jsteele wrote:http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2014/02/18/Joe-the-Plumber-says-he-s-in-UAW.html

Joe the Plumber is a union man now. But, he got called a "tea bagger" during his first week on the job so he is a little sad. Also, he opposed the government bailout of Chrysler and GM, but now works for Chrysler. Good thing Obama saved it for him.

Since Joe is neither a plumber nor named Joe, maybe we should start calling him Sam the Union Man?

Anonymous wrote:

I think "Joe the Plumber" is a not very bright guy who was thrust into the public eye and was clearly not capable of handling it. Making fun of him seem a bit mean. He si not really a public figure, but was taken advantage of by the GOP. Let it go.

Spoken by an elitist liberal who misses the point that a "regular Joe" got Obama to say what he really meant to do when reporters didn't.

I think "Joe the Plumber" is a not very bright guy who was thrust into the public eye and was clearly not capable of handling it. Making fun of him seem a bit mean. He si not really a public figure, but was taken advantage of by the GOP. Let it go.

jsteele wrote:http://www.toledoblade.com/Politics/2014/02/18/Joe-the-Plumber-says-he-s-in-UAW.html

Joe the Plumber is a union man now. But, he got called a "tea bagger" during his first week on the job so he is a little sad. Also, he opposed the government bailout of Chrysler and GM, but now works for Chrysler. Good thing Obama saved it for him.

Since Joe is neither a plumber nor named Joe, maybe we should start calling him Sam the Union Man?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We're faulting him for being a complete hypocrite.

I'm a conservative who is a little disturbed by this. Of course, if you want to talk hypocrisy I could give some pretty good examples, too.

I am a conservative as well, but I don't have a problem with this. He needs to work. He needs to pay his bills and feed his family. This is a job. He is happy to be employed. He has no choice but to join the union. Here is his full message: http://joeforamerica.com/2014/02/can-conservative-work-union-shop/

Please see the earlier post that clarifies the law on this subject. He is not required to join the union. However, he can be required to pay a fair share of the cost of representing him. This fee does not include union activities he may find objectionable due to his political beliefs. Presumably he is happy to accept the pay and benefits the UAW negotiates for him.

In his posting, this is what he said:
"In order to work for Chrysler, you are required to join the Union, in this case UAW. There’s no choice – it’s a union shop – the employee’s voted to have it that way and in America that’s the way it is."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We're faulting him for being a complete hypocrite.

I'm a conservative who is a little disturbed by this. Of course, if you want to talk hypocrisy I could give some pretty good examples, too.

I am a conservative as well, but I don't have a problem with this. He needs to work. He needs to pay his bills and feed his family. This is a job. He is happy to be employed. He has no choice but to join the union. Here is his full message: http://joeforamerica.com/2014/02/can-conservative-work-union-shop/

Please see the earlier post that clarifies the law on this subject. He is not required to join the union. However, he can be required to pay a fair share of the cost of representing him. This fee does not include union activities he may find objectionable due to his political beliefs. Presumably he is happy to accept the pay and benefits the UAW negotiates for him.

In his posting, this is what he said:
"In order to work for Chrysler, you are required to join the Union, in this case UAW. There’s no choice – it’s a union shop – the employee’s voted to have it that way and in America that’s the way it is."

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We're faulting him for being a complete hypocrite.

I'm a conservative who is a little disturbed by this. Of course, if you want to talk hypocrisy I could give some pretty good examples, too.

I am a conservative as well, but I don't have a problem with this. He needs to work. He needs to pay his bills and feed his family. This is a job. He is happy to be employed. He has no choice but to join the union. Here is his full message: http://joeforamerica.com/2014/02/can-conservative-work-union-shop/

Please see the earlier post that clarifies the law on this subject. He is not required to join the union. However, he can be required to pay a fair share of the cost of representing him. This fee does not include union activities he may find objectionable due to his political beliefs. Presumably he is happy to accept the pay and benefits the UAW negotiates for him.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We're faulting him for being a complete hypocrite.

I'm a conservative who is a little disturbed by this. Of course, if you want to talk hypocrisy I could give some pretty good examples, too.

I am a conservative as well, but I don't have a problem with this. He needs to work. He needs to pay his bills and feed his family. This is a job. He is happy to be employed. He has no choice but to join the union. Here is his full message: http://joeforamerica.com/2014/02/can-conservative-work-union-shop/

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

We're faulting him for being a complete hypocrite.

I'm a conservative who is a little disturbed by this. Of course, if you want to talk hypocrisy I could give some pretty good examples, too.

I am a conservative as well, but I don't have a problem with this. He needs to work. He needs to pay his bills and feed his family. This is a job. He is happy to be employed. He has no choice but to join the union. Here is his full message: http://joeforamerica.com/2014/02/can-conservative-work-union-shop/

Anonymous wrote:

We're faulting him for being a complete hypocrite.

I'm a conservative who is a little disturbed by this. Of course, if you want to talk hypocrisy I could give some pretty good examples, too.

Anonymous wrote:

We're faulting him for being a complete hypocrite.

I'm a conservative who is a little disturbed by this. Of course, if you want to talk hypocrisy I could give some pretty good examples, too.

We're faulting him for being a complete hypocrite.

I had three days of orientation, and now I’m “on the job” over here at Chrysler and on Day 4, I’m outside on a break smoking a cigarette and right on cue – some guy calls me a “teabagger.
Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention that Democrats and liberals, who are supposed to so tolerant and enlightened regarding homosexuals have for three or four years now, have been using a gay slur to describe people who they think are associated with the Tea Party. “Tea Bagger” has traditionally been a derogatory slur used to intimidate, put down, humiliate and otherwise taunt, smear, bully or just discriminate against gays – usually gay men – based on a sex act that gay men apparently made popular.
Decorum prevents me from describing it – they got this thing called “Google” now for that – but suffice it to say that the double-standard for what Democrats can say and what conservatives can say continues unabated, but still I thought to myself, did this guy think I’m gay, or was he making a statement of my political affiliation?

Anonymous wrote:So, you fault him for working. I don't like the fact that he is working in a UAW job--but it sure beats "writing poetry" as Pelosi suggested people could do under Obamacare.