clyons

QUOTE (Reddy @ Nov 6, 2008 -> 10:57 AM) that shocks me. but awesome. i feel like typically baseball players are GOP because so many of them hail from conservative areas. guys like Clemens, Kent, Berkman, Bagwell, Buehrle, etc. I was kind of suprised, too, until I remembered that Peoria's a big union town and his dad worked for Caterpillar.

QUOTE (knightni @ Nov 5, 2008 -> 09:13 PM) Most MLB guys are Republicans because of their tax bracket. Jim Thome had an Obama/Biden sign in his front yard.

I recall having similar "weird dreams" when I was in school and would fall asleep trying to study, too. I never thought that it might be some kind of "syndrome." I figured it just manifested some kind of tug of war between my physcial self that needed rest, and the mental self that felt guilty about sleeping and knew I needed to be studying instead. I wouldn't worry about it. I didn't, and I never experienced it again after finishing school almost 20 years ago. Ironically, however, that's when I started having recurring dreams about having to take an exam during finals week that I hadn't studied for or had forgotten all about. Somebody told me once that that's a fairly common dream among people after leaving school, but one rarely had by students. I think if you're fairly serious about your studies, it can impact your subconscious, but not necessarily in a detrimental way. I'm not a doctor or a shrink, but I'm sure its nothing. Try not to go all "Peter Brady" over it just because you read something about it that may not even apply. Of course, if it continues to bother you over time and in different contexts, then by all means have it checked out.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Nov 4, 2008 -> 02:38 PM) Panama, but on an Army base. So he was technically born on US soil... making him eligible to be president. WikiPedia: It doesn't matter that he was born on U.S. soil or not, because both his parents were citizens. He would thus be elgible for the presidency regardless of where he was born. ps. Now Obama, he of the fake birth certificate and all, is a totally different story.

No doubt that Jeter is vastly overrated defensively, but I just can't accept that the he's the worst there is. Did D'Angelo Jimenez and Jose Valentin both retire?

He and his clipboard will be especially missed tonight. His NBC replacement (Chuck Todd?) can't hold a candle to Tim.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 31, 2008 -> 11:08 AM) Ted Stevens: I Haven't Been Convicted Yet ok, can a legal expert advise on this? Is he technically correct? I've always assumed once you were found guilty, you were guilty until someone else says otherwise. Is this just horribly misleading spin? It depends. He has been found guilty and thus certainly "convicted" in the dictionary sense. However, the term can have different technical meanings in different legal contexts in different states. In some states, a guilty defendant is not technically "convicted" until sentenced; in others, not until final appeals run their course. Other states can even apply different rules for different reasons. For example, a lawyer found guilty of a felony could be deemed "convicted" for purposes of bar disqualification immediately upon entry of the verdict, but still be able to vote pending appeal. I have no idea how Alaska defines "conviction" for any specific purpose, and therefore no idea if Stevens is full of s***, but his claim could indeed be accurate.

Last night, I had more fun at the AC/DC concert at the Allstate Arena than I have had at any arena show in years, maybe ever. Way more than I ever expected.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 30, 2008 -> 01:41 PM) Obama may have the critical 18-35 vote, but McCain will DOMINATE the newborn to 17 vote. It might just push him over the top. You may be on to something. My four year old son expressed support for McCain because he has two friends from Pre-K named "John," but none named "Barack." His six year old sister likes Obama, but thinks McCain will win, because "he's old," and all the presidents depicted on her placemat are "old too."

One should say, "Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi, you're my only hope!" That would so rock.

QUOTE (kapkomet @ Oct 30, 2008 -> 09:29 AM) I can't disagree with that at all. It's why McCain is going to lose. Does anyone think that running an undisciplined, disorganized campaign would signal an undisciplined, disorganized administration? I tend to think so, but I can't think of any precedent (at least for president), because most bad campaigns lose. Maybe the best example I can think of is Carol Mosely Braun, who got swept into office with Clinton in 'the year of the woman" and promptly swept out again six years later. I know the converse isn't necessarily true; Bill Clinton ran an effective, single message campaign ("its the economy, stupid") and then his administration really stumbled out of the gate over gays in the miltary, Hillarycare, etc. I guess it depends upon whether the "kingmakers" remain on as policy makers. In Clinton's case, Begala and Carville didn't join the White House. For W, Karl Rove did. What would McCain's key campaign people be likely to do? Anybody know?

http://www.golf.com/golf/tours_news/articl...1854824,00.html Insert punch line here ____________. That dude sure has some demons. Pretty sad, actually.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 03:27 PM) RCP: Indiana : Obama +1.4 Iowa: Obama +11.1 Michigan: Obama +17 Minnesota: Obama +11.3 Missouri: Obama +0.6 Ohio: Obama +5.8 Pennsylvania: Obama +11 Wisconsin: Obama +10.6 Thanks, that's a remarkable list. PA in particular.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 03:19 PM) Giving McCain Indiana (which is actually averaging Obama +1 something) and not giving Obama a state like Michigan, where he's up +17, just doesn't make any sense. He's up by double-digits in Wisconsin, Iowa, and Minnesota, too. North Carolina is currently polling Obama +1.3 as well, and he has that for McCain. I didn't realize some of those Midwest states had broken by that much. I'd color anything in single digits grey.

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 02:53 PM) LOL @ Bill O'Reilley's map: The only thing I see that's really silly there is the red in Indiana, given the grey everywhere else.

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 29, 2008 -> 11:15 AM) you betch ya I nearly fell out of my chair reaching for the Tivo remote when I first saw that wink in the debate, not quite believing what I'd seen. That's a very effective way of hitting the economy and the "Palin factor" in a single blow, and they managed to do it from the relative high road, without saying a single word, let alone any negative ones. All that money is obviously being used to pay some very talented and creative people.

QUOTE (nitetrain8601 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 07:59 AM) Well according to the news last night, Selig said he would've postponed the game regardless if the Rays tied it. I'm guessing I'm the only one who watched. I heard this too, and agree that it would have been the right thing to do under the circumstances, even though it would have been completely contrary to the established rules of baseball, which, as written, would made the Phillies the winner of the official game, set, and match. Its hard to believe that this scenario had never come up or been contemplated before.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Oct 28, 2008 -> 10:45 AM) The irony is that this article also takes the quote out of context, it leaves out the part where Obama then goes on to talk about how he believes the government should be the ones doing the redistribution of wealth. I haven't scrutinized this as closely as some others, but I missed that "part," and haven't seen anything that even comes close to that, or references "wealth" whatsoever. I hate to sound lazy or obtuse, but can someone please provide the relevant quote?

What needs to be "defended?" The law professor's answer to a direct question regarding the Constitutional separation of powers, or the You Tube poster's editorial characterization of same as some sort of "bombshell?" I won't touch the latter, but even that poster seems to acknowledge that Obama's comments are not advocacy. My question isn't posed as subtle or snide advocacy either; I confess I may have missed the point.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 25, 2008 -> 11:37 AM) There is no data for the credit card companies to 'match up'. Obama will get every one of them, as long as the card holder wants them to go thru. Just keep wearing your blinders if you see no big deal. The fact that they willing incur extra fees by turning the verification off is enough to give pause. But if you have drunk so much koolaid that you can't even see the potential there for massive fraud, keep on being an ostridge. At least NSS realizes the huge potential for wrongdoing that exists there, and that is is questionable as to WHY they would turn it off in the first place. Easy, dog. If you've read any of my posts in this forum, you know that I'm hardly drunk on Obama kool-aid, and if you re-read mine on this particular subject, you'll see that my objection to all these cries of fraud are more technical than partsian. Furthermore, I've haven't resorted to name-calling in a single post I've made. "There is no data for the credit card companies to match up" ???? What do think names and addresses are? Again, I've made mere typos when trying to buy tickets from TM, had those defective orders "accepted" and received order "confirmation numbers," and yet those orders have been rejected by my credit card company later on, because the data I gave TM didn't match up with that on file with Mastercard. I guarantee you that if I try to buy Sox tickets online as "Alpha Dog," I'm not getting the tickets, and the White Sox aren't getting my money. Why would it be different for any other type of charge, including donations to political campaigns? The fact that these transactions aren't screened at intake doesn't mean they don't get screened at all. Again, I think the reason MANY non-retail businesses like charities and campaigns are willing to incur "extra" fees to have the credit companies screen their charges downstream is because they don't need to also pay for their own screening systems. Unlike businesses like Amazon, they suffer no loss of inventory if they send out goods that ultimately don't get paid for, they just don't get their money. Therefore, they are willing to pay the credit card companies to use their own, extremely elaborate filters to do the screening for them, rather than build and maintain their own. In the long run, its ultimately less expensive to pay these "extra" fees. I do understand that it is less than desirable for a campaign to essentially delegate this important task to MasterCard, and I appreciate (at least in theory) the potential for wrongdoing. Yet any claim that it is somehow underhanded in and of itself is, I'm sorry, a stretch. Furthermore, I can't get past the irony that the only undisputable fraud being perpetrated here is by the would-be contributors who submitted donations to the Obama campaign under bogus names and email addresses just so that they could hollar "Gotcha." Maybe, just maybe, this "outrage" hasn't been picked up on by the MSM because there's no story here. But if its easier for you to accept that its part of a liberal media conspiracy fueled by the ignorance of drunk, blinder-wearing ostriches like myself, knock yourself out. Over and out.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 25, 2008 -> 10:22 AM) You miss the whole point. The verification feature is something you manually have to turn off. And the cc comapnies do not like that, and charge you higher fees when you do because it leaves them open to more chargebacks. So the campaign knowingly turned it off, even though it costs them more money, because why? And no, the campaign can't 'catch it down stream'. How are they going to do that? Sure, they can spot the obvious ones with Mickey Mouose for the name, but if someone puts in a gerneric name, and a valid cc number, there is no way for them to catch it with the verification turned off. And if Joe WANTS the charges to go thru, and charges them under John, Jack and Jim, the card holder willnot refuse them. So your 'fail safes' do NOTHING to stop someone from voluntarily giving more than the max under different names. I assure you the point was not missed. They turned something off; I get it. You equate that to some form of wrongdoing; its not. If it was illegal or the credit card companies did not allow for it; it wouldn't be an available option. The credit card companies charge higher fees to offset the added logistical burden it causes for them to catch and bounce any resulting charge discrepencies, which, again, are less risky to "accept" upstream for service or non-retail businesses like charities or campaigns. Again, haven't you ever been bounced by Ticketmaster after trying hurriedly but honestly to buy Sox or concert tickets? I have. How do you think that happens? The orders get thrown out by the system because the data doesn't match up. I think its really that simple. Again, I see no big deal here because I am absolutely certain that the Obama campaign will not see a penny of this cash. If I am wrong because the credit card companies' vast computer resources are really as unsophisticated as you seem to imply, then we really don't have much of a diasagreement; this is a loophole that should definitely be closed. Nevertheless, I still see the cries of "fraud" as so much sour grapes.

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Oct 24, 2008 -> 09:13 PM) So now then, what is the problem? There isn't one. Not really. The difference is not between pledges and donations. If that's the only distinction I raised that you caught, I'm afraid you missed my overall point. My problem is with the illogical, hyperbolic conclusion that the Obama campaign is committing/encouraging/aiding campaign fraud because, essentially, they use a different system for "accepting" credit card donations that screens a little further downstream. That's like a Norton user saying a McAfee subscriber intentionally infects his own computer with viruses by using different software. So the McCain campaign does it differently; maybe even "better." So what? That makes the Obama campaign guilty of fraud? I don't think so, and that kind of reach just sounds like sour grapes from a camp that's getting absolutely dusted in fundraising. It makes sense to me that a campaign (or a charity) that doesn't send product out the door in exchange for credit card numbers does not have to be as strict or stringent about "accepting" a number upfront, because, unlike a retail business like Amazon, it won't suffer any loss by sending out a shipment or providing services before the cardholders' money actually hits its account. Maybe the FEC needs to change this (that seems like a good idea given your concerns), but the accusations leveled here against the Obama camp just seem baseless to me. As I said in my earlier post, regardless of whether the campaign website was set up to "accept" the fradulent donations submitted by these oh-so-clever conservatives, the Obama campaign will not, in the end, see a penny of that cash. Either the campaign will catch it down stream (a point mentioned by the Times reporter, but brusquely disregarded in the other posts), the credit card company will refuse it, or the card holder himself will challenge as a final fail safe. That's why I don't see a problem, other than in the possible inflation of fundraising totals for public relations purposes, which I conceded eariler.

I don't contribute to my college alma-mater, but I give annually to the private scholarship fund that helped send me there. I might give the school something if it wasn't state supported, but since it is, I prefer to give what I can to the fund instead.

QUOTE (Steve9347 @ Oct 24, 2008 -> 12:10 PM) This is quite interesting... Again, I must be missing something here, because I don't see why this is such a big deal. To me, the fact that a website or business "accepts" a credit card transaction with erroneous information doesn't necessarily mean they'll ever see a penny of that cash. That transaction is going to be thwarted by the credit card company once it gets that far. I know I've logged off of Ticketmaster thinking that I had purchased tickets to games, only to be denied tickets later because Mastercard didn't process my "accepted" order due to some mistake on my part. Furthermore, anyone that's ever been involved with fundraising knows that you never collect all the money that's been pledged. When Jerry Lewis says that he's "raised" $X million at his telethon, its understood that MDA will not see all of that, because people forget to follow through, renege, bounce checks, etc. Does that make Uncle Jerry a fraud? Now if these posts mean the Obama camp is essentially making bogus contributions to itself in order to grossly inflate its money raising totals, I can see how that might be something; However you need to make some major leaps to conclude that this is going on here. The only folks I read about here who are purposedly making defective contributions are the Woodward and Bernstein wannabes looking to create a story by submitting erroneous data themselves.

QUOTE (Controlled Chaos @ Oct 23, 2008 -> 08:27 AM) Will MSM Report on Obama Membership in Socialist New Party? Proof of Obama's membership in the New Party was discovered by the Politically Drunk On Power blog [4]: I read this post several times, and although it spoke of this party's endorsement of Obama, and Obama's attendance at a party function as Alice Palmer's chief of staff, I didn't see any evidence of Obama's actual membership in this party. What "proof" did I miss?