HuskyCaucasian

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 12:50 PM) When does this become an official "crisis"? $125/barrel? $150? I would argue it already is. the problem is that the government has been looking the other way instead of trying to make some major changes to move away from oil. But since they have waited so long, it'll take another 10+ years for infrastructure to be built. By then, what...$250 a barrel? $8 a gallon? It's going to be a rough presidency for the next president. He's going to have to make some hard changes, and people wont like it, but it'll be in our best interests in the long run.

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Jan 2, 2008 -> 12:43 PM) What name(s) is(are) on the title? And if the titled names are all deceased, was there a decision made by probate or otherwise legally as to whose name the land is actually in? Because as I understand it, the name on the title is everything. I do not have that information. but my understanding is that the land has been passed down via a will. So an example is when my wife's great grandfather died, he passed his "share" to my wife's grandmother via a will and when she dies, her share gets divided between her 3 children. This has happened so many times some people only own 10% share. It's fairly splintered.

I was wondering if someone out there might know a bit about this. Here is the story... My wife's ancestors bought land in Iowa back in the mid 1800s. Since then, it has been past down and divided to decedents. The land itself has not been divided, but the ownership shares have. They currently rent out the land and rental income is split based on the percent you own. There is no legal partnership or company. Just a simple handshake agreement. Recently, a group of relatives who own 32% of the shares said they want to sell. They issued this demand... buy out our shares at market value or we will proceed with selling the entire farm (basically, everyone with a share would receive a percentage of the sale based on their ownership percentage). Needless to say this has honked off the other 68% who do not wish to sell or simply don't care one way or the other. My question is: how is this legal? How can a minority ownership force the sale of something when the major does not wish to do so? Secondly: Past precedent within the family has been to offer land to family members for well below market value. (Recently, my wife's cousin bought 10 acres for 1/3 market value, and this same guy who is forcing the sale bought his 50 acres for less than 1/3 market value) So, could it be argued that their demands are unreasonable given past precedent?

Well, I have to share a quick story. My wife and I are in iowa with her family for a late christmas, and the phone wont stop ringing. There seems to be a trend. It's either a "poll" (could be legit, or a push, we don;t know, we hang up) or a call from the Hillary campaign. We were gettng calls at her grandma's as well. We just got home and had 3 voice mail messages from the Hillary campaign. The clinton campaign must REALLY be worried.

We have been talking a lot about Clinton and Obama, but with Edwards surging in Iowa, who do YOU think would be his VP?

QUOTE(BigSqwert @ Dec 28, 2007 -> 10:50 AM) She's turning into George Bush Lite. Wouldnt want to actually make her take a stand on something... that would be totally against her policy.

Ok, i want to piece together a few things. 1) a few months ago Obama had a private lunch meeting with Michael Bloomberg. 2) Bloomberg seems to be floating the idea of running as an independent. I am wondering if Obama wins the primary and names Bloomberg VP

QUOTE(NorthSideSox72 @ Dec 27, 2007 -> 10:15 AM) I had noticed that too - ARG tended to be notably far off from other polls at any given time (usually, interestingly, giving Clinton and McCain greater leads than anyone else). Those results from previous elections are a good find. Thanks for the link. I was starting to wonder about ARG's polls. One of these things is not like the other, one of these things doesnt belong... hell, not even close to the other....

I've been following the polls very closely (like the REALLY mean anything. lol). And I kept noticing a statisitcal oddity. Polls done by "American Research Group" seems WAY off compared to other polls. While most polls so a statistical tie between Obama and Clinton in IA, SC, and NH.... polls by "American Research Group" showed her with a 14 point lead!! That seemed... well... a bit odd! So I did some research and stumbled upon this... http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2007/12/pr...arch-group.html

I cant believe there isnt a post about this already, or maybe I just missed it. But.... http://abclocal.go.com/wls/story?section=n...&id=5852858

QUOTE(WhiteSoxfan1986 @ Dec 24, 2007 -> 11:37 AM) I blame Paxson a hell of a lot more than Skiles. agreed. there are some GAPING holes in this team. Specifically, they are a shooting team only. That works great in college ball, but not the NBA.

Looks like the Clinton campaign isnt very positive right now... http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1207/7518.html

QUOTE(klaus kinski @ Dec 22, 2007 -> 10:39 AM) 670 is a classless operation, with clowns on the air I dont know if I would go THAT far, but ESPN is known to be suckups accross the whole company. So, compared to ESPN, yea the Score is hard. But they will push issues.

Well, Richardson is quickly talking himself out of the Clinton administration... LINK

he's going to be on with Bruce "the suckup " Levine, right?

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 21, 2007 -> 09:11 AM) Do you know the history of Billy and the Clintons? He is a Clintonian. True. forgot that part. But he just doesnt strike me as the kind of person Hillary wants to be associated with her.

QUOTE(kapkomet @ Dec 21, 2007 -> 08:55 AM) Either 1) Billy was told he's not a Veep candidate anymore, or 2) Billy is drawing attention to Hillarity to show she's gone to the left again, or both. I dont think he ever was a VP candidate with Clinton. She wants a close friend or fellow clintonian. Basically, a "yes man".

Found this a few minutes ago, how true is it? http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7007109937779036019

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5iVC1KM...MQyT2LwZc9HyAgA

The Clinton's are getting desperate. They're sending out the dogs (husband Bill, Bill Shaheen, and Sen. Bob Kerrey) then when the dogs get back they reprimand them publicly, but giving them treats once they get inside.

I should add that I thought this was the most balanced debate of all of them. It seemed like each candidate was given close to equal time unlike the other debates where they favored Obama, Edwards, and Clinton. With this debate I found the other candidates far more enjoyable because they were actually able to talk!

Any thoughts on Today's Iowa debate? Didn't hear anything that influences me to change my vote.

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 02:52 PM) Cool article. http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/subscribe...p-4690710c.html Awesome Story!

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Dec 13, 2007 -> 02:02 PM) I updated the thread and if anyone is interested you can go to the first page and see a listing of all the players listed in the report. Let me know if there are any names that need to be added/removed. Remove Sammy Hagar. NEVER trust wikipedia on breaking stories. They have to calm down for a few days to limit junk posts.

I want the Mitchell Report in book form like Game of Shadows. All proceeds go to MLB drug testing.