Joe the Plumber Steals the Show From Brit Hume

Looks like our friend Joe is still keeping it "fresh".
====
It was supposed to be Brit Hume's big night, but the Fox Newser got outshone by another conservative darling—Joe the Plumber. Hume, the retired host of Fox News's Special Report , was receiving the William F. Buckley Jr. Award for Media Excellence at the Media Research Center's annual gala, but it was Samuel Joseph "Joe the Plumber" Wurzelbacher who stole the show. Wurzelbacher got a standing ovation and was called a folk hero when he sauntered on stage, dressed in flannel and denim, to accept one of right-leaning MRC's DisHonors awards, the less serious awards of the evening that roast the most "outrageously biased liberal reporting of the year."

http://www.usnews.com/blogs/washington-whispers/2009/3/20/joe-the-plumbe...

No votes yet

Then there's this:

Joe The Plumber Tells Conservatives: "I'm Horny"

I'm surprised you weren't all over that Webby

Pink Slip

Yep, there's Sam again, 'keepin' it fresh'!

I'll say this: he's proven to be damn efficient at stringin' out the proverbial 15 minutes...

Joe didn't take a limo to Detroit, he flew to DC from Toledo Express. Hopped a Northwest flight to Detroit to get there. Saw him on American to Chicago a few weeks ago too. Glad to see Joe supporting the local economy by flying out of TOL!

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/11/04/cindy-sheehan-makes-last-stand-against-nancy-pelosi.html

The little darling of Liberalism and good friend of Communists? Was her 15 minutes of fame finally used up after 3 years?

Man I got tired of the Mainstream Media licking her shoes and Libs kissing her butt while she paraded around ignoring her kids and husband at home.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

'Friends of communists'?

Coulda sworn it was 2009. Guess we've high-speed re-winded back to 1984 or so. So, did Gorby say anything interesting today? Heard on the news there's lots of unrest in the Soviet bloc and that Afghan War's gone all to shit...

This comment that was posted off that site says it all -
:
Joe the dim-wit

Good lord. That guy is emblematic of what's wrong with the GOP. He has a fake Joe name. He has a fake profession (he's NOT a plumber!) . He grew up "sucking on the gubmint titty" of welfare at times. He's a tax avoider. At his current salary, he'll get an Obama tax cut. Hahahaha! You must be insane to call him an "average JOE." He's a piker and a fraud. Therefore, the GOP loves him. He's one of them."
I have to agree with that. This jerk asked one question of Obama, which Obama answered & it was the media & the McCain group that booted him into his 15 minutes. While "Joe" campaigned for McCain, he admitted he wasn't so fond of him after the fact - and yes, given "Joe's" income, he'll fare better with Obama tax wise. This guy is a jerk & what amazes me, is that he doesn't 'get' that people see him as a big joke. He really thinks people look up to him as representing the average citizen. He sure does not represent me. I think he's an embarrassment. He shoots his mouth off, but there's nothing valid coming out of his mouth.

The GOP does not love Joe the Plumber. The GOP loved what Joe did once--he was able to plumb the best darn evidence that they could get to date that Barack Obama believed strongly that "spreading the wealth" around is "good for everybody." He asked the right question at the right time in the right place.

They used "Joe" as a poster boy and a rally point. That's all. No one believes that he represents the party, nor that he is an emblem of the Republican cause. Well, no one, perhaps but Joe!

I was listening to a news program about tax hikes for the wealthier people - decades & decades ago, it used to be over 70 or 90 percent tax for the wealthy or something (my history is terrible, so I assume somebody here will jump in to correct all of this). If I understood correctly, it was Reagan that reduced the taxes for the very wealthy to about 25 or 27 percent or something - Reaganomics I guess, and then de-regulation of the banking industry - and the rest is history. Then when our country is at one of it's lowest, economic points & fixes are hard to find, Obama wants to raise the taxes for the wealthy - not anywhere near what they were pre-Reagan, and it's suddenly 'spreading the wealth around'. I heard people ranting that if Obama got elected, we'd become a socialist country. Seems to me, because our taxes pay for fire, police, schools - those are all socialist entities.

I heard rants pre election, that Obama will try to introduce socialized health care. Not sure how I feel about that just yet - but from what I've been learning, out of 39 industrialized countries, 38 do have socialized health care - and interesting that our country ranks at about 39 of those industrialized countries in terms of quality of health care & infant mortality. We stand alone with allowing insurance companies to dictate our heath care. We stand alone in that the very poor & the very rich can 'afford' health care. We stand alone in that insurance companies can tell somebody that they are not insurable due to 'pre-existing conditions" (that can be something as benign as a minor kidney infection decades earlier), or that the meds you need are not 'covered' & if they are too expensive for the person to afford, the person will DIE. Again - I'm still not sure how I feel about socialized health care - but the system we currently have is not working, and I'm open to hearing other options. Given that we do have a welfare & medicaid system, seems to me that IS a form of socialism - spreading the wealth around. The fact that they keep raising tobacco taxes to pay for SCHIPS - which pays for health care for other people's children when my own kids would never qualify - means that the tobacco taxes I pay are being used to support another group of people that I cannot benefit from - sounds like spreading the wealth around, in fact, that sounds almost illegal, to tax a small group to pay for the care of a different group - I have to wonder how that factors into our Constitution.

I'm sure there's better examples, but I think 'spreading the wealth around' can be construed in many different ways.

I think communism would work quite well in the USA. We have all the necessary ingredients to make it work right. Let's go for it.

Patience is a great virtue.

I don't believe it was de-regulation itself that was our problem.
Our economy did great for years after deregulation.
The problem came when certain greedy bastards used the lack of oversight to line their pockets, (and buy themselves votes). The strengthening of the CRA was a big part. Maybe not everyone is cut out to be a homeowner. Does that mean the rest of us should have to help them pay for a home?

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

"I don't believe it was de-regulation itself that was our problem."

vs.

"The problem came when certain greedy bastards used the lack of oversight to line their pockets"

Wrong. You can't blame Wall St corporations for doing what they're supposed do--try to make as much money as the system allows for (and sometimes beyond that). It was government failure that removed safeguards & cultivated an incestuous relationship between banks and politicians.

"The strengthening of the CRA was a big part"

Sure--if by "big", you mean six percent

.

Pink Slip

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Libs--the problem is, Obama never mentions the CRA in this spliced-up video. He mentions subprime loans. And as my previous link has shown, "Federal Reserve Board analysis which found that, in 2006, CRA-covered banks operating in CRA-targeted neighborhoods accounted for just six percent of the risky, high-cost loans largely responsible for the housing crisis.

More info on the CRA myth:

Federal Reserve Board data show that:

* More than 84 percent of the subprime mortgages in 2006 were issued by private lending institutions.

* Private firms made nearly 83 percent of the subprime loans to low- and moderate-income borrowers that year.

* Only one of the top 25 subprime lenders in 2006 was directly subject to the housing law that's being lambasted by conservative critics.

Another key point:

"What's more, only commercial banks and thrifts must follow CRA rules. The investment banks don't, nor did the now-bankrupt non-bank lenders such as New Century Financial Corp. and Ameriquest that underwrote most of the subprime loans.

These private non-bank lenders enjoyed a regulatory gap, allowing them to be regulated by 50 different state banking supervisors instead of the federal government. And mortgage brokers, who also weren't subject to federal regulation or the CRA, originated most of the subprime loans."

Pink Slip

Which means the other 94% of the homeowners that are in trouble obviously did not read the loan contracts?

The other 94% of defauting loans had no idea that an ARM means the rate will adjust because they were too stupid or lazy to read the loan terms?

The other 94% of defauting loans have no idea what a balloon payment is because they were too stupid or lazy to read the loan terms?

The other 94% of defauting loans got into trouble by ONLY their own ignorance, greed for a bigger house, their own laziness, their own stupidity or their own gullibility?

And that is my problem why? Help those people out now and what have they learned? That a contract is meaningless. That you will be rewarded for stupidity and that you can always suckle up to the government tit if things get uncomfortable.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

There's two sides to every transaction Libs. Banks should've had the assets to back up their loans. Shame on them too

Pink Slip

They have the houses as collateral.

If mommy government had not stepped in, the weak banks would have gone under which is what will happen to every other business with poor management. Then the assets would have been picked up by smarter companies.

And if mommy government has not stepped in, the stupid people who signed their name without understanding the ramifications of not reading a contract would have to hand their collateral (houses) back to the bank.

Those banks, in turn, would sell the assets for whatever they could get and write off the rest of the toxic loans.

The only parties hurt by that are:

1) the stupid bankers who did not research the credit records of their customers

-and-

2) the stupid morons who signed the toxic loan terms without understanding or reading the terms of the loan.

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

So banks fail and "smarter companies" will buy up the repossessed homes. How are people going to find mortgages to purchase homes from these "smarter companies" if the financial industry collapses?

There's a city full of walls you can post complaints at

HEY Newsflash!

Banks are in the business of lending money. If they make bad loans, they loose money. If a company looses money, they fail.

Is that so hard to understand? And do you really think that if your bank went under you would not have to re-pay your mortguage?

So what you are saying is that if a couple of banks go under, the entire financial industry collapeses? WOW! You'd better tell all those financially soild banks that they were wrong to purchase the assets of these failing banks.

Here is a SHORT list of banks that have been purchased by stronger companies:

www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-118513422.html

http://www.norwest.com/

http://www.crainsnewyork.com/article/20090123/FREE/901239962

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

I heard rants pre election, that Obama will try to introduce socialized health care. Not sure how I feel about that just yet...

Maybe this will help you decide...

The Problems with Socialized Health Care

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

Here's one of the best explanations I have heard yet.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31154

"We're all riding on the Hindenburg, no sense fighting over the window seats"-Richard Jenni

Banks were morally pressured by politicians into making home loans to folks who could not remotely qualify under standards set by decades of experience with mortgage defaults.

What a joke! These banks and their CEOs have no morals.

What we are witnessing is the logically conclusion of conservative rule.

What we are witnessing is the logically conclusion of conservative rule.

Well at least Conservatives have logic which is more than I can say about the KraZineSS liberals participate in where logic is the furthest thing from their thought process.

If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth. ~Japanese Proverb

Don't blame me,
I didn't vote for a
socialist.

Actually, the one time I felt a flicker of admiration for Nancy Pelosi and Barney Frank was when Chavez was in the United States insulting President Bush. Both were quite sharp in telling Hugo Chavez that while they disagreed with him, Bush was OUR president and strongly criticized his conduct.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.