Big Brother Spying on...Joe the Plumber?

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Frazzled**

http://www.dispatch.com/live/content/local_news/stories/2008/10/24/joe.html?sid=101

Government computers used to find information on Joe the Plumber
Investigators trying to determine whether access was illegal
Friday, October 24, 2008 8:57 PM
By Randy Ludlow

The Columbus Dispatch
"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.

Paul Lindsay, Ohio spokesman for the McCain campaign, attempted to portray the inquiries as politically motivated. "It's outrageous to see how quickly Barack Obama's allies would abuse government power in an attempt to smear a private citizen who dared to ask a legitimate question," he said.

Isaac Baker, Obama's Ohio spokesman, denounced Lindsay's statement as charges of desperation from a campaign running out of time. "Invasions of privacy should not be tolerated. If these records were accessed inappropriately, it had nothing to do with our campaign and should be investigated fully," he said.

The attorney general's office is investigating if the access of Wuzelbacher's BMV information through the office's Ohio Law Enforcement Gateway computer system was unauthorized, said spokeswoman Jennifer Brindisi.

"We're trying to pinpoint where it came from," she said. The investigation could become "criminal in nature," she said. Brindisi would not identify the account that pulled the information on Oct. 16.

Records show it was a "test account" assigned to the information technology section of the attorney general's office, said Department of Public Safety spokesman Thomas Hunter.

Brindisi later said investigators have confirmed that Wurzelbacher's information was not accessed within the attorney general's office. She declined to provide details. The office's test accounts are shared with and used by other law enforcement-related agencies, she said.

On Oct. 17, BMV information on Wurzelbacher was obtained through an account used by the Cuyahoga County Child Support Enforcement Agency in Cleveland, records show.

Mary Denihan, spokeswoman for the county agency, said the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services contacted the agency today and requested an investigation of the access to Wurzelbacher's information. Cuyahoga County court records do not show any child-support cases involving Wurzelbacher.

The State Highway Patrol, which administers the Law Enforcement Automated Data System in Ohio, asked Toledo police to explain why it pulled BMV information on Wurzelbacher within 48 hours of the debate, Hunter said.

The LEADS system also can be used to check for warrants and criminal histories, but such checks would not be reflected on the records obtained by The Dispatch.

Sgt. Tim Campbell, a Toledo police spokesman, said he could not provide any information because the department only had learned of the State Highway Patrol inquiry today.

**Kilkrazy**

This sort of counterbalances the charges against the guy who exposed Palin's use of a Hotmail account for official business.

These computer access laws were supposedly enacted to prevent serious crimes like fraud, spying and terrorism.

In my opinion, neither side should use the full weight of the law to obstruct the people's right to find out the dubious monkey business of politics.

Both sides are engaging in witch-hunts to suppress the discovery of their dirty linen.

**djones520**

Kilkrazy wrote:This sort of counterbalances the charges against the guy who exposed Palin's use of a Hotmail account for official business.

These computer access laws were supposedly enacted to prevent serious crimes like fraud, spying and terrorism.

In my opinion, neither side should use the full weight of the law to obstruct the people's right to find out the dubious monkey business of politics.

Both sides are engaging in witch-hunts to suppress the discovery of their dirty linen.

Are you saying that those affiliated with the McCain campaign where responsible for this?

**Kilkrazy**

No. I don't think either side had much to gain from exposing "Joe The Plumber" as a fraud who didn't pay his taxes, given that Obama responded positively to him as well as McCain.

However, it was most likely an Obama supporter who thought it would be a good move, since "Joe The Plumber" was kind of a Republican rallying cry. Considering the need for the public to have accurate information about what's really going in, perhaps they were right.

The point about witch-hunts is that the whole population gets caught up in prosecuting them and someone has to be found guilty and severely punished.

**djones520**

Kilkrazy wrote:No. I don't think either side had much to gain from exposing "Joe The Plumber" as a fraud who didn't pay his taxes, given that Obama responded positively to him as well as McCain.

However, it was most likely an Obama supporter who thought it would be a good move, since "Joe The Plumber" was kind of a Republican rallying cry. Considering the need for the public to have accurate information about what's really going in, perhaps they were right.

The point about witch-hunts is that the whole population gets caught up in prosecuting them and someone has to be found guilty and severely punished.

How is he a fraud? Something thats pissed me off about this whole situation is that "Joe The Plumber" is a nobody private citizen who had the misfortune of having Senator Obama show up on his door step uninvited. He never claimed he was a Saint. He never even claimed that he didn't have money troubles in the past. He just asked Obama a simple question about his economic plan. Is it his fault that Obama stuck his foot in his mouth with the answer he gave?

There is no need to have accurate information on this guy. The only reason anyone has heard of him beyond this question is because the Obama Campaign was trying to draw attention away from the gaff he made about reading a text book answer from the Book of Socialism. So what do they do? They unjustly attack the man. These violations of the mans civil rights where undoubtedly made in a further effort to detract him, when he has done nothing at all to earn these attacks.

**Kilkrazy**

To enlarge on that reply, it was not an Obama campaign person who exposed the alleged Palin email issue, it was some college student who obviously opposes the Republicans, so we assume he is a Democrat supporter.

Alleged misuse of email by a high-ranking official is exactly the sort of bad government technique we might expect the press to look out for.

It was discovered by a student, however, and the timing of exposure was presumably politically motivated. And the student may get hung out to dry, to discourage other seekers after knowledge.

**djones520**

Kilkrazy wrote:To enlarge on that reply, it was not an Obama campaign person who exposed the alleged Palin email issue, it was some college student who obviously opposes the Republicans, so we assume he is a Democrat supporter.

Alleged misuse of email by a high-ranking official is exactly the sort of bad government technique we might expect the press to look out for.

It was discovered by a student, however, and the timing of exposure was presumably politically motivated. And the student may get hung out to dry, to discourage other seekers after knowledge.

The Palin email issue was caused by the son of a Kentucky State Representative (Democrat). And there was no misuse of email. No one was trying to expose wrongdoings. It was just a stupid partisan attack trying to humuliate Governer Palin.

**Kilkrazy**

djones520 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:No. I don't think either side had much to gain from exposing "Joe The Plumber" as a fraud who didn't pay his taxes, given that Obama responded positively to him as well as McCain.

However, it was most likely an Obama supporter who thought it would be a good move, since "Joe The Plumber" was kind of a Republican rallying cry. Considering the need for the public to have accurate information about what's really going in, perhaps they were right.

The point about witch-hunts is that the whole population gets caught up in prosecuting them and someone has to be found guilty and severely punished.

How is he a fraud? Something thats pissed me off about this whole situation is that "Joe The Plumber" is a nobody private citizen who had the misfortune of having Senator Obama show up on his door step uninvited. He never claimed he was a Saint. He never even claimed that he didn't have money troubles in the past. He just asked Obama a simple question about his economic plan. Is it his fault that Obama stuck his foot in his mouth with the answer he gave?

There is no need to have accurate information on this guy. The only reason anyone has heard of him beyond this question is because the Obama Campaign was trying to draw attention away from the gaff he made about reading a text book answer from the Book of Socialism. So what do they do? They unjustly attack the man. These violations of the mans civil rights where undoubtedly made in a further effort to detract him, when he has done nothing at all to earn these attacks.

Yes, fraud is too strong a word as it is usually reserved for criminal cases.

But this guy went on national TV and lied about his economic, professional and tax status in order to attack the candidate. I don't agree it was violation of his civil rights to look into his background. He made his background the core of the story. If he had been honest, there wouldn't be a problem.

We are used to politicians being "economical with the truth" and generally we criticize them for it. Should citizens behave the same?

**djones520**

Kilkrazy wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:No. I don't think either side had much to gain from exposing "Joe The Plumber" as a fraud who didn't pay his taxes, given that Obama responded positively to him as well as McCain.

However, it was most likely an Obama supporter who thought it would be a good move, since "Joe The Plumber" was kind of a Republican rallying cry. Considering the need for the public to have accurate information about what's really going in, perhaps they were right.

The point about witch-hunts is that the whole population gets caught up in prosecuting them and someone has to be found guilty and severely punished.

How is he a fraud? Something thats pissed me off about this whole situation is that "Joe The Plumber" is a nobody private citizen who had the misfortune of having Senator Obama show up on his door step uninvited. He never claimed he was a Saint. He never even claimed that he didn't have money troubles in the past. He just asked Obama a simple question about his economic plan. Is it his fault that Obama stuck his foot in his mouth with the answer he gave?

There is no need to have accurate information on this guy. The only reason anyone has heard of him beyond this question is because the Obama Campaign was trying to draw attention away from the gaff he made about reading a text book answer from the Book of Socialism. So what do they do? They unjustly attack the man. These violations of the mans civil rights where undoubtedly made in a further effort to detract him, when he has done nothing at all to earn these attacks.

Yes, fraud is too strong a word as it is usually reserved for criminal cases.

But this guy went on national TV and lied about his economic, professional and tax status in order to attack the candidate. I don't agree it was violation of his civil rights to look into his background. He made his background the core of the story. If he had been honest, there wouldn't be a problem.

We are used to politicians being "economical with the truth" and generally we criticize them for it. Should citizens behave the same?

Obviously something got lost in the story as it crossed the Atlantic. Information about his tax history and other stuff where made public long before Joe ever made a political public experience. As I posted, the only thing that Joe is guilty of in this situation is having Senator Obama feth his life over.

Edit: And whether or not you THINK it's a violation of his civil rights, it is. That information that was illegally accessed is protected by the Privacy Act of 1974. Accessing it from a protected source and without his permition is a Federal Offense.

**Kilkrazy**

How did whoever allegedly illegally exposed "Joe" know in advance that he was going to say what he did say?

**djones520**

Kilkrazy wrote:How did whoever allegedly illegally exposed "Joe" know in advance that he was going to say what he did say?

Ok... I'm going to walk you through what happened, so you can see it from your point of view.

You wake up in the morning, and start to get ready for work. Your drinking your coffee, and looking for your shoes when your doorbell rings. You go to open the door, and low and behold it's the Labour Candidate for Prime Minister at your door. He's doing a door to door walk asking people to vote for him. You both strike up small talk, and he asks you who you plan on voting for. You say your not sure, because you don't understand all the issues, and you wanted to ask him if he could clear something up about his economic policy. You mention that your planning on creating your own company, and that it can concievably earn enough money to enter the tax bracket that this candidate says will be shouldering the burden of your countries taxes. You say it doesn't make much sense to you why your going to be required to give more over, simply because you've worked your way up to be succesful.

So he gives you his answer. You think on it, shrug your shoulders, and say ok. He thanks you for your time, hopes you vote for him in the upcoming election, and moves onto the next door. You go about the rest of your day as normal, telling your friends who you got to talk to that morning, etc...

The next day, you get home from work, turn the TV on, sit down and open up the news paper. Low and behold, some editorial is written showing that you had tax issues in the past.

Does the situation make a little more sense to you now? Joe did not make any political statement. He didn't invite Obama to his house, didn't goad him into giving that answer. But as soon as Obama gave the answer, and it was caught on the camera's accompanying him, the spin machine went to work trying to defame and tear down Joe to draw attention away from the answer that Obama gave.

Obviously in some cases it worked.

**dogma**

Obama didn't screw him over. The McCain campaign did by putting him the public eye without actually checking the legitimacy of his position. All Joe the Plumber represents is the general ignorance required to support a Neocon tax position.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:Obama didn't screw him over. The McCain campaign did by putting him the public eye without actually checking the legitimacy of his position. All Joe the Plumber represents is the general ignorance required to support a Neocon tax position.

McCain didn't even mention Joe until the media had already begun printing the dirt, and Obama and Biden had both publicly on national TV mocked Joe.

**dogma**

It is disingenuous to presume that this was an ordered affair. All of the actors you mention were simultaneously (or as good as) aware of this little bit of information. McCain was simply slow to act. Most likely because he is running short on money and has to rely on the stump.

In any case, Joe deserved the 'mockery' he received. His position was not based on real data, but an ideologically inappropriate faith. He was not mocked by Obama and Biden, but corrected. There is a key difference. This would have quickly blown over if McCain had not tried to push Joe's, incredibly tenuous, position as representative of reality.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:It is disingenuous to presume that this was an ordered affair. All of the actors you mention were simultaneously (or as good as) aware of this little bit of information. McCain was simply slow to act. Most likely because he is running short on money and has to rely on the stump.

In any case, Joe deserved the 'mockery' he received. His position was not based on real data, but an ideologically inappropriate faith. He was not mocked by Obama and Biden, but corrected. There is a key difference. This would have quickly blown over if McCain had not tried to push Joe's, incredibly tenuous, position as representative of reality.

WHAT POSITION?! He asked a fricken question. THERE WAS NO POSITION!

"SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: He's trying to suggest that a plumber is the guy he's fighting for. How many plumbers do you know making a quarter million dollars a year?

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE), VICE-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: John continues to cling to the notion, the fact that this guy, Joe the plumber. I don't know how many Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year and are worried."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,441121,00.html

Thats a correction? Sure... yeah... can I have what your smoking? I guess mocking the American Dream is now a suitable campaign stance for Democratic Candidates.

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:

WHAT POSITION?! He asked a fricken question. THERE WAS NO POSITION!

"SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: He's trying to suggest that a plumber is the guy he's fighting for. How many plumbers do you know making a quarter million dollars a year?

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE), VICE-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: John continues to cling to the notion, the fact that this guy, Joe the plumber. I don't know how many Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year and are worried."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,441121,00.html

Thats a correction? Sure... yeah... can I have what your smoking? I guess mocking the American Dream is now a suitable campaign stance for Democratic Candidates.

Separate your self from your beliefs my man. The American Dream is a good thing; ambition drives progress. But when that dream is founded on faith, and not reality, it should be questioned. Joe was wrongheaded. His question was driven by the spirit of that wrongheadedness. This isn't mockery of the American Dream. This is mockery of collective American delusion.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:
djones520 wrote:

WHAT POSITION?! He asked a fricken question. THERE WAS NO POSITION!

"SEN. BARACK OBAMA (D-IL), PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: He's trying to suggest that a plumber is the guy he's fighting for. How many plumbers do you know making a quarter million dollars a year?

SEN. JOE BIDEN (D-DE), VICE-PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE: John continues to cling to the notion, the fact that this guy, Joe the plumber. I don't know how many Joe the plumbers in my neighborhood that make $250,000 a year and are worried."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,441121,00.html

Thats a correction? Sure... yeah... can I have what your smoking? I guess mocking the American Dream is now a suitable campaign stance for Democratic Candidates.

Separate your self from your beliefs my man. The American Dream is a good thing; ambition drives progress. But when that dream is founded on faith, and not reality, it should be questioned. Joe was wrongheaded. His question was driven by the spirit of that wrongheadedness. This isn't mockery of the American Dream. This is mockery of collective American delusion.

That "delusion" led to the most powerful nation that this world has ever known. It's what brought over millions of immigrants who brought talents and skills with them that made this nation what it is today. It's what still drives millions to come to our nation, while even those who claim to hate with every fiber in their body remain. And it's what I've spent the last 7 years defending with my life and what I'll spend the next 13 years defending.

That question was driven by Obama's own words, and his own economic plan. It was driven by the exact thing that is going to happen to 50% of our countries tax payers. What sense does it make for me to keep working? Why should I remain somehwere that is going to penalize me for being succesful?

Let me ask you something. Why do we need to increase taxes for anyone? The lower 50% of the countries economic base only pay for 5% of this nations taxes already, while at the same time reaping most of the benefits. Instead of jacking up the taxes on the people who already pay 50% of this nations taxes (those who make $250,000 a year), why not cut wasteful spending? Remove programs that have been proven not to work, and stop pork spending.

Or are you an advocate of continually throwing away our tax dollars at garbage?

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:
That "delusion" led to the most powerful nation that this world has ever known. It's what brought over millions of immigrants who brought talents and skills with them that made this nation what it is today. It's what still drives millions to come to our nation, while even those who claim to hate with every fiber in their body remain. And it's what I've spent the last 7 years defending with my life and what I'll spend the next 13 years defending.

That doesn't remove it from scrutiny.

djones520 wrote:
That question was driven by Obama's own words, and his own economic plan. It was driven by the exact thing that is going to happen to 50% of our countries tax payers. What sense does it make for me to keep working? Why should I remain somehwere that is going to penalize me for being succesful?

50%? Really? You think 50% of the people in this country make more than 250k a year? Do some research. Hell, I'll get you started. Either way, this isn't a punishment for success. You will still make more money by being successful. This is a recognition of the system which allows you to be successful.

djones520 wrote:
Let me ask you something. Why do we need to increase taxes for anyone? The lower 50% of the countries economic base only pay for 5% of this nations taxes already, while at the same time reaping most of the benefits. Instead of jacking up the taxes on the people who already pay 50% of this nations taxes (those who make $250,000 a year), why not cut wasteful spending? Remove programs that have been proven not to work, and stop pork spending.

Or are you an advocate of continually throwing away our tax dollars at garbage?

No. I'm an advocate of actually paying attention to statistics. Of course the top 5% pay 40% of the taxes. Their income, in the last 20 years, has risen by 50%. Everyone else's? Risen by 5%. The programs which have been "proven" as inefficient only appear that way because they are HORRIBLY underfunded. How do we change this? Raise our artificially low taxes. Of course that is the long view. In the short term we need to cut spending while redistributing the overall load. Both candidates will cut spending. Only Obama will affect significant reform to the tax code.

**djones520**

dogma wrote:

50%? Really? You think 50% of the people in this country make more than 250k a year? Do some research. Hell, I'll get you started. Either way, this isn't a punishment for success. You will still make more money by being successful. This is a recognition of the system which allows you to be successful.

No. I'm an advocate of actually paying attention to statistics. Of course the top 5% pay 40% of the taxes. Their income, in the last 20 years, has risen by 50%. Everyone else's? Risen by 5%. The programs which have been "proven" as inefficient only appear that way because they are HORRIBLY underfunded. How do we change this? Raise our artificially low taxes. Of course that is the long view. In the short term we need to cut spending while redistributing the overall load. Both candidates will cut spending. Only Obama will affect significant reform to the tax code.

1. You missread, that 50% is dollars, not people. 5% of this nation pays 50% of the taxes. And why don't you ask the people who are in that tax bracket, especially the majority of which are at that $250,000. Hell, I know a guy who only makes $100,000 a year, and he already pays 40% in taxes. That means he only brings home $60,000 a year out of what he earns. So what about those guys who go up higher on that scale and pay even more? I bet you'd be singing quite a differant tune if you where making $250,000 a year, giving 50% of it to the government, and are facing the prospect of giving more of it away.

2. And I'm not even going to bother touching this one. If you truly believe that he's going to cut spending when he's already proposed more then 1 trillion dollars in new projects, then there is not point continuing this discussion. He didn't earn the reputation as most Liberal Senator for voting to cut spending.

**dogma**

djones520 wrote:
1. You missread, that 50% is dollars, not people. 5% of this nation pays 50% of the taxes. And why don't you ask the people who are in that tax bracket, especially the majority of which are at that $250,000. Hell, I know a guy who only makes $100,000 a year, and he already pays 40% in taxes.

Yea, and he would pay less under Obama's plan. What are you trying to say?

Either way, 5% of the nation pays 50% of the taxes because they are disproportionately wealthy. You haven't disproved my point.

djones520 wrote:
That means he only brings home $60,000 a year out of what he earns. So what about those guys who go up higher on that scale and pay even more?

There is no direct connection between more money and more taxes. There are a great deal of other factors. For example, under the current (and McCain's proposed) system, the more money someone makes the more access they gain to tax credits. So the more you make, the less you pay.

djones520 wrote:
I bet you'd be singing quite a differant tune if you where making $250,000 a year, giving 50% of it to the government, and are facing the prospect of giving more of it away.

Probably, but that isn't what Obama is proposing.

djones520 wrote:
2. And I'm not even going to bother touching this one. If you truly believe that he's going to cut spending when he's already proposed more then 1 trillion dollars in new projects, then there is not point continuing this discussion. He didn't earn the reputation as most Liberal Senator for voting to cut spending.

You're right. He earned the reputation as the most liberal senator for suggesting we have a progressive tax system.

Either way, cutting spending doesn't entail a reduction of overall outlay. Its about re-appropriating funds to projects which are really useful. Projects like universal health care.

**AgeOfEgos**

djones520 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:No. I don't think either side had much to gain from exposing "Joe The Plumber" as a fraud who didn't pay his taxes, given that Obama responded positively to him as well as McCain.

However, it was most likely an Obama supporter who thought it would be a good move, since "Joe The Plumber" was kind of a Republican rallying cry. Considering the need for the public to have accurate information about what's really going in, perhaps they were right.

The point about witch-hunts is that the whole population gets caught up in prosecuting them and someone has to be found guilty and severely punished.

How is he a fraud? Something thats pissed me off about this whole situation is that "Joe The Plumber" is a nobody private citizen who had the misfortune of having Senator Obama show up on his door step uninvited. He never claimed he was a Saint. He never even claimed that he didn't have money troubles in the past. He just asked Obama a simple question about his economic plan. Is it his fault that Obama stuck his foot in his mouth with the answer he gave?

There is no need to have accurate information on this guy. The only reason anyone has heard of him beyond this question is because the Obama Campaign was trying to draw attention away from the gaff he made about reading a text book answer from the Book of Socialism. So what do they do? They unjustly attack the man. These violations of the mans civil rights where undoubtedly made in a further effort to detract him, when he has done nothing at all to earn these attacks.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=BRPbCSSXyp0

This is hardly accurate. He went to a rally and actively sought out Obama to ask him this question. What he didn't count on was receiving an 4 minute education on our marginal tax rate system and to be brought up by McCain during the debate. After his name came up so frequently during McCain stops (and the debate), it was only a matter of time before the media investigated.

The sad thing is, he would benefit more from Obama tax plan than McCains...even he managed to buy the business (which has been shown to gross less than 250k and is quite out of reach for this individual to purchase).

**malfred**

Joe's question relied on ethos, his character and authority as a plumber, to make
his case against Obama. While I don't think his privacy should be infringed, he should
still expect to have his character scrutinized since that was the brunt of his
appeal.

If he wanted to make his argument using the logic of the tax policy, then he could
have just as easily made it clear that the question was completely hypothetical.

**reds8n**

djones520 wrote:
That "delusion" led to the most powerful nation that this world has ever known.

Or are you an advocate of continually throwing away our tax dollars at garbage?

Props for correct usage of past tense there.

....Throwing away tax dollars needlessly ? Like in pointless wars overseas for example ?

**gorgon**

Reds8n, criticizing the war is something done only by dangerously liberal, anti-American socialists who don't support our troops. I can't stand the bunch. They're such extremist nutjobs.

A poll update...according to Pollster, Georgia may actually be in play. Boy, they're nothing but a bunch of socialists down there in the deep South.

**Chimera_Calvin**

@gorgon - why do so many people have trouble seperating support for troops and support for foreign policy decisions?

I come from a forces family in the UK. My brother served in Northern Ireland and in the first Gulf War. My father served, my Great Uncle served. My Grandfather served in World War I and won the Military Medal for gallantry (only a technicality prevented him earning a V.C., our highest honour, by the way).

I have always supported our troops (and for that matter, the troops of our allies).

None of this precludes me from thinking that the second Gulf War was a politically motivated mistake which has had an appaling cost in lives and has used valuable resources that could have been better spent in other theatres.

Back on topic, it will be interesting to see the fallout from this. I'd guess it will turn out to be some over-zealous officials in the relevent departments who thought that if this guy went on TV claiming he could earn $250k (that seems to be how its reported, anyway) then they'd better check to see if he owed them any money...

**CorporateLogo**

I believe his comment was made in sarcasm. Chalk it up to tone not working over the internet.

**malfred**

CorporateLogo wrote:I believe his comment was made in sarcasm. Chalk it up to tone not working over the internet.

Tone does carry, but we tend to use our speaking voices when we write on the Internet,
and we rely on the inner voice of dripping sarcasm when better written language would
communicate better.

At least, that's a theory.

Imagine how well A Modest Proposal would carry on the Internet. People would be
flaming the poor fellow from here to next Sunday if they couldn't read into his satire.
Of course, an equal number of people would probably be emailing him to join up, but
still!

**Chimera_Calvin**

mmm

apologies if I missed the sarcasm - just been hearing a lot of that lately that hasn't been sarcastic!

**gorgon**

Calvin, I would have thought the part about Georgians (the state, not the country) being a bunch of socialists woulda clued you in.

I too am tired of the "you're only patriotic if you follow the GOP talking points" B.S. But what do I know? I live outside an anti-American city in an anti-American state, according to Governor Palin. I mean really, what did Philadelphia (or Boston, another den of American-haters) ever have to do with the building of our country?

(Yeah, that's more sarcasm.)

**Chimera_Calvin**

Seriously, sorry about that mate.
No offence meant.

Unlike Palin, who seems to have the political equivalent of tourets most days...