*Joe the Plumber joins University of Toledo College Republicans as they
Pledge to Reclaim Campus*
The University of Toledo College Republicans will host their
first meeting Tuesday August 25th in the Student Union Room 2591. Joe "The
Plumber" Wurzelbacher will be in attendance as the UTCRs will lay out a plan
to reclaim the university in the name of Conservative Values.
The UT College Republicans are the reigning chapter of the year in
the state of Ohio. Last year their local business support program
picked up national headlines as did their efforts in the 2008
Election. This year the CRs will focus on creating a conservative campus atmosphere and changing the political climate of Lucas County. This summer they signed up
over 300 conservative students at UT's orientation programs and expect a
packed house at their first meeting. The CRs will also debut a Liberal
Professor Directory to warn conservative students of liberal bias in the
classroom.
"Our platform this year will really focus on developing future leaders for
the Republican party by educating students on conservative core values and
getting them active. Lucas county has suffered too long under Democrat Rule,
and its time to take a step back from failed policies. This is where that
process begins. We are building leaders, and winning every battle along the
way," said '08-'09 Ohio Chairman of the year Matt Rubin.
The College Republicans will be working closely with Republican Mayoral
Candidate, Jim Moody and have several events planned for this year including
a Ronald Reagan documentary in the Glass Bowl Stadium, a National Rifle
Association Presentation and a week long celebration of the fall of the
communist, Soviet Union.
'This summer thesigned up over 300 conservative students' ...
'and expect a packehouse at their first meeting'...
'and a week long celebration of the fall of the communist, Soviet Union.'
Perhaps consulting that 'liberal prof' directory might provide some assistance, lol.
did that as he was removing spaces and line breaks.
Joe "The Plumber" Wurzelbacher gives a good interview. His thoughts are mainstream with many Americans I thought the WSPD trial host that he filled in was quite interesting and his view on.......well.....I lost my train-of-thought. Can someone help me here?
Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.
I don't get the attention Joe The Plumber continues to get. I have nothing against the guy and probably agree with him on most views. However, how does simply asking a presidential candidate one question make someone qualified to host radio shows and speak at universities? In my opinion, Joe is a pawn being used to generate ratings and and to keep controversy stirred...because after all...where would talk radio be without controversy. After the initial interest of Joe being on WSPD wears off ( in about a week) I think WSPD will realize its mistake and find that people will view them as less credible as a serious news outlet. I do have to wonder what long-time employees there think about this. Many of them have spent a considerable amount of time and money to have a radio career and have put their heart and soul into the station...only to find out to get a "big break" all they really had to do was show up to a political rally and ask Barak Obama a question.
I listened to the "Joe-the-talk-show-host" He had Wilson in the back ground holding his hand. He would go on a rant then in mid stream forget what the Hell he was talking about. This did not happen once but multiple times. I can only image what the long time employees thought about this?
Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.
You seem to listen to Speedy a lot more than the rest of us do.
Personally, Im a WCKY man myself. See, I only have time to listen to stuff I enjoy.
Listen to Joe-the-talk-show-host make up your own mind
http://a1135.g.akamai.net/f/1135/18227/1h/cchannel.download.akamai.com/1...
Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.
I think WSPD will realize its mistake and find that people will view them as less credible as a serious news outlet.
Too funny...I almost spit out my coffee. Thanks for the laugh.
because he gets all his 'news' from The Daily Show, or moveon.org
I do love the Daily show, but I never get much of a chance to watch it. As for Moveon...I haven't been over their in many months, maybe I should check it out.
BTW - How often do you watch the Daily Show?
There is no news content on that show. I would get better news from the onion.
Typical...
You never watch it, but it must be bad because you're told so. So who does your thinking for you?
HA HA typical response. "You're a mind numbed robot - you always do what you are told, blah, blah, blah." Such a tired response.
I do my own thinking, thank you very much. Besides that 'The Daily Show' is ADVERTISED as THE FAKE NEWS.
Too bad Fox News isn't...
I agree with you Kooz on this "I don't get the attention Joe The Plumber continues to get. "
If I had to guess I think it comes to how he was treated by the media and state afterwards. He was made a martyr of the conservatives because of it. However I don't pay attention to anything he does.
As for the CR. I wonder if their liberal directory will catch on at other campuses. I ran into many liberal teachers at UT and EMU. At EMU they were much more open to discussion than at UT so I do understand why they're doing what they are.
MikeyA
that seperates 'liberal' professors from 'middle-of-the-road' professors, 'independent 'professors, etc.? How about some that may be 'liberal' on some issues and 'conservative' on others? Where do they fall? Where's their directory?
And why isn't there just a 'conservative' directory and then like-minded students can sign up accordingly? And what exactly would the criteria for that be?
I judged them as liberals upon the stance they took on issues that pertained to their course.
I was a journalism major. I had many liberal professors, many middle-of-the-road professors. But only one I would consider libertarian. I had very few that considered themselves conservative.
But the only ones I ever had a problem with were those that wouldn't allow debate. (There was only 2 while on my journalism path at EMU). One was liberal and one was middle-of-the-road. I'd say this was more reflective of the law of averages than of ideology.
Most of my professors looked at me as some type of science project. They were fascinated by a conservative military member in their class that was willing to speak frankly about what they had seen and believed. A few keep in contact with me today just to see what I feel about things.
MikeyA
it really doesn't matter what 'idealogy' your professors might have been.
Most of us would agree the best professors allow debate--and in your case they all did but two, one liberal, one not.
Some of your 'liberal' profs even seek you out now for your opinion on things and have an interest in that opinion.
So, I'd say having a directory of 'liberal' profs is as silly as having one of 'conservative' profs or any idealogy. A good prof, no matter if he/she discloses their voting preference in the classroom, always allows the 'other side' a voice--a chance to debate and air their opinions.
Well the examples I used were at EMU. When I was at UT the professors I had that I'd consider as "liberal" and not "middle-of-the-road" they stiffled debate.
I remember one such professor shouting down a student until he left about extending benefits to gay partners (before UT enacted the policy) and calling the student a racist for suggesting a heterosexual club (something at the time the student union refused to endorse).
BTW - A directory of conservative profs would be easy. I only had 3 total conservative professors in the 3 schools I attended over the course of my undergraduate study.
MikeyA
though I remained confused over what exactly contitutes 'liberal' or 'conservative' prof and what the point of a 'directory' really is.
If a prof, say, is pro-choice on abortion, but against gun control, which are they (I can think of four people I know off the top of my head on that one)?
How about someone who was for the invasion of Iraq because of WMDs, but when discovered there actually weren't any thought it a horrendous idea?
Someone who voted Bush first time and not the second?
And if only you only had 3 conservative profs in 3 schools, there's no need for a lib directory, lol, you'd still need to take a class with a lib prof no matter what.
how does simply asking a presidential candidate one question make someone qualified to host radio shows and speak at universities?
how does asking one question villify the guy nationwide?
If he wanted to stay out of the fray he would have asked his question and gone home, not gone out and immediately got an agent.
There is a particular American sickness, whereby people with intelligence, or expertise in a field, or a track record of being consistently correct on issues are mocked and marginalized as pointy-headed intellectuals in ivory towers, but people who couldn't make it through high school and whose greatest achievement is getting drunk every week are held up as fountains of deep wisdom. And if you suggest that Joe sixpack isn't even qualified to be a plumber, much less set foreign policy you are set on by flying monkeys screaming about how you are insulting every red blooded American.
Could you be any more elitist?
MikeyA
Apparently I'm an elitist because I think we should pay more attention to people who are intelligent and educated, rather than know-nothing blowhards.
The whole reason Joe was popular was because the media jumped on it. Not because people really took him seriously.
Now, he's still relevant only because the blogs were so relentless that he's now a martyr.
Now I don't care for Joe. But I still contend the story was not Joe but Obama's answer.
Now as for your post. Just because someone isn't college educated doesn't mean they can't have common sense. To dismiss people as drunk beer-drinkers is elitist.
I've met tons of smart people who had no common sense. I wouldn't trust them one iota because despite their intelligence they do dumb things.
MikeyA
But you miss my point, which is that people in America have no problem dumping on, belittling, and insulting the intelligent, educated, and intellectual, but god forbid you suggest someone with absolutely no qualifications, and a sub-par IQ doesn't know what they are talking about.
While lack of an education does not preclude common sense, old Plumber Joe shows no evidence of either.
You missed where Joe was insulted and belittled?
That's the whole reason he's still "relevant" was because the right wing views him as a martyr because he was insulted and belittled.
MikeyA
Why shouldn't he be belittled? Immediately after his famous question to Obama he gets himself an agent in order to arrange gigs on TV where he can pontificate on subjects that he doesn't even have the most basic facts about. Why should he or the people who put him on TV be treated with respect? I watched him as Fox's war "war correspondent" where he flat out said that reporters shouldn't report on war. Why does such a notion deserve anything but scorn?
I agree that the right made him some sort of martyr for stupidity, but they would elevate a cinder block if they thought liberals were against it.
The point speaks to at the time the media wasn't questioning much of Obama's campaign promises. It didn't address his answer.
The media instead focused on attacking Joe.
Now Obama is viewed as more left than he campaigned. Again much of the media won't allow him to be criticized claiming those that do are racist.
I agree with you about the cinder block but the left would do that as well.
The whole situation shows how the media is doing the public a disservice. We need to hold the media accountable.
MikeyA
'Now Obama is viewed as more left than he campaigned'
Not by liberals he's not. Not by independents he's not. And, I'm guessing not even by most conservatives he's not.
And don't bother showing me polls saying otherwise--the reason Obama's approval numbers are down is because he's seen largely as a continuation of the same that came before him.
The 'big change', the something 'different' is the problem. He's not all that much of a 'change' and he's not all that 'different', at least perception wise.
He promised something 'different' and so far hasn't delivered much.
"Not by independents he's not."
I will refer you to the graph I posted in the other thread.
MikeyA
I would say Obama is far to the right of where he campaigned. He campaigned on restoring civil liberties and the rule of law, now he has institutionalized many of the worst Bush civil liberties infractions, and even surpassed him in some areas. He campaigned on universal healthcare but is now looking like he will settle for the most watered down reform which appears to be a nothing but a big giveaway to the pharma and insurance industries.
I would be happy to see Obama criticized far more, but about issues of actual substance. Instead we are treated to attacks on completely fictional issues, (i.e. secret communist, secret muslim, secret Kenyan, wants to kill granny, checking out girl's ass, secret FEMA concentration camps...etc.) many of which do in fact have racist underpinnings. But if you point out that Lou Dobb's obsession with Obama's birth certificate has something to do with the fact that Dobb's is a completely out of the closet racist, you are accused of reflexively protecting Obama from all criticism.
I disagree that the left elevates morons, (or chooses or opposes issues) because it makes the right angry. If they did, surely Bill Ayers would be the toast of the democrats.
I can agree with you 100% that the media does the public an enormous disservice however.
and my post beat yours by a minute, lol.
if I can't be first!!!!
Why does every liberal think that every conservative believes the birthers claim or watches Lou Dobbs? I do neither.
MikeyA
I don't think every liberal thinks that (it's absurd). But conversely, why do some conservatives seem to want to defend birthers? Why did conservatives reflexively defend right-wing radicals in the DHS report? They made it sound like all conservatives were being painted with the same brush. You have conservatives now at town halls claiming that they are proud to be right-wing terrorists. What's up with that?
Pink Slip
I put the word every in there to reaffirm my point.
MikeyA
Yeah, I figured as much. But do you have any answers to my questions? For instance, I know not "every" conservative is a birther or a right-wing nut. But it sure seems like a lot of "normal" conservatives tend to reflexively defend birthers and right-wing nuts, even going so far as to embrace some of their language in some sort of weird allegiance.
Pink Slip
believes or does anything, I merely stated that the vast majority of criticisms of Obama that appear in the mainstream media are ridiculous fictions. I didn't say every conservative believes them. And by all means he should be criticized, but criticized on things he actually does, not utterly imaginary things.
The other commenter makes a good point as well. When the DHS issued a report warning of the danger of violent right-wing extremism, every major conservative commentator pretended that the report was targeting the average republican voter, (completely ignoring a very real history of right-wing political violence that reached its height with McVeigh). So if there is anyone to blame for lumping the average conservative in with the deranged and violent, it is conservatives. Even now when a nut, who attends a church whose pastor gives sermons where he prays to God that Obama will be killed, shows up at a town hall with an assault rifle, conservative pundits portray him as just an average patriotic American exercising his constitutional rights.
If Conservatives don't want to be portrayed as crazy then they need to distance themselves from the crazies, not embrace and defend them, (but they probably figure that if they lose the suppoert of the insane they will hardly have any support at all.) The only prominent conservative to disavow them is David Frum, but then he's Canadian so probably doesn't really get the program.
"Even now when a nut, who attends a church whose pastor gives sermons where he prays to God that Obama will be killed, shows up at a town hall with an assault rifle, conservative pundits portray him as just an average patriotic American exercising his constitutional rights. "
What about people who attend churches where the pastor makes claims about 9/11 being because the the "chickens are coming home to roost"? Can I make the same generalizations about them too.
MikeyA
a tendency certain people have in an argument, whereby they keep changing the subject when they are unable to refute their opponent. Anyway... so now we are talking about Reverend Wright.
But before we get on to him... you just quoted me and said I was generalizing. (I'm assuming you mean about conservatives) Where, in fact, I was speaking about one very specific individual, but as if to prove my point, you decided to conflate what I said about that individual to be an attack on all conservatives. Which begs the question, why do you assume my remarks about a lunatic who brings an assault rifle to a townhall meeting and attends a church whose pastor openly prays for the death of the president would refer to conservatives as a whole? Do you identify with this nutcase so much that you feel personally insulted by my criticism of him?
So now the Right's favourite bugaboo, Rev. Wright... Please explain why you think there is a comparison between a pastor who is preaching sermons calling for the death of the president and extermination of homosexuals to a pastor that preaches a sermon that makes a fairly reasonable critique of US foreign policy.
Towards my response to Pink.
The hipocracy.
If I attack one that's ok.
If I question the other: I'm racist.
MikeyA
??
Oh right, you were just changing the topic and I got suckered in again.
Wow you are good!
What next? Curl up on the floor like a possum and play dead?
-There is nothing so stupid as the educated man if you get him off the thing he was educated in.-
Will Rogers
Statements made are the opinion of the writer who is exercising his first amendment right to freedom of speech. Freedom of speech in the United States is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and are generally permitted.
I get a kick out of watching the fringe react in horror as the conservative movement solidifies and gains momentum, behind the very people these left wing kooks so desperately try to destroy! Many, many thanks!!
I hope we keep seeing more of Joe. I can only hope they run him against Marcy and dump a ton of money into the race.
Sensor G: "Too bad Fox News isn't..."
Is that all you've got? THOUGHT SO.
Pink to answer your questions.
"Why did conservatives reflexively defend right-wing radicals in the DHS report? They made it sound like all conservatives were being painted with the same brush. You have conservatives now at town halls claiming that they are proud to be right-wing terrorists. "
The reason is it speaks to hipocracy. Conservatives were, and still are, highly in favor of the Patriot Act. The left denounced it as limiting freedom.
Yet the moment a member of the left took over at DHS the first thing that happened was a report came out warning of "right wing extremists" with little claim. Additionally it warned of former military members becoming terrorists and Tim McVeigh was used as an example. The truth is Tim McVeigh didn't learn about explosives in the military. He was a Tank Driver. I could just as easily warn of MIT graduates and cite Ted Kaczynski as an example.
I make the same claim with the whole push for the draft. Charlie Rangel tried to get it brought back during a Republican administration. Now we're still at war. Rangel's party is in power. You can't use the military recruiting rates as a reason because the bad rates were only coming from the US Army and not other services plus all the services were already set for expansion.
I contended then as I contend now that the draft was to hurt the military and embarass the administration. If it wasn't then institute it now.
MikeyA
Just to be accurate, the DHS report was requested and started during the Bush administration along with a report on left-wing extremism. And the report says that right-wing extremists would target returning members of the military ( because of their skill set) that had trouble reintegrating into society. It seems like a reasonable deduction. This is quite different than implying that former military members ARE extremists. Maybe this is why some conservatives were up in arms over the report--they misinterpreted what was in it.
Pink Slip