Steve

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/keystone-pipe-outlook-no-rosier-senate-vote-012028264.html Senate Republicans claimed victory on Saturday for a bill that may force President Barack Obama to make a speedier decision on a Canada to Texas oil pipeline, but a White House official indicated quick approval of the project is not likely. The two-month payroll tax break extension bill passed by the Senate on Saturday included language that would make Obama decide within 60 days whether TransCanada Corp's 700,000 barrel-a-day Keystone XL oil sands pipeline is in the country's national interest. But the U.S. State Department, which must approve the cross-border project, has said it will not be rushed into a decision before it has time to consider the environmental impact of alternative routes. That could leave Obama room to approve the project in principle but still keep construction at bay. "This bill will stop President Obama's delaying tactics," said Senator Richard Lugar, who had introduced the measure to speed up a decision on the pipeline. "This is a tremendous victory for our security and for creating jobs." I have no proof but I have no doubt that the oil industry lobby put the Republicans up to this. The decision to extend the tax break was wanted by both parties. However, the Republicans were willing to stall or kill it if they didn't have this pipeline. Irresponsible. This pipeline could have been part of the overall infrastructure plan. Its not a necessity but it could be included. Dems aren't immune from criticism. Some senators hold green stocks and have voted with their financial insterests at heart. This country is a mess. No way out in my opinion. Its systemic and endemic.

He's a centrist. Some conservatives erroneously and I think knowingly paint him as a liberal. He's no where close to being one. He's cozy with Wall Street for one. Before the election, it was argued that his being a community organizer was insufficient experience to be the President. Obama has made mistakes but its not because he was a community organizer and overwhelmed due to a lack of preperation for the job with years in government service. He simply made bad decisions irregardless of his background. Also his successes have been in foreign policy. The one area we were warned most sternly about. Intellectually, Obama can do the job. As opposed to my reservations about Palin. She was so unsuited to govern the Presidency it wasn't funny. Her governorship also shows how easy the job can be in some states.

http://news.yahoo.com/miss-mayor-reveals-gay-visiting-gay-sex-shop-142405501.html A conservative Mississippi mayor has said he is gay after an audit showed he had the city pay for a wide range of personal expenses, including a visit to a gay sex store in Canada. Southaven Mayor Greg Davis revealed publicly for the first time Thursday that he is gay, and said he has struggled to keep his sexuality from affecting his public role as mayor of Mississippi’s third-largest city.

http://autos.yahoo.com/blogs/motoramic/why-millionaire-wants-autoworkers-pay-cut-160603932.html Former auto czar and wealthy Wall Street financier Steven Rattner told a luncheon in Detroit on Thursday that while the $50 billion GM bailout was successful, "we should have asked the UAW to do a bit more. We did not ask any UAW member to take a cut in their pay." He also said that "friends on Wall Street" were concerned by GM's earnings and communications with the market, pushing the stock down to a level that would lose the goverment $14 billion if it sold its shares today. Meanwhile, at General Motors' Orion Township, Mich., plant about 45 minutes away from where Rattner spoke, there are three tiers of hourly workers. Roughly 900 workers at the top tier, the most senior UAW workers, make $29 an hour, a rate unchanged since 2008. Another 500 or so UAW workers are paid about $16 an hour — a rate, adjusted for inflation, equal to the famed $5 a day Henry Ford started paying his workers in 1914. And at the bottom scale are 200-odd workers technically employed by an outside supplier but who work in the plant moving parts to the assembly line, jobs once done by GM workers paid $29 an hour. The contractors' pay: $9 an hour with no health care, a rate which over a year's work would leave them below the poverty level for a family of four. GM's contract with the UAW that convinced the company to move small-car production to Orion from South Korea allows it to shift such work to the outside supplier. That supplier has resisted UAW bargaining, and the tensions have grown high enough that UAW workers at the plant picketed earlier this month and sought approval from the union for a strike. (They delayed one planned picket so that President Obama could tour the plant with South Korea's president). GM's North American arm posted operating profits of $5.7 billion in the past nine months, on which it will pay little to no federal income tax thanks to a law passed during the bailout preserving tax credits from the years when it bled money. The estimated savings to GM of its tiered wages at Orion: $112 per vehicle, on Chevy Sonics and Buick Veranos that start at $14,500, and can sell for $29,000. By GM's own stats, $29,000 is also the average annual wage of all GM hourly and salaried workers at Orion.

HH, totally agree the peace prize for Obama was undeserved. Not his fault for winning it. He never lobbied or wanted it and to his credit, he seemed to acknowledged there were more deserving people and his speech and demeanor reflected that. The polls of which you speak also has the lowest approval rating for a Congress that is Republican led in some time. What I find misleading is the reporting only of Obama's ratings and not of Congress. What the polls say to me is that the people are tired of a government that is not doing enough and are blaming EVERYONE. It also tells me that the people are tired of both parties fightinng and not putting aside their differences to do their job. Personally, I think the Republicans are obstrucdtionist because they have found ways of either being against things they are for IF Obama gets the credit or they attach things to it that they know Obama is against and hold needed action hostage that THEY want. I actually do believe in the prior link that for the most part the Republicans are only interested in gaining power even at detriment of the country. I don't agree with Democrats over a variety of things but I will give a lot of them credit for voting for the person who they believed was the best for the country. Hilllary was the easy choice and would have won the election handily had she been chosen to face McCain. Obama was a risk politically to give the Republicans power but they went with who they believed in. The Republicans seem to choose someone based on who will win and NOT who they believe in. Frankly, I'm tired of the Obama is bad mantra being said 24/7 and not offering someone better. I don't hear Republicans extolling the virtues of Romney who will win the nomination despite the recent rise in teh polls of Gingrich. In the end I still think it will be Romney for the sole reason he polls better. Many Republicans want Paul but they know their own party won't support him. Why aren't they asking the party heirarchy why? Democrats forced their leadership into accepting Obama with their voice and vote. Whether he was a good choice or not is not the point. The point is they went with their head and heart.

Frankly that Rick Perry ad is chillingly scary. This is coming from a guy who is a Christian. Okay, a whoremongering one but I believe in all the things that the bible says that Rick Perry believes. All the things you guys find crazy and I can't blame you one iota for thinking that. I'm objective enough to know it all sounds nutty from the outside in. Same as how I find the Nation of Islam's version of Islam, Scientologists and the Mormon version of events nutty as hell so I get it. Anyway, I believe in the constitutution and I believe in rights and I want religion as far as away from politics as possible. Anytime those two institutions have met its been disastrous. The bible, specifically the New Testament, seems to agree. The early Christians stayed out of politics and Jesus did as well. The ad though was scary beyond belief to me. I read a blog once from a guy who was teaching in Saudi Arabia and the one thing he said left with that he didn't prior was the unwavering belief that that religion and politics are the two worst two things to mix and I thoroughly agree. It almost always defers to the least common denominator and the fringe. Some have fought it off after learning from their history (Turkey). Some have not (Iran, Saudi Arabia). I believe that life begins where the bible says it does but I'm not gonna ram it down your throat and make a law that legalizes my relgious viewpoint which, after you strip all the dialogue away, is basically what pro life people want to do. The medical evidence goes against what I believe is where life begins. Gay marriage is a religious issue. Its not framed as such but at its core it is. Strip away all of it and it is. Two gay christians marrying should be illegal to fundamentalists but a Christian marrying a moslem shouldn't be? The idiocy of that thinking is beyond belief. I recall fundmentalist republican christians talk about supporting a Christian in the white house when it was Bush and putting their faith above who the best man is because afterall, a Christian by definition is the better choice. However, they hypocritically will now support Romney, a Mormon over a self confessed born again Christian that Obama is. Its hypocritical beyond belief. Its one of the myriad of reasons I have not only grown to dislike the Republican party but at times detest it. I'm not saying the Dems are great. They aren't there's tons I have problems with but for me its a choice of bad and much worse. I'd gladly take a 3rd party as better than either but given a choice between the two its not even a consideration to me.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandy-goodman/republicans-the-single-gr_b_881444.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=811789,b=facebook Republicans: The Single Greatest Threat to America The single greatest threat to the United States is not joblessness, foreclosures, another recession or skyrocketing debt or health care costs. Nor is it terrorism, China or declining influence abroad. No, the single greatest threat to our country is today's Republican Party. That's because the GOP is relentlessly pursuing a policy of the American public be damned, so that next year Republicans can regain the national political dominance they held from 2001 to 2006. Their sole, selfish aim is to complete the transformation of the U.S. to a government of, by and for the rich and the far-right. Veteran reporter Robert Parry, a retired correspondent for the Associated Press and Newsweek, accurately summed up that policy this way: Modern Republicans have a simple approach to politics when they are not in the White House: Make America as ungovernable as possible by using any means available... Control as much as possible what the population gets to see and hear; create chaos for your opponent's government, economically and politically; blame it for the mess; and establish in the minds of the voters that their only way out is to submit, that the pain will stop once your side is back in power... Republicans and the Right... are well positioned to roll the U.S. economy off the cliff and blame the catastrophe on Obama. Indeed, that may be their best hope for winning Election 2012. George W. Bush's presidency, with Congressional Republicans in lockstep behind him, made an excellent start on the destructive transformation of this country: two unpaid-for wars (one based on lies); failure to prevent the worst terrorist attack on the homeland or punish its instigators; waste of tens of thousands of U.S. and foreign lives, and worldwide diplomatic failure. At home, approval of torture, warrantless wiretapping and ineptness and indifference in the face of Hurricane Katrina created a permanent stain. Economically, Republican tax cuts created few jobs and increased the national debt by 75 percent. What the Washington Post dubbed "executive grandeur" made income inequality the worst since the 1930s Depression. Finally, the GOP's failed stewardship of the economy resulted in a crisis that Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke testified was even worse than the Depression. When national revulsion against Republican misrule drove Democrats into power in 2008, the GOP resorted to today's strategy. It became evident even before the new Democratic president took office when the Republican Party's de facto leader, Rush Limbaugh, declared: "I hope Obama fails." And since the inauguration, Republicans have done everything in their power to assure that failure, although it's meant misery for millions of Americans. "I wish we had been able to obstruct more," says Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell who succeeded brilliantly in keeping his members in line in opposing every important measure that's good for this country including presidential initiatives for health care, financial regulation, economic stimulus and a dozen executive appointments and even more judicial ones needed to keep government functioning. Given the frightening record of business and financial deception and fraud that led to the economic crisis, who in their right mind could possibly oppose increased regulation of business and enhanced protection for consumers? The answer: almost all Republicans. Elizabeth Warren is too committed to consumer protection to win the votes of Senate Republicans acting for their paymasters at the chambers of commerce. President Obama's new law extending health insurance to 30 million more people is too good for working Americans. Beaten in their attempt to vote it down, Republicans are now suing to kill it. Remember the GOP plan? It proposed health insurance for one-tenth as many people. Is it any wonder that people in all other industrial countries, where health care is a right, laugh at us. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sandy-goodman/republicans-the-single-gr_b_881444.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=811789,b=facebook Republicans: The Single Greatest Threat to America American business hates government -- except when it needs government help. Which is just about all the time. And it's just fine with Republicans whenever business goes to the government for help. In fact, GOPers are almost always corporate-friendly, as opposed to people-friendly. And they have a right-wing Supreme Court majority that helps them buy legislation by equating money with speech and corporations with human beings. But heaven forbid the average citizen should try to get a government benefit, or a job or more unemployment insurance or aid in taking back a home seized (often illegally) by the bank, or getting health care for a gravely ill child with a pre-existing condition. Republicans are happy to vote overwhelmingly against him, ignoring the Constitutional command that government "promote the general welfare."

Actually, Obama was never part of the Chicago machine. He was an outsider of the 'ward politics'. He first ran against a well established pol and was chided for not 'waiting his turn'. He was an outsider with the party as a whole as Hillary was the annointed and appointed one. Even the Congressional Black Caucus did the unprecedented thing and broke the 11th commandment and didn't side with a fellow black pol and chose Hillary over him. He became an insider once he started winning primaries and took Wall Street money. Ideologically, I'm not a fan of nationalized healthcare as I like a smaller government but I'm not mortally opposed. Republicans seem opposed to the notion and its caused socialist but we have other nationalized and federal mandated things that are imposed and those aren't 'socialist' so I see some hypocracy and its these and other things that made me take a full break from the party in '08. I would be for natioalized health care if we get the right plan. Conservatives don't even want to have that discussin it seems. Its seen as pure socialism so no dialogue can start. I think something has to be done when over 60% of all personal bankruptices are over health costs. That sounds like a national issue to me. Health care or at least a properly enacted one will NEVER happen as long as the medical interests still have their hooks into the pols and the Republicans are opposed to it and will demonize ANY plan. Obama isn't perfect and he has made mistakes. The biggest thing we were warned about was foreign policy and he's actually done better there than he has domestically. I would be very open to a better alternative but if its going to be Romney, Perry or Gingrich then its a step backwards. Big or little depending on which one but definitely a step back from Obama. Instead of supporting candidates that have ideas and are honest and will not be bought (Huntsman, Johnson, Paul) they seem to put forward only those that can be controlled and bought off. Dems voted for whom they though was the best person in '08. I've often said, when was the last time the man the Republican party heirarchy wanted didn't win? They systematically find ways of silencing the voices of people who will challenge ideas like Paul and Johnson. Maybe its not even ideas that are popular or may work but they are asking the right questions. No one is interested in real ideas. Going goo goo gaga over Palin in '08 when it was so obviously clear that most members on this forum were better candidates than she was and could do a better job. She was so out of her depth it was embarrassing. The country is on a slide down that has picked up speed over the last decade. Americans have always come together over traumatizing national events. Great Depression, Pearl Harbor, putting a man on the moon. The two significant events of this century, 911 and the '08 financial collapse saw a power grab, a deteriorating of civil liberties, the ones who caused the damage get their power and money back and the people who were affected left suffering. I am convinced NOTHING will save us. I hate to be a cynic but national events are now used to abuse the people some more.

http://omg.yahoo.com/news/hulk-hogan-speaks-why-im-suing-ex-linda-221828746.html?nc The battle between Hulk Hogan and ex-wife Linda Bollea isn't over. As reported earlier, the wrestling icon, 58, filed court papers last week accusing his ex, 52, of defamation, after she accused him of brutal physical abuse and cheating on her with a male wrestler. If they had no kids, it would be one thing but does a divorce has to be so bitter that this has to be in it? They have kids. Even if its true, do you want your kids to know all that. Not that there is anything wrong with that (disclaimer). But really?

40 Celebs who are Republican http://www.buzzfeed.com/mjs538/40-celebrities-who-are-republicans

The ones who are the most earnest never get media attention or looked at seriously. The last nominee that was the most earnest in my humble opinion was Mondale. Very honest as far as I know no matter what you thought about his politics. The last honest VP nominee was Jack Kemp in '96.

http://news.yahoo.com/white-house-rejects-republican-payroll-tax-proposal-192618315.html The White House rejected on Friday the latest proposal from Republicans in Congress on a payroll tax cut, saying its costs needed to be offset in a balanced away and not with budget cuts exempting the rich. "We are open to looking at other ways to pay for this, but they have to be economically responsible and fair," White House spokesman Jay Carney said. "It is important that the overall package meet the standards the president has set." Republicans have proposed that the payroll tax cut be paid for with an extension of a pay freeze for federal workers, changes to civilian federal retiree benefits and other reforms, including gradual increases in Medicare health premiums for the elderly and a clampdown on assistance to illegal immigrants. They have also sought to tie the payroll tax extension - a key component of President Barack Obama's $447 billion set of proposals to boost hiring - to the approval of TransCanada's Keystone KL pipeline, which would transport Canadian oil to Texas. Mixed feelings about the buidling of the pipeline. It will create jobs, it may very well be needed. I do think we should be looking to ween ourselves off fossil fuels. One of the big problems I have with the Republican party is that they are in the pocket of big oil and have want to increaese our dependence on oil and pay lip service to alternate energy.

Need some help. There is an american law that follows you overseas. Mentioned on this site a few times, such as the age of majority laws regarding sex. Others? I am in a discussion elsewhere and can't remember the specifics. Help!

Hey HH, how ya doing? Hope all is well. As for the candidates the party makes sure they don't get exposure. Johnson has complained he didn't get invited to early debates so his campaign sputtered before it got started. Its well known and obvious that they tried to keep Paul out of the limelight. The party's money is behind Romney. Big donors are sent his way by the party leadership. As I said before there hasn't been a nominee in memory that wasn't hand picked by the party and the major contributors are funneled his way. Romney offers nothing. Anyone seen his economic plan. No one talks about what he wants to do. All he ever does is talk about Obama. The irony of the Republican party is that both Romney and Perry brag about how many jobs they created as governor but in the same debate will say that Obama has it wrong because government can't create jobs, companies do. What? Complete contrdiction. Romney's plan is the same '0le, same 'ole cut corporate taxes, capital gains taxes, regs, yadda, yadda. His plan will only make companies making money richer. There is no evidence that supports the notion that companies aren't hiring because taxes are too high. They are making tons of money. Not saying the corporate tax rate is high but its not the reason they are not hiring. Its not regulations either. His foreign policy is to pretty much declare war on Iran for allegedly developing nukes. If ever there was a bad idea its to start a war with Iran or even start bombing them. The American media and government has been scaring us about Iran. Iran won't do shit if it gets the bomb. Pakistan and North Korea are much more unstable and they don't do shit. Iran and anhy country with the bomb knows the last thing it wants to do is use or give it to terrorists which we'll know because of its unique signature. Its a deterrent against being invaded. They won't Israel as well. They know if they do they are a parking lot. You know who needs to fear Iran? The Saudis and to a lesser extent, the Iraqi sunnis. Anyway, I digress. As for Obama, what liberal agenda? The man has sold out to Wall Street. Its Liberals who are disapppointed in him. Also, you say "Liberal agenda' like its a bad thing...lol. Some of it is good as there are some things about what conservatives want that are good (limited government, protection of civil liberties). I know I'm writing all over the place. I just see all this BS from the Republicans and frustrated over Obama being too centrist and the Congress not wanting to do shit.

I would seriously reprimand the teacher that overheard it and reported the boy. WTF? This bitch needs to go. Guarantee you if it was a bunch of girls giggling about how some young male teacher is cute, nary a word said. Unless she overhears something that is about physical harm, life threatening and things of that nature, it should go unsaid. Now with regards to Newt, I don't think he'll get the nomination. I still think some way, some how we're looking at a Romney v. Obama final. The leadership's ignoring Huntsman, Paul and Johnson tells me all I need to know about the Republican party. No soul whatsoever. Its ALL about power. It seems if any of their candidates can't be bought or controlled they don't want them. I see Romney as a step backwards in comparison to Obama and thats saying a lot because Obama has not done as well as he should have. Not as bad as Republicans say but definitely underperformed according to expectations.

WTF?! http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/12/05/student-9-years-old-suspended-for-sexual-harassment_n_1129683.html?1323107604&ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=321726,b=facebook Student, 9 Years Old, Suspended For Sexual Harassment, Calling Teacher 'Cute'

What I like so far is Paul's emergence. He's riding high in a few polls. He won't win the nomination. I'd love him to but if I were a betting man I'd put my money on Romney. He's the chosen one for the heirachy for the simple reason he polls best against Obama. However, Paul's visibility will force both Romeny and Obama to answer some hard questions. My hope is he reamins visible and vocal and he gets air time and asks the questions that the mass media are too scared to. With regards to the nationaal election, the question isn't for me if Obama is doing a good job or not. He can do better, that's obvious. He's not as bad as Republicans claim though. My question is this. Is Romeny an improvement on Obama? In 2004 I wasn't a big fan of Bush and I didn't like Kerry much better. I think I let Republicans influence a bit more than I would like about Kerry. I went 3rd party but in hindsight Kerry would have been an improvement. At the time I didn't see much of an improvement but Bush's last 4 years were so bad, Kerry would have seen a Godsend. Anyway, if Romney is not a market improvement I will vote for Obama. Its said that a President spends his first four years trying to get elected and the last 4 trying to get into the history books. So, if Romney is not an improvement or only a slight one, then I don't think he'll do much in the first 4 years than play it safe and try and not to f*ck up. Basically, what he's doing now. If the political theory is right, Obama will spend the four years trying to leave a legacy. Given the choice then its Obama for now based on that. No guarantee he will do that but its what many Presidents have done (Nixon trip to China towards the end of first time in office, Carter, peace between Egypt and Israel, Clinton came close between Israel and the Palestinians, etc.). So, my thinking could be wrong but that's where I'm coming from. Paul, Johnson and Huntsman (in that order) are the only ones I think will do what's right even if its not politically the right thing to do.

I don't think one party or people have a lock on racism, prejudice, etc. I've seen blacks in LA talk about white racism and in the same conversation make the most racist statements against Mexican Americans and when I called them on it say its not racism because its true!! Met racist gays, Jews, all manner of racists than WASP. I've also met the coolest folks I've ever met from these groups as well. We all make our little jokes and such. I do and I'm sure my non black friends do and have. Doesn't make you racist in my book. Practicing it does to me. As for Cain, I could care less about his extra marital affairs. The sexual harrassment charges should be considered with regards to his Presidency IF its going to be an ongoing thing but not significant to me as I would think any person who will become President would behave a wee bit better. I dismissed Cain early on because he was embarrassingly unprepared to answer basic questions and showed a shocking lack of knowledge about things. Far worse than that remote nation Bush was criticized over (wrongly in my opinion).

http://rt.com/usa/news/senate-mccain-battlefield-graham-429/ Battlefield US: Americans face arrest as war criminals under Army state law The United States Senate is set to vote this week on a bill that would categorize the entire USA as a “battlefield,†allowing law enforcement duties to be dished out by the American Military, who in turn could detain any US citizen as a war criminal — even coming into their own homes to issue arrests. The National Defense Authorization Act regularly comes before Congress for changes and additions, but the latest provision, S. 1867, proves to be the most powerful one yet in raping constitutional freedoms from Americans. Move over, Patriot Act. Should S. 1867 pass, lawmakers could conjure the text to keep even regular citizens detained indefinitely by their own military. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), a supporter of the bill, has explicitly stated that the passing of S. 1867 would “basically say in law for the first time that the homeland is part of the battlefield†and could lead to the detention of citizens without charge or trial, writes Chris Anders of the American Civil Liberties Union’s Washington office. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-N.H) sits on the same side of the aisle and agrees wholeheartedly. “America is part of the battlefield,†says the lawmaker. America’s Military is already operating in roughly 200 countries, dishing out detention and executions to citizens of other nations. As unrest erupts on the country’s own soil amid a recession, economic collapse and protests in hundreds of cities from coast-to-coast, is it that much of a surprise that lawmakers finally want to declare the US a warzone? Maybe not, but if the Senate has their way, the consequential could be detrimental to the US Constitution. “The Senate is going to vote on whether Congress will give this president — and every future president — the power to order the military to pick up and imprison without charge or trial civilians anywhere in the world,†adds Anders. “The power is so broad that even US citizens could be swept up by the military and the military could be used far from any battlefield, even within the United States itself.†“American citizens and people picked up on American or Canadian or British streets being sent to military prisons indefinitely without even being charged with a crime. Really? Does anyone think this is a good idea? And why now?†asks Anders. Just like its supporters, the provision has attracted its share of critics as well. The Obama administration has threatened to veto the bill if it makes its way through Congress, but given the president’s poor standing among the American public (his disapproval rating is at its highest ever in recent polling), a hawkish Republican could usurp Obama as commander-in-chief as the 2012 election is less than a year away and the unemployment level stays stagnant and sad. With the exception of Congressman Ron Paul, the frontrunners currently vying for the Republican Party’s nomination for the presidency have remained outspoken in their support for not just increasing American military presence overseas at a time when the Pentagon’s budget dwarfs many governmental sectors, but in adding provisions to the Patriot Act itself to further remove freedoms from the people. During last week’s GOP debate televised on CNN, former House speaker Newt Gingrich said that the country must “try to find that balancing act between our individual liberties and security.†That same night, pizzaman Herman Cain said suspected terrorists should be killed before identified and former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum suggested that Muslims should be profiled by the American government because, “obviously,†they are the group “that are most likely to be committing these crimes,†speaking broadly of his assumption of those that construct terrorist attacks. “I have a personal belief that you never have to give up liberty for security. You can still provide security without sacrificing our Bill of Rights,†responded Rep. Paul. “You can prevent crimes by becoming a police state . . . So if you advocate the police state, yes, you can have safety and security and you might prevent a crime, but the crime then will be against the American people and against our freedoms.†Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colo.) has already aligned himself as an opponent of the legislation, but needs to garner the backing of others if he wants to keep Congress from enacting the provision. “One section of these provisions, section 1031, would be interpreted as allowing the military to capture and indefinitely detain American citizens on US soil,†the Senator said in a speech last month. “Section 1031 essentially repeals the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 by authorizing the US military to perform law enforcement functions on American soil. That alone should alarm my colleagues on both sides of the aisle, but there are other problems with these provisions that must be resolved.â€

Flash, I'd say this. Yes, I think the guy should have stopped hitting the girls but I would still find him not guilty. First, is its heated moment. Easy to think rationally when you're not involved. Remember, it was 2 people. Women maybe but tough women and it was two of them. Second, his survival instinct from prison clicked in. Third, even if the first two reasons are bullshyt, no way I'm gonna reward someone who acted an ass and jumped the counter. I don't wish a fractured skull and possible brain damage on anyone but she brought it on herself. She creaed her own predicament. As for America, yes our influence is waning. We are a declining power. Countries are going to have a make a choice between us or China soon in Asia and we will lose out. Long term China is the best bet. Look at Taiwan, we can't protect it as well as we could any longer. They will become part of China one day. China is bent on it and they think way farther than we do. We think are short term for the most part except in a few areas like Cuba, Israel for example.

This is a story of a McDonald's employee who beat 2 female customers who jumped the counter to attack him for enforcing store policy of checking the authenticity of the $50 bill they presented. They took exception. He got arrested for assault for hitting them with a steel rod. He was found innocent of assault. I'd voted non guilty as well. http://gothamist.com/2011/12/02/all_charges_dropped_against_custome.php

If Obama had gay liaisons there would be more substantial evidence I would assume than some hearsay allegations. Frankly, even if he or any of the Republican candidates did, I could care less. The country is in dire need of proper leadership both in the White House and Congress. We need to get back past legal personal actions of people. Moral is a subjective thing. I fail to see how ones religion (or lack of one) or legal sexual proclivities makes you a bad leader. As for Jesse Jackson Jr., it could be a case of Chicago politics which has a long history of illegality and unethical behavior. I won't be surprised if he is guilty...or innocent. Its a wild card in that city. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/florida-teen-detained-tsa-design-her-purse-221835034.html It's not unusual for 17-year-old to find themselves in hot water with the fashion police. But on a flight from Virginia to Florida, Vanessa Gibbs found herself detained by the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) over the appearance of her purse. And just to be clear, it wasn't the content inside the purse that the TSA objected to. No, agency officials took exception with the design of a gun on Gibbs' handbag. "It's my style, it's camouflage, it has an old western gun on it," Gibbs told News4Jax.com. Gibbs didn't run into any trouble while traveling north from Jacksonville International Airport. But on her way back home, TSA officials at Norfolk International Airport pulled her aside. "She was like, 'This is a federal offense because it's in the shape of a gun,'" Gibbs said. "I'm like, 'But it's a design on a purse. How is it a federal offense?'" This girl was also pregnant. Common sense has left this country. I wonder how long all of us are going to just sit by and let the government keep doing these kind of things to us. Really disappointed Obama has done nothing to reign them in. He has a lot on his plate but if I were his advisor, I'd tell him to do something about it. Republicans may try and say he's being soft on terrorism and he's making the country less safe but the TSA are so unpopular and with his oratory skills he could easily make them out to be on the wrong side of the issue.

With all that hidden baggage, I have to question Cain's sanity. In this day and age you have to assume sexual harrasment lawsuits and affairs will make the light of day. I actually think it was probably known by the 'opposition research' (finding dirt department) people of the candidates a whie back but he was so far down in the pecking order at the time it wasn't worth it. Obama took a page from the Malcolm X school of being in the public eye. Put it all out there first so its already discounted when you are in the public eye. His prior drug use could no longer be used against him. He is still a smoker though and he's rarely filmed smoking. I can't recall a recent President who did smoke? Was Johnson the last one, if he did. I assume he did but not sure. FDR may be the last one, he had those long tip cigarette thingies. Hoover at the FBI as well as his enemies had nothing scandalous because it was already out there. The drugs, women, crime, etc. it was already out there and he was leading a scandal free life so he could say anything he wanted and not worry about blackmail or threats of exposure. MLK had scandals. Mainly infidelity. Also, one of the leadership in the civil rights movement was gay. I can't recall his name but it was known he was gay and he was told to take a reduced, less public role so as not to 'taint' the movement. I would not want to run for public office. A friend said recently what I've long heard. That there really has to be something wrong with you mentally to run for President. Especially these days. There are a couple folks who run purely because they feel a true need to serve and help the country (Paul, Huntsman, Johnson), however the rest I think just want to have their ego stroked knowing they will be in the history books. Its more about the prestige than the need serve the country. I would put Obama, Romney, Perry, Gingrich, Cain and Bachman in that category.

I'm disappointed in Obama. Many of us are and it probably fair to say most of us are. He's not as bad as Republicans claim. He had a lot on his plate and I thought the things he did have control over (many things are pretty much out of his control), he didn't do well domestically. Foreign policy wise I think he's surpassed expectations and has done a great job. Romney is the presumptive favorite to get the nomination. Is Romney markedly better than Obama? That is the choice here. If he's no better or worse, then why change? Why take that risk? Is he slightly better? If so, still the same question. Why change horses in midsream if there is no improvement. I would contend that he's worse. I think he'd give the powers that be more than Obama will. Perry is a joke. I won't consider him as well. Newt is smart but I disagree with some of his policies as well as his temperment. I don't know if he has the temperment to be President. If Huntsman, Johnson or Paul were the nominees, I'd probably swith. But as it stands now, there is no reason to. I even think Romney will be worse.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/sideshow/military-dogs-taking-xanax-receiving-therapy-canine-ptsd-222819057.html New York Times reporter James Dao has a heartbreaking story today, which reports that among the present corps of 650 military dogs, more than 5 percent deployed with American combat forces are suffering from canine Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD). And of that group, about half are forced into retirement from service.