@$$andNonsense -

Ummm.... apparently, you have a reading problem, as James P. Hoffa would be my son, and not the other way around - as you can clearly see, my name is James R(iddle) Hoffa. Under my leadership, the Teamsters proudly endorsed and supported Richard M. Nixon in all three of his Presidential runs! I also hated the Kennedy's and LBJ with a deep unbridled passion! Yes, unfortunately, my son is severely misguided in his acceptance of a deeply flawed political ideology. But you can't blame me for that! Maybe James P. should try reading some of the books written by his old man!

When did Hoffa ever condemn private sector unions other than to say that they got extremely lazy and lost their way due to poor leadership and a flawed ideology?

You damn right Hoffa still condemns the President! If the real James Riddle Hoffa were alive today, he'd be endorsing and personally voting for Mitt Romney, no questions about it!

Next time, I suggest you read for detail and bone up on your history before launching a completely erroneous personal attack, as it makes you look very sad!

Hoffa says that $$andNonsense is envious because Hoffa is 'da man' and he is not!

As an independent contractor and small business owner, as Hoffa's taxes have increased, Hoffa has definitely had to cut back on his charitable contributions, but still averages around $5,000 / yr that either Hoffa personally or his business gives away to charitable causes. That number used to be north of $7k. With Obamacare implementation looming, Hoffa is planning on cutting back even more. And if the Democrats get their way in increasing the minimum wage, Hoffa will have little choice but to cut back even more.

Thanks a lot big government!

See below. My charitable contributions decreased along with my income, but there were other factors such as raising a family (the child's education fund is much more important than the Humane Society or the GSA) and increases in my cost of living. Taxes play a part -- the property tax sucks up a great deal of disposable income.

They come and go and come back again (for some reason) and sometimes they go for good (certain posters seem to be regular targets for removal).

Don't worry about it. We'll make more.

Well for the record I think we could use a legitimate discussion on the right to opinion and also on racism.

I'm profoundly discouraged that big brother might be at work here. It's probably going to affect my decision to stay. (Don't worry. I'm well aware most of you won't miss me.)

I think there's a difference between making a racism based attack on a poster and making a racist statement. I think that statements that may be viewed as racist should be allowed to stay and be judged by the reader.

Statements that involve personal attacks against people posting on the thread should probably be removed.

@CowDung - I very much like the way you phrased that. Thanks.

"Big Brother" owns the forum.

Oh, @mau, you are preaching to the choir in your comment. I can be so isolationist sometimes. But then I've already confessed to a B- in foreign relations. ;)

@Bren -

"Our issue is more about cleaning house of elected officials who are more loyal to benefactors/special interests than their country. What do we do about that, Cindy?"

How can you in good faith say something like this while acknowledging your support and voting for Tom Barrett in the recall election instead of independent candidate Hari Trivedi?

And who will you be supporting for President exactly?

Your hypocrisy runs so deep that you actually own a car that was assembled in what you refer to as a right-to-work-for-less-state with non-unionized labor, despite your constant claims to be against such a policy position.

You must get dizzy from all the spinning you do to convince yourself that you're not a huge hypocrite!

@Bren - So you're good with intimating my sources aren't worth your time and then you wonder about this or that to push the data down the road. Impressive statement you made there.

The article is actually George Will quoting Arthur C. Brooks. Just because you don't like what it says doesn't mean it's not true.

Tom Bevan co-founded the online fishwrap you linked to. I found Brooks' study of "happiness" (conservative v. liberal) interesting. I prefer to go to the source you see. True conservatives of my acquaintance are very generous (with a few exceptions) because they believe in providing tools for success. But as I indicated above, many people give to their church as their philanthropic efforts (which is wonderful because churches provide many humanitarian services) As I also indicated, FY12 giving will be interesting.

Mr. Hoffa, I was interested in Mr. Trivedi. He is the exemplar for the need to roll back Citizens United and radically reform campaign financing. Mayor Barrett was (and still is) the best choice for Wisconsin, by experience, related education, and temperament.

More wild accusations of hypocrisy. Yawn.

@Bren -

I do believe that you owe Hoffa many citations!

I'm still waiting on the following from you:

Cite to Ryan's Path or budget that expressly excepts members of Congress.
Cite to Ryan's Path or budget that expressly gives oil companies $43B in tax breaks.
Cite or link to documents showing that the Walker administration provided Diane Hendricks and Georgia Pacific specific tax breaks, that only benefited them, outside the general jobs incentive tax break program.
Cite or link connecting Holmes's acts to Rush Limbaugh's comments about the new Batman film.

How could Mayor Barrett be the best for Wisconsin when he is "more loyal to benefactors/special interests than [his city]?" Are you honestly telling us that the people who invested millions in the recall election and his campaign weren't looking to get something from him if he won?

So then, I guess you didn't mind John Nichols calling Mayor Barrett immoral on the Ed Show on the night of the election?

"More wild accusations of hypocrisy. Yawn."

Bren - when someone fails to walk their own talk, hypocrisy is precisely what that is. Spin as much as you like because the truth hurts, but that still doesn't change the truth, does it?

@Bren, sweetheart, since your instinct to hate seems to overrule you instinct towards accuracy I'll give you the syndicated George Will article from the Washington Post.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/26/AR2008032602916.html?sub=AR

Now in my heart I know you won't hold that publication in any higher esteem, but it will ate least provide you with another publication to disparage instead of having to admit the contents of the article to your obviously very sensitive self.

Johnny, some scholars have used the term "proto-fascism" to describe some of the actions of the Bush Administration. But I believe the danger we face is of an oligarchic plutocracy. The Tea/GOP fringe of the Republican Party is funded by would-be plutocrats. Romney could be considered one of these (his true wealth cannot be determined because of the offshore accounts).

Unless and until voters stop allowing themselves to be manipulated, and pay attention to the actions of officials after they are elected, the problem will exacerbate.

@Bren -

When exactly has Romney proven himself to be a plutocrat? Or are all rich guys automatically plutocrats? Funny that I never hear you claiming the same about George Soros, despite the fact that he's also very politically involved and could buy Romney 50 times over and still have a fortune left over!

You claim that you want someone who won't be beholden to special interests - well, isn't someone who's already wealthy less likely to tempted by special interest money and its influences?

Unlike you, Hoffa does pay attention. And what Hoffa saw was President Obama allowing large campaign contributors/bundlers access to the White House, despite his promise to close the White House to lobbyists, and those contributors/bundlers walking away with a check made out to them from the American people in the amount of $.5B for something called Solyndra. Ever hear of it?

You complain constantly about Walker being controlled by ALEC and the Kochs, and yet, not a single check has been cut by the State of Wisconsin to either ALEC or the Kochs, has it?!?!

And yet, you still remain silent on Obama's very real display of being beholden to special interests and cronyism - that's absolutely astonishing and proves you to be little more than an extremely partisan hack!

Come on Bren, let's get real here, shall we?

@Bren -

Obama extended the Patriot act. Obama signed the NDAA in which he can throw Americans in secret prisions without warrent. Obama has assassinated American citizens without trial. Obama has not ended any wars, but got us involved in new ones. Etc.

What do you call all of that exactly?

And despite all this, you'll still be voting for Obama, won't you?

Mr. Hoffa, until the extent of Romney's wealth is actually known there can be no comparison between the two.

The issue is that special interests hold far too much power over Congress. The cost of elections today is affecting politics to an inappropriate degree overall. Can't make sense of the rest of your comments really, but I'm always impressed by your volume-rich posts!

Billions was spent on Richard Clarke's Homeland Security program after 9/11, including more hiring of government employees than any administration since Eisenhower. But it wasn't done as well as it should have been to protect the American people. Starting two wars also served to help terrorist recruitment in the Middle East. And now more work, and harder work needs to be done.

@Bren -

Way to dodge, deflect, and distort - all part of the liberal playbook!

Just how rich is RICH? Kennedy, Rockefeller, Kohl, Kerry... Does it matter if a candidate has his own riches or uses other people's riches (Rezko) to run for office? If they aren't rich when they get into office (Clintons) they are when they get out.