Gary Hofmeister: Really, really, really…

Advertisement

One of the syndicated pundits wrote recently that the Republicans really, really, really don’t like President Barack Obama. I’m proudly among them and could document the reasons in the world’s longest column, chiefly because of his apparent pathological inability to tell the truth. But the biggest disappointment to me is something that is hardly mentioned at all by his detractors. Even more damning is the lack of his supporters’ attempts to prove that he has taken any true initiative to tackle one of the most debilitating cultural issues we face as a nation: false and misleading guidance to the black underclass. If Obama would have promoted and heralded the greatness of America with its unparalleled opportunities instead of blaming political foes and promoting dependency, he would have been a hero. He didn’t, and he’s not.

I have mentioned previously that I was strongly involved in the civil rights movement in the early ’60s, leading the college chapter of the Congress on Racial Equality. Although I have become disenchanted with the overall movement, I am still committed to the same goals that motivated me then, which is essentially becoming a race-blind society. Unfortunately, hucksters such as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have thoroughly perverted the goal, turning it into an extortionist machine feeding their organizations with threats and boycotts. This is their business. The fact that institutional racism defined as hating a person because of his or her color has almost disappeared is irrelevant to them.

The one man who could have changed all this is Obama. Much of the focus on particular issues emanates from the top, as the strident voices of Jackson and Sharpton prove. But even their millions of black followers pale in comparison to the bully pulpit of the president of the United States. For if his call to action would have seemed at odds with them had he taken the high road in giving the right messages, it’s actually likely they would have fallen in line preaching a similar path to a successful life.

I am on a couple of boards of directors dealing with re-entry into the community of serious felons. During a recent facility tour, they explained the basic principles they found necessary to prepare them to live as responsible citizens: work ethic, avoiding drugs and booze, respect for others, educating oneself to advance in society and most important, taking responsibility for one’s own actions. As they went through this program, I burst out saying “Hell, they need this at Harvard.” The director of the facility laughed and replied “Well, you gotta come to prison to learn such principles these days.” Very nearly true.

More than a hundred years ago, the battlefield was set for the war we are still fighting today. Booker T. Washington argued vehemently that blacks should study and work hard earning the respect of peers and communities in which they lived. W.E.B. Dubois essentially counter argued that demonstrations and confrontation against the white man were the road to immediate equality. We can see who won the argument. There is little doubt that such legal victories such as Brown vs. Board of Education and the Civil Rights Acts of the mid-’60s were instrumental in making bigotry a shame rather than a badge. But for the great majority of our citizens, this has been accomplished.

If President Obama would have built on this success by demanding the principles enumerated above, what a difference it would have made. Unfortunately, he has only exacerbated the victimization syndrome, and I do not mean just for racial minorities. What a squandered opportunity. It is the one area which his administration could have claimed victory.

Gary Hofmeister is the owner and operator of Hofmeister Personal Jewelers in downtown Steamboat, a company he founded in 1973. He is a director of The Steamboat Institute and a former Republican nominee for Congress in the 10th District of Indiana. He made 18 trips to the former USSR to teach democratic-capitalism during the 1990s.

Comments

Thomss Steele 3 months, 1 week ago

Gary, great article. Thank you for your insight. What a better place it all could have been.

0

Dan Shores 3 months, 1 week ago

What a fascinating article. Just think if we only had a white republican president, all of the problems with the inner city would be solved, and every thing would be hunk dory. I'm a little surprised that you didn't start with" Let me tell you what I know about the Negro." I bet you and Cliven Bundy would be fast friends. Those darn lazy blacks. And with Obama encouraging them to be even more lazy, what are we to do. I also find it interesting that you compare helping the inner city community with re-integrating convicted felons into society. I guess they're pretty much all the same, right. And civil rights leaders like Jesse Jackson, who worked closely with Dr. Martin Luther King, and Al Sharpton, who are part of the community and keenly aware of the needs of the inner city and advocate for lifting all citizens up are just making things worse. But a bunch of rich white republicans, who have probably never set foot in the inner city, have all the answers. Maybe cut off welfare, food stamps, medicaid, school lunches, that should those give lazy blacks the kick in the rear end that they need. As I said, very interesting indeed. Is there anything that you can't blame on Obama?

2

mark hartless 3 months, 1 week ago

Reverend Jessie Jackson and Alfred Sharpton are "...keenly aware of the needs of the inner city..." ???

hee hee hee hee... good one Dan... I laughed so hard I almost peed my pants when I read that... hee hee hee.

Put these guys in charge of Palm Springs and in 2 years it would look like Mogadishu, Somalia.

1

john bailey 3 months, 1 week ago

Mark , its Dans world , so it has to be the truth...

1

Scott Wedel 3 months, 1 week ago

What a bunch of crap.

Students at Harvard don't know about hard work? Admission just takes a 4.0+ and 700+ on each of the SAT tests.

And the history of Booker T Washington and W E B Dubois is flat out wrong. It was not a debate between hard work vs protesting. The Atlanta Compromise negotiated by Booker T Washington was that:

blacks would not ask for the right to vote, they would not retaliate against racist behavior, they would tolerate segregation and discrimination, that they would receive free basic education, education would be limited to vocational or industrial training (for instance as teachers or nurses), liberal arts education would be prohibited

What sort of ignorant person would, in 2014, would support the approach of an entire race giving up the right to vote and so on? Apparently that is Gary Hofmeister.

2

Ken Mauldin 3 months, 1 week ago

Here comes Dan (who's as white as WonderBread) to teach us all about the injustices suffered by today's blacks in America at the hands of the evil white man.

- Maybe Dan is not aware that white Republican men represented the Congressional majority that passed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
- Maybe Dan hasn't noticed that we have a black president, a black supreme court justice and had a black Secretary of State almost 10 years ago.
- Maybe Dan is not aware that blacks in America are very successful lawyers, surgeons, teachers, and even Realtors.

Dan, please tell us more about the cause of inner-city socio-economic issues and how your proposed solutions will address that cause and effect.

1

john bailey 3 months, 1 week ago

Dan wears his badge of bigotry with pride, don't ya Dan ?

1

beverly lemons 3 months, 1 week ago

How about a black person lectures Gary and friends on white history while advising them about wonder bread and mayonnaise? Should they decorate themselves with the rebel flag or the tea party snake while walking around Walmart with their assault weapons? How about the wonderful white Christians of Steamboat disenfranchise themselves of the notion that it is their right to go Ayn Rand on those who were not born into the white privilege they are so freaked about keeping? People of color will not kotow to you, get over it.

1

Ken Mauldin 3 months, 1 week ago

Beverly; Please tell us more about white privilege in 2014 and exactly what's being done to keep it, and by whom.

Do you suppose that Dr. Ben Carson, Former US Rep. Allen West, Justice Clarence Thomas, Former US Secretary of State Condaleeza Rice, Mayor Mia Love, and US Senator Tim Scott (I could go on and on) are all in on this conspiracy you suggest is keeping people of color down?

How about Oprah and Whoopi Goldburg? I read that Oprah just bought a pretty nice spread in Aspen. How did she escape the generational poverty of rural Mississippi when the whole white christian world was against her?

1

Fred Duckels 3 months ago

Why are we responding to Dan's guilt trip ?

0

Dan Shores 3 months ago

Maybe Ken isn't aware that it was Emanuel Celler, a Democrat from New York, who introduced the civil rights act, and LBJ, a Democrat, who passed the civil rights act in 1964 and the voter rights act in 1965. This so enraged the then southern white racist democrats, AKA the dixiecrats, that they switched to the republican party where they reside today. I am glad however that Ken is willing to recognize that African American's do indeed hold high office in the land and do contribute greatly to our society. They are not all lazy, drug addicts, gang bangers, absentee fathers and alcoholics as Gary and the right would have us believe. I do have expertise in this matter having grown up in South Los Angeles. In my view what is needed is more investment by government in the inner city. A higher minimum wage, incentives for members of the community to start businesses in their own community, increased spending on education and law enforcement. This would be an investment in America, rather than giving aid to foreign governments, or spending vast sums on wars of choice. There is very little opportunity for employment in the inner city and people who live there are doing whatever they can to survive and it should be our governments role to help lift everyone up, in my view. And John B. you are confusing the meaning of the word "bigotry." I would suggest you look the word up. Being for the betterment of all people and intolerant of racism and bigotry is not the deffiniton of bigotry. For instance, being intolerant of murderers does not make someone a bigot. Someone who "unfairly" dislikes other peoples ideas and especially one who regards or treats the members of a group (as with racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance, would be a bigot. Someone who is intolerant of gays for instance would be a bigot. So I am actually just the opposite. I like it better when you called me a "libby" if think it was. That I am and proud of it. Hope that helps you out.

3

john bailey 3 months ago

I'll stick with liberal hypocrite , thanks Dan....you are intolerant with those who do not think like you , you even said so....

1

mark hartless 3 months ago

"...They are not all lazy, drug addicts, gang bangers, absentee fathers and alcoholics as Gary would have us believe..."

I don't think Gary said "they" were any of those things.

And they are not slaves of the racist right either, Dan. It is the policies of the democrats and the left that keep most inner-city blacks (and other minorities) on the modern-day inner-city "plantation". The handouts keep them dependant just like the destructive act of "feeding the bears"...

I lived in the south for 32 years. I once heard a black man call a local talk radio station and proclaim that high school math tests were racist... that's right, MATH is racist to this person. If you can believe that then there is NOTHING a non-racist person can do to convince you they are not a racist and the deck is not stacked against you.

It is easy for the "Dan's" of the world to sit here in whitetopia and denounce, as racism, any criticism of people's bad behaviors and poor governmental policies that hinder their progress into middle-class society. If more of those with his attitude spent as much time living inside the problem as they do diagnosing it from afar away in whittopia, many of them would see that these problems often stem more from a choice and cultural aspect, rather than from a purely racial and bigotry aspect.

3

Ken Mauldin 3 months ago

Dan Shores says "They are not all lazy, drug addicts, gang bangers, absentee fathers and alcoholics as Gary and the right would have us believe." Dan, please share with us where Gary or anyone else made those assertions that you so proudly denounce. Wait, I can save you the time - Nobody asserted those things. You totally made that up so you could denounce it and appear smug and superior.

Consider this as an explanation of Dan's overwhelming white-guilt:
Dan doesn't have a single black Realtor in his group while he casts wild accusations of racism on others. Out of 27 licensed Realtors in Dan's office (27!), not a single one is black!

Let me help with a few relevant definitions:
-Psychological Projection is "the act or technique of defending oneself against unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in oneself, while attributing them to others."
-Hypocrisy is "the practice of engaging in the same behavior or activity for which one criticizes another."

1

mark hartless 3 months ago

My understanding of the theme of Gary's letter was that Barrack Hussein Obama could have been a uniter of the American people. Could have bridged gaps, healed old wounds, brought us closer together.

Instead he is, true to his training under Saul Alinsky's model, the "Devider-In-Chief".

1

Ken Mauldin 3 months ago

Mark - I agree. Obama had a chance to do something truly great in bringing America together and chose to put his efforts into creating an even more fragmented and divisive society instead. He could have done so much good. He could have moved us forward rather than backwards. It's a shame that Obama squandered such a great opportunity.

1

Robert Huron 3 months ago

Mark and Ken you are both right that Obama squandered many opportunities to move this country forward however he didn't have much help from the other side especially when the Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said the day after the 2008 election and I quote "We will do everything possible to make this man fail." The country was in a total mess the day he took office though some things are better today it still has a long way to go to recover from the Great Recession and the total mismanagement of 2 wars, one of which should have never happened.

2

Ken Mauldin 3 months ago

Robert: I appreciate that you started off recognizing our common ground. Starting off with common ground is a more effective form of exchange than starting with differences and working in. I agree with you that the country was struggling economically when Obama took office.

I believe it's been well-covered that McConnell was referring to Obama's liberal policies with the statement that you reference. What if McConnell would have been more articulate and made the statement "We will do everything possible to make Obama's promises to fundamentally transform America fail." Would that statement be less sinister in your mind? There were many Americans at that time that didn't want to "fundamentally transform America" and they elected representation to prevent it. That those Americans had representation in Congress doesn't equate to an attempt to sabotage his presidency, as you suggest.

In regard to your reference of two wars, "one of which should have never happened;" could you be more specific? I think I know where you're coming from on that statement, but would rather not respond to my assumption. -Thanks.

3

Rob Douglas 3 months ago

While I despise Mitch McConnell, I think facts and context matter. Every fact-checking organization has debunked the oft-repeated claim that McConnell "said the day after the 2008 election and I quote 'We will do everything possible to make this man fail.'" In fact, as part of the interview which has been twisted into folklore, McConnell actually said: "I don’t want the president to fail; I want him to change." And the actual statement by McConnell about working to make Obama a one-term president was made two years into Obama's presidency - not the day after he was elected. Finally, in a two-party system it is, of course, the job of the out-of-power party leaders to attempt to keep the opposite party's president from being re-elected. Here's the Washington Post's fact-checker on the inaccurate claim. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/when-did-mcconnell-say-he-wanted-to-make-obama-a-one-term-president/2012/09/24/79fd5cd8-0696-11e2-afff-d6c7f20a83bf_blog.html

1

mark hartless 3 months ago

It wa Rush Limbaugh that said he hoped Obama failed.

0

Scott Wedel 3 months ago

The birthers were active in the 2008 election. Those people claimed he was not the legitimate President By definition, those that reject him as not being the President are not willing to work with him.

Obama's failing has been that he has not come close to running as organized government as were his campaigns. His campaigns were a marvel of locating supporters and what were the issues of primary concern for each voter. But as President, the paperwork of applicants and now waiting lists were not properly resolved. Likewise, healthcare.gov was a fiasco.

Whatever was the force that cut through issues to get done what was needed in his campaigns did not transfer to running the government.

That said, he'll probably go down in history as an adequate caretaker President that had to cope with a financial collapse and getting out of two wars.

0

john bailey 3 months ago

adequate caretaker ? are you freeking kidding Scott ? his admin. is a disgrace . why isn't the MSM talking about Lerners lost emails, and ya'll say the right is obstructing......this guy is an idiot not a clue to what is happening....."I will fundamentally change America" , what a joke....

1

Robert Huron 3 months ago

Ken I was referring to Iraq. In 1963 JFK had signed an Executive Order for the pull out of all American Advisers by the end of 1965. LBJ used the so called Gulf of Tonkin incident to cancel that order and in the end sent 525,000 troops into Vietnam which I was one of them. The one thing I noticed right away was the young Vietnamese would not fight for their own country and this was 1966. I knew right then and there we could never win and 58,000 paid for it with their lives.. In Iraq it was almost the same thing. Cheney used the excuse that if we didn't invade we would have a mushroom cloud here at home because Sadam purchased Nuclear material from Africa. He convinced Pres. Bush of this and we invaded Iraq. As we know that was false and his Deputy Scooter Libby took the fall for him. We wasted $2 Trillion and 4800 Americans lost their lives plus 32000 more were wounded plus all the Iraqi deaths and the destruction of a country. What we did accomplish was to unleash sectarian violence that Sadam had kept in check after Amb. Bremmer fired the Iraqi Army and sent them home with their weapons. As we see today we could have kept our troops there till hell froze over and it would not have changed a thing because this sectarian hatred has been going on for 1000 years. Ironically Cheney when he was Sec. Of Defense knew this which is the reason he gave in an interview after 1991 why Pres. G. H. Bush refused to march to Baghdad and take out Sadam. If the Iraqi people will not stand up for their own country just like the Vietnamese the US is powerless to change the outcome. When Pres Bush negotiated the withdrawal of US troops his big mistake was to back Malaki to head Iraq because he was aligned with Iran and the Shiite's in the South ignoring the Sunni's and Kurds. Having spent many years in the Middle East I felt from day one this would be a disaster and we would pay a heavy price with a terrible outcome which we are seeing today. When will we ever learn from our past mistakes? My humble opinion based on my experience in that part of the world.

2

jerry carlton 3 months ago

Obviously we will never learn from our mistakes.Since WWII we have fought four wars we could not win, [Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan]. Desert Storm was a win or at worst a draw. We threw Iraq out of Kuwait and kept Middle East oil flowing. I actually agree with something Dan Shores said above. Eliminate all foreign aid. Take half the money for a tax cut for people making less than $100,000 and then put the rest into trying to rebuild the ghettos and barrios of this country. Also poor whites in Appalachia and the South should be helped just as much. I would hope Dan feels that there should not be racism against whites. None of it should be handouts and all should be tied to work.

0

Ken Mauldin 3 months ago

Robert: Thanks for your reply and service to our country.

In regards to Iraq: Saddam Hussein used WMDs (mustard and nerve gas) against kurdish civilian populations resulting in the deaths of 5,000 people across 40 villages. In terms of the yellow cake uranium justification for the invasion that turned out to be inaccurate: It's hard to second guess where someone's ambition ends when they've already used WMDs against civilians. The world is a better place without Saddam Hussein and his spawn, Uday and Qusay. As for the current condition in Iraq; Reports are that Iraqi army leadership (Colonials and Generals) evaporated in the face of a smaller force. In turn, enlisted men took off their uniforms and deserted. It's tough to expend blood and treasure for people that won't fight for themselves, for sure. If our primary goal was to impose our benevolent wisdom to resolve their 1000-year old conflict, it would certainly not be worth the cost to try. However, when non-nation-state organizations can intercept or develop WMDs there may be a strategic interest in keeping a balance of peace to prevent the conflict from spilling into either your, or your friend's, backyard someday. That Iraq was not willing to extend a Status of Forces Agreement with the US and Allied Forces made this attack inevitable for them, and they weren't prepared. We've wondered for a while now where the surface-to-air, anti-aircraft missiles that were stolen from Benghazi when Ambassador Stevens was murdered would turn up. Maybe ISIS has some and they've smuggled them into Baghdad, or New York, waiting on orders.

While I agree that we are effectively powerless to solve the issues between the Sunnis and the Shias, we have our own interest to protect and can't be naive as to the risk their conflict represents to us. ISIS has dedicated itself to the creation of a global Islamic Caliphate and anytime those fanatics gain ground, towns, legitimacy and resource they get a day closer to bringing the fight to us. I wish it were different.

0

Jeff Kibler 3 months ago

Jerry, I found this website vis-à-vis US foreign aid.

U.S. Foreign Aid Summary

This summary includes military aid. Often times I see foreign aid numbers that don't include military assistance.

Regardless, it is time to bill our allies for the US World Police. Let Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, SEATO pay for their defense. At the minimum, they should fund the 7th Fleet.

0

Robert Huron 3 months ago

Ken More people have been killed over Religion than anything else and this has been going on for centuries. This is just another example like the Crusades or Yugoslavia after the death of Tito. If Iraqi's won't defend their own country we can do nothing to change the outcome unless you are willing to send thousands of US troops there forever like Korea to keep the waring factions apart. Benghazi has nothing to do with this mess we created in 2003. As you may have seen the people who got us in this mess and screwed it all up want us to go back in. The US spends more on Defense already than the 14 largest countries in the world including China and Russia. Isn't it time for the US to stop being the policemen of the world. Since WW2 which is the last war we actually won we have been involved in one disaster after another.

1

mark hartless 3 months ago

"More people have been killed over Religion than anything else..." Stalin killed 70 million. Mao killed about 40 million. Hitler was responsible for how many millions?? I'd say many have been killed by those trying to wipe out religion.

1

Ken Mauldin 3 months ago

Robert: Sure, we could follow the Obama Doctrine and leave it to fate and hope for the best. I believe a more responsible path involves taking these terrorist organizations like ISIS and al-qaeda at their word, that they intend to destroy America, and hinder their ability to attain the capability to accomplish their stated goals.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 3 months ago

Dan S. you make me laugh. All you have are left wing talking points. You sir are a hypocrite. You say you are not a bigot, you are the opposite. Now that, sir is funny. You are the one that said you would not participate in Kevin Nearney's proposed discussion group as you don't want to associate with people like him. You sir, are the one that told Jerry Carlton not to pray to God for you because you didn't want to be associated with him. Here Mr. Shores is a definition of bigotry big·ot·ry [big-uh-tree] Show IPA
noun, plural big·ot·ries.

stubborn and complete intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one's own. Now I am not saying, I am just saying

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 3 months ago

Hey Dan S. Nixon - Rose Mary Woods Obama - Lois Lerner OMG 2 years of emails lost vs. 18 minutes of tape recording erased. You just can't make this stuff up. I am sure you have some lefty talking points ready to go. Will look forward to reading them

0

Karl Koehler 3 months ago

In hindsight, electing a man who spent a good part of his life conflicted over his own identity and expecting him to heal the ginned up racial divides the balkanizers in this country promote, may have been a mistake.

2

Pat West 3 months ago

In hindsight thinking anyone could change the status quo in Washington is a mistake. The corrupt system is bigger than any member.

0

jerry carlton 3 months ago

Pat West Wow! Another thing we can agree on. My suggestion is one term as a senator, representative, or president or vice president. Can not be all of the above, only one. No such thing as reelection. Can not be a lobbyist after being any of the above. No lawyers can serve as any of the above.

2

Chris Hadlock 3 months ago

I support Jerry in the call for Term Limits. Can we get this on the ballot?

0

jerry carlton 3 months ago

Chris Definitely not in my lifetime and probably not in my grandchildren's. Not sure but it would probably take a Constitutional amendment. You think that the ruling elite that we have created in this country would give up their power and wealth to the regular working folks? We are no different than England with their Queen, we just have more of them to support.

0

mark hartless 3 months ago

Unfortunately we are even worse off than with a Queen because when it comes time to make critical decisions we can't steer effectively to port nor to starboard because both sides exert a cancelling effect on the helm.

Compounding that problem is an electorate which has the attention span of a fruit fly and so whenever the helm does get significantly turned they clamor to quickly re-adjust it because they do not see instant results.

The result is a ship-of-state that basically wobbles straight ahead toward the rocks at full speed.

1

Dan Shores 3 months ago

Too bad we can't have a "pay for performance" system for congress. They should get paid for how much actual legislating they do. That would never happen but I bet there would be a lot more work getting done. Dan K. I'm not sure what your problem is and why you can't let go of the past. I like Mark's suggestion that people need a little thicker skin if they are going to contribute here. Your attempts to insult me must make you feel better about yourself, I guess, but I don't really care. It's just childish. I am responding here to Mr. Hofmeister's column here, not interested in a debate with you. Yes I am a lefty, libby, progressive, whatever you want to call it, also a little socialist leaning, and proud of it. We just have different opinions about how to move the country forward. You can also re-define words to suit you needs that's fine, but a bigot or hypocrite I am not. I'm in fact the opposite, and that is part of being liberal. Intolerance of political ideology has never been defined as bigotry and this is just a ridiculous argument. Bigotry involves prejudice based on ethnicity, race, religion, national origin, gender, gender orientation, sexual orientation or socioeconomic status. I would also add prejudice based on what state you were born in as per John B. This sound pretty close to a definition of TODAY's republican party. After all, it is your party that is the party of Cliven Bundy, of Dick Cheney who got us into the disastrous Iraq war that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. Of George Bush who nearly destroyed our economy. It is you party who lies about voter fraud and them tries to suppress the minority vote. It is your party the denies climate science. Did you know that it was Nixon who passed the clean air and clean water act and created the EPA? Talk about hypocrisy. And Jerry, of course I advocate for lifting up all poor people regardless of race. Ridiculous, the majority of recipients of public assistance are white.

1

Dan Kuechenmeister 3 months ago

Ah dear Mr. Shores. First I will acknowledge that the first sentence of your post was worth noting as it was a reasonable idea. Basically from that point on you went into your usual lefty talking points diatribe. Talk about hypocrisy (your line not mine) you ask me why I can't let go of the past and in the same post you are back to blaming Cheney, blaming Bush, blaming the republican party for the woes. Lefty talking points all. Then you attempt to put me in a box by declaring the republican party is "my" party. You know nothing about me. I do not vote a party line. I vote for the candidate I believe will best represent the people he/she will represent regardless of affiliation. I have voted for Independents, Democrats and yes even those nasty Republicans. I have friends that cringe when they hear who I have voted for but we are still friends. I actually have friends who espouse different political views and we have reasonable discussions and learn from each other. You apparently, based on past posts choose not to do so and so apparently as a result you surround yourself with like minded individuals. That's too bad. There are a lot of interesting people that happen to have opposing views. As far as debating me, no worries I have no interest in debating you. I will respond each and every time I believe you have misstated or mislead. The first amendment works for all not just you. Also I will continue to tease you about your left wing talking points as they are so pointless and oftentimes worthy of any where between 2 - 4 pinocchios

1

john bailey 3 months ago

I would say that my answers to Dan S. questionnaire awhile back does not put me in any kind of a box , R or D or I . did any one read about the wedding in Aspen , about bringing your beliefs and the way you live from another state ? big shot thinks its ok to hold a lavish wedding for his daughter much to the chagrin of the local population , leave your big city ways back in the big city . from last Saturday rag, and I quote " It's unfortunate that people come to our county because of the beauty and bring their values with them while not caring or not understanding our values " George Newman Commissioner while this took place in Aspen it stands true to Routt county. spin it any way you want Dan S. you are the worst kind of liberal , a bigoted one . nothing worse than pushing your values from your old state on those in your present one.....and I see you lived a lot of places , why was that ?

0

Scott Wedel 3 months ago

Pay for performance for elected officials? Vote them out if you don't like them. If people voted out their elected officials at even a fraction of how much they claim to dislike them then problems would be solved. Polls say the public hates Congress and yet virtually all will win reelection.

How would you set pay for performance rules to rate 28 pages of sign ordinance? An accomplishment to precisely define what are legal signs? Or legislation gone mad?

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 3 months ago

you are right of course but I was just trying to encourage Dan S. for actually engaging in a conversation, well to start at least.

0

Dan Shores 3 months ago

The problem with voting out is you have to vote someone else in who might be just as worthless. It's just ideas, never going to happen anyway. John B. I don't understand why you would possibly think that someone who left the big city because they can't stand living in the big city, with the crowds, smog, gangs, crime etc., would want to recreate that nightmare here in the mountains. I just don't get where you are coming from. I wonder who else here believes that having pre-concieved notions about a person based on what state they were born in is a good idea. It's also illogical to think that a liberal such as my self could be bigoted. That goes completely opposite to the whole idea of liberalism. I thought there was a policy against personal attacks. What happened to that idea? And what's with the "lived a lot of places" comment. Are you stalking me? If your that interested, why don't you come find me in town or at the ski area and ask me to my face. You know where I work. We'll see how well that works out for you. Save the writing on these pages for discussion regarding the articles in the Pilot. How's that for a concept. Dan K. I also don't see how you can equate remembering the actions of George Bush and Dick Cheney and the destruction that they did to our country with your apparent obsession with your little Tea Party gathering that I was not interested in attending. I would also welcome and encourage you to point out any "pinocchios." If I have not been factually accurate somewhere please let me know. My purpose here is to express my views, and offer an opposing view, with regard to the column written by Mr. Hofmeister, not to get into a little "tit for tat" with the two of you. Trickle down economics has been tried and has proven to be a failure. I do not believe that the poor, the blacks, the Negro as Cliven Bundy likes to say, that live in the inner city are lazy and don't want to work. I believe that they are trying to survive and that jobs and hope that they will find a job are in short supply. I also don't believe that giving them money and food, by itself, is enough. We need to invest in the these communities with better schools, better teachers, vocational training, teach people to be mechanics, carpenters, painters, plumbers, electricians all the trades so that they can get a job and get off public assistance and provide an alternative to gangs and criminal behavior. Encourage community members with financial aid to start businesses in their own communities. Yes these are all left wing talking points, of course.

0

john bailey 3 months ago

tea party ? who said anything about a tea party ? what job site are you on ? we'll have a talk

0

mark hartless 3 months ago

"...It's also illogical to think that a liberal such as my self could be bigoted..."

Hee hee hee... good one, Dan.

You are like a fish. Having spent it's entire life in water, it has no idea that it can BE wet, much less that it IS wet.

1

Dan Shores 3 months ago

To all, including John B. and the rest. It is my intention to contribute to this forum to express my opinions on the articles that appear in the Pilot. It is not my intention to engage in a back and forth insult fest. Ad hominem personal attacks and insults, I thought, were not allowed as part of the Pilot policy. Attacking my political views or correcting mistakes are however welcome. If you are so intent on attacking me personally, I am a realtor here and my contact information is readily available. You can contact me and get whatever it is you are looking for. I'm ready. If you think that by attacking me in any way that you choose you are going to stop me from expressing my views, you are sadly mistaken.

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 3 months ago

Ah yes Mr. Shores, You want to be able to use "ad hominem personal attacks" on others but suggest "ad hominem personal attacks" on yourself not be allowed. It would be interesting to review your posts (I am not even sure if there is a way) over the last year to see how many "ad hominem personal attacks" you have made against those you disagree with. Fortunately I have much better things to do. Here is part of a reply you addressed specifically to me in this series of posts. " After all, it is your party that is the party of Cliven Bundy, of Dick Cheney who got us into the disastrous Iraq war that cost trillions of dollars and thousands of lives. Of George Bush who nearly destroyed our economy. It is you party who lies about voter fraud and them tries to suppress the minority vote. It is your party the denies climate science." Here is another. " Dan K. I also don't see how you can equate remembering the actions of George Bush and Dick Cheney and the destruction that they did to our country with your apparent obsession with your little Tea Party gathering that I was not interested in attending." You can't even decide which "party" I belong to. As I have stated before I am not a "member" of any party as I subscribe to Groucho Marx philosophy that I would not be a member of any group that would have me. Personally I could not care less what you say or think about me. But if you are going to plead for a stop to ad hominem personal attacks, look in the mirror kind sir. What you are attempting to do seems fairly typical of those on the far left of the democratic party. Insult, denigrate, attack personally and when some one replies in a matter not appreciated by you, you cry foul. That does bring a smile to my face so thank you for that. It's a beautiful day.Time for a nice long walk with the lovely Mrs. K, do some deck staining and watch the USA vs. Portugal in the World Cup. Go USA.

3

john bailey 3 months ago

jesus christ , is he whining again ? and look , we can add hypocrite to the list , I swear it never ends does it ?

0

Dan Shores 3 months ago

Dan K., again it's a definition of the English language thing. Ad hominem means personal attack or attacking the messenger rather than the message. I criticized George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Cliven Bundy but I did not criticize you. If I mistakenly associated you with the republican party or the right wing and I was wrong, then I am willing to admit that I was wrong. From your posts you seem to be in agreement with right wing ideology. And the Tea Party is indeed a faction of the extreme right wing. Of course I have no idea of your party affiliation and really don't care. So if you and John B. and Mark want to come up with new definitions for words in the English language go ahead. If in your mind calling me a bigot and a hypocrite is not a personal attack, hey, what can I say. No John it will never end until the personal attacks stop. I admit that I got pulled into your little name calling game awhile back but have since recognized the error of my ways. I have since been very careful not to personally attack, but I will continue to criticize political ideology, prejudice and bigotry whenever I see it and I will continue to be a voice for the liberal point of view.

0

Ken Mauldin 3 months ago

It's interesting that Dan S. finds it wrong to redefine words for political expediency. I suppose if we kicked the can long enough, Dan Shores would say something that I agree with. Redefining words for political purposes is a travesty of both the English language and our culture. Here are a few examples from Dan's fellow travelers in liberal-land:

To liberals, the radicalized Muslim Major Hassan shouting "allahu akbar" while murdering US forces on Ft. Hood wasn't terrorism, it was simply redefined as workplace violence.

Liberals decided that the 'Global War on Terror' would henceforth be redefined as "Overseas Contingency Operations."

Remember how liberals taught us that 'illegal aliens' had been redefined as 'undocumented workers? Ha! That was a good one.

Once upon a time, the word 'racism' meant the belief in the inherent superiority of one race over another. Today, liberals have redefined the word 'racism' to describe anyone who disagrees with the official Democrat party platform.

In fact, prior to FDR, a liberal was someone who preferred policies that promoted individual liberty. The word liberal was derived from liberty back in the days that Thomas Jefferson was a liberal. Liberals have gone so far as to actually change the meaning of the word 'liberal' to suit their purposes.

Previous generations of Americans considered the word 'equality' to mean having equal opportunity. Now, liberals have redefined 'equality' to mean equal outcomes rather than equal opportunity.

You have to watch those tricky liberals, they change the meanings of words so fast it can be hard to keep up sometimes.

1

mark hartless 3 months ago

OK then let me attack the message... namely that you believe many of us to be racists and bigots while you believe that trait impossible for, as you put it, "a liberal such as [myself]."

A liberal believing that they could not be afflicted with character traits common to us neaderthals is no surprise to those of us who clearly understand the depths of YOUR party's elitism mentality. Nevertheless, I find it more than a little insulting.

That you would use the Cliven Bundy brush to so broadly paint the beam in your pollitical enemies eyes while ignoring the plank(s) in your own damned eye is perfectly illustrative of YOUR party, sir.

Some of the most reprehensible use of the word "negro", and in it's most deragatory context, comes from the "impossible to be bigot" people in YOUR party, sir. Rappers, so-called musicians and other dregs of YOUR "high" society sling the "N Word" around with abandon; and they are worshipped for doing so. Do you believe any of THEM capable of bigotry or racism, sir??

And their derragotory language is HARDLY confined to the "N word". Words like "w---e" "b---h", etc are thrown around by the "non bigots" in YOUR party REGULARLY, sir. Google "Himey Town" for a reminder of the kind of language even ministers in YOUR party use, sir.

While YOUR party is every bit as capable of racism and bigotry and hypocricy as "OUR" Republican party, it is YOUR party, sir which has the elitism market completely cornered.

YOUR party gives lipservice to the military and lets vets die waiting for care while you fall all over yourselves to give that care to illegals.

YOUR party is the "high-tech" party who's IRS "lost" all the incriminating E-mails.

Fifty-eight percent of YOUR party voted for the Iraq war and 100% YOUR president lost that country and is well on his way in Afghanistan.

YOUR party's justice department ran illegal guns to Mexico which were responsible for American deaths as well as mexican's.

YOUR party's elite were bailed out by the American taxpayers just like republican elites were.

And finally, sir. as long as we are going back a ways ion history it was YOUR party that went kicking and screaming into the Civil Rights Act, etc. YOUR party which had a Klu Klux Klansman SENATOR till the day he died way, way back in 2010.

So take your grandiose notions that YOUR party is incapable of bigotry and other errors and twist it.

2

Scott Wedel 3 months ago

Flat out defamatory lies. Robert Byrd did join the KKK as a young man, but later in his career worked for civil rights and apologized for joining the KKK.

There is no evidence that he was in the KKK " till the day he died".

In fact there is evidence to the contrary such as his apologies for joining the KKK, calling it the greatest mistake of his life. As well as getting a 100% voting record from the NAACP in 2003-4.

So what other derogatory lies does this paper allow to be posted? Are such lies allowed if the person is dead? A public person?

0

Dan Kuechenmeister 3 months ago

Well played today USA. You deserved a better result today but that is the beauty and the bane of the World Cup. Stoppage time goals. Herr Kuechenmeister says go get those pesky Germans on Thursday.

0

john bailey 3 months ago

damn fellas , took the words right outta my mouth....~;0)

0

mark hartless 3 months ago

You're right, Scott. The Klansman meant well. He was one of you, so how bad could he be?

I'm sure he never uttered the "N Word".

Niether did those Rapsters and "musicians".

I'm sure Jessie Jackson didn't mean Jews when he said "Himey Town" and I'm sure his kid, former congress-critter Jessi Jr, is in prison today along with his wife, because I am a freakin racist, rather than for crimes HE committed.

0

Scott Wedel 2 months, 4 weeks ago

Mark,

Doth protest too much, methinks.

You can throw up as much smoke and mirrors as you want, but the underlying facts is that the Democrats has evolved into the party of Civil Rights and the Republicans have evolved into the opposition party.

Why did southern Democrats such as Strom Thurmond join the Republican Party after the Civil Rights Bill was passed? What party is winning minority voters?

It is a fact that voter ID laws disproportionately affect minorities and that the Republican Party has made that push despite voter fraud not being anywhere close to an issue.

0

mark hartless 2 months, 4 weeks ago

Heck, even JFK would have left todays Democrat party, Scott... if you all didn't kick him out first.

What Democrat today would ever say "ask not what you7r country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country"???

If, speaking to todays NAACP, he had said "... those who look only to the past or present are certain to miss the future.", they would run him out of the building.

If he said "don't pray for easier lives, pray to be stronger men", in front of some of YOUR party's athiests they'd say prayer has no place in government.

If he had said to a gay pride rally "tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs"...

So, was JFK a racist bigot too???

That YOU somehow know for sure Strom Thurmond left the Democrat party because he was a racist is just more leftist elitism BS.

0

Dan Shores 2 months, 4 weeks ago

Mark, Cliven Bundy is indeed a part of the radical right wing anti government movement, and a racist. Not all republicans support his views nor are they all willing to point loaded assault rifles at federal agents. I was very clear to point out that I wasn't accusing any of you of being racist. The republican party does however welcome and offer safe haven to racists, bigots and those who would point loaded weapons at federal agents. Acceptance of all races, creeds, colors, religious beliefs and sexual orientation are hallmarks of liberalism. Not accepting racism and bigotry and being intolerant of radical right wing ideology and anti government sentiment is not the definition of bigotry no matter how many times you say it. Problems with the VA have existed for a very, very long time and I would submit that they have been exacerbated by republican led budget cuts and a staggering increase in the patient load due to republican initiated wars. It's true that many members of congress voted to authorize Bush to wage war in iraq, but there was one notable exception, the African American guy with the funny sounding name, Barack Obama. It is also true that Democrats went kicking and screaming at the passage of the civil rights act and the voter rights act and that is precisely the reason that they promptly switched to the republican party where they reside today. Just look at a red state, blue state map and you will see a republican stronghold in the old south. Virginia, the Carolina's, Georgia, Florida, Tennessee, Kentucky, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas are all solid republican states and all part of the confederate states. This is not my opinion but fact.

0

Ken Mauldin 2 months, 4 weeks ago

Dan Shores: Do you know Cliven Bundy personally? Here's a quote from a black man who personally knows Mr. Bundy and has lived on his ranch:

“Mr. Bundy is not a racist. Ever since I’ve been here, he’s treated me with nothing but hospitality. He’s pretty much treating me just like his own family.” - Jason Bullock

Here's an opinion by a black woman named Kira Davis supporting Bundy as a free American. She defends him on what he said about blacks, slavery and the current condition of many blacks who have chosen a dependance of government:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0zoee...

Dan S. could learn a lot from Kira Davis. Lesson number one would probably be that black people don't need white people telling them when to be offended and that not everyone sees a racial angle of grievance in everything like Dan does.

2

mark hartless 2 months, 4 weeks ago

"The republican party does however welcome and offer safe haven to racists, bigots and those who would point loaded weapons at federal agents."

I pointed out to you that by your own standards of what it takes to be a racist and bigot, SO DO DEMOCRATS.

They embrace "Himey Town" Jackson, crooks like Jackson, Jr, rappers who sling racial epitheths, bombers and cop killers and radical activists like Bernardadine Dohrn, Bill Ayers.

They nominate defenders of cop killers like Debo Adegbilo for head of the Justice Departments civil rights division.

You are also mistaken when you say "...a republican stronghold in the old south. Virginia,...are all solid republican states and all part of the confederate states. This is not my opinion but fact." The FACT is that VA went for Obama in the last two elections. Montana and North Dakota went for Republicans, are THEY southern racists too, Dan???

2

Requires free registration

Posting comments requires a free account and verification.