Steve

My guess is that many people can't get a bank account due to having a bounced check, the fees ran up and their account closed. I forgot the organization but one of my brothers is in banking and its fairly common these days. People living paycheck to paycheck. Also, so many people owe the IRS money that they dare not put the money in a bank for fear of garnishment. I would also assume a lot of work being done under the table. Cash businesses. Used to be construction that was like that and in states with a high number of illegals cash is common. Or if a check they can't deposit it so they go to check cashing which honors a Mexican ID. Bank of America and other major banks in California offer banking with a Mexican ID but illegals don't like putting money into any U.S. institution where at anytime its possible its confiscated.

http://news.yahoo.com/southern-whites-troubled-romneys-wealth-religion-050312040.html Southern whites troubled by Romney's wealth, religion LYNCHBURG, Virginia (Reuters) - Sheryl Harris, a voluble 52-year-old with a Virginia drawl, voted twice for George W. Bush. Raised Baptist, she is convinced -- despite all evidence to the contrary -- that President Barack Obama, a practicing Christian, is Muslim. So in this year's presidential election, will she support Mitt Romney? Not a chance. "Romney's going to help the upper class," said Harris, who earns $28,000 a year as activities director of a Lynchburg senior center. "He doesn't know everyday people, except maybe the person who cleans his house." She'll vote for Obama, she said: "At least he wasn't brought up filthy rich." She's actually kinda scary.

There is a huge jobs bill that has hundreds of thousands of immediate jobs ready to go and wont be voted on till after the election. I think whoever wins gets it.

Frankly, with how bad Romney is as a candidate, I'm shocked that the race is as close as it is. I know party loyalists are going to go with their party but really, I think it should be fairly clear to independents. Obama isn't Thomas Jefferson but he's not nearly as awful as conseravtives say he is. No one, absolutely no one would have been able to turn the economy around in 4 years and the last two he has been stymied at every turn by Republicans in Congress whose only agenda is to make sure they say no to anything he tries to do. Even at times things they are in favor of. The sad thing is (and this goes for Dems as well at times) is that the opposition WANTS the job situation to get worse so that they can get back in power. I'm going 3rd party but of the two main candidates its a no brainer to me were I an independent who would only vote for either of them.

Normally, I don't like the government involved in people's freedom of speech but I'll make an exception for this case. I would have absolutely no problem if the government was able to stop the printing of it. He made an oath. Stick to it. If he wanted to be a writer, he shouldn't have joined in the first place. He volunteered and took an oath.

Its Obamas election according to the electoral map. the debates and any extraneous event could change things.

Great speech by the Prez!

Regarding taking our country back rhetoric. Any true revolt MUST span all strata of society for it to meet the founders standards. Its not Party vs. Party. The Arab spring meets the standard.

Great speeches by Bill Clinton and Michelle Obama. I thought I posted this but guess it didn't take but there was no war when Obama was of military age. He was chasing the American dream and no one in America expects someone to join the military when they are pursuing a college degree and working on a career. Bush, Cheney, Romney and Clinton all avoided the military in a time of conflict and hence the difference. It was an unpopular war so there is some understanding regarding not going. However, the former two promoted their own unpopular war and hence the hypocracy. It was okay for them to send people to die in an unpopular war. A war they had to lie to the American people about to go along. That is what is so insiduous. Romney is also making war noises with regards to Iran. He has taken a much harder view of foreign policy. Obama to his credit has shown far more reluctance to send troops such as the Arab spring. The Republican party in its present form is odious. Its just too far right. They punish any member who actually wants to work with Democrats to solve problems. Many of its members take a zero tolerance policy on negotiation at all. Its their way or the highway and its impossible to run a government like that. Any meaningful piece of legislation than anyone here likes these days would never have gotten approved with the present climate. Religious views are being legislated. I also object to the term of what is or who is American. If you hold a little blue passport with the United States of America on it you're an American. We are diverse culturally, regionally, etc. The people of Permian, Texas and the people of Bensonhurst, Brooklyn are in some ways as different from each other as they are to an Englishman. A far right Republican and a far left Democrat are Americans despite having totally different views on what to do about America. Finally, I am apalled at the level of lack of respect for the office of the President. I'm not talking about the average every day citizen or even minor politicians such as a small town mayor. Those folks have always been that way on both sides since the '60s with the flower children. I'm talking Congressmen, Governors, people who should know better. I read an article about it. The governor with her finger pointing, the Congressman with his yelling 'liar' at the state of the union where I read it was supposed to be group of them doing it and the others chickened out. WTF?! There are certain customary, unwritten privleges the President has I read in such an article. Presidents have yelled at and screamed at Congressmen and Governors on occasion. You sit there and take it. Usually your own party but sometimes the opposition party. Johnson was infamous for it. Nixon would do it. Years ago, FDR and Truman would do it. Its not done often but it is done. Whenever the President's secretary calls you drop everything, personal calls, meetings, etc. to take the call this article said. However, this article said that for the first time ever Republican congressman would sometimes not take the call and have their assisstants say they are busy and they will call him back. The yelling of liar, the governor with her finger pointing in his face. Military personnel doing the same. Its never been done before to any President, even the worse. This blatant disrespect is unsettling. One has to ask why only Obama?

Totally against this Seal team 6 guy writing books. Part of the 'job is not talking about what you do or did. He didn't clear it with the DoD who probably would have rightfully said no to it in the first place. Worrying precedence. Its a thankless job in that no one knows about you publicly or even what you did but you know that when you VOLUNTEER for it. Its a smirch on the unit. You're trusted to do it all secretly and quietly and all this leaked info about the bin Laden thing is sad.

Lies and spinning happens on both sides. However the voter Id thingy is exceptionally disgusting. Serving nn other purpose than to supress votes. If there was empirical data suggesting widespread voter fraud i would lead the drive myself. However, there is none. Plus the waste of money and manpower. Shame.

Pre Civil Rights college admissions was pervasive and systemic almost exclusively for protestant white males. Harvard for example even had a Jewish quoata. Unsaid and not unwritten but it was generally accepted that they would only enroll so many Jews. Italians, Catholics, etc. were limited in numbers. The Jesuit universities were set up partly because of these limitations. Black and Hispanic presense were very very rare. Harvard set up their Radcliffe colleges to keep women out. They were known as the Harvard and Radcliffe colleges for decades. Post civil rights, the laws changed but the hiring committees were still made up of the same folks with the same mindset. They did as little as they can and it took a further couple of decades (and lawsuits) for even some state universities to change. Black schools such as Morehouse, Spelman and Howard were largely created by rich whites with the purpose to keep blacks away from traditional schools and state universities. One has to look at WHY these gender, ethnic and racial scholorships came into existence in the first place. It was because of the systemic limits of these groups. In terms of preparation, the High Schools of minorities in those days were far below others in quality, books, etc. class sizes were bigger, in Jim Crow south public minority High Schools had to use the discarded books that were no longer used by other schools. In hindsight there were obvious better ways but at the time, the new laws did not change the mindset of the same people who were in charge se well as the minset of white parents before the laws. What to do? You can make a law saying to treat people equally but its a big country. Courts couldn't always enforce law nor is it their duty. The powers that be simply didn't follow the new laws. The same folks who enforced the biased system were the same ones who were supposed to enforce the new ones. If you were a smart white guy with great grades you got into anywhere you wanted. It was the borderline admission student who had to worry about a minority candidate. That's where the competition started. Bakke in that famious case wasn't a top student, he was a borderline admission candiate who lost out to a minority candidate with lower grades.

First, I would say that Obama is a great story. He certainly was not priveleged and he was obviously so smart he was head of Harvard Law review. Plenty of people get in prestigious schools anyway they can. I am not sure that I see anything wrong in that. As long as they are not lying. A businessman is deemed smart if he takes advantage of any loophole, etc. to expand his business. Tons of American businesses, greatly admired businesses take full advantage of coporate welfare. A student who takes advantage of any program or loophole in order to get legally get into a prestigious school is acting in the same way. Harvard wants a representative student body and will give preference to a white male from South Dakota who excelled and got straight As and great LSAT scores at S. Dakota State University because not too many students come from that type of area and school. As for Ryan, like Cain he has a great personal story. Its what America is about, its a great advertisement about the possibilities in this great nation. However a great story doesn't make a great politician. Ideas, ideology and integrity as well as a few other attributes make a great politician. Cain is a great story but shouldn't be anywhere hear the Oval office. Ryan has views that are simply too steeped in religious zealotry as well as far right thinking with no room for compromise that I would even feel uneasy if he was Presidet of the PTA in his Jamestown much less President of America.

Unit, that's what happens when you base a political platform on religious zealotry. That platform is no better than the Islamic laws we criticize the Middle East countries over. Absolutely no difference. I met a guy who worked as a teacher in Saudi Arabia, said he was person of faith when he went and left there absolultely convinced religion and politics should stay as far apart from each other as possible and has become an independent and gave up his registration as a Republican.

Wow! I don't think they'd get close to being able to pull it off but its scary nontheless. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/27/military-terror-plot-murd_n_1833435.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009&utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=321726,b=facebook Four Army soldiers based in southeast Georgia killed a former comrade and his girlfriend to protect an anarchist militia group they formed that stockpiled assault weapons and plotted a range of anti-government attacks, prosecutors told a judge Monday. Prosecutors in rural Long County, near the sprawling Army post Fort Stewart, said the militia group of active and former U.S. military members spent at least $87,000 buying guns and bomb components. They allege the group was serious enough to kill two people – former soldier Michael Roark and his 17-year-old girlfriend, Tiffany York – by shooting them in the woods last December in order to keep its plans secret. "This domestic terrorist organization did not simply plan and talk," prosecutor Isabel Pauley told a Superior Court judge. "Prior to the murders in this case, the group took action. Evidence shows the group possessed the knowledge, means and motive to carry out their plans."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cat5SyMBSpk Ryan: Rape is just another method of inception This perhaps should be on that other thread about abortion but I'll put it here. Again, its a religious issue for the right. Scientifically, fundamentalists like myself (and I would deem myself fundamentalist in doctrine not in action, I'm a whoremongering, flawed Christian). Can't mix religion and politics folks! This statement is just plain wrong. Its insensitive. Gurantee you that if any of these hardcore pro-lifers had a daughter raped or some black guy or latino guy knocked them up, they'd make an exception...LOL. I'm actually laughing as I write this thinking what would happen if the 18yo daughter of Mr. and Mrs hardcore fundamentalist in small town Iowa got pregnant by a black guy.

http://themoderatevoice.com/157504/msnbcs-chris-matthews-accuses-rnc-chairman-reince-priebus-of-playing-the-race-card/ Chris Matthews accused RNC chairman of playing the race card. Wow!! Clapping my hands!! Go Chris. I will say this. First, he is the 4th estate and the anger he showed and the vehemence showed bias. I will say that much. I try to be fair to both sides of an issue (often failing) but I thought he clearly overstepped his role as a journalist, even if I think he was telling the truth. I will also say that Obama has been deceptive as well in his ads and rhetoric and not making excuses for him, its about average for election years. None of it was personal or more than we have seen before. We are still sensitive about race in this country. There are too many blacks who see every thing through racism. I won't excuse it despite the history. Its not all of us and dare I say most of us. I've had many conversations with fellow educated blacks and the range of what we deem to be racist varies. What I see as ignorance others see as racism both in personal experiences as well as what we see in the media. I've faced unequivocal racism. No doubt by anyone's standards. I've been blessed to grow up with a family that was truly color blind where I had no qualms whatsoever that if I brought any of you to my parents home or my sibllings they'd treat you as one of the family. I have asked people of varying ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientation and such questions out of curiosity sake and so I don't mind the same asked of me about my race or background. Its how bridges gets built. So, with that said, even when I was voting for people in the Republican party, the one thing that always disgusted me was they often using buzzwords and issues to exasperate the division between races for the sake of votes. Pitting one group of Americans against another using fear. I will also fault Dems for scaring some blacks, especially the poor and under educated with labeling Republicans as racists using inuendos as well. Its possible to be against certain programs, etc. and not be racist. Conservative members of this are a prime example. You're all decent people. Whoremongers..haha..but decent.

kamui is right, the government has been using electronic easedropping and its been going on for years. After the cold war the CIA and intel agencies wanted to make themselves relevant and feared downsizing, started industrial spying and espionage in the early to mid '90s by easedropping on European businesses and giving American rivals the information. We knew upcoming mergers, new products and innovations. So much so the European governments were complaining, especially France. Anything that was bouncing off a satelite was monitored. We've had the echelon super computer for years and its now pretty much public record when it was a secret before. The government during the Bush years said that getting the information (emails, phone calls) via deals with internet providers like yahoo and google as well as off satelites wasn't an invasion of privacy and unconstitutional since they discard the information if its not useful. You can get your snail mail read as well. The tecnology is there to see what's inside and what's written on paper. There is no privacy any longer. Its a myth. There was a Brit woman who tweeted some joke about blowing up her plane before going on vacation in America and she was denied entry. Homeland said it was acting on a tip. Complete BS. The manifest of planes and any foreigner applying for a visa has their information monitored. Any social media they use gets monitored. Everything we do on here, this post, gets monitored. The sick part is that there have been courts that said that there is no more expectation of privacy, even if its in violation of the constitutional. Basically, if we know we are being illegally monitored, then privacy is not a defense if the government and law enforcement arrest us on some charge. Anything you posess can be searched and viewed in customs. Anything on your computer, phone, camera, etc. Business men working on a merger can have their usb, computer, etc. monitored and any information can be viewed. Your own body internally can be x rayed, pregnant women the exception. The excuse for men is child pornography, despite there being very rare cases of someone stupid enough to have it on their laptop coming into America. There simply is no empirical evidence to support that its a problem for the government to use it as an excuse to search your personal information. I personally find the platform disengenious and an election year strategy. With very few exceptions (Ron Paul for example), Republicans fully supported or did nothing when Bush expanded surveilance of citizens and violating our civil liberties. The sad thing is Obama continuing such programs under the guise of security. We've given up our privacy for the false reward of security. We as a collective are led to believe had we taken these measures prior to 911 we could have avoided when its not so. The agents that were alerted to the 911 terrorists didn't use or need such things. Anyway, with regards to civil liberties and privacy issue, I fear the Republicans far more. As a doctrine they are supposed to be about personal freedom but have acted the complete opposite when it comes to legislation. Dems aren't much better but the left that are opposed to such things are more vocal. As for Romney's offshore accounts, I agree it doesn't make him a bad guy. What it does address is what is deemed self serving with regards to his platform. The Kennedy's were rich (not nearly as rich anymore) but had a reputation for beign very liberal, pro poor and middle class and pro taxes which ran counter to their social class. Romney may not have had the maintenence of his social economic status as a reason and he may genuinely believe its best for all Americans but it doesn't look good when he benefits the most from it. One can question his motivations for such policies when its self serviing.

He is a good story, like Cain. He describes himself as a conservative and talks of progressive v. sociailism/liberal. He's also a mormon which also hints at his conseravtism as well. I don't see much difference between progressiveness and liberalism. We hear about Blacks who don't like Obama but these are Blacks who NEVER liked Obama or Democrats. These Blacks are dragged out with the misunderstanding sometimes that they changed their opinion of Obama, Democrats, etc. but these were guys who NEVER had that mindset and if it weren't for Obama in the white house no one would listen to them. These guys (Cain, Owens, etc.) have been around for years but you never heard of them UNTIL Obama gets in the White House. A few have (Larry Elder, Armstrong, etc.) but not many. Black conservatives are getting a voice now because of Obama. Once Obama is gone they will not be given media attention again. We keep hearing about the Black support for Obama and Dems and although its never good thing to vote in lockstep, many groups are like that. Mormons probably vote higher for Republicans. White fundamentalists vote in very high percentages for Republicans. Gays vote for Dems in very very percentages. I've mostly seen it reported when Blacks vote in such manner.

F*ck you!! They better let the gamblers keep the money. http://content.usatoday.com/communities/ondeadline/post/2012/08/casino-sues-gamblers-who-won-big-on-unshuffled-deck/1?csp=34news An Atlantic City casino is suing 14 gamblers who raked in more than $1.5 million in winnings after realizing that eight decks of cards had not been preshuffled and kept producing the same sequence of cards, over and over. The gamblers kept raising their bets -- from $10 a hand to $5,000 -- and scored 41 consecutive winning hands of baccarat in April, the Associated Press reports. As the payouts mounted, Golden Nugget Atlantic City flooded the area with security teams, convinced that someone was cheating, but were unable to figure out how. In the end, the casino let nine of the gamblers cash out $558,900. The rest still have $977,800 in chips. In its lawsuit, the casino cites state gambling regulations requiring all casino games to offer fair odds — to both sides.

If we were in an economic boom, I'd be worried about that number. In these times? No. If Republicans were in charge and stopped unemployment benefits, cut social welfare, etc. there would be rioting in the streets (I'm being melodramatic). People are hurting. I know many hardworking friends of mine who couldn't find a decent job and most are making due with jobs that paid signficantly less than they were making and living paycheck to paycheck at best. Most are in debt. I have to think that a lot of the millions out there are Republican. They tried desperately in vain to get a decent job and can't.

Interesting thing is I saw a guy on CNN who wrote what he claims is an unbiased account of Obama's presidency and found a remarkable amount of success. I wouldn't expect Ferguson, a McCain advisor to mention this. I think Obama could have and should have done better However, I don't think he is even close to being as bad as Republicans make out. This guy even goes after his foreign policy record and its one of. Obama's shining achievements. Romney hardly mentions it. The Republican foreign policy strategy simply does not work. Its overly aggressive when it need not be and has the American arrogance tone to that the world has come to despise. I am not voting for Obama. He is not the best choice I believe. I'll gladly 'waste' my vote on Johnson. However, its obvious there are really only two choices and as I said before, its clearly not Romney who parrots conservative platitudes that Republicans themselves never even do. Its lip service to get elected. Another thing. We have very short memories. I think most of us forget just how dangerously close we became to a financial meltdown. We really have forgotten. Under Obama's care we have not only stopped the bleeding but are slowly, perhaps too slowly, going up instead of downards. It will take years. Better administration and management can make that speedier but we are getting better. The deteriation of the middle class is going on but its been going on for decades now. Helped by BOTH parties. This man, Ferguson isn't objective. If he was he would be blaming his own party as well as co-conspirator if not ring leader. The reversal of the slide was done so adeptly we have minimized its magnitude in our minds I think. The man had an herculean task, almost impossible with the added disadvantage of an opposition party who were loathe to see any accomplishments. Ferguson, as most conservatives do, makes criticisms without offering alternatives. Its not Romney.

My question to the question the guy poses is whom? Without reading the article, if the alternative is Romney, its Obama clearly. If its someone like a Ron Paul or such, sure, but the fact is there are only two choices. Romney is clearly NOT better or even the same.

Seniors already know the gop are anti medicare.

The Obama machine is trying (somewhat successfully) to turn the Ryan selection as a negative. This election is over as it stands now unless some significant event changes. If he wins I think we'll see a different Obama. What I also think will happen is that Dems will make gains in Congress. Republicans are simply too far right.