Steve

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/22/jon-huntsman-gop_n_1444529.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=321726,b=facebook Jon Huntsman Criticizes Republican Party, Compares Actions To Communist China Huntsman spoke candidly about his party's flaws, lamenting the Republican National Committee's decision to rescind an invitation to a major fundraising event after Huntsman called for a third-party candidate to enter the race. "This is what they do in China on party matters if you talk off script," Huntsman said. Huntsman, a former Utah governor who dropped out of the GOP primary in January, served as U.S. ambassador to China under President Barack Obama. He also criticized the Republican candidates' foreign policy stances, particularly in regard to China. "I don’t know what world these people are living in," Huntsman said. Although Huntsman did not mention any specific candidates, he has criticized Mitt Romney in the past for his "wrong-headed" approach. Huntsman, who endorsed Romney after dropping out of the race, said in February that the former Massachusetts governor should take a more opportunity-minded view to relations with China. Huntsman also spoke on Sunday about his presidential candidacy, revealing that he was less than impressed by his fellow candidates when he attended his first debate in August. "Is this the best we could do?" Huntsman said he asked himself. He also joked that his wife forbade him to pander to the party's far-right contingency ahead of Iowa's caucuses, which likely hurt him with conservative voters in the Hawkeye State. “She said if you pandered, if you sign any of those damn pledges, I’ll leave you,†Huntsman said. "So I had to say I believe in science -- and people on stage look at you quizzically as though you're ... an oddball."

Saw 'Battleship' and didn't like it. It was contrived and unrealistic in many areas. The love story scenario and the 'hero' was not believable at all. Some good special effects but too many things just not adding up for my cycical self to enjoy it.

As far as the Zimmerman case, his view of the order of events doesn't make sense. If Martin had some sort of violent history, maybe. But with the facts I know, I wouldn't believe his order of events. Doesn't make logical sense to me at least. He'll need more concrete facts for me to be swayed.

Collection agencies as well and the people who provide loans (banks, etc.) have had increasingly more leverage over debtors. Its a fact that collection agencies have used either immoral, unethical as well as illegal means to get funds because they don't get paid until the debtor pays. The consumer doesn't have a voice at the legislature but the collection agency lobby as well as the banks do and hence strong arm tactis are now legal. America is f*cked. We litterally live in fear of all manner of authorities. In this day and age you are guilty first even if there is a mistake and you have to sort it out later. Your credit or even your freedom are at mercy in the case of mistakes. And some of you still think you live in a free and fair Republic....HAHAHAHAHAHA

Is this sequence of events the fact or Zimmerman's story? Its convenient but doesn't make sense. Matin has no history of this stuff. Second, he's got to be worried or scared of someone following you. Just doesn't make sense to turn and fight someone who is following you. You're scared, you get home as soon as possible. Martin was on the phone at the same time and his witness says a different type of conversation happened. I hear another witness tell CNN that it was Zimmerman doing the harsh quesstioning. Zimmerman's tone on the 911 call indicates anger. He wants to confront Martin. His opinion is that Martin is a possible drug addict or criminal. That's a fact. So, just logically, I see some holes in his view. My guess and this seems a logical and reasonable set of events, he followed Martin, confronted Martin, asked him questions harshly, possibly insulted Martin in his view. Basically asking him him things he has no right to and possibly Martin reacted to it physically when he realized Zimmerman was profiing him asking him what he's doing in his own Dad's neighborhood. Zimmerman lost the fight or was losing and shot him. Involuntary manslaughter IF that's the order of events. I'm finding it hard to believe this 'Martin arbitrarily attacks Zimmmerman' scenario. Doesn't make sense. It couldve happened but a) Martin has no history of it and the only one of the two that we know was angry at the other was Zimmerman.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romney-ll-build-keystone-pipeline-even-myself-205917498.html Romney: I’ll build Keystone pipeline even ‘if I have to do it myself What is NOT being said about this is that the oil industry has the RNC in its pocket. I wouldn't be opposed to building if two things were to be part of it. First, that the oil be used domestically only and we know the oil companies won't go for that. The big lie that Republicans and the proponents of this are saying is that America needs the oil, blah, blah, blah. What they dont say is that most of it won't end up in America. It will be sold to someone else. The oil companies want an oil pipeline for nothing and so they can have the oil for others. The second thing I would agree to is if there are any spills, breakage, etc. that the oil industry pony up the money for it. but haven no ideas in lieu of candidates that have some pretty good ideas but they can't control, they'd have a chance. If Paul or Gary Johnson ran I'd vote Republican in a heartbeat.

I had a discussion in another forum about Zimmerman. My view is Zimmerman's wounds are important IF he did not start the fight. What I think may happen is he confronted someone who ended up kicking his ass and he shot the guy because he was losing a fight he started. If that's the case, I'd still find him guilty of something. I'd also like to know if Martin suffered any non gun shot injuries. I've heard it said that Martin went after Zimmerman, although I can't think of any reason he would arbitrarily attack someone. We have a witnes who said Martin was speaking to her on the phone about some guy following him at the time. So, the injuries in of itself aren't significant until we find out WHY he got those injuries.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/tax-time-pushes-americans-hike-204320491.html Tax time pushes some Americans to take a hikeThe United States is one of the only countries to tax its citizens on income earned while they're living abroad. And just as Americans stateside must file tax returns each April - this year, the deadline is Tuesday - an estimated 6.3 million U.S. citizens living abroad brace for what they describe as an even tougher process of reporting their income and foreign accounts to the IRS. For them, the deadline is June. The National Taxpayer Advocate's Office, part of the IRS, released a report in December that details the difficulties of filing taxes from overseas. It cites heavy paperwork, a lack of online filing options and a dearth of local and foreign-language resources. For those wishing to legally escape the filing requirements, the only way is to formally renounce their U.S. citizenship. Last year, IRS records show that at least 1,788 people did, and that's likely an underestimate. The IRS publishes in the Federal Register the names of those who give up their citizenship, and some who renounced say they haven't seen their name on the list yet. The State Department said records it keeps differ from those published by the IRS. They indicate that renunciations have remained steady, at about 1,100 each year, said an official. The decision by the IRS to publish the names is referred to by lawyers as "name and shame." That's because those who renounce are seen as willing to give up their citizenship primarily for financial reasons. There's also an "exit tax" for the very rich who choose to leave. During the last 25 years, a number of millionaires and billionaires have renounced their citizenship. Among them: Ted Arison, the late founder of Carnival Cruises, and Michael Dingman, a former Ford Motor Co. director. But those of more modest means renounce, too. They say leaving America is about more than money; it's about privacy and red tape.

As I said, national polls mean nothing except to sway undecideds who don't know what's going on. How Obama and Romney do in the swing states is all that matters.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/signal/romney-top-five-vice-presidential-nods-potential-time-195339078.html Romney’s top-five vice presidential nods: Who’s the potential time bomb?Marco Rubio is 23.2 percent likely to gain the nod from Romney, an extremely high likelihood for a race categorized by uncertainty. He would provide cover for Romney from the right and he could possibly draw Latino supporters from the center or left (he's Cuban-American). On the other hand, he does not have much experience in the public spotlight and arguably has a few small skeletons in his closet that have come to light as the media has begun to scrutinize him. The Signal take on Rubio: Big potential upside with medium potential downside. Rob Portman, also a freshman senator from another big swing state (Ohio), follows Rubio with a 12.8 percent likelihood. Of the people listed in this article, he is probably the least well-known. In endorsing Portman for the job, the Ohio Dispatch refers to him as "safe and sensible." Their argument is that he is a reliable conservative but does not scare moderates and liberals. He would provide cover for Romney from arch-conservatives and his longer track record of solid, non-confrontational public service should make him safe not to embarrass the campaign. Portman: medium potential upside with low potential downside. Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey, follows in third place with 10.8 percent likelihood. As a moderate Republican, Christie could help Romney with moderate voters, but will provide no cover from the right. Further, his combative style will be risky when the media and opposition research film him day in and day out. Attacks on constitutes may play well at times with constituents, but is not what a presidential campaign wants to dominate its nightly coverage. Christie: medium potential upside with medium/high potential downside. Bob McDonnell, governor of Virginia, is in fourth place with 7.3 percent likelihood. Prior to mid-February, McDonnell looked like a better-known Portman in a similarly large swing state. Then he backed, and then ultimately withdrew his support, for a bill that would require all women seeking an abortion in an early stage to receive an ultrasound requiring a vaginal probe. If Romney chooses him as his running mate, this debate will become central to the campaign and, due to his sinking poll numbers among educated women, it is fight that the Romney campaign does not want to wage. McDonnell: medium potential upside with medium potential downside. Paul Ryan is in fifth place with 5.8 percent likelihood. In one sense, the congressman from Wisconsin is already running with Romney, as the media ties Romney to Ryan's polarizing budget proposals. The proposals consistently call for massive tax and spending cuts, with deficit reduction to come from unnamed closes in the tax loopholes. Ryan provides Romney cover from the right and possibility some centrist support. But he risks massive alienation from the left and would overshadow Romney, as the media might defer to him as the more consistent ideas guy. This is a risky place to put a presidential candidate seen as a bit short of consistent ideas. Ryan: medium potential upside with medium potential downside. VP really doesn't matter much. They really don't do anything and all they really mean is that win, lose or draw they are the presumptive party choice after the lead in the ticket goes. Sarah Palin angered me because of the choice. It showed how little respect McCain had not only for the office but for the American people in my humble opinion.

What would Jesus do? http://www.npr.org/blogs/ombudsman/2012/03/30/149717982/christian-is-not-synonymous-with-conservative Christian Is Not Synonymous With Conservative : NPR the Christian Coalition of America—founded in 1989 in order to "preserve, protect and defend the Judeo-Christian values that made this the greatest country in history"—proclaimed last year that its top legislative priority would be "making permanent President Bush's 2001 federal tax cuts."

My favorite elected official hands down. Cory Booker should run for President one day. Google or wiki him. http://edition.cnn.com/2012/04/13/us/new-jersey-mayor-rescue/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/whos-watching-facebook-213557740.html Who's Watching You On Facebook? Debt Collector Watch It seems that debt collectors have caught on to how difficult it is to hide on Facebook. According to MSN Money, debt collectors are infiltrating social network pages, contacting you, your friends and family through the site to force you to pay what you owe. One debt collection agent, Michelle Dunn, confirms that this is a strategy used by debt collection agencies today. "If you look like a really good-looking girl, a lot of people would accept a friendship even if they don't really know the person," she explains. Luckily the The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, designed to protect consumers against abusive practices by the debt collection industry, does offer you some protection in this area. Although it is not forbidden for collectors to post on your Facebook wall or ask your contacts of your whereabouts, they cannot post about your debt, because that is a serious breach of privacy. Nevertheless, it should be common practice not to accept friend requests from people you don't know, and of course, if you do owe money, in order to avoid being found and potentially harassed on Facebook, you should answer mail or calls or from collection agencies in the first instance. Ignoring the problem will not make it go away. Job hunting When you're applying for a new job, polishing up your resume may not be enough anymore. Rather, you should check what information is out there about you on the web. Facebook profiles are routinely being checked by your future employers. According to a survey carried out by Careerbuilder in 2009, 45% of employers check your social media presence when hiring, and some 35% of employers reported that they have found content on social networking sites that meant they did not hire the candidate. As social media has only grown over the past few years, we can only imagine that this figure would be much higher today. More than half of the employers questioned said that provocative photos were the biggest factor contributing to a decision not to hire a potential employee, while 44% of employers pinpointed references to drinking and drug use as no-go areas. While this might seem obvious, you can never know what a company might deem "provocative." It seems wise to keep all content absolutely clean, otherwise who knows what job prospects you are thwarting. Passwords Please In an even more worrying development in Maryland, a man has recently been asked to hand his Facebook login details over to his employee. He was outraged and made a complaint to the American Civil Liberties Union. As a result the updated policy at the Maryland Department of Corrections states that job candidates won't be asked to share their login or password information, but job applicants will be asked to log into Facebook "voluntarily" as an interviewer looks over their shoulders. Legal Snooping Beware what you post on the web, because, as a Staten Island woman recently discovered, the legal profession is snooping too. Dorothy McGurk claimed that she couldn't work, rarely left home and didn't socialize because of injuries from a 1996 car accident. The dancer, on disability, had been seeking lifetime alimony of $850 a month from her husband due to this accident. Unfortunately, Facebook revealed that all was not as it seemed, and showed that she was in fact working as a belly dancer. When the Facebook evidence came to light as evidence in court, the alimony was lost.

This is gonna be a circus. Unfortunately. I'd love to hear the 'real' evidence. I hope he's not being arrested and charged out of social/political pressure. If there truly isn't enough evidence for a trial, deal with it. I'd hate to tell the Martin family that and in their shoes I'd spit on someone who told me that but trying to fair minded about it all, they should weight the evidence and have the balls to make the right decision what ever that is.

Funny thing was back in '08 he (and his wife) were being painted as some pro black, quasi militant, anti American, anti white wolves in sheeps clothing. The Rev. Wright association, the meeting with the Weatherman, his community organizing, his wife's supposed paper seen as anti white. Now he's being painted as not sensitive to black employment. lol. He can't win either way. I wrote back in '08 as I do now saying that the black power elite in politics never liked him and backed Hillary. They still don't and Obama still has forgotten. With the two exceptions of Holder and the UN amabassador, I don't think there are any other black high level appointees by Obama. Again, the black masses love him but the poiticians don't. He was never their man. A few have said some things. Maxine Waters, Rev Al. The black congresspersons have no choice. If they don't support Obama, their black constituents will turn on them.

America is a great country. I love it dearly but I wouldn't agree with your dad's engineer friend. I'd rather live in a hut, being a hunter, gatherer, ignorant of modern things but happy than having any one go through the horrors that the slaves had to just so that I could live better. NOTHING is worth your freedom. Not even the promise of your progeny being part of the greatest country on earth. Even if it meant my progeny would one day become President or Oprah or CEO of TimeWarner. I was poor but happy growing up. I wouldn't give that experience up to be born in Beverly Hills to a rich family. I've seen many rich but very unhappy people. That's just me though. Present day Africa would have been different perhaps if it weren't for colonialism. To be fair Africa has had ample tiime to correct itself but many of the present problems are tribal. It comes from rival tribes being colonized in the same area and the European powers were adept of playing one against the other. In most colonial countries one tribe got the preferential treatment. Africa was like north America with the indians. They were tribal. The borders, just like the borders of American states were arbitrary. Created by the colonials and often split tribes making some part of a British colony and the remaining part of the French colony perhaps. Many of the present day poverty and such stems from a power vacuum that occured after colonialism and its almost always tribal-based. Present day Africa is partially a result of the continent being colonized. What would it look like if it weren't? Backwards in terms of modernism? Sure. Would it have the same problems and be in the same state if it weren't colonized? Look at how rich Africa is in natural resources that were exploited for hundreds of years. Would things be the same? Perhaps but I'm not so sure. Even if it was, I can't fathom the value of all those millons of any people having to go through what the slaves went through. Many Jews got to come to America because they were Auchwitz victims and America took 'their share' as other nations did. I'd like to ask their progeny if it was worth their grandparents living the horrors there for their chance to come to America eventually instead of living in some small poor village in belorussia, Hungary or Latvia.

This was always going to be a question of when not if Romney gets the nomination. The RNC backed him and whoever the RNC backs gets the lionshare of money. The vast majority of sitting Repubs weren't going to endorse the others in the field because its obvious Romney is going to be who you have to deal with. As I aaid, I can't think of any time in modern times where whomever the national committee wanted, didn't get the nomination. Dubya was told to run in '00 and he got the nomination. The '00 McCain (not the '08 one who was a different person) was a much better candidate than Dubya all around but he was elbowed out at every turn, even being lied about (saying he had a black baby when he in fact adopted a baby, plus so what if he did adopt a black baby?). Romney is unlikely to win though as it stands now. A lot has to happen between now and then.

The fringe will always make certain demands. You know 99% of Blacks want? Not special treatment. Not 40 acres and a mule. Just a decent job and equal treament and advancement. Blacks, like everyone else, want to know if they work harder and smarter they will get advancement. I've been in companies where you scratch your head at who got promoted. Some have that corporate look. Sports is the one main equalizer. A guy is faster, stronger, its hard to argue against him being played more. For the most part America is pretty fair. The opposite of these guys are the white supremist who want a separate country and advocate just as if not crazier notions. This play is no where close as being representative as the general feelings of Black Americans. Nowadays if you're a smart cookie you get promoted. The Black guys I've met that went to Ivy league schools aren't struggling. You'll hear things from all groups. You'll hear some Jews in America speak of anti semitism and if there is one group that has iimmense success far more than their numbers its Jews. However you'll still hear that there is rampant anti semitism by a few. Same with the women. Who are now the majority in law schools and possibly there in medical schools. Its no big deal now to see a woman CEO or lead partner in a law firm. In fact, the last few jos I held in America had female bosses. This 'Opera' is just some fringe person having a moan.

http://www.infowars.com/new-black-panthers-and-nazis-hijack-trayvon-martin-case/ New Black Panthers and Nazis Hijack Trayvon Martin Case Two dumbass idiot groups trying desperately to stay relevant in a world that is passing them by.

http://news.yahoo.com/team-obama-skewers-romney-tax-fairness-220349951--abc-news-politics.html "Romney supports tax policies that reward people like him, and now he's trying to obscure just how much he would benefit, by hiding his own financial records," said Obama campaign manager Jim Messina. "Our message to Mitt is simple: if you don't have anything to hide, release your taxes just like every other candidate for president does," he said. Romney has released his 2010 and 2011 income tax returns but fewer from previous years than any of his recent predecessors. The documents show he earned roughly $42 million over the two year period and paid $6 million in income taxes - or an effective tax rate of 14 percent. Got no problem with Mitt paying as less taxes as he can...as long as its done legally. I also view Obama's campaign person of playing politics. It will happen on both sides in this upcoming election. I just find it a bit hypocritical for millionaires in politics to claim the rich are paying too much when in pretty much every case we see multi-millionaires paying far less than any one else. I hope to be a mulit-millionaire one day (as unlikely as that is). Obama is now a mulitmilionaire and I'd be interested to see what he actually pays in taxes as well. My guess is he'll pay a high amount (if he's smart), knowing he can make a lot on the speech circuit, etc. after he leaves office plus he gets a lifetime salary so he won't have to really work again anyway.

Sad news about Mike Wallace. I'd sit there and cringe at how hard he went after some folks. Deservedly but still, it was tough journalism. As for the way time employment numbers are counted, they have been cooked for a long time. They need to be changed. The guy is right. My only question is the timing of it. It was all well and good for 6 years when it was Republicans using those same calculations. The timing of it is hypocrical and the bit about Republicans having to use the same number is exactly what he wants since it will be used to get Obama out. The Martin-Zimmerman case has opened up racial wounds and animosity again. This sign appeared in Michigan recently : http://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/04/09/11102214-racial-slur-on-mich-road-sign-targets-trayvon-martin?lite Some would argue it was always there under the surface and just needed an event to bring it back out. America and South Africa have such painful, bitter racial histories I fear it will take a century to get rid of, at least in America. There is hypocracy and insensitivity on both sides. Blacks don't seem to share nearly as much empathy or sympathy when Whites are targeted for racial animus. We cater to the fringe elements too much (the Rev Als). We are often over sensitive. That is subjective. There are things I don't think are a big deal that others have. I will say its changing. I see far more Blacks today saying what's the big deal over all manor of things. Younger blacks especially and I think its because we have a larger part of the Black population growing up in diverse communities, schools, etc. where they have friends from different races, unlike a generation ago. My nephews are a prime example. Their best friends were non black kids growing up. There are some things many whites are still a bit to callous about. Many have a 'get over it already' view of things and I can certainly understand that. However, I saw a pic once that kinda sums it all up to some blacks. There was a picture of the German concentration camps and under it, the caption read 'Never forget' and the next pic was of the towers burning in NYC at 911 and the caption said 'Never forget' and the last pic was of slaves being marched chains and the caption said 'Get over it'. It kinda sums it up the view by many Blacks. My view is that continued integration is the key. Moving more Blacks from poor to working and middle class and kids growing up going to the same schools and living together in the same areas is the key. There will be growing pains but continued interaction and open and frank exchange of views and mutual empathy is the only way. Going back to the Martin case. Politically its bad for Obama. Socially, while I empathize with the parents of the slain Martin and can understand their cry for Zimmerman's arrest. I don't think the rest of 'us' should be inflaming things. Wait to see how it plays out. Demand a fair, impartial and thorough investigation and then see what happens. America has made great strides. I think that Rev Al and others would have us believe things haven't for their own personal benefit. Zimmerman is being labled, probably falsely, as some junior member of the KKK. No evidence in his background to suggest that. I recall a black friend of his saying he's no racist. Too much overreaction and emotion on the Martin side. I also think some people are supporting Zimmerman's view of things, no matter how implausible, because of animosity towards the often one sided media coverage of any interracial violence which usually shows Black victims and minimizes or ignores whites who are accosted by Blacks simply because they are white. Also supporting Zimmerman out of distaste for the Rev Als out there supporting Martin.

He doesn't want to run for office. There was a rumor that its because of his wife. She fears for his safety and I've also heard she has taken medication for some sort of depression or other such malady. Nothing concrete that's the reason but I've heard it said.

Unless an incredible game changer happens between now and election day, Obama wins fairly easily. Not as easily maybe as before but easily enough. Game changers can happen. It was touch and go until the financial mess and that handed it to Obama 4 years ago. Even though McCain had very little to do with the mess he was guilty by association with Dubya. Obama leads in these swing states. Florida seems the only one that Romney could take. Shockingly Obama leads big in Michigan where Romney's dad was Governor and liked. The press won't say its all Obama's to lose now. But the RNC and the DMC know it. Furthermore, Obama has a war chest that will probably be the biggest in history so he can buy the airwaves in the swing states. Obama v. Romney - Ohio http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/oh/ohio_romney_vs_obama-1860.html Obama v. Romney - Florida http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/fl/florida_romney_vs_obama-1883.html Obama v. Romney - Penna. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/pa/pennsylvania_romney_vs_obama-1891.html Obama v. Romney - Michigan http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/mi/michigan_romney_vs_obama-1811.html Obama v. Romney - Wisconsin http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/wi/wisconsin_romney_vs_obama-1871.html Obama v. Romney - Virginia http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/va/virginia_romney_vs_obama-1774.html

Wow! How did you get the RNC monthly meetings on video?

Are you sure? I thought it became a word when '80s hair bands were popular and they wore tight tiger striped tights, eye liner and big hair sprayed hair in videos?