Steve

I can understand the political parties wanting to limit the exposure of Ron Paul but why the mass media? My conspiracy theory inclinations say they are all part of the cabal of 'they'. Were I head of one of the major news organizations I would find Paul fascinating and a person who would create debate, a boon for the media. You want people talking. I simply can't understand.

This statement by Romney scared the hell out of me. It sounds like campaign rhetoric but he seems like he's hungry to have another war. As far as Iran with nukes, the country that has the most to worry about is Saudi Arabia. Iran knows if it even hints at using it or giving it to someone that will use it against them, Tehran will be a parking lot. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-iran-obtain-nuclear-weapon-obama-elected-023551376.html "If we re-elect Barack Obama, Iran will have a nuclear weapon," Mitt Romney declared in a foreign policy debate in South Carolina sponsored by CBS News and National Journal. "If you elect me as president, Iran will not have a nuclear weapon." I am very confident that the administration is using any and all covert means. I think even Gingrich knows this. Fact is we don't know what cover things the admin is doing but if Obama's record on things of that nature is any evidence, everything within our power is being done covertly. Meanwhile, Newt Gingrich said the positions advocated by Cain and Romney were "superior" to the Obama administration, which he contended had "skipped all the ways to be smart" about Iran, including investment in more covert operations to block and "disrupt" their efforts to obtain a nuclear weapon.

12. The two parties conspire to keep out any 3rd party. They also routinely call America a two party system when the founders never intended to have political parties. They had already seen how the Parliament in England was ruined that way. We morphed into it but we were never intended to have them. However, its always being said by them that we are a two party country as if its by design. The organization that determines who can enter a debate was founded by the two parties. Which is why you don't see 3rd party represented. When both parties are asked why there isn't a 3rd voice, they say its not up to them, its up to the organization that they created. 13. Being a Congressperson was never intended to be a career. The founders saw public service as a duty you did in order to pay back the country in some small way. After you were done your term you went back to your 'day job'. However today its different. So let me understand this. No one asked them to serve, they volunteered to run for Congress, then they say they aren't paid enough for something they asked to do. They then vote themselves pay rises and health benefits. Everyone else has to work 30 years for full pension but they can do it less than half that time. 14, Manchester United and Tottenham suck. We've always known this. Nothing surprising there. The world has come to realize what all Arsenal fans already knew. 15. Dick Cheney is even more evil than we imagined him to be. Interesting how he and his boss avoided military combat but were the two most ardent supporters of going to war.

...Florida's electoral votes and fundamentalist Christian's desire to see biblical prophecy fulfilled. Every British PM polls higher than our President against other Americans. Blair supported the same war as Bush but polled higher. Thats a head scratcher. Actually I know why. Its the accent. Fact is NO ONE in Washington is popular. If Congress had high poll numbers Obama's poll numbers would have meaning. However, the Republican congress has lower poll numbers. http://articles.businessinsider.com/2011-08-04/politics/30100840_1_approval-rating-respondents-poll Americans' opinion of Congress has sunk to a historic low, according to a new CNN poll. Only 14% of the poll's respondents said they approve of the way Congress is handling its job. It is also only the third time since CNN started the poll in 1974 that Congress' approval rating has sunk below 20%.

The first ones who made it popular are all in their 50s. Tons of them still alive. Gonna start seeing rockers from the '70s start going a lot more is my guess.

Rapper Heady D died. I had the pleasure of interviewing him for a small magazine I was involved in once.

I shouldn't have went on my diatribe as well. Joe Frazier was a great boxer and great person. Stand up guy.

His religion aside, the era has to be looked at in context. It was still very bad for blacks in the '60s for most places, even in the north there was still rampant job and housing discrimination and the cops could pretty much do whatever they wanted. For a few hundred years blacks lived a life that told them they were inherently by birth not as good as whites. One can't discount how damanging psychologically that is and we still see some of the effects today. The Black Panthers, Malcolm X, Ali, as my oldest brother decribes it, gave them pride and confidence. The aforementioned vocally spoke about things that were going on at the time. Older blacks said the rest of us had to live with the consequences of them pissing off whites. Southern blacks especially thought they could see a resurgence of the KKK or attacks on blacks. Ali was parroting what he heard at the NOI. Malcolm X was more eloquent about it. My mom, (and my dad) although fairly young was of the generation that you changed minds by living a honest, hardworking life. However my oldest brother (who wore the afros, dashiki clothing, etc before going to Vietnam), thought change was happening too slowly or would never happen. After the Civil Rights Act was passed there was still rampant problems. Lastly, he scared white folks. lol. Not many blacks shook up the social classes as he and others did. My brother felt it needed shaking up and said that at the time, they thought it as hypocracy that American history said armed revoloution was right for an unjust government and when the Panthers advocated it for the same reasons as the founders did it was wrong. Sounds a bit crazy to me now, actual revolution advocated but was sen as very legitimate by my oldest brother. I can see both sides frankly. I think it depends on who you are. Were I white or an older black from the MLK generation I may have felt the same way they did about Ali. However, were I young black male and seeing not much happened after the CRA, I can't say I'd feel any different. We are living under different times. Were alive back then and being reminded I was not a full member of socieity I think I could see myself sympathizing. Going back to Frazier, although he was a local hero in Philly, Ali was loved as much I would guess and to some more. Philly was definitely a boxing town and had a reputation for producing boxers who were warriors and never gave up. Fighting was a normal thing in Philly neighborhoods growing up. One of the reasons I got the hell out. I can't fight. lol. I used to say 'I'm a lover, not a fighter, but I've been in more fights than I have been in love'.

Forgot to mention Jimmy Young, Ron Lyle, John Tate and Leon Spinks as other notable heavyweights of the '70s. With regards to the young Ali, he was definitely a polarizing figure. Amongst blacks older blacks disliked him and the young idolized him. My mom didn't like him at all and said she rooted for Patterson (partially because he was handsome...lol) and she didn't like his bragging. But my mom was a humble person. My dad liked him as a boxing purest. I don't think my dad liked him personally but he liked great athletes and greatly admired Ali's boxing skills but I know, being a baptist Deacon, that he didn't like Ali's life choice. My oldest brother loved him but he was part of that young generation of blacks at that time. I can certainly understand why Ali was not liked. Especially by white Americans at the time. To young blacks he bucked 'the man'. We have to remember that it was still pretty rare in those days to talk like that about America and the larger society by a black person. I've often heard, away from the spotlight Ali was much subdued and much kinder. It was pretty much a show. Anyway, to my oldest brothers generation he instilled in them a lot of pride. They thought he (and Malcolm X) told the truth and exposed America's faults. Again, older blacks thought he exasperated race relations and slowed down integration. Things were getting better and Ali risked making neutral whites anti black. Who was right? I don't know, I wasn't of age back then.

Smokin' Joe lived in my part of town. The sad thing was Ali was more famous and more liked I think than he was. I always felt bad for him. I also didn't like how Ali acted leading up to their fight. I don't know if its true but the story was that Ali didn't have much money when he was stripped of his title. The Nation of Islam didn't give him much if any. Joe and a few other folks gave Ali money. Joe accepted there was going to be some trash talking leading up to the fight but he felt Ali crossed the line. Being called an Uncle Tom and other such things in 1971 in the heat of the Black Power movement was especially hurtful. Joe was not gonna be denied in that first fight. With the Joe Louis fight in the mid 30s and the Dempsey fight earlier being the only possible exceptions it was the biggest fight in boxing history. Joe never forgave Ali. I heard he used to even say 'See how Ali talks? I did that'. I wish they could have made up. Ali did change and I think Ali regretted the hurt he caused him. Its my guess. I will say this, I think that era produced the greatest cadre of heavyweights ever. There were guys in that era who I think would have been champions in almost any other era. Ernie Shavers, Jerry Quarry and a couple others had the bad timing of being in the same era as Ali, Frazier, Foreman, Norton and Holmes. Shavers was tough as hell and would easily have been champ in another era. Quarry was also tough as nails. Fought those guys bravely.

Actually sign me up for 'Occupy Pattaya'. I'll be 'protesting' inside Lolitas. Fighting the ongoing tyranny of increasing bar fines and increases during the heavy season.

My guess is political reality hit Obama about transparency. The government is wrought with waste and all transparency would do is give Republicans ammo. I'm not saying he shouldn't have kept his promise. He should but by doing that you also get a Republcan party that would do nothing but finger pointing instead of trying to work to resolve issues The fact of the matter is that very few Republicans want to work with Dems in resolving anything right now. Its all about a power grab and seizing an opportunity for a President with low numbers. The media trumpets Obama's numbers but the fact is that its all of them. Congress has far lower numbers and I recall some article a while back saying Congress' approval rating was the lowest either in a very long time or ever. A Republican dominated Congress but you don't hear the media saying that as well. I think what many Americans are realizing is what all of us on this thread already knew. That the government is so massive and so wired into special interest that it no longer serves the people, it serves the special interest. My guess is any politician that goes to Washington with high ideals soon sees its peeing in the ocean. I don't think its a foregone conclusion that Obama will lose. I think that many people see that its not so much him but the system and they may not believe the Republican candidate will be any more effective than he is. Also, his mistake was compromising too much. Just my guess. It may be wishful thinking disguised as objective observation. I don't know. I have absolutely no faith that Romney can do anything and I've not heard or seen any thing from him that says different. Its the same old Republican mantra of cutting waste and lowering taxes for corporations and the rich. They almost always end up cutting programs that are needed and that hurt people like vets, the elderly, working poor, etc. and it becomes a cash boon for the rich and powerful. corporations are making tons of money. Rich people as well. Look at the Forbes 400. Many who saw their net worth drop on the Forbes 400 list four years ago have gotten most if not all of it back. Companies are profitible. They are just hoarding cash and not hiring and using the economy as an excuse. The last thing a company wants to do is hire. Its a huge added expense. Its logical. You try and make more money without incurring more expenses especially labor. You work your present workforce more. Give extra duties, ask them to stay later or work weekends. They know that there are a pile of resumes of people who would do that same job for less money. It is how it is. Cutting their taxes won't change that. As for government waste. Big cuts must be made. The problem I have with what Republicans want to do is they want to cut things that shouldn't be cut or at least be cut carefully. They often don't cut things that need it like the defense budget. Now I read that Republicans are fighting Obama over infrastructure spending and other parts of the job bill. Not surprised and in fact, I expected it. Its election season and the last the Republicans want is anything that may work with a Dem in office. Dems probably the same if the roles were reversed but I'd like to think not so. Its all bullsh*t.

Exactly. I'm no big fan of the Dems. I'll consider voting for them as a lesser of two evils over the Republicans.

I don't see the 1% on purely financial lines. I don't think most Americans do either. I think people see the onerous 1% as those that have money and power and who are bent on using it to maintain their hold over the rest of us and in some cases bleed us. I don't think most would count Oprah, Michael Moore or Warren Buffet as part of the 1% for the simple reason that they have a reputation for wanting to help the poor, whether its true or not. As for the Obama administration's skirting the Freedom of Information act, its very disappointing. I would fight against what they propose. It must be said and this is NOT excusing them, but its suprising because this is usually something that Republican administrations do. The Bush years are replete with all kinds of ways to deny civil liberties. I don't see it as a reason not to vote for Obama because I believe the other side would do it as well...or worse. As I said, Cain makes a good story but is woefully unprepared for the office. So many things he says he would 'look at'. The job is too big and there are so many things that need addressing immediately that he simply won't have time. It also doesn't look good that a person who is running for the highest office didn't prepare himself adequately. Some of the things are embarassingly bad such as not knowing about the jewish concept of right of return. This coming from a church man. He knows less about foreign policy than most forumites on this thread. He doesn't know about many domestic things as well. Heatlh care under Cain would be a mess. His 999 plan would eliminate funding for medicare I think because its funded via payroll taxes and his plan eliminates that. He wants tort reform. Basically making it easier for malpractice and many states already have some sort of tort reform. Try suing a hosptial nowadays? Good luck. He supports the Ryan plan which would eliminate medicare for those born 1957 and after when they reach 65. He's being accused of running for Presient to sell his book and be on the speaking circuit to make money and its looking like it is because he has no grasp of the major issues. Cain had cancer about 5 years ago and made the outrageous claim that he would not have survived it if he had it under Obama's health plan. I can't take a guy who says such hyperboic statements like that seriously. His comments on mosques and not hiring moslems automatically rules him out for the highest office. I think he said to pander to the core right but its racist pure and simple. Romney would do what Obama would did on a few things such as health care. Other than Cain, Huntsman is a good candidate but he was dismissed early for being the Ambassador to China for Obama. WTF? As if the job and its one of the most important ones is any stamp on Obama's policy. Credit to him for serving his country and not looking at party lines and credit to Obama for including rational, qualified people of either party to high posts.

Michelle has been a great first lady in my humble opinion. She wears The Gap dresses and shops at mainstream places. She's been very positive. I also liked Laura Bush and she always came off as pleasant. We didn't hear much from her as First Lady but every time she did appear she represented the position well. Hillary and Nancy Reagan are two I didn't care for. I liked Barbara Bush when she was in the white house but have changed opinion a little to the negative after. Rosalyn Carter was nice as well. As for Cain, you know when you're a serious candidate when the rumors and accusations start flying. He's been accused of sexual harassment back aroun '90. Now, I'm no supporter of his but over 20 years ago? Even if he was, things change. Hell, I sexually harrassed coworkers when I first started working. I dismiss accusations like that, as I do about smoking pot when they were in college.

Wow. This is a touching story. Whether its a skinhead or Malcolm X and Ali, leaving a hate group is not easy (Nation of Islam is a hate group in my opinion). http://news.yahoo.com/reformed-skinhead-endures-agony-remove-tattoos-162205881.html Reformed skinhead endures agony to remove tattoos A reformed skinhead, Bryon Widner was desperate to rid himself of the racist tattoos that covered his face — so desperate that he turned to former enemies for help, and was willing to endure months of pain. Second of two parts. ___ And yet, the past was ever-present — tattooed in brutish symbols all over his body and face: a blood-soaked razor, swastikas, the letters "HATE" stamped across his knuckles. Wherever he turned Widner was shunned — on job sites, in stores and restaurants. People saw a menacing thug, not a loving father. He felt like an utter failure. The couple had scoured the Internet trying to learn how to safely remove the facial tattoos. But extensive facial tattoos are extremely rare, and few doctors have performed such complicated surgery. Besides, they couldn't afford it. They had little money and no health insurance. So Widner began investigating homemade recipes, looking at dermal acids and other solutions. He reached the point, he said, where "I was totally prepared to douse my face in acid." In desperation, Julie did something that once would have been unimaginable. She reached out to a black man whom white supremacists consider their sworn enemy. Daryle Lamont Jenkins runs an anti-hate group called One People's Project based in Philadelphia. The 43-year-old activist is a huge thorn in the side of white supremacists, posting their names and addresses on his website, alerting people to their rallies and organizing counter protests… when Roy called a couple of months later saying a donor was willing to pay for the surgery, Widner could hardly believe it. The donor, a longtime supporter of the SPLC had been moved by Widner's story — and shocked by photographs of his face. "For him to have any chance in life and do good," she said, "I knew those tattoos had to come off." She agreed to fund the surgeries — at a cost of approximately $35,000 — on several conditions. She wanted to remain anonymous. She wanted assurances that Bryon would get his GED, would go into counseling and would pursue either a college education or a trade. The change: http://news.yahoo.com/photos/reformed-skinhead-endures-agony-to-remove-tattoos-1320021559-slideshow/combination-eight-photos-provided-bill-brummel-productions-shows-photo-170741007.html

HH! How ya doing? Still under the spell of the Republican Sith Lords huh? lol. There are some Dems in places like Texas that can't support too much Obama stuff because they have to get re-elected. Anyway, Republicans don't want Obama to pass anything so he'll get the blame. I still believe that.

Without trying to seem biased, the Republicans aren't compromising. It seems only one side is compromising and has been. Democrats are dispappointed in Obama primarily because he compromised too much, not on the bad economy. People understand the mess will take years to get out of. My guess is that the Republicans know Obama and the Dems won't do just cuts and they are hoping this makes Obama popular going into the election. Republiicans have no problem raising taxes when it suits them. They have done so plenty of times in the past. Both parties have.

It was boys that I saw and they were about 8 or 9 and one was a rambunctious kid into sports and the other liked his mom's clothes. lol. Its a fact though that some kids who were sexually abused by the same sex become gay. Same as some girls who were sexually abused by their dad become porno stars and many are into 'father figure' boyfriends. I would have to be a pscyhologist working that all out.

I don't know where medical science and psychologists stand on this but I think it can be either/or. There are some kids who were gay because they were sexually molested as a child by someone of the same sex. I've known a few. Also, bi sexual at least from repeatedly being abused by someone of the same sex. For example, there are guys who are sent to prison and are raped repeatedly over months and sometimes years and become 'stockholmed' to same sex and actually seek it out once they get out of prison. There are also guys who grew up 'normal', no incidents and are gay. I recall a show with twin boys. Raised exactly the same as twins ofen are one of them is gay as the 1890s. So, my opinion is someone can be gay for no apparant reason just like how I like cute petite girls with c cups and firm asses for no apparant reason. It certainly wasn't repeated sexual encounters when I was growing up...I only wish!!

We have progressed immensely as a society over the last 30 years or so. Sexual orientation seems one of the last bastions left that doesn't get as much sympathy. Had the boy done the same and bullied a kid who was Black, Latino, Jewish, Moslem, Asian or an Arsenal fan, there would have been more outrage and the Principle would have exacted a harsher punishment.

When many speak with one voice it WILL be heard. http://finance.yahoo.com/banking-budgeting/article/113719/big-banks-new-card-fees-wsj?mod=bb-budgeting A month after Bank of America got pummeled by consumers and politicians for introducing plans for new debit-card fees, most other big U.S. banks are steering clear of imposing similar charges.

Texan man who teaches classes and how to handle a gun has a radio ad that says he will deny classes to those who supported Obama as well as practicing muslems. If he had denied to NY Yankees, Boston Celtics and Tottenham suupporters I wouldn't have a problem with it. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/ad-gun-training-bars-muslims-obama-voters-153954962.html