historyteacher

Please settle or void the rest of the questions I have created. It is obvious that the intent of the question and the settlement terms set by the author are irrelevant.

This is getting ridiculous. The Michigan legislature recessed for 2 WEEKS. They did not agree to a plan before the recess. This does not mean that they won't agree to a plan after recess. These premature settlements are absurd. Using this logic the Super Bowl should have been settled as the Patriots leading because they led in the 4th Quarter.

Quoting the article that is sited in the settlement "The legislature is now on recess for two weeks, and by the time lawmakers return, it will probably be too late to approve and organize a new vote before early June, the deadline established by the national Democratic Party."

So we are now settling questions when it becomes unlikely for an event to occur or someone says it probably won't .

At this point I am am suspending all participation as this now makes by my count 6-7 questions that were clearly settled early on the political board alone. Why don't you settle the Democratic candidate one for Obama, the next President one for McCain while your at it because they currently lead in delegates or polling. Settle PA for Hillary since she leads in the poll there and give Clinton Ohio for Nov because thats what PROBABLY is going to happen based on polling.

This is no longer fun, it has jumped into the realm of the absurd.

Apoiler Alert*******










OK by my count we have Jin dead or presumed dead as his grieving widow was at his grave. Ruling Hubdub on Jin's gravestone? Then we 2 last night and 1 clearly counts as a main character as they have appeared in multiple episodes over all the seasons. The other may or may not be considered main.

There are clearly 5 that have more talent than the rest and she probably shouldn't even have made the top 10.

Jenni - Unfortunately there are many "Reagan Democrats" who will vote for McCain or not vote rather than vote for Obama. I do not undertand it or agree with it, but have heard it from many personally. Add to this the impending swiftboating of Obama over this and even more will be driven away. Agreed some of these folks will not vote for a woman as well, but some still will. Additionally there will be Republican woman that cross over and vote for Clinton in November whereas Obama pulling in the votes of the 15 or 20 black voters left in the Republican party won't help much.

I agree with what you say about how a church is more than its minister/priest and that you will not agree with everything the person says. However, in the case of Rev. Wright, much has been written about how he built this church, how loyal his following is, etc. This is a church that clearly has been centered on the minister. Additionally, Obama has made much in the past about the role Wright personally played in his life, he has stressed Wright more than the church, so that makes this a fair topic to question Obama on.

I appreciate you saying that you support Obama and so you see his speech through the eyes of a supporter. I did not vote for him so I see it through different, but equally biased eyes. However, ask yourself this. If McCain attended a church where the minister had made racist, sexist or anti-semitic comments and tried to justify prejudice by saying the victims asked for it (such as Wright's ludicrous 9/11 comments) would you question why McCain continued to be a member of the church? Equally if McCain had a membership in a country club that had a history of discriminatory policies wouldn't it be a fair question to ask him why he chose to be a member?

In his speech he equated his racist anti-American preacher with the little old lady that raised him. Did that win him votes? Out of the the thousands of churchs in Illinois, he has chosen for 20 years to attend this one. That was his CHOICE! He could have left anytime, but his continued attendance is an indication of support for the views expressed. Funny how his staff new this would be a problem and kept the minister out of the spotlight, the minister who is now conveniently unavailable and out of the country. Expect Wright's comments to cause people to revisit Mrs. Obama's "first time I'm proud to be an American" comments. They seem to line up very well together.

Obama is unelectable in November. There are too many voters that even in 2008 will not cast their votes for a black man. McCain lines up better against him than he does against Clinton. The Republicans have to absolutely be drooling over this Wright material and how they can use it against Obama in Nov. I can see the ads now....

Well lets see what happens with the lawsuits that are going to be filed by disenfranchised voters.

Is it April 1st already?

I agree that this question should not have been settled. While the plan to hold another debate has been announced it has not taken place. Are we predicting the occurrence of news events here or are we predicting the announcement that news events are going to happen. Between now and April 21st, numerous things could cause this debate to not happen. BTW - My money was on NO so I profited from this settlement but I still do not agree with it.

Destry - Could you try to be consistant? You oppose settling this one (correctly) while you pushed for the settlement of the Florida Primary and Contest question. Just as this debate hasn't happened and could still be cancelled so could a contest or primary still be held in Florida despite the Florida DNC's announcement. So is it just an issue of pushing to setttle questions that you are going to win and holding open questions you are losing?

Most high ranking executive branch members maintain a legal residence elsewhere. Each state defines residency differently. Whenever a VP is chosen if will become obvious what their home state is because they usually will go there for the announcement. An example of this was George H.W. Bush. He served as CIA Director, Republican party chairman, Ambassador to China and if I remember correctly UN ambassador, along with VP and President. All throughout he retained legal residency in Texas. There is often a benefit taxwise as well if the state doesn't have an income tax.

Dan and Ironman, I had my say and you had yours, the chances of our agreement are remote so I will leave most of it at that. However I would like to expand a bit on a couple of points.

Regarding the cheap guns aimed at criminals. I am not referring to inexpensive firearms of small caliber for target shooting. What I am referring to is mainly piece of shit imports that are made of crap materials and are unlikely to hit a target unless you are 10 ft away. Why does the NRA oppose banning these and what is wrong with laws that restrict them when nobody in their right mind is going to dispute who the market for them is.

My overall problem with the gun lobby and the NRA in particular is that they have historically opposed any limit on guns. Can't we at least agree that we should make it tougher for the criminals to get guns? How does adding a 5 year sentence after the fact deter crime? After the fact I don't really care if someone murdered a person using a gun or a brick, lock em up.

Under the current law anyone, including a convicted felon or wanted murderer, can go into a gun show and buy a gun without a background check from an individual selling guns at the show. Why have one set of rules for the federally licenses dealers and another set for everyone else? Again, can't we agree to at least make it tougher for the criminals to get guns?

Regarding terrorists..... No I am not referring to the stupid federal watch lists of which there are many. We have all heard about the little kids that have been blocked from boarding a plane because they have the same name as someone else on a list. What I am referring to is that a suspected terrorist, who we can wiretap and spy on now without a warrant, can still go into a store and buy a gun since the Brady Law only restricts sales to convicted felons and those with warrants. Again common sense?

I will save my email telling me about my losses on this question and will request a resettlement or a refund if the situation changes. There will be a plan to seat delegates from Florida. Until the method of seating delegates is agreed upon all options including this one are still possible.

Did you read the rules beee?

I'd be happy if the NRA just supported laws that made it harder for criminals to get guns under the current interpretation of the 2nd amendment.

Actually I can find no reference to Obama returning his 2007 return yet. He has released his 2006, but like Clinton I doubt that he has filed 2007 yet. If you find a reference please post. And yes I am sure the loan complicates her return at least from a technical standpoint. As I have never loaned an organization $5 mil myself, I am uncertain of the quantity of paperwork involved, but my guess is there would be a mountain.

12th Amendment. My guess was when Bush picked Cheney they didn't realize it either until legal advisors reminded them. If they had, Cheney would have registered in Wyoming before his name was floated as the VP. Of course that whole process was rather interesting as Bush selected Cheney to interview, vet and recommend a choice for VP and after going through the process the nominee ended up being Cheney himself!

Has Obama released his 2007 tax return yet? Just asking since there seems to be a bunch of media calling for Clinton's tax return. Also unless I missed something, Americans do not have to file until April 15 and that includes Clinton and Obama. I would assume that someone with the complicated nature of the Clinton's tax return (books, govt. income, speaking $, investments, etc) wouldn't file early, heck I usually don't file before April.

BTW - my commments are not directed at the question or questioner just the frenzy and guilt by accusation of the media about why she hasn't released them yet when she isn't even required to file them yet.

Ohio is purple because we have taken a bruising under Bush. #4 in war dead in Iraq and possibly only Michigan has a worse economy. But than everthing is worse in Michigan...... If the Democrats can't win Ohio this year, they don't deserve to win.

Cheney's official residence is Wyoming. If you remember he lived in Texas for many years (running Haliburton) before he ran for VP. He went back to Wyoming and registered to vote in the state that he previously lived in, because he would have violated the Constitution otherwise. The Constitution requires the President and Vice President be from different states and both Bush and Cheney were from Texas. It was nice to see how much value Cheney put on the Constitution and how seriously he took its provisions. Yes that is sarcasm if you missed it and no I don't want to go quayle hunting.

You are correct that a final decision on Florida may take until June. I don't see a solution before PA votes in April. What the National DNC would love is to be able to make a decision that appeases the voters in FL but doesn't alter the process of selecting the candidate. However, if Clinton closes the gap and FL delegates could make a difference, they will have to include them at the convention through some method.. Leave the question open.

Raiders - A TOW missile could also be used to defend my house against an aggressive neighbor, but is that the founder's intent or its proper application today. I agree with you that the Supreme Court, particularly this ultra conservative court, may choose to include a statement about the individual right to own a firearm but they could still rule independently of that statement on the merits of the case.

Does a state or locality have the right to limit types of firearms that it believes increases crime such as handguns while preserving the individual right to own a gun, I believe that they do. While an M-16 would be effective against a riot is the court going to say that you have the individual right to own one and that a state cannot limit this? Or would the court assume that a situation that has reached that level would necessitate the intervention of other forces. Regarding the New Orleans example, those "reports" of mayhem and rampant murder and rape were later proven not to be true. Too much Geraldo type reporting.

There are weapons that do "cater to criminals" as I stated and you rebutted. There are also dealers that cater to criminals as well. Talk to local law enforcement of any major city and they will tell you how many guns that are used in illegal crimes come from particular dealers. In Cleveland for instance, if my memory serves me right, they reported that about 20% of all guns used in crimes came from one dealer. And by dealer I mean a gun store. Cheap handguns are manufactured for sale to criminals, period. These are the guns that no self respecting collector, hunter or target shooter would ever own, they are manufactured and sold by people who don't care that they line their pockets with blood money.

There is a part of me that hopes this court does not include an affirmation to the individual right to own a gun as this will be applauded the loudest by the gun crazed zealots who believe you should have the individual right to drive a fully outfitted tank during rush hour to blow a clear path home. On the other hand, the court has left the country arguing for close to 70 years about the legal meaning of this amendment. Maybe if the clearly define it we can get about the business of getting hands out of the people that shouldn't have them and making our country a safer place to live.

Hey thats a great idea, a student asked me that question yesterday actually, could Cheney be VP again. We determined that he could and since both McCain and Cheney are long in the tooth and have health problems they could just run as one candidate named McCheney. The plus side of merging them is that together they would have a full head of hair!

Seriously regarding the legality there is no limit on terms for VP the 22nd Amendment only limits the President to 2 terms or a max of 9 yrs 354 days.

Regarding the timing of his selection, the Republican primary is in Sept., the selection will happen at the end of August probably to take away from the news coverage of the Democratic convention. McCain has to rely on speculation for coverage before then.

Anyone know why there is no news showing up on this one? I put in key words and everything...

Just for clarification, if the DNC decides to seat delegates from Florida's Jan primary, even if they only seat 50% (like the Republicans are doing) this qualifies as a Yes. Correct?

Well Bush has a history of professing to things that are not true so why not this. Maybe a more interesting question is will he "admit" to reading a book all the way through and I don't mean the one about goats.

Believe it or not a statement by the Florida DNC does not eliminate the possibility that Florida will still have a contest. It represents their position at this time, which could certainly change if the national DNC does not accept the results of the previous primary. The Florida DNC is leveraging for this, it is taking a hard line because the screwed up. However the Democratic voters in the state are demanding to be heard and represented and the state DNC will have to accomodate those demands. Sell out your bets if you want but don't deny others their opportunity to bid on what we still see as an open question.

Destry, I am not parsing this question or dissecting it. I wrote this question and just because the Florida Democratic party issued a statement does not mean their position could not change or the national party could not sponsor a primary in Florida. If you don't want to bid on this question then don't. If it goes to 99% than sell out and take your profits. Why settle a question in March on an issue that isn't settled and may not settle until June. There will be an agreement to seat delegates from Florida at some point. Until that solution takes place or is offically announced, all options including this one remain a possibility.

This question will not be able to be settled until the numbers for the 2nd quarter are out. It says "official economic recession". This would clearly indicate that the numbers would have to be negative for the 1st and 2nd Quarter for this question to settle yes. While betting may cease in June, the date won't be in until afterwards to settle this.

Regarding certain industries being in recession, or Buffet saying so, certainly we are in what we commonly call a recession, whether it is "official" or not. But that is what the question asks.

This is my reply to the other FL question:

Do not settle this now. Just because they issued a statement today does not mean circumstances could not change. Let the question run until June. What happens if the circumstances change, a new solution is proposed and Florida decides in April that they can organize a mail in vote or a caucus? Then you have people arguing that you settled this improperly. This is still a very fluid situation and there is going to be tremendous pressure for the Democrats to sit delegates from Florida or fear alienating the state and losing it in November.

Current Options:
1. Use the existing primary to seat delegates either fully or punish by 1/2 like the Rebublicans did.
2. Hold a new primary
3. Mail in primary
4. Caucus
5. Party convention
6. Split the delegates 50-50
ETC, ETC,

It is too early to settle.

Do not settle this now. Just because they issued a statement today does not mean circumstances could not change. Let the question run until June. What happens if the circumstances change, a new solution is proposed and Florida decides in April that they can organize a mail in vote or a caucus? Then you have people arguing that you settled this improperly. This is still a very fluid situation and there is going to be tremendous pressure for the Democrats to sit delegates from Florida or fear alienating the state and losing it in November.

Current Options:
1. Use the existing primary to seat delegates either fully or punish by 1/2 like the Rebublicans did.
2. Hold a new primary
3. Mail in primary
4. Caucus
5. Party convention
6. Split the delegates 50-50
ETC, ETC,

It is too early to settle.

Ironman - if you are going to quote the 2nd Amendment than please do so correctly and completely.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Some interpret this to mean the individual right to bear arms and others interpret this to mean the collective right to bear arms. If you want to determine the founders intent and apply it to today you need to look at the issue in total. Did they intend for the states to be able to field a militia to defend against a tyrannical national government? Did they intend for individuals to have the right to defend their homes and property? Did they beleive that Arms included all firearms, Etc.

I think the musket reference is informative. You need to look at each amendment in the context of the time it was created to understand intent. Obviously times change as does technology, but does that change the intent? Regarding the question about freedom of speech on the internet, does the internet change the speech? Is the printed word different on a computer screen or the spoken word different because its on YouTube? I think not.

In the context of 1791, arms were used to provide food, protect against native attack, etc. I think we need to consider this context. I believe they clearly intended for an individual to have the means to protect their property, their person and join a community defense force if needed. However, many of today's firearms clearly are not designed for this intent. Firearms that cater to criminals or are clearly military in purpose, in my interpretation, do not fit the founders intent. Did individuals own the cannon or were they owned by the collective for instance.

They also used the word "infringed". This is used in connection with other rights as well. The founders intended for us to have rights but these rights were not unlimited. Just as slander is not protected speech and rioting is not protected assembly are some "arms" not protected as well. If in 1791 a person had the means to assemble a personal artillery battery and a unit of cavalry would those have been protected under the 2nd Amendment?

The Supreme Court has let stand (by not ruling on this issue since the 30's)numerous restrictions and limitations on firearms. By doing so, the public was left with the general impression that this was a right, but a highly regulated right, much moreso than those in the 1st Amendment. Now I know that the NRA doesn't share this view but they oppose even restrictions aimed at stopped suspected terrorists and wanted felons from buying guns. Its interesting that the Bush administration is arguing for the individual right to own guns, but against overturning any federal gun laws. They want is both ways as well. One would expect the Supreme Court (a normal Supreme Court, not necessarily this one) to uphold the DC law, but if they felt inclined to rule this does not mean that their is no individual right.

Rules: http://www.hubdub.com/public/goodquestion

As the founding fathers intended I defend your right to carry a musket. Not a handgun or an AK, but a musket I can live with. Tough to do a mass shooting with one of those and concealing them is a bit difficult as well.

By taken to a hospital I do not mean for a scheduled test. So if he has a physical and has blood work or an x-ray at a hospital this does not count. The intent is something unexpected. This would not necessarily mean an ambulance or a stay there, just an unexpected medical issue that requires a trip to a hospital. His health and age are an issue in this election and any unexpected health problem (even if it turns out to be nothing) could cost him votes.

Well if the rest of the worlds leaders agreed with us, why didn't the UN support the US Action? Sounds like somebody is listening to too much Rush.

I posted the question and yes I assumed it was US box office. As that what the rules state I didn't think you needed to list it unless it was different from the rules.

They showed Jin's grave. Does this count as one death or not since we didn't see him die.

Jenni, if you support the superdelegates voting the way their state votes than I encourage you to contact Sen. Kennedy and Kerry of Mass. and ask them to pledge their votes to Clinton since she won that state's primary. Funny how Obama's supporters (not saying you, but his moutpieces on TV) use this arguement but only when it benefits him and if you do the math on the super delegates he better be careful what he wishes for. The big states that Clinton has won have many more superdelegates than the small ones that Obama won. She would benefit by linking the superdelegate to the primary winner.

BTW - Why is nobody talking about the Republican superdelegates, they have then too.

Regarding who these superdelegates are and how legitimate they are..... Most of the superdelegates are elected officials, governors, members of the house and senate. They were elected by the people of their state or district. So for instance Ted Strickland is a superdelegate for Ohio as is Senator Sherrod Brown. Both were elected in statewide elections so the people of Ohio selected them. On the other hand a delegate that has been chosen through a caucus was chosen by a very small percentage of the voters using a dated and undemocratic system. How are these delegates and more valid than a superdelegate?

So this question will be settled as who is the last man on the show? As it suspends in 2 days, I think this needs to be clearly defined now or push back the suspend date. Unless I hear something different, based on Tisha's statement, I am going to assume that we are bidding on the last man on idol.

I also disagree. If you interpret the question to mean Hopkins got exactly 10 inches of snow by 6PM, well at some point "by 6 PM" there was exactly 10 inches before it went over 10 inches.

In for 7K as well

Okay Kruijs, I put another 1500 in so now we're even at 3K :)

I would have set the odds at 1% if it was permitted. And yes the odds are long on a 60 year old getting pregnant, but hey we have never had a woman president before either. :)

Primary = Primary...Caucus = Caucus.... Texas awards delegates separately for each of these. This question only asks about the primary, it does not mention the caucus, the settlement was appropriate.

Thanks

It isn't March 31st, 2008 yet.

Destry -- So are you saying that the Republicans had better candidates to run besides McCain but they sat it out so he could be the sacrificial lamb? At 71 and 1/2 this is his last run, agreed, but please do tell who these other candidates were.

On a side note (since there is no way to communicate directly and this is the closest we have to passing a note in study hall) thanks for inviting me to your friends list. I accepted. However you should have let me know you are a Steelers fan.... In the interest of full disclosure I am a Browns fan. I will not hold it against you that you have chosen to follow the dark side....some of my best friends are Steeler's fans....most of them require a dose of their daily medication as well.

My favorite Browns Steelers memory of course is Joe "Turkey" Jones planting Terry Bradshaw on his head (a place which could not be damaged). If you are unfamiliar of this than you are too young to be a worthy adversary. ;)

Clarence Thomas, Condi Rice, JC Watts, Colin Powell. Alan Keyes. Any other African-American Republicans?

Is there actually a reliable source for this? If its a mainstream US news source such as FOX, blowing up a house with 20 people in it is 20 insurgents killed even if 19 were kids. I am all for killing the bad guys, particularly if we actually want to focus on the ones that attacked us, meaning killing folks in Pakistan and Saudi Arabia as well as Afghanistan, just think a mainstream source based on propoganda is a bad idea.

Does he have to be mentally competent to be considered a protestor? Just asking because this was not the work of a serious terrorist but rather an ordinary nutjob that probably needs to up his dosage.

To all of you Obama supporters - please, please keep bidding him up. That way I get to buy Clinton at a lower price and make more money come Nov.

McCain supporters...... sorry got no suggestions for you....5 month media ignore period until he names a VP....unless he gets sick or has a scandal.

I think until they have a clue as to who did this and why this question should not settle. A crazy person does not qualify as a terrorist. On the other hand I would agree that all terrorists are lunes. I the interest of full disclosure I stand to gain if you settle this as a Yes, but I still think we don't know enough

Scott,

That story and that number are for 1 county out of the 88 in Ohio. Not sure where your going to find a source for this unless the Secretary of State says something as this would not be something that is normally officially tracked. A little background, it used to be in Ohio that to vote early you had to vote absentee. In order to vote absentee you had to swear that you met the criteria (such as being out of the state on election day, being almost dead, etc.) Ohio changed to no-fault early voting so anyone could for any reason go to a Board of Elections or other designated place and vote within 30 days of the election. Due to the crazy weather lately, every senior citizen I know voted early just in case the weather was bad on election day. (which it was) Additionally some counties such as Cuyahoga (Cleveland) encouraged, even advertised that you could vote early to reduce the chances that they would screw up counting the vote on election day. They actually counted those votes before the polls closed. So I would assume that more 5% voted early but don't have a clue as to a source on this.

BTW - I have no money and never had any on this question

I love how the Saudi Ambassador to the U.S., who was a frequent guest at the Bush ranch, just happens to have a wife (not sure if its his only one) who checks ended up in the bank account of one of the 9/11 SAUDI terrorists. Of course when U.S. air travel was grounded arrangements were made to get her and others out of the country as soon as the travel ban was lifted and she has been "unavailable" for questioning. Now I am not accusing the Govt. of having knowledge of these attacks before they happened. However they were more interested in having the FBI look for perverts than catching terrorists, Ashcroft was spending $$ on drapes to cover nude statues instead of $$ to fight terrorists and then when the Saudi terrorists attacked us they moved into cover-your-ass mode and we ended up bombing Saddam instead. Remember, the only link between Saddam and terrorism is his payment of $$ to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers. At the same time the Saudi royal family was holding telethons for them.

What happens in the Bush administration when you can't do your job and you don't understand briefs about "BIN LADEN'S PLANS TO ATTACK US"? Oh thats right you get promoted to Secretary of State.

We have an occupation in Iraq. This President has never truly been fighting a war on terrot because he would have to take on his friends, the source of our oil and one of his families sources of income. It won't happen by the end of March, but sooner or later we will get hit again, because we didn't hit back hard enough or take out the right people.

I've got $1500 saying he makes it. So for all of you that thought I was rooting for Americans to die in Iraq, that makes $1500 in Swayze and $10,000 on fewer deaths in Afghanistan. Show your morality and put your money on life!

Ok for all you folks that accused people betting on the Iraq question of wanting to profit from the deaths of Americans. I put this question over a week ago. I waited a week as I said to give people time to bet the question. I now have my full 10,000 put up on the side of fewer American casualties. All of you that questioned the morality of others on the Iraq question, here is you chance to put your $$ where your &^%^#@* mouth is. On the other hand if you choose to wager that more Americans will die I will assume it is based on your analysis of US policy and will not question your patriotism or your morality.

All this money on Obama and he won't be on the ticket in Nov. unless its as VP.

Just to make sure I understand this question, what we are basically being asked is which male contestant will turn out to be the 2nd best guy on the show. Also just checking, is this supposed to suspend next week?

Official statement from the Marine Corps. Apparently they likd to propogate rumors too....

http://www.usmc.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/releaseview/7F00CEF1D09E9EBA852574020061B983?opendocument

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/state/#TX

Clinton 65 delegates, Obama 61

Rumors? The Marines are investigating it so are they in the business of "propogating rumors"?

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=4387128&page=1

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/03/04/puppy.marine/?iref=mpstoryview

Yep this President can see non-existant WMD's but can't see the recession thats staring him in the face. On the other hand I have no confidence that our nation's borders are protected from terrorists when millions of illegals have no trouble getting in. While he was looking for WMD's in Iraq we let the real bad guys escape.

Yes delegates won in the state PRIMARY. Those awarded in the caucus are irrelevant to this question and they are awarded separately from the primary delegates.

So once it is determined who won the majority of the pledged delgates from both PRIMARIES the question can be settled, most likely for Clinton.

There is no reason to void the question, the question is very clear. It also very clearly states "primaries"

"Will Hillary Clinton be able to win both the Ohio and Texas Democratic primaries on March 4, 2008?"

It does not say will Hillary Clinton win the most delegates in both states, nor does it say will see win the Ohio Primary and the Texas Primary/Caucus.

On Super Tuesday Washington had a caucus. The question that day was regarding the Washington Caucus. 10 days later they had a primary. The results weren't held waiting for the results of the primary.

I agree that the Texas caucus has no bearing on this as the question clearly states primaries.

I referred to it as a "nation" because it is not a unified nation and never has been. 70% of it is controlled by local warlords or the Taliban, the President of Afghanistan is really the leader of Kabul and the surrounding region.

Ohio Board of Elections has just ordered that no results be released until 9PM as judges are considering extending the voting in 2 counties and possibly more. Flooding and ice storm has caused road closures and power outages. Also some polling places ran out of ballots due to heavy turnout.

polls closed throughout most of Ohio at 7:30. It is not past by 20 minutes, please suspend.

This needs a suspend time, polls close in 1 hr in Ohio

this needs a suspend time, polls close in 1 hr

Major ice hitting Northeast Ohio, could cause some delays in counting votes. Clinton is going to win so big probably not enough to effect CNN predictions.

I think that is because even if Clinton wins in the primary, she could lose in the caucus later in the evening and thus garner fewer delegates. This question I believe earlier stated that it would be answered based on delegates.

If Hillary wins I make 9.6K profit, if she losese I lose 5.4K

going to make over 6K on this tonight

Obama must be desperate beyond belief. I have gotten 3 recorded calls urging me to go out and vote for him. The polls close in an hour and a half.

Regarding a national primary, that is essentially what you had with Super Tuesday. After that debacle, I am certain the parties will spread out the primary season next time.It is however up to the states to set the time place and manner of elections for the selection of electors. (Something that our Supreme Court ignored in 2000.) Regarding primaries, the Constitution says nothing, the system is state by state and party by party, so there is no legal mechanism to provide for a national primary

If she does that well she will be down 50 or less delegates. More importantly if she wins Ohio and Texas she will have won 6 out of the biggest 7 states (CA, TX, NY, FL, OH, MI) and is leading in the polls in PA. The only large state Obama won was his home of Illinois. Regardless of the delegate count, if she wins both of the big ones tonight, she has a better claim to being the Democrat that is most electable in November. In order to win in November the Democrats have to win Ohio or Florida. A Clinton win tonight will result in Obama supporting a call for new primaries in Florida and Michigan as his only way to salvage legitamacy.

Thank you. Apologies to all, I thought I'd set this and RI to suspend before polls closed and then just realized about 4:30 EST that I had not. Thank you Hubdub for fixing this and any complaints should be directed at me.

Great thanks

Jello a bit silent, maybe he finally realized that Obama will definately lose Ohio

Browns

Boo Hiss Evil Ravens!!! However you are right, Unitas was #1 of all time and to think that other teams passed him over for being too short. Favre maybe the toughest, but not the greatest.

Polling links showing her consistant and commanding lead in RI and Ohio.

http://www.pollster.com/08-OH-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

http://www.pollster.com/08-RI-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Not sure how anyone thinks Obama will win the popular vote in 3-4 Primaries. Clinton is a lock to win RI and Ohio, Obama wins Vermont, Texas is the key. So he wins 1 or 2.

Two good Cleveland news sites that will update throughout the day on any voting problems are:

www.newsnet5.com

www.wkyc.com

Just voted at about 9:30. Biggest turnout I have ever seen for a primary. Seemd to be more Democratic voters, but locality is more Republican. Weather conditions - freezing rain big time, roads still okay, sidewalks dangerous, doesn't seem to be impacting turnout locally. BTW - locality is suburban, no college, nearly all white, not sure what the turnout is like in more Obama leaning areas.

Remember Edwards is still on the ballot and will pull some votes from Southern Ohio in particular.

Major storm problems for election day --- Flood Warnings and an ice storm --- should reduce turnout.

Enough with these ridiculous questions about McCain's citizenship, unless you want to ask "is mccain a citizen" with the odds starting at 99% yes!!

Wow, so many posts....

Jello - Living almost my whole life in Ohio and being involved in politics for most of it, there is no way Obama wins Ohio, unless an unbelievable amount of Repbublicans jump the party in the primary. Ohio was nearly destroyed economically during the 80's and was given a second chance in the 90's. There is alot of Clinton loyalty here. Secondly, Ohio does not have a track record of voting for black candidates. Most of the blue-collar, suburban, Reagan-Democrats would not ever consider voting for Obama. There is only 1 house district that has ever elected a black member in the state and no black Democrat has ever been elected to statewide office. Our "Democratic" Governor is a NRA member minister. Not exactly Obama like. Obama's major support is from the black population and college kids, neither of which has historically voted in the numbers they polled at.

as of 4:30 EST there are 8 4.0 quakes

I will win some on that one so probably a lttle better than break even, but winning both would have been better :)

The only way Obama wins Ohio is if a large number of Republicans declare as Democrats and vote for him in the primary. There are some talk radio folks encouraging that. If not than Clinton wins by 8-10pts

There goes 4k

And Lieberman doesn't even pretend he's one anymore..... Just thought I'd check before putting money on it. Thanks.

Are you only counting the actual Democratic seats? Currently we have an Independent - Lieberman and a Socialist - Sanders that caucus with the Democrats for purposes of a majority. I assume you mean only actual members of the Democratic party, just clarifying.

Please send this link to the Military Times publications. These publications run stories daily on the lives lost in Iraq as they apparently think our losses are newsworthy as well. They have also been critical of the treatment of active duty soldiers and veterans by this Administration. If you want to be a cheerleader for the Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld decisions on Iraq, you certainly are entitled to that opinion. However it does not appear to be shared by the publications you refer to and is definately not shared by everyone in a uniform. Here are a couple of stories from Army Times worth reading as well.

Retired 4-Star Endorses Clinton for President - http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/09/ap_clarkendorsement_070916/

Military Times Editorial - Rumsfeld Must Go - http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/1-292925-2333376.php

Editorial - Others share guilt - http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/0-ARMYPAPER-622894.php

Editorial - Failure of Leadership at highest levels - http://www.armytimes.com/legacy/new/1-292925-2903288.php

Here is a link to the forum page at Army Times which shows that the military, like America, has diverse opinions http://www.militarytimes.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=24

I would like to explain this question, particulary since there is a debate over a question like this on Iraq.

I chose icasualties.org as the source for this since they report deaths from multiple sources of information and not just the US military. While I hold the American soldier in highest esteem I do not hold the propagandists that lied about Pat Tillmans's death, Jessica Lynch's rescue, etc. in any esteem. Thus a site separate from the US military was chosen.

How do we determine our success or regress in Afghanistan if not by the value of US lives. This was the war that had to be fought, the attack on the US on 9/11 was ordered from this "nation", commandeered by the Taliban from Pakistan and rented out to Bin Laden. Since we have no policy to go after the terrorists harbored by our "friends" in Pakistan, we must determine our success based on our lives.

Why ask this at all? Too many people have forgotten that there is a very real war going on in Afghanistan. We invaded in 2001 yet the 3 costliest years have been 2005, 2006 and 2007 with 117 Americans dieing there last year. These troops sometimes wait hours for air support and since we invaded Iraq seem to be lower on the ladder for needed supplies. They are fighting in the "nation" that housed our attackers, yet many Americans do not even know this war is still going on. This is not to take anything away from the soldiers, sailors and marines serving in Iraq, as many are the same folks.

I want there to be less deaths in Afghanistan than last year. I want there to be less deaths in Iraq as well. I want us to get that SOB Bin Laden and do unspeakable things to him. I think I will have to wait for another President to get the last one.

One week from today I will be betting $10,000 on the YES side of this question. This is for all of you that question the patriotism of those that think remembering our war dead is unpatriotic. A yes bet is for fewer deaths in 2008. So bet whichever side you want before I screw up the odds in the hope that in this war, more Americans will return home to their families in 2008.

Additionally - If somebody can come up with a question on the Iraq war that gets at the heart of are we making progress or moving backward without using casualties as the determing factor I would be all for it. This is a very important news topic that should be discussed.

Good question but time limit?

Do we have to actually hear his voice, or if we hear Scalia's voice and see Thomas lips move is that good enough? ;)

The choices on this question do not make sense. They have agreed to hear the case, hence the March 18th date. They could uphold the lower court ruling (agreeing that the 2nd Amendment means the individual right to bear arms) or they could overrule it and the DC law would stay in place. This would continue the federal ruling interpreting the 2nd Amendment to mean the collective right, but not individual. I guess they could hear the case and then refer it back, but that would be cowardly even for this Supreme Court. Irregardless the choices for this question do not line up with the choices available to the court.

MelMel - my point was that you were questioning whether this question was appropriate because you have someone you're close to who's life has been and will be at risk. Others are suggesting that people are hoping for more deaths just to make some fake $. Regarding my comparison to the gun question.... The Supreme Court is hearing a case on whether a city can ban guns that are specifically designed to kill people. Nobody goes deer hunting with a handgun. A person that has lost a loved one to gun violence could question the morality of folks betting on that question the same as people have questioned the morality of this one.

If my comments toward you were seen as an attack then you have my apologies as they were not intended that way. I was simply pointing out that while you may question the appropriatness of this question due to concerns over a family member, others may question betting on the other question for the same reasons.

To those people who believe focusing on the deaths in this war or any other war is an unpatriotic act, my insults were directed at you.

Please don't not make absurd assumptions that people who oppose voiding this question are rooting for the death of troops. Norman, your statement is ignorant to the extreme. You know how many deaths I would have liked to have seen for February? ZERO! Also don't assume that those who support posting questions about the war do not know people serving in it. Personally I know several people that are there now, one that came home permanently disabled and was used by the President as a photo op when he pinned his purple heart on him while in a coma at Walter Reed. Questions about the war are legitimate news questions. People "bet" on these questions to see if they can correctly predict the news based on their consumption of it. That doesn't mean they are hoping for bad news or indifferent to the personal trajedy involved. Melmel07, you wagered on the question concerning the Supreme Court case involving the DC gun ban. I think that is a legitimate question too. However, using your logic should I question if you have compassion for those killed by handgun violence?

I am posting here because on the "Get satisfaction page" it keeps telling me my email in invalid. Funny I have had it for over a decade.

As the person that posted the question, let me respond. The time listed in the question as 10PM was assumed by me to be 10PM EST because the question specifically referred to Ohio and Ohio is in the EST zone. I may have confused things when I answered Ryan's question in the comments section and said PST was okay. I thought he was referring to the time I had set under settlement details as the suspend time and I thought the suspend time was always PST.

In the Guidlines it says regarding Time and Time Zones


"If the question is on a prediction that happens in a particular locale it will be assumed that it refers to local time, unless otherwise specified. E.g. ‘Will it rain in Manchester, UK on Feb 5th?’ would be resolved using local time (GMT). Best practise is for question creators to state the time zone in which the prediction occurs."

Based on this rule the question should have been viewed as meaning 10PM EST. If that was not clear, my apologies, because that was the intent. I believe I set it with the Yes odds at 30%. If the question had been PST, meaning 1AM in Ohio, than I would have set the odds at yes 90%. Personally I think Clinton will win Ohio by 6-10%. I think due to problems in Cuyahoga County CNN may delay a prediction until they at least count 10% of the vote there, because if Obama has any chance to win he must win big there. However I think they will make a call sometime between 10-11 PM EST. Hence that was why I set the odds as I did.

I will have no problem with whatever action is taken on this question and I have no issue with anyone who has raised complaints. Whatever Hubdub thinks is best is fine with me. I do however think it is an interesting question so if it is voided could the voiding authority repost it with crystal clear language.

I would agree that based on the Promo saying the next member of the "Oceanic 6" would be revealed and then they waited to the very last moment to tell us the baby's name and a blond haired baby as well, it is clear they want us to think that Claire's baby is one of the six. Regarding Ben, he could not be one of the 6 as he wasn't on the plane.

Ok I probably confused things with my response above. I thought Ryan was talking about the time zone for suspending it in the settlement details which by default sets to PST. Regarding the question I thought that under the rules we assumed a local specific question was based on the time zone of the locality, so yes Eastern time zone because that is Ohio's time zone. My point with the question was that in 2004 it wasn't clear until the day after the election who won Ohio because of the mess in Cleveland and in 2006 they didn't finish counting votes for a week. Given past problems will they do a good enough job counting votes that CNN can make a call by 10 PM EST, which means 2 1/2 hrs after the polls close. So Ryan could you please add EST to the question? Apologies for any confusion.

No problem with that, I thought I set it to suspend before the polls closed, if not that was my intent.

The story has been months in the making, written by 4 reporters, published in the most respected newspaper in America, a paper that endorsed McCain, and has multiple sources.

Okay maybe I am missing your point. I fully understand UN 1244, approved in 1999 to sanction the already ongoing NATO action in Kosovo. If your point is that this resolution does not support independence for Kosovo than I concede your point. However, my point is that Serbia's actions and its subsequent refusal to obey international law void any claim it has to Kosovo. Additionally please don't refer to me as being ignorant of the facts because they aren't in my favor. The facts speak for themselves. You may choose to focus on the narrow constraints of a UN resolution passed quickly during a conflict to keep the Russians passified whereby I may focus on the reality of 16 years of Serbian aggession toward Bosnians and Kosovars. Because we base our arguements on different criteria does not make either of us ignorant. Will have to end this now because it is time to watch LOST Season 4. so sorry )

yes I am an American. I am proud as an American that my nation under President Clinton intervened to put an end to the genocide being committed in Bosnia and Kosovo in the 1990's. I think it was one of the greatest uses of limited power by a superpower. Force was used to save the lives of people against a murderous foe without the superpower seeking any gain for itself.

Regarding President Bush's actions, please feel free to summarize the huge mistakes made under his regime. Scholars could spend lifetimes doing this. He has abused his power both at home and abroad and the United States will pay the price for his actions for years. History will view him as one of our worst leaders and other nations and their citizens have a right to question the sanity of those that voted for him. The war in Afghanistan was justified, he should have attacked on Sept 12 instead of Oct and he had an obligation to the American people to kill or capture those behind the 9/11 attacks. He failed miserably at this and I fear we will again pay for this mistake. The war in Iraq was based on lies, lies told to the international community, lies told to the American people and lies told to the Congress that approved it. Bush's actions will hurt the United States in the international community for a generation.

On your second point, I read the article you referred to and I don't see how Kosovar independence is opposed by law or justice. Certainly, Serbia is opposed to it. Since when do we worry about getting the aggresive party's approval? Using this logic the U.S. war in Afghanistan was illegal because the Taliban did not invite us in. Kosovo is 90% NON-SERBIAN, yet Serbia using its version of history/mythology calls it its ancestoral home. The lost the right to it when they decicided to murder its citizens. If the Untited States decided to murder the citizens of one of our states and an international force had to stop it, I would agree that we would lose the legitimacy to govern that state.

If Serbia is so worried about justice then they could start by turning over the wanted war criminals they are harboring. While they are at it I belive they also owe us the cost of 1 embassy.

Yeah I don't support nations that commit genocide under the disguise of nationalism.

Stolen? Against international law? When you commit genocide against your own citizens they don't have a right to fight back? is genocide endorsed by international law? If Serbia is so interested in international law why don't they start by handing over their war criminals?

This is particularly directed to the comments from "heyy_joe". You accuse the "liberal news media" posting deaths for ratings. Do your really think Americans tune in to see the latest death tolls? Deaths in war are news. They should be news. Shame on anyone that doesn't think they are important enough to report as news. Why do those who were most supportive of the war criticize the media for reporting on its costs and god forbid if you show a flag draped coffin. During WW II cities throughout America posted the names of the dead in public places. Noboby hid the flag draped coffins. Americans knew what they were fighting for, accepted the sacrifice and honored those that died. Soldiers that sacrifice themselves in war should be honored by the country that send them there. If you don't want to remember and honor their sacrifice then don't send them off to war! They should not be die in obscurity, hidden in the shadows by those who don't want answer questions about why they were sent to war in the first place. Of course many of those who criticize the media for reporting on the casualties also criticize them for reporting on the substandard treatment many of our returning vets have gotten from their own government. Responsibility #1 for a nation is that when you send people off to war, you honor the dead and take care of those that return. Period. If your not willing to do this then don't send them in the first place!

Typical behavior for the Serbs. Let only hope that the charred body is one of the arsonists and not one of the Marines.

Before anyone question why I set the % at only 15%. On Feb. 20th the State Department said they had no plans to recall our ambassador despite Serbia's action in recalling there ambassador. The State Department evactuated most of the Americans out of the embassy in anticipation of the violence. Despite evidence that the attack on the embassy was done with the knowledge and collusion of the Serbian government, I do not think that Bush, Rice, etc. will take action. Hence the low percentage. If they even think about it be prepared for Senator Voinovich of Serbia...I mean Ohio...to come to Serbia's defense.

So this website is a reputable news source? Give me a break. Here is another of their great stories about "Russian scientists contacting the nether world"

http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/19-02-2008/104119-nether_world-0

Any chance of getting a settlement on this question?

the are suspending it because the outcome is already known

The question was "Will someone die in the episode". Sayid killed 2 people in this episode, so the question is a YES. I doesn't matter when in the timeline of the show it takes place, it happened in the 2/14 episode. Now someone that can remember all of the possible characters needs to make up a question about which character will be the next one to be revealed as one of the Oceanic 6!!!

Given that we haven't caught Bin Laden in over 6 years, I'd say that there is a fair chance of missing

There is no reason to void this question, all of the choices are still valid.

If this is concerning popular vote we now have 3 Wisconsin democratic questions up.

Isn't this a duplicate question of this one posted last week?
http://www.hubdub.com/e/Market/Who_will_win_the_POPULAR_vote_in_the_Feb_19_Democratic_Wisconsin_Primary_1907/view

I'd like to see what the volume was on this question, got crazy at the end!

Sorry, I forgot it was Graham's wife that died.

Billy Graham died in 2007

Maine wasn't on the same day, its on Sunday the rest are on Saturday. The real question is why can this question still be cashed out while under suspension, according to the "Basic Rules" post that Nigel put up, it said that suspended questions could not be wagered on or cashed out? On Super Tuesday questions such as this were frozen, yet now people can minimize their loses by cashing out?

How did the prices change on this after trading was suspended?

CNN and MSNBC are both reporting that Huckabee wins.

I made a mistake when I set up the question on the settlement time, it should be set to suspend at the beginning of the game.

Do you mean will Bush send in ground troops and publically announce it? We have already launched several air strikes inside Pakistan and it is no secret that special forces troops have operated in Pakistan.

By casualties do you mean coalition deaths? Historically the phrase casualties has meant killed and wounded. If you mean killed and wounded than the 33 or more has already been reached.

I see the suspend date is listed as Saturday. My assumption is that the question is asking will he drop out after Super Tuesday and before the end date. If this is not the case than the question should be voided as obviously he will drop out sometime between now and August.

I think it is clear that the question refers to Presidential candidate. You don't formally select your vice presidential candidate until the convention so the Feb 9 date makes it clear that it refers to the presidential race

Define main character please. Do you mean anyone that was on the plane, or do you include any of the "others", or only characters that were on the show previously? I think its a good question, just don't want there to be a controversy over what characters qualify.

Don't forget Golwar that 25-30% of Californians already voted and every poll still shows McCain ahead except for the out of whack Zogby/Reuters poll. Thats the same one that shows Obama up 13 %

How do you define this? Special forces troops have already been across the border, they just don't call press conferences to talk about it.

oh well it was worth the 400 loss for the potential of a 3000 gain

I agree, but its not over yet?

Go Giants!!! At least on your first drive )

California allows early balloting. This means that the bump Obama is getting these last few days won't affect those that have already voted.

This question doesn't make sense as worded. "more or less" and the options are yest or no?
You need to change the options to "350 yards and over" or "less than 350 yards" or something such as that.
Or drop the word "less" from the question.

are there going to be any bets on the Super Bowl that stay open during the game? I thought I read that they were going to allow this for the Super Bowl only, but this one for instance closes 3+ hrs before the game starts

No, didn't see the other one

Ron Paul is also running for reelection to his Republican House seat. Will he risk his job in the house to run as a 3rd party candidate again?

To most of us the time constraint was clear, the end date in the settlement details. If thats not what it means, than this makes no sense.

Actually I lost over $1000 when they voided the last one, so I will not be bidding on this one. As to the conflict of interest, I do not know if that was the reason for the mishandling of the previous question or was it more a case of trying to appease some folks that whined when they didn'