www.newsbusters.org
CBS's Early Show Discredits 'The Real Joe the Plumber'
On Friday's CBS Early Show, correspondent Jeff Glor reported on the
role of Joe the plumber, a.k.a. Joe Wurzelbacher, in the presidential
campaign: "The McCain campaign is using Wurzelbacher to say their
opponent would raise taxes. Though it turns out, Wurzelbacher himself
owes nearly $1,200 in back taxes and his annual tax bill would
actually go down under Obama's plan." Glor then added: "Obama mocked
the McCain strategy." At the end of Glor's report, co-host Harry Smith
asked: "Yeah Jeff, we're starting to learn a little bit more about Joe/
Steven, the plumber?" Smith mistakenly referred to Wurzelbacher's
first name being Steven, when in fact it is Samuel, and he corrected
himself: "Samuel." Glor responded: "A couple of more things about Joe
the plumber -- Samuel, indeed. He is registered to vote. There were
some questions about that. He does not have a plumber's license,
though. And it turns out his real first name is Samuel. Joe is his
middle name." At that moment, an on screen Graphic appeared with the
headline: "The Real Joe the Plumber" and listed the details Glor
mentioned.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:24:31 -0700 (PDT), Michel
wrote:

www.newsbusters.org
CBS's Early Show Discredits 'The Real Joe the Plumber'
On Friday's CBS Early Show, correspondent Jeff Glor reported on the
role of Joe the plumber, a.k.a. Joe Wurzelbacher, in the presidential
campaign: "The McCain campaign is using Wurzelbacher to say their
opponent would raise taxes. Though it turns out, Wurzelbacher himself
owes nearly $1,200 in back taxes and his annual tax bill would
actually go down under Obama's plan." Glor then added: "Obama mocked
the McCain strategy." At the end of Glor's report, co-host Harry Smith
asked: "Yeah Jeff, we're starting to learn a little bit more about Joe/
Steven, the plumber?" Smith mistakenly referred to Wurzelbacher's
first name being Steven, when in fact it is Samuel, and he corrected
himself: "Samuel." Glor responded: "A couple of more things about Joe
the plumber -- Samuel, indeed. He is registered to vote. There were
some questions about that. He does not have a plumber's license,
though. And it turns out his real first name is Samuel. Joe is his
middle name." At that moment, an on screen Graphic appeared with the
headline: "The Real Joe the Plumber" and listed the details Glor
mentioned.

I will repost the below with an additional sentence.

When you can't paint yourself out of a corner ( "we need to
redistribute the wealth" ) The last resort is to attack the victim.

This is exactly what the Obama campaign including parts of the
media are doing now. It makes no difference if Joe in licensed or
not. It makes no difference if Joe has a unpaid tax bill. It makes no
difference if Joe only makes $42,000 a year. It makes no difference
if Joe is Samuel's middle name. Joe's question was hypothetical, yet
the Obama campaign is twisting this to the public by saying that
plumbers don't make $250,000 a year. In reality Joe truly is the
average Joe. Yet he is attacked?

It looks like this Obamanation is exactly what we have to look forward
to.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:24:31 -0700 (PDT), Michel
wrote:

www.newsbusters.org
CBS's Early Show Discredits 'The Real Joe the Plumber'
On Friday's CBS Early Show, correspondent Jeff Glor reported on the
role of Joe the plumber, a.k.a. Joe Wurzelbacher, in the presidential
campaign: "The McCain campaign is using Wurzelbacher to say their
opponent would raise taxes. Though it turns out, Wurzelbacher himself
owes nearly $1,200 in back taxes and his annual tax bill would
actually go down under Obama's plan." Glor then added: "Obama mocked
the McCain strategy." At the end of Glor's report, co-host Harry Smith
asked: "Yeah Jeff, we're starting to learn a little bit more about Joe/
Steven, the plumber?" Smith mistakenly referred to Wurzelbacher's
first name being Steven, when in fact it is Samuel, and he corrected
himself: "Samuel." Glor responded: "A couple of more things about Joe
the plumber -- Samuel, indeed. He is registered to vote. There were
some questions about that. He does not have a plumber's license,
though. And it turns out his real first name is Samuel. Joe is his
middle name." At that moment, an on screen Graphic appeared with the
headline: "The Real Joe the Plumber" and listed the details Glor
mentioned.

I will repost the below with an additional sentence.

When you can't paint yourself out of a corner ( "we need to
redistribute the wealth" ) The last resort is to attack the victim.

This is exactly what the Obama campaign including parts of the
media are doing now. It makes no difference if Joe in licensed or
not. It makes no difference if Joe has a unpaid tax bill. It makes no
difference if Joe only makes $42,000 a year. It makes no difference
if Joe is Samuel's middle name. Joe's question was hypothetical, yet
the Obama campaign is twisting this to the public by saying that
plumbers don't make $250,000 a year. In reality Joe truly is the
average Joe. Yet he is attacked?

It looks like this Obamanation is exactly what we have to look forward
to.


I don't think Obama could possibly be much worse than what we have had. I
for one am willing to take the risk if McCain /Palin is the alternative.
I'll admit "spread the wealth" is a bonehead thing to say but not as bad as
"Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran".

As far a attacking Joe. Exactly what is Biden or Obama saying that isn't
true or is upsetting you?

Remember it was McCain who put him in the spot light.

olddog

wrote:

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:24:31 -0700 (PDT), Michel
wrote:



www.newsbusters.org
CBS's Early Show Discredits 'The Real Joe the Plumber'
On Friday's CBS Early Show, correspondent Jeff Glor reported on the
role of Joe the plumber, a.k.a. Joe Wurzelbacher, in the presidential
campaign: "The McCain campaign is using Wurzelbacher to say their
opponent would raise taxes. Though it turns out, Wurzelbacher himself
owes nearly $1,200 in back taxes and his annual tax bill would
actually go down under Obama's plan." Glor then added: "Obama mocked
the McCain strategy." At the end of Glor's report, co-host Harry Smith
asked: "Yeah Jeff, we're starting to learn a little bit more about Joe/
Steven, the plumber?" Smith mistakenly referred to Wurzelbacher's
first name being Steven, when in fact it is Samuel, and he corrected
himself: "Samuel." Glor responded: "A couple of more things about Joe
the plumber -- Samuel, indeed. He is registered to vote. There were
some questions about that. He does not have a plumber's license,
though. And it turns out his real first name is Samuel. Joe is his
middle name." At that moment, an on screen Graphic appeared with the
headline: "The Real Joe the Plumber" and listed the details Glor
mentioned.



I will repost the below with an additional sentence.

When you can't paint yourself out of a corner ( "we need to
redistribute the wealth" ) The last resort is to attack the victim.

This is exactly what the Obama campaign including parts of the
media are doing now. It makes no difference if Joe in licensed or
not. It makes no difference if Joe has a unpaid tax bill. It makes no
difference if Joe only makes $42,000 a year. It makes no difference
if Joe is Samuel's middle name. Joe's question was hypothetical, yet
the Obama campaign is twisting this to the public by saying that
plumbers don't make $250,000 a year. In reality Joe truly is the
average Joe. Yet he is attacked?

It looks like this Obamanation is exactly what we have to look forward
to.




I don't want an endless political argument, but how has the Obama
campaign "discredited" the
guy? Local media, with help from union, I believe, pointed out the the
guy didn't have a
license and that some parts of the locale (township vs. county vs.
city?) do require
a license. Media pointed out that Joe/Sam alleged that he could work
without his own
license as long as his employer was licensed. Seems like media just
followed the story
and filled out the truth......or was it a plot to find a pooor guy
working without license
to show how dishonest the opposition was? Sometimes the truth hurts )

Good way to steer media away from McSame's plan to tax employer-paid
health insurance?

retired54 wrote:

wrote in message
.. .


On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:24:31 -0700 (PDT), Michel
wrote:



www.newsbusters.org
CBS's Early Show Discredits 'The Real Joe the Plumber'
On Friday's CBS Early Show, correspondent Jeff Glor reported on the
role of Joe the plumber, a.k.a. Joe Wurzelbacher, in the presidential
campaign: "The McCain campaign is using Wurzelbacher to say their
opponent would raise taxes. Though it turns out, Wurzelbacher himself
owes nearly $1,200 in back taxes and his annual tax bill would
actually go down under Obama's plan." Glor then added: "Obama mocked
the McCain strategy." At the end of Glor's report, co-host Harry Smith
asked: "Yeah Jeff, we're starting to learn a little bit more about Joe/
Steven, the plumber?" Smith mistakenly referred to Wurzelbacher's
first name being Steven, when in fact it is Samuel, and he corrected
himself: "Samuel." Glor responded: "A couple of more things about Joe
the plumber -- Samuel, indeed. He is registered to vote. There were
some questions about that. He does not have a plumber's license,
though. And it turns out his real first name is Samuel. Joe is his
middle name." At that moment, an on screen Graphic appeared with the
headline: "The Real Joe the Plumber" and listed the details Glor
mentioned.


I will repost the below with an additional sentence.

When you can't paint yourself out of a corner ( "we need to
redistribute the wealth" ) The last resort is to attack the victim.

This is exactly what the Obama campaign including parts of the
media are doing now. It makes no difference if Joe in licensed or
not. It makes no difference if Joe has a unpaid tax bill. It makes no
difference if Joe only makes $42,000 a year. It makes no difference
if Joe is Samuel's middle name. Joe's question was hypothetical, yet
the Obama campaign is twisting this to the public by saying that
plumbers don't make $250,000 a year. In reality Joe truly is the
average Joe. Yet he is attacked?

It looks like this Obamanation is exactly what we have to look forward
to.




I don't think Obama could possibly be much worse than what we have had. I
for one am willing to take the risk if McCain /Palin is the alternative.
I'll admit "spread the wealth" is a bonehead thing to say but not as bad as
"Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran".

As far a attacking Joe. Exactly what is Biden or Obama saying that isn't
true or is upsetting you?

Remember it was McCain who put him in the spot light.

olddog




I'll grant that Obama used a hot-button term to address the tax issue -
what government benefit doesn't
"spread the wealth"? Hell, even military housing probably is paid for
by lots of folks with less income than
the benefactors. Which reminds me ..... John McCain has lived his
entire life with govt. benefits, right?
Govt. housing and healthcare? Less expensive groceries at commissary?
Free healthcare as member
of congress, along with a huge pension when he leaves?

My taxes just went/are going to bail out a bunch of fat cats who will
turn around and make a killing
in the stock market, along with a whole host of people just plain too
irresponsible to read their
mortgages or adhere to a reasonable budget.

As far a attacking Joe. Exactly what is Biden or Obama saying that isn't
true or is upsetting you?

Obama suggested at a rally that Joe was untruthful because he didn't
make $250,000 a year. Obama clearly knew that Joe was speaking about
the possibility of making that kind of money, but Obama decided to
slanderJoe as untruthful.

Biden on Leno's show mocked Joe as being less important than a
firefighter. less important than a policeman, and less important
than a LICENSED plumber. He emphasized the word licensed in an
attempt to discount Joe as anyone who should be listened to.

Remember it was McCain who put him in the spot light.

olddog

I don't want an endless political argument, but how has the Obama
campaign "discredited" the
guy? Local media, with help from union, I believe, pointed out the the
guy didn't have a
license and that some parts of the locale (township vs. county vs.
city?) do require
a license.

That's not true. If you are an employee of a licensed plumber you do
not need a license to perform plumbing work. The work is then bought
off by the licensed plumber, his boss.

Media pointed out that Joe/Sam alleged that he could work
without his own
license as long as his employer was licensed. Seems like media just
followed the story
and filled out the truth......or was it a plot to find a pooor guy
working without license
to show how dishonest the opposition was? Sometimes the truth hurts )

It's all an attempt to discredit him. The same way a defense attorney
tries to discredit the victim of a crime.

Good way to steer media away from McSame's plan to tax employer-paid
health insurance?

As far a attacking Joe. Exactly what is Biden or Obama saying that isn't
true or is upsetting you?


Obama asking the crowd how many plumber do you know that
make $250,000 a year:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbukEk8JBTY

Biden discounting a unlicensed plumber:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_u8vyZQwrnw

wrote in message
...

As far a attacking Joe. Exactly what is Biden or Obama saying that isn't
true or is upsetting you?

Obama suggested at a rally that Joe was untruthful because he didn't
make $250,000 a year. Obama clearly knew that Joe was speaking about
the possibility of making that kind of money, but Obama decided to
slanderJoe as untruthful.

Biden on Leno's show mocked Joe as being less important than a
firefighter. less important than a policeman, and less important
than a LICENSED plumber. He emphasized the word licensed in an
attempt to discount Joe as anyone who should be listened to.

Remember it was McCain who put him in the spot light.

olddog


I didn't see any of those so I can't judge. Biden can be a little loose with
the lips and as I said Obama made a bonehead remark.

It's been a long campaign. Both camps have said and done things they'd like
to take back.

I wouldn't say that Obama "slandered" Joe. You might need to look up the
term slander.

Biden and Obama were just pointing out the facts. That's not slander.

Look. If it were that bad I'd agree with you but this just amounts to a
bunch of political tricks disguising the fact that McCain is losing and
getting more and more desperate resorting to Karl Rove campaign tactics. The
guy will do anything to get elected and that is one of the reasons he lost
my vote. He's going to be remembered as a sad desperate man. He needs to get
his dignity back.

olddog

I wouldn't say that Obama "slandered" Joe. You might need to look up the
term slander.

I did. I stand by the word slander.

Biden and Obama were just pointing out the facts. That's not slander.

Facts like Joe's real name is Sam? Facts like Joe only makes $42,000
a year? Facts like Joe doesn't have a license? Yes, they are all
facts, but they are facts that have no relevance unless you are
trying to mask the real issue by discrediting Joe. The real issue is
what Joe brought up with his original question. The question that
Obama wished he could of had a better answer to.

wrote in message
...

I wouldn't say that Obama "slandered" Joe. You might need to look up the
term slander.

I did. I stand by the word slander.

Biden and Obama were just pointing out the facts. That's not slander.

Facts like Joe's real name is Sam? Facts like Joe only makes $42,000
a year? Facts like Joe doesn't have a license? Yes, they are all
facts,

Look up slaunder.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slander

It has to be "false".

olddog

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 10:24:31 -0700, Michel wrote:

If your going to use "Google" to post do an elementary search first with
it.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q...earch&aq=f&oq=

Facts like Joe's real name is Sam? Facts like Joe only makes $42,000
a year? Facts like Joe doesn't have a license? Yes, they are all
facts,

Look up slaunder.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slander

It has to be "false".

olddog

So when I say hypothetically.... olddog leads me to believe
that he mugs old ladies and takes lolly pops away from kids.
According to you this is not slander because I was able to make
a false claim by the use of the truth disclaimer "leads me to believe"
that makes the actual statement true.

It's still slander. The Intent is still there.

wrote in message
...

Facts like Joe's real name is Sam? Facts like Joe only makes $42,000
a year? Facts like Joe doesn't have a license? Yes, they are all
facts,

Look up slaunder.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slander

It has to be "false".

olddog

So when I say hypothetically.... olddog leads me to believe
that he mugs old ladies and takes lolly pops away from kids.
According to you this is not slander because I was able to make
a false claim by the use of the truth disclaimer "leads me to believe"
that makes the actual statement true.

It's still slander. The Intent is still there.

never mind

retired54 wrote:

I don't think Obama could possibly be much worse than what we have
had. I for one am willing to take the risk if McCain /Palin is the
alternative. I'll admit "spread the wealth" is a bonehead thing to
say but not as bad as "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran".


Uh, nobody's said 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." But even if they did, what's
wrong with bombing Iran? It's better than bombing Albany.


As far a attacking Joe. Exactly what is Biden or Obama saying that
isn't true or is upsetting you?

Remember it was McCain who put him in the spot light.


Uh, no. Joe the Plumber was on every network in the land before McCain said
a word. Same as "... they cling to their religion and guns..."

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slander

It has to be "false".

olddog

So when I say hypothetically.... olddog leads me to believe
that he mugs old ladies and takes lolly pops away from kids.
According to you this is not slander because I was able to make
a false claim by the use of the truth disclaimer "leads me to believe"
that makes the actual statement true.

It's still slander. The Intent is still there.

never mind

The point is you can use facts to slander.

An example of Obama to Joe:
Someone should tell Joe that cocaine use is illegal in all 50 states.

retired54 wrote:
wrote in message
...

I wouldn't say that Obama "slandered" Joe. You might need to look
up the term slander.

I did. I stand by the word slander.

Biden and Obama were just pointing out the facts. That's not
slander.

Facts like Joe's real name is Sam? Facts like Joe only makes $42,000
a year? Facts like Joe doesn't have a license? Yes, they are all
facts,

Look up slaunder.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slander

It has to be "false".


Okay, somebody possibly misspoke (not unheard-of in a political season).
Substitute "vilification," "calumny," or violation of privacy. The latter is
a tort, even if true, when it holds the a private person up to defamation or
contempt.

wrote:
Facts like Joe's real name is Sam? Facts like Joe only makes $42,000
a year? Facts like Joe doesn't have a license? Yes, they are all
facts,

Look up slaunder.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slander

It has to be "false".

olddog

So when I say hypothetically.... olddog leads me to believe
that he mugs old ladies and takes lolly pops away from kids.
According to you this is not slander because I was able to make
a false claim by the use of the truth disclaimer "leads me to believe"
that makes the actual statement true.

It's still slander. The Intent is still there.

No, sorry. An "opinion" can never be slander or libel. Only when the
utterance is held out to be a fact (or perceived by a reasonable person to
be a fact), does the law of torts latch in (of course there ARE exceptions).
Further, an utterance can be slander even if the intent was to praise the
subject.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
...
retired54 wrote:

I don't think Obama could possibly be much worse than what we have
had. I for one am willing to take the risk if McCain /Palin is the
alternative. I'll admit "spread the wealth" is a bonehead thing to
say but not as bad as "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb, Iran".


Uh, nobody's said 'bomb, bomb, bomb Iran." But even if they did, what's
wrong with bombing Iran? It's better than bombing Albany.


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

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeThckstKNE&NR=1

BTW: Thanks for bringing that up. I almost forgot what an "huge" idiot
McCain is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Why_We_Fight_(2005_film)

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/in...Eugene-Jarecki

may take awhile to load.

olddog

"There are only two types of republicans: millionaires and fools."

Michel wrote:
www.nebusters.org
CBS's Early Show Discredits 'The Real Joe the Plumber'


We don't need "Joe" to know that taxes will rise if Obama is elected.
We all know Warren Buffet is a shrewd businessman and has come out as a
Obama supporter. Ask yourself why a capitalist would support a
socialist. Consider that Buffetts' main business is insurance.

It is because insurance companies benefit during high tax periods
because people put their money in insurance to shelter it from estate
taxes.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
retired54 wrote:
wrote in message
...

I wouldn't say that Obama "slandered" Joe. You might need to look
up the term slander.

I did. I stand by the word slander.

Biden and Obama were just pointing out the facts. That's not
slander.

Facts like Joe's real name is Sam? Facts like Joe only makes $42,000
a year? Facts like Joe doesn't have a license? Yes, they are all
facts,

Look up slaunder.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slander

It has to be "false".


Okay, somebody possibly misspoke (not unheard-of in a political season).
Substitute "vilification," "calumny," or violation of privacy. The latter
is a tort, even if true, when it holds the a private person up to
defamation or contempt.

You must be a lawyer or something. :-)

I took a course in contract law a long time ago(1980) and we covered some
tort law. I enjoyed it. I wish I had pursued it.

olddog

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:38:14 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

wrote:
Facts like Joe's real name is Sam? Facts like Joe only makes $42,000
a year? Facts like Joe doesn't have a license? Yes, they are all
facts,

Look up slaunder.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slander

It has to be "false".

olddog

So when I say hypothetically.... olddog leads me to believe
that he mugs old ladies and takes lolly pops away from kids.
According to you this is not slander because I was able to make
a false claim by the use of the truth disclaimer "leads me to believe"
that makes the actual statement true.

It's still slander. The Intent is still there.

No, sorry. An "opinion" can never be slander or libel. Only when the
utterance is held out to be a fact (or perceived by a reasonable person to
be a fact), does the law of torts latch in (of course there ARE exceptions).
Further, an utterance can be slander even if the intent was to praise the
subject.

In my opinion...The mugging statement if turned into an offense
more real world would be perceived by a reasonable person to
be a fact.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:35:25 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

retired54 wrote:
wrote in message
...

I wouldn't say that Obama "slandered" Joe. You might need to look
up the term slander.

I did. I stand by the word slander.

Biden and Obama were just pointing out the facts. That's not
slander.

Facts like Joe's real name is Sam? Facts like Joe only makes $42,000
a year? Facts like Joe doesn't have a license? Yes, they are all
facts,

Look up slaunder.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slander

It has to be "false".


Okay, somebody possibly misspoke (not unheard-of in a political season).
Substitute "vilification," "calumny," or violation of privacy. The latter is
a tort, even if true, when it holds the a private person up to defamation or
contempt.

When I use the term slander I am not using it in the sense of what
would make a good court case but rather a more generic meaning
of defaming, discrediting, or disgracing.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 15:35:25 -0500, "HeyBub"
wrote:

retired54 wrote:
wrote in message
...

I wouldn't say that Obama "slandered" Joe. You might need to look
up the term slander.

I did. I stand by the word slander.

Biden and Obama were just pointing out the facts. That's not
slander.

Facts like Joe's real name is Sam? Facts like Joe only makes $42,000
a year? Facts like Joe doesn't have a license? Yes, they are all
facts,

Look up slaunder.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/slander

It has to be "false".


Okay, somebody possibly misspoke (not unheard-of in a political season).
Substitute "vilification," "calumny," or violation of privacy. The latter
is
a tort, even if true, when it holds the a private person up to defamation
or
contempt.

When I use the term slander I am not using it in the sense of what
would make a good court case but rather a more generic meaning
of defaming, discrediting, or disgracing.

You used your own definition of slander and we called you on it. In doing
so; you committed slander. Don't worry; nobody cares.

olddog

When I use the term slander I am not using it in the sense of what
would make a good court case but rather a more generic meaning
of defaming, discrediting, or disgracing.

You used your own definition of slander and we called you on it. In doing
so; you committed slander. Don't worry; nobody cares.

olddog

The word slander isn't exclusively a legal term.

wrote in message
...

When I use the term slander I am not using it in the sense of what
would make a good court case but rather a more generic meaning
of defaming, discrediting, or disgracing.

You used your own definition of slander and we called you on it. In doing
so; you committed slander. Don't worry; nobody cares.

olddog

The word slander isn't exclusively a legal term.

look up slander

On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:17:34 GMT, "retired54" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .

When I use the term slander I am not using it in the sense of what
would make a good court case but rather a more generic meaning
of defaming, discrediting, or disgracing.

You used your own definition of slander and we called you on it. In doing
so; you committed slander. Don't worry; nobody cares.

olddog

The word slander isn't exclusively a legal term.

look up slander

From Merriam- Webster

1. to utter slander against : Defame
2. Malign
*********************************
From Dictionary Reference

1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander
against his good name.
3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures,
etc.
–verb (used with object) 4. to utter slander against; defame.
–verb (used without object) 5. to utter or circulate slander.
***************************************
As I said, the word slander is not exclusively a legal term.

wrote in message
...
On Tue, 21 Oct 2008 21:17:34 GMT, "retired54" wrote:


wrote in message
. ..

When I use the term slander I am not using it in the sense of what
would make a good court case but rather a more generic meaning
of defaming, discrediting, or disgracing.

You used your own definition of slander and we called you on it. In
doing
so; you committed slander. Don't worry; nobody cares.

olddog

The word slander isn't exclusively a legal term.

look up slander

From Merriam- Webster

1. to utter slander against : Defame
2. Malign
*********************************
From Dictionary Reference

1. defamation; calumny: rumors full of slander.
2. a malicious, false, and defamatory statement or report: a slander
against his good name.
3. Law. defamation by oral utterance rather than by writing, pictures,
etc.
-verb (used with object) 4. to utter slander against; defame.
-verb (used without object) 5. to utter or circulate slander.
***************************************
As I said, the word slander is not exclusively a legal term.

never mind

George wrote:
Michel wrote:
www.nebusters.org
CBS's Early Show Discredits 'The Real Joe the Plumber'


We don't need "Joe" to know that taxes will rise if Obama is
elected.
We all know Warren Buffet is a shrewd businessman and has come out
as
a Obama supporter. Ask yourself why a capitalist would support a
socialist. Consider that Buffetts' main business is insurance.

It is because insurance companies benefit during high tax periods
because people put their money in insurance to shelter it from
estate
taxes.

Joe seems to have some capability to engage in home repair. I have
seen no indication that either Obama or Buffet have such capability.
So why are they relevant to home repair?

Oh, to Hell with it. I thought I could get by with just killfiling
them for a couple of groups but I guess I have to killfile "Obama",
"McCain", "Palin", and "Biden" for all my USENET access.

--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in
:

George wrote:
Michel wrote:
www.nebusters.org
CBS's Early Show Discredits 'The Real Joe the Plumber'


We don't need "Joe" to know that taxes will rise if Obama is
elected.
We all know Warren Buffet is a shrewd businessman and has come out
as
a Obama supporter. Ask yourself why a capitalist would support a
socialist. Consider that Buffetts' main business is insurance.

It is because insurance companies benefit during high tax periods
because people put their money in insurance to shelter it from
estate
taxes.

Joe seems to have some capability to engage in home repair. I have
seen no indication that either Obama or Buffet have such capability.
So why are they relevant to home repair?

Oh, to Hell with it. I thought I could get by with just killfiling
them for a couple of groups but I guess I have to killfile "Obama",
"McCain", "Palin", and "Biden" for all my USENET access.


there's nothing to stop you from passing over the undesired posts.
Or you could use a filter.

some folks want to know the positions/opinions of others on the
newsgroup,that's all.

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

retired54 wrote:
..

You must be a lawyer or something. :-)

I took a course in contract law a long time ago(1980) and we covered
some tort law. I enjoyed it. I wish I had pursued it.


If you enjoyed "contracts" (the most stultifying, boring, and sleep-inducing
law course there is), you'll LOVE torts (the second-most death-inducing law
course).

On second thought, tax law is awful boring (tax lawyers are called
"loose-leaf" lawyers because the law books are kept in three-ring binders
since tax laws change daily). Federal Procedure is ether in book form
Criminal Law is fun. Conflicts of Laws (you must do this but you can't do
this) is fun. Admiralty is fun. Probate sucks. Property double-sucks.
Domestic Relations is a hoot.

All in all, law school is entertaining, primarily because six out of ten law
students are girls.

:

( "we need to redistribute the wealth" )

You mean like increasing middle class taxes while increasing corporate tax
breaks. I love how portions of the middle class are so concerned that the
rich are paying too much in taxes, that is some damn fine brainwashing.

George:

We don't need "Joe" to know that taxes will rise if Obama is elected.

We have an 11 Trillion dollar deficit. Any candidate that claims they
won't raise taxes is lying. At least Obama is honest enough to admit he
will raise taxes, abeit on the wealthiest who have benefited immensely btw
from the war in Iraq and who have just received a huge government bailout,
its time they pay their due.

"HeyBub" wrote in message
m...
retired54 wrote:
.

You must be a lawyer or something. :-)

I took a course in contract law a long time ago(1980) and we covered
some tort law. I enjoyed it. I wish I had pursued it.


If you enjoyed "contracts" (the most stultifying, boring, and
sleep-inducing law course there is), you'll LOVE torts (the second-most
death-inducing law course).


hah! well since my major was business mgt it was a pleasant diversion.

I hated school and could hardly wait to get out. Turned out to be a waste of
time.

On second thought, tax law is awful boring (tax lawyers are called
"loose-leaf" lawyers because the law books are kept in three-ring binders
since tax laws change daily). Federal Procedure is ether in book form
Criminal Law is fun. Conflicts of Laws (you must do this but you can't do
this) is fun. Admiralty is fun. Probate sucks. Property double-sucks.
Domestic Relations is a hoot.

All in all, law school is entertaining, primarily because six out of ten
law students are girls.

:-)

On 22 Oct 2008 03:04:46 GMT, Mac Cool wrote:
:

( "we need to redistribute the wealth" )

You mean like increasing middle class taxes while increasing corporate tax
breaks. I love how portions of the middle class are so concerned that the
rich are paying too much in taxes, that is some damn fine brainwashing.

Gotta love that trickle down economic theory. Funny how those who benefit
the most do nothing to share their wealth in the U.S.

"Mac Cool" wrote in message
...
:

( "we need to redistribute the wealth" )

You mean like increasing middle class taxes while increasing corporate tax
breaks. I love how portions of the middle class are so concerned that the
rich are paying too much in taxes, that is some damn fine brainwashing.


Corporations don't pay taxes, their customers do.

What we really need is lower taxes, so the economy can flourish. Raising
taxes any further will destroy the economy. Look, also, at cutting federal
spending.

Lets look at who voted for the bailout. How about Oh Bomb Us, did he vote
yay or nay?

--
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..


"Mac Cool" wrote in message
...
George:

We don't need "Joe" to know that taxes will rise if Obama is elected.

We have an 11 Trillion dollar deficit. Any candidate that claims they
won't raise taxes is lying. At least Obama is honest enough to admit he
will raise taxes, abeit on the wealthiest who have benefited immensely btw
from the war in Iraq and who have just received a huge government bailout,
its time they pay their due.

Mac Cool wrote in
:

George:

We don't need "Joe" to know that taxes will rise if Obama is elected.

We have an 11 Trillion dollar deficit. Any candidate that claims they
won't raise taxes is lying. At least Obama is honest enough to admit
he will raise taxes, abeit on the wealthiest who have benefited
immensely btw from the war in Iraq and who have just received a huge
government bailout, its time they pay their due.


Obama and "honest" should not be used in the same sentence.

(Re;campaign donations,and many other lies)

--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
kua.net

"AZ Nomad" wrote in message
...
On 22 Oct 2008 03:04:46 GMT, Mac Cool wrote:
:

( "we need to redistribute the wealth" )

You mean like increasing middle class taxes while increasing corporate tax
breaks. I love how portions of the middle class are so concerned that the
rich are paying too much in taxes, that is some damn fine brainwashing.

Gotta love that trickle down economic theory. Funny how those who benefit
the most do nothing to share their wealth in the U.S.

Seen in a sig line:

There are two types of Republicans. Millionares and Dupes.

"Stormin Mormon" wrote in message
...
What we really need is lower taxes, so the economy can flourish. Raising
taxes any further will destroy the economy.

There's the good old Republican fantasy. Paying the bills will destroy the
economy.

Everyone should live by that standard.