Steve

Don Cornelius of the dance/musc show Soul Train. Suicide. We watched it religously on Saturday afternoon when I was growing up. Had the coolest baritone voice. Also, his signature signoff ".....wishing you love, peace and soooouuuuuullllll! http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/soul-train-founder-commits-suicide-report-143958906--abc-news.html

I do recall Pelosi's style and means to be less than ideal at the time. I also recall Republicans acting in a similar manner. The bottom line is BOTH parties are like that. Its why I mention both at times when I criticize one. Because many things are done by both parties such as ursurping the constitution. In the current Congress, the Republicans have voted against things they support just because Obama was for it and they didn't want him to get the credit. Things that are good for America. Its all bullshine.

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/tennis-busted-racquet/teenager-had-djokovic-shirt-snatched-away-speaks-against-185203397.html The teenage girl who had Novak Djokovic's shirt stolen from her grasp on Sunday is speaking out against the middle-aged garment thief who grabbed the souvenir. Melissa Cook, 14, had a front-row seat cheering on Djokovic during his epic victory over Rafael Nadal in the Australian Open final. When the world No. 1 finally defeated Nadal after five hours, 53 minutes, Cook managed to get his attention as he was changing clothes. Djokovic walked over to Cook to toss her a spare shirt, but it was grabbed instead by a woman sitting two seats away. Maybe this should be under random sports story but after watching the video and seeing the response of the woman all I can say is what a callous bitch!

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/letter-freed-slave-former-master-draw-attention-151653952.html Letter from freed slave to former master draws attention Wow, this is amazing! In the letter I have to assume the former slave was teasing about the possibility of going back. Were I an ex-slave and my former master wrote me, a master like the one in the letter that shot at me and from what I can gather didn't treat me especially well. My letter back would only be four words long "Kiss my black ass" haha. Very interesting though. My uncle on my mom side said we were owned by people of Scotish ancestry who had a sugar plantation. I'd love to find out more. I dno't harbor any ill will and I'm a little ashamed I don't feel 'angry', but it was the past. It happened. Can't do much about it, except live a life that is worth something.

http://educate-yourself.org/cn/mccainlevintreasonbill30nov11.shtml the current Defense spending bill (National Defense Authorization Act) which would allow US military personnel to enter the home of a US citizen, take that citizen into custody and transport him to the military prison at Guantanamo Bay (or other military detention camps outside of the USA) for an indefinite period of time based on suspicion of being a "terrorist" or an "enemy combatant". No proof, no trial, no judge, and no jury are required for indefinite detention in a military prison under this amendment If this is true and I can certainly see it, its one of the final nails in this once great republic. What saddens me is Obama is part of it. This isn't some Democrat, leftist thing either. If you look at the roser of the yea's, there are plenty of Republicans on it as well. What really pisses me off is that we are all sheep collectively. We will go along with anything our party leader does. As long is he or she is on our side. I love America dearly. I'm gonna cut and run. I'll visit family and friends (and hope I don't get detained) but I can't see living in America for the rest of my life. Its a sad state of affairs we are in.

http://beta.local.yahoo.com/news-tourists-sent-packing-over-threatening-tweets Tourists Sent Packing Over ‘Threatening’ Tweets A pair of U.K. tourists were arrested after landing in Los Angeles on terror charges after joking on Twitter they were going to ‘destroy America’ and ‘dig up Marilyn Monroe.’ Leigh Van Bryan, 26, was detained last Monday after landing in Los Angeles with his friend, 24-year-old Emily Bunting, according to the British Daily Mail. Bryan was flagged as a potential threat after tweeting this message about his upcoming trip to Hollywood “@MelissaxWalton free this week for a quick gossip/prep before I go and destroy America? x†Bryan and Bunting told officials the term “destroy†was British slang for “party.†Despite the explanation, they were held on suspicion of planning to commit crimes and their passports were confiscated, the Daily Mail reported. Bryan was also questioned about another tweet quoting the animated show, “Family Guy:†“3 weeks today, we’re totally in LA p****** people off on Hollywood Blvd and digging Marilyn Monroe up!†Bryan’s luggage was searched for spades and shovels as a result. The pair told the Daily Mail they were questioned for five hours, before they were taken to separate holding cells for another 12 hours. They were then put on a plane home via Paris. “The officials told us we were not allowed in to the country because of Leigh’s tweet. They wanted to know what we were going to do,†Bunting told the Daily Mail. “They asked why we wanted to destroy America and we tried to explain it meant to get trashed and party.†We just wanted to have a good time on holiday. That was all Leigh meant in his tweet. He would not hurt anyone.†The Daily Mail says Bryan and Bunting must apply for visas from the U.S. Embassy in London before flying to the U.S. again. Bryan’s Twitter account has been locked, barring any casual users from seeing his tweets. The account directs all press to contact a spokesman at South West News Service. “Based on information provided by the LAX Port Authority Infoline – a suspicious activity tipline – CBP conducted a secondary interview of two subjects presenting for entry into the United States,†Customs and Border Protection spokeswoman Jenny Burke said in a statement. “Information gathered during this interview revealed that both individuals were inadmissible to the United States and were returned to their country of residence.†Make no bones about it. This supposed 'tip off' they got is complete and utter BS. Who would tip them off? No one. I'm willing to bet any sum of money that their tweets were picked up by some computer who did a search of all the social media, emails, electronic communication of those that are flying here and this got flagged. Its illegal as hell for one. America has gone to shit and I could be detained just for this post alone. My being an American citizen isn't even a protection any longer.

Sadly, BOTH Obama and Romney will either violate the constitution in some form or manner or uphold current legislation and practices that violate the constitution. Its a sad commentary about our country and frankly, SHAME on all Americans for allowing it. For the time being we still have the right to vote and too many of us are apathetic, ignorant or fooled. HH, Flash, I would not agree with Obama on this church issue. I am a firm believer in separation of church and state. Being a Christian (and a very flawed one at that), the LAST thing I want is the government getting into religion. Obviously there are exceptions. Underage marriages/relationships in some Mormon sects for example, molsetation within the Catholic church, etc. Those are violations of law that religion can not cover. So, while I agree with you on this in that it appears Obama is wrong and even agree that Romney would not have done the same (but I wouldn't guarantee it), I don't expect Romney to be some great defender of the Constitution himself. He will violate it. He just won't violate it in the same way Obama will. He'll violate it in a way that conservatives will conveniently look the other way over such as Bush and the Patriot's Act, Guantanamo, etc. Its all BS.

http://news.yahoo.com/head-senate-military-panel-says-romney-clueless-203712745.html Head of Senate military panel says Romney clueless "He wants to attack the president as being weak on defense," said Sen. Carl Levin, D-Mich. "The problem with his position is it runs headlong into the uniformed leaders, uniformed military leaders of this country who say this is their budget." Defense Secretary Leon Panetta provided an early look at the broad outlines of the president's budget last Thursday. It slows the growth of military spending, cuts the size of the Army and Marine Corps, trims war costs and calls for another round of domestic base closings. The budget would total $525 billion for the Pentagon in 2013, $6 billion less than the current budget and a reflection of the deficit-cutting deal that Obama reached with congressional Republicans last August. So, let me get this right. Republicans want a smaller government, right? So, Obama reducing one of the largest costs of government, an area that has been PROVEN to be wrought with waste and that's a bad thing? We're a country that has NO FEAR of ever being invaded by ANYONE. A huge military does NOT reduce terrorism. That is an intel based fight. The fact is Republicans don't have a problem with big government as long as its in the departments and areas they want. Its all BS. Romney is clueless. He offers NOTHING new, substantive or innovative. Its Republican mantra that NONE of them has ever even done. Even their patron saint Reagan left us a debtor nation and the present homeless problem by kicking all of them out of mental hospitals and the like.

HH, I'm familiar with Wayne Root from years ago when he had a program selling his sports gambling picks (I was an avid gambler back then, didn't buy it). He made millions being on the infomercial circuit. I won't hold that against him. You're also referring to this possibly: http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/obama-s-agenda--overwhelm-the-system-95716764.html As for Obama HH, you couldn't more wrong buddy. Liberals are disappointed with Obama. Especially the far left. The fact is Obama has governed as a centrist. He's kept some key Bush appointments. He's appointed very connected people. He was not the choice of the Dem heirarchy left and he's kept them out. Hillary's appointment was simply a payoff for her unbridled support (and its not been too unbridled). As for him bringing some Columbia professor's marxist utopia dream to fruition. C'mon HH, you're a smart guy. You can't believe that?! Also, Root (or anyone) who judges a person by what they were like in 1983 would be completely wrong. All of us, you, me, etc. have changed from our college days. Also, Root wasn't even close friend. He's making these judgments from a distance. I read the Autobiography of Malcolm X in HS and was Rashad Ahmad Sa'id for a few months (my parents were pissed!). Any classmate then would describe a different CS. The fact is HH, is that Obama isn't left, in some areas he hasn't gone left enough!

good idea http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-01-31/tourism-seen-adding-850-billion-with-obama-s-new-visas-retail.html

Gingrich is gettng nasty. He assailed the decision by the Obama administration to force church-affiliated organizations to cover birth control in employee health care plans, calling it "a fundamental assault on the right of the freedom of religion." "I think we need to have a government that respects our religions," Gingrich said, appearing visibly agitated. "I'm a little bit tired of being lectured on respecting every other religion on the planet. I want them to respect our religion." While vague, but Gingrich vowed to sign an executive order on day one of his presidency "repealing every Obama attack on religion across the entire government." Then he transitioned to attacks on Romney, who in 2003 as governor of Massachusetts rejected a state program that would provide kosher meals to elderly Jews in nursing homes, a move that saved the state $600,000. The story was reported in the New York Post earlier this week. "Governor Romney cut off kosher meals for Jewish senior citizens who were on Medicaid to save five dollars a day," Gingrich said. "He said, 'No, you can't follow your religious prescription.'" http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/gingrich-drops-heavy-red-meat-final-day-florida-230643989.html

Haha..you got me HH buddy, I'm really a lesbian.

Flash, I think ANY one who wants to be Prsident has to be a little nuts. With very few exceptions (Paul, Johnson, possibly Huntsman and any of the alternate parties outside the two major ones) everyohe else is doing for the ego and the power. Doing for the good of the country is not even a consideartion. They lie to themselves thats the reason but its not. That said, I don't think Newt has the temperment to be an effective president. If he does become it (and its a long shot), I think it will humble him. If he loses his temper he'll get roasted. Its not like decades ago where if you had a tantrum no one knew or the press didn't report it. Today it would be reported. Sadly, even things that only the Secret Service is privy to sometimes finds its way into the press. New may be intelligent. I'm not doubting it but he doesn't have much new or innovative. Its the same old Republican mantra and if its the same shit but different guy, then you may as well have a person who is more even keeled and emotionally stable running the shop. The 3 most recent Presidents were cocky though. The elder Bush didn't appear so and Reagan didn't either. Romney seems out of his depth. He seems like he needs good handlers. He certainly doesn't seem like an intellectual. He doesn't come off as some Wall Street wiz to me but more of a guy who made use of being connected through his family and family friends. Obama is completely self made. Love him or hate him but by sheer self will and personality and a high intellect he's a great poster child for the American story. He really is a walking, breathing Horatio Alger story. His is what this country is known for. That you need not be a prince but you can be a pauper, ahd you can make it to the top. Cain similarily as well as Clinton. No family connections, family name, etc. needed.

I know, who do you think gave me my screen name when I happened to run ito him on a group tour of Washington DC? hehehe

Respect goes both ways and if Obama ripped into her first then he should be more respectful of a governor as well. To be fair, I can see that in Obama, I recall a video of him pulling CT Sen. Joe Lieberman to the side in a way that was a bit forceful. I was thinking Obama learned some 'hood style' diplomacy in Chicago..haha. So, the Az governor could be exonerated if Obama came disrespectfully first. The congressman who skipped out of the SOTU address dont get a pass though. They should have been there and I don't like the precedence. I also think their leadership should have told them to be there under no uncertain terms. Anyway, if we think Obama is direct, imagine Newt? Not to excuse Obama if he did come both the LA and AZ governors that way but the Republicans have not exactly helped create an atmosphere for mutual respect. I recall Bush trying to bridge a gap and be cordial to Teddy Kennedy by inviting him to a White House viewing of a movie about his brother I think and Teddy pretty much ignored the gesture and went after him. A bit more aggressive than one would imagine someone to be that just invited you to their home. I thought it wasn't nice of Teddy. Bush held out an olive branch after an acrimonious recount and Teddy pretty much spat at it.

Fox News is evil. Nothing new...

http://m.examiner.com/democrat-in-national/kansas-speaker-o-neal-asks-house-gop-to-pray-for-obama-s-death Kansas House Speaker Mike O’Neal is under fire after asking Republican House members to pray for President Barack Obama’s death. O’Neal made the request via an email he forwarded to GOP colleagues in the House. In an email sent in December, O’Neal asked his fellow Republicans to pray Psalm 109, which contains the following lines: Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. The email has become the subject of a mini-media frenzy. Numerous major news outlets began reporting the details surrounding the disturbing prayer request on Friday. The relevant verse from Psalm 109 is considered a prayer for vengeance, a prayer for the death of a leader. The most damning part of the prayer is lines 7-12: 'When he shall be judged, let him be condemned: and let his prayer become sin. Let his days be few; and let another take his office. Let his children be fatherless, and his wife a widow. Let his children be continually vagabonds, and beg: let them seek their bread also out of their desolate places. Let the extortioner catch all that he hath; and let the strangers spoil his labor. Let there be none to extend mercy unto him: neither let there be any to favor his fatherless children.' Think Progress reports that O’Neal forwarded the prayer with his own message: “At last — I can honestly voice a Biblical prayer for our president! Look it up — it is word for word! Let us all bow our heads and pray. Brothers and Sisters, can I get an AMEN? AMEN!!!!!!†News of the email is a sad commentary on Republican politics in Kansas. In addition, the email prayer request indicates an astonishing disregard and disrespect for the office of the presidency. For a government official to pray for the death of President Obama, and encourage other government officials to do the same, is not only morally reprehensible, it is also treason. Ny personal opinion is that the guy's intent was to wish Obama was out of office. I would like to think (and do) that he wishes Obama no personal harm despite the passage. The passage was meant to express a sentiment than a verbatim, literal thought. That's what I assume but I would not argue with those who take it literaly. I remember being told to pray for the President in sunday school. Pray for wisdom and safety and this was during Reagan's era as well as Dem ones. The worrying thing about many conservatives and especially the religious right is that they view other Americans as enemies of the state. Americans who think different ideologically. They have transferred Christianity's either you or either you aren't dogma to idelogy. Its scary as hell frankly. Basically, someone could be a Christian or (a Democrat or Liberal Christian) but still be the enemy. Its frankly..well...unChristian and unbibilcal.

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2012/01/27/wisconsin-gop-votes-to-break-native-american-treaties/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/27/welfare-drug-testing-bill_n_1237333.html A Republican member of the Indiana General Assembly withdrew his bill to create a pilot program for drug testing welfare applicants Friday after one of his Democratic colleagues amended the measure to require drug testing for lawmakers. "There was an amendment offered today that required drug testing for legislators as well and it passed, which led me to have to then withdraw the bill," said Rep. Jud McMillin (R-Brookville), sponsor of the original welfare drug testing bill. The Supreme Court ruled drug testing for political candidates unconstitutional in 1997, striking down a Georgia law. McMillin said he withdrew his bill so he could reintroduce it on Monday with a lawmaker drug testing provision that would pass constitutional muster. "I've only withdrawn it temporarily," he told HuffPost, stressing he carefully crafted his original bill so that it could survive a legal challenge. Last year a federal judge, citing the Constitution's ban on unreasonable search and seizure, struck down a Florida law that required blanket drug testing of everyone who applied for welfare. McMillin's bill would overcome constitutional problems, he said, by setting up a tiered screening scheme in which people can opt-out of random testing. Those who decline random tests would only be screened if they arouse "reasonable suspicion," either by their demeanor, by being convicted of a crime, or by missing appointments required by the welfare office. In the past year Republican lawmakers have pursued welfare drug testing in more than 30 states and in Congress, and some bills have even targeted people who claim unemployment insurance and food stamps, despite scanty evidence the poor and jobless are disproportionately on drugs. Democrats in several states have countered with bills to require drug testing elected officials. Indiana state Rep. Ryan Dvorak (D-South Bend) introduced just such an amendment on Friday. "After it passed, Rep. McMillin got pretty upset and pulled his bill," Dvorak said. "If anything, I think it points out some of the hypocrisy. ... If we're going to impose standards on drug testing, then it should apply to everybody who receives government money." Dvorak said McMillin was mistaken to think testing the legislature would be unconstitutional, since the stricken Georgia law targeted candidates and not people already holding office. McMillan, for his part, said he's coming back with a new bill on Monday, lawmaker testing included. He said he has no problem submitting to a test himself. "I would think legislators that are here who are responsible for the people who voted them in, they should be more than happy to consent," he said. "Give me the cup right now and I will be happy to take the test." When I was in my early 20s I was much more conservative. I'd have been saying 'hell yeah, test all of them'. I grew up seeing welfare. We could have gotten it but chose not to. In all honesty, some people in our neighborhood neede it. Some didn't and that pissed me off. However, with age and hopefully some wisdom, I've amended my stance. Clinton really did change welfare dramatically and many of us who never took it still see it in the old ways. Its much tougher to get on and stay on and there's a time limit, work provisions, etc. As the article says, about 30 states have tried to do this. There was a debate on another forum I go about it. As this article says there is scant evidence that people on welfare are abusing drugs higher than anyone else. Michigan had the best records when it tested a few hundred people and found nothing harder that pot in a several people. Frankly, there was no evidence those folks used welfare to buy it. If you're a chick, guys give it to you. Is it wrong? Yes. Is it illegal? Yes. But its not the norm. We do a lot of stereotyping and welfare recipients in poor areas aren't crack addicted, drug takers and the like. A good number of the women I saw on it were mid 30s and up growing up and as far as I knew, weren't drug abusers. So, without evidence that its a problem, why are law makers willing to spend money to test a group that the limited evidence we have so far indicates its not worth the money. The tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars it would take to either sub contract it out or hire people to do? In Florida it was because one of the proponents had a stake in clinics that would profit from it being contracted out. In other states its pure political staging that at its best uses stereotypes for political gain. My view is this, if you're going to test welfare recipients, then test ALL students in that state that receives state grants for colleges. As well as ALL recipients of ANY state business grants. Make it fair and across the board. It doesn't pass the sniff test if its only welfare recipients. Basically ANYONE that gets free money from the state. That way there is no cry of racism and prejudice and frankly, it looks that way if its only welfare recipients.. I have a feeling if that's done, ironically, there would be a lot more college students testing positive than welfare recipients.

kamui, to be fair both parties to that (go at each other in the primaries). In '08, the Presidency was up for grabs and Hillary went after Obama and visa versa. Its how it is here. Its the current system. The party bosses used to pick the person in the 1800s. Teddy Roosevelt was in one of the first primaries but the party bosses wanted someone else. Even though TR won it they didn't take him and he ran a 3rd party called the Bull Moose party and split the Republican vote and handed the presidency to Woodrow Wilson.

kamui, the American people are that stupid. I was once that stupid. I think a huge part of Americans being able to be fooled is that we don't travel. We don't even see our own country. Less than 20% of us have a passport and even less use it. You see America from the outside in when you travel. Its not the sole reason but its a factor. Of course hasn't helped everyone, even some smart people but you can't save all. The FACT is if Bush was running against Obama some would still vote for Bush. Party politics IS a religion. I won't even ask if some members on here would still vote for Bush. The same can be said for the Dems to some extent as well. Anyway, I still think Romney will get the nomination. The party leadership wants him. Why? Not because he has the best ideas. Its based on one thing and one thing only. He polls the best against Obama. That's how fcked up things are. Its why I give the Dems credit. Hillary was a shoe in had she gotten the nomination. She was a given. However, the masses went with their hearts and someone who they had no idea if he could even win. They went with the person who seemed to have a clue. I don't think Romney will win though. First, I think he'll lose the debates with Obama. On a side note, HH, I wouldn't think its such a foregone conclusion Obama can't debate Newt. Obama is not as good off the cuff but he is formidable. Anyway, the second reason I don't think Romney will win is because the republican masses aren't excited about him. Newt's emergence and Cain's rise before him shows the republican masses are desperate for one of their own and they are so desperate they are taking a close look at Newt who isn't even one of their own. He's never been religious and his personal life is so antithesis to what they believe in. I don't see Romney winning and if its Newt it will be an easy win for Obama. Obama has a lot of money. I mean tons of it. (which is a problem in itself because one has to look at the source of that money). Money wins elections in America. Always been that way for some time now. My guess is the GOP heirarchy knows this and know they are more of a long shot like they were in '08. My guess is they are really looking at the '14 off year elections to build up for the '16 election. Just my guess.

This won't mean much to non Americans (USA Thread?) but Juan Espstein has died. He of 'Welcome Back Kotter' fame in the '70s. http://tv.yahoo.com/news/welcome-back-kotter-star-robert-hegyes-dies-60-230045135.html

Way of the future? I keep hearing be careful what you write in your social networking sites because prospective and present employers will see it. If I have tight controls on my Facebook, how will they know? You can code it where only friends see pertinent stuff. I keep hearing about people fired for what they write on Facebook. They had to have had cowowrkers on there as friends. Anyway... http://finance.yahoo.com/news/no-more-r%C3%A9sum%C3%A9s--say-some-firms.html Union Square Ventures recently posted an opening for an investment analyst. Instead of asking for résumés, the New York venture-capital firm—which has invested in Twitter, Foursquare, Zynga and other technology companies—asked applicants to send links representing their "Web presence," such as a Twitter account or Tumblr blog. Applicants also had to submit short videos demonstrating their interest in the position. Union Square says its process nets better-quality candidates —especially for a venture-capital operation that invests heavily in the Internet and social-media—and the firm plans to use it going forward to fill analyst positions and other jobs. Companies are increasingly relying on social networks such as LinkedIn, video profiles and online quizzes to gauge candidates' suitability for a job. While most still request a résumé as part of the application package, some are bypassing the staid requirement altogether.

Hating the President is fine. Frankly, if the worse thing she can say is he was 'condescending', my translation to that for a person who hates him is that there is nothing there. Obama shouldn't even be upset at that. Waving your finger in the President of the United States states as a Governor (or anyone but especially for a Governor) is rank out of order. Everyone who has disrespected the office say they respect the office but their actions say otherwise. You suck it up. You stan when the President enters the room, you speak to him respectfully, you call him Mr. President. Wheter or not he is Washington or Nixon. The fact that so many GOP elected officials fail to respect the office tells me more than I need to know about how the party has degenerated nowadays. The hypocracy is that if a Democrat did the same things they'd be all over it. Absolutely nothing wrong with disagreeing with Obama. You do it respectfully. HH, with regards to the Supreme Court, I don't see anything wrong in that. Many Presidents have talked about the court and as far as I know Obama wasn't rude. Its HIS State of the Union address. They have become partially campaign speeches but that's ALL presidents.

Hey Flash, I wasn't old enough to remember that but wasn't mostly the young folks? My parents didn't like the way the younger generation disrespected institutions. Was it the Congress that was disrespcting LBJ though? Or even Nixon? Private citizens are one thing. A standing member of the highest legislative body in the nation or a Governor is another thing entirely. I've seen enough of Question time in the UK to know they will say somethings. The nerd in me used to watch in PBS because I loved the vitriol and smart ass comments. Anyway, the office is the office, it should always be respected by the Congress. For one thing it undermines the prestige of the office overseas when its done. Obama is a temporary holder, one day (and I pray not haha) it will a Republican in the office again, and it will hurt future presidents. The senior leadership needs to kick ass with regards to its members doing that 'shyt'.