@Bren
As a father, one trait I noticed among my children (and other children their ages) is when they learn a new word or idea they tend to use it as often as they can. It makes them feel more mature and older then their age might imply. However, in many instances the application of that word or idea is incorrect because they have failed to take into account how context affects that word or idea. Your posts tend to use this same child-like mentality. It was blatantly obvious during the recall when every post included ALEC or Koch and now that the ramblings of Nick Poulos have graced the pages of Patch you are clinging to Ayn Rand in your posts. If you noticed my thoughts on success predate Rand and have their basis in the origins of the country.

If you disagree that the Democrats are trying to divide America via the false impression that class warfare exists; please read the following page and then answer the some questions:
http://www.demconvention.com/speakers/caucuses-and-councils/
1) Why are we American's segregated to our own rooms?
2) Show me where the same segregation occurred during the GOP Convention.
3) Why on Monday and Wednesday are the individual ethnic caucuses meeting in different rooms then the Ethnic Council? Shouldn't they be one in the same?

The truth is the convention schedule reflects the ideas Democrats have regarding the direction of the country, Divide and conquer. Rather then unify and succeed as we saw at the GOP convention.

@J.B. Schmidt...The Republicans, every four years haul out every minority they can to support the myth of "American Exceptionalism". This convention was no different. Part of the myth is that social class doesn't exist in America, which is blatantly untrue.

As a social historian, I can attest to wealth as the social class identifier. Attainment of wealth is based on a number of variables including: a modicum of intelligence, ancestry, ethnicity, race, religion, location, and cultural inheritance as well as inherited wealth, and most of all luck, being in the right place at the right time. Republican's and conservatives love to point out the belief in 'pulling oneself up by ones own bootstraps' will reduce or absolve all class and individual distinctions.

The condemnation of those at the economic bottom and those close to the bottom is the favorite sport of conservatives. It is a way of justifying the intense focus on justification of self interest and the rejection of the existence of social injustice with claims; if I can do it or my ancestors could do it, then anyone can do it. Those who have not attained the same position are somehow deficient and unworthy in sharing in the benefits of the American Society. The bottom line is that I have earned mine and you haven't. Conservatives like to discount any benefits or advantages that they may have had, keeping the claim of being self made unsoiled by the true reality.

J.B., if you keep seeing the same points repeated over and over it's because the information isn't being received or understood. This has nothing to do with my maturity/age but with scientifically proven evidence that left-brain prominent individuals with an enlarged amygdala are less receptive to abstract concepts and are also burdened with heightened emotional/fear states which further decreases receptivity. Thus concepts that counter what has been ingested are deflected, or ignored. Defensiveness and aggressive reactions occur when pressed. I'm also not just writing to you. This is your article but others read it, including visitors. I know some things have been said on FOX because some of those folks don't realize that it isn't a private channel, so I just want to be sure you understand that, too.

Concerning the caucus room issue, a caucus actually is a factional meeting where decisions may be made, delegates chosen, etc., then brought to the whole. I'm certain the GOP had caucus rooms too.

I'm willing to put up with the resistance because what's decided by the majority of voters affects the entire country. I'm frankly scared of a return to Bush-era policies and putting our natural resources into the hands of a venture capitalist. And if something should happen to Romney, our next president has been sucking at the poisonous teat of an atheist philosopher since his youth.

I won't be surprised if you don't understand my response.

@Lyle -

Other than in cases of inherited wealth or lottery winners, please name one financially successful person that didn't work for it.

Thanks!

@Bren -

"I'm certain the GOP had caucus rooms too."

JB provided you with a source. As we like to work with facts around here, please give your source that supports your above quoted assertion.

Thanks!

"And if something should happen to Romney, our next president has been sucking at the poisonous teat of an atheist philosopher since his youth."

And why do you keep on bringing up the whole atheism aspect about Rand for? In that Colbert Report video that you've been linking to, it clearly shows that Ryan has denounced that aspect of her philosophy. How many times does this fact need to be repeated to you before it sinks in - I wonder?

@Bren...I think you are writing to a brick wall when you start to introduce the latest information from the neurosciences. As you well know that extreme conservatism is directly tied to dysfunction in the Amygdala. Dysfunction in the Amygdala also accounts for PTSD. This has been known for quite some time.

Some of latest data that is coming out is the comparison of left hemisphere and right hemisphere. The studies indicate that the right brain hemisphere should be dominate and the left subservient, but in our culture we are demanding left brain dominance since it works best in a corporatist structure. This also accounts for the rise of self interest over empathy and the pursuit of social justice.

I'm glad to see that someone other than myself are keeping up with the newest data and the impact it has on explaining society and individual behavior.

@ Bren (and Lyle):

JB's point is that continued to throw out the same unsubstantiated innuendo throughout the recall. You continually brought up ALEC and the Koch brothers. Yet where have the Koch bros reaped any special benefits from recent Wisconsin Legislation?

And what exactly has ALEC done that AFL-CIO hasn't done? All they do is craft and lobby for legislation that has been shown to be promote business and free market growth. Yet all your posts tried (and failed) to portray them under the umbrella of conspiracy.

Hit us with some real facts, not just the false rhetoric the Barack Hussein Obama reelection strategy has been running on so far!

Mr. Ruble, it's a fascinating subject. Armed with some understanding of what is physically happening provides an opportunity to experiment with different methodologies in penetrating "the walls." Perhaps the left-brain friends on Patch could become a type of informal test group. So far I have discovered that repetition is recognized by some but the subject matter deflects. The repetition becomes a source of irritation in and of itself. Insisting upon documentation for outlandish assertions results in non-response, imitative requests for documentation/counter-documentation, or as we have seen in several promising instances, actual attempts to provide sources of information that support the left-brain position (albeit generally from partisan sources). I am intrigued by the idea of the experiment...

Mr. Hoffa, here's the benefit of 3.5 seconds of Google research: http://www.nbcnews.com/technology/technolog/social-media-makes-smoke-filled-rooms-political-conventions-thing-past-949560
This article talks about how both parties are opening up convention events to convention non-attendees. I know your habit of skimming/skipping information so I kept it light.

Anti, isn't the advancement of a national agenda sufficient benefit? Wisconsin isn't the only state with ALEC governors/legislators.

The idea of business succeeding is wholly acceptable to me. Where I draw the line is when the rights, wellbeing/security, and even lives of people are threatened in the pursuit of ever more profits. I was watching a foreign film the other night and there was a great line, "Once one has tasted power one can never be fully fed."

@Bren -

Apparently, you're the one who's skimming/skipping yet again. There is nothing in the link you provided showing that Republicans caucused at all into any kind of groups, yet alone ones segregated by race, age, ethnicity, etc.

In case you forgot, your assertion was:

"I'm certain the GOP had caucus rooms too."

If you're so certain, then the proof should be easy to provide, so why are you dicking around with us?

Please provide a link supporting your contention or admit that you were WRONG.

Thanks!

BTW - Ryan has expressly denounced the atheist and adulterous aspects of Rand's philosophy. Just wanted to make sure that this gets repeated to you enough so that it properly sinks in, seeing as how you have obvious issues with the acceptance of objective FACTS.

@Bren
You never answered my question that has now been posed to you repeated times. Instead, the "concepts that counter what has been ingested are deflected, or ignored. "

I will ask again. If the Democratic platform is not one of division but of unity, why are the separate races, ages, income levels and faiths segregated in to various rooms rather then bring them together as Americans?

Sunrocket, you have completely discounted the achievement and social gaps. According to literacy statistics, the best prepared child entering K5 has had up to 1,700 hours of story reading time with parents/family/childcare. That child enters school with heightened vocabulary, sense of what the alphabet is, some level of alphabet symbol sight/sound recognition, etc. The least prepared child has an average of 25 hours. Total. This can be because of parental English literacy deficits, work schedules, etc. That gap is almost never fully closed. Then there is the social gap. The kids attending University School, Marquette University High School, Nicolet, etc., are sitting next to the children whose parents are top level executives/business owners in town. Then they will attend Ivy League schools. There's a reason for that. Relationships are being built, in some cases from grade school that creates a national social/business network. Contrast that with the kid who attends different schools that don't have the benefit of parent/alumni donations to keep the curriculum and tools cutting-edge. George W. Bush's grades probably wouldn't have gotten him into Yale. The fact that family members have been graduating from Yale since 1844 certainly did.

If you've ever had the opportunity to get a better deal on something because you knew the manager or got the inside track on a job because of a friend working at that company then you understand how the playing field is manipulated.

@Sunrocket..."Born on a level playing field!" What universe have you been residing in,t hat is one of the greatest American Myths.

@Bren:
"...the best prepared child entering K5 has had up to 1,700 hours of story reading time with parents/family/childcare...least prepared child has an average of 25 hours. Total. This can be because of parental English literacy deficits, work schedules, etc..."

Really Bren? First, how many of those "least prepared" kids are from homes that have those problems? Second, how come their parents aren't taking advantage of the many, many, many programs out there for that purpose? And third, what has this to do with Sunrocket's comment? It sounds like you are just making excuses for people to fail so that you, Lyle and Barack Hussein Obama can rescue them.

We are born on a level playing field. There is nothing, other than ourselves, that can stop almost all of us from succeeding. Last Monday I was in a Pick 'N Save that had, for one of its baggers, a Down Syndrome individual. He was obviously well trained and did a fast job of bagging groceries. So to sum it up:

Hard working Down Syndrome individual with job: success!

Intelligent 17 year-old that succumbs to peer pressure and drops out of school: failure!

Excellent questions, Anti! This is where the "nurture" part of the equation comes in. In response to your question about why programs aren't accessed, there are many reasons. Lack of awareness (illiteracy, lack of access to appropriate media, etc.), fear (such as illegal immigrants), work schedules, disinterest, etc., etc. Parents are the #1 influence in the child's life; they provide the exposures, opportunities. I know teachers who teach in the central city--there are children who have never stepped foot outside of a 6-block radius of their home.

But moving past that. Without even knowing what questions to ask, how does a child find answers on one's own, especially with a literacy deficit right out of the gate? Budget cuts in schools not only cut the arts and sports, but also guidance counselors and librarians. Only well-funded private schools or public schools with extraordinary parent support groups can replace what's been lost.

When a child is able to pull her/himself up by the "bootstraps," there is often found behind that success an individual, teacher, or family providing the emotional strength and commitment that inspires self-confidence and motivation. Something a lot of us may take for granted.

Lyle - what universe am I from? Obviously a more confident and positive one that you are. I respect some articles and points that you have made in the past but that statement alone makes me questions them. I'd like to think if I were a single parent with not much money I could still impress upon my children that the world could be their oyster if they try hard enough in school and other endeavors. It has been done before, I have seen it. I have also seen the opposite, as someone mentioned schools, I believe it was Bren, stating Marquette, USM and Nicolet, a public school I happened to have attended. I don't know about it's demographics now but at that time if was a 50/50 affluent vs not affluent. It frankly didn't matter how wealthy a household some people came from and quite frankly, some of the richest were and still are the worst. They were just as in to drugs/alcohol as those from perhaps the lower income areas of Glendale. In my class alone I know of 10 that have committed suicide in the years since graduation. Several after lifelong addictions and others do to lack of success. There are many influences to failure be it broken homes, addiction or uninterested parents. But the resources are there for any child to become a success if they really want to.

@Anti-Alinsky....Are you claiming that we are all born into equal opportunities? That is clearly an absurdity. We each have our abilities and our debilities. We are all born into different circumstances with different families and cultures. I have raised two of my four children on the North Shore and it is a much better environment than other areas and the communities generally support their schools. When I moved here from out of state I looked at communities all throughout S.E. Wisconsin and N.E. Illinois. I moved to the North Shore even though our taxes are high. By doing so I enhanced the opportunities for my children to be successful. It is not only a person's will to succeed, but the support from family and community as well. If a supportive family and community is absent, it is becomes ever more difficult to experience upward social mobility.

@Sunrocket....I too have seen and experienced those who started with unequal opportunity rise up and succeed. However, research provides us the reality that whatever social class you're born into is probably the one you'll remain in. Northern European nations, including the U.K. has a much higher rate of upward mobility than here in the U.S. and they have the tradition of class structure for millennia.

Lyle,

Other than your misunderstanding of the correlations found in the studies of the neurosciences, the post above is by far the most misleading.

In the U.K., for example, there is not the problem of socialized failure. In England, blacks have the same exact accent as whites. There are no organizations, institutions or prominent representative minorities telling blacks that people are organized against them. Unlike in the U.S., the narrative that the minority grows up with is much more dependent upon what is being said in the household than what is being said by anyone outside. Ironically, that alternative reality was exactly what was being espoused by the minorities at the Convention.

As you know, there are so many factors that work to the advantage and disadvantage of any given individual. If anyone had pounded into my head how scientifically-proven statistically disadvantaged I was for being so damn short and ugly, I would have been even more prone to failure than I presently am. Fortunately for me, no one made that a narrative for me, and the alternative one served me well.

@Lyle -

It is not government's place to force people to better themselves. People have to want to better themselves. All we can do is provide the opportunity. The opportunities are out there for all to take advantage of. It's up to the individual to make the most of that opportunity.

If certain children don't want to pay attention in school or do their homework - that's their own fault!

What are you going to do, start forcing those children by gunpoint to pay attention in school and do their homework???

Throwing money at the problem, like you want to do, won't fix a damned thing for those people and you know it!

@Lyle
Isn't the main reason social mobility appears better in Europe because that have less to distance to go? Since socialism has deteriorated the wealth generation ability of the individual, they have a lower top end to wealth. This can easily proven since the UK has a lower median income then the US. Thus if you cannot go as high in the UK as in the US; yet, the lower ends are the same, it only makes sense that the UK would appear to have greater social mobility since the gap between high and low is smaller.

@Luke...What precisely is "socialized failure"? If you are claiming that we have a structured society that promotes failure of certain people and groups, I would agree. This phenomena is contrary to the notion that anyone can succeed if the will is strong enough.

I also agree that the message received from home is a powerful nurturing element. Much of the perception that is taught to the young comes from the direct experience of the caregivers and family. If that message is discouraging, then the young receive the message of the inescapably of social conditions prevails. You and I both have acknowledged that proper education of the young from birth to age 7 or 8 is critical to breaking long standing social dysfunction. The question rests with how to accomplish this task.

Concerning the claims made by Bren and myself as to what neuroscience is adding to the knowledge of human perception and understanding is well documented. The study of PTSD has lead to new understanding and as the research continues, I am sure that much more will be revealed. We are beginning to answer the fundamental questions between nurture and nature. In my opinion, this is a good thing.

@J.B. Schmidt...Upward social mobility is judged on many variables. It is not just wealth generated, but it is living standard also. Although wealth and living standard are linked, they are two separate issues. Education plays a critical role in both wealth achievement and living standard. The northern European nations I cited, do a much better job at educating their populations and providing needed services such as healthcare.

You have indicated that the upward mobility phenomena can be explained in the U.K. by a narrowing of the gap between economic classes. I think there is truth in that but it also is a clear indication that they have been able to equalize the living standard from lowest to highest, which we haven't been able to accomplish.

Lyle,

""What precisely is "socialized failure"? If you are claiming that we have a structured society that promotes failure of certain people and groups, I would agree.""

Then we agree.

""This phenomena is contrary to the notion that anyone can succeed if the will is strong enough.""

That's where you drop the ball, Lyle. No individual is a mindless victim of fate. No one is labeled as a failure at birth, contrary to your perspective. Don't you see, Lyle, that you JUST MADE J.B. Schmidt's point?

Lyle, the liberal message is that YOU ARE stuck where you are. Ironically, too much of the black population of the US had ingested that Kool-Aide, as I pointed out by turning your contrast of UK mobility as it compares to US mobility.

Whole groups of people are now socialized to fail because they agree with you, Lyle. They believe your narrative. 50 years from now we will be struggling with the same problems in the black community, yet during that same period wave after wave of racial minorities will have come to the US, adapted, been integrated and become financially successful.

Lyle,

""This phenomena is contrary to the notion that anyone can succeed if the will is strong enough.""

Lyle, I think you are conflating "will" and "desire." Everyone desires things, and often desires are in conflict. However, "will" is found where action takes place. A person who desires to better themselves but takes no action is not someone who had the will to do so. Perhaps someone took away his hope and confidence.

""I also agree that the message received from home is a powerful nurturing element. Much of the perception that is taught to the young comes from the direct experience of the caregivers and family. If that message is discouraging, then the young receive the message of the inescapably of social conditions prevails. You and I both have acknowledged that proper education of the young from birth to age 7 or 8 is critical to breaking long standing social dysfunction. The question rests with how to accomplish this task.""

We pretty much agree. My point is that we go a long way towards accomplishing the task by providing a different narrative, The narrative is the one that blacks experience in some parts of the world outside our boarders. It is a message that enables.

Yes, except 2.0 is global.

AWD- do you remember the initial cause of the downward spiral of Greece? Try Goldman Sachs. How about Italy? JP Morgan. This wacko creative destruction is the real cause of economic hardship. It is not a political crisis but an ethical one.

Mangie, I suggest you watch Frontline's Money, Power and Wall Street." The massive amount of wealth that is wielded as a weapon by the very few to amass more wealth at the expense of millions of people is mindblowing. They show absolutely no regret. As for Greece and Goldman Sachs: the bank made the terms of their deal so complicated that the Greek government did not understand the terms. When things went bad, the Greeks were told that they had to pay 16% on the loans. It was a scam from day one.

@GearHead
All the old white guys go to the Ethnic Council, while the other race groups are in their own meeting, and determine how those races can best be used as pawns.

Bren, by supporting Obama, you're supporting the special interests.

Mr. Hoffa, as you well know, special interests clog up government at every level. However, I do like the strides made to rein in middleman profiteering on people's health. I like that a lot, although there's much further to go. As you know, I believe health care should be a social investment, not an opportunity to make money off of sick people. For that reason alone I'd support Barack Obama for a second term.

We'll always have special interest groups hanging around the doors of politicians. It's our job to elect people who put the needs of constituents first. The needs of both are not necessarily exclusive of each other. We have politicians so entrenched and powerful in Washington that changing the mold is most difficult. The Tea/GOP is just a new, powerful symptom of an egregious problem.

Bren, if government is people, than you have to admit that corporations are people as well.

As for competing against big business, the problem isn't so much that big business garners special privilege (and I'm admitting it does), the problem is the overhead incurred by government regulation and hassle that overwhelms a smaller guy, where a larger entity has the ability to spread the cost of compliance across a larger business process. We can handle competition, but not the jackboot of government on our throats.

@GearHead....Corporations are people? That's insane. You take your arguments into absurdity.

@Bren -

If you truly believed in the assertions that you've made in your posts, then you'd be backing either Jill Stein, Peta Lindsay, Stewart Alexander, James Harris, Jerry White, etc and not Barack Obama.

Obama has proven time and again that he is beholden to the special interests. He promised no mandate in the health care bill that you cited as liking so much. So who do you think caused the existence of that mandate? It's obviously the special intrests that you claim to hate.

You're nothing but a partisan hypocrite!

Gear, only in the sense that people own/run corporations. I disagree with Citizens United because it increases the capacity of those individuals to influence campaigns over those of smaller financial resources.

I think Mr. Hoffa had brought up an interesting point some time back about regulations/costs for restaurant signage. It was agreed that a national chain could withstand the expense far better than an entrepreneur. At the heart of the argument was the local ordinances, laid down to maintain aesthetic/real estate values of the community. We must remember that laws exist for a reason. Sometimes the needs change but eliminating them entirely (as espoused by Ayn Rand, et al), is disrespectful to the people and the circumstances for which they were created. My mother, a collector of truisms, would say, "Your rights end where my nose begins."

@Lyle -

Name a single corporation that doesn't involve people. Corporations are indeed people in the same way in which the government is people. How do you deny this?

@Bren:
"...The Tea/GOP is just a new, powerful symptom of an egregious problem."

The Democrat/Liberal/Leftitst/Socialist/Communist bloc is an even bigger part of the problem, although it is less conspicuous. Check out JB's link above:

Caucus Session #1
Black Caucus (Ballroom CD)
Hispanic Caucus (Ballroom B)
...
Native American Council (Room 218A/219A)

Why are the Democrat/Liberal/Leftitst/Socialist/Communist block working towards division when we need to working towards unity?
Why are we running around describing ourselves as "African-Americans" and "Asian-Americans" when the common thread is "Americans"?
Why do we have laws that bases assistance on race rather than on need?
Why do we have laws that give the tools of success to individuals that wont even attempt the succeed?

The Democratic Overly Legislated Excuses (DOLE) just separates us further apart from our fellow Americans. We need leadership that will get all of us working together to make this country a success once again, and Barack Hussein Obama is not the man to do it!

Mr. Hoffa, just checking, are any of the folks you listed running for president? Glad you want to participate, but let's stay on topic. I think I'm going to adopt that last line, "You're nothing but a partisan hypocrite!" which you like so well, in the way you do, a deflective throw-down, during the next week just to gauge reaction:

Assistant: "Your meeting starts in 5 minutes."
Me: "You're nothing but a partisan hypocrite!"

Relative: "Would you mind picking me up from the airport on Tuesday?"
Me: "You, you're nothing but a partisan hypocrite!"

Companion Animal: "Meow!"
Me: "You're nothing but a partisan hypocrite!"

I also randomly texted it so someone. Just got my first response back, quote, "Haha, whaaaaaaat?" Couldn't have "said" it better myself.

; )

@Bren -

Hoffa's point was over-burdensome government regulation that is inconsistently applied by governmental leaders. In Hoffa's case, if you recall, there was already a multi-panel sign present that was grandfathered in before the local ordinances were changed. Five of the 8 spots on the multi-panel sign were empty. Hoffa merely wanted to fill one of the empty spots with the sign for his restaurant. The sign was there irregardless, and remains there to this day.

Because of the stubbornness / power-tripping of elected City leaders in granting a variance to other businesses to fill the remaining empty spots on the sign, there are now several more new signs that were constructed in accordance to the new ordinance requirements, which actually creates a lot more clutter on the highway corridor than if the City has just granted ordinances allowing the other empty spots on the multi-panel sign to be filled. The new signs also take away land for other more productive / tax revenue generating purposes.

Hoffa's rant was against government STUPIDITY!

By your standard, McDonald's should be limited to the same advertising opportunities as the local mom & pop family restaurant in order to equalize the playing field.

Does that make sense? How are mom and pops able to survive now in the face of being outspent on advertising by a zillion to one?

@Bren -

"Mr. Hoffa, just checking, are any of the folks you listed running for president?"

Was this meant to be a joke or were you serious? If this is a serious question, then it shows how truly uninformed you really are!

To answer your question, YES, ALL of the people named by Hoffa are openly running for President in 2012. And based on your ramblings here, all of those named are more in line with your asserted views than is Barack Obama.

Now, if you could answer Hoffa's question and provide a link showing how the GOP had segregated caucus meetings at their convention, as you've previously asserted and failed to support with factual proof, we may actually be able to advance the conversation into something productive!

I won't be holding my breath though!

Mr. Hoffa, McDonalds actually got its start as a single restaurant, if memory serves. Clearly there was a different long-term goal at inception or developed, compared to a family-run restaurant. I would have to see the signage you describe to get a better sense of what you describe. The local ordinances may be attempting to concentrate signage, I have been seeing some of this in some communities.

I'm going to have to withdraw my statement about GOP caucuses for the moment. I found this schedule http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012/08/rnc-releases-revised-convention-schedule/ and there are no caucuses listed. Is this because it's post-convention or is that the complete GOP convention??

@Bren -

The signage issue is this. The old grandfathered sign that Hoffa wanted to be granted a variance to fill one of the five empty panels on the sign is about 70ft tall and is supported by two large steel beams extending vertically from the ground. The new ordinances limit the height of commercial roadside signage to no more than 20ft and state that the sign must originate from the ground level with no visible airspace between the ground and the top of the sign and that the sign box must be enclosed in a structure comprised of a certain color brick. The purported goal of the ordinance is aesthetic uniformity. So now, instead of having just one sign for the strip mall, there are now four today. I guess it makes sense to the geniuses that sit on the City zoning and planning commissions, as well as to the common council, but to Hoffa, it seems to be little more than a waste of space, resources, and out-right stupidity!

"Is this because it's post-convention or is that the complete GOP convention??"

I have no idea - Hoffa's not the one who asserted that he was certain that the GOP convention had caucuses. Members of the WI delegation that Hoffa knows personally didn't mention anything about caucuses at the convention, so my guess is that the GOP convention did not caucus into groups because there is no need to. Why the Dems are doing it, and why they are doing it by race, ethnicity, nationality, etc. is a little disturbing to say the least.

The message from the GOP is that we are all one country, while the Dems appear to like to divide and segregate people according to discriminatory labels like skin color, religious beliefs, etc. Could this be the Dems hanging onto their post Civil Rights ways of forced segregation and Jim Crow? Why does this not disturb you?

Why were you so certain that the GOP caucused into groups if you had no facts to back up such an assertion? You do know what they say about assumptions, don't you Bren? Most of your 'facts' about the GOP tend to be little more than assumption based when it comes down to it!

I will give you credit for at least admitting that you were wrong, albeit in an indirect fashion ;-)

@Bren -

"McDonalds actually got its start as a single restaurant, if memory serves. Clearly there was a different long-term goal at inception or developed, compared to a family-run restaurant."

What does this have to do with the current advertising disparity?

You're the one that wants to arbitrarily limit advertising and donations on behalf of/to political campaigns - not Hoffa. So why wouldn't such a philosophy extend to all areas of life, hence the McDonalds vs the little guy example of the standard you posited? How do new or little guys manage to compete with and even rise up with a whole new brand of competition against such disparity and adversity, if the advertising is as influential and controlling as you contend it to be?

Perhaps some people don't like receiving death threats against themselves, their families, and their businesses merely for expressing their political views. Why do you think Hoffa uses a screen-name instead of his real name to post comments here? Hoffa started out using his real name, but his pro-Walker ramblings quickly caught the attention of unhinged liberals in the state who threatened Hoffa's life, the life of his family members, and the viability of his small family restaurant.

Did those threats stop Hoffa from expressing his views - obviously not. But because of the seriousness of those threats (there is a police report and individuals were investigated), Hoffa prefers the safety that anonymity provides.

That's just one explanation out of many possibilities.

And why does it matter? We vote for a candidate and the ideas/platform espoused by the candidate - not the candidate's political donors and their ideas/platform. As long as we're watch-dogging cronyism like we should be once they're in office, there's no issue here.

Why are you OK with the $ that Obama bundlers/contributors received for Solyndra? Or the way in which Obama conducted the auto-bailouts wherein the taxpayers lost out on $25B while the UAW, Fiat, and private investors were permitted to profit off our losses, when there was a better way to handle those bailouts available - the way Bush originally structured them to be a straight-up interest bearing loan with a defined repayment schedule, just like Carter successfully did it with Chrysler back in '79 under Iaccoca. The taxpayers would have recovered all their money and even made a little interest. We didn't need the Obama behind closed doors hanky-panky with his cars czar. Carter's successful model conclusively proves this.

By backing Obama, you're supporting cronyism to select special interests, as he has proven time and again in nearly everything he has done!

How can you support that?

@Michael -

Interesting that Hoffa provided a direct answer to your question, but then you fail to provide a direct answer to any of the questions posited by Hoffa to you.

Typical liberal strategy - ignore the tough questions and shift the subject.

"Well, what happens when they become one and the same?"

If the candidate is being honest about their platform, then what does it matter if it's inline with their donors?

The problem only exists when the donors attempt to change or unduly influence the candidate, and that's where the separation of powers, checks and balances, term limits, impeachment, recall, etc protections of our system of government come into play.

Is it that hard for liberals to believe that a non-millionaire/billionaire could share a similar political ideology with someone like the Koch Bros, Sheldon Adelson, etc?

"You state you don't care for special interests, but make exceptions to corporate donations."

Hoffa doesn't believe that donations should be limited at all in any way from any person, group, etc.

Hoffa does take issue with corruption, cronyism, closed door deals, etc. Or when candidates LIE about their promises, like halfing the deficit, closing Gitmo, ending the wars on day 1, transparency, etc.

How about you try answering some of the questions that Hoffa posited to you?

Wow! Man the barricades ! Raise up the blue fist banners !

Corporate Cognitive dissonance yet? Let's incorporate, into the discussion, those nice folks that run those EVIL, UNCARING, HARSH, and DEAF 501(c)(3) nonprofits.

((Insert your favorite nonprofit corporation HERE)) IS an evil Corporation comprised of greedy sociopaths!

Thanks Hoffa.

I find it astounding that in the face of these great American's standing up as shining examples of American Exceptionalism, Lyle and Bren would rather divide us into separate groups based on brain formation and attack conservatives as having a malformed brain or some sort of PTSD. Not unlike a blog by Brian Carlson where liberals are attempting to coin 'empathy' as their territory. As if the sole possible path for empathy is via some government entity.

I have bit my tongue to a long time, because on some level I actually respected Lyle. That comment makes him nothing more then an elitist thumbing his nose at the proletariat.

@J.B. Schmidt....You're promoting the myth of American Exceptionalism. As far as the evidence that neuroscience is providing contributes to a greater understanding of why people do what they do and the positions they take. Is it the end all to answering all the questions, no it isn't. It does help delineate between the effective of nurture and nature.

@Michael -

What was caused by corporate interests?

The housing crash was caused by people who didn't live up to the promises they made to lenders to pay back the loans they were given. Had all those people not defaulted, there never would have been a financial collapse.

Economics 101 says that demand is a much stronger force than supply. The drug addicts here (supplying the demand for product) were the greedy people that sought loans for houses that they could not realistically afford. The drug dealers here (supplying the loans) were the banks and Wall Street.

If people had been honest and not gotten in over their heads in the first place, or had paid back the loans they promised to pay back, no problems - right? The biggest blame lies at the hands of our neighbors - not corporate interests.

Blame the addicts for being junkies, not the drug dealers for supplying them with what they want. Without the demand, the drug dealer has no power, regardless of the amount of supply, correct?

But for some reason, you prefer to point the finger first at the drug dealers, corporate interests. I'll never understand that.

And you still didn't address any of the question that Hoffa posited to you, despite Hoffa responding to all of your questions of him.

@Michael -

Hoffa's already seen the Frontline special to which you refer, as well as a countless bunch of other 'documentaries' purporting to expose the financial crisis. Hoffa has a pretty good grip on what went down, and the fact of the matter is that you can't dispute Hoffa's assertions that if everyone had repaid the loans that they promised they would, this never would have happened - that's the bottom line.

And Hoffa never said that corruption only resides with Obama and the Dems, did he? But in this election, we have records that we can look at. Romney's stint as Governor of MA was fairly corruption free. The same cannot be said for the Obama administration.

What does Hoffa's age have to do with his ability to recognize corruption? Don't tell me that you believe all the crap about Walker being owned by the Koch Bros!

Again, you fail to address Hoffa's questions to you while Hoffa has always directly answered your questions of him. By answering questions, Hoffa demonstrates a superior understanding than yours.

@Michael -

Again, you do not answer any of the questions posited to you by Hoffa. Had everyone who took out a loan actually repaid their loan as promised, would there have been a problem - yes or no?

Conservatives believe in personal responsibility. People should not take out loans that they cannot repay, period. That responsibility is on the individual - not the loan officer, not the mortgage broker, not the banker, not the CDO bundler, not the investment salesperson, not the ratings agencies, etc.

Loans are not rocket science. Honestly, what is so difficult to understand about the terms 'adjustable rate,' 'interest only,' and 'balloon payment?'

If people are really that STUPID and need to be protected against their own stupidity by their government, as you seem to suggest, then this society has gotten really pathetic. It's no wonder this country is falling down the toilet.

But you're blaming the wrong people! Blame the douche bags who made promises to repay loans and then defaulted/LIED - they are the true criminals!

@J.B. Schmidt...What false assumptions am I promoting? Your time line and understanding of the Progressive Movement is certainly off. At the turn of the 19th century, 90% of the nation was involved in agricultural production. Most were born to the farm and expected to spend their lives as farmers.

It is time to consider SES and who controls social mobility. Access to wealth is controlled by the wealthy. Those that become wealthy from a condition of lower class or middle class, is the ability to access education and capital. Who controls the capital? It's one thing working for someone else and working for oneself. Real wealth is gained through working for oneself.

ACA impacts all and not just the lower classes. You must not read what people are writing about the lower classes if you don't think the conservatives are constantly scapegoating the poor and lower classes.

@Michael -

As Hoffa has told you before, he's well aware of what happened and doesn't need a history lesson, thank you. Hoffa has researched the topic far beyond a single source PBS mocumentary, and probably knows far more than you.

How about you try answering some of the questions that Hoffa posited to you for a change of pace!

Don't worry, I won't be holding my breath, as Hoffa understands how the brainwashed are resistant to independent thought.

What made those assets "putrid" / "toxic?"

Gee, probably the FACT that people weren't making good on the promises that they made to others and were defaulting/LYING!!!

Take off the blinders and wake up!

@Hoffa These 'toxic' assets were bundled together in such a bizarre and incomprehensible fashion that the buyers and sellers had no idea what they were worth. The ratings agencies gave AAA scores to very dubious commodities, which was an important part of the scam. Furthermore, these practices were based on the belief that home values would forever increase in value- not decline. Wake up, the Wall Street wizards did not foresee the plunge.. Their models were based on past performances. Also, a very few of the wizards did see an inevitable disaster and tried to pull out before cataclysm. The whole thing was not just based on mortgages either. There were all sorts of other games being played, too.

@Michael -

As I stated before, Hoffa doesn't need a finance or history lesson - he's well aware of what went on.

But for some reason, you continue to ignore the FACT that irregardless of whatever Wall Street was doing, if people had made good on their promises and repaid the loans that they had taken out, there wouldn't have been any problems.

Your unwillingness to accept this reality displays your preconceived bias in this matter in wanting to point the finger solely at Wall Street.

Sorry, but that assessments flies in the face of basic economic principles - that demand is more powerful than supply and that the drug addicts will always be more culpable than the drug dealers.

Take off the popular blame game blinders and wake up to reality!

Jason = racist!

All he apparently sees as being worthy of comment is the color of people's skin.

And his assessment isn't even true!

The GOP had one convention for ALL, irregardless of race, gender, ethnicity, nationality, income level, etc. Unlike the Dems who like to divide/segregate their delegations into caucuses premised upon highly discriminatory characteristics - that's just plain SICK!!!

And several people of color were given prime time speaking spots over the course of the GOP convention.

I think that Jason was clearly watching a re-run of 2008's Dem convention!

This is the epitome of exemplified ignorance and what liberal brainwashing does to a person - in all honesty, it's worse than what hard narcotic abuse does to a person.

And there goes Nick, right on cue proving Cruz right once again -

“They’re going to try to separate us into little groups, and try to scare everybody.”

Oh heck, Nick, even I miss Reagan just a little bit. At least he was willing to raise taxes if the situation warranted it. He couldn't get elected by the GOP today -- too moderate.