Hoffa, Biden follow the Obama playbook. Will he apologize?

As if on cue after saying some rather unintelligent things on Sunday, Teamsters union boss Jimmy Hoffa wasted no time saying some unkind things on Monday about political opponents and invoking some of the most martial rhetoric we’ve had in this nascent presidential campaign season. He said them from the same podium Obama spoke from 20 minutes later. I’ll not quote them—we try to keep our discourse raised at a Catholic site—but you can read them (if you’ve not already heard about them) here.

The same day, speaking to another huge union gathering, Vice President Joe Biden referred to his political opponents as “barbarians at the gates” with the unionists being the only ones keeping them at bay.

Yesterday Obama’s press secretary, Jay Carney, established that the President cannot be associated with those comments, even though Biden is Obama’s number 2, and Hoffa’s were part of his warm-up to Obama’s talk and were directed at his support for Obama.

Now some are wondering if the President will repudiate either of those comments or apologize for them.

Anything is possible, I suppose: I could start in center field for the Indians tomorrow (and given their spate of injuries, who knows?), but color me doubtful.

If Obama does repudiate either of them or apologize on their behalf he would be seen as even more spineless by those who value such rhetoric, and as a man who willingly associates with unsavory and/or unhinged characters by those who don’t. Quite a pickle for the man who was supposed to heal the earth’s scars and make Washington’s lions lie down with lambs.

None of this surprises anyone who has been paying attention, given his history of living according to the Chicago way, Alinskyite agitation, and cavorting with terrorists and criminal organizations. But it certainly doesn’t *help* his already dismal re-election chances to be caught in such a public catch-22.

If he were at all likeable, honorable, or good at his job he might even be a pitiable character.

And I do expect that the next time someone who is not a candidate for the other side says something remotely nasty or martial, those who are defending Hoffa, Biden, and Obama will rush to defend said person. “Good for the goose,” after all.

3,047 views

Categories:Uncategorized

69 thoughts on “Hoffa, Biden follow the Obama playbook. Will he apologize?

  1. Jeremy says:

    I have difficulty accepting that “we try to keep our discourse raised at a Catholic site” if you are at the same time willing to make this statement: “[i]f he were at all likeable, honorable, or good at his job he might even be a pitiable character.” That isn’t “raised discourse.” That’s just character assassination.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Not at all. I made no untrue statement. I evaluated the man’s actions and statements drew a conclusion.

      1. Jeremy says:

        I’m afraid I cannot see calling the president unlikable, dishonorable, and bad at his job in the same purely rational and intellectual light that you seem to. But perhaps you are right, in which case I would have to say that Mr. Jimmy Hoffa similarly evaluated the actions and statements of Republicans or the Tea Party and drew the conclusion that they are SOBs. I see little difference between your statement and Hoffa’s.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          Interesting, Jeremy. Words have meaning, so let’s look at the meanings of the words. “SOB” is a metaphorical terms in the sense Hoffa used it. He can’t possibly mean that Tea Partiers are actually all the male offspring of female canines, so he must mean the other meaning of it. In that case, SOB has a definite profane, insulting bent to it, meant to dehumanize and belittle the one to whom it is applied. On the other hand, “unlikable,” “dishonorable,” and “bad at his job” are all terms applied to human beings that can be considered and evaluated on merits to see if the label applies. But none of those terms dehumanize or intentionally belittle. Obama is a double-speaking hypocrite who has no problem saying nice things and acting in a different manner. Obama has some of the thinnest skin and whiniest excuses we’ve ever seen. Obama has failed, failed, failed as a leader. These are evaluations of his merits, not a dehumanizing label. Do you see the difference? Had Hoffa said something like “they are money hungry, elitist, dishonorable, no-good, selfish, bad human beings,” I would have disagreed with him, but his critique would have been on the same plane as mine. I hope that helps you see the difference. Cheers.

  2. CT1 says:

    “Too bad. It was all fine and good when Palin put cross hairs over the names of her enemies. You were all for it. At least Hoffa was talking about votes. Taking them out with votes. He didnt make a cross hairs map.”

    That’s the thing Fred. It wasn’t all fine and good. The left went into apoplectic fits of what can only be described as rank hypocrisy given their defense of Hoffa. Do you really expect people to believe that Hoffa was talking about a “war” at the voting booth, but Palin was making a map of literal shooting targets rather than political opponents. It’s rhetoric and either it’s all ok or none of it is. I trend toward the former myself. You and the rest of the hand wringing civility police are abject hypocrites.

    1. Fred says:

      Well CT, that is my point entirely. What works for the right, will work for the left then too. This is the world we are slowly slipping into. Since it wasnt denounced on the right, why would the left ever denounce anything? The right gives fake outrage, and that is all this is. To answer your question regarding the Hoffa speech. Go and view it. It’s clear he was speaking about voting. Where you see hypocricy, I see it on the right as well. Wow, so here we are. Same as it ever was. Now what? I’ll answer that for you. Same as it ever was. So can we stop with the fake outrage already? Oh yes, apoplectic fits… nice one.

      1. Tom Crowe says:

        Except that back during the campaign, when a conservative talk show host repeatedly referred to Obama as “Barack Hussein Obama,” with the intention of making Obama seem like a secret Muslim as some sort of scare tactic, and he did it from the same stage John McCain would imminently speak from, McCain immediately repudiated the tactic and declared that there was no place for such tactics in our politics. So yes, there is precedent from other politicians to be a little more circumspect and respectful. Ball’s in your court, Fred.

        1. Fred Barry says:

          First off it was a town hall meeting, and the lady stood up and called Barack Obama an Arab. John McCain responded with the answer that Senator Obama is a decent person and one you don’t have to be scared of as President of the United States. (paraphrasing) Then the crowd yelled out “Come on, he’s a liar! A terrorist”! Your side of the aisle is where all the public fear comes in to play. Your side of the aisle is the one that has made all the false predictions of socialism. As far as McCain goes, I commended McCain for that. Still do. Yet now your side of the aisle feels that he wasnt conservative enough and that is why you lost. Tom, lets face it. If you are not anti-gay, you can’t be in the Republican party. I myself feel that 95% of the politicians in your party just pander to the far right for their votes. Just like Rick Perry. He used to be a democrat when it suited him. These are just politicians. Yet the character assasinations never seem to stop coming. Take some responsibility for it. Since the tea party took over your party, this is what we have to look foward too.

          1. Tom Crowe says:

            No, Fred, it was a talk radio host. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/26/mccain-repudiates-hussein-obama-remarks/ On the other one, Obama does cavort with terrorists and socialists, and is either a liar, or he has no connection with the truth to speak of, so the crowd at the town hall wasn’t entirely off base. As for anti-gay, that’s out of left field and entirely off base, and that’s all I’ll say about that here. And I’m not sure why you think “Tea Party” is a pejorative. I’m rather proudly aligned with the values espoused by the Tea Party (that is, the values that the average Tea Partier espouses for himself/herself, not the values people like you seem to think Tea Partiers espouse.)

          2. Fred Barry says:

            Tom,
            We are on two different pages. I was actually thinking of a different situation. What I was referring to was this link to politico http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1008/14479.html
            You were talking about a different event than I was. Regarding Obama and terrorists. I dont think I need to remind you under which President we got Osama bin Laden. That was on Obama’s watch. So I dont think he is in cohoots with terrorists. Again, more right wing fear mongoring.

          3. Tom Crowe says:

            “Cavorts with terrorists” does not equal “cavorts with all terrorists.” He launched his political career in Bill Ayers’ living room and worked closely with him for years. QED. And Obama was simply the guy at the switch when actionable intelligence served OBL to us. So kudos to him for not screwing that one up also, but it’s not like he actually put himself at risk or exonerated himself for everything else.

          4. Fred Barry says:

            Oh one more point. My anti gay comes from the idea that the right wont support John Huntsman. A man who is clearly smarter than the rest. A man that speaks fluent Chinese. Who could actually ‘be’ electable on a cross over for the left side of the aisle. Yet what I dont see him doing is pandering to the far right. For that, he will have no chance. He doesnt spew the anti gay rhetoric. He’s just to smart for that. And he will be overlooked by your party for it. Shame cause he’s not a bad guy.

          5. Tom Crowe says:

            Huh? Not supporting John Huntsman because he’s smart (he speaks Chinese!) equals anti-gay? Could you pack any more non sequiturs into one line of argumentation?

      2. Joe M says:

        Fred. What would be wrong with the President distancing himself from rhetoric that places him at odds with people he is supposed to be leading and looking out for?

        1. Fred says:

          Joe M,
          Aparently you missed the Presidents Press Secretary Jay Carney when he said that Hoffa speaks for himself and speaks for the Labor Movment and the AFL-CIO. What’s even more funny about that is that Hoffa is President of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters. Not the AFL-CIO Union. So talk about blunder from Carney! As they distance they even blunder the distancing! Not to mention the man said take them out at the voting booths. If you watched it on any other tv show other than Fox News (who edited it to make it more sensational)…you would clearly see what Hoffa really said. So sad when people only look to the Tea Party Media channels for their news. I wish the Conservative media was more honest!

          1. Tom Crowe says:

            Fred— For the record, I haven’t watched TV news in months, and I linked to an ABCNews.com article with the quotes for this article. And what’s with using “Tea Party” as a pejorative? As though rooting for traditional American values—the ones that made this nation great and then made it greater still—are bad things.

          2. Fred Barry says:

            American Values made this country great. Tea Party Values, will make this country a 3rd world nation. If American Values are equal now to a right wing festival, then we are all in more trouble than we realize.

          3. Tom Crowe says:

            Now you’re just throwing words at the screen.

          4. Joe M says:

            Fred. You didn’t answer my question. I’m aware of what Carney said. He clearly did not distance Obama’s position from Hoffa’s statements. When a person uses the same stage and event to make a statement 20 minutes before the president speaks, it is legitimate to ask the president to clarify whether or not they agree.

      3. CT1 says:

        That’s fine to feel like that Fred, but don’t get all high on you horse like Palin’s targets were somehow different than Hoffa’s “wage war on the SOB’s”. I personally am not outraged by either b/c I don’t pretend to think civility is the highest good. But the fact is that the left DID have a fit over Palin’s targets after the Giffords shooting, so their support of Hoffa now is totally hypocritcal and so are you to act like Palin was somehow calling for people to be anything but political targets. So either you think both Palin and Hoffa can use strong political rhetoric OR you are a hypocrite for condemning one and not the other. Which is it?

        1. Fred Barry says:

          CT,
          Generalities are something all together different than actually taking a person’s ‘name’ and putting cross hairs over their districts. Palin named people personally that were her enemies. Sharon Angle called for 2nd Ammendement Remedies. Hoffa said take the SOB’s out at the ‘polls’. Clearly there is a HUGE difference. Hoffa isnt running for public service. Palin and Angle were. Representing all of the people. Hoffa represents the Teamsters union. He’s not a candidate. I would gather if Obama were speaking with people in an open forum, and someone was trying to assassinate someone’s character in front of him, he would speak up about it. Why should he apologize for talking about taking people out at the polls, by using your vote? Clearly a difference, and again, the RIGHT is giving FAKE outrage. FAKE OUTRAGE. You said it yourself.

          1. CT1 says:

            Hypocrite it is.

            No there is no difference, and your attempt to distinguish between the two is nothing but your own bias that you like what Hoffa says and dislike what Palin says. It’s laughable that you are trying to argue that she was lining up assassination targets, but you’re in good company w/ many other comics on the left.

            “Clearly a difference, and again, the RIGHT is giving FAKE outrage. FAKE OUTRAGE. You said it yourself.”

            Wrong. I said I personally am not outraged, that I personally don’t have a problem w/ Palin or Hoffa. However, I’m a little outside the norm w/ my tolerance level and I recognize that. The punishment for people who take their rhetoric too far will be alienating a majority of people who DO value civility. Plenty of people take issue w/ strong rhetoric, and there’s nothing wrong w/ that as long as they are legitimately concerned about the civility and not the source.

          2. Joe M says:

            I couldn’t have put it better than CT1 has here. That’s game, set and match there.

          3. Fred Barry says:

            CT,
            Hypocrite is a word for all sides it seems. You are one, I am one, Pro lifers that support the death penalty are, Catholics that vote for Obama are. We live in a world filled with hypocrisy. A pick and choose world of sorts so it seems. Everyone rationalizes away why it’s ok for them to support what they do. Everyone has a reason concocted in their mind as to how and why they can absolve themselves. Your no different. I would like to see people stop judging others though, as they don’t do the same exact thing. Wont happen though. You want to know why? It’s because we are all hypocrites it seems. Think about it and watch for it. It’s everywhere on all sides if you are honest with yourself.

          4. Tom Crowe says:

            Fred— I disagree with things you say here, but this thread isn’t the place to have that discussion, so what I said elsewhere about your thread jack applies here as well.

    2. Teej says:

      This problem is that if you want to find hyperbolic red meat rhetoric on the left (which isn’t hard), you can just as easily find it on the right. Outlandish statements from political pundits, politicians, and partisan organizations are simply not proprietary of either the left or the right. Unfortunately, partisans tend to focus on the outlandish rhetoric of their opponents while referring to the outlandish rhetoric of their allies, well, typically not at all. And it becomes all too bloody predictable who is going to call who out on what.

      1. Joe M says:

        Teej. For this reason, presidents have typically not had a problem clarifying their message and distancing themselves from the red meat hyperbole. It has become something of a trademark for Obama that he is unwilling to distinguish his views from radicals that he associates with unless really pressed.

  3. Davide says:

    Tom, thanks for this post. I am not an expert in politics. However they might not apologize cause they probably view they did nothing wrong. I have lived in the USA for almost 12 years-is it my imagination or has the Democrat party gone over the edge? Where are the conservative and moderate Democrats-have they died out? Seems to me the Democrat party is looking to Europe as a model of democracy-huge mistake, it is a blunder. When I see progressives and liberals I do not see folk who are tolerant-I see hatred-as if they are on a mission of ‘seek and destroy’. Maybe I am wrong but I doubt I am. Funny thing are politics.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      They’ve either died or become independents, wards of the state, or socialists. And it is tragic.

      1. davide says:

        Think you might be right Tom, and its really weird. Wait! Wasn’t Mussolini, Hitler, Lenin Socialists? You are right it is tragic-uh oh there I go-throwing out names that ‘irrelevant’-but are they? Thinking about 1910 people thought Lenin was ‘irrelevant’. We don’t think that now.

        1. Fred Barry says:

          Davide,
          You have a lot of growth to do. Do you ignore Pope John Paul II who has spoken out about Capitalizm? I would say that the capitalizm that he spoke about has taken hold in the US today. It is amazing to me to read what gets called socialsm in the US today. Do you really think we have full blown socialism in the US? Of course you don’t. Here is a clue. Paying taxes is not ‘theft’. Regulating banks and the insurance industry is not socialism. Offering someone a fair wage, fair working conditions, is something that maybe the capitalism of today seeks to undermine. We have a capatlist society. I’m really sick of listening to people call it socialism. There are elements of both sides that any catholic can agree with. Do you doubt that?

          1. Joe M says:

            Mr. Barry. More taxes and regulation is more socialist. When a country crosses the line from “capitalist” to “socialist” by those measures is subjective. However, there is no doubt that the US has moved in a socialist direction and that is the way that liberal Democrats want us to go.

          2. Fred Barry says:

            Mr Joe M,
            “When I feed the poor, they call me a saint. But when I ask why the poor are hungry, they call me a Communist.” Dom Helder Camara

          3. Tom Crowe says:

            HAH! Argument by anecdote and quotation. As though Camara’s quote is straight from the mouth of God. You’re full of logical fallacies today, aren’t ya?

          4. Joe M says:

            Mr. Barry. Thank you for the quote. Do you have any arguments in response to mine?

    2. Kat says:

      I think the right side has gone further right – way right. Republicans used to stand for freedom, fair play, and limited government. Not anymore. Now they want to use the government to force their religious views on everyone else. It makes everyone else look like liberals. Take this website for example. It’s not supporting candidates that will give Catholics the freedom to live their lives based on their own beliefs, it’s supporting candidates that want to force Catholic beliefs on everyone else using the laws of the United States. It’s disrespectful and offensive to the very freedoms that our country was founded upon.

      1. davide says:

        @ Kat, Poppycock! You are giving Catholic Vote far to much credit, they are not a threat to your religious beliefs or lack there of. As regard’s to the Republicans forcing religious belief’s–>Golly Gee Opie I hope your wrong, considering the fact most Republican’s are not Catholic. The Catholic faith is not a threat to your security or your own religious beliefs, the republicans can speak for themselves. As far as the extreme left they are a clear threat to religious beliefs and security. As a moderate (most things) I happen to think both ends of the spectrum are a little gooky.

      2. Da vid says:

        A private web-site is not representative of republicans, and can say anything it wants. In contradictory fashion, in the name of freedom you are lamenting the fact that people are exercising the freedom to promote their ideas, and you don’t like the fact that views which you follow are not being stated/promoted. How about having planned parenthood promote pro-life messages on their web-site? After all they shouldn’t be forcing their beliefs on others…This hypocrisy and double standard is rampant today: if you are “conservative” or of orthodox Christian belief you are pushing your values on others, are intolerant, have no business in the public square, etc; but if you are on the leftist side or whatever you want to call it, you can say and promote whatever you want and how you dare you challenge or criticize it.

        Furthermore to be a Catholic but then to believe whatever you want is a contradiction, just as someone claiming to follow Judaism but then not following its basic tenets would be; or someone saying they are the member of some group, the shriners let’s say, but then in the name of “freedom” rejecting the basic conditions for membership.

        Such persons who argue this way usually also deny that there is absolute truth, morally and religiously. If there is such a thing then it is clear that there is a truth which should be followed and promoted by all. If there is no such thing, then one lacks any basis to say that some christian or “conservative” view is “wrong” or should not be promoted; and they cannot claim that their views are somehow better and should be preferred.

      3. Everett says:

        I am no particular supporter of the Republican party, but lets not go making out the Democrats to be some bastion of fairness/freedom as can be clearly seen by their interest in forcing Catholic entities into providing birth control, abortions and other things that are in violation of their beliefs. Or of passing laws requiring that there be special sections in history in which the contributions of homosexual individuals are highlighted above their heterosexual counterparts (as if their sexuality was the important point, rather than their contribution). They’re just trying to force a different agenda is all.

      4. Tom Crowe says:

        Kat, don’t look now, but the Catholic Church doesn’t give people the right to live their lives on “their own beliefs,” unless their own beliefs are in accord with Catholic belief. If not, they’re not Catholic. Truth is restrictive in that way.

      5. Joe M says:

        Kat. What law is this site for that you think forces a religious view on someone else?

        1. davide says:

          @ kat and whomever else. I hate getting in the age old argument what it means to be Catholic. Myself have question Church teaching, but I have a responsibility to study Church teaching, our faith Journey did not end at our confirmation. I have no doubts the Church know’s what’s best for me. I have every intention reaching the pearly gates-even if my time in purgatory will more than likely be a long one. To argue the points you brought up is like having a debate with a sponge that is soaked in vinegar-does not make a bit of sense.

  4. Fred Barry says:

    Why should the President apologize for what Hoffa said? And Biden? They are barbarians! Too bad. It was all fine and good when Palin put cross hairs over the names of her enemies. You were all for it. At least Hoffa was talking about votes. Taking them out with votes. He didnt make a cross hairs map. You people are dispicable. You should be rallying around jobs. It’s jobs! Jobs! Jobs! Let it resonate. The tea party is anti-jobs and anti labor. Anyone who supports said policies is anti labor. Not to mention in an NBC poll yesterday 82% of people are unhappy with the job of Congress. Could it be because they have not put forth one jobs bill! I think so. So save it. You can cry and have your fake outrage. America was built by the middle class and it always will be. Did you know just the other day Charles Koch referred to Obama as “Saadam Huessein” to be? Should I have fake outrage? Or should I just see it as it is bound to be? We are going to have a war. “Mark my word, if and when these preachers get control of the [Republican] party, and they’re sure trying to do so, it’s going to be a terrible damn problem. Frankly, these people frighten me. Politics and governing demand compromise. But these Christians believe they are acting in the name of God, so they can’t and won’t compromise. I know, I’ve tried to deal with them.” – the late Senator Barry Goldwater (R-AZ), speaking of the dangerous path his party was taking.
    Goldwater saw it.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      Wow, Fred, what an amazing stream of non-sequiturs, red herrings, and missing of the point.

      1. Fred Barry says:

        I missed no points Tom. As far as I am concerned I see it for what it is. I will choose to eat, and grunt teabillies..lol.. Make no mistake about any of this. This site supported Sharon Angle and her run for Senate. She was the one that called for a 2nd Ammendment remedy. Oh do you think I forgot about that? You supported Rand Paul. When is the last time you were at a liberal political event and you saw a liberal stomping on someone’s head? When have you heard of liberals calling for sovereign states? When have you seen liberals showing up at political events locked and loaded? You have the audacity to put as your last line “Good for the goose afterall”? Are you for real? I think the left is on the side where it is good for the goose. They have had it. They have had it because you never denounced any of the rhetoric on your side. Instead you supported it with your whole heart. It was the “Catholic” thing to support. Now am I wrong? Can you honestly say I am wrong? Can you really in good conscience have this debate? I will wait for your response. I would like to see you defend that stuff.

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          “As far as I’m concerned I see it for what it is.” That much is clear.

    2. Whitney says:

      Your entire disjointed, misguided rant is patently un-American.

      1. Fred Barry says:

        Yes Whitney, I suppose a patriot to you is someone who brings a loaded gun to a political event? You see that is what the tea party felt they needed to do. That is what was so condoned by this very site and likely by you. I’m sure that is what Jesus had in mind. Let’s all walk around locked and loaded because that and only that means that you are an American! Again, serenity now folks!

        1. Tom Crowe says:

          So a responsible, peaceable citizen carrying a loaded gun is somehow a bad thing, Fred? By what logic? (Hint: “Why does he need to carry it?” is not an argument.) If you choose not to, that is your choice. If I choose to, who are you to tell me that I oughtn’t have that right or that it is wrong?

    3. Jason says:

      Mr. Barry, what you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this forum is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

    4. Joe M says:

      Mr. Barry. Allow me to address some of your points: A) The president should apologize for what Hoffa said because the statements appear to designate a large group of Americans as enemies. It’s one thing to have a debate and civil disagreements about economic policies. It’s another to declare war on people that you are supposed to be leading. B) Who was for the Palin cross-hairs and who made a big deal out of it? It seems that you have over-blown who liked the cross-hairs and forgotten that it was liberal Democrats calling foul. Do you think then that liberal Democrats should be calling foul on Hoffa’s statements? C) I can’t speak for “you people”. But, I know I am rallying for jobs. Republicans are rallying for jobs. Corporations are rallying for jobs. Who are you referring to that is against improving our jobs situation? D) Who do you think has controlled Congress for the majority of the last few years? And what do you think a “jobs bill” is? Several proposals have been made by Republicans to address our economic problems. They have been rejected by the President. There is no sense in formalizing proposals into bills if they won’t be signed into law by the president. E) America wasn’t built by any one class alone. Innovation in industry and free market principles have played pivotal roles in the economic successes of the US.

      1. Fred Barry says:

        Joe,
        Taking someone out at the polls is what you do with your vote. It’s fair game to say that! He could have lost the SOB part, but clearly he was heated. Since the right refused to see the light on their rhetoric, why would the left be any different? Republicans are not rallying for jobs. They rally for tax cuts for the wealthiest among us, because they hope that they will sink their money into the economy. Meanwhile they are moving their businesses overseas and the jobs are not here. Or they are stockpiling their money and still not putting it back into the economy. All the while the Republicans sit tight and refuse to call any of them out on this. If they are making a case for jobs in this country, it’s a weak case. The only person who clearly at the debate last evening that was trying to talk about jobs was John Huntsman. Loved when he said he would like to see a pledge to stop pledges. Yes please! Stop making pledges and just do what is right for the majority of the people and not just the wealthiest among us. Tax cuts are not the only thing that can be done to address our economic problems. We have a revenue problem too and the majority of Americans feel there should be tax increases on those who can pay. Why should the poor be the only one’s to suffer and give in these hard economic times? Pell grants-gone, heating assistance-gone, WIC-cuts…etc… The list goes on and on. Warren Buffet expresses this sentiment all of the time. It’s Republicans that refuse to listen. It’s people like Ron Paul who would like to abolish the minimum wage. Good Grief! And you state they want to help?

        1. Joe M says:

          Mr. Barry. Democrats are the ones who brought rhetoric up as an issue. You seem to be implying that Hoffa’s outburst is some kind of new tactic that they came up with in response to Republicans. The truth is, Hoffa and others have been saying this kind of thing for years. Only, Democrats decided recently to cry foul because Sarah Palin’s web designer used targets on her web page. The point here is that Democrats look hypocritical for making an issue out of rhetoric when it involves Republicans. But, are silent when it comes to their own.

          1. Fred says:

            Well Joe you are going to see things through your eyes, and I am going to see things through my eyes. Looks like we both lose.

          2. Tom Crowe says:

            With the way your eyes seem to work, I’m not sure it’s a mutual loss.

          3. Joe M says:

            Fred. I will consider this a win if this discussion leads you to reconsider your position. Even if that only means moderating it down a little. I mean, is it really necessary for you to think of people as “despicable” over their position on Jimmy Hoffa Jr.?

        2. Curious says:

          So Fred, if good ole’ Warren wants the rich to pay more taxes, why doesn’t he lead by example. No….. he instead means the other rich people, as one of his very profitable companies owes over 1 BILLION dollars in taxes to the IRS. In fact, they are suing the IRS to avoid paying their taxes THEY OWE to the government. I guess ole’ Warren’s sentiment is meant for others. How about GE, friends of the WH? They paid their fair share right? NOPE! How about Rangel, Kerry, Dodd, etc? They want the other rich to pay more too. So if you are “friends” of the WH, you get special tax rates? Sure looks that way. Truth is not how you spin it Fred. Truth is truth, and it seems that truth is something you are avoiding. God bless.

  5. debrr says:

    I just wish that Biden would quit saying he is Catholic in public. His “understanding” China’s one child policy first, now this. He is causing scandal and confusion among the faithful. Wait a minute, maybe that is what he is trying to do. He must of had some good Alinsky training from Obama.

    1. Tom Crowe says:

      I wish Biden would keep saying he’s Catholic and change his ways to actually reflect being Catholic.

      1. Fred Barry says:

        So what did you think about the debate and the cheers Rick Perry got when he stated his execution record? The crowed just cheered at this. He loved it. What about that Catholic perspective? Should this be discussed? Is this telling about what he really values?

        1. Joe M says:

          Mr. Barry. I think that certainly should be discussed. However, do you think that Rick Perry is a Catholic?

          1. Fred Barry says:

            No. I know he’s not. I just found that really telling that so many applauded his excecution record. It’s like the crowd loved it or something. This is our world. It’s interesting how quiet this site is today after their debate. I know that the right would never want to critique certain elements like that, and offer up a true Catholic perspective on a record like that. That though is something I think can be discussed. What is being pro life? Is it something deeper than just the unborn? I realize that many people feel the criminals desearve it, and so they are less apt to care. Yet, what about those that are put to death that are innocent? I just think many democrats that I saw noticed that, and were taken back by that moment in the debate. It didnt look favorable from the lefts perspective. Frankly I dont think a Catholic should look favorable on that either. I also get that you wouldnt care to much about the lefts perspective. Anymore pro life is taking on the role of meaning ‘unborn’ and once you are born, it is losing it’s meaning. Yet I’m not trying to get into a debate on that. I just noticed it, and wondered how Republicans can square that with a pro life position. I suppose life means different things to different people on all sides of the spectrum.

          2. Tom Crowe says:

            Well then, Fred, launch your own site and discuss issues at the rate that you wish to discuss them. Of course capital punishment is an important issue. That we are not discussing it at this moment is irrelevant to that. And you’re engaging in a thread jack. Please stick to the topic to which these comments are appended.

          3. Joe M says:

            Fred Barry. I don’t think that the death penalty issue is divided along Democrat vs. Republican lines. There are many Democrats that are for it. — I am personally against the death penalty. I can’t speak for how others might square the difference between abortion and the death penalty. However, I have heard it explained that an unborn child is innocent and a convicted criminal is not.

        2. Tom Crowe says:

          Erm… I didn’t watch the debate, but as I understand it, the cheering came when Brian Williams posed the question that included the number of executions that have taken place in Texas, not when Perry began answering the question… And as for that, I’m curious to know how/why you characterize it as “he loved it.” Did he whoop it up with them? Did he give ‘em a thumbs up? Or are you making that up out of the whole cloth of your prejudices too? Capital punishment is not absolutely and always opposed to the moral law like abortion is. There are legitimate reasons to use capital punishment to protect society from certain individuals. Were those who cheered Catholic? Then what relevance does it have here? Any other red herrings to throw at the wall to see if they stick?

          1. Fred says:

            Straight up wolf in sheeps clothhing Tom. That’s what Perry is. If you wont see it, then that’s on you. Just don’t try and tell me that you are pro life or something. I’m smart enough not to buy it. I wish others were though. Conservative first, and Catholic second. Just like those Obama voters.

          2. Tom Crowe says:

            Yes of course, Fred. Odd, considering I’ve not given any real opinions on this site about my leanings in the GOP field yet. But hey, at least you’re smart enough to know with certainty exactly what I think since I pointed out the glaring holes in your theory. Defending someone from an unjust attack does not equal endorsement. Are there any logical fallacies that you won’t indulge in?

          3. Fred says:

            How was it unjust what I stated, when it was clear as day to anyone that watched it? Why is it making headlines if it didnt happen? You didnt watch the debate as you stated. How is it a logical fallacy? The Republican platform is pro life. As for Joe’s comments. Do some research on how many cases are overturned that had people on death row. Not everyone convicted and given the death penatly is guilty. Perry’s record is astounding. How is it that killing is ok? We have a penal system that keeps them locked up. Therefore they are not a threat to society. I think the church teaches on that, and you both know it. Just something to keep in mind if he wins the nod. If he does though, it will be harder and harder for you to make your case that he’s pro life and you support him as such. The Republicans make the case that they are so pro life. It just seems odd when their crowds cheer about someone’s execution record. I guess time will be the true tale of how this guy plays out with your party.

          4. Tom Crowe says:

            Fred— I’m done with this thread jack. I approved all your comments up to and including this one, but I’ll trash future such comments in this thread stream if you continue on a thread jack. If/when I voice an actual opinion about the presidential candidates then you can discuss all of this there, and I will be prepared to explain the positions I have expressed. This post is about Hoffa, Biden, and Obama, not Perry, the death penalty, or other non sequitur gotchas. Have a nice day.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

STAY CONNECTED


DON'T MISS A THING

Receive our updates via email.