here which is against the facts.

> Wurzelbacker was referrin... (Below threshold)
murgatroyd:

> Wurzelbacker was referring to Obama's
> **PLAN**. A look at Obama's PLAN reveals
> that Wurzelbacher was wrong.

His **ASSERTION** then, his "plan" now, or what his plan mutates into two years from now?

If we get the rampant inflation that many suspect is coming, that "fact" that Obama's **PLAN** suposedly wouldn't raise taxes on anyome making less than $250,000 per year (or $200,000 per year, as he shortly thereafter reformulated his **PLAN**) might simply mean that in a few years most of us would qualify to have our taxes raised. And it could happen - even the heirs of Mao think Obama's economic plans don't make sense. So how do you know that Obama's **PLAN** wouldn't raise Joe's taxes?

Obama also had a **PLAN** to prevent unemployment from reaching 8% - the "Stimulus." Remember? How's that working out?

jim x/Traficante: you're ST... (Below threshold)

jim x/Traficante: you're STILL playing the same game here. The most important thing about the Joe The Plumber/Obama exchange was Obama's answer: that things are better if the wealth is spread around, and it is the duty of the government to do the spreading -- deciding whose wealth gets spread, to whom, and in what portion. And it kills you that he answered that too honestly, doesn't it?

Mantis, refresh me -- was that the little boy whose parents trotted him down to DC so Harry Reid's aides could hand him a speech to read as the official Democratic response to Bush's weekly radio address?

God forbid an official Democratic statement, presented under their name and prepared by staffers to the then-highest ranking Democrat in office, be fact-checked. No, we gotta save those kinds of resources to Saturday Night Live skits and be sure to sic eleven (11!) reporters on smearing Sarah Palin's book.

Priorities, you know, mantis, old chum. Gotta have 'em.

J.

murgatroyd, one minor quibb... (Below threshold)

murgatroyd, one minor quibble:

I think I'd be more nervous if Obama's economic plan DID have the full approval of Mao's heirs...

J.

#41He has balls, but... (Below threshold)
SCSI.wuzzy:

#41
He has balls, but they are busy. In bryanD's mouth (and now I have finally been mean to Green)
#61
Your defense boils down to one word... yet.

> I think I'd be more nervo... (Below threshold)
murgatroyd:

> I think I'd be more nervous if Obama's
> economic plan DID have the full approval
> of Mao's heirs...

Ordinarily, I would too. But self-interest trumps ideology - the Chinese loaned us lots of money, and they want to be sure that we can pay it back some day. (Pay it back in dollars that are worth more than Zimbabwe dollars, that is.)

If we didn't owe them money, the Chinese would *LOVE* for us to go hard communist. It would give them the advantage, since their current system is more corporatist/fascist than communist, these days.

And then the media looke... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

And then the media looked into his background. Just as they did to Obama, his appointees, and any other single person who became noticed.

By obtaining tax information, etc via an ILLEGAL search into the ODJFS databases.

Or have you forgotten about Helen Jones-Kelly?

This was CRIMINAL.

And are you going to eve... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

And are you going to ever address the allegations that you're really a convicted felon and former Congressman from Ohio?

And what's the deal with that rag on your head?

Liberals always have had tr... (Below threshold)
Sue:

Liberals always have had trouble comparing apples to apples, especially when comparing apples to oranges suits them better.

He said Obama would raise his taxes. It turned out that Obama's plan would lower his taxes. He refused to accept these facts.

No. He said that Obama would raise his taxes under the example that he stated....if he were to buy the plumbing business and make greater than $250,000. That is the truth. Obama would raise his taxes........and distribute his "wealth" to those who Obama decided were more deserving of money that was not their own.

Liberals try to play "gottcha" with everything simply by defining the terms the way they want them defined and then screaming "hypocrisy".

Joe the plumbers "factual" situation didn't matter. He could have been a homeless bum and the situation is the same. If that homeless bum bought a business worth $250,000 Obama would raise his taxes and redistribute the wealth.

Attempt distraction all you want but it is still the same. Obama got caught telling what he believes, which is a very unpopular belief. Too bad more people didn't believe he meant it. Well now they know.

That's because the Presi... (Below threshold)
James Cloninger:

That's because the President is in the Executive Branch, you see. And the Congress and Senate, aka the Legislative Branch, actually passes laws.

Except, of course, when it's a REPUBLICAN in the Executive Branch...then of course, every stupid spending/tax bill down the pike is attributed to him.

Yeah, I see what you did there. Sauce for the goose, boyo.

Obama has indicated numerou... (Below threshold)
Boots:

Obama has indicated numerous times that the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire. Therefore, Joe the Plumber and all of the rest of us WILL see a tax increase. It doesn't require an act of the legislative branch, the tax cuts came with a sunset provision and at that point taxes go up. While Obama is president. Sooo, that means Obama will raise taxes.

Mantis, refresh m... (Below threshold)
rightsaidfred:
Mantis, refresh me -- was that the little boy whose parents trotted him down to DC so Harry Reid's aides could hand him a speech to read as the official Democratic response to Bush's weekly radio address?

God forbid an official Democratic statement, presented under their name and prepared by staffers to the then-highest ranking Democrat in office, be fact-checked. No, we gotta save those kinds of resources to Saturday Night Live skits and be sure to sic eleven (11!) reporters on smearing Sarah Palin's book.

Priorities, you know, mantis, old chum. Gotta have 'em.

What bothers me about this Jaytea, is not your point that the boy should be fact checked. I don't think there is anything wrong with fact checking anyone. It is you completely and utterly ducking your contradictory statments.


Your whole write up argued. that any asshat who argues one forfeits their right to privacy, when one enters the public forum, deserves for their own private information to me made availible to the world.

However, When it is revealed that you also are such an asshat and have made the very same argument yourself; instead of either saying you were wrong then, as Bryand and others were; or saying you were right then, and that Bryand and company were also right, you completely ducked it.

Instead you flat out avoid the hypocrisy of your position and try to justify it by bringing up what you consider to be wrongs against the likes of Sarah Palin.

Which even if she was wronged has nothing to do with your two contradictory postions.

Things get heated on political blogs, that's a given. I can understand not wanting to give in to those who might taunt or attack you if you admit an error. I can also understand not wanting to admit an error to someone you consider and asshole, but given your past statement only one of two things can be true:

You too actually deserve your personal information to be sprayed all over the internet for arguing as Bryand and others have regarding privacy.

or

You were right in your argument on privacy in 2007, which would make bryand and company also right today.

I guess what I'm curious about if whether you are someone who values reality enough to say which of the two choices you think are correct, or whether you'll display some form of cognitive dissonance, and ignore it completely and instead attack those who bring up the contradiction with more red-herrings.

I have to say I'd be suprised if it is not the latter.

fred, the whole crux of the... (Below threshold)

fred, the whole crux of the Democratically-written statement the little boy made was "I need that program, and President Bush wants me to suffer."

Here, read it for yourself:

http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/09/twelve-year-old.php

The dishonesty the Democrats put in this kid's mouth was disgusting.

"I don't know why President Bush wants to stop kids who really need help from getting CHIP... I just hope the President will listen to my story and help other kids to be as lucky as me."

Yes, the boy's life was saved by medical care covered by S-CHIP. But Bush wasn't trying to END the program; he was opposing a move to expand it to cover people making up to four times the poverty level.

I was disgusted at the time for using a boy as a human shield in this argument, and I'm still disgusted.

...and this whole "gotcha game" is a delightful little diversion from the core issue -- what the hell did Joe the Plumber do that justifies state officials digging through his child support records, and what the hell did Carrie Prejean say that prompted the abuse and scorn she received?

At least in the Frost case, there was a connection -- the S-CHIP program was set up for the children of needy families, and his family was a hell of a lot better off than a lot of the people who would be taxed to help them (myself included) and wasn't very needy after all.

J.

Jay Tea - Please post a ... (Below threshold)
Tina S:

Jay Tea - Please post a correction

I never made any comments defending the people that attacked Joe & Carrie.

All I did was was question your characteriation of Obama & Carries position on gay marriage. Kind of ironic that you responded by mischaracterizing my position on those that attacked Joe & Carrie.

jim x/Traficante: you're... (Below threshold)
jim x:

jim x/Traficante: you're STILL playing the same game here.

JT/Satan - if that game is pointing out the facts, yes I am.

The most important thing about the Joe The Plumber/Obama exchange was Obama's answer: that things are better if the wealth is spread around

I disagree. I think the most important thing about that exchange was that Joe the Plumber made an accusation about Obama's plan, and Joe the Plumber was proven wrong.

And it kills you that JTP was proven wrong, doesn't it?

His **ASSERTION** then, ... (Below threshold)
Jim x:

His **ASSERTION** then, his "plan" now, or what his plan mutates into two years from now?

Well since there wasn't a time machine during the campaign, Obama's **PLAN** then, which has not changed by now.

If we get the rampant inflation that many suspect is coming,

Lots of things can happen in hypothetical world. Cats could suddenly develop laser beam vision. But with the facts as they are, JTP was wrong about Obama's plan.

Fascinating creative lengths to go to tho, to create a hypothetical world where JTP was right and Obama was wrong. Kudos for the most creative attempt yet.

Liberals always have had... (Below threshold)
Jim x:

Liberals always have had trouble comparing apples to apples, especially when comparing apples to oranges suits them better.

Nyah nyah.

Conservatives always had trouble seeing what apples look like, if seeing apples would force them to admit they're wrong.

No. He said that Obama would raise his taxes under the example that he stated....if he were to buy the plumbing business and make greater than $250,000.

Go see post # 50.

Liberals try to play "gottcha" with everything simply by defining the terms the way they want them defined and then screaming "hypocrisy".

Oh that darn definition of "facts" and "reason"!

Joe the plumbers "factual" situation didn't matter. He could have been a homeless bum and the situation is the same. If that homeless bum bought a business worth $250,000 Obama would raise his taxes and redistribute the wealth.

You mean, if a homeless man were actually rich enough to buy a business that had $250,000+ a yea in profit, which means it would have to be generating at least a $2 mil/yr?

Yes, then that "homeless man" would be taxed as a rich person, because they are rich.

Joe the Plumber was not a rich man, or at least was not presenting himself as one.

Obama got caught telling what he believes, which is a very unpopular belief. Too bad more people didn't believe he meant it.

Obama got caught telling what is the basis of progressive taxation. Which you may be interested to know has been part of our tax code since we've had income tax.

So, sorry to tell you, but it doesn't bother people. It's not that the majority didn't believe he meant it - it's that the majority understand it's how this nation works **already**.

Keep on keeping on, jim x/C... (Below threshold)

Keep on keeping on, jim x/Carville. (OK, you're probably not Traficant. But you sound an awful lot like James Carville...)

Maybe, if you keep on shouting about what some nobody from nowhere said, you'll get enough people to forget Obama saying, of his own free will, that he sees government's role to be to "spread the wealth around," deciding who has too much and who should get some of that.

The guy says the gosh-darndest things when his teleprompter isn't around...

J.

Except, of course, when ... (Below threshold)
Jim x:

Except, of course, when it's a REPUBLICAN in the Executive Branch...then of course, every stupid spending/tax bill down the pike is attributed to him.

OMFG.

Obama has pushed and presented this tax plan. It has not been taken up by Congress. Agreed, right?

When it is taken up, it will almost certainly be known as the Obama Tax Plan. Which I think is fair, if what comes out resembles Obama's plan going in.

Bush crafted and presented his tax cut plan, and pushed for it very vigorously, and celebrated when it was passed, and repeatedly made pronouncements that no one should repeal those tax cuts or let them fade.

So to refer to it as the "bush tax cuts" is simply accurate.

Sorry if you don't like that.

Yeah, I see what you did there. Sauce for the goose, boyo.

If what you're seeing is that I represented things accurately, agreed. If only this sauce had been used for the previous goose a bit more.

Obama has indicated nume... (Below threshold)
Jim x:

Obama has indicated numerous times that the Bush tax cuts will be allowed to expire. Therefore, Joe the Plumber and all of the rest of us WILL see a tax increase.

First, this was not part of Joe the Fake Plumber's argument at all.

But entering into it just for discussion, no, "all the rest of us" won't see a tax increase - because the Bush Tax Cuts weren't for the middle class. They were tax cuts for the **wealthy**.

This is because the Bush Tax Cuts were part of supply-side economics Voodoo Economics, whereby cutting taxes for the rich would magically fix the economy and make everyone rich.

Our current economic downturn should be enough to disprove the cut-taxes-for-the-rich-and-deregulate school of economic panacea's. But I won't hold my breath.

Keep on keeping on, jim ... (Below threshold)
Jim x:

Keep on keeping on, jim x/Carville. (OK, you're probably not Traficant. But you sound an awful lot like James Carville...)

Keep on making excuses, Jay T/Satan. Maybe if you keep on shouting about something entirely different than what we're talking about, which is how Joe The Plumber said something wrong, was proven wrong, and then refused it, America will stop caring about what the facts actually are.

But thankfully, I doubt it.




Advertisements









rightads.gif

beltwaybloggers.gif

insiderslogo.jpg

mba_blue.gif

Follow Wizbang

Follow Wizbang on FacebookFollow Wizbang on TwitterSubscribe to Wizbang feedWizbang Mobile

Contact

Send e-mail tips to us:

tips@wizbangblog.com

Fresh Links

Credits

Section Editor: Maggie Whitton

Editors: Jay Tea, Lorie Byrd, Kim Priestap, DJ Drummond, Michael Laprarie, Baron Von Ottomatic, Shawn Mallow, Rick, Dan Karipides, Michael Avitablile, Charlie Quidnunc, Steve Schippert

Emeritus: Paul, Mary Katherine Ham, Jim Addison, Alexander K. McClure, Cassy Fiano, Bill Jempty, John Stansbury, Rob Port

In Memorium: HughS

All original content copyright © 2003-2010 by Wizbang®, LLC. All rights reserved. Wizbang® is a registered service mark.

Powered by Movable Type Pro 4.361

Hosting by ServInt

Ratings on this site are powered by the Ajax Ratings Pro plugin for Movable Type.

Search on this site is powered by the FastSearch plugin for Movable Type.

Blogrolls on this site are powered by the MT-Blogroll.

Temporary site design is based on Cutline and Cutline for MT. Graphics by Apothegm Designs.

Author Login



Terms Of Service

DCMA Compliance Notice

Privacy Policy