When reality reflects The Onion (redux)

<a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/10/29/359915688/inventor-of-operation-game-says-he-cant-afford-his-own-operation">The man who invented the legendary game "Operation"</a> says he can't afford his own operation. Two friends of his heard about this and decided to launch a crowdfunding project to try to help him out.

^chutzpah

MDR-7506notBeats wrote:

Washington Redskins File Lawsuit Against Native Americans For Suggesting Team Name Is Offensive

The first 3/4 of that article is 100% irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  The last 1/4 is more opinion and conjecture than anything else.  I don't at all know the underlying legal issues being challenged, but it will be very interesting to see what the court has to say about this and their justification for whatever their decision is.

RatBastard wrote:

MDR-7506notBeats wrote:

Washington Redskins File Lawsuit Against Native Americans For Suggesting Team Name Is Offensive

The first 3/4 of that article is 100% irrelevant to the discussion at hand.&nbsp; The last 1/4 is more opinion and conjecture than anything else.&nbsp; I don&#039;t at all know the underlying legal issues being challenged, but it will be very interesting to see what the court has to say about this and their justification for whatever their decision is.

Snyder is a dick. No conjecture about that….

hutch wrote:

RatBastard wrote:

MDR-7506notBeats wrote:

Washington Redskins File Lawsuit Against Native Americans For Suggesting Team Name Is Offensive

The first 3/4 of that article is 100% irrelevant to the discussion at hand.&nbsp; The last 1/4 is more opinion and conjecture than anything else.&nbsp; I don&#039;t at all know the underlying legal issues being challenged, but it will be very interesting to see what the court has to say about this and their justification for whatever their decision is.

Snyder is a dick. No conjecture about that….

I have no idea who Snyder is.

RatBastard wrote:

hutch wrote:

RatBastard wrote:

MDR-7506notBeats wrote:

Washington Redskins File Lawsuit Against Native Americans For Suggesting Team Name Is Offensive

The first 3/4 of that article is 100% irrelevant to the discussion at hand.&nbsp; The last 1/4 is more opinion and conjecture than anything else.&nbsp; I don&#039;t at all know the underlying legal issues being challenged, but it will be very interesting to see what the court has to say about this and their justification for whatever their decision is.

Snyder is a dick. No conjecture about that….

I have no idea who Snyder is.

He's the douchebag that likes to sue people who don't say nice things about him. Not because the not-nice things are not true, but because Snyder has deep pockets and he can saddle his not-as-wealthy opponents with unsustainable expenses defending themselves, thus forcing them to be quiet.  That's why he isn't appealing the court ruling against him but instead taking the very unusual route of going after the five native Americans who initially complained to the Patent Office about the name.  He can threaten to bankrupt them with legal fees.

http://deadspin.com/5838709/dan-snyder-is-suing-washington-city-paper-over-a-story-he-has-never-read

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/07/business/media/07carr.html

Apparently the guy who hasn't read a book since 1980 hasn't read a newspaper since then either.

RatBastard wrote:

hutch wrote:

RatBastard wrote:

MDR-7506notBeats wrote:

Washington Redskins File Lawsuit Against Native Americans For Suggesting Team Name Is Offensive

The first 3/4 of that article is 100% irrelevant to the discussion at hand.&nbsp; The last 1/4 is more opinion and conjecture than anything else.&nbsp; I don&#039;t at all know the underlying legal issues being challenged, but it will be very interesting to see what the court has to say about this and their justification for whatever their decision is.

Snyder is a dick. No conjecture about that….

I have no idea who Snyder is.

James wrote:
Apparently the guy who hasn&#039;t read a book since 1980 hasn&#039;t read a newspaper since then either.

RatBastard wrote:

hutch wrote:

RatBastard wrote:

MDR-7506notBeats wrote:

Washington Redskins File Lawsuit Against Native Americans For Suggesting Team Name Is Offensive

The first 3/4 of that article is 100% irrelevant to the discussion at hand.&nbsp; The last 1/4 is more opinion and conjecture than anything else.&nbsp; I don&#039;t at all know the underlying legal issues being challenged, but it will be very interesting to see what the court has to say about this and their justification for whatever their decision is.

Snyder is a dick. No conjecture about that….

I have no idea who Snyder is.

What's a newspaper?  I remember my dad talking about that when I was a kid back in the 60s.  :)

Any idea as to why the VA election has not bee called yet?  It seems that the lead that Warner's has makes him pretty much a lock. 

RatBastard wrote:
Any idea as to why the VA election has not bee called yet?&nbsp; It seems that the lead that Warner&#039;s has makes him pretty much a lock.&nbsp;

only thing i can think of is that many absentee ballots have not been counted and maybe a lage number of these are from military so they might skew heavily for gillespie…


i don't get it either…17,000 is a pretty hard number to come back from…

hutch wrote:

RatBastard wrote:
Any idea as to why the VA election has not bee called yet?&nbsp; It seems that the lead that Warner&#039;s has makes him pretty much a lock.&nbsp;

only thing i can think of is that many absentee ballots have not been counted and maybe a large number of these are from military so they might skew heavily for gillespie…


i don&#039;t get it either…17,000 is a pretty hard number to come back from…

That may well be it.  I ran a few numbers on the outstanding ballots by locality and I could not come up with the missing 5% so that may well be what is out.  BTW when the led early in the night was about 80k for Gillespie I was thinking 'if this lead hits 100k he has the election won'.  Looks like my estimate was pretty much spot on.

Thanks to everyone who voted no matter what your selection was on any vote.  That's the only way the system works…

Here is a question for you.  In VA, if an election is decided by ½% or less, the state will pay for a recount if requested by the potential losing candidate.  That number would be roughly 11,000 votes in this election.  With the difference being 16,727 as of the latest tally, it seems unlikely that Gillespie could catch Warner.  However, it is not far fetched to think he can close to within the 11,000 or so to qualify for a state funded recount.  If the count does end up with a difference should the potential loser (probably Gillespie) request a state funded recount?

Correction, the criteria for a recount at state cost is slightly different from what I suggested above (although looking back my previous statement was ambiguous).  It is not ½% of the total votes cast in the election for that office, it is ½% of the votes cast for the candidate involved in the recount.  There are actually three criteria where the recount is state funded…

>> The candidate challenging the results is declared the winner after the recount.
>> The petitioners in a recount of a referendum win the recount.
>> The final margin between the candidate challenging and the candidate winning the recount is not more than 1/2 of 1% of the total votes cast for the two candidates prior to the recount.

Details can be seen at http://www.13newsnow.com/story/news/politics/elections/2013/11/06/how-a-recount-works-in-virginia/14835662/

It is just amazing that we cannot do better than this as potential leaders of our country.

RatBastard wrote:
Here is a question for you.&nbsp; In VA, if an election is decided by ½% or less, the state will pay for a recount if requested by the potential losing candidate.&nbsp; That number would be roughly 11,000 votes in this election.&nbsp; With the difference being 16,727 as of the latest tally, it seems unlikely that Gillespie could catch Warner.&nbsp; However, it is not far fetched to think he can close to within the 11,000 or so to qualify for a state funded recount.&nbsp; If the count does end up with a difference should the potential loser (probably Gillespie) request a state funded recount?

Correction, the criteria for a recount at state cost is slightly different from what I suggested above (although looking back my previous statement was ambiguous).&nbsp; It is not ½% of the total votes cast in the election for that office, it is ½% of the votes cast for the candidate involved in the recount.&nbsp; There are actually three criteria where the recount is state funded…

&gt;&gt; The candidate challenging the results is declared the winner after the recount.
&gt;&gt; The petitioners in a recount of a referendum win the recount.
&gt;&gt; The final margin between the candidate challenging and the candidate winning the recount is not more than 1/2 of 1% of the total votes cast for the two candidates prior to the recount.

Details can be seen at http://www.13newsnow.com/story/news/politics/elections/2013/11/06/how-a-recount-works-in-virginia/14835662/

Didn't an election fall just inside the 1/2% margin recently in Virginia and the loser conceeded because he did not want the state to pay for it? Its too early in the morning for me to remember who it was, though.

Julian, wrote:

RatBastard wrote:
Here is a question for you.&nbsp; In VA, if an election is decided by ½% or less, the state will pay for a recount if requested by the potential losing candidate.&nbsp; That number would be roughly 11,000 votes in this election.&nbsp; With the difference being 16,727 as of the latest tally, it seems unlikely that Gillespie could catch Warner.&nbsp; However, it is not far fetched to think he can close to within the 11,000 or so to qualify for a state funded recount.&nbsp; If the count does end up with a difference should the potential loser (probably Gillespie) request a state funded recount?

Correction, the criteria for a recount at state cost is slightly different from what I suggested above (although looking back my previous statement was ambiguous).&nbsp; It is not ½% of the total votes cast in the election for that office, it is ½% of the votes cast for the candidate involved in the recount.&nbsp; There are actually three criteria where the recount is state funded…

&gt;&gt; The candidate challenging the results is declared the winner after the recount.
&gt;&gt; The petitioners in a recount of a referendum win the recount.
&gt;&gt; The final margin between the candidate challenging and the candidate winning the recount is not more than 1/2 of 1% of the total votes cast for the two candidates prior to the recount.

Details can be seen at http://www.13newsnow.com/story/news/politics/elections/2013/11/06/how-a-recount-works-in-virginia/14835662/

Didn&#039;t an election fall just inside the 1/2% margin recently in Virginia and the loser conceeded because he did not want the state to pay for it? Its too early in the morning for me to remember who it was, though.

Gillespie will pay for nothing out of his own well-lined pocket. If not the state then his partners in crime.