Thanks! I will do just that!

Great work!!!!

Your little essay might not by a mile explain history or political science, but it sure explains this -- http://tinyurl.com/754su4u

Keith Schmitz, you intend to use an article from the Ultra left HuffPo to demean the author of this op-ed piece and those of us who agree? If not mistaken, the picture of the KKK on the article, those were probably Democrats in disguise. And, in the same article, it says, "But Nosek said less intelligent types might be attracted to liberal 'simplifying ideologies' as well as conservative ones." It also states that, "I.Q., or intelligence quotient, is a score determined by standardized tests, but whether the tests truly reveal intelligence remains a topic of hot debate among psychologist." So you should read well a piece before using it as your platform to pounce on those you disagree with. One last thought: Our current President must have a high IQ since he graduated from some of the most prestigious institutions of higher education in this country. And yet... well, I don't want to use the now cliche phrase, but, what has that done for us?

Princess, I could give you enough links to go blind, but let me summarize this for you.

Bin Laden is dead and GM is alive. Any questions?

As far as the link, out of the drivel that has appear on Patch, this is one of the most clueless pieces I've ever seen. It really should be embarrassing for the author for the reasons listed below, but I gather it is not.

@Keith -

For a guy who claims that he wants to see us all pull together to move the state forward in the right direction, you sure are a very divisive poster with your comments here on Patch!

RicanPrincess, you seem to be having some trouble understanding what linked/sourced material is and how it's used (see below).

The Huffpost article is summarizing the abstract (overview/short description) of a scientific study from Brock University, which was published in Psychological Science. Huffpost did not write the study. You will see certain words that are "blue," that means you can click on them for more information/detail. Hope this helps.

Keith: Many, many questions... Osama? GM? Right! Your president taking all the credit for that capture. Sure. GM? Tell me another one...

Bren, Bren... The typical condescending, "I-know-better-than-you tone" so characteristic of many on your side. So superior. Well, newsflash: I can be an insufferable know-it-all if I want to. I did notice that the article was quoting so called "research". Even at that: 1)HuffPO is still not a reliable source to me and 2) If you read my post CAREFULLY, you can see I did quote phrases the article used in reference to the research. Go now and talk down to your kids (if you have any).

To Celebrate Black History Month, Congressman West took to the House Floor with a remarkable speech on the relationship between African-Americans and the Republican party

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xYgXGM_AuO8&feature=youtu.be

Thanks Keith! I have thick skin, so I don't mind! Let them launch their predictable attacks, I'm just glad you called it before it started. ;)

Boy, you called that Keith- they are basically suggesting that I am a racist. Funny how the left grasps at straws. The article is about the republican party being the opposite of this.
I guess the truth is hard to swallow.

@Noelle Lorraine -- I'm not suggesting that you're a racist, merely that you don't know your history as well as you think and that your conclusions are faulty.

Thanks!

They have changed indeed. The attempt to charge the Democratic party with the brush of the Southern Democrats who opposed Civil Rights will fall flat if you don't know your history.

Facts are facts john doe. I am not afraid to state the obvious evidence and sign my name to it either.
John doe... Laughing out loud.

History is what it is and figures don't lie but liars do figure. As far as racisim goes in this country the only color that matters is green. Those with the most green like the presence of racism to keep people occupied and fighting with each other rather than working together. Lincoln is rightly paraised for ending leagal slavery in this country. His main goal was preserving the Union, and by ending legalized slavery he was able to cut foreign assistance to the Confederacy. He had no plan of what to do with the ex-slaves, like Bush had no plan on what to do with Iraq after toppling Saddam Husein. "Mission Accomplished" , now what? I know this comment I'm going to make is a little twisted, but it is true and fitting. At least with slavery people had value. The modern day republicans and their tea-party brownshirts think of people as disposable, and it shows with their actions.
History is important so we don't repeat the same mistakes. It must be studied in it entirety, not just the bits and pieces we like.

@Randy1949...Good point!

@Lyle -- Give me a little time and I'll defend Jefferson. Some people simply don't know their history very well and should refrain from using it to disparage one party or the other.

@Saxon Realm -- I'll leave it to someone else to flag that racist comment. I would hope that the Republican Party would prefer not to have a piece of work like you defending them.

OK, after reading the couple of comments above mine, I'm speechless and laughing uncontrollably :-)

Gotta love the Patch!

Where's the problem, JRH? If I point out that both Jefferson and Lincoln were complex men, men of their times, can I not tell Saxon Realm that he's . . . a little beyond the pale for saying that ending slavery was a mistake?

Please see below for my feeling on Saxon's comment. I want it to be clear that I highly dissapprove this statement.

@Randy1949 -

No problem with your comment at all - I just found the entire 'Saxon Realm' comment controversy to be quite humorous because the original comment was so outlandishly absurd that I didn't think that anyone would actually take it either literally or seriously. Kinda like the Walker as Hitler posters that some on your side were displaying - distasteful and insensitive, yes, but wholly outlandish that any one with half a brain would just ignore as being highly implausible.

Personally, I honestly don't think that Saxon is a hardline racist, but rather no different than those on the other side of the racial aisle, or the racial activists such as Sharpton, Jackson, etc. When Sharpton and Jackson promote the advancement of colored peopled, they get called civic leaders, but anytime someone like Saxon promotes the advancements of whites, even if done from a completely pro-active and positive position, he gets labeled a racist.

I believe that this kind of double standard hypocrisy has driven Saxon to the point where he feels that the only avenue he has left to express his sentiments is by embracing an outlandishly satirical line of defense, as he's damned to be labeled negatively no matter what he does.

I'm not saying that Saxon is right for following the path that he has chosen, as I personally feel that there are better ways to combat either real or perceived 'reverse discrimination' other than going all David Duke on the Patch boards. But sometimes when he is more 'restrained,' he does occasionally raise some very valid points and concerns.

How's that for a psycho-analysis?

In the meantime though, any wholly outlandish comments from either side on any issue will always get a chuckle out of me, as how can you honestly not help but to laugh at absurdity?

:-)

@James R. Hoffa -- So you're saying that Saxon Realm is just Stephen Colbert in a klan hood? I suppose that's one way of looking at it.

@Randy1949 -

What can I say, I'm a very independent and open-minded guy that likes to find the positive in everything.

"While life exists, the possibilities are unlimited!"
--Nestor

JRH-

Satire? That is funny. You can't believe in the positive of satire and have it be satire. I am sure that the Klansmen that burned crosses on front lawns would have loved to come up with the "satire" claim. "yeah, we were just burning that cross satirically." Or, "we just hung that n-blank in Satire, get it, its satire."
Last time I checked satire was saying or doing one thing while believing in another. Also, your comparison to Sharpton and Jackson is wrong as well. They work for peoples rights, Saxon was advocating against peoples rights, not for another group's rights. This is no better than Newt's defense of "language of the ghetto" by saying "if you actually look back, the ghettos were largely Jewish". Sorry, try again.

@Say What? -

Telling a joke and lighting a cross on someone's front yard or taking another's life via a lynching/hanging are radically different acts and you know it!

If an African-American comedian such as Chris Rock had told the joke that Saxon did, with the background context of Randy1949's initial quote from Lincoln that started this thread, it would get a thunderous laugh and applause.

But because Saxon told it, he's racist, right?

This is exactly what I'm talking about.

JRh-
Saxon wasn't joking...hence not satirical, whereas what I wrote was a satirical take on your "racist satire". Good luck in defending racism as satire.

@Say What? -

So then, based upon your logic, I guess that we can all definitively conclude that all those who were marching together in collective solidarity at the Capitol with people carrying posters depicting Walker as Hitler and Mussolini MUST be anti-Semitic, mass-murder loving, totalitarian advocating, homicidal socio-paths, yes?

I just had no idea that so many people in the state held those kinds of sentiments. Interesting.

Bren,

George Soros?

And the problem with George Soros is what?

Yes, Ima, care to elaborate?

Bren & Keith - Really? You have to ask that?

Let's play along with Mr. Soros and his Open Society Institute. He has only shelled out a few billion dollars to his beloved progressive causes and left wing influence.

Apparently, that is okay in the progressive plan but not okay for the alledged Koch/ALEC driven minority?

@Bren and Keith -

Soros has been directly linked to sponsoring groups that have supported and promoted the current recall efforts in our state. It's really easy to find the information if you Google it. You both know what Google is, right? Or if you prefer Yahoo!, Bing, etc. - they all should lead you to the same information. The internet is a really big place!

I thought that you guys were against billionaire money trying to influence our political processes, and yet you honestly didn't know about Soros?

You guys may really want to wake up and join the rest of us in reality, where both sides have their big money sugar daddies.

Mr. Hoffa, you're going to have to provide some of those links. I am a subscriber to the Open Society Foundations and have received no information whatsoever about the OSF funding the recall.

Ima, Mr. Hoffa, just tossing out random names does not constitute discourse.

@Bren -

I've linked you to these reports in the past and you obviously paid no attention to them then. And even though I'm not so sure that you'll take the time to look at them now, I'll play along anyway and once again provide you with some links. BTW, these are just a few among many others:

http://biggovernment.com/mtrackers/2012/01/17/1-million-to-recall-walker-what-it-means/

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=48782

http://mediatrackers.org/2011/11/lefty-group-hijacks-occupy-wall-street-to-recall-wisconsin-gov/

https://radiopatriot.wordpress.com/2012/01/16/wisconsin-guv-determined-to-survive-recall-threat/

Mr. Hoffa, you know better than to try to present data from unreliable sources to me. Try again.

@Bren -

So let me get this straight - all of the biased and liberal sources that you and morninmist have linked to in the past to support the Koch conspiracy theories and your anti-Walker diatribes are somehow 'reliable,' but when I link you to conservative outlets you immediately disregard the information contained within premised merely upon the source, no matter how factually accurate the information may turn out to be?

I'm honestly flabbergasted right now Bren!

Bren - I admit - I am not one for much research. Just to appease your research jones, I did find a Wisconsin day 100 years ago where the temperature was 55 in February.

Regardless, you eschewed JRH and the links provided as unreliable? What is reliable? A George Soros funded organization? Oh wait - ABC/CBS/NBC/MSNBC - We lie - you decide!

Mr. Hoffa, since when are the Washington Post, New York Times, USA Today, MSJ, WSJ, New Yorker Magazine, Forbes, the U.S. Department of Labor, my usual sources et al, "biased and liberal sources?" Please.

I've borrowed a nice round-up or two from progressive sites that link to bona fide data sources, and also once or twice from DailyKos because I know you have a soft spot for that community.

Again, what are those Koch brother "conspiracy theories?" I only know about their political activities as written in the international mainstream media. Perhaps I'm missing something?

Come on, find some bona fide sources like those at the top of my post to back up your claims about Soros/OSF.

Mr. Hoffa, Ima, Here's a little more Andy Breitbart for you, fresh from CPAC: http://dcist.com/2012/02/andrew_breitbart_flips_out_at_occup.php

@Patrick- and the same to you about the right direction! What people fail to realize is that comments like that represent the conservative movement in a sense. I am all about being wide open with my voice, but sexon's comment is down right terribile. I get so angry when the left makes comments suggesting we are affiliated with some terribile groups (I am sure you know what I speak of)- AND THEN one of "ours" says what saxon did. It is so counterproductive. (sigh)

Mau,
I won't defend the question, as I think that it is perpetrating the same issues. I will say this, it leaves me completely intrigued as to what "supported" means. I feel like there is context behind this that is really important, even if the question is in bad taste. I ask only because it says supported and not represented.

Mau- In all fairness, Linda Flashinski came to me before asking the question, and asked if I was opposed to answering it. I told her to read it word for word, however she edited it to "white" instead of "lily white".

Because I believe in neighborhood schools, I have been called racist what seems like a million times by the NAACP. I remind them that the 1954 SCOTUS decision in Brown v. Board of Education granted Linda Brown to attend her neighborhood school. In RUSD, we are even more racist to think that we need to children of color to schools out of their neighborhoods, while white children are allowed to attend the school closest to their homes. It also is out of line with the 2007 SCOTUS decision regarding Seattle desegregation which states that no child shall be assigned a school outside their nighborhood school based on color.

See,
Context helps a great deal. I have mixed emotions on busing, based on theory versus reality. Too long for me to bother now, but anyone that understands what occurs without and with busing should get the issues with choosing one or the other. I understand the Scotus decision, and therefore we shouldn't be. If only the world was perfect.

Brian, I am very familiar with Linda and her hypersensitivity to the race issue. I was an attendee at many school board meetings when my son was in school, and listened to many of her speeches and comments on race relations. She should have added a disclaimer at the beginning that she felt the question was inappropriate but was asking the question because you had agreed to answer it.

I would have loved to have had neighborhood schools for all of my son's school years. I was on the fence about the proposal that Caledonia go it alone because of the great expense. Caledonia was not always part of RUSD and there are schools near us that have either been sold or are sitting vacant. I think the biggest reason for the idea to separate from RUSD, was because of their mismanagement of tax funds. RUSD is much too big and a political bureaucracy. Bigger is not always better. With the student population falling around the whole state and lack of funds to abide by the government mandates, many rural school districts are closing or merging.

J.B., I'm really disappointed by your categorizations here, at every level.

J.B. was CLEARLY referring to a mindset - not the actually physical realities of the situations he referenced.

You may want to read for detail and comprehension next time, Patrick and Bren - especially before commenting!

@Patrick -

As to my 'defense' of Saxon, if you can even call it that, see the comments that I made regarding that situation, as they more than fully explain my position on that matter.

As to J.B., if you actually read what J.B. wrote in its entirety, you'd see that he's advocating against racist sentiments and political policy positions. So how does doing this make him either a rabid or merely disillusioned bigot exactly, as you suggest?

The point he makes is that no special treatment should exist for anyone, as the mere existence of special treatment, especially if it's racially motivated or targeted, begets racists sentiments. It's a vicious cycle that won't stop until you stop approaching it with special treatment.

Example: Why is there a Congressional Black Caucus and not a Congressional White Caucus? Aren't the needs that government is supposed to provide for all Americans the same, regardless of the color of our skin? I sure think so. But the existence of a Black Caucus and not a White Caucus gives the perception that somehow our needs are different and that special treatment because of skin color is required to 'equalize the playing field.' But as long as this 'mentality' exists, then so will racism.

At this point in the game, those who claim to be combating racism, are in all reality helping to keep it alive and are further promoting such sentiments. If you really wanted to get rid of racism, the best thing you could do would be to eliminate all of the racial/ethnic special interest groups in this country and instead started acting like we're all equal in the eyes of our government and political leaders.

It's that simple. Do you now get the point that J.B. is trying to make?

Patrick and Bren, heed the advise from Hoffa and read again before going on a rant. JB is not being racist but talking about the mindset of the elite liberal. Comprehension wasn't your strong suit in school, I see.

Patrick, he did make the case but you keep insisting on your previous statements.

@J. B. Schmidt -- "Now our inner cities have become the cotton fields of 175 years ago. Not surprisingly, the same Democratic policies are stilling running the plantation."

I'm sure the GOP policy of every resident of the inner city riding a bus out to the suburbs to bus tables and clean out motel rooms for minimum wage is not a plantation, right? I suppose there's the ghost of a chance of economic advancement in pursuing such a path, but it is vanishingly small. Your post is balderdash.

@Rican Princess -- J.B. Schmidt has no call to get into the mindset of the Liberal Elite. He knows nothing at all about it other than to demonize.

Mr. Hoffa, I am disappointed J.B.'s post. He provides no sources for some of his assertions, and parces some facts. He is capable of better.

RicanPrincess, Patrick and I were responding to J.B.'s post, which was technically the "rant," to use your term, because it made claims that were not backed up with links to reliable sources of information. If that's confusing, did you ever have to write a paper in school, and did your teacher ask you to list what book(s) you read for the assignment? That's what a source/citation is. If you read over J.B.'s post again, you will see no sources to back up what he's written. Let me know if this makes sense, or if I should try explaining it a different way.

@Keith Schmitz -- "One of the cherished right wing myths is that blacks moved north for welfare, when it was in fact for jobs."

Does anyone truly believe that? The sons and daughters of rural sharecroppers came north to work in industry -- the factories of Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukee . . . I can well imagine there was some culture shock and culture clash, with resulting ghettoization, but generations made a living until the rug got pulled.

I agree with what you wrote Randy.

@Keith -

You really need to step down from your high horse. You're so quick to throw out the race card against conservatives, where racism really doesn't exist, that you can't even see the despicable and deplorable racism that comes from the left when it's right in your face!

Need I remind you of statements such as "the Tea Party wants to see blacks hanging on a tree." And there's plenty more where that came from.

As a white person that believes in much of the Tea Party's fiscal policy platform, remember there is no social policy platform from most official Tea Party groups, I'm absolutely appalled and personally insulted by such remarks, as nothing could be further from the truth.

There's more racism today coming from the left than there is from the right. But because it's against whites, you refuse to recognize it.

Give it up Schmitz, you've been exposed!

Keith, an African American acquaintance shared that their grandparent moved to Milwaukee in the 1950s from Mississippi in response to an ad from a large manufacturer calling for workers and the promise of good pay. The grandparent arrived to find many others fighting for only a very few jobs. With no new good paying job and no resources to return home, he ended up staying in Milwaukee to eke out a living. This is in keeping with business strategies to make the job market more employer-friendly and flatline/depress wages.

Our city's corporate leadership has had a long, unfortunate history of bringing in workers from Europe, then the south, with no social preparation for the new arrivals, who find reality less rosy than promised; or the residents, who know why the new workers were brought in and are resentful. This was a significant contributing factor to past segregation and today's suburban hyper-segregation.

Keith Schmitz - you cannot be taken seriously.

Please, don't shock us.

So essentially you've got nothin', as usual.

No, you cannot be taken seriously. When you write...

..."makes them feel good to be racist. What else would explain the popularity of right wing radio."

Shocking!

@Vicki Bennet -- Yes, citing Abraham Lincoln is misleading, because over the course of time the two parties have switched places in their political philosophy. Republicans were once the progressives (Fightin' Bob LaFollette was a Republican) but no longer.

@Patrick Ford -

I see that you've added "impotent" to your bag of lefty insults to use against conservatives.

Congratulations, you guys certainly are expanding your vocabulary of divisive and incendiary name-calling tactics, aren't you?

@Mduffey -- Look beyond individual contributions and pay attention to political donations by PACs. See who gets invited to the ALEC conferences and whose political ads are paid for by Americans For Prosperity. See who is hosting fund raisers for Scott Walker, and ask yourself why the likes of Hank Greenberg (AIG) feels it's worth his while.

As for Noelle, she was the one who insisted that the Republican party is being called 'racist' and went on to disprove it by citing a one hundred and fifty year old example. incorrectly. Things have changed since then.

Exactly David. Just about every human institution morphs over time and after a number of years it is not what was was starting out. Every intelligent knows that.

Look at the Red Chinese. Today, they are about as capitalistic as you can get, only in an 1890s sort of way.

@David -

Here, here!

The "Bell curve?" Oh dear...

Our eyes tell us when the grass is free James who won't tell us who he is Hoffa.

Granted, all us have some level of bigotry and have trouble recognizing our whet privilege. But there are some of who refuse to recognize and worse, celebrate it.

@Patrick -

I'm not evading anything. I just realized that it's pointless engaging with you because instead of comprehending the true meaning of my words, all you want to do is spin them to suit the 'racism-hunting' and 'conservative ideology trashing' crusades that you appear to be on.

Todays conservative ideology preaches that abortion is wrong in all its forms and that the unborn need to be cared for and looked after. I am no fan of abortion as no matter how you look at it it is an ugly subject. I won't have one, but I won't chastise someone else who did. I am more interested in caring and looking after those who are already living and need, food, shelter, clothing, jobs, and benefits. Somehow Conservative ideology does not cover those already living

@Mau -- what does this have to do with the discussion at hand? Both of these things are considered to be legal medical care. Do you think an employer has the right to refuse to cover his employees for blood transfusions? Not cover medical treatment for women at all, because some very fundamentalist religions believe that?

This is a workers' rights issue, not a religious freedom one.

I did not make this comment as a religious comment. It is really in the context of history and racism. It was Margaret Sanger who founded Planned Parenthood. http://www.dianedew.com/sanger.htm

Employers and insurances pick and chose what coverage they want to provide, all the time. And most don't provide 100% coverage at all. So why is this administration so set on providing it free of charge to everyone in the country. On top of that forcing all employers and insurances to pay for it..

@Mau -- Margaret Sanger and her political views have nothing to do with President Obama, who never even met her. I can't believe that in this day and age a birth control pill or an IUD would be controversial.

I'm content with allowing employers to choose which services their employee health plans will cover as long as you're okay with an employer deciding he's not going to provide coverage for anything to do with obstetrics -- just based on his personal feelings. I recall a time when that was perfectly legal.

I actually agree about the insistence that birth control have no co-pay. I think it should be treated like any other prescription drug or medical procedure.

You made a point which applies to many of the comments on this blog, slavery had nothing to do with the Republican Party today. There was less controversy about birth control 25 years ago when it was provided by employers and insurance companies. Treated as a medication with a co-pay or priced cheap enough that one had no excuse not to buy it if they wanted. Those were also the days when Catholic doctors and hospitals provided these services under assumed names (just like some bloggers :) )

I don't belong to any political party or church as I do not agree to all of their tenets. I was liberal in my youth. Now I have more libertarian views than anything else. My stance on abortion changed when I held my baby in my arms.

This latest discussion about women's healthcare is why a national healthcare plan would protect every American. Employers should not be making healthcare coverage decisions for employees. Every person should pay the same amount for care and receive the same quality and range of care.

We don't have NHS and not likely to in the future, but birth control should be on every health care plan, regardless of where the employee works. Priority should be the employee's choice and best interest.

The conservative is anti abortion and pro-death penalty.
The liberal is pro choice and not pro death penalty.
I am pro-choice on abortion, pro-choice on gun ownership, and pro-death penalty. Do the two extremes make me a moderate? I believe that how you conduct your behavior is a matter of choice and as long as you are not taking away from others the government should but out.

"On Sunday afternoon, I enjoy surfing the web (on the wifi I pay for) and laughing at lunatic liberals and their ludicrous remarks."

See, Noelle, why is a remark like that necessary? I pay for my own internet service and wifi. I never saw the reason for the fancy-schmancy internet cafe at the Brookfield Metro-Mart. I go there to buy food and come home to relax and do things online. Your point is what? That people who access the internet at a coffee bar or the public library are free-loaders?

And why the attitude with McBride? He's on your side.

@Noelle Lorraine...You sure you don't have Bob McBride confused with someone else? He was being sarcastic and is a strong conservative supporter and voice. Although he and I are on the opposite of the fence most of the time, I have to defend his conservative credentials. I am one of the Shorewoodians he was poking a stick at. So get to know Bob, he's your ally.

Did I miss something here?

Bob: You missed a reply- that has now been deleted.
Noelle let you have it, or someone signed on as her and did so.

I out-snarked myself? Dang, I wish I'd seen that!

Bob, it's true. In a hasty mistake, I did not realize you were commenting with satire. I lashed back at you. A few people were quick to point out, you're on the good side. I deleted the comment immediately. I wanted to take the same quick second to own my error and extend an apology.
Thanks for engaging here and thanks for being on the right side. Great to run across you and other fellow patriots here.
Again, I'm sorry.

@Noelle -- Indeed. You read too quickly to comprehend, made a snap judgement, and responded with sarcasm. I think that if you aspire to be a conservative political activist with some screen cred, you might want to work on that elusive quality called diplomacy.

Maybe once you're up there with the likes of Anne Coulter and Michelle Malkin, you can turn up the snark again.

Noelle I have to give you credit for coming forward with the explaination. I thought you were replying with satire.

NP Noelle. It isn't always the easiest thing to detect, particularly if you're not familiar with the person attempting to use it. I tend to overdo it as well. The folks from Shorewood know better than to take anything I say too seriously.

Fortunately, we've got all these Democrats around here willing to take the time to explain stuff like how one can be a better Republican. Obviously with their house in complete order ( http://whitefishbay.patch.com/articles/wisconsin-teachers-revolting-against-the-demands-of-their-union-bosses ) they can afford to be so generous with that time. It's a blessing.

Bravo Tom! I grew up with traditional republican vaues of the Eisenhower era. That era has passed. I look at who is hurting me and who is not. Walker is hurting most those who chose a career of helping people. He is helping those who make their millions form using people. To him and his ilk people are disposable and I can not and will not support a dispicable character as he is.

I don't know. I don't know any.

Sad to say I've seen a lot of hateful commentary from both sides today. That's why I am keeping out of it.

@mau -

Apparently Patrick Ford didn't get the memo that you wanted to stay out of it, wherein he states "... there are the Hoffas, and the Maus, and the Bob McBrides, and the Ima Hippees, who just put their fingers in their ears and hum loudly."

I guess if you're not all Van Helsing on exposing and deriding the perceived racists on this board, it makes you all too conveniently blind to the reality that Mr. Ford apparently sees all around him no matter he looks, including the mirror. I'm not sure what exactly he is inferring that would make us, per say, but it looks to me like he has a real problem with those that choose to sit on the sideline or fails to see it as being as major of an issue as he believes it to be.

For the record, I've seen the film 'Soul Man' (1986) nearly a dozen times, and through the vicarious experiences contained within, I am far more versed on the subject than Mr. Ford could ever hope to be :-)

Drawing upon my vast vicarious knowledge in this subject, I can only conclude that Mr. Ford is the 'Joseph McCarthy' of racism.

I rest my case!

Actually, Pat, those of us who've been around in this particular corner of Patch for awhile do know them and have been encouraged by TPTB at Patch NOT to engage them when they go off on tangents like this. Rather, they'd prefer we just flag them and let the moderators deal with it. That's what was done, and, obviously, it's been taken care of. Same as it has been numerous times in the past.

"Does a full moon bring all the white supremacists out of hiding?."

Any moon.

For some reason lately they feel they have license to trot out their sociopathic opinions. It's probably because if they see then air on the TeeVee, they hear it on the radio or read it on the Journal op-eds so their outrageous thoughts are OK.

@JRH and McBride, I have seen more hate on this blog from those who profess to not be racist, against those they have determined are racist. Kind of like a witch hunt. Instead of getting into a friendly dialogue and try to change his views, they viciously and hatefully attack that those individuals. And like a bunch of wild animals, if you don't follow their pack, they attack you too.

Southern Poverty Law Center: "If a white group espoused similar beliefs with the colors reversed, few would have trouble describing it as racist and anti-Semitic. Although the racism of a group like the Nation may be relatively easy to understand, if we seek to expose white hate groups, we cannot be in the business of explaining away the black ones."
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-files/ideology/black-separatist

Mau, glad to see you're taking the high road about racism on this blog, as opposed to some of your questionable remarks elsewhere on Patch.

@Mau -- Where have I said anything that was vicious or hateful? Other than perhaps to point out to Noelle that her condescending and snide tone --'poor sad little liberals', her insistence that she pays for what she enjoys -- is undermining her credibility. There are plenty of conservatives who can argue a case without resorting to that.

Both parties have racists in them. That doesn't automatically render either party's points invalid.

@Randy1949, there was a stark difference in the way you responded to my comment vs. Bren. Bren came out punching. You and I have had what I thought were some good bantering back and forth without name calling. And I hope to have more in the future. I have tried to stay out of the fray, but one blogger pulled me into it because I didn't make a stand. I almost feel like I am dealing with kids or a husband here, if I say anything I get blasted, if I don't say anything I get blasted.

@Bren, yes I may have made some of what YOU have deemed questionable remarks in the past. But seeing how some can't hold a discussion without name calling and automatically blasting others, I have been working on being more civil.

@Mau -- there's the lesson not to come out punching. Or to say things in such a manner as to make someone want to come out punching. I'll have to admit that Noelle's posting style makes me want to come out punching sometimes. I have to hold my hands behind my back (figuratively, because I can't type with my hands behind my back). Being deliberately provocative, and responding in kind, is not conducive to civil political discourse.

@Randy1949, sometimes I have to walk away and come back later to respond. Most times that punching feeling is gone by then. I have an email friend in Europe who is a communist and atheist. For months we went round and round about our differences. Sometimes months went by without emailing. But one or the other would break and we would start the emails again. The discussions of differences started disappearing from our correspondence and we became very good friends exchanging family photos, Christmas greetings (from an atheist) and just plain friendly conversation. It is good to air our differences but we don't need to let them divide us.

Patrick Ford - you need to hum a new tune. I questioned your beloved science cause - climate change. And somehow, I am now rolled into a racist? First of all, you have no idea what race I am. Secondly, you have been pounding here for something that is just not there. Racisim can rear its ugly head anywhere - it is not political.

Apparently it makes you feel good to dig deep and make something there (even when it is not) and make yourself feel better? Pat yourself on the back all you want but you should look deep and honest - my fingers are not in my ears, they are pointing at you.

I honestly hope that at some point in this age of distorted facts and political correctness that we can get back to understanding the underlying SPIRIT of what made OUR country the greatest nation on earth and actually once again make that our core principle and priority - whether Republican, Democratic, or just plain proudly American.

It's ludicrous to think that Noelle, or anyone embracing a conservative ideology, would even feel compelled enough by attacks from our fellow countrymen to have to write a piece defending herself and those that stand with her from such utterly ridiculous charges such as racism, elitism, and greed. We all need to grow up.

I'd like to thank Noelle for taking the time to remind us of the unifying SPIRIT that makes us all Americans, and the undeniable importance of that SPIRIT in making us all who we are via the freedoms that WE all enjoy and cherish.

Well done!

Oh my goodness JRH, I am truly humbled by your words. Wow... That really left an impact on me.
Thank you for taking the time, and moreover, the consideration, to post those words. It means more than you'll ever know.

Noelle

Yeah man who hides behind a screen name!

What's really great is the way you think that this clownish look at history justifies all the racist mean-spiritedness that drives today's tea-propelled GOP. You are kidding nobody except yourself. That's why you so badly need right wing talk radio to give in your mind validity to your malignant politics.

Just look at the inanity of the T-Party label. The original featured patriots making mischief on a government backed corporate monopoly. The current iteration is a pack of ignorant yahoos supporting the corporate monopolies.

The founding fathers you all supposedly revere would have nothing to do with you all. In fact when the rubes rebelled against taxation and took up arms, for the good the country George Washington and company not only swooped in and seized their weapons, but came up with the Constitution (not your George Wallace version) in order to strengthen the federal government. Other wise this country would have been easy prey for the British to march in and take it all over again.

Maybe your historian-lauriate Noelle could do a masterful job on the Whiskey Rebellion and tell us how Jim Beam an Johnny Walker led a civil war -- Sarah Palin style.

Mr. Hoffa, I think the tone of Noelle's post incited some of the commentary here. Instead of gently debunking stereotypes, she throws in some rottweiler-ish digs at Democrats and cites statistics without sourcing them (welfare recipients/minorities).

It's my belief that the most persuasive arguments contain fact, logic, and civility.

That was pretty funny, Keith Schmitz. I also enjoyed the "Stuck with Mitt.." "Kids, we'll try to get you a job cleaning toilets on the Moon."

If you wouldn't make yourself a very big fish in a small barrel, you'd be less of a temptation.

Clearly, I have struck a nerve keith. Sting?

No, just irritated by ignorance.

Patriot usually means not selling out your country to foreign owned corporations.

And Lyle -I could suggest the same to you. If you did any research, I'd be shocked if you returned as a liberal still. If the evidence is taken into to consideration, and you remain a liberal, I'd ask if you were a public sector employee, a career welfare recipient, or just plain... Well, anyway, there's two sides to every story I suppose.

Here is a link to a recounting of the American history chapter of Alexander Hamilton and Aaron Burr. For some reason, this video came to mind while reading Noelle's post:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6V_DsL1x1uY

"If you did any research."

Lyle does an awful lot of research. Not like your cut and paste cherry picking job.

@Noelle -- Why would you be shocked that anyone who does research would remain a liberal? Your own understanding of history is lacking, as evidence by the historical inaccuracies in this blog. The Emancipation Proclamation didn't put an end to slavery in the US -- only in specific territories -- it took a Constitutional amendment to do that, and the Republican Party of 1855 bears little resemblance to the GOP today in terms of where it lies on the political spectrum.

You have a tendency to skim the surface of things and jump to wrong conclusions, as evidenced by your now deleted reply to Bob McBride. You thought he didn't agree with you so you turned on the schoolgirl snark.

There are political conservatives whom I respect. I don't agree with them, but at least I see how they have thought about the issues in depth and can make a good accounting of themselves. Your generation of young knee-jerk conservatives who seem to think you would be prospering were it not for the welfare types sucking away your hard-earned tax dollars? Nuh-uh.

@Noelle Lorraine...I see you define a patriot in contemporary terms and not the deeper and more timeless values that led to the founding of our nation. To fully understand those values of our founders, requires reading and understanding the thinkers and writers of the "Great Enlightenment" and the "Age of Reason", Our founding values were complex and in some ways appear to be contradictory. Your premise that the current Republican Party is unfairly labeled as racist based on the party's history is only partially correct. The inclusion of the Dixiecrats into the Republican Party, during the 1960s, brought in the stench of racism and Jim Crow ending the GOP's fine tradition of racial equality. It was the Republicans in Congress that supported LBJ and the civil rights legislation, where the Dixiecrats fought it all the way. True racial equality is a job still unfinished and requires both the Right and the Left to cooperate to finally turn that page and move on to a better society.

What becomes obvious is that social justice and racism has become entangled. Racial differentiation is only one of the elements of social injustice. Social justice involves true equal opportunity for all to pursue their goals and dreams without structural impediments. The greatest difference between the Right and Left is how to remove those impediments so that all can participate in the American Dream.

@Lyle
Where you and every other Democrat fails, including our President, is that racism only exists when it needs to be used to attack some one or something. It only exists as a political tool (see Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, 2 men that have built careers on creating racism). The act of racism by the populous has become so minimal as to no longer be be relevant. It would be like people still running on a political platform of ending child labor.

The conservatives want to put it behind us, to treat all people as equal. This is the patriotic way. One level playing field that gives all success (the exact way a black man became president). Racial equality is achieved when races are equal. Democrats do not want that. They want to keep the assumption that blacks are lessor in statue then whites. Why? It works as a political platform. If you tell some one they can't succeed often enough, they start to believe it. Telling them they need affirmative action because they aren't good enough or telling them they need more welfare because they can't produce enough. For me, the conservative platform of allowing all people the ability to succeed and fail on their own is true racial equality.

The Democrats are not for the removal of impediments. They are for the implementations of restrictions on the successful. If every one is at the poverty level, then we are all equal.

Lyle, your answer still leaves me begging the question- how does liberal defines to you?

@J.B. Schmidt...You raise some important points, but this thread is too limited to properly respond. I will be submitting a blog addressing the issue of racism and social justice.

@Noelle Lorraine...I am a bit confused by your request for clarification with the following statement: "Now how does liberal define to you Lyle? I KNOW how it defines to me." The grammatical usage is unclear to what your request really entails. Please clarify.

What does being a liberal M-E-A-N to you? How does it define to you on a personal level? Do you remember when you asked me what being a patriot means to me? Do you recall I answered? I want you to do the same- only in terms of your political affiliation. I am not sure how else I can say it. I hope that is clear enough for you to understand.

@Noelle Lorraine...I think the easiest way to answer your request is if you refer to my Shorewood Patch blog titled: "Social Democracy will save this nation" It was posted on 2/1/2012.

@J.B. Schmidt -- "The act of racism by the populous has become so minimal as to no longer be be relevant."

Only if you define racism as overt acts like lynchings and cross-burnings. It's more subtle today. Like the one job I worked where several applicants showed up for a job opening and we all of us knew that the black applicant hadn't a snowflake's chance in hell of being considered. In the end, the white person hired was no more articulate, educated, or presentable. He was just the owner's definition of 'our kind of guy'.

That same owner was the sort of person who resented those 'shiftless people on the taxpayer's money'.

Noelle raised the racism issue and didn't defend against the charge all that well. There are racists in both parties. There are fallacies and policies that don't work on both ends of the spectrum. But you can't argue that it doesn't exist. Why else would our first black President be attacked so viciously on the basis of his citizenship?

@Randy 1949

So to challenge a person’s citizenship = racism. There is no logical basis for that. No action taken by the republicans against Obama was done because of his race. It was done because he is a flippin Socialist.

Your story about a racist boss means nothing. I worked for a guy that hired the most qualified, no matter their ethnicity. You can’t eliminate one bigot here and there? You can’t legislate that. That is my point about it being irrelevant. The amount of actually bigoted people is so few that to address it would be meaningless and would never solve the problem of evil people.

I don’t discount that there are racists in both parties; however, the Democrats want them to stay subservient. It fits their political agenda.

@J.B. Schmidt -- Yes, the challenge of citizenship is racist when I hear people calling the President a Kenyan and evincing the desire to send him back to Africa. Would the son of a British man and an American mother, born in Hawaii, with a birth certificate to prove it, be subject to the same thing? Please.

How is he any more of a 'flippin Socialist' than FDR, who got us out of the Great Depression when Hoover's policies had not helped one bit? Even Clint Eastwood approves of the return of the American auto industry.

@Randy 1949
Since your magic 8-ball was able to tell you what the minds of the birthers were thinking, could you get the lottery numbers? What exactly were they supposed to call a guy who might have been born in Kenya and not the US? If he could possibly have been born in Britain, would it be racist to call him British. You are grabbing at straws to prove a point that you can only assume.

FDR did not save the country with the New Deal. In fact, he knew this and attempted to implement a New Deal II, accept he died. Truman attempted to carry on in FDR's foot steps but congress stopped him and instead lowered taxes. That pulled us through. The New Deal never dropped unemployment below 20% until WWII and then only because millions of men went over seas and war production increased state side. FDR was horrified of a second great depression when those men can home. Hence, New Deal II was his solution.

Therefore, the flippin Socialist currently in office is attempting to destroy the just as the FDR and Woodrow Wilson did when they introduced the socialism that is currently crippling our economy.

Well said. Sorry to say this blog has degenerated further yet.

Well said, Brian.

Poor baby.

I thought liberals where supposed to be namby pamby pacifists? So what are you afraid of?

Who ever said that Keith? Not me! After my last trip to Madison (or any place where protestors are)- liberals are anything but.

@ patchreader, although I agree this type of thing goes on, I actually told mduffy to use my email rather than hers. They already harass me. She/ we want to get in touch with Hoffa off the public threads to discuss something that will be made public very soon.

I stand corrected with regard to the author's email address and thus apologize to Keith for butting in.

However, I nonetheless think that ad hominem arguments based upon a screen alias are irrelevant. Many commenters use a screen alias, regardless of political affiliation.

Enough said.

Patchreader, I don't blame you one bit for the alias, as a matter of fact, I think it is a great idea. I don't condemn you at all, especially since you're not really saying anything that can be taken as a personal attack on someone else. Keep on keeping on my friend!

Noelle, this is SOP for Keith in the morning. He comes on here, grunts out a couple of those, and then he's generally good for most of the day. I've suggested bran muffins for more fiber, but prefers this method apparently.

Uh-oh... Looks as if somebody else got under poor Keith's skin. Sad, angry little liberal.

So crabby, Keith! Honestly, I think you'd be better off with the muffins.

BTW, I noticed that you managed to get yourself right back on here in response to a poke. Quick glance at the comment count on this thread alone has you ahead of me at least 3 to 1. "Projecting" again?

Noelle, I must point out the contradictory nature of comments such as "Sad, angry little liberal," "Let them launch their predictable attacks," "Funny how the left grasps at straws," with your stated purpose of your piece, "The article is about the republican party being the opposite of this."

The psychological projection evidenced within the context of your writing doesn't persuade me to increase my respect for the Republican party, and significantly marginalizes your own credibility.

@ Bren please note that I am not attacking the left in general as much as I am attacking the few members of the left with out-of-line comments. I was attacking the mudslinging messagers versus the party itself.
And as far as my credibility issue -or lack there of- I accept that. Yours lies in the same low regard with me after the thread. And let's face it, there's no way to persuade you to the Republican Party anyway. So you saying my article doesn't persuade you is laughable. What a joke.

@Grace Gall -- My better half, who has a BA in history, led me to believe that Thomas Jefferson had inherited the slaves he owned, and that being in debt precluded him from freeing those slaves during his lifetime.

Whether or not Jefferson loved Sally Hemmings is almost beside the point. She loved him enough to return from Paris, where she could have been free, in order to be with Jefferson. He had to have had something to recommend him.

Sally Hemmings was actually the half-sister of Jefferson's late wife, whom he had given a promise never to remarry upon her death, as this would have disinherited her daughters. As a result, I look upon his domestic situation with sympathetic understanding.

Ha. Santo, you are a prime example of a fine, red blooded conservative. God love ya!

"Blah blah blah blah..."

Unfortunately, too many of Santo Ingrilli's ilk believe that to be insightful political wit.

Santo, when you write "put minorities into voting blocks," could what you are suggesting here be compared to Wisconsin's 12th district, where redistricting just changed that part of the state from "swing" to "solid Republican?" You are writing about manipulating minority groups and I am attempting to understand your metric of appropriateness.

Yes, after criticism of the Doyle administration using tobacco settlements funds to plug budget holes, that seems especially hypocritical.

@michelloe and Randy 1949
You are either being intentionally misleading or ignorant of the facts.

$143 million was given to the state. Based on the rules of the settlement, the state is allowed to whatever it wants with $31 million and the rest must go to home owners. The structure of the settlement was done this why to reduce the hardship brought on the state because of the foreclosure crisis. I would argue that a budget deficit seems to be the exact purpose for the money. Please tell me what he did wrong.

The tobacco money had a specific purpose. In that settlement the money was to go to preventing tobacco use. If the foreclosure settlement had the same stipulation I would agree with you; however, it did not.

Michelleo, please tell my which thousands of jobs were lost because of Walker's budget fix. Then explain the problems that schools now face because of funding cuts. Lastly, please tell which hurts the unions more: 1) that fact that can collectively bargain or 2) they can't collect dues. If you do any research it is #2 and that is why they are pushing a recall. The truth is you have no proof of anything you said.

Okay so you are a switch hitter, with no party affilliation whatsoever. Which one, if any of our founding fathers, or first dozen presidents even- would have approved of spending more money than we take in?
Who, in Lincoln's time believed in entitlements?
Paying foreign countries to be our friend knowing they want to kill us?
(money we do not have to throw away mind you)
You are right a lot has changed since then; a man of color coudn't vote and today he is our commander in chief. Back then our issue was importing tea at a premium. Today we are buying oil from countries who want us wiped off the face of the earth. Despite this fatal attraction we have with them, we refuse Canada's oil and Pipeline?
It used to be the leaders of the free world had a brain, today they are too entrenched in hidden agendas.
If we do not turn things around soon, we will be embarassed to be an American.

Interesting. When a young person makes a post in favor of conservative ideals, you go 'atta boy!' and applaud his involvement, but when Sean raises some well-thought criticisms, we get Craig.

From the look of things, Sean can defend an argument without my help. I just had to point this out.

@Born Free -- Collectivists? Really? Somebody's been reading too much Ayn Rand.

(Ms. Rand was, by the way, laughably naive.)