StrangeSox

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 03:33 PM) You say "we" and you're only speaking for the hard left, which is a minority. Obama's the president of everybody, and he's looking at being re-elected. "Sweeping change" (whatever that is) is just not realistic. I'm more concerned with effectiveness. Definition of "left" and "right": Left - describes those who are often "left" out of the political process due to their extreme, uncompromising, and therefore often irrelevant positions Right - those who believe they rule by divine "right," and everyone else must follow without question because everything they say is "right" Great point. Obama didn't win this because of the hard left.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 01:15 PM) They weren't writing them, but they were guarenteeing them. There really isn't any difference between the two. Without Freddie and Fannie around to buy this crap, these loans don't get made. The fact that there was a government entity created to back this crap up is what caused this problem. The size of the banks is a secondary problem. Then again, if they made government entities applicable to the same anti-trust standards that they want to apply to banks, this would have also never happened. I thought that these mortgages were being underwritten by a bunch of private firms for years and Freddie and Fannie had to beg to be able to write them because they were losing so much business?

QUOTE (lostfan @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 12:40 PM) Is it NSFW? No pics, but there are text links that are definitely NSFW.

QUOTE (PlaySumFnJurny @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 09:18 AM) It IS against the law (as Casey Stengel said in a different context, "you can look it up") and has been since 1964; for-profit, commerical entities operating in interstate commerce cannot restrict or exclude their products or services on the basis of protected characteristics. Religion, like race, is a protected characteristic. Sexual orientation is one in many jurisdictions, but not on a federal level (yet). The fact that there are sites strictly for high wage earners or "hotties" doesn't advance your point. Income status and beauty are not legally protected characteristics; race, religion, sex, age, disability status, and national origin (and sometimes sexual orientation) are. The fact that there are separate commerical sites for Jewish and Catholic singles is also academic. The U.S. Supreme Court struck down "separate but equal" almost 50 years ago. Its fine for those sites to cater to those specific groups as a marketing niche, but generally AGAINST THE LAW, for them to exclude others from access based solely upon protected status. Also, as I said above, whether an underlying motive is illicit or benign is legally irrelevant. Even policies that are "fair in form" can be unlawful if they are "discriminatory in practice." Somebody on here asked for the legal reasoning behind this dating case; I've tried to provide it without arguing or taking sides. There are entire treatises on this subject and therefore it can't easily be summarized in a couple of posts (at least without my sending somebody a bill ). But while we're all free to debate the wisdom of this reasoning and the theories and principles behind the civil rights laws, the fact is these laws and prohibitions do indeed exist, our personal "beliefs" notwithstanding. Thank you for your insight. That would still be discriminatory in practice, right? They would be hard pressed to prove it was difficult to modify their software to make "opposite sex" one of the options in their personality profile. What about places like Curves that clearly discriminate based on gender?

QUOTE (YASNY @ Nov 24, 2008 -> 08:05 AM) There is a site that's strictly for people making $100K a year or something along those lines. There's another site that you have to be consider "hot" to get on. There are Jewish singles and Catholic singles sites. I really don't think it's against the law. There are viable options for everyone on the internet. They may cater to and target these people, but I imagine they would run into the same legal challenges as eHarmony if they were to specifically exclude a group (if they were big enough, playsomefnjrny mentioned interstate commerce issues). I also don't know if there's a legal difference between having an exclusive group (Jewish singles, for example) and excluding one group (everyone but gays).

So does the government ever plan on selling these shares back in the future? Or are we moving towards more permanent government influence over these institutions?

QUOTE (SoxFan101 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 08:08 PM) I know this sounds cruel on my part, but in the end it was just dogs. Idonno how I feel about people doing serious jail time because of animals, which if he wasnt a superstar probably would be in jail for a much longer time. It's still torturing something for sport/ entertainment. It's disgusting.

QUOTE (Soxy @ Nov 22, 2008 -> 10:10 AM) It wasn't proven. Corroborating support was simply given to that theory. You can't prove anything in science--and if you think you have you don't understand the scientific process. Science is based on induction, and inductions don't lead to universal truths/ proofs. Still, cool research. Somewhat related:

QUOTE (Alpha Dog @ Nov 22, 2008 -> 11:26 AM) So a straight guy could go sue a gay hookup site if they refused to hook him up with a woman? He might be able to sue if they refused to allow him to register. There's nothing that says they actually have to match you up. Straight people get turned down on that site all the time (I think one of their competitors made a commercial about it).

So anyone know why the market decided to go up 6% today?

FWIW, I agree with your point that he's just being hypocritical.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 03:08 PM) That's weird, I see what you are saying now. I could have sworn when I did this research originally that wasn't the case. Either it changed or I misunderstood. Either way, fortunately, my car is still in the clear by your previous chart and the other site. But that sucks for Prius people. The moral of the story then, I guess, is that if you want a hybrid incentive, check the IRS site for production levels on the model first! I wasn't 100% clear on this until 10 minutes ago myself. Confusing or conflicting information on government websites?, Nah, couldn't be!

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 02:58 PM) As I mentioned in a later posts, the production values are by-year. And mine is still on that list at that link. As they make more of them though, this bizarre policy of decayed rebate over model year time creates an artificial front-loading of demand by year. Something to keep in mind. If you want a hybrid and the credit, buy the models early in the model year. It's based on total hybrids manufactured by the company, not just model or year. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=162562,00.html Toyota hybrid owners stopped getting credit on October 1st, 2007. Hondas stop receiving credit on January 1st, 2009. Ford, GM, and Nissan are all still ok for now.

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 02:57 PM) Sharper Imagine cancelled all of theirs when they went under. Many other companies honor them for a fraction of their face value. That being said, the three you went with should be fine, but I would be most scared of casual dining places. I read a prediction that 17 food chains will fail in 2009. I've heard several reports urging people to forgo giving the usual gift cards for presents this year because the store might be out of business by the time they get to use it.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 02:51 PM) I just looked at the IRS site like a month ago, and its still there as active for 2008. I'll end up with $2800 from the feds. I will now go see if its still there. I guess it depends on the specific model, but the most popular ones are no longer eligible because they have met production incentives. http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=157632,00.html

NSS, I remember your hybrid analysis. One of the big federal tax breaks (the one worth a few thousand) has since been phased out.

Clinton reportedly accepted Sec. of State offer. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/22/us/polit...ama.html?ref=us

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 01:42 PM) I would say so. And quick. What about National City? I heard they were being bought out by PNC, but I still see them advertising somewhat heavily. When one banks buys out another, do I lose all my points?

QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 01:37 PM) I would guess for about the same reason we are still getting Sarah Palin updates... I wish they would both just fade away into obscurity.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 01:28 PM) That is f***ing moronic. The US already has millions of acres of leased land specifically for the purpose of drilling with minimal impact (after studies). So, apparently, we can't drill there, but we need to drill in protected space??? Idiots. BushCo.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 01:10 PM) Expound good sir. http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/11/16/business/16oil.php This amazing view can soon have drill platforms in the background. I'm pretty sure Teddy Roosevelt would kick Bush's ass.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 21, 2008 -> 12:00 PM) Federal judge orders the release of 5 Gitmo prisoners who have been there for 7 years, due to insufficient evidence. Will BushCo comply, or will this wait until January so that Obama can do so? Since when do court decisions hold sway over what BushCo decides to do?

"Breaking News" used to mean something important was happening. Now its used by the cable news networks to mean "story we are currently talking about whose details may be at least 24 hours old."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Nov 20, 2008 -> 06:42 PM) Thankfully, the deputy editor of the Wall Street Journal editorial page has figured out what we need to do to solve all of our economic problems; we need to say "Merry Christmas" more and screw those other holidays around the same time. LOL. Lack of Jesus is what caused this.

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Nov 20, 2008 -> 05:51 PM) The article is laced with laughable bias and hate. That said, I agree with the principle that this was a terrible civil court decision. EHarmony is private, and should be able to cater to whatever customers it chooses. Anything that uses Malkin as a source of wisdom is highly questionable, but I agree that, on the surface, this seems like a bad precedent. It was a settlement, not a court ruling, though.