Steve

I don't think there was ever a time I was so disinterested in a national election. I assume the Congress will pick up more Republican seats. So, if Obama wins, nothing of consequence will get done. If the Dems get a majority I don't think much will get done. Obama doesn't seem to focus on the right issues at the right time unless he's forced to by circumstancs. If the Republicans win, I don't expect an improvment at all. Possibly (my guess probably) worse off. Since the last election I've lost complete faith in the party. The parties are only about power. 1996. Economy on fire. No real case against Clinton. So, work the moral angle. Its all BS. Dems tried to find anything in '84 as well when the economy picked up under Reagan. I saw a news program on Cheney. The guy has almost a Nazi like belief that his Bush years were great for America. No Republican would ever say that publicly and I'd be shocked if they did privately. Gotta give him credit for believing it though, I have to respect someone who at least thinks they did right even if I thought they were wrong. Obama has squandered his goodwill. No matter what the plan is it will get trashed. He could come out with a plan that mirrors the conservative ideology and it will get criticized. I don't think he really knows what to do as well. Granted, its such a huge mess we are in, a Nobel economist couldn't fix it. As for Romney, he has no clue how to fix the mess. He's saying these broad platitudes with no specifics. He'll throw something against the wall as well as hope it sticks. Fact is companies are sitting on cash and not investing because of an uncertain near and distant future. Cutting their taxes, allowing them to write off more things WON'T change that. It will just give them a bigger cash hoard and profits. Oh, they'll tell you they are hampered by regs, taxes because its a easy sell right now, but its all BS. I'm not anti corporations. I just don't think you ca believe the BS. Apple became one of the biggest companies during one of the worse economic times. Why? They had a product that they had faith in that would sell and it did. They didn't need less regs, lower taxes or write offs. They needed a good product. Hollywood are still putting out more and more high budget movies. Why? People will still go see a worthwhile movie. Same with record companies with new artists. Good music always gets bought and people will always find the money to see their fave groups/singers in concerts.

It would solve so many problems if we weren't as based on oil as we are. One of major beefs with the Republicans is that they want us to be even more entrenched in oil by drilling in the gulf and getting more domestic oil. They give lip service to alternate energy sources or programs to reduce dependency. We all know why. I've written a few times that the G8 should mobolize and agree to convert their cars to hybrids and/or electric in a time table. I recommend a carrot, an economic incentive and this would bolster all the nations car companies if they only buy their government cars from domestic car makers and cars solely made in their country. The big lie that the government doesn't mention to the people is that America is a major oil producer. We make produce enough I think to be qualify as an OPEC country. Not sure but I heard that once.

I have an uncle in LA who is Republican and hates her guts. He's convinced she got her lips from sucking dicks. He's the one I wrote about in another thread that was my family's version of Clint Eastwood's character in Gran Torino. Anyway, that's the chick. She's hot. There's a book out named 'Bought and Paid For' about how Wall Street and Obama are married to each other. Its already known. Funny thing is though I always said he was a moderate and in an interview when the author asked all the Wall Street guys why they all graviated to him in the primaries they said it wasn't betting on a winner but they saw a 'moderate' guy who was smart and thought they could do business with. They didn't buy the Rev Wright, weather underground stuff. I didn't either. He's far more centrist than I thought he would be. Anyway, I'm very disappointed he's been bought by Wall Street. However, my question is would Romney (who I think will get the nomination) be any different? Traditionally the Republican party are in bed with Wall Street. Why won't they be even cozier? Its a quandry for me and I can easily see myself going 3rd party. I have Fox News in my room (haven't watched it ages) and they were uproar that the NY mayor has kept religious folks out of the memorial. He's been consistent on it in past years. No religious leaders, etc. I don't find that such a bad idea. It will invite more trouble than its worth, as you'll have the awkwardness of some imam there as well. If the religious community want to have their own thingy afterwards or before go on ahead. What I didn't like was the arguments for. I am a Christian. I'm saved. (quit laughing, I am.). I don't like pols doing this 'we're a judeo-christian nation so..blah..blah..blah'. We're that way by happenstance NOT by design. We could eventually become a predominantly Catholic nation if the numbers play out over time. Now, I don't go as far as trying to remove all reminders of religion when there is a historical significance. For instance atheists trying to remove the cross from the LA city emblem/flag. The city was founded by missionaries and the cross just reflects that. Same with 'In God We Trust' from the money. No one gives a sh*t so why change something that no one even gives a thought to.

Haha..he is with the current trends and tryna get him some 'chocolate'....lol. I had a slight thing for her as well. Doable back in the day. Republicans have the hottest chicks though. There was a post or two about the hot pundits, like that Asian chick. Give me a couple days with her and I'll have her spending like a liberal.

Maybe this should be in the Board Bar but I thought, why start another thread. Bullying in schools is seen as normal. I got bullied once. Wasn't too bad really, no physcial altercation. We became friends after. He is my FB friend, found me a few years ago through mutual friends and I brought it up on one of our trips down memory lane. He didn't recall it at all but admitted that he was a little 'over aggressive' with a lot of guys back then. Its something that stays with you forever. I always said if I had a son I'd have him learn TaeKwonDo or some form of martial arts. The few kids I knew that had some sort of training (in my area it was boxing), were never bullies and used it as a last resort. They were taught it was not to be used unless no other choice and I like that. Anyway, I like this program. http://www.thepostgame.com/features/201108/real-it-gets-victims-schoolyard-bullying-can-fight-back-help-ufc-royalty As Real As It Gets: Bullying Victims Can Fight Back With Help From Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu Royalty It's back-to-school time all over the country. For kids that get picked on, it's a return to a horror zone. Experts say that more than 150,000 children miss school every day because they are afraid of being bullied. More than half of all schoolchildren have witnessed a bullying incident and three of every four students say bullying is a problem at their school. The bulk of bullying occurs from the fourth through the eighth grades, although it can continue through high school and even in the workplace. Bullying is intimidation or domination toward someone perceived as weaker, a way to establish superiority through coercion or force. The emotional scars are often worse than the physical beatings, and victims of bullying often become depressed and do poorly in school. Bullying can even lead to suicide. Rener taught Martin the three T-steps: TALK to the bully and ask him to leave you alone. TELL the teacher and your parent that the bully won't stop even after you've talked to him. TACKLE the bully and use jiu-jitsu to gain control of him without resorting to punches or kicks. "If you draw that line with your words and the bully respects it, the case is closed without a physical altercation," Rener told Martin. "But if you draw that line and they slap you, kick you, cross that line again, you don't think twice. You take both of your hands and push him as hard as you can in the chest. You blast him. Knock him off his feet. "Then take control using jiu-jitsu and tell him you will let him go if he promises not to bother you any longer. If he won't say it, wait until a teacher or another adult shows up before letting him up."

I'm fine with that as long as 1) they aren't trying to kill me and other westerners and 2) they aren't opressing their citizens with religion as a weapon. Can't do much about the latter, its up the people there to not put up with any BS.

I think we arrogantly think that our form of goverment is what all the people's of the world yearn for. What I expect from freeing a people who had no prior freedom is to be able to democractically choose whether or not to be a democratic nation. The moslem countries are far more religious than western ones so its no surprise there are going to be various levels of religion and religious laws incorporated in how they run their country. What history should tell us is that with moslems, by and large, they do not want to keep church and state separate and see it pretty much as the same to varying degrees. Even secular Turkey has a fair amount of religion in it. The old Lebanon, specifically Beirut, came closest but they also had a lot of Christians there and a huge amount of western influence, especially French. A country can choose not be a good country by our standards democratically. They'll have to deal with the ramifications of their choice with regards to commerce, politics, etc. but its still their choice. I don't think any pre requirement to freeing a people is that they become democratic should ever be done. Hoping the Syrian uprising takes hold. They are troublemakers and it removes one ally from Iran...hopefullly. I also think once Egypt gets settled they will respect the recent history between themselves and Irsael and deal with people using their border with Israel to launch attacks. It won't be as warm and fuzzy as Mubarak but they'll see its in their best interest. Saudi Arabia has to be wary of the Arab Spring/Summer phenomina.

We don't have to make it permanent but I would like both parties to say that that the next President whomever he is, gets line item veto power for the first budget after election. Lets see how much pork gets cut out. I love the idea of line item veto but Congress would never allow it. It makes sense. You vote on the specific issue. Why have riders on bills that are totally unrelated to the matter at hand. Let it stand on its own merit.

My view is that I am not worried with regards to the long term with countries that choose that nowadays. I think like Iran, the people will find it too cumbersome and that they will tire of those who want to interpret the vagaraies of it their way. Just like Christianity, its not black and white and there are different interpretations. I think its a life cycle. They start out that way and eventually tire of it. Also, its their country, they can choose any form of government they want. Saudi Arabia becomes a notable exception because they host the holy cities so they have to place themselves on a higher religious plane to the rest of the moslem world. Moslem countries eventually will emulate Turkey.

I did a quick google of some polls and Romney is not far off in swing states against Obama and leads him in Florida. Romney is the establishment candidate for the Republicans. I'm not sure what I'm getting with him though. He seems moderate and you have to be in Massachusetts. The far right candidates scare me and I think won't win. Perry and Bachman have not impressed me. In fact, I'd worry about the country if they were elected. No problem with Hunstman so far. So far he seems to be a good candidate and his backhanded criticism of the Tea Party was good to hear but I'm gun shy about Republicans right now. Obama is no party either but once again its a better of two evils and the devil I know. I also think no matter what he tries, even if its good, Republicans will stop it because they smell blood in the water. The Republicans not backing to extend a tax cut tells me all I need to know. Its made me suspicious of Libya is turning out to be a success. I heard one of the NeoCons, Charles Krauthammer, still have lots of criticism. Particularly about not going in early enough. Why jump in when we are in two countries already? Foreign policy is one of the few highlights. State of politics sucks.

Okay, someone explain to me why Republicans would be opposed to having any type of tax cut expire? I don't want to think its only the rich and companies 'who produce jobs' should get tax cuts. http://news.yahoo.com/gop-may-ok-tax-increase-obama-hopes-block-124016578.html The tax break extension they oppose is sought by President Barack Obama. Unlike proposed changes in the income tax, this policy helps the 46 percent of all Americans who owe no federal income taxes but who pay a "payroll tax" on practically every dime they earn. There are other differences as well, and Republicans say their stand is consistent with their goal of long-term tax policies that will spur employment and lend greater certainty to the economy.

The one thing that Obama was said to be weak in and was used against him repeatedly in the primaries and general election was his foreign policy experience. While I do think that having travled outside the country to some extent and knowing the general hot issue situations globally is smart, all candidates have foreign policy advisors and no one (except Palin...haha) considers high office without doing some research. Also, while in the office, even Presidents with loads of prior experience in foreign policy rely heavily on experts and advisors. Finally, a lot of it is common sense and right and wrong. Politics play into and you may have to take a position poltically that nudges your moral compass but by and large its common sense. Obama has done a pretty good job in it. At least better than the warnings. I'll give him that. He seems to have done better foreign policy wise than domestically which goes counter than the thinking at the time of his election. We should be supporting the rebels in Lybia. We should have wanted Mubarak out. The rebels will remember those who helped or supported them in all likelihood. He's also been fair about Israel. My personal opinion is that it may be time to cut Pakistan off but we do run the risk of them selling sensitive information like nuke related stuff for hard cash. India is the future frankly anyway.

While I still believe the Republicans are right about cutting spending. I can't buy all of the platform. When I say spending, I mean wasteful spending. I probably will disagree with most Republicans on cuts in Defense. I think we can make fairly sizable cuts without hurting our security. There's a ton of waste there. I also disagree with lowering gas prices by drilling in the Gulf and other places where there are loads of oil. No, I've not gone Al Gore green but I would like to see us move farther away from an oil based econonmy not go further into one. I'd like to see a concerted move to vehicles away from the standard car engine to hybrids and electric. Economic incentives not forced. I don't believe in forcing. Carrot not stick. Natural gas is another thing I'd like to see get used more as well. Its clean for one. LA has the largest fleet of city busses that runs on it from what I remembered the city bragging about a long time ago (maybe its changed). Anyway, I'd like to see all American city bus systems move in that direction with incentives. As I said before, I'd like to see us amoritize the cost of electric cars and hybrids as a tax write off for the public to get us drive more as well as incentives for electric car refueling kiosks. I have a feeling once the private sector sees a genuine effort being made to it, we will find new ways of improving the batteries, etc. I think spending on infrastructure is a must. Repairing, retrofitting and new projects. Its needed and provide jobs. Now, maybe the Republicans on this forum can explain this but I used to feel that you needed to cut corporate taxes, regs, the usual stuff we hear. My understanding is that corporations aren't spending because taxes are too high and regs are too stringent. Its just plain old fear of the present and future economy. People simple aren't buying things. I've heard banks are sitting on well over a trillion of cash and not giving loans. They can get a guaranteed rate of return on long term treasuries since the cost of cash pretty much cost them nothing. Why not get 2.5% return gauranteed than risk a loan that won't get much more? Do I have it wrong? I know there are some onerous regulations in some niches here and there but overall its not whats keeping companies from hiring. So, I'm not sure cutting their taxes will make them hire or spend. It seems it'll just be pocketed. Companies will tell us their taxes are too high just like any one else would. So, when companies are saying its too high, have they ever said its fair? Even when it was cut under Republican administrations? Maybe they have but I've never heard it. Anyway, infrastructure spending seems to me the only big thing to do bring manufaturing and other blue collar jobs back to America. The Republicans in Congress are against it though. Why? Also, are the conservatives on here against it? If you are, fair enough but I want to know why? Because it won't work? Its too big government? I can understand that, I was that way for a while myself.

http://news.yahoo.com/iran-sentences-2-american-men-8-years-jail-133532047.html Two American men arrested more than two years ago while hiking along the Iraq-Iran border have been sentenced to eight years in prison on charges that include espionage, state TV reported Saturday, a sharp blow to hopes their release was imminent. WTF were they do hiking in that area? I don't know much about the case but the fact they were hiking there doesn't get much sympathy with me. I would have to think they were spies were I Iran and couldn't blame them. Any American in their right mind wouldn't be along that border unless they were spying is my thinking. 8 years may be a bit too much but frankly, if they were just hiking, then that blatant amount of stupidity gets little sympathy from me.

HH, you had me cracking up! I won't sleep...lol. Its gonna be tough for Romney. I would say Bush was in a worse position than Obama was for re-election perhaps and he won. Although, the economy at the time was what killed the elder Bush in '92. Romney may run a campaign, assuming he gets the nomination of just not trying to make waves. He seems to be taking a different stance than he did in '08. Republicans may shoot themselves with too much rhetoric and say or do something stupid. I'm not excited about Romney personally. Paul and Huntsman are the only two candidates I could see myself voting for from what I know of each. Although, admittedly, I don't know a lot about Huntsman. I will say this though. I'm very, very proud of the country. If Romney gets the nod for nomination, a Mormon could be president and a generation ago that was impossible. The country has seriously considered a Mormon, woman, Black and a Jew for either President or VP. We've grown up a lot in this country. I think there will be a gay candidate in our lifetimes. He won't be a queeny one though is my guess. More than likely Republican. I always thought that if the country had a black President he'd have to be Republican. Powell for example but the election surprised me.

According to the polls http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/president_obama_vs_republican_candidates.html Obama would win against all the candidates but polls swing in a campaign. It did in his. Romney stands the best chance from what it looks like. I actually think Huntsman is a good candidate. Probably the best one. Perry would lose. Bachmann would lose big. Romney could win. Obama could be like Bush was in '84. Not popular but win by default because the opposition couldn't come up with a candidate that got people excited and effective strategy used.

Its his money so I have no issue with any of it.

For me, the Tea Party started out as a good thing. I recall their main beef were the bailouts if memory serves me right (and it often doesn't). Grass roots but it was looking to define itself. The problem was that it was co-opted by Republicans. It did not stay indepedent. Any new 3rd party has to fight not being taken over by one of the major parties. I'd feel the same about them if it were the Dems that took over. However, the point I knew I would never support them was when they got in bed with candidates who were the religious right. They are basically, the religious right under a new name. The Republican heirarchy is scared of them. As it should. They are all about getting elected and puttig forward the best candidate who is the most electable. Ideology takes a back seat. The TP could care less about electability which is actually a good thing, the problem is their candidate can't get elected nationally. Not unlike the Libertarian party for many years. One of the things I hate is the rhetoric that questions patriotism. We all love America but for some, if I don't agree with their ideology it means I can't really love America. Complete and utter BS.

Perry getting shots for saying Bernacke is treasonous for printing money. I'm no fan of Perry and wouldnt' vote for him (he's a fundy for one) but I read the excerpt and its in the heat of the moment typical campaign rhetoric. Its not a big deal to me. Part of the process of learning when speaking off the cuff in the biggest campaign of your life. I am not comfortable with the Tea Party people's exchange with Obama. Part of me is old school and you always have a certain amount of respect for the office if not the man in the office. However, ther eis a part of me that says that this is America and I don't like the 'first among equals' thingy with Presidents, it reminds of Caesar. They didn't even ask questions regarding the country but about how they were depicted allegedly by Joe Biden. Give me a break. Whatever was said was said in private and yes, over the top but no one buys that they mean it. I didn't like Carter making comments about Bush as well. I thought it was unpresidential of him and it showed he had a lack of respect for the unwritten rule of ex Presidents not making comments on sitting presidents. I admire Carter's works but I don't like him as a person. A professed Christian who acts a bit unchristian at times. Anyway, like or love Obama, I am uncomfortable to see any President talked to a bit too genericly. Maybe its how I was raised. Even when I disagreed with my teachers in school I was taught to address them respectfully. I would start a disagreement with 'With all due respect ma'am or sir'. Maybe I'm too old and too old school. I just sense a lack of respect for the office via the person. Off topic but I heard a report where there is a proposal to change the retirement packages for military to be more like everyone else and have it be a 401(k) type. Also, if you serve 20 years, you get retirement pay immediately. They now want to propose that you don't start getting retirement till age 65 like everyone else. So, you join the military at 18, serve 20 years and in that time you're likely involved in a conflict or two. You're out at 38 if my math is right (and its often wrong) and you have to wait till 65 to get retirement? Complete and utter BS and a travesty. A guy gives 20 years of riksing his life and they are possibly proposing this? Not only will it end morale and kill what we have of the military I guarantee you its proposd by people who never served. Its a f&cking disgrace just to propose it.

I'll coment on the folowing excerpt from HH's link (thanks btw) in my new persona as left wing liberal "the super-rich will avoid or evade much of the surcharge, significantly lowering its yield. Focusing on the super-rich also fosters a counterproductive attitude toward material success. The way to promote a hard-working, entrepreneurial and innovative society is to celebrate great wealth so long as it has been earned by legitimate means. When this is not the case, policy should target the wrongdoing directly, not demonize everyone who hits it big." The article is saying even if you tax the rich they'll find a way around it or evade it. Its banted around they pay the vast majority of the taxes. Heard that for years. But they also own damn near all the country as well. Its been said taxing them stifles entrepreneurialism and the like. Complete and utter BS. If you have a good idea you pursue it right now and the state of the economy is secondary, even tertiary. I've had my share of the 'next big thing' idea (usually turns out to be crap...lol) and the last thing on my mind was the economy. Many of us have had ideas we thought would make money and if you're honest you didn't say 'hmmm...its a bad economy right now, I'll wait till things get better'. No, you looked at right here and now. Companies don't stop being innovative in bad economies or higher taxes. Drug companies don't stop spending on R&D. Neither does any other companies. Apple came out with a new product in one of the worse economies. They weren't gonna wait till more people were working. Hollywood and music labels still make movies and sign artists even in this bad economy and they spend big on them. I'm all for cutting spending. There are a ton of areas that need cutting and the amount of spending that needs cutting is one thing I disagree strongly with the Dems about. I know traditionally the Republicans don't like cuts in spending but I do think there is plenty of room for cutting. I do have some areas that are sacrosanct though llike the VA. Not that there isn't waste there, there is waste everywhere but its one area where any cuts can NOT affect how the vets are treated. Just to give an example. There should be cuts...but I also think there is room for closing loopholes for the super rich which amounts to increasing taxes in some sense. The rich can take care of themselves. Payroll tax cuts for the working and middle classes are where any tax cuts should go.

It could be argued that FDR's spending wasn't massive enough before WW2 possibly. He was thwarted by the Supreme Court to some extent and threatened to pack the court (wonder what the procedure would be to add mor justices?). Republicans fought him hard on those programs to give unemployed people jobs. The re-armament and change to a war economy was massive. What may have helped were the price freezing and restrictions in place at the time as well. Obama's stimulus was no where near the amount he wanted. It was negotiated down. So, it may not have worked because it wasn't big enough. I caught myself listening to some pundits while on vacation and they said that the left wants him to spend massively on infrastructure to create jobs but there is no way politically it would work. Spending of that size would be impossible to do right now with the present political climate. Spending for the sake of spending, I'm vehementally against. Infrastructure and green job spending seems a no brainer. By green jobs, I mean some simple things proven to cut energy costs. Bill Clinton mentioned that painting roofs white would cut a/c costs over time (black roofs absorb heat, white roofs relfect it). http://www.the9billion.com/2011/07/25/bill-clinton-wants-you-to-paint-your-roof-white/ On a hot day, a white roof could lower electricity use by as much as 20%. Aside from the fact that this is such an inexpensive and simple solution, there is roughly a 20% unemployment rate in the construction field, so a large, city-wide opportunity such as this can put thousands of unemployed men and women to work. Even non-skilled workers who cannot find a job could help paint roofs. With the amount of people who will make a little extra income and the amount of financial and energy savings that will follow, why isn’t every roof in the world painted white? Its not gonna save America but it would go a long way to providing summer jobs and after school jobs to any number of kids, especially the inner city. I have also mentioned in previous posts why we don't move to converting all government vehciles, federal, state and local to hybrids (or electric cars or anything other than the standard engine) and using American made hybrids and giving Detroit millions of new jobs. It would take years to convert them. It would get Al Gore and the greens boosting it as well. It would vastly reduce oil consumption (which would make it the enemy of the oil industry of course). Postal trucks, domestic miltary cars, jeeps, etc. possibly even those used outside the U.S. if its feasible. Create some program for cab companies to do the same. Amortize costs for citizens (cabs?). I also ask again, will the traditional Republican solutions work in these economic times? Does it work all the time. Traditional solutions like cut taxes, cut capital gains, cut spending, deregulate businesses?

HH, I saw plenty of the old westerns on Saturday afternoon reruns growing up. Loved them. Spielberg said that when he was making it, it was so much fun and kept asking himself 'why hasn't anyone did this before?'

I love the series as well. I am very worried about Matt Damon not being part in future movies as well as the director (the reason why he left). Sorta like the tv show Dexter, you're cheering for a 'bad guy'. Bourne is an assassin at the end of the day. With a good conscience now but still is what he is. As a twist, and maybe it would have confused the audience too much. I'd have filmed the first one more like 'Memento' where you are placed more in the main character's view of things. Not knowing what's going but people are trying to kill you. Then later on explained. I'm being petty though, I really shouldn't complain. Its a great set of movies. Gotta also say I'd have not stuck with the gypsy chick as he had. She was gonna get one or either of them killed at some point.

Good story HH and I think he was nutty as a fruitcake. He was probably the only man I know that was straight and liked having people think he was gay or bisexual. So, back to politricks. Bachmann wins Iowa. She is Palin's worse nightmare. She will marginalize Palin. Palin is still the darling of the Tea Party but if they ran against each other they will cancel each other out. Bachmann won't win the nomination. The Republican powerbrokers won't make that happen. They knew in 2008 they were not gonna win the election on the heels of Bush. They smell blood in the water now though and will spend big to oust Obama but they want a candidate that can win in a national election. Moderate Republicans and independents won't consider her. The economy is a mess. No sh*t Sherlock Steve. However, the solution from the right is the same as it always is and I don't know if that can solve the problem. Cut taxes on the rich and possibly middle class. Cut corporate taxes and capital gains taxes. De-regulate. Cut spending. I agree with the last and partially agree with deregulation. It has to be targeted. However, I don't agree with cut spending overall. I think cut where its needed (Defense, pork) but I do think we need massive investing in infrastructure. Someone said we tried it with Rooosevelt's New Deal and it didn't work. Maybe it won't. I don't know enough about economics to say that the circumstances are different now than then. I also think something and I don't know what the hell to do about it, has to be done with mortgages. A scary number of people are in homes that have 1st and sometimes 2nd or more mortgages that is vastly higher than their homes will ever be worth. I am of the mind that instead of baling out the financial instututions that gave them these mortgages it was best to bail out Americans. I think had we let some of these institutions fail, it would have been a good thing. My guess is we'd have a lot of foreign ownership. Maybe a bad thing. I don't know. The only ones with money at that time were the Arabs (oil money), Indians and the Chinese. Perhaps their assets would have been partially split up by the smaller banks that avoided these toxic assets and were solvent. I don't know.

I know this belongs in the sports section but have to say I was moved by Dennis Rodman's Hall of Fame speech. He showed up dressed flamboyant but he gave an emotional, reflective speech that I got glassy eyed hearing. He was one of those guys that you just couldn't hate even if you hated the Pistons. One thing about us Americans we will forgive anyone for just about anything if they are contrite, sorrowful and honest about their shortcomings. http://sports.yahoo.com/video/player/nba/26271289;_ylt=Agpg2CD7TRoKLPm5_tmrwMCLvLYF#nba/26271289