Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : President Barack Obama -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: RetiredNow who wrote (106688)	12/31/2011 2:41:15 PM
From: bentway	Respond to of 149317

How Ron Paul Might Win Iowa and STILL Get No Hawkeye Delegates from Stop The ACLU by loboinok -By Warner Todd Huston My friend Michael Bates has raised some interesting — if technical — points. He notes that Ron Paul could very well win Iowa but still come away with few or even no Iowa delegates. After looking over Bates’ points, I think he has it right. But one thing he said is really trenchant when he noted that journalists don’t bother to read the party rules of correlate past history to see if Paul’s win in Iowa would really mean anything at all. But first, we should note that the winner of the Iowa Republican caucus rarely becomes president. Many others have noted that the Iowa caucuses don’t pick winners. In fact, over the last six GOP presidential contests, only one Iowa winner became president (George W. Bush). Two others won the caucuses in Iowa but did not win the White House (Bob Dole and Gerald Ford). That aside, Bates makes some important points in the delegates process. He finds that Ron Paul might win a plurality in Iowa and still come away with no delegates. The most important point he makes is to remind us all that the Iowa Caucus is not a primary election. It is only a straw poll and what happens there is not binding. This is a point that the media almost never make. As the popularity polls are telling us, Ron Paul is neck-and-neck with Mitt Romney with Santorum having a last minute surge. But this shows that Paul will not be running away with it all, here. This also means that his support will be spread all over the state in numbers that will not commandingly control too many districts. This leaves the door open for the other candidates to band together to prevent Paul delegates from getting any traction and just might result in Paul having few or even no delegates at the state convention. As Bates has it: If Paul is to have any backers at all at the state convention, it will only happen if [his] campaign successfully mobilizes its supporters to constitute a majority of the caucusers at a majority of the precincts in at least one county. If Paul’s 25% support is spread evenly across the state, he will have no delegates at the Iowa state convention and no delegates from Iowa in Tampa. This outcome would not be the result of a grand establishment conspiracy against Ron Paul. It would be a reflection of how Paul polarizes the Republican electorate. While Santorum, Perry, Bachmann, and Gingrich supporters may disagree about the relative merits of their candidates, they are all likely to agree with each other and differ strongly with Paul supporters on issues like Iran, Israel, drug legalization, and whether 9/11 was an “inside job.” Seem unlikely? Bates begs to differ. After all, this happened in Oklahoma in 2008 when Paul’s delegates were shut out by more mainstream GOP operatives that prevented his representatives from getting any traction at the Sooner State’s GOP convention that year. Bates wraps up saying, “Ron Paul may “win” the Iowa caucuses straw poll by a narrow margin with a tiny plurality, and that result may boost fundraising and volunteer activity, but it won’t boost his delegate count at all.” Please do read all of Bates’ analysis because he has some points we all need to remember when looking at all this Hawkeye hooplah.

To: RetiredNow who wrote (106688)	1/1/2012 12:48:19 PM
From: Road Walker	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 149317

The First National Bank of Boston, announced yesterday that it will no longer hold on to its customers’ money and instead keep it all for itself to use in any way it pleases. Bank officials cited the expense of several ambitious projects, including the construction of an immense corporate palace, as cause for the policy change. “Possession is nine-tenths of the law, so it is with the law on our side that I say to all First National customers, you are shit out of luck,” CEO J. Ephraim Gunderloy said at a press conference. Added Vice President of Sales and Marketing Theobald T. Worthington: “An internationally renowned financial giant like First National has far more important uses for this money than do our small-time accountholders, many of whom live paycheck to paycheck, occasionally withdrawing a few dollars to pay their rent or buy corn dogs.” According to the bank’s statement, merely protecting the money of commoners was a short-sighted and unprofitable goal. The paltry interest earned on accounts and even on high-rate loans was nothing compared to the outright liquidation of all capital held in the bank. “The numbers just made sense for us,” Worthington said. “We add up all of our fees and service charges and it still amounts to nothing in relation to the gross capital in the bank proper. I mean, this is a pretty big bank, and not to give away too much, but all told, we’ve got billions of dollars just sitting there for the taking.” Customers’ money will now largely go to fund the construction of a new state-of-the-art First National headquarters, made entirely of ivory, bank spokespeople said. Precious stones will be set into the walls, and all light fixtures will be made of solid gold. Because of the building’s enormous size, officials hope to interconnect various departments with an elaborate system of canals and viaducts, each flowing with molten gold and cruised by luxurious ONYX pleasure barges. “Our executives will be distinguished by the height of the ostrich they ride,” Gunderloy said. “The taller the ostrich, the more significant the job title. My ostrich, for example, will measure eight feet, three and one-half inches, while Mr. Worthington’s will be only six feet, two and three-quarters.” Junior executives, meanwhile, will have to content themselves with emus. Other uses for the money include a First National corporate space shuttle, weekly bonfires of bills with bent corners, and 800 Faberge eggs for First National executives to throw at each other for no reason at all. First National informed its customers of the change in their account status by enclosing a form letter in lieu of January account statements. The note read, “Due to a shift in corporate policy, we are keeping all money currently held at First National. Your First Na-tional account is officially closed. We have eliminated our customer service department, so, we will be unable to answer any questions a-bout this change. Thank you for banking with us.” Many accountholders ex-pressed disappointment in having all their money taken by the bank. “Not only is my retirement fund gone, but also my children’s college money,” First National customer Gerard Falstaff said. “Now I will have to sell at least two of my children into indentured servitude and will either have to start saving from scratch again or just kill myself. This is pretty disappointing. theonion.com