Ronald, those delegates were removed and their actions condemned. Yes, they acted stupidly and there is no excuse.

However, if you think there aren't people at the DNC who are tempted to do something just as tasteless and stupid, you are mistaken.

@Anti - If any Dems felt like throwing peanuts at a black lady at the DNC, they would not be as drunk. stupid, an immature as the Republican delegates to do so. The jerk index is incredibly high among these Republican morons whe they get away from the trailer park.

Annnnnnnnnd

Dick just proved my point!

@Anti - And how did I prove your point? Your party admittedy stands guilty of sending overtly racist jerks to their national convention, then you point the finger at some sicko fantasy of yours that some DNC delegates would do the same. Be more noble, and just quietly condemn the racist Repub. delegation nuts, this is not the 3rd grade when you get caught doing something naughty.

"Emancipate yourselves from mental slavery none but ourselves can free our minds"

- Bob Marley

Ronald Raygun- Yes, and Republicans throw thidiots out; The Democratic Party has them introduce the President, a.k.a. Joe (they gonna put y'all back in chains) Biden.

"the idiots"

That was one idiot. Does not reflect Republicans.

That was one idiot. It doesn't reflect Republicans. My in-laws were Democrats and the biggest load of racists on earth.

Lanore, there is a huge difference between today's Republican party and today's Democratic party concerning race. The Democrats think so little of African-American's that they feel they need to give them everything. Republicans have enough faith in African-Americans to let them succeed on their own with only the same public support (education) that are given to other groups.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdwMh2vqSHY

If you are not a liberal at twenty, you have no heart and if you are not conservative at thirty, you have no brain

@Bren -

Let's look at this issue logically and from the perspective of ideology and platform as opposed to judging the whole of a party by a few bad apples, because if you really want to start playing that game, there's enough bad apples on both sides to go around. For example, is every Democrat an adulterous sex pervert simply because of men like Anthony Wiener, Bill Clinton, etc.?

Because the GOP believes in the best person for the job period, irregardless of skin color, you consider them to be peanut throwing racists.

While the Democrats believe in affirmative action, or selectively picking and choosing who gets the job simply because of factors such as skin color, as opposed to actual merit.

Yeah, that really make a lot of sense to Hoffa all right in classifying the GOP as racists.

In the convention coverages on MSNBC, the pundit hosts just can't stop talking about the issue of race. Meanwhile, over on Fox, the issue of race was rarely if ever brought up by the pundit hosts.

The Dems even caucused into groups by race, ethnicity, nationality, age, gender, income level, etc. at their convention. Message - we want to segregated you.

The GOP didn't caucus because they believe that we are all Americans first and foremost!

Clearly it's the Dems and the liberal left who are trying to divide us by discriminatory segregation, and not the GOP.

But by all means, continue to ignore reality, as I know you will!

Sure, let's look at it logically. Is every Republican an adulterous sex pervert because of Newt Gingrich, et al?

Sure the GOP believes in the best person for the job. Don't forget that some of us actually followed the primaries. I never had the sense, from the documented quotes and lukewarm endorsements, that anyone but Mitt and Ann Romney believe he's the "best person for the job."

Don't project attitudes onto me, please. I did not throw peanuts. I don't assume African Americans attend events to hold my coat. And I'm not sure why you believe Obama received the Democratic nomination because of his skin color, perhaps you skimmed over his credentials and the debates. That is your choice.

Many groups caucus, the members have the choice to attend or not. Why make a big deal out of it. I was surprised not to find the same on the GOP side, either the information was pulled because the convention is over or there is greater homogenization--whatever the reason, unless it impacted the nomination it's a non-issue.

Perhaps some nice green tea will soothe that throbbing amygdala! ; )

@Bren the skimmer/skipper/poor comprehender -

"Let's look at this issue logically and from the perspective of ideology and platform...."

Hoffa wasn't talking about the Presidential race, he was talking about philosophy in general, wherein he specifically stated "ideology and platform." But I guess you skimmed/skipped over that part, or your reading comprehension is just abysmal!

The Democrats - if your black you go this room, if your latino you go to this room, if your a woman you go to this room, etc.

The Republicans - if your an American welcome to our convention!

The reality is clear except to extreme partisans, such as yourself, that work hard to deny reality and spin the facts.

Hey Mr. Hoffa, I think it's been documented that you are the skimmer/skipper/poor comprehender. The Rovian projection maneuver was tagged and bagged long ago, move on.

Where do you get the idea that the Democratic Party isn't inclusive? It's the big umbrella party for heaven's sake. That's just being disingenuous.

@Bren -

Funny - Hoffa cites fact and all you offer is a content free emotional rant!

What? There's not one source included in any of your replies on this thread.

There were these (what might be called "emotional rants"):

"Because the GOP believes in the best person for the job period, irregardless of skin color, you consider them to be peanut throwing racists."

"But by all means, continue to ignore reality, as I know you will!"

"The reality is clear except to extreme partisans, such as yourself, that work hard to deny reality and spin the facts."

; )

@Bren -

Hoffa cited the FACT that the Dems are caucusing according to arbitrary discriminatory/segregationist characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, income level, etc at their convention. The link was previously provided to you on other Patch boards and Hoffa doesn't see the need for repetition.

You have even admitted that the GOP did not engage in such discriminatory/segregationist practices at their convention, but that the convention was rather all inclusive, based only a person being an American!

And yet you still try to claim that Hoffa has no facts backing up his analysis and conclusions?

Bren = extreme partisan hack in severe denial of the facts!

What you call "fact" I call tired old Rovian projection. The Democrats have that umbrella reputation, where everyone from tree huggers to Bill Clinton can live. Now a couple of partisan political hacks want us to believe that the GOP is the party of inclusiveness?

I don't often laugh aloud at my keyboard, but seriously! ; )

@Bren -

Yep - denying and/or trying to marginalize the facts of the situation, just like Hoffa said!

Thanks for playing!

@Bren:

Obama's credentials? LMAO you do realize his credentials are laughable when compared to almost all over modern presidents, don't you?

God what a crotch you are, so brainwashed that even facts are ignored by you.

Steve, I think you hit it on the head. The easy and accepted path, in the land of entitlements, is creating another class in this country. A class that is growing at an alarming rate, under Obama.

Steve, perhaps you hit it "on the head" as Hershal writes but you hit the wrong nail. Classic right-wing projection.

"once you vote black you never go back. Obama 2012"

http://news.yahoo.com/photos/convention-goer-stands-convention-floor-first-day-democratic-photo-230750114.html

Classic right wing what now....

Yeah let Bren come up with some brainwashed retort to the "once you go black" pin distributed at the DNC convention.

Is there anything more overtly racist than that?!! But it's ok, a liberal did it!

Shove that up your cornhole, bren.

I am concerned that people view this as an issue regarding opposing parties, or that digging back 30, 50, or even 100 years ago to prove which party isn't racist is important. The true and most important issue facing America today is the misguided belief that certain people; either based on race or a perceived economic status deserve free money from their government. It is this sense of entitlement that is ruining America. It starts with people who scam the government in order to "qualify" for this assistance, all the way down to today's children who think that they are entitled to a new $200 cell phone every six months - or even worse, a 13 year old girl who STEALS a car and thinks she has the right to run down a HARD WORKING father of three on his bicycle because he is in her way. If America doesn't go back to the pride and honor that comes with working hard for what you need and want and allows the current government to continue down this treacherous path of handouts for all, it won't matter who is wrong or right. T @hershal-webster actually got it right when he referred to this as "a new class in america that is growing at an alarming rate" - it has to stop now or the fallout will be far and wide beyond party lines and yes, even racism. We are not required to vote with a certain party and certainly shouldn't do so in order to prove we are better than the other. We are required to vote with thoughtfulness as to who will work to truly improve our country. Focus on that.

I remember that. Some folks really need a history refresher.

Lyndon B. Johnson was a Republican? Well, I'll be . . .

@Randy
Go do some research regarding the civil rights act. It was overwhelming passed by Republicans while the Democratic party fought. Had Lyndon Johnson not taken sides, against party lines, with the Republicans the Democrats would have blocked it.

@J.B. Schmidt -- The southern Democrats and one southern Republican fought hard against it. Northern Dems supported the bill in greater percentages than northern Republicans, but this fight was more along north/south lines than by party.

I think you're the one who needs to do the research. I was around at the time and old enough to be aware.

@Randy
Are you saying that the Democratic President could have passed the bill with only Democratic votes? Considering he had control of both houses of congress. The truth is the bill passed overwhelmingly by Republicans and only marginally by Democrats. Again, they needed Republicans because the enough Democrats rejected Civil Rights to the point of it failing.

Overwhelmingly by Republicans and only marginally by Democrats? I'm afraid the percentages don't bear you out, J.B. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964#By_party

Take away the Republicans entirely, and the three versions in House and Senate would still have passed. For you to say that the Democratic party was blocking the bill is a great misrepresentation.

Randy your ignorance has no depths I see. Are you aware of the Filibuster of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by your idol? Robert KKK Byrd personally filibustering the bill for 14 hours. Please continue defending the Democrats, it is precious.

Yes I am, and it didn't work, now did it? He's not my idol, and one racist Democrat does not the entire party make. Look at the numbers of the Democrats who voted for the House and Senate Bills before saying the Democrats blocked it.

Republicans used to be pro-Union. It's amazing how far the current Republicans have moved from where they once were.
I've listed sources that prove racism with the current GOP - completely thrashing what the misspelling education-killer opined about.
What I'd give for more moderate Republicans today in place of the extremists who are against what they used to stand for.

@Randy
you just linked to a wiki entry that PROVED republican's supported the civil rights bill more than democrats did. For someone as intellectually as challenged as you are, that you'd link to data that DISPROVES your point, sort of shows why you are a dimwit liberal to begin with.

Facts and figures do not matter, only made up and imagined history does.

You lose once again, just like you have your entire life.

@oak creek resident -- I don't see how that Wikipedia article proves that Republicans were overwhelmingly for the act and Dems were overwhelmingly against. The figures prove the opposite once you factor out the southerners in either party.

Republicans initially wanted to water President Kennedy's proposal down: "President Kennedy met with the Republican leaders on June 11, 1963 prior to his television address that night to discuss the legislation. On June 13, Everett McKinley Dirksen, Senate Minority Leader, and Mike Mansfield, Senate Majority Leader, both voiced support for the president's bill except for provisions guaranteeing equal access to places of public accommodations. This led to several Republican Congressmen drafting a compromise bill to be considered."

Check out the percentages of northern Democrats voting for the final House and Senate bills. You will see that the percentage in favor is higher than that of their northern GOP counterparts.

Furthermore, not a single southern Republican voted in favor of the bills, while a few southern Democrats did.

1944 is 'modern day'? You must be older than I am, socrates. The 1964 Civil Rights act sent most of those old-time Southern Dem bigots scurrying into the welcoming arms of the GOP.

Well, great, but the GOP has its share of rotten old apples too.

So, let me get this straight - all of the racist signs, slogans, insinuations, and outright accusations about the President being a Kenyan, being a Muslim, not being an American citizen etc etc - these are coming from people who don't vote Republican?

All of the proud and outspoken racists on this board, including those who refer to the President as "Obongo" - these people are Democrats?

Good grief, Chris and Brian Dey - get a clue. The GOP will never be able to make any kind of inroads with the non-white community (an existential problem) if they insist on pretending that all of this racist obnoxiousness, which is out in the open, and in everyone's face, doesn't exist.

If Wade Michael Page was voting in this election, who do you think he'd be voting for?

TC- We will never be able to make in-roads unless we segregate and seperate by race what we can hand out. Dems really ought to understand what racisim is. Obama's policies hold minorities down by promising them goodies as long as they vote Democrats in.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Ojd13kZlCA Obama's stash

@Taoist
Your are either uninformed or not intelligent.

Wasn't Obama's dad born in Kenya? Is it racist to call Marco Rubio Cuban?

For a time wasn't Obama a Muslim? Can you prove he still doesn't believe some of the Muslim beliefs. Not to mention he strong desire to make friends with the Muslim nations.

Isn't it possible that Obama himself lied regarding his birth in order to get certain affirmative action benefits at Harvard? (just so as not to confuse you, I believe he is an American citizen)

What about the nicknames black people they called Bush or Palin, were those people racist? Such as Chris Rock, Spike Lee or Whoopie Goldberg or could it be they are calling names because they dislike him.

You assumption are foolish and hypocritical.

So Brian, you're saying that minorities won't vote for the GOP unless the GOP bribes them, right?

You're saying that the reason non-whites support Democrats is because they get free stuff, right? So, what you're saying is that they're either too greedy, or too stupid, to see the truth in the GOP's message, right?

Does that seem just a -smidge- racist to you?

JB - thanks for such a good example of the baseless, racist accusations that I was referring to. What are you even saying? Do you believe the President's birth certificate, or don't you?

And seriously - this stuff about the President being a Muslim?
A. Who cares?
B. What basis do you have for suggesting this? Does the President do anything that Muslims do? You're suggesting that he's a "secret Muslim." That's the kind of thing that I'm talking about - no white President would be subjected to this.

@Taoist
I am glad you answered my questions, it makes it easier to have a discussion.

Simply stated, the references you used all had justifiable reason for people labeling Obama with them.

Obama has also thrown his Christian minister under the bus, so what does he believe? My point is, you can't prove he has given up his Muslim roots completely as the man has never been vetted. And for the 7th time, I believe that Obama is a US citizen by birth.

Now if you wish to answer my question in a factual manor, something you libs struggle with, then we could have a conversation.

JB poses a logical analysis and arguments supported by objective facts.

Meanwhile, all Toaist is doing is leveling unfounded emotional charges premised upon his own biased predispositions and stereotypes about conservatives.

Hoffa declares JB the winner of this debate!

Sorry, don't agree. I don't see nearly as many racist signs, slogans, insinuations and accusations as you do. Hell, MSNBC sees them everywhere. That doesn't make it true. Are birthers nutjobs? Most of 'em. Racist nutjobs? Dunno about that. Do you really think if Barack had a conventional African-American upbringing, born and raised in any given American city (can't say "Chicago," apparently that's racist), that people would still question whether he was born here? Don't think so. And as for Wade Michael Page, come on. Do you really think the GOP is out there catering to skinheads? If you really can't differentiate conservatism from skinheadism, you have no credibility.

Let me get this right - Brian Dey (a white guy) is claiming to know about racism?
Oh, how absolutely PRECIOUS!
Is that how you plan for education reform? Getting someone who knows absolutely NOTHING about a subject to teach it?
How racist for you to claim that you know why every minority does a certain thing, and, that it's due to being bought off.

Taoist:

How can calling someone a muslim (whether or not they are correct in doing so) make them a "racist". Are muslims a race?

I guess calling someone a socialist makes them a racist too?

Taoist you are just too dumb to exist, nothing more than a walking organ donation.

Obama's dad was from Kenya. So in the context of your illogical thoughs, Obama's dad is a racist because he MADE barack be a kenyan.

I suspect Powell's endorsement had more to do with frustration with chickenhawk GOP policies.

No, we saw lies. ANd Bren, I don't see you commenting on Michelle's dress.

I saw a content and substance free speech last night that took MANY liberties with reality from Michelle Obama, and I saw MSNBC eat it up.

Did Hoffa miss something?

I thought the speech and attire entirely appropriate for the occasion. Michelle Obama brings a modern style and dignity to the White House. And not one "you people," either.

All good! ; )

What a surprise. Bren blindly accepted everything she heard uttered by a Democrat.

J.B., that's the best response you could dredge up?

Michelle Obama fulfilled her cheerleader roll well--she's not the candidate, remember.

@Bren
Do you believe that Obama actually drove car that had rusted through floor panels?

They were both children of privileged. Hence, when is a false narrative appropriate?

What's not to believe? My first car, which I bought with my own money, did too. Had to be welded. So what?

Hoffa would like to know the year, make, and model of the car in question! Pictures would be nice as well. How come the media is not demanding this information in fact-checking M. Obama's speech?

The Dimocratic Welfare model keeps most black kids in poverty, you are the racist Taoist.

Way to dodge the point. Is it too uncomfortable for you, or are you too stupid to read it?

@hoffa - Anybody that calls himself Hoffa is probably going to miss the subtle and sweet points in any speech by a mother and First Lady.

Hoffa relates more to Snooki at the beach.

The position that slavery was better for African Americans goes way back to before the Civil War. Southern slavery supporters claimed that northerners were "wage slaves" who could be fired when too old/sick to work (pre-Union days). Slavery supposedly provided a place to live and care--ridiculous as the beatings/tortures/rapes, buying/selling, etc. was already known.

Welfare was replaced by a program that requires work. Racism continues to thrive today--a 2004 experiment that placed ethnic European and African-type names respectively on the same types of resumes showed that the European-type names received statistically higher callback rates amid smaller and mid-size companies (on average 10:1 for "Whites", 15:1 for "African Americans." Callback rates differences were less significant with very large companies and federal contractors). The experiment was conducted with about 5,000 resumes sent in prospective employers in Bostan and Chicago. Here's a link to the paper if interested: http://scholar.harvard.edu/mullainathan/files/emilygreg.pdf

@Dirk -

Hoffa doesn't engage in snooki with anyone unless he's in a serious committed relationship that is leading to marriage, thank you very much! And what does Hoffa's private love life have to do with this conversation?

You're really grasping at straws with such a radical shifting of the subject!

@Taoist -

You seem to be missing the point of the statement, which exposes a sad reality of modern African-American culture.

Uh, isn't that true? I don't see where the comment suggests slave children were better off than currently. I think it says that the black family was more intact under slavery. As a factual matter, I think that's true. Racist? Don't see that at all.

I'm sorry, but that's totally ludicrous. The black family was totally subject to the decisions of their owner. If he wanted them together, they stayed together. If he found it more profitable to part them, they were parted. If he wanted access to the mother, he got it. I don't see how children were at all benefited by this sort of tenuous situation.

Again, who is saying that slavery was better for African-American families? This is a perfect example. The people offering the statement are saying that, as a factual matter, black kids were more likely to be born into a two-parent family during slavery. As a factual matter, that may or may not be true, but (to me) the statement is clearly trying to point out the travesty that is the modern black family, that as bad as things were then, at least they were more likely to have each other. Now, so many black kids raise themselves. On the other hand, to someone inclined to see racism everywhere, the statement is taken as a suggestion that, what, blacks were better off under slavery and presumably should be returned to slavery--notwithstanding that the statement begins by saying slavery was a terrible thing?!

In the interest of trying to say something as offensive as the quote I quoted above, imagine if I said,

"Poor whites were better off when indigent white women were involuntarily sterilized, because at least then those women had fewer children that they couldn't support."

I mean, it's a TRUE statement, right? So what's wrong with it?

Uh, because it implies that an odious period of our country's history was better, in some ways, for the people who suffered from it. It's a stupid, sexist, classist thing to say. Just like the slavery analogy is stupid, classist, and racist.

"Better off"? So just so I'm clear. If the statement was, "As disastrous as slavery was, even during slavery, African-American infant mortality was half what it was when the first African-American was elected President," that would be a pro-slavery, racist statement in your book? (BTW, I have no idea whether that is factually accurate. I suspect it's not; it's an example.) If so, we're operating out of different books.

I "say" yes. Everyone I know who voted for Obama did so because they were sick of the Bush administration, its debt, and its recession; its unjustified war on Iraq, its domestic spying, etc., and McCain's "Bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran" meme was the last straw. It was a good decision because our economy was saved from total collapse and our military is now out of Iraq (although about 15,000 contractors remain).

I say yes too. I might have preferred the Dems to have nominated a candidate with more experience, and I was not expecting all the hope and change he was talking about once the reality of Washington DC set in, but I believed at the time he had the better economic plan than John McCain, and I still do.

I'm sure there were some people who voted for him because he was black, but they were balanced by the ones who voted against him because of his race.

If you disagree, that's fine, but I think I should clarify my question. I'm not asking whether Obama would've still beaten McCain if he were white--I agree, he would've--but rather whether anyone would've even heard of him (yet anyhow) if he were white. Articulate, telegenic (and inexperienced) politicians aren't really so rare as all that. Lots of Harvard law grads. If he were white, would he have been selected for that speech at the Dem convention? If he were white, would Oprah have made him her pet project? If he were white, would Dem voters have passed over Hillary Clinton (which would've been a historic presidency in her own right)? If he were white, would the press (and Europe) have gone gaga for him? I don't think so. I think that, all else being equal, there's no way he rises as fast as he has.

Hoffa agrees with Chris!

I would have voted for Clint Eastwood's chair after 8 years of Bush, if the Democrats nominated it. That moron turned Clinton's budget surplus into an economic collapse, and screwed us for years to come.

Chris, let's turn this around. Would anyone have voted for George W Bush if he was black?

"That moron turned Clinton's budget surplus into an economic collapse, and screwed us for years to come."

Yes, I though the GOP was the party of fiscal conservatism. Isn't it fiscally conservative to pay down debt wherever it's possible? Why waste even more money returning a surplus when we're all so worried about the debt?

@Taoist -

As against John Kerry - most definitely!

But Hoffa didn't vote for Bush at all. As a registered member of the Reform Party, Hoffa voted Nader in both of those elections, even though he should have voted for Pat Buchanan in the 2000 election, as the official Party nominee. However, what most people don't know is that it was already decided in 2000 that Nader would be the Reform Party's nominee in 2004, thus the 2000 vote for Nader was merely to establish and preserve ballot access and campaign matching funds for our candidate in the 2004 election.

Randy- It is Conservative to return the people THEIR money. What is so hard about that? Wow, I really thought everybody knew that!

It is wasteful to spend money generating and mailing checks to people when we had an outstanding debt that will eventually have to be paid with our money. Just pay down the darn debt and we'd have owed less in interest. But nooo . . .

I say no. Just look at what prominent Democrats were saying in 2008:

"he has no Negro dialect" - Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid

"I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy... I mean, that's a storybook, man." - Sen. Joe Biden to the New York Observer in 2007

"A few years ago, this guy would have been getting us coffee..." - Former President Bill Clinton to Sen. ted Kennedy 2008

"If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in the concept." - Former Vice Presidential Candidate, Geraldine Ferraro to the Torrance Daily Breeze in March 2008

Just a few examples. Who is the racist party? Hmmm...I report, you decide.

Now THAT I agree with. Can't win "the racist argument" because racism has become an article of faith, neither capable of being proven or disproven. Those who believe in it see it everywhere, while those who don't believe in it see perfectly logical explanations.

@Lyle -

What's sad is that Brian and others feel compelled to defend their party because of all of the unfounded claims of racism coming from the left/Democrats and perpetuated by the liberal media!

The left / Democrats are the ones who insist on focusing upon and constantly bringing up the issue of race. The conventions conclusively prove this:

The Dems caucused at their convention according to race, ethnicity, nationality, gender, income level, etc. Many of the speeches have directly and indirectly accused the GOP of being a party of racists, and encourage dividing Americans into opposing factions with dueling interests.

The Repubs did not caucus at all, as the message coming from their convention is that we are all Americans and the platform works to boosting up of all of America - not just select groups, or pitting certain Americans against their fellow countrymen.

The left/Dems/liberals are a party of division and pitting Americans against each other to suit their own self interest of obtaining and maintaining power - it's SICK!!!

If that's the only way that you guys can win elections, then it's an all around sad day for all Americans!

Really Lyle? You might want to read the 1864, 1964 and the 2012 Republican Party Platforms before speaking on that you obviously have no knowledge.

Each platform contained similar language to limited government, restraint from government spending and not being indebted, supporting free enterprise and just taxation. All those have been the pillars of the Republican Party from the beginning until now.

With regards to this topic, history has shown that Republicans have always been the standard bearer in civil rights. The Dixiecrats; namely Strom Thurmond, Al Gore, Sr., Robert Byrd, Richard Russell, Mendell Rivers, Fritz Hollings and Bill Clinton's mentor William Fulbright, never left the Democratic Party. The Republican Party did not start making inroads in the south until after many citizens who lived in the south, gave up on the Dixiecrats bigotted beliefs.

Before you criticize others, you may want to take your own advice.

"just" taxation. Does that mean everyone pays a fair share?

; )

What is fair Bren? The fairest way of taxation is a flat rate. If not that, than a national sales tax if you wanted weighted.

@Bren -

Indeed it does - you know that. But the word 'fair' is highly subjective.

Hoffa's definition of 'fairness in taxation' means that no one would pay more than 35% of their yearly income, no matter how derived, in total federal, state, and local level taxation.

Hoffa has asked you upon numerous occasions to provide us with your definition of 'fairness in taxation,' but you've always failed to directly address the question, or only speak about it in general terms, failing to ever give us solid numbers.

I believe you're familiar with Hoffa's proposed federal tax plan. So, what does fairness look like in Bren's world? Or will you just duck this issue AGAIN???

@Nick -

You're a broken record. Ayn Rand is not on the ballot. You may want to review the actual positions of Romney and Ryan by actually reading the information found at the following sites:

http://www.mittromney.com/sites/default/files/shared/BelieveInAmerica-PlanForJobsAndEconomicGrowth-Full.pdf

http://budget.house.gov/fy2012budget/

The next time you post, please include direct citations to the preceding primary source documents instead of merely spewing a bunch of liberal nonsense!

Thanks!

Ryan is on record as stating that he was inspired to enter public service because of Ayn Rand; his budget celebrates the me-first b.s. of Ayn Rand.

I'd say that, as far as a dead person can be, passport bride Ayn Rand is standing right up there with Romney and Ryan. Ugh.

@Bren -

Can you please directly cite the exact portions of Ryan's proposed budget bill that "celebrate[] the me-first b.s. of Ayn Rand."

Thanks!

@Hoffa - Hoffa does not make the rules here. Personal opinion does not require primary sources, even in court. If that were the case, everybody disparaging some other commenter would need documentation from a psychologist attesting to the insanity of the other party. This is a public forum, you can not shout down human feelings by asking for primary sources here. Use them yourself as much as you want, but I see you use a lot of secondary sources, or none, in you opinions.

@Dirk -

1) Is your name Bren?

2) Bren makes assertions of fact, as she did not qualify her comment as being opinion.

3) Even opinion should be backed up with a logical analysis that references hard objective facts.

4) If you believe that any of Hoffa's cited facts are wrong, then please correct them. As far as Hoffa's opinions go, he almost always includes a supporting analysis showing how Hoffa reached the conclusions he makes.

5) If everyone followed Hoffa's example, the conversation on these boars would be much more productive.

Well lets see Nicky, Bill Clinton called William Fulbright his mentor. Of course you know that he was a member of the Dixiecrats that not only opposed the 1964 Civil Righs Act, but would not vote for a law abolishing lynching. Isn't he the keynote speaker tonight at the DNC?

Who was the candidate?

@Dirk -

Your comment is making Hoffa laugh, but only because it makes absolutely no sense what-so-ever!

Hoffa - You are a lawyer that does not understand a common sense argument from the opposition? No wonder you are not at the law office, but on call for representing the nut case clients if they find their way in.

@Drive to 24 -

A link would suffice - there is no need to copy, paste, and post. All that does is messes up the flow of conversation on the boards.

Please read the links I posted.
I noticed you didn't have much to write...

D to 24- Poor example as NBC and MSNBC were called out by none other than CNN for not showing Republican black speakers at the RNC 2012. Tom Brokaw and Chuck Todd are partisan hacks.

For what. She is a typical Democratic hack.

As far as I know, contraceptives are not a right, nor is it the responsibility of government for her sex life.

Did she not say that she spent thousands on contraceptives? Need I say more?

If the shoe fits...

She said nothing of the sort.

OK, so if Fluke wasn't purchasing BC, then why were Democrats so adamant about her speaking at the hearings? She's not a doctor, not a professional researcher, and if she wasn't buying her own BC, then what personal experiences did she have to offer?

Essentially, you're admitting that the Repubs were right in denying her testimony at the hearings, as she offered nothing but opinion and the stories and experiences of others that she failed to specifically name. Why didn't the Dems demand that the 'friend' that Fluke spoke of testify?

Just like the Dems to want to waste time, resources, and our tax dollars on a completely irrelevant witness that offers nothing but hearsay.

HOFFA: IF THE SHOE FITS? Proves how backwards you and the rest of the Republicons truly are. You stoop just as low as Rush by defending his statement. Shame on you!

@JRH -- Why were the Repubs so committed to having not a single woman testify at a hearing that affects women more than men? I can frankly understand why the anonymous friend would wish to remain anonymous, since she'd have been outting herself as a lesbian to a hostile world. Not to mention discussing private medical conditions that most of us are squeamish about discussing.

Truth is, some of the hormonal treatments for endometriosis can be very expensive, and the last thing a woman needs is to have to prove she's not going to benefit in any way from the contraceptive features of it.

Isn't that what a spokesperson does -- relate the experiences of others and represent them?

@Drive To 24 -

"And so, I am here to share their voices and I thank you for allowing them to be heard."

Share their voices, but not her own??? Why are the Democrats so interested in wasting time, money, and resources on nothing but hearsay testimony?

"Without insurance coverage, contraception can cost a woman over $3,000 during
law school. For a lot of students who, like me, are on public interest scholarships,
that’s practically an entire summer’s salary."

'Like me,' is the only personal experience insight that Fluke offered during her testimony. The rest was all hearsay and non-expert opinion. And what was the context of 'like me' exactly, as it really isn't clear from her speech - while she made $3k over a summer while on scholarship is she also saying in this sentence by implied reference contained in the sentence to the remark in her previous sentence that she also spent all that money on contraception?

If not, then again, why was she allowed to testify, as the rest of her speech wasn't credible from an evidentiary perspective - and as an alleged law student, she should have known this!!!! Maybe she should ask for her money back from the law school, as she didn't even learn the basic rules of evidence effectively!

Or maybe she wasn't paying attention to her studies because she was too busy.... well, that's best left to the imagination in this case ;-p

Cheers!

@Randy1949 -

Hearsay evidence is generally prohibited from becoming a part of an official record because it's prima facie unreliable, inaccurate, and non-approachable in cross examination. And it's always excluded when the original source party is available to testify on their own behalf.

We have rules of evidence for a reason. And all Fluke's testimony offered was hearsay and non-expert opinion - thus it had no evidentiary value and should have been effectively and immediately scrubbed from the official record, that is of course if Democrats actually ever bothered to follow the rules.

Dirk, I hardly call you a big boy and you couldn't be farther from the truth. That effort, led by former Village President Jonathan Delagrave, was get out of a failing, abysmal school district that over half of our children don't attend and that we fund 25% of the local funding, and receive 11% back. Only a racist would think that it was anything other than trying to do better for our kids than RUSD does for all kids.

I have travelled throughout the country and served on many education panels and if you know anything about me, you would know that I have tried to change the mantra of excuses in education that revolve around educating minorities, and turn it into something better than the veiled attempt by liberals to diversify.

I've worked with black leaders in education across the country to solve the achievement gap, and I will not stand for some two-bit hack lefty blogger calling me something that he has no clue what he is talking about.

Yes, I get it. you don't like me because I'm not afraid to take on your precious unions that have stolen millions from our children so they can line their pockets in the name of "its for our kids." But don't ever question my integrity when it comes to children and giving them a better education.

While you sit and complain about petty things, their are people like me trying to make a difference. Until you can work on these hard issues, or sit on a board, you are just part of the problem.

@Dirk -

Brian Dey is a man of great integrity with a reputation for excellence in the field of education reform. Your ill-informed comments about him are extremely idiotic!

" I have tried to change the mantra of excuses in education that revolve around educating minorities..."
-Brian Dey

Wow. So much for Republicans not being racist.

@Ronald RayGun -

Your reading comprehension skills prove positive that public education failed you!

" ...their are people like me..."
-Brian Dey
LMAO! Try "there", not "their".
Education reformer should get...educated.

In Brian Dey's defense, I imagine that the RUSD faces quite a few challenges. But the lack of written English skills does not bode well in a school board member and person who would serve on education panels.

Even in my cruddy little rural elementary school, a there/they're/their mistake would have earned me some red ink, and it certainly would at the high school and college levels. So we have to ask ourselves what has changed between 1965 and now, that the public schools cost an arm and a leg and can't turn out graduates who can read and write?

Dey - This Patch blog is one of several in the last six months poorly defending the CURRENT Republican Party from charges of racism. There was even one Republican blogger, Lorraine, that started her blog with a big picture of Abraham Lincoln. The ancient history of the Republican Party has little to do with the Republican Party today. The right wing of the Republican Party systematically got rid of most of the moderate Republicans from days of yore, and liberal Republicans are virtually non-existent.
I do like Condy Rice and Colin Powell, but your Party does not promote them in any meaningful way anymore, or others like them. They are moderates. West and Cain come across as mean-sprited opportunists.
Many of us know you worked and led to split your Caledonia off from Racine Unified,. You are an ultra-right -winger. We can easily guess at your motivations, and by writing this ineffective blog, you only enhance that view with weak arguments and your self-annointment as some kind of noble and highly regarded individual is shattered when you call someone that questions you a "two-bit hack lefty blogger". What education plan for tolerance and dignity are you traveling all over the country proposing?

@ Dirk..

you typed "Racine Unified,. ", too much punctuation. Therefore, we all can write you off as totally illiterate and a moron, just like you tried to do to Dey. Thanks for making it easy, idiot.

oak creek resident - My concern is not the occasional misspelling, punctuation, etc. My concern is with someone that is rabid classifying himself as a national expert. That may work for a beer can collector, or '57 Chevy fan, but when it comes to educating the next generation, I want someone that is not just a political idealogue, but someone educated in educating, not just getting his own property values up and cutting his tax dollars.

@ Dirk Gutzmiller: "This Patch blog is one of several in the last six months poorly defending the CURRENT Republican Party from charges of racism. "

From my response to Lanore above:
"Lanore, there is a huge difference between today's Republican party and today's Democratic party concerning race. The Democrats think so little of African-American's that they feel they need to give them everything. Republicans have enough faith in African-Americans to let them succeed on their own with only the same public support (education) that are given to other groups."

Personally attack those that prove you false, as that is all you have left, fear, when you have been proven wrong. Fear is all you have left when your platform has been front stage, and failed. In front of Greek columns and thousands of crying adoring fans, we remember what you promised and endorsed. We thought it was insane and tried to warn you, but you went with your emotion.

Fear is all you have left after the Greek columns were proven to be only props.

Really Mr. RayGun? I ran twice for the school board. Won in 2005 and served for three years and ran again in 2012 and lost being outspent 7 to 1. Hardly a reputation of losing school board elections.

And seriously, if you believe that only displacing black children to other schools outside "their" neighborhoods while white children go to the school closest to "their" homes isn't racist, then racism will never end.

If you believe that the only way black children can learn is by being forced to sit to a white child, you are a racist.

If you think that black children will always be a detriment to higher test scores, you are a racist.

"There" is the unwillingness to change these notions in our school district. Defining racial quotas is racism. "They're" accepting that only 50% of blacks graduate RUSD.

I don't believe that and that is what I ran on, but it was more important to show loyalty to the union, then to our children.

And if criticising someone for the use of there/their/they're, one should actually not write it as" their/they're/their".

When you can join those of us that have actually tried to change that attitude, then you to can say "people like me".

One other thing. You've already proved that you are racist by claiming that just because some one is white, they can't possibly be someone speaking up for blacks.

Brian Dey,
I didn't make any racist comment claiming that minorities needed anything special. YOU did.

I never wrote that someone who is white couldn't stand up for those who are not. If that's what you read - you onviously need to learn how to read. We already are aware that you can't write the English language. Claiming to be able to speak on behalf of a group that you know nothing about is pretty arrogant. You sure don't speak for me.

Are you on a school board now? No? Why? That's right, because you're a loser.

If the problem was unions, we'd see this as a trend across the nation. Since it's not the case, maybe you should look elsewhere.

LOL - you want to accuse me of being racist? You might want to know a little bit about my ancestry first.

Complete failure Dey. Complete. Get some flashcards and practice that whole "they're/their/there" thing. It'll help keep you from looking like a bigger buffoon than you are.

@ Ronald

You need to learn how to spell, illiterate ghetto thug. You spelled "obviously" as "onviously". You have no education and therefore no cred. In trying to humiliate Dey in his there/their error, you have at the same time defeated yourself, foolish thug.

No please take your crap over to the dailykos or some other small minded racist boards, you just don't cut it here, boy.

Ronald Raygun said, "Let me get this right - Brian Dey (a white guy) is claiming to know about racism?
Oh, how absolutely PRECIOUS!
Is that how you plan for education reform? Getting someone who knows absolutely NOTHING about a subject to teach it?"

Yes I did read it. Claiming that just because you are black makes you superior to a white man on racism fits neatly into the definition of racism.

And just so you know, sentences start with a capital letter if you are going to be that picky about a usage mistake.

@RayGun
I understand that liberals have a had time verifying the proclamations of the media; you can use this a learning experience.

In 2007 at the State of Black Union, Al Sharpton said the following in reference to Obama (everyone is in agreement that he was speaking of Obama), "Just because you're our color doesn't make you our kind."

In February of 2007 Stanley Crouch wrote the article, What Obama Isn't, Black Like Me. Refering to Obama's direct African roots and lack of African-American ancestry (aka slave blood).

Then in March of 2007 the LA Times wrote an article Obama the 'Magic Negro'. Where proves that idea of Magic Negro as described in Wikipedia, "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist", is true.

What do all of those people have in common? They are black. If prior to Obama taking the nomination for President in 2008, the black community was questioning the 'authenticity' of Obama race, is it suddenly racist for Limbaugh to point this out? None of the ideas in the article you posted are Limbaugh's, he is simply letting the nation know about the racism within the race baiters in the left.

Limbaugh has been saying that for years in response to what J.B. explains. It's hilarious anytime a liberal thinks its new or racist. Plays right into the stupidity your party embraces.

Man, you guys are losing so bad its painful to watch. Obama is going down faster than Jimmy Carter.

unaborted socrates - Drinking the hemlock kool-aid again?

@ Randy the washed up loser hippy:

As JB said, above:

n 2007 at the State of Black Union, Al Sharpton said the following in reference to Obama (everyone is in agreement that he was speaking of Obama), "Just because you're our color doesn't make you our kind."

In February of 2007 Stanley Crouch wrote the article, What Obama Isn't, Black Like Me. Refering to Obama's direct African roots and lack of African-American ancestry (aka slave blood).

Then in March of 2007 the LA Times wrote an article Obama the 'Magic Negro'. Where proves that idea of Magic Negro as described in Wikipedia, "He has no past, he simply appears one day to help the white protagonist", is true.

@oak creek resident -- There is such a thing as a writer's syntax, which becomes recognizable the more they post. Yours is becoming very apparent, along with several 'other' posters on the Patch. I haven't forgotten last weekend.

@Randy1949 -

Hoffa never knew that you were a hippy ;-)

@Hoffa -- Maybe if I'm in a good mood sometime I'll tell you about the time a fellow student at UWW and i had to knock on the door of the School Sisters of Notre Dame Convent in Elm Grove as part of our Architectural Survey class. The two of us had long hair,patched bell-bottom jeans, sandals, the works. I'll never forget the looks on the faces of the retired nuns as the nice Sister who opened the door led us to the Mother Superior's office. I wasn't really a hippie -- I just dressed like one.

@Randy1949 -

Hoffa hears that! Hoffa personally likes to dress like Don Johnson in Miami Vice on the weekends - pastel pink and blue t-shirts with the white slacks and tux jacket and ultra-cool shades!

Gets a lot of smiles where ever Hoffa goes!

Who are these people who tell me what I should eat?

Randy 1949,

did you say writers syntax? wait,what?

e.e. cummings

More importantly, the judging of some else's grammar is totally racist.

It's only applicable to Brian Dey because he's so vocal about education reform. And because this article has a very poor grasp of history.

OK, given Brian Dey's writing skills, or lack thereof, what then are Dey's educational qualifications to be a "national" expert on education?

I think Brian Dey doesn't like paying a boatload of taxes for a poor educational result, and neither do I. He and I just differ on the possible causes and solutions, and I don't claim to be any kind of expert.

I just wonder what the perdition has happened to public primary education in the last fifty years.

@Dirk
It is also racist to judge some one on the basis of their education.

J.B. - Everyting is racist to you, but yourself. The grand self-deception. Education is not racist, of course, but you seem to be very defensive in that area.

That's funny! Good one Coulter!

And then these juveniles talk so sanctimoniously about how Republicans support women.