@Bren -

Are you going to cite Hoffa to a specific comment he made wherein he committed the act of "skimming?" Also, why did you state that you were going to look over the Path this weekend if you really had no intention of doing so?

Either provide the requested citations or please admit that NO WHERE in either the Path to Prosperity or the Ryan Budget, does it expressly exempt members of Congress, nor does it provide $43B in tax breaks for oil companies.

Also, still waiting for your proof showing that the Walker administration awarded Georgia Pacific and Diane Hendricksen with tax breaks outside those received by everyone else and/or the new job creation program.

Just admit that you embrace and engage in perpetuating lefty-liberal conspiracy theories! I don't understand why you're so reluctant to admit that you've been duped by factually unsupported propaganda and rhetoric?

@Bren
"Probably better for business not to include religion and someone else's moral values in the promotional plan." Why not? Is it not a private entity? Does the government or social do-gooders on the left now control appropriate morals of business owners?

Let me ask this: If based on Cathy's stance, the LGBT lot can choose not to work for him; however, why is the flip side not also allowed, that Cathy can choose who he hires based on the same criteria? OR If I want to start a company that I believe will function best with Christian values in place, why can't structure it that way?

@JB

Bren can't even support her previously asserted 'facts' with citations to primary sources and hasn't the integrity to admit that she was wrong when called out by Hoffa, instead preferring to call Hoffa names such as "skimmer."

And you expect her to answer your question with any kind of logic or coherency?

That's a good one! ;-)

Mr. Hoffa the skimmer. You have proven beyond a doubt that you have moved from "skimming" to skipping. Shall I start calling you "Skippy" now?

There are parts of P2P that open the door for the type of tax breaks discussed. Since you apparently can't concentrate long enough to read a paragraph or two, I understand why you are so insistent I do the heavy lifting for you. But as I've informed you every time, I'm not wasting my time or skills on a "skimmer." Sorry Skippy! ; )

J.B., the employer has every right to make a stand on an issue and many business owners do. My personal opinion is that I'm not sure that his issue is going to be good for his bottom line. There must be many causes, I'm sure, that he can embrace with good conscience.

@Bren -

"There are parts of P2P that open the door for the type of tax breaks discussed."

From the Path to Prosperity:

"Boosting American energy resources: Too great a percentage of America’s vast natural resources remain locked behind bureaucratic barriers and red tape. This budget lifts moratoriums on safe, responsible energy exploration in the United States, ends Washington policies that drive up gas prices, and unlocks American energy production to help lower costs, create jobs and reduce dependence on foreign oil."

"This budget reverses the President’s policies that drive up gas prices, and instead promotes an all-of-the-above strategy for unlocking American energy production to help lower costs, create jobs and reduce dependence on foreign oil."

These are the ONLY two sections from the P2P that discuss anything about oil. And it doesn't mention the term tax breaks at all, yet alone the specific dollar amount of $43B that you were supporting, as claimed within the lefty liberal blog! Only via the use of pure conjecture, speculation, supposition, etc - in other words, unfounded conspiracy theories, could one even infer such a conclusion.

And no where does it state that the members of Congress would be exempt, does it?

Of course this raises the question as to why you do not use the actual Ryan budget bill, as voted on by the entirety of the US House of Representatives, as your primary source of information?

If Ryan was going to exempt members of Congress and give tax breaks to oil companies via his proposed budget, as you've asserted, then surely such must be expressly laid out in the actual bill itself, otherwise how exactly would Ryan effectuate such goals within the confines of his budget?

Is part of your conspiracy theory that Ryan has some sort of Jedi mind control powers over everyone else on the planet that he can use to fool everyone into submission without the need to put such objectives into any actual bill that he authored that would become law?

H.CON.RES.34 : Establishing the budget for the United States Government for fiscal year 2012 and setting forth appropriate budgetary levels for fiscal years 2013 through 2021.
Sponsor: Rep Ryan, Paul [WI-1] (introduced 4/11/2011) Cosponsors (None)
Committees: House Budget; Senate Budget
House Reports: 112-58

Not to mention that I'm also still waiting on your cite to your source that the Walker administration awarded Georgia Pacific and Diane Hendricksen with state tax breaks outside those received by everyone else or as a part of the new jobs program.

Come on Bren - waiting....

@Bren -

BTW - If Hoffa is the 'skimmer' and 'skipper,' as you claim, then how exactly do you explain the comment you left over on this board:

http://mountpleasant.patch.com/articles/gov-walker-developing-wisconsin-s-workforce

I can't wait to hear your explanation for this complete lapse ;-)

Mr. Hoffa, I saw your avatar and name but skipped your message. Sorry!

; )

Childish Bren, very childish!

Single comment? Limbaugh went after Fluke 52 times over three days, jiggling his man tits every time.

"However, right now our country is more divided than ever on the subject. Why? Because of a comment Dan Cathy, the CEO of Chick-fil-A made."

I don't think it's fair to blame Cathy's comment for the divide. He wasn't slamming the LGBT lifestyle. He was merely promoting his personal believe in the traditional family model and the corresponding values. If anything, it's the LGBT community that is to blame for this divide by over-reacting to such truly benign comments. But, the LGBT community has just as much right to over-react as Cathy had to make the comment, nevermind that many see the over-reaction as being as foolish as Wisconsin's blue fister crowd and their over-reaction to the Walker reforms.

Hoffa has a feeling that such an over-reaction will work about as well for the LGBT community as is it did for the blue fisters. As for the hypocrisy of the LGBT community, Hoffa doesn't think that the LGBT community is doing itself any favors on this one, but did you honestly see any of the 'vocal' members/groups of the current LGBT movement not putting its support behind Democratic candidates, no matter where such candidates stand on the marriage rights issue?

As far as the Jim Henson Company is concerned, well, they're free to engage in as much hypocrisy as they so desire. Who really cares what the Jim Henson Company or its management is doing, unless of course you're somehow subtly inferring/suggesting a public retaliation against the company for being hypocritical? But what would that achieve? Likewise, to what end is exposing the hypocrisy of the vocal LGBT movement supposed to accomplish?

I guess that Hoffa is lost when it comes to the point / take away of this blog entry, unless it was merely to point out the obvious.

"Personally, I can not wait until the day, and it's coming, when this issue isn't something that divides our country."

Hoffa fully concurs in this sentiment!

To me, the issue here really shouldn't be gay marriage. It should be the government's authority (or lack thereof) to take action against people for their opinions.

It seems rather clear to me that the mayors of Boston and Chicago are out of line when they attempt to punish Mr. Chick-fil-A for his views on gay marriage.

@Bob -

Hoffa doesn't see how Cathy's comments were at all politically charged. He merely espoused his believe in the traditional family model and its corresponding values to a Christian publication. He did not attack or trash the LGBT community in any way, did he?

To say that Cathy's comments were politically charged is to say that the entire LGBT movement is really a movement against traditional marriage and its corresponding values.

Why do the LGBTs get to espouse their so-called pride without recourse, but the minute a traditional marriage guy does it, it's considered a politically charged statement?

This is the same hypocrisy in permitting a Congressional Black Caucus to exist. You know damn well that if someone wanted to start a Congressional White Caucus, it would be considered a politically and racially charged endeavor, but for some reason or another, the Black Caucus isn't.

Personally, Hoffa is getting SICK of this kind of CRAP!

This guy has some balls and has Steve's respect. He must be very comfortable with who he is, where his company is, and how much money he has saved up. Because from a business side, this is where you never want to be.

Bravo, he has much more business balls than me

JRH, for the most part you don't get to the point Cathy is w/o being pretty aware of the reaction to actions taken. I'm saying that when he made the statement he did, he understood the political implications of what he was saying. You honestly can't expect in this nation at this point in time to be able to make a statement anywhere and not expect it to be jumped on and utilized by some special interest group. He had to know that this was going to happen. I'm not saying it's right, I'm saying it is what it is.

Once again, this will blow over as have similar instances in the past. I don't know what Chick-fil-a's customer base demographic is, but I'm going to assume it's not the same as, say, a Starbucks. For all we know, this could turn out to be a positive for him.

By rights, it shouldn't matter one way or the other - but it does. And I'd be willing to bet he made the statement being very well aware of the risks involved. Even though I don't agree with him, I give him credit for being honest about it and taking the calculated risk in doing so.

But I'm not going to get in a huff about the LGBT doing what they always do in cases like this. It's what they do, and they're well aware of the negative reaction they get to what they do as well. They're capable of calculating the risks as well.

@Bob -

It's definitely getting to the point where anything is fair game. If Hoffa, as a small business owner, were to announce to a financial publication such as Forbes that he believed that living within your means and balancing your checkbook were the right way to live, he'd be labeled a right-wing tea party extremist by the liberal left and could expect a union supported boycott being launched against his business.

That's truly outrageous. I'll riddle you that ancient riddle - if it's come to this, then what's the point anymore?

@Steve ® -

All publicity is good publicity - especially when it's free!

JRH, the point is principle. You do it on principle.

You can't outlaw boycotts and protests, regardless of how ineffective they might be. We've recently had one of the largest examples of what overblown, irrational protests produce right here in this state. Nothing, basically. But we still abide them because they're a part of our history.

You could take the stance you suggest and you might find the net effect to be a wash, as people who patronize you for taking it counterbalance those boycotting you for the same reason. The net effect, if that's the case (again, I point to the examples of folks who've successfully survived boycotts above), is a lot of fuss about nothing.

It is and it isn't. From personal experience I cut down on talking politics on some areas of the internet where I make my millions of obama bucks. They know my user name and it can tick people off enough not to shop with you. So now you guys got me here ;)

Seems like he'll have a good day on Aug. 1st, hope that lasts. Like things in the past these all blow over replaced by the next liberal media FAD.

Agreed gentlemen, agreed!

...and one wonders why we sometimes hear the term 'liberal media'.

It's been that way for years and its not going to change.

Part of the problem with this particular issue is that those who do oppose gay marriage couch it as being in favor of "traditional family values". The equivalent on the other side of the spectrum would be those who are pro-abortion couching that as being in favor of "women's health". In truth, one side finds gay sexual activity icky, and the other doesn't think inconvenient babies should ruin someone's future.

Less than forthright positions tend to produce more intense reactions from those who oppose them. Those on the left favor the spectacle of boycotts and protests as a way of expressing those reactions. Boycotts and protests make for good audio and video footage, so media concentration on those events is a natural and reporting on issues that might ignite one or both also makes sense. It's a symbiotic relationship and the left utilizes it much more effectively than does the right.

Is that true that the media is "liberal?" I would maintain that the media, owned primarily by multinational corporate entities, are inherently apolitical or in the case of News Corps, providing an international forum for one individual's opinions and interests.

They are in it to make money. Controversy includes readership and exposure to advertisers = money. There have been complaints of salaciousness and muckraking since the "media" was created. I also note that despite the controversies and complaints, most folks still tune in. ; )

Well, because we have right wing puppets who comment all the time on this blog.

This state is led by a Koch puppet.

@Keith Schmitz---Hey Schmitzy, can you please tell me how many liberal Democrats have accepted Koch money? Let's be honest and specific here shall we, Mr. Bomb Thrower.

@Keith - there is a Chik-Fil-A at Regency Mall in Racine.

than, not to

The Constitution doesn't seem to apply in Chicago...

Opposition to what?

I'm guessing that he is in opposition to those who support.

I was not very clear on that, was I? The gay marriage issue or any LGBT cause.

Jesus turned his own cheek to sin by dining with tax collectors and forgiving adulteresses. The story of the Good Samaritan is about obeying the spirit of the law rather than the letter.

Quote me one line from the gospels where Jesus condemned homosexuality.

I hope it wasn't AIDS.

@craig ... When you die, remember all that will make fun of you, in the manner that you make jest of this. .

@Greg ...There are no words that can describe you in a civil manner.

By thieir heartless, mindless and infantile attempt at humor in the face of one's death that that @Craig and @greg, not Greg ... SUCK,
and demonstrate that liberals of this ilk need to drown in the swamp that birthed them.

C. Sanders: Please point out where I made fun of anyone. I pointed out the death because it should be known as it relates to the topic. If you were not a product of incest and had decent breeding stock other than uncle daddy, you would have been able to understand it is you that sucks, dumbass. Move your sorry ass back to the mountains.

Way to get into the Olympic spirit guys!

Sorry Hoffa, but the comment "when you die" pissed me off a bit. I did not attack the deceased one bit.

@Craig -

I realized that all long. Hoffa knows you're a good guy.

Sometimes tonality and intent are lost in the mere written word, whereas they would be properly conveyed in the spoken word. It may have been better to explain your true intent to Mr. Sanders instead of responding in kind.

Just a suggestion!

For the record though, Hoffa did get a good laugh from the back and forth ;-)

Liberals of my ilk? Moron.

@Randy1949 -

Why is so much importance placed on a marriage license? Does a marriage license allow people to love one another more than they'd otherwise be able to without one? Isn't it just a silly little piece of paper?

Now Hoffa is pretending to be obtuse. You know that a legal marriage (especially in this community property state) is a very important thing, conferring both benefits and obligations to your spouse. It's a very important piece of paper no matter how much you love each other.

I'm merely insisting that even without a religious ceremony to bless it, my union is a marriage and deserves the term.

@Randy1949 -

Couldn't the LGBT couple enter into a private contract between themselves agreeing to settle their financial affairs according to state community property laws, or whatever standard they prefer, in the event of a termination of their relationship? Or private power of attorneys in the event of an unforeseen situation? Not to mention a child placement agreement in the event that they adopt or conceive a child while together and then later terminate their relationship?

In fact, they could do all of these things and more. They would just have to do it BEFORE co-mingling their funds, taking a joint ownership in property, or adopting/conceiving a child together.

So I'm not really seeing where you're going with this. Again, the marriage license is just a piece of paper that locks you into a general set of rules and benefits granted/recognized by the state in the event the relationship is ever terminated. Parties are free to deviate from these rules via private contract law before entering into the committed relationship. Ever hear of prenuptial agreements? The same is very easily applied to an LGBT couple.

Not really a very important piece of paper after all, is it? The only thing an LGBT couple couldn't freely do on their own accord is file their taxes jointly and/or be qualified to receive the other's SS benefits. What's the significance of tax treatment and SS benefits in the context of true love?

@JRH -- I was just addressing the statement that people who don't get married in a church should call themselves civil partners rather than 'married'. Because that would mean that a same-sex couple who married in one of the denominations that will perform such ceremonies would be'married' while I'm not. And I'm definitely married.

To answer your question, everyone can see a lawyer and do almost all of those things the marriage license grants automatically. But I'm happy to live under those rules without having to pay a lawyer.

I asked for Gospels -- the words of Jesus himself. You gave me:

"Leviticus18:22, leviticus 20:13, genesis18:20-21, 1timothy1:8-10, 1corintheans 6:9."

Three Old Testaments and two Pauline Letters.

@Randy
Christ never condemned calling ones mother a B*; however, we know it to be wrong because he said we are to respect our parents. Christ never said that doing massive amounts of heroin was wrong; however, he told us to respect our bodies. The same goes for homosexuality, he never said it was wrong; however, in Matt. 19:4-6 he establishes that the marriage union as established by God in Genesis, "For this reason a man will leaves his father and mother and be united to his wife." This passage refers back to Genesis 2:24. Please take note the specificity of genders in his description. There is no reference to a 'partner'; rather man and wife. In Matt 19:4, Christ again quotes Genesis 1:27 where it indicates that God created male and female; thus designating them for different roles on this planet and for all time providing an example of how marriage is to be structured.