Yes it was and your post is racist. You may not mean it to be but it is. A white male attacking black woman's health decision in a way that is stating that they think any black woman that make the incredible personal health decision around keeping or aborting a fetus somehow means they don't support black lives is very racist, woefully ignorant and clearly a straw man argument.  

36 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

^in what bizzaro world???

 

In the world where Dusty Rhodes told PEOPLE PROTESTING RACISM that they should STOP PROTESTING RACISM and instead focus their efforts on something unreleated (abortion).

 

Not sure how to make this any more clear.

"Don't get political unless you agree with me"

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Dan Hils is not an elected official or affiliated with any party. He represents his constituents.

 

Dan Hils was a Republican candidate for county commissioner.

 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Let's call a spade a spade, Dusty was called out for expressing his pro-life views.

 

Dusty has been expressing his anti-abortion views for years without a peep from the party. Denise Driehaus is also anti-abortion. The HamCo Democratic Party, unfortunately, embraces that stance. 

 

Dusty is a racist POS and has no place in the Democratic Party. He disagrees with basically every plank of the party platform and actively supports GOP politicians and priorities. If you go to his Twitter account the "similar accounts" suggestions are Donald Trump, Triantifilou, Bill Cunningham, Brad Parscale, Rush Limbaugh, etc. That's telling. 

1 hour ago, DEPACincy said:

 

Dan Hils was a Republican candidate for county commissioner.

 

 

Dusty has been expressing his anti-abortion views for years without a peep from the party. Denise Driehaus is also anti-abortion. The HamCo Democratic Party, unfortunately, embraces that stance. 

 

Dusty is a racist POS and has no place in the Democratic Party. He disagrees with basically every plank of the party platform and actively supports GOP politicians and priorities. If you go to his Twitter account the "similar accounts" suggestions are Donald Trump, Triantifilou, Bill Cunningham, Brad Parscale, Rush Limbaugh, etc. That's telling. 

Dan Hils does not hold any office now. He is not running for office. He is nothing more than a private citizen who happens to represent the FOP. If he were an active candidate, I would agree with your point more.

 

As for Dusty. He is not a racist. Lets not throw those words around like they are candy. That is irresponsible. I agree that he is not much of a Democrat and is more conservative than a Democrat and has been for a long time. He would not win any race or be endorsed by the party for any other race other than auditor because it really is a non-political position. If he were not so old, it would make sense that he leave the Democrats because he no longer really aligns with them politically. However, lets not conflate that with being a racist. Just because you do not agree with him does not make him a racist. 

3 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

^in what bizzaro world??? He was calling out the hypocrisy of abortion and how it has been used for generations to predominantly kill black babies and that abortion has affected the African American community far more than any other. That was his point. You may disagree with his point but it was not racist. 

 

The words "racist" and "sexist" have practically no meaning anymore because Democrats overuse them so much. The implication here is that one is automatically a sexist if they're pro-life and happen to be male. That's pretty absurd. Many (most?) people raise an eyebrow when they here these terms nowadays because they've been stretched so thin as to be meaningless.

4 minutes ago, Ram23 said:

 

The words "racist" and "sexist" have practically no meaning anymore because Democrats overuse them so much. The implication here is that one is automatically a sexist if they're pro-life and happen to be male. That's pretty absurd. Many (most?) people raise an eyebrow when they here these terms nowadays because they've been stretched so thin as to be meaningless.

When you've lost the debate, all you have left is to demagogue the other side. It is a shame that too many on the left have misused these terms for so long that they have become meaningless.

Assuming that he gets on the ballot (I'm not quite sure what the process is), Dusty could end up winning reelection without the D endorsement.  His name recognition is massive and I could see a lot of people voting for him out of spite for what they perceive to be petty harassment by the "woke" crowd.  

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

As for Dusty. He is not a racist. Lets not throw those words around like they are candy. That is irresponsible. I agree that he is not much of a Democrat and is more conservative than a Democrat and has been for a long time. He would not win any race or be endorsed by the party for any other race other than auditor because it really is a non-political position. If he were not so old, it would make sense that he leave the Democrats because he no longer really aligns with them politically. However, lets not conflate that with being a racist. Just because you do not agree with him does not make him a racist. 

 

He is a racist and his twitter account demonstrates it. This is a pattern with him. I know many conservatives who are not racist. Disagreeing on policy issues does not make you racist. But that's not what we're talking about with Dusty.

16 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

Assuming that he gets on the ballot (I'm not quite sure what the process is), Dusty could end up winning reelection without the D endorsement.  His name recognition is massive and I could see a lot of people voting for him out of spite for what they perceive to be petty harassment by the "woke" crowd.  

Dusty has a ton of GOP support. It does not matter if he is a D or R on the ballot. He also has a lot of D support too among the moderate D's in Hamilton county. I know a lot of Republicans that vote for him over the GOP candidate on the ballot because they know what you get with Dusty. If the Dems drop him, I could see the GOP not running anyone if Dusty wants to run, at which case he would probably win. 

17 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

Assuming that he gets on the ballot (I'm not quite sure what the process is), Dusty could end up winning reelection without the D endorsement.  His name recognition is massive and I could see a lot of people voting for him out of spite for what they perceive to be petty harassment by the "woke" crowd.  

 

I think you are being left behind by an evolving Cincinnati and Hamilton County. 

Just now, DEPACincy said:

 

He is a racist and his twitter account demonstrates it. This is a pattern with him. I know many conservatives who are not racist. Disagreeing on policy issues does not make you racist. But that's not what we're talking about with Dusty.

I dont think you can deem him racist on your opinion of his Twitter handle. Again, he says things that may be provocative in the Democratic circles. That alone does not make one racist. 

1 hour ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Dan Hils does not hold any office now. He is not running for office. He is nothing more than a private citizen who happens to represent the FOP. If he were an active candidate, I would agree with your point more.

 

This is an idiotic point. He is a high profile figure. He is a politician. He is a Republican. Just because he doesn't hold an office doesn't mean he's impervious to criticism. He is a thought leader in the local GOP.

 

But regardless, there are countless other examples so the Dan Hils point is pedantic anyway.

Just now, Brutus_buckeye said:

I dont think you can deem him racist on your opinion of his Twitter handle. Again, he says things that may be provocative in the Democratic circles. That alone does not make one racist. 

 

What? Are you actually arguing that you cannot deem somebody racist for saying racist things on the internet? Or am I misunderstanding you? Does someone have to put on a KKK robe and burn a cross before you deem it okay to call them racist? 

1 minute ago, DEPACincy said:

 

What? Are you actually arguing that you cannot deem somebody racist for saying racist things on the internet? Or am I misunderstanding you? Does someone have to put on a KKK robe and burn a cross before you deem it okay to call them racist? 

The things you deem him racist for most people would not deem racist, that is your opinion. Really, you truly need to understand the intent of the speaker to determine this.  You have to look much further than a couple of tweets to truly determine the intent. That is why it is so easy on the cancel culture to take a tweet out of context and throw malicious intent upon it when in fact none was ever there. Then the mob gets going and you have idiots rioting in the streets. 

51 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

The things you deem him racist for most people would not deem racist, that is your opinion. Really, you truly need to understand the intent of the speaker to determine this.  You have to look much further than a couple of tweets to truly determine the intent. That is why it is so easy on the cancel culture to take a tweet out of context and throw malicious intent upon it when in fact none was ever there. Then the mob gets going and you have idiots rioting in the streets. 

 

Dusty has defended Donald Trump's behavior during the Central Park Five fiasco and his history of not renting to black people. 

 

He has retweeted white supremacist accounts. 

 

He called institutional racism a myth.

 

He retweeted someone calling peaceful protesters the "enemy of the United States."

 

He liked a tweet suggesting that people should take it upon themselves to shoot BLM protesters. 

 

He relentlessly promoted the Obama birther conspiracy.

 

A search of his Twitter feed would undoubtedly produce countless more examples. This is just what I remember off the top of my head. 

 

Is "Dusty is not a racist" really the hill you want to die on? 

Hamilton County Parks is looking to nearly triple their budget via a huge property tax hike in November:

 

Great Parks To Ask Voters For Additional Levy In November

https://www.wvxu.org/post/great-parks-ask-voters-additional-levy-november#stream/0

 

The levy would cost about $63 per year for every $100,000 of home value, or $5.25 per month. It would be in addition to the current levy amount of $34.40 annually per $100,000 of home value.

1 hour ago, Ram23 said:

Great Parks 

 

Those goals seem pretty vague.  

 

Earlier this month I spent two nights at the RV park at Winton Woods.  I didn't know this thing existed but it was just plain weird to be in "nature" right in the middle of the county.

 

In my opinion, there was excessive patrolling of the grounds by park police.  I assumed that people would be up drinking outside their RV's until midnight all over the place but the crowd was a bore.  They don't permit music or anything.  

  

I'm all in on this levy simply because the trails they are mentioning (so I would assume prioritizing) would be connected to the trail near my house and allow me and the family access to Glenwood Gardens, Winton Woods, Sharon Woods, and the northern neighborhoods without getting into a car. 

 

I'm quite amazed at the ask, and I highly doubt this passes because they're selling this as a benefit to a small portion of the county.  They need to release a master bike plan that this would fund if they want to have any chance here.

 

If they can keep moving the Ohio River Trail West and East, extend the LMT, and get progress going on the northern portion of the Mill Creek trail, I could see it potentially passing as people crave off road bike infrastructure, and there's a lack of it outside of the east side of the county.  It may be more apt to have this spearheaded by an organization other than Great Parks.  For as wonderful an organization that they are, people are going to think they just blew the money we approved 2 years ago.

Edited July 17, 20204 yr by 10albersa

One thing Sharon Woods could do right now to enhance connectivity is build a sidewalk or mixed use trail along Kemper Road between the two entrances/parking lots on the south side of the road. That would allow visitors to do only half the lake trail at a time of they so choose. 

Edited July 17, 20204 yr by thebillshark

Why do you have to pay a user fee for Hamilton County parks? None of the other counties I've lived in charged for county park access.

12 minutes ago, BigDipper 80 said:

Why do you have to pay a user fee for Hamilton County parks? None of the other counties I've lived in charged for county park access.

 

Mitchell Memorial has a guard shack booth but I've never seen a guy working there.  They do seem to have a park ranger there at all times, however.  

I could potentially support more funding for county parks, but asking taxpayers to triple their tax burden is...bold.

Removing the user fees would be a great move, making the parks free like all the other major metro park systems in the state. Butler County, and perhaps some other smaller ones, have a vehicle permit fee (although Butler is free for residents).

 

Indiana has a user fee model for their state parks. There are pros and cons to that, but Ohio has generally embraced free park access.

2 hours ago, thebillshark said:

One thing Sharon Woods could do right now to enhance connectivity is build a sidewalk or mixed use trail along Kemper Road between the two entrances/parking lots on the south side of the road. That would allow visitors to do only half the lake trail at a time of they so choose. 

Last I heard, OKI funded that in their last announcement.  Should be started by 2023.

8 minutes ago, ink said:

Removing the user fees would be a great move, making the parks free like all the other major metro park systems in the state. Butler County, and perhaps some other smaller ones, have a vehicle permit fee (although Butler is free for residents).

 

Indiana has a user fee model for their state parks. There are pros and cons to that, but Ohio has generally embraced free park access.

 

Removing the fees would be great.  But half the time, no one is working to check for passes anyway.  Winton Woods Harbor is the only exception to that rule that I've experienced.  Plus, increasing bike access to the parks also means less cars paying to get in, so they probably are wondering if staffing a booth is worth it if they are expecting lower vehicle traffic counts with more trail connections to neighborhoods.

2 hours ago, 10albersa said:

 

 Winton Woods Harbor 

 

Also Miami Whitewater usually has a guy working.  I heard there is some controversy in Sharon Woods because they didn't have a guy for a long time but suddenly one is working there again.  

 

I don't mind buying the $10 annual sticker.  I've always like the stickers themselves, even after they switched from the pine tree to the simple triangle.  

I went to one of the parks on my motorcycle, paid for the permit and the guy stuck it to the bike. I was thinking, "what if I want to come back in my car?"

^Just gotta throw your bike in the back of your lifted F-350.

 

HamCo's parks don't seem to be as integrated into the urban fabric as they are in, say, Cleveland or Dayton, so that probably makes it easier to charge fees. If Cincinnati had a beach like Edgewater, it would probably fall under the City parks department instead of the Metroparks. Whereas in Cleveland, the Metroparks took over the beach because Cleveland's municipal parks are mostly terrible and the city let the beach go to crap. 

Edited July 17, 20204 yr by BigDipper 80

^Well, sort of. The beaches in Cleveland were operated as a state park for around 45 years. 

Crap, you're right. My statement on most of Cleveland's parks being weak still stands, though. Rockefeller/Wade is an obvious standout, but there really isn't anything in Cleveland to otherwise compete with Cincinnati's municipal parks. 

On 7/17/2020 at 2:09 PM, BigDipper 80 said:

Why do you have to pay a user fee for Hamilton County parks? None of the other counties I've lived in charged for county park access.

 

It's not a user fee, it's a motor vehicle/parking fee.  

4 hours ago, jjakucyk said:

 

It's not a user fee, it's a motor vehicle/parking fee.  

 

They also aren't technically Hamilton County's parks.  A non-profit organization runs them, and they happen to be the largest (by acreage) land owner in the county.  That said, I'm impressed with the quality and how the parks are run, I think they're in good hands.

 

And yes, there is no cost to enter on bike or foot.

The Hamilton County parks levee is off the November ballot:

https://www.wcpo.com/news/election-2020/great-parks-taking-tax-levy-off-november-ballot-may-pursue-issue-to-2021

Eric Deters banned from Hamilton County courthouse

 

 

Former attorney Eric Deters was banned from the Hamilton County Courthouse Tuesday after allegedly making threats to "burn down the damn courthouse," according to media reports.

 

More below:

https://www.bizjournals.com/cincinnati/news/2020/08/12/eric-deters-banned-from-hamilton-county-courthouse.html

Public Policy Polling (via text message) on Hamilton County issues: https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/G8F2DFF?N

An independent, Herman Najoli, is going to be on November's commissioner ballot:

https://drnajoli.com/

 

I doubt that that Black (oddly the only not-black person in this race) wasn't going to win but the appearance of Najoli will split the conservative vote and Reece is going to run away with this thing.  That means we'll have a Cranley-caliber stooge (her dad got rich thanks to Cranley) on the county commission for years to come.  Connie Pillich looked like she could get pretty mean but at least she hasn't profited directly off of Cranley's machinations.  

 

 

 

The interview of Charmaine McGuffy on today's Cincinnati Edition was insane.  The woman is toxic and we're in for all sorts of drama should she win next month.  She was fired several years ago because 30 people at the sheriff's office filed a complaint.  Listen to her go on and on about herself and you'll know why.  A bully always presents themselves as a victim.  Now she's on the warpath and will exact revenge on her enemies in the sheriff's office.   

24 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

The interview of Charmaine McGuffy on today's Cincinnati Edition was insane.  The woman is toxic and we're in for all sorts of drama should she win next month.  She was fired several years ago because 30 people at the sheriff's office filed a complaint.  Listen to her go on and on about herself and you'll know why.  A bully always presents themselves as a victim.  Now she's on the warpath and will exact revenge on her enemies in the sheriff's office.   

She has an active lawsuit against the Sheriff's office that the Sheriiff would have to defend against. Should she win, she would effectively be suing herself.  How on earth she won the nomination when Jim Neil was very good and comptent is beyond me. 

Just now, Brutus_buckeye said:

She has an active lawsuit against the Sheriff's office that the Sheriiff would have to defend against. Should she win, she would effectively be suing herself.  How on earth she won the nomination when Jim Neil was very good and comptent is beyond me. 

 

I heard that Neil was always basically a republican except in name for years and he ran as a Democrat in order to challenge Si Leis's groomed successor. 

 

The D's turned on him when he sat next to Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones at a Trump event several years ago. 

 

She won the primary by a large margin in the odd and low-turnout summer 2020 primary.  I suspect that she spent a huge amount of time working behind the scenes to gain endorsements.  She has a MASSIVE chip on her shoulder.  She doesn't want to serve as sheriff so much as she wants to completely destroy the THIRTY PEOPLE who petitioned for her firing. 

 

 

1 minute ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

I heard that Neil was always basically a republican except in name for years and he ran as a Democrat in order to challenge Si Leis's groomed successor. 

 

The D's turned on him when he sat next to Butler County Sheriff Richard Jones at a Trump event several years ago. 

 

She won the primary by a large margin in the odd and low-turnout summer 2020 primary.  I suspect that she spent a huge amount of time working behind the scenes to gain endorsements.  She has a MASSIVE chip on her shoulder.  She doesn't want to serve as sheriff so much as she wants to completely destroy the THIRTY PEOPLE who petitioned for her firing. 

 

 

I got that impression too from what i have heard. I also heard that Aftab has been positioning himself as a kingmaker in the party and he was really pushing her candidacy. 

42 minutes ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

She has an active lawsuit against the Sheriff's office that the Sheriiff would have to defend against. Should she win, she would effectively be suing herself.  How on earth she won the nomination when Jim Neil was very good and comptent is beyond me. 

Jim Neil was fine, but he should know that showing your face at a Trump rally will get you booted from the party.  Also, I want someone who won't lick the FOPs boots.  I wholeheartedly agree that she's not a top notch sheriff candidate, maybe and hopefully she gets primaried by a regular Dem if things go poorly these next 4 years.

2 hours ago, 10albersa said:

maybe and hopefully she gets primaried by a regular Dem if things go poorly these next 4 years.

 

Yeah you can bet on some chaos and drama - stuff FAR more ridiculous than showing up at an event for the opposite party! 

2 hours ago, Brutus_buckeye said:

Aftab

 

Kate Schroeder seems pretty honest and might very well succeed in dethroning Steve Chabot, something the slickster Aftab was unable to do himself. 

 

 

 

10 minutes ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

Kate Schroeder

 

 

I just read up on her and realized I might have been at the same party as her in 1996.  I'm not kidding - I actually took a VHS video camera to that party and the tape still exists.  So I'll be able to blackmail her should she appear in the distance on my two minutes of party footage. 

9 hours ago, 10albersa said:

Jim Neil was fine, but he should know that showing your face at a Trump rally will get you booted from the party.  Also, I want someone who won't lick the FOPs boots.  I wholeheartedly agree that she's not a top notch sheriff candidate, maybe and hopefully she gets primaried by a regular Dem if things go poorly these next 4 years.

Hopefully she loses in November and we dont have to deal with her crap. The thing is, this is the sheriffs office. It is not supposed to be overly political. Neil ran the office in a pretty apolitical way, we should expect that no matter who holds the office. McGuffey will not be that person.

6 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

I just read up on her and realized I might have been at the same party as her in 1996.  I'm not kidding - I actually took a VHS video camera to that party and the tape still exists.  So I'll be able to blackmail her should she appear in the distance on my two minutes of party footage. 

Did she go to Ursuline or something?

7 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

 

I just read up on her and realized I might have been at the same party as her in 1996.  I'm not kidding - I actually took a VHS video camera to that party and the tape still exists.  So I'll be able to blackmail her should she appear in the distance on my two minutes of party footage. 

 

Congrats...?

 

You'll be able to blackmail her because she went to a party in 1996? 

11 hours ago, jmecklenborg said:

The interview of Charmaine McGuffy on today's Cincinnati Edition was insane.  The woman is toxic and we're in for all sorts of drama should she win next month.  She was fired several years ago because 30 people at the sheriff's office filed a complaint.  Listen to her go on and on about herself and you'll know why.  A bully always presents themselves as a victim.  Now she's on the warpath and will exact revenge on her enemies in the sheriff's office.   

 

I would encourage everyone here to actually listen to the interview because this was NOT my takeaway. I heard a candidate that is very well-versed in evidence-based reforms and how to move the Sherriff's office forward. She put forward a legit plan to combat real issues like systemic racism and excessive force.

 

And not only did Hofbauer not put forth any solutions, he denied that any problems even exist. According to him, everything at the Sheriff's office and at CPD are perfect and there is no need to address any issues at all. Officers always act appropriately and in the public's best interest. And while systemic racism may be a problem in other parts of the country it is NOT a problem in Cincinnati. Now THAT is a truly insane take.

28 minutes ago, DEPACincy said:

 

I would encourage everyone here to actually listen to the interview because this was NOT my takeaway. I heard a candidate that is very well-versed in evidence-based reforms and how to move the Sherriff's office forward. She put forward a legit plan to combat real issues like systemic racism and excessive force.

 

And not only did Hofbauer not put forth any solutions, he denied that any problems even exist. According to him, everything at the Sheriff's office and at CPD are perfect and there is no need to address any issues at all. Officers always act appropriately and in the public's best interest. And while systemic racism may be a problem in other parts of the country it is NOT a problem in Cincinnati. Now THAT is a truly insane take.

She really seems to want to overly politicize the office. After listening to the interview I have serious questions as to her judgment and ability to actually lead the office. The credibility of the staff is important too and I do not think that she really engenders that, especially given the fact she was previously fired for insubordination.  I think Hofbauer has a lot better credibility amongst the police force and would really represent the county quite well.