Speak Out: Jimmy Hoffa Calls For War On Tea Party

Replies (77)

• Hoffa is trying to get his people back to work and rally support. Tea Party people work too I believe he for got that. The working middle class feel very strongly they have been left behind and our elected officials have catered to the special interest groups both republicans and democrats while wages have completely stagnated for the past ten years in this country. The working middle class is the back bone of this country as well as small businesses without either we will fail our goal in having a strong economy. It does not start on Wall street or with big banks it starts with the middle class people and the small businesses of our great nation.

  -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Mon, Sep 5, 2011, at 5:44 PM

• The average person is more educated than they were when the unions were in their heyday. Today many union workers are not happy with the manner in which their dues are spent. The unions are like government, the biggest turds float to the top and they hold average Americans in their places.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Mon, Sep 5, 2011, at 6:07 PM

• Hoffa is a blowhard just like his daddy.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Mon, Sep 5, 2011, at 6:28 PM

• Wheels: I agree with your assessment.

  -- Posted by swampeastmissouri on Mon, Sep 5, 2011, at 7:48 PM

• Labor unions represent a minority of the working people of this country. Hoffa replresents a minority of Union workers.

  Hoffa is calling for a war he doesn't need and could very well lose.

  -- Posted by voyager on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 2:20 PM

• I was a member of a large union at one time. My eyes were opened the year that some of the guys I knew had the opportunity to go to the national convention. When they returned they reported that it was one heck of a party. They were well supplied the whole time with all the booze they could drink and well entertained. And......oh yes, all the national officers were re-elected by acclamation!

  Everybody knows the teamsters are a law-abiding organization and all it's officers are above reproach.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 2:38 PM

• -- Posted by Rick ** on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 3:28 PM

  I don't worry about the TEA Part as there really is no organization and it is not really a political party, but rather a collection of people with a similar philosophy.

  I don't see it ever becoming an official party, but like you I believe if it did, it would go down the same road as all the others.

  -- Posted by Acronym on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 3:34 PM

• The tea party is bought and paid for by the Koch brothers. They have more power than Hoffa. Be careful what you join up with.

  -- Posted by Therealworld on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 6:11 PM

• Rick Perry of Texas just attebded a Koch brothers convention and came away with money for his campaign.

  -- Posted by Dexterite1 on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 8:03 PM

• The tea party is bought and paid for by the Koch brothers. They have more power than Hoffa. Be careful what you join up with.

  -- Posted by jethrobodine on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 6:11 PM

  Wisconsin union mantra. A large majority of people here don't even no who the Koch brothers are.

  Hoffa probably didn't mean to say what he did but it was a direct threat to harm people.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 8:04 PM

• Dexter

  Got a link on that convention? I only found a post on a anti republican blog.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 8:09 PM

• Don't know who the Koch brothers are; don't really care. But they do seem to have the liberals bothered. They must be doing something right.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 9:07 PM

• STM

  liberals think the Koch brothers are big supporters when they have George Soros.

  Look what the liberal party in Canada turned into. They are not very liberal anymore.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 9:34 PM

• What a great time to be in the concrete shoe business. Wonder who made some of the following quotes? "I want the people of Minnesota armed and dangerous"..."Don't retreat, reload"..."We may have to exercise our 2nd amendment rights". Just a few of the quotes that might rival Hoffa's.

  -- Posted by howdydoody on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 9:41 PM

• Howdy

  Did they pick specific targets and say "Take those sons of b***** out"?

  You and CBS took Palin's remark out of context but of course it was Palin. You guys still believe she said she could see Russia from her home. Remember: That was a skit on SNL.

  Armed and dangerous to thugs (after being targeted by the protesters) (Bachman).

  And yes we might have to "exercise our second amendment rights" of owning firearms to protect ourselves from a tyrannical government. What is wrong with that? Jefferson said the same thing.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 10:12 PM

• BTW... Whos said "What a great time to be in the concrete shoe business"?

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 10:14 PM

• Jethro sounds a lot like his namesake.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Tue, Sep 6, 2011, at 10:48 PM

• "The radical liberal progressive propaganda machine has geared up against the tea party. They charge the folks elected by agreeing with tea party constituents are keeping them from fixing what's wrong."

  I said that on the 28th, now I wonder if David Axlerod wrote Hoffa's speach.

  Are they trying to provoke a response that can be used to label folks of tea party inspired opinions as right wing extremist anti government misfits?

  Another thought, look at Detroit and Michigan as a whole. Clearly it has been mostly a democrat party union influenced lesson. Some of the highest unemployment in the nation and areas that were once filled with industrial might are now blighted with empty factories and entire areas targeted for demolition.

  So Mr Hoffa, how's all that worked out for working people?

  -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 12:48 AM

• Have wheels has probably never been out of swamp east Missouri.

  -- Posted by Therealworld on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 6:50 AM

• I, Howdy, said "What a great time to be in the concrete shoe business" Re-read my post and try to comprehend. I know it is difficult for you that's why I tried to make it as simple as possible. Regret, when you spin someting like your 10:12 pm post, please put up some kind of warning. Good thing I was sitting down when I read it, whew.

  -- Posted by howdydoody on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 8:46 AM

• Jethro,

  Willing to start a p*****g contest with you on who has been where at any time and place. I grew up in SE Missouri and am very proud of it. Have not lived there since 1956.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 8:58 AM

• How is Hoffa's statement any different than the tea parties previous use of "crosshairs" to identify liberal "targets" they were going to "take out"?

  -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 9:43 AM

• Dades wrote:

  "How is Hoffa's statement any different than the tea parties previous use of "crosshairs" to identify liberal "targets" they were going to "take out"?"

  Perhaps because he referred to a group of concerned voters as 'sons of b*****s', upon whom he is declaring war?

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 10:17 AM

• DADES - you conveniently left out the democrat party campaign web page that had crosshairs before Palin. They were removed after the democrats attacked Sarah Palin.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 10:23 AM

• Have wheels. Looks like you started the p@@issing contest back at you earlier post at 10:48 on the 6th.. If you cant take it back do not dish it out.

  -- Posted by Therealworld on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 11:08 AM

• The "cross-hairs," insulting either of the last few presidents, Hoffa's tirade...

  It is all political rhetoric.

  Please don't try convince anybody that it was to be taken literally. Even someone like Hoffa, has no intention of actually harming anybody. It is all talk.

  -- Posted by commonsensematters on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 11:46 AM

• Perhaps because he referred to a group of concerned voters as 'sons of b*****s', upon whom he is declaring war?

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 10:17 AM

  Or perhaps your perpetual defense of conservatives has blinded you to any sort of unbiased opinion. I think you should pull yourself out of the mud before you accuse others of playing dirty.

  _______________________

  DADES - you conveniently left out the democrat party campaign web page that had crosshairs before Palin. They were removed after the democrats attacked Sarah Palin.

  -- Posted by Dug on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 10:23 AM

  I imagine I left a lot of things out either conveniently or inconveniently. I did not mean for my post to represent a super history of American politics and you should not take it as such. I was merely pointing out that "combative" language has been used by both sides ad nauseam (which you confirmed with your post).

  -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 1:16 PM

• I'm aware of my own bias, and have acknowledged in the past. There seem to be quite a few on this board, however, who are unwilling to acknowledge their own.

  There was quite a discussion on 'hate filled rhetoric' on this board a while back, following the Giffords shooting. Now, it seems, all those who were condemning Ms. Palin for using words such as 'target' and 'shoot' are suddenly silent about the incindiary nature of political language.

  To the best of my knowledge, Ms. Palin did not launch into any profanity laced declaration of war against the voters in her 'hated filled speeches'. Yet, hers was seen by many here as unacceptable. Shall I go to that thread and copy a few posts?

  Nor did I condemn Mr. Hoffa for his remarks. Dades wanted to know why his was different than Ms. Palin's use of surveyor's marks on a map, and I offered an possible explanation (note the use of the word 'perhaps' in my post).

  I find it rather biased that 'the left', which insisted on 'motor voter laws' to increase participation in the political process, are now bothered by increased participation in the political process. I gather they only want certain types of people involved, and are willing to wage war on 'those other types'.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 2:35 PM

• In the wake of the Giffords shooting, one Democrat sought to make it illegal to use 'terms or symbols' that might be threatening to lawmakers:

  http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/136895-dem-planning-bill-that-w...

  Apparently, the Democrats are less concerned with 'terms or symbols' threatening to voters.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 2:52 PM

• Theorist,

  Thanks. But we had better not agree too often or else they will all gang up on us accusing us of ganging up on them.

  _____________

  Shapley said, "Dades wanted to know why his was different than Ms. Palin's use of surveyor's marks on a map, and I offered an possible explanation (note the use of the word 'perhaps' in my post)."

  Hey, I used "perhaps" in my post too! So why are you so defensive?

  Shapley said, "Dades wanted to know why his was different than Ms. Palin's use of surveyor's marks on a..."

  Ha! I forgot how they tried to spin the gun sight cross hairs into "surveyors marks" well, I guess there is one born every minute. But if you want to go down that road...

  Why are you attacking this poor working slob Hoffa? He's just a (presumably) registered voter voicing his opinion. It's not like he is running for office and putting his opponents faces underneath "surveyors marks" encouraging his people to "level" 'em.

  And when did he ever attack voters?

  Shapely, you have admitted you are biased and everybody is to a certain extent. I have no problem with that. But if you are so biased that you cant even see the similarities between the political rhetoric that both parties use then I'm afraid you're more than biased, you've become one of the brain-dead followers.

  -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 3:45 PM

• the more ya stir shat , the more it stinks...

  -- Posted by Rick ** on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 3:49 PM

  Why do you know this?

  And your right, I'm sure Hoffa is pretty far from being the poor working slob I referred to him as. But I figure if Shapley is going to refer to the crosshairs as "surveyors marks" then I can refer to the Teamsters President as a "poor working slob."

  -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 4:15 PM

• Dades,

  There is one glaring difference between Ms. Palin's use of the crosshairs and Jimmy Hoffa's hate-filled rhetoric. The difference is that the President of the United States was present, Hoffa's rhetoric was part of the warm-up to the President's speech, and the President offered Hoffa his encouragement.

  That may not mean much to you but it does to me; especially when that President has been decrying 'hateful speech'.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 4:26 PM

• stnmsn8

  So you are saying that you hold the Presidents opening act to a higher standard than you do those who seek his office?

  -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 4:40 PM

• Dades wrote:

  "But if you are so biased that you cant even see the similarities between the political rhetoric that both parties use then I'm afraid you're more than biased, you've become one of the brain-dead followers."

  I never denied the similarities, I merely answered you question about the differences. Perhaps your own bias has blinded you to the distinction.

  Why did you ask for difference to be pointed out if you didn't really want to know?

  I would also point out that it was not the Republicans that made an issue of 'hate speech' and 'inflammatory political rhetoric'.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 4:50 PM

• Dades wrote:

  "But I figure if Shapley is going to refer to the crosshairs as "surveyors marks" then I can refer to the Teamsters President as a "poor working slob"."

  I use the term because the type of crosshairs used are interchangeable with surveyor's crosshairs. The Democrat's attempt to identify them solely with gunsights is entirely wrong. There was nothing on the map that identified them as having anything to do with shooting or gunfire, so it is no less wrong to call them 'surveyors marks' than to call them 'gunsights'. Ultimately, they were nothing more than two lines and circle.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 4:57 PM

• I never denied the similarities,

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 4:50 PM

  But you did. You used combative, incendiary language (much like Hoffa) when you said Hoffa, "referred to a group of concerned voters as 'sons of b*****s', upon whom he is declaring war," then you dismissed the notion of crosshairs saying, "Ms. Palin's [used] surveyor's marks on a map." Seems to me that you are denying any similarity.

  ________________________

  I use the term because the type of crosshairs used are interchangeable with surveyor's crosshairs.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 4:57 PM

  Symbols are a tricky thing. If you were going to photoshop some crosshairs, how would you do it to make sure they weren't confused with surveyors marks? Would that be a concern of yours? What if you were trying to photoshop surveyors marks? Wouldn't you try to differentiate them somehow from the crosshairs of a riffle? I know I would. Just the other day I was watching a rerun of an old Magnum P.I. episode and there was a sniper about to shoot Magnum as he was getting into his Ferrari but I got confused when they showed a simple circle with two intersecting lines and I screamed,"oh no! He's going to survey Magnum!"

  So I can see how symbols can sometimes be open to interpretation. But just remember that the next time someone flips you off. That might just be their way of telling you that your #1.

  -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 6:10 PM

• "Seems to me that you are denying any similarity."

  Not at all. You didn't ask about similarities, you asked how they were different.

  It is correct, in a sense, to say a Great Dane is like a Schnauzer. One could provide a list of similarities to justify the statement.

  It is also correct, in a sense, to say that a Great Dane is not like a Schnauzer. One could also provide a list of differences to justify that statement.

  If you ask "how is a Great Dane different than a Schnauzer?", one should not be surprised if one does not receive a list of similarities. That would run counter to the question.

  You, however, are convinced that a Great Dane is similar to a Schnauzer, and you believe anyone who thinks a Great Dane is different than a Schnauzer is "Brain Dead" (your term). I provided a possible reason that the Great Dane may be different than the Schnauzer, and you have gone to great lengths to deny that, with no evidence to the contrary.

  It seems to me that yours is a very narrow view of the world, in which differences of opinion are indicative of brain-death. Me, I think when one has to resort to such insults, it's a sign they've long since run out of valid points of discussion. I, however, realize that one can point out the differences between a Great Dane and a Schnauzer without denying any similarities between the two.

  It would seem, however, that your whole intent was to turn the focus of this discussion from the current topic to a discussion of Sarah Palin's activities of last year.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 8:01 PM

• "So you are going to hold the President's opening act to a higher standard than you do those who seek his office?"

  No, Dades,

  I am going to hold the President to a higher standard. Whenever he appears in public he represents not just himself, not just his party, but the whole United States. It is a two-way street; he is shown respect because of the office he holds, his actions reflect upon that office.

  Just this spring at the University of Michigan, President Obama called for a basic level of civility in our political discourse. This episode on Labor Day was an opportunity for him to demonstrate that he does more than talk the talk. It was an opportunity to demonstrate that he actually walks the walk. And he failed it miserably.

  If he had in some way called Mr. Hoffa to task for overzealous speech he would have sent a message to everyone involved in the campaign; set a standard for behavior. When he did not, he put his stamp of approval on that behavior.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 8:54 PM

• Have wheels. Looks like you started the p@@issing contest back at you earlier post at 10:48 on the 6th.. If you cant take it back do not dish it out.

  -- Posted by jethrobodine on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 11:08 AM

  Jethro,

  I just commented on your having appropriately named yourself, and you come back with something equally as dumb as the statement I was refering to... about where I may or may not have been. As I said, if you want to compare where one another has or has not been, I'm willing.

  Your alter ego isn't Cadillacman is it?

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 9:57 PM

• If you ask "how is a Great Dane different than a Schnauzer?", one should not be surprised if one does not receive a list of similarities.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 8:01 PM

  Yeah, but when I look and Palin & Hoffa all I see are two Schnauzers. I asked what's the difference and now you're trying to convince me that one of them is a Great Dane.

  __________________

  It is a two-way street; he is shown respect because of the office he holds, his actions reflect upon that office.

  -- Posted by stnmsn8 on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 8:54 PM

  Your right, it is a two way street, and I haven't really seen where this President has been shown much in the way of respect. But to be fair I don't see that he has done much to earn respect either.

  Why do you hold the President to a higher standard? It's not like when you pluck them from congress the muck and filth just sloughs off and they become apple pie personified.

  -- Posted by DADES on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 10:29 PM

• Dades,

  In case you haven't noticed it: the President is often the face of this country. He is the CEO of this country; by himself he speaks for the executive branch. Any Senator shares power with 99 other Senators and this is only 1/2 of Congress. Any Representative shares power with 434 other representatives within their half of Congress. The power of the Supreme Court is divided among 9 individuals.

  No other individual in this country can announce he/she is giving a speech and pre-empt one hour plus of primetime television on all the networks. The President of the United States is seen as the most powerful person in the free world. Any person in this position of power MUST be held to a higher standard!

  -- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 7:01 AM

• Dades wrote:

  "I asked what's the difference and now you're trying to convince me that one of them is a Great Dane."

  No, you asked the difference and I showed you one possible difference. You then I argued that I denied the similarities, which were never asked about.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 7:16 AM

• I thought the analogy was well-phrased. Apparently someone did not recognize the similarities.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 8:00 AM

• No other individual in this country can announce he/she is giving a speech and pre-empt one hour plus of primetime television on all the networks.

  -- Posted by stnmsn8 on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 7:01 AM

  But not a Republican debate though. No one has that kind of preemptive power.

  I think I understand your argument stnmsn8, you hold the President to a higher standard because he is the President. But I stand by my earlier tenet that you should hold all elected officials to the highest standard. If you keep making excuses for their bad behavior they are going to come to expect it. Training a proper politician is a tricky thing and I think you have to start early. Not wait until they are President and then try to correct them.

  _________________

  No, you asked the difference and I showed you one possible difference. You then I argued that I denied the similarities, which were never asked about.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 7:16 AM

  OK, lets analyze this totally non-superficial difference that you pulled out of your...reasoning hat. As I understand your argument, you seem to be saying that Hoffa is a big meany while poor put-upon Palin is just misunderstood. Ok, I'll accept that answer. I would have also accepted that one used words while the other used pictures or one is a man and the other is a woman or one is a Democrat and the other a Republican. You are right Shapley, these are all factual, valid and technically correct answers and I should and do accept them as such.

  But actually, now that I think about it, you never did answer my question. I mean, I think I got the gist of what you were trying to say when you accused Hoffa of declaring war on voters and then gingerly danced around Palin's use of crosshairs, but all you really did was paraphrase Hoffa's statement poorly. In the process, implying that his call to get out and vote was somehow an attack on "concerned voters."

  You said, "Perhaps because he referred to a group of concerned voters as 'sons of b*****s', upon whom he is declaring war?"

  You're entitled to your own opinion Shapley, but not your own facts.

  From the article, what he actually said was, "We got to keep an eye on the battle that we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war...President Obama, this is your army. We are ready to march. Let's take these son of b****s out and give America back to an America where we belong,"

  This sounds like a call to vote to me.

  So what exactly did you say the difference was between this "call to vote" and the use of "surveyors marks" to identify targets?

  -- Posted by DADES on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 9:03 AM

• I see you left out a key part of the speech in claiming that I ignore facts:

  ""We've got to keep an eye on the battle that we face -- a war on workers. And you see it everywhere. It is the Tea Party"And there's only one way to beat and win that war -- the one thing about working people is we like a good fight."

  "Fight", he said. Note vote. He called it a war. He called it a battle, He called his people an Army, and said 'take these Sons of b*****s out', and he said they like a good fight.

  Strange that he doesn't mention the word 'vote' anywhere in there, and yet you claim as a 'fact' that he is urging them to do that.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 9:28 AM

• "OK, lets analyze this totally non-superficial difference that you pulled out of your...reasoning hat. As I understand your argument, you seem to be saying that Hoffa is a big meany while poor put-upon Palin is just misunderstood."

  If you actually analyzed it, you'd see that I never mentioned Ms. Palin, understood or not, in my reply. I merely pointed out the terms that Mr. Hoffa used which were in strack contrast to Ms. Palin's computer screen image.

  The vulgarity used, for example, is unbecoming someone introducing the president of the United States. Also, the Tea Party are, as I noted, just a group of concerned voters, yet Mr. Hoffa sees fit to declare war upon them.

  Ms. Palin targeted certain elected officials for removal from office through the electoral process. She did not threaten to go to war against the people who elected them, which is the essence of Mr. Hoffa's remarks. That much should be obvious, but you cannot seem to see the distinction.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 9:43 AM

• jethrobodine, I keep hearing that I'm bought and paid for by the Koch brothers.

  If you can find the cash or check that they send me, I'd appreciate your help.

  Maybe you can float me a loan from some of your Soros money with which you were bought and paid for.

  (Must. Not. Call. Names.)

  -- Posted by bebo on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 10:40 AM

• Dades wrote:

  "As I understand your argument, you seem to be saying that Hoffa is a big meany while poor put-upon Palin is just misunderstood."

  I realized you had run out of substance when you had to start tossing about terms such as 'brain dead' in order to bolster your statements. Now, I see that you have had to toss in claims I never made, in order to portray my position as something it never was.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 11:00 AM

• I never mentioned Ms. Palin, understood or not, in my reply.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 9:43 AM

  Really? Well that explains everything then, you're a victim of identity theft! Because I thought that was you who posted with your name and avatar that:

  "Dades wanted to know why his (Hoffa's remarks) was different than Ms. Palin's use of surveyor's marks on a map-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 2:35 PM"

  You should really call that 1-800 life-lock number to make sure whoever has been making these awful, contradictory statements in your name hasn't opened any new credit cards.

  That must be why you think my argument lacks substance, because you are only half aware of your own statements to which I've been replying.

  So tell me, was that you or your doppelganger who was the brain dead acolyte who only found it objectionable when liberals used violent verbiage and images to incite their political base?

  -- Posted by DADES on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 1:26 PM

• Dades wrote:

  "Really? Well that explains everything then, you're a victim of identity theft! Because I thought that was you who posted with your name and avatar that:"

  Now you're pulling a quote from a subsequent post, not from my reply to the question. As I said, you've run out of substance.

  Here is the entire post that was in reply to your question:

  "Dades wrote:

  ""How is Hoffa's statement any different than the tea parties previous use of "crosshairs" to identify liberal "targets" they were going to "take out"?"

  "Perhaps because he referred to a group of concerned voters as 'sons of b*****s', upon whom he is declaring war?

  "-- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Wed, Sep 7, 2011, at 10:17 AM"

  No mention of Ms. Palin in there.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 1:51 PM

• Dades,

  Note the use of the singular 'reply' in my post. Subsequent posts were not a direct reply to your question.

  Have a good day.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 1:54 PM

• "If you continue to make excuses for their bad behavior they come to expect it".

  Dades, that is a true statement. But, as I did not make excuses for anyone in my posting I do not understand why you choose to make that statement.

  If you will check back on my postings I do not believe you will find that I have affiliated myself with any particular party. You may have assumed that I am a Republican because I have expressed my disagreement with this administration's philosophy. My disagreement with one politician does not automatically mean my support of another.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 2:05 PM

• And then with all the support we see here from postings for Hoffa and Unions, we get this latest story:

  Hundreds of Longshoremen stormed the Port of Longview early Thursday, overpowered and held security guards, damaged railroad cars, and dumped grain that is the center of a labor dispute, said Longview Police Chief Jim Duscha.

  Six guards were held hostage for a couple of hours after 500 or more Longshoremen broke down gates about 4:30 a.m. and smashed windows in the guard shack, he said.

  500 nice, peaceful union members held hostages, damaged rail cars and dumped grain.

  DADES/JETHRO/THEORIST - can you guys get a good picture of this crime with Sarah Palin cut and pasted in there? So you can talk about how violent she is compared to your union friends?

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 2:24 PM

• "We got to keep an eye on the battle we face: The war on workers. And you see it everywhere, it is the Tea Party. And you know, there is only one way to beat and win that war. The one thing about working people is we like a good fight. And you know what? They've got a war, they got a war with us and there's only going to be one winner. It's going to be the worker's of Michigan, and America. We're going to win that war."

  Is the port of Longview the first battle in that war? Will we hear Mr. Hoffa or Secretary of Labor Hilda L. Solis soundly condemn this action? Or will their silence be translated by some as approval? Will President Obama make use of his speech tonight to call for the criminal prosecution of those who destroyed private property?

  Is it accidental that this act of violence occurred the same week that President Obama sat silently by as Mr. Hoffa declared war on those 'sons of b******'? Each of you has the ability to form your own opinion.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 2:46 PM

• Theorist, I went to school with a guy that always had to have the last word. I found that when he had the last word with me, then then wanted the last word with himself. After a while he would end up making my point for me.

  I suspect people with higher education recognize some rules for proper debate so I am not qualified to add anything to this farce.

  -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 2:47 PM

• Now you're pulling a quote from a subsequent post,

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 1:51 PM

  Yes, Shapley, I was actually taking your subsequent posts into account when I posted subsequently. That was why I referred to them. Please point out which replies you posted in error and I will try to subsequently ignore them.

  ____________________

  I did not make excuses for anyone in my posting I do not understand why you choose to make that statement.

  -- Posted by stnmsn8 on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 2:05 PM

  You stated that Hoffa's comments which included combative language was worse than Palin's use of violent images because of the proximity of the President. You said you held the President to a higher standard. I was simply trying to suggest that any elected official at this level should be held to the highest standard. Not just the President.

  ______________________

  DADES/JETHRO/THEORIST - can you guys get a good picture of this crime with Sarah Palin cut and pasted in there? So you can talk about how violent she is compared to your union friends?

  -- Posted by Dug on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 2:24 PM

  After the Giffords shooting did you blame Palin? If so then feel free place blame how you see fit. If not then I can't help but see this as anything other than letting politics determine your reality.

  _________________________

  I am not qualified to add anything to this farce.

  -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 2:47 PM

  This isn't a farce, it's a tragedy.

  -- Posted by DADES on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 3:05 PM

• I will pay attention to Mr. Obama's calls for a more civil dialogue when he demonstrates that civil dialogue. I am quite sure that tonight's speech will be very civil with no name-calling, whining, or finger-pointing.

  Dades,

  The use of crosshairs to focus attention is and has been very common. Some people translated this symbol to suggest violence. I did not. Those who attempted to shrug it off as surveyor's marks were ill-advised.

  I learned long ago not to worry about pleasing some people because it became very apparent to me that some people have no intention of being pleased.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 3:33 PM

• Dades wrote:

  "Yes, Shapley, I was actually taking your subsequent posts into account when I posted subsequently. That was why I referred to them. Please point out which replies you posted in error and I will try to subsequently ignore them."

  I stand by all my posts. However, only one was in answer to your question, and it is that which is the topic of discussion.

  As I've said, you've run out of substance, and I out of patience.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 3:39 PM

• Theo - apparently DADES is fine with left-wing violence and thinks that a call to fight and take out those sons of b****** is OK. DADES accuses others of bias and then supports violent calls from a union boss.

  Then today we get the Longshoremen criminal action just days after Hoffa's call for fighting and "take them out". Palin has nothing to do with the revolt - that's the point. Liberals call for civility and then turn a blind eye to their own calls and *actions* of violence.

  The attack on democrat Russ Carnahan's campaign office was done by --- a democrat! The person that shattered 11 windows at the Colorado democrat party headquarters was --- a democrat! After a democrat in the office said it was an attempt by THE OTHER SIDE to stir up hate. It was one of their own.

  And so I quote your post dades - "I am merely pointing out that "combative" language has been used by both sides ad nauseam (which you confirmed with your post).".

  So you support combative language like Hoffa's. Do you support your union friends holding security guards hostage? Destroying property?

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 4:24 PM

• the original Union helped workers against big business thugs...now the Union are thugs

  -- Posted by Rick ** on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 3:02 PM

  You got it.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 6:27 PM

• Shhh.. Daddy's talking to the children. ;-)

  -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 6:41 PM

• Give Hoffa credit..if it weren't for him this post would not exist. Go Hoffa.

  -- Posted by howdydoody on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 7:16 PM

• Because Howdy knows all!!!

  -- Posted by howdydoody on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 8:00 PM

• But Howdy, you have it ALL wrong.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 8:04 PM

• I really like reading these posts. It only proves that irrational and dilusional people are not interested the facts as they really are. They live with illusions as they desire. That is a tactic learned from their annointed leader, B. Hussien Obama. He believes that if you say something enough, the sheeple with believe you. Educated productive people are not falling for the illusion. We ARE the TEA Party movement and we are much stronger than the labor movement of old. We are CITIZENS, not terrorists or barbarians as the vice-idiot has stated. We stand with the Constitution and abide by our laws. Liberals that ignore the Constitution and our laws and they will be forced to answer for their treason once they are replaced.

  -- Posted by jadip4me on Sat, Sep 10, 2011, at 10:29 AM

• It did not work the first time; we should do it again?

  I would agree that we need to do some work on the nation's roads, bridges, sewers, etc........the infrastructure. The local and state governments should be the ones to make those decisions. Those same local governments would have more revenue to do so if the federal government did not bleed us dry and use our money to bribe us.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Sat, Sep 10, 2011, at 7:01 PM

• Theo - I'm backing it up little woman (to use your phraseology) :-)

  Shapely says "Perhaps because he referred to a group of concerned voters as 'sons of b*****s', upon whom he is declaring war?"

  then

  Dades says "Or perhaps your perpetual defense of conservatives has blinded you to any sort of unbiased opinion."

  then

  YOU AGREE with Dades and say "I think Dades has an accurate summation of Shapley's political stanse. It is nice to know others agree"

  Welcome to the party. Never said you said anything about Sarah Palin. Reread the post.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Sat, Sep 10, 2011, at 8:21 PM

• During my college years, a perpetual Bridghe game was going on at my faternity house. There was a constant arm twisting for the fourth. I declined to ever learn how to play Bridge for the very reason of more important things to do.

  Some f the arguments on various threads are like Bridge. All good and well if you have time to waste and patience to make explanations. I got out of the habit long ago.

  Which is why I appr4ciate Rick's often sterling one liners.. He boils the idea down into a nutshell. But also for Shapely's thoughtful posts. He doesn't waste words.

  -- Posted by voyager on Sat, Sep 10, 2011, at 9:58 PM

• Voyager, I understand, some folks are just eat up with football @#$%^&* and Wonder bread.

  -- Posted by Old John on Sun, Sep 11, 2011, at 1:29 AM

• Palin has nothing to do with the revolt - that's the point.

  -- Posted by Dug on Thu, Sep 8, 2011, at 4:24 PM

  Did you miss that one, Theorist?

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Sep 11, 2011, at 8:18 AM

• Probably just me, but I just don't get the hatred for or adoration of Sarah Palin. At this point I view her as irrelevant.

  -- Posted by Acronym on Sun, Sep 11, 2011, at 9:03 AM

• Acronym - agree totally.

  -- Posted by not_sorry on Sun, Sep 11, 2011, at 9:27 AM

• Don't worry. As soon as she is totally worn out the MSM will find another dog to worry. If there is no news they must create some.

  -- Posted by Robert* on Sun, Sep 11, 2011, at 10:20 AM

• Theorist, lets put it in plain language even you can understand. Some of us do not choose the play Bridge with you whether willingly or unwillingly.

  -- Posted by voyager on Sun, Sep 11, 2011, at 12:44 PM

• Voyager,

  I developed a new respect for Bridge about 40 years ago when my wife's 80 some odd year old uncle told me that was the card game he and his cronies played down at the cotton gin in Portageville, MO.

  -- Posted by Have_Wheels_Will_Travel on Sun, Sep 11, 2011, at 12:48 PM

• Kinda the hard way to get to Germany, don't ya think?

  -- Posted by voyager on Sun, Sep 11, 2011, at 1:35 PM

• i wonder if this Hoffa dude knows where his dad is buried

  -- Posted by Rick ** on Sun, Sep 11, 2011, at 11:09 AM

  Under the goalpost at giants stadium.

  -- Posted by We Regret To Inform U on Sun, Sep 11, 2011, at 5:41 PM