Sen. Barack Obama today declined the endorsement of Sen. John Kerry, saying his presidential campaign is about hope and change, and he doesnt want to send mixed messages.
Sticking with his new stump speech refrain, Sen. Obama said, They told us you cant run a presidential campaign without kissing up to every Democrat who ever rode this donkey to defeat. But I say, yes yes we can.
They told us you cant diss a former presidential candidate whos a professional Vietnam war veteran, he added, But I say yes yes we can.
If only he would for real.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/10/2008 11:04 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
Seems there are some sources of money out there that are not worthy of a bank's attentions. While not a WOT topic, home defense and Second Amendment articles do show up here from time to time. (Mods, please delete if deemed unsuitable.)
#6
Why would anyone bank with citicorp? Crappy rates, crappy service and now they are on a religious crusade. Too many better choices come in the mailbox every day to deal with such inferiority.
#7
This is likely the result of agreements they have with foreign banks. Many Euro banks have rules about this sort of thing and it may be that they won't do business with American banks that do credit deals with individual purchasers of firearms (although I doubt they would balk at profitable loans to large manufacturers of the same). This of course is not to excuse Citigroup - they could have negotiated harder with these foreign banks to exclude the exclusion, as it were. Or they could simply have walked away from the deal.
At any rate, it's a good object lesson as far as what we can expect in terms of dominoes falling on 2nd Amendment issues if a President sold on the idea of U.N. sovereignty gets into the White House.
Posted by: no mo uro ||
01/10/2008 5:59 Comments ||
Top||
#8
Many Euro banks have rules about this sort
that's cool. I have no problem dealing in-house. America is a HUGE market. If they don't want our business, I'll just bank with those who do. Like I said, every day.
#9
It's a self imposed sentence, if they don't want the business, rest assured someone who does will step up and scarf up on it. Citi isn't some kind of commie, govt. run bank, they don't have to do any kind of business they dont want. They're retards, that is a given, but they don't have to take your business.
#10
On a somewhat related sidenote, I learned a lesson recently about "cancelling" credit cards. In September, 2004 I requested that one of my credit card accounts be "cancelled" and was told that it would be. Last month I received a statement from said account showing a $25 charge. The charge was from AOL (I haven't had an AOL account in 15 years). After several long and fruitless discussions with service agents about how this could happen to a supposedly cancelled account and how to prevent it happening again, I spoke with a supervisor. He cleared things up in about 2 minutes by simply "invalidating" the account (as if the card were stolen).
#12
I would be surprised if there is any truth in this story what so ever. Any sources? There is no way that citi can legally seize funds. IF they did, then there is obviously MUCH more to this story than the supposed 'victim' is letting on. Tinfoil hats in place.
#15
Not saying it's so, but there is an explanation that squares with what's disclosed and is legal: All card associations and processors have different processing fees and rules for 'card present' versus 'card not present' transactions. There's more fraud in the latter, so rates are higher, and the rules differ, e.g, in card-not-present a customer dispute amount is charged back on the merchant right off - not so in card present.
So, if the merchant in present had been putting through card-not-present transactions as if they were card-present, they would be in violation of their contract and could legitimately have funds withheld to cover the difference in rates. If they were the target of disputes by their card using customers - presumably gun shops - they could also have funds held back as a result.
Citi could well be doing something stupid and bogus here, and I'll be paying attention since I've held one of their cards for 24 years (egads!) and will cancel if they are doing so. But I'd give this one the 48 hour rule, at least, since there's another possible explanation.
#17
Here is the actual letter sent to CDNN Sports. It specifically states that, due to CDNN selling fire arms, the contract was canceled.
Posted by: Deacon Blues ||
01/10/2008 14:24 Comments ||
Top||
#18
In 2003,Citicorp picked up my home mortgage with two payments left....I paid both,and 20 days later they say my payment was not received...(I paid in person,had receipt)Seems Citicorp had problems transfering data from previous mortgage co. to their computers and several thousand home owners received same letter from Citicorp..even though payments were made...took them weeks to sort it all out..
#19
Thanks, Deacon, I missed that link on the first read. Yes, looks like Citi has some explaining to do. I await that with interest, meanwhile I'll actually open a few of the credit card solicitations that seem to rain from the sky. BTW, the 'reserve' discussed in the letter is consistent with my post about card-not-present charge backs. Whether the amount is appropriate isn't possible to tell without knowing the volume of transactions the merchant has been doing. I notice the processing agreement had only been in place for two months, so it's very unlikely that Citi/FDC had enough experience with merchant to have determined a fraud or other risk profile specific to them.
#20
Actually the people you should complain to isn't Citicorp, it's Visa and Mastercard. Citicorp can ONLY process cards with Visa and MC's okay. I'm not sure, but their actions might even be against the rules of Visa and Mastercard. So in addition to canceling the accounts with Citicorp, give Visa and MC a call about Citicorp.
#3
Hard to get recently - I tried to find a worthy bottle for Mr. Lotp's birthday, but my usually able wine store couldn't get a good vintage without a long lead time. We settled for a well known sauterne, which was fine, but .....
#5
Compare wid WAFF.com > ITALY TURNS TO ISLAM. Roma's population of 30K Muslims expanding vv unsatsified Christian converts to Islam, + also building a massive new temple for worship.
H.T. - Joe Mendiola, from yesterday's comments
AT SATURDAY'S New Hampshire debate, Democratic candidates were confronted with a question that they have been ducking for some time: Can they concede that the "surge" of U.S. troops in Iraq has worked? All of them vehemently opposed the troop increase when President Bush proposed it a year ago; both Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama introduced legislation to reverse it. Now it's indisputable that the surge has drastically reduced violence. Attacks have fallen by more than 60 percent, al-Qaeda has been dealt a major blow, and the threat of sectarian civil war that seemed imminent a year ago has receded. The monthly total of U.S. fatalities in December was the second-lowest of the war.
A reasonable response to these facts might involve an acknowledgment of the remarkable military progress, coupled with a reminder that the final goal of the surge set out by President Bush -- political accords among Iraq's competing factions -- has not been reached. (That happens to be our reaction to a campaign that we greeted with skepticism a year ago.) It also would involve a willingness by the candidates to reconsider their long-standing plans to carry out a rapid withdrawal of remaining U.S. forces in Iraq as soon as they become president -- a step that would almost certainly reverse the progress that has been made.
What Ms. Clinton, Mr. Obama, John Edwards and Bill Richardson instead offered was an exclusive focus on the Iraqi political failures -- coupled with a blizzard of assertions about the war that were at best unfounded and in several cases simply false. Mr. Obama led the way, claiming that Sunni tribes in Anbar province joined forces with U.S. troops against al-Qaeda in response to the Democratic victory in the 2006 elections -- a far-fetched assertion for which he offered no evidence.
Mr. Obama acknowledged some reduction of violence, but said he had thought he predicted that adding troops would have that effect. In fact, on Jan. 8, 2007, he said that in the absence of political progress, "I don't think 15,000 or 20,000 more troops is going to make a difference in Iraq and in Baghdad." He also said he saw "no evidence that additional American troops would change the behavior of Iraqi sectarian politicians and make them start reining in violence by members of their religious groups." Ms. Clinton, for her part, refused to retract a statement she made in September, when she said it would require "a suspension of disbelief" to believe that the surge was working.
Even more disturbing was the refusal of the Democrats to adjust their policies to the changed situation. Ms. Clinton said she didn't "see any reason why [U.S. troops] should remain beyond, you know, today" and outlined a withdrawal plan premised on a defeat comparable to Vietnam ("We have to figure out what we're going to do with the 100,000-plus American civilians who are there" and "all the Iraqis who sided with us. . . . Are we going to leave them?"). Mr. Obama stuck to his plan for "a phased redeployment"; if his scheme of a year ago had been followed, almost all American troops would be out by this March.
Ms. Clinton made one strong point: Even the relatively low number of "23 Americans dying in December is . . . unacceptable" if there is no clear prospect of eventual success. So far, the Bush administration has been slow and feckless in pressing for the national political accords it says are required for a winning outcome. If these are unachievable in the near term, the administration owes the country a revised strategy. But any U.S. policy ought to be aimed at consolidating the gains of the past year and ensuring that neither al-Qaeda nor sectarian war make a comeback. So far, the Democratic candidates have refused even to consider that challenge. I think it's time to acknowledge the almost discernable progress at the editorial staff of The Washington Post, although they are still a long, long way away from achieving a fair and inpartial presentation of the news.
Posted by: Bobby ||
01/10/2008 06:09 ||
Comments ||
Link ||
[2 views]
Top|| File under:
#1
At first I predicted that the democrats would shamelessly claim credit for the success of the surge. Boy was I wrong. This is 'Bush' and the republican's war, to them.
Now they won't talk about Iraq since it conveys no advantage to them to do so in their ongoing quest for power. Acknowledging success of the surge is only a negative since they are so heavily invested in the narrative of defeat that they have co-written with the media. Admitting they were wrong about the surge reflects poorly on their judgment.
But don't worry - if Iraq violence flairs again, they come right back to the issue to use it when it suits their purpose.
#3
A reasonable response to these facts might involve political accords among Iraq's competing factions -- has not been reached.
One aspect that seems to have been overlooked (Or at least under-emphasized.) is the tremendous increase in Iraqi state-controlled revenues that are now being shared with regional and local authorities of these competing factions. This has allowed not only some buy-in into the process but for the first time average Iraqis are realizing that a job doesnt necessarily require one to be employed by the government.
#4
I could dredge up chapter and verse of justification for Iraq's liberation made during the Clinton administration, but what would be the point?
Pointless at this time place in the process, but yes they could have covered their ass(es) with paper if there wasn't days upon days of video that plays their own words undermining the who enterprise.
#6
The Dems should claim (a) that they demanded the surge by constant harping on the low troop numbers (b) that there suggestions to pull out forced the Iraqi's to step up in a way they otherwise wouldn't have.
Yeah, not really true, but if you're gonna spin spin to win.
#8
Yeah, Joe does require some translation, just remember English is NOT his native language, (Maybe not even his second language) and translate accordingly, he's understandable, but it takes both effort and inspired guesswork.
Posted by: Redneck Jim ||
01/10/2008 13:52 Comments ||
Top||
#9
The oracle of Guam.
Like those 3d pictures once you get it, you get it.
#10
ION, FREEREPUBLIC > LA TIMES - DEMOCRACY: NO LONGER INEVITABLE.
OTOH, STRATEGYPAGE > MURPHY'S LAW: AMERICA'S SECRET ARMY. In case any and all American Males don't know it, "the Law" as Artiiikle above says you are merely an Unpaid + Un-uniformed member of America's UNORGANIZED MILITIA [Armed?]. Your collective MALE arses, any each and all, legally? belongs to Washington and its assorted manpower + mobilization bureaus - anywhere, anytime, as required/needed for anything.
"Energy Victory" details not only a plan for energy independence, but demonstrates conclusively the absurdity of our present national energy policy. From pointing out the role of Saudi Arabia in spreading worldwide the fanatic Islamic Wahhabi worldview and that worldview's direct ties to our current "terror war," to the use of petroleum wealth in buying influence in the corridors of Washington, our national energy policy is seriously missing the mark of American national interest. For anyone still doubting that Islamic terrorism is a grave threat because of the vast wealth of the oil Sheiks being used to finance it, and the influence that their wealth buys in the corridors of power in the world's remaining "superpower," Zubrin's first sixty pages are conclusive for all but those few still awaiting their second cup of KoolAid.
---- (1) the West is financing the Jihad by its dependence on, and exorbitant payments for, jihadi oil
-----(2) the West is ignoring the basic significance of the Jihad by püssyfooting around the tender feelings of Islamists and their fifth-columnists everywhere (e.g., by calling it the WOT) and
----- (3) the West is doing as little as possible to lessen its dependence on jihadi oil. The three factors form a vicious cycle. This is not about subsidizing domestic ethanol production. I await the usual responses.
#4
Oil will survive in our lifetime, but in fact it has gone the way of whale oil. The 20th Century has come and gone. We are in the 21st now. Fuel cells, magnetic, and nuclear are the here and now.
No - THE LEFT, there fixed it for you.
Before they were green they were red.
Who shut down nuclear growth after Three Mile Island with choruses of 'fear' [though fewer people died at the site than in a car driven by the loud bombastic Senator from Massachusetts - take that and put it in your windfarm].
Who has obstructed and denied access to domestic resources which would have greatly lessened the need for imports?
Who's in the lead of nearly every NIMBY movement, local and national?
It sure as the hell ain't been business.
#6
item (2) is especially important. Until the West is comfortable rebranding this thing as the War on Islam (instead of the WOT) -- we are strolling towards defeat.
Posted by: Captain Lewis ||
01/10/2008 8:22 Comments ||
Top||
#7
Zubrin also wroe this: "The Case for Mars: The Plan to Settle the Red Planet and Why We Must".
Posted by: Mark Z ||
01/10/2008 9:35 Comments ||
Top||
#9
porcopius said "Who has obstructed and denied access to domestic resources which would have greatly lessened the need for imports? "
Question of the day for all insiders........news flash
Oil is not a fossil fuel, it is the byproduct of meteor impacts. want to see it made in real time? go see the shoemaker levy photos after impact with jupiter.......
our physics are as broke as much of our educational establishments.
PS in the coldness of space, there are many moons in our solar system full of hydrocarbons, and as a footnote to this new idea.....them moons, had no dinosaurs...
#10
I listened to the podcast on my trip in this morning, and the guy makes a very persuasive case.
Posted by: Mike ||
01/10/2008 10:11 Comments ||
Top||
#11
I put abiogenic oil hypotheses on the same level as Lamarckian evolution and Lurian psychology; two other Soviet fads adopted so as to disagree with the West rather than do, for example, science.
I would be delighted to be wrong. A ready supply of rocket fuel in the asteroid belt could come in real handy...
#12
I've had the opportunity to read three or four reviews of the Zurbin book to date. I've yet to read an entirely negative review of the ideas put forth by Zurbin. Except by some of the good folk here at RB who I suspect havn't yet had the chance to read Zurbin's book. Keep an open mind until you read the book.
Posted by: Mark Z ||
01/10/2008 10:48 Comments ||
Top||
#13
Ex...dont forget Lysenko!
Science is convenient to system maintenace....IMHO.
#14
One of my crazy thoughts for the day; how about someone patent a fuel from human fecal matter. Lord knows there's enough of that on the planet -figuratively and litteraly. John Edwards and Al Gore would prolly both be worth 400 lbs a piece for all the crap they produce.
#16
Ah, but there is a small Lamarckian component to evolution. The average height of adults has increased several inches since revolutionary times. Some recent work in mice has shown that fur color in infants can be influenced by the mother's diet and we know that we can't make any mammal fetus grow past a few cell divisions without a living womb. So there must be hormonal interactions between mother and fetus that affect the fetus' growth and ultimate phenotype. But how far does that Lamarckian component swing the composite vector away from the Darwinian axis? My guess is not much.
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
Mr. Obama acknowledged some reduction of violence, but said he had 
Even more disturbing was the refusal of the Democrats to adjust their policies to the changed situation. Ms. Clinton said she didn't "see any reason why [U.S. troops] should remain beyond, you know, today" and outlined a withdrawal plan premised on a defeat comparable to Vietnam ("We have to figure out what we're going to do with the 100,000-plus American civilians who are there" and "all the Iraqis who sided with us. . . . Are we going to leave them?"). Mr. Obama stuck to his plan for "a phased redeployment"; if his scheme of a year ago had been followed, almost all American troops would be out by this March. 
