Steve

http://news.yahoo.com/police-us-singer-owes-420-000-child-support-215129164.html Police say a singer known for his 1990 chart-topping love song was hauled off a Massachusetts stage and arrested on charges of owing $420,000 in unpaid child support. Steven Bernard Hill of Las Vegas was arrested Friday night at the MassMutual Center, where he was performing on tour. Hill performs as Stevie B and is best known for the song "Because I Love You (The Postman Song)." It reached No. 1 on the Billboard charts in late 1990. Sorta, kinda remember this guy. Was it necessary to take him off stage? Its a show, why not get him after?

lol...raical issues enters the Republican primary. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44747781/ns/politics-decision_2012/ Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain criticized the name of a hunting camp once leased by Gov. Rick Perry's family as "just plain insensitive" in an appearance on Fox News Sunday. Other political news of note Cain: Perry camp sign 'just plain insensitive' Updated 8 minutes ago 10/2/2011 4:44:10 PM +00:00 Republican presidential hopeful Herman Cain criticized the name of a hunting camp once leased by Gov. Rick Perry's family as "just plain insensitive" in an appearance on Fox News Sunday. The name of the camp — "Niggerhead" — was first reported by the Washington Post on Saturday. The paper said the name was painted on a rock at the entrance of the property. Perry reportedly began hosting fellow lawmakers, friends and supporters at the secluded ranch early in his career. The offensive phrase has been painted over, but the Post's sources and the Perry campaign differ on when that was done.

We're using drones to identify it appears http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-12756789 it may be the way to go kill a few...with the authorization of the Mexican government of course. I don't think it would go over well with the masses there but it seems to be doing a good job on terrorists so it is effective. Demand on our side will always make it almost impossible to stop. It can be curtailed though. Technology can route out underground tunnels and such. We haven't done enough and we haven't worked smart enough.

France doesn't count race in its census interstingly enough but the guestimate http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_people_in_Europe is that it has a higher slightly higher black population than England. In any event, irregardless of the black populations, I'll expand it to minority groups to address my point. Minorities in America have achieved a lot and I would guess its much more than the largest minority population in Europe. I used blacks because America and a few European countries said to be more progressive than America also have sizable black populations. Its still a fact that minorities have achieved more in terms of political seats of power and oorporate leadership in America than in Europe.

http://news.yahoo.com/awlaqi-killing-reignites-us-debate-rights-152720230.html The killing of US-born Al-Qaeda cleric Anwar al-Awlaqi has renewed the debate over how far Washington can go in hunting down and assassinating alleged terror suspects who are American citizens. Awlaqi, killed in Yemen with several other suspected militants, had been at the center of a court case filed last year challenging the US government's right to target its own citizens for assassination which highlighted questions about constitutional rights. US President Barack Obama on Friday said the killing of Awlaqi was a "major blow" to Al-Qaeda, adding it marked a "milestone in the broader effort to defeat" the terror network. And many US lawmakers and other Americans cheered the news of Awlaqi's death, but civil rights backers said the case raises serious questions. Glenn Greenwald, a lawyer and commentator, said there had been no effort to indict Awlaqi on any crimes and that there was "substantial doubt" about his involvement in any attacks against the US. "He was simply ordered killed by the president: his judge, jury and executioner," Greenwald wrote on Salon.com. "What's most amazing is that its citizens will not merely refrain from objecting, but will stand and cheer the US government's new power to assassinate their fellow citizens, far from any battlefield, literally without a shred of due process," he added. Last year, civil liberties groups filed a lawsuit on behalf of the cleric's father, Nasser al-Awlaqi, saying it was unconstitutional for the CIA to order the death of an American citizen without due process. A judge dismissed the case without ruling on the merit of the suit, but said it raises serious constitutional issues. "Can (the president) order the assassination of a US citizen without first affording him any form of judicial process whatsoever, based on the mere assertion that he is a dangerous member of a terrorist organization?" US District Judge John Bates wrote in December. Pardiss Kebriaei, an attorney at the the Center Constitutional Rights who worked on the lawsuit, said that if Awlaqi were indeed killed by US forces or with their help, it would be illegal. "If it was in the absence of imminent threat of deadly harm, this was an illegal killing under the US constitution and international law," she told AFP. While I won't lose a bit of sleep over this guy, and I was smiling when I read we got him with a smirk that said "F*ck you,you treasonous rat bastard" and any American who would aid terrorists against his own country isn't fit to have citizenship, I have to admit that it is wrong to target citizens for death without due process. Its a process that will come back to bite us when its used wrongly and trust me, there will come a time when it will be.

I think its a slim chance though. If Romney gets the nomination I'll vote for Obama so I hope he does well in Florida but I'll write him off in that state I think. If Paul wins the nomination (highly unlikely) I'll vote for him. The others I wouldn't vote for over Obama because either I don't see any improvement or some other reasons to vote for them.

Hello Kamui, you're right about Germany that's why I specifically left them out in my post. However, France, England and Holland have sizable black populations. In America Blacks have become national icons in just about all areas. Especially sports and entertainment and I don't see the equivalent to the same degree in the countries named. Sure there are celebs but the thing is those countries and Europe in general is commonly viewed as more progressive with regards to race relations and opportunities for blcks than America when its America that actually produces more success stories. Not only blacks but for minorities in general. To be fair to Germany, Turks don't have the long history in Germany as other minorities do in America. However, in France, Holland, England minorities have been there for some time. If you're black with aspirations of being a CEO of a major corporation, holding high office and being the number one sports or entertainment person in that country, America would win hands down when looking for the country that offers the best opportunity.

I totally agree such a tax is wrong and should be fought with vigor. I think it should be publicized and face public scrutiny and scorn. If Obama supports it, he should have to face public anger for it. That said... if anyone thinks the Republcans won't do something similar but in a different way I have a bridge to sell you with a nice view of Manhattan. BOTH parties have and will screw you. They just have different ways of doing it.

http://news.yahoo.com/us-threat-military-action-unites-pakistan-033123234.html U.S. accusations that Pakistan is supporting Afghan insurgents have triggered a nationalist backlash and whipped up media fears of an American invasion, drowning out any discussion over the army's long use of jihadi groups as deadly proxies in the region. The reaction shows the problem facing the United States as it presses Pakistan for action: Strong statements in Washington provoke a negative public response that makes it more difficult for the army to act against the militants — even if it decided it was in the country's interest to do so. U.S. accusations that Pakistan is supporting Afghan insurgents have triggered a nationalist backlash and whipped up media fears of an American invasion, drowning out any discussion over the army's long use of jihadi groups as deadly proxies in the region. The reaction shows the problem facing the United States as it presses Pakistan for action: Strong statements in Washington provoke a negative public response that makes it more difficult for the army to act against the militants — even if it decided it was in the country's interest to do so. Write off Pakistan. Its the same formula we've seen repeated elsewhere. A country where the government wants to help us but their people are anti American. Fck em. Write 'em off. Ease out of Afghanistan. Al qaida is not the same threat it was. Their senior leadership is doing more hiding than planning thanks to our targeted killings.

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Bank-of-America-to-charge-5-apf-1381425092.html?x=0 Bank of America will start charging debit-card users $5 a month to pay for purchases. The move comes as the cards increasingly replace cash and as banks look for ways to offset the loss of revenue from a new rule that will limit how much they can collect from merchants. Paying to use a debit card was unheard of before this year and is still a novel concept for many consumers. But several banks have recently introduced or started testing debit card fees. That's in addition to the spate of other unwelcome changes checking account customers have seen in the past year. Bank of America will begin charging the fee early next year What pisses me off is that our tax dollars are used to bail out these rat bastards when they get in trouble.

http://sports.yahoo.com/nfl/blog/shutdown_corner/post/Bears-Hall-of-Famer-Hampton-refuses-White-House-?urn=nfl-wp8216 Former Chicago Bears defensive tackle Dan Hampton won't be attending the team's visit to the White House next month. The Hall of Famer told WLS-890 in Chicago that his decision is based on a "personal choice." President Obama invited the 1985 Super Bowl championship team to visit Washington, D.C., earlier this month. The Bears had been scheduled to meet with President Reagan in January of 1986, but the Challenger disaster forced the White House to cancel the planned meeting. Hampton gave three reasons for not attending: 1. Wives and children of the players weren't invited. That does seem like an oversight by whoever planned the meeting. Granted, children of the players are most likely adults by now so it's not like a 5-year-old is getting snubbed, but surely the White House could have pulled out some more folding chairs for the event. 2. He says he's "not a fan of the guy in the White House." A frequent reason given by those who decline White House invites, whether it be for Obama or any president who came before him. This sounds lame and takes a tremendous lack of perspective. Declining an opportunity to go to the White House and shake hands with the President of the United States because you don't like the guy's opinion on health care seems petty. Does Hampton not have any friends who are Democrats? 3. "It was 25 years ago. Let it go." I'm sort of on Hampton's side on this one (though not enough to make it a valid excuse for declining). It's not like every Super Bowl team was going to the White House back then; the Bears were only the second team to get the invite. The 25-year-old canceled visit is a thinly veiled excuse to invite the team from Obama's adopted hometown for a visit. What about other championship squads? Where's John Riggins' and The Hogs' invite? The 1974 Dolphins can't get any love?! (And Florida's a swing state, Barack!) My view is its an honor and often a once in a liftime opportunity to visit the White House and meet the President. As much as I despised the Bush administration were I a Super Bowl or World Series winner I'd still consider at honor to visit the White House but that's me. I consider things like this to be something that should be political free. Not going is a political statement. His choice and his right. I just disagree with not going because you don't like the guy in office.

I saw this on another site and heard it really didn't really happen. Its a joke. Not sure if it is but that's what someone said on another site.

The polls I've seen http://www.nationalpolls.com/2012/obama-vs-cain.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html doesn't have Cain doing well against Obama. Also, national polls mean nada. Its how any candidate does agaisnt Obama in the key states that matter. NY and California will vote Democrat. Texas will vote Republican. Its how it is. Its how each candidate does against Obama in Florida, Ohio as well as Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania that matters. About 40 of the states will vote Dem or Republican no matter who runs. I dont think Cain is intolerable. None of them are. I think even Paul is a realist and knows that even if he's elected there are some things he won't be able to do. Cain may make a great President. Just my opinion from what I saw in the debates I think it will be over his head. I could be wrong but its just the impression I got. I'd vote for Paul and Huntsman and I like the 2011 Newt much better than the 1994 Newt and wouldn't be opposed to him as well. The rest I'm wary of for varying reasons.

I agree. As a country we've come extremely far in a very short time. I can tell you my parents didn't think they'd live to see a black president and they were optimists. We discussed the election and they thought maybe if I lived long enough maybe...just maybe...but such was the America they knew in the '60s. It was inconceivable at that time they'd see such a change in their lifetime or their children's. Europe was ahead of America with regards to women in office. It wasn't till I would say a decade or so ago that a woman could conceivably win a general election. Had Madeleine Albright the former Sec State been American born she would have a decent shot I think in the '90s. Hillary would have been president had she beaten Obama. No doubt about that. However, as progressive as Europe and England have been considered in terms of race relations with blacks over America, its America ironically that a black person has the best chance of not only political leadership but corporate leadership. Blacks in America have been head of some of the biggest corporations in America: Time Warner, Merrill Lynch, etc. Also in seats of political power. Blacks have been appointed to or elected to the highest seats of power: Defense, Sec State, Supreme Court, President. To the best of my knowledge, the countries in Europe with the best reputation for accepting blacks France, England, Netherlands have not been close to having any black person there in any political or corporate leadership positions. England being the most surprising possibly. Ironically, many American blacks, mostly entertainers fled America to France since the 1920s as they got fed up with discrimination, racism, etc. in America but decades later its America that offers the best chances for personal wealth and power.

What I don't like is government getting involved in our lives and/or using the position to say how we should all act, etc. Some of the candidatees do this. Speak in abstract ways about being an American, etc. Also putting time and political capital into changing abortion, stem cell, etc. The same for the left if they are pushing for things like removing In God We Trust from stuff, making everyone part of some group that needs protection, etc. I agree he's a leader. Obama is a leader. Cain may be a better leader than Obama but Obama is also a leader. I know you won't agree but he is. Obama had a grasp on the general global issues when he was campaigning. I was watching the Republican debate and Cain has no idea about a lot of global issues. He doesn't know the main premise or situation. As I said, I also don't think he'll do well working with Dems. I don't see much compromise in him. To be fair, the same can be said of Paul. However, I think difference is Paul will be stubborn about the right things and Cain will be stubborn on things that shouldn't matter. Just a guess and I could be wrong and doing the man a disservice. I see a man of high moral purporse and integrity. However, I don't see a President but a head of a department in the administration. Someplace he can run like a corporation where he's the boss.

http://news.yahoo.com/ap-exclusive-us-fugitive-hid-portugal-hamlet-112910927.html Another long time fugitive caught. This one a former black militant from the '60s.

Cain has integrity and I admire that in him. I wouldn't vote for him for President as I think he would not compromise. I think he'd make an excellent head of a department. Especially a large one. I saw him in debates and he has very limited knowledge of global issues and his answers were always he'd have experts and study each issue. Not good enough. There are emergency issues that require immediate action. I also see too much social conservatism for my liking.

lol...Obama compromised at least and tried to negotiate with the other party. Cheney believed Cheney and the US constitution were one and the same. The man is a complete nutcase. In hindsight its scary how much of a nutcase he was. Palin is a different type of nutcase but a nutcase nonetheless. Inappropriate perhaps to use the term but cheney has a prussian rigidity, Nazi like zeal to his beliefs. He doesn't even seem religious unlike Bush but his ideology is his religion. Scary stuff.

http://tv.msn.com/tv/article.aspx?news=672222&GT1=28102 Andy Rooney exiting '60 Minutes' this Sunday Always enjoyed his quips at the end of each program. Always had that wise old uncle with a great sense of humor feel to him.

I can't say I agree with an aggressive nationalized health care program that some Dems want to do. However, at least they are addressing the issue and want to tackle it. One of my main problems with the Republican party and one of many reasons I no longer support their candidates is that they would rather not even address health care costs. The only reason why they even address it in the elections is because its become one of the many issues. This Savings Account thingy they propose to do is doesn't even start to address the problem and won't come close to solve it. I read once that over 60% of all personal bankruptcies are health care costs related. They can't all be Democrats. So, it amazes that the Republican masses aren't pressing for ideas and answers to this. Cav, your proposition will NEVER happen. No need to say why, its obvious.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/8/30/ex_bush_official_col_lawrence_wilkerson -Bush Official Col. Lawrence Wilkerson: "I am Willing to Testify" If Dick Cheney is Put on Trial Cheney will not face any sort of prosecution. That said, he's insignificant. He has no following or any of significance. Even Republicans will not publicly say they like or support Cheney and I suspect even privately. Cheney will be remembere in a bad light in American history, he has no positive legacy to leave to posterity. The scary thing about Cheney though is that he believes in his and the administrations actions with religious zealotry. That's what is scary about him. Someone so willing to forego the constitution and do what he thought was the right thing when it was so obviously the wrong thing. Cheney should be a lesson to all of us NOT to let that type of person and that type of thinking near any reigns of power again.

EVERY black conservative will be against Obama...or any Democrat. The media often things all blacks supports Obama. Even conservatie blacks because he's black. Its never been that way with conservative blacks. Maybe they got the idea from Powell who was being principled. He was not supporting Obama because he was black. He'd have come out as a Democrat if that's how he felt. Black conservatives have been speaking out about Jackson, Sharpton and black pols for years they just didn't get any notice. If someone accused most blacks of voting for Obama because he's black they'd be right. However, Republicans have also supported some blacks for the same reason and hence the hypocracy. Supreme court nominee Thomas was woefully unqualified at the time and I read an article at the time that Bush threw out all candidates that were't black because he wanted to replace Thurgood Marshall with a black conservative. The Republican party threw Alan Keyes into the race against Obama for senate because he was black. The previous Republican party chairman, Michael Steele, was elected to the post to put a black face on the party to counter Obama. He was thoroughly incompetent to run the national party. Its all BS. We need to get back to principles. Ideas.

HH, you don't want me to vote for Obama, right? If Paul won I'd vote for him. I'm not married to any party. The country is in too big of a mess I believe for any of us to be tied to a party. I don't like this any one but Obama thinking as well. You and I agree on his presidency. I don't think he's nearly as bad the right paints him. Basically he's blamed for not fixing a Republican made problem. If any one thinks the issue was fixable in 3 or 4 years, I have anohter bridge to sell with yours. We teetered on the edge of national insolvency. How its going to be fixed will take years. Much longer than even a 2 term president. The problem is we need a long term solution and since the white house changes hands every 4 to 8 years, nothing consistent can occur. Good ideas often aren't kept by a new president if he's from the other party. I didn't expect Obama to fix the problem but I expected him to get the ball rolling. Things haven't improved much but I don't think they are much worse either. Unemployment went up but the trend of it was going up when he took office. Economic forces can't be stopped, they often have to bottom out. Reagan on elected in '80 but the recession that was blamed on Carter got worse under Reagan initially and bottomed out in '82. Just about the time for relection things picked up in '84. The infrastructure focus by Obama is a great idea. It needs time though...and support. Which he either won't get from the Republicans or they'll be slow to offer it because they'll choose party over the country...again.

I don't know exactly what Romney will do. Frankly, I think no one has a clue because the mess is so big. This may be one of those kind of financial messes that will just have to work itself out. In the present state where both parties don't want to compromise nothing will get done. If Romney gets in office he will likely have both houses of Congress. I am worried if that happens. I simply have zero trust with Republicans with full power. Also, their social agenda. If Paul wins I'll be heartened but Paul won't have the backing of the Republicans because he's a RINO (Republican In Name Only). He scares Republicans more than Dems I think. There is no way the Republican brass wants Paul and even if he runs a strong 2nd he won't get a sniff as VP. Not sure he'd even take it. He won't stay quiet. I am glad he's getting up there though. If nothing else he asks the hard questions. He talks about and exposes the hypocracy. Even if you don't like him you have to respect that he has integrity. I hope he wins the nomination. I really do. It will shake things up.

Actually Flash, I don't know this guys ideology but conservative blacks have long criticized black Dems or left of center blacks or black activists. In the past it was Jesse and Rev Al and occasionally Maxine Waters and members of Congress. Obama being President its no surprise. Interesting thing is Rev Al was critical of Obama when he announced he was running. Its not in his best interest (nor Jesse's) to publicly attack him because they'd lose their constituents. Rev Al's and Jesse's beef is that he's not doing the 'blame the white man' thingy and not pushing for all kinds of programs specifically for blacks. Also, I think its Obama not providing a place for them at the table. Fact is Obama isn't liked by the black establishment. The Congressional Black Caucus did the unprecedented thing of backing Hillary for the '08 election. The 11th commandment of the CBC is thou shall always support a fellow member. Obama was always on the outside. He got elected in Chicago going against a long time black pol. Very few blacks of note supported him early. Jesse Jackson Jr ironically enough. Henry Louis Gates as well. The blacks in Congress, mayors, etc. across the country were firmly for Hillary. He's kept them all out of his administration and they pretty much have no more access to him than they did Bush. Obama is hated by the right and has a mutual dislike for black politicians on the left.