UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN FRAT GETS WOMEN HIGH TO FUCK THEM?

SERIOUSLY

IF YOU ARE A FRAT BROTHER

WHO NEEDS TO PUT A RUFIE INTO A WOMAN’S DRINK

TO GET HER HIGH TO FUCK HER

YOU GOT NO LIFE.

————————————————————————————>

YOU BELONG IN JAIL

JUST SAYING

NOT ONLY YOU BELONG IN JAIL

BUT YOUR PARENTS WHO TAUGHT YOU ABOUT LIFE AND LOVE

DESERVE A KICK IN THE BALLS AND A 10 YEAR SENTENCE ALONG WITH YOU

Fraternity Suspended After Accusations It Used Color-Coded System To Drug Female Students

Posted: 09/19/2014 4:53 pm EDT Updated: 09/19/2014 5:00 pm EDT

The Tau Kappa Epsilon fraternity at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee is being investigated by the school, its national organization and campus police after accusations that female guests who attended a Sept. 12 party were marked with color-coded Xs on their hands and given date rape drugs.

The national TKE organization told The Huffington Post it has temporarily suspended the Zeta-Zeta chapter at UW-Milwaukee and is working with the university to investigate the situation. The university said via Twitter on Thursday that it alsosuspended the fraternity.

“Police tell us that one person has been arrested in the case, but has not been charged pending review by the district attorney,” Tom Luljak, vice chancellor for university relations at UW-Milwaukee, told HuffPost. “The police have not released the name of the individual who was arrested.”

University officials told HuffPost there was no report of sexual violence at the fraternity on the night of Sept. 12.

At least three women and a man were found that night vomiting and unable to walk at Sandburg Hall, a university residence, reports WISN, a local ABC affiliate. All four needed to be hospitalized. One of the women told police she experienced a “weird feeling” before blacking out, according to the Associated Press.

The three women were each marked with a red X on their hand from the TKE party,according to a search warrant affidavit cited by the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel. The man had a black X on his hand, but told police he drank from the same cup as a woman with a red X.

Female partygoers were allowed to buy an index card for $8 that provided “all access to the house” and drinks, the paper reported. One of the women told police “you have to be hot” to purchase one of the cards, according to the Journal-Sentinel.

Others who attended the party told university police that cups were moved under the bar to mix the drinks, and that drinks appeared cloudy when served, the Journal-Sentinel reported.

According to Wisconsin news outlet WTMJ, police searched the frat house and confiscated plastic cups, glasses, alcohol, cellphones, laptops, bongs and other drug paraphernalia.

“We are deeply concerned about these allegations because the safety of our students is our number one priority,” Luljak said. “Our police are aggressively pursuing this investigation to determine exactly what happened and who may have been involved.”

There were reports of three sexual assault at the same fraternity last year, according to the Journal-Sentinel.

STRATEGIST NATE SILVER WAS WRONG ABOUT SCOTLAND & I PREDICT HE’S WRONG ABOUT CONGRESSIONAL VOTING IN NOVEMBER 2014!

SCOTLAND VOTED TO STAY WITH THE UK

THE BIG DEAL JEW

NATE SILVER GOT IT WRONG

TO ME THAT’S A GIFT FROM THE UNIVERSE

THIS MEANS THAT THIS YOUNG STRATEGIST HAS FAILED

BIG TIME

AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE PISSED OFF WITH CONGRESS

I FEEL THAT

IF NATE WAS SO WRONG ABOUT SCOTLAND

OUR CONGRESS IS A SHOE IN TO BECOME ALL DEMOCRATIC!

YAY! NATE SILVER – THE WONDER BOY IS WRONG!

==========================================================>

About a year ago, I was on a book tour in Edinburgh and was asked by a couple of reporters about Scotland’s upcoming vote on whether to secede from the United Kingdom. The “yes” vote (a vote to secede) had “virtually no chance” of prevailing, I said. “For the most part it looks like it’s a question of how much the ‘no’ side will win by, not what the outcome might be.”

Now that the “no” side has won by what looks to be a definitive margin, I suppose I should be touting that prediction. But despite the outcome, it was one of the worst predictions I’ve made. I’d spent all of 15 minutes studying the issue before weighing in. That’s not enough — and it’s not what we’re all about at FiveThirtyEight. We take predictions seriously, and there’s usually a heck of a lot of research involved before we make one. My Scotland prediction failed that test.

So I don’t pretend to have any particular authority to discuss Scotland’s results. But the “no” side’s margin of victory, by 10 to 11 percentage points, might give us some pause.

To be clear, most of the polls had “no” ahead in the closing days of the campaign. But they suggested a considerably closer electionthan actually happened. There’s a parallel to the final days of the 2012 U.S. presidential election, when the polls showed Barack Obama ahead of Mitt Romney. Those polls “called” most outcomes correctly but nevertheless had a significant bias, underrating how well Obama — and Democratic candidates for the Senate — might do.

Out of all of the polls in our (soon to be publicly released) polling database (which includes polls for the Senate, the presidency, and gubernatorial and U.S. House campaigns), the average survey understated the Democratic candidate’s performance in 2012 by almost 3 percentage points. Had the error run in the opposite direction — had Republicans outperformed their polls by that margin instead of Democrats — Romney might have won states like Colorado, Ohio and Florida and possibly have become president. The GOP perhaps would not have taken the Senate, but Republicans would have been highly competitive in states including Montana, North Dakota, New Mexico, Massachusetts, Wisconsin, Ohio and Virginia and made it very close.

Suspend your disbelief for a moment, and imagine I’ve persuaded you that the margin between actual and predicted results — not the number of correct “calls” — is what counts in polling. What then accounted for the mediocre results in Scotland?

I have only a theory: Scotland’s results may have had something to do with the “Shy Tory Factor.” This was the tendency of conservatives (Tories) to outperform their polls during a number of U.K. elections in the 1990s and especially in the U.K. general election of 1992. The idea is that conservatives were less enthusiastic than Labour voters and therefore less likely to declare their support for a conservative government to pollsters. Nevertheless, they turned out to vote.

U.K. pollsters responded to these elections in a variety of ways, including by weighting their results based on voters’ party preference in prior elections. But this may have been a patch that failed to address the underlying issue: Voters are not equally likely to respond to polls; those who are more enthusiastic about an upcoming election are more likely to do so.

This potentially leads to a double-counting of enthusiastic voters if turnout models are not applied carefully.

The problem could become worse as response rates to polls decline. Furthermore, many polls of the Scottish independence referendum were Internet-based, and some of those polls did not use probability sampling, historically the bedrock for demographic weighting. AYouGov poll earlier this month, for example — one of the few to show the “yes” side ahead — did so only because of its weighting procedures. On an unweighted basis, it had “no” ahead by about 6 percentage points.

Almost everyone in Scotland voted in the referendum. Less enthusiastic voters — Shy Unionists? — may have been missed by pollsters, but they may have made the difference.

COMMENTS Add Comment

 

SENATOR CORY BOOKER HAS A SOLUTION TO NFL DOMESTIC ABUSERS

CORY BOOKER used to be MAYOR of NEWARK

Then he became a SENATOR for Democrats in NJ

His intent, I believe, is Presidency however I don’t think we’ll see a black President again in my lifetime

But Booker would be a great President – I think – and I would vote for him.

I would also vote for former BUSH JR ADVISER – COLIN POWELL

I look at him and see the generation of my parents – I feel safe when I see him – don’t ask me why

His ideas are sound and his demeanor is enticing – I really like him as a person and as a leader

I would follow him into battle

I would call him my friend

I would vote for him as POTUS

I just would.

I feel that way about Senator Booker too.

This is his idea about the NFL

THE COUNTRY SHOULD HAVE THE NFL NON PROFIT STATUS REVOKED

MAKE THEM A NON-PROFIT

AND HAVE ALL THEIR PROCEEDS GO TO THE VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE.

EXACTLY HOW I FEEL AND

THANK GODDESS THAT SOMEONE LIKE HIM – STRONG OF MIND AND IDEA HAD THE COURAGE

TO VOICE HIS OPINIONS

THANKFULLY SENATOR’S BOOKER & WARREN – ARE AMAZING!

============================================================>

SLADE says:

COMMENTARY ABOUT BUSINESS AND FINANCE.
SEPT. 18 2014 2:18 PM

The NFL Is Not a Nonprofit

Photo by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters
New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker wants to use tax money from the NFL to fund domestic abuse programs.

Photo by Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

The National Football League generates about $9.5 billion in revenue each year. It is, by Forbes’ estimate, the most valuable sports league in the world. Its commissioner, Roger Goodell, makes $44 million in a year. And yet, the NFL’s head office has long been allowed to operate as a tax-exempt nonprofit—as if its sole purpose for existence wasn’t to extract wads of cash from the wallets of American sports fans.

Jordan WeissmannJORDAN WEISSMANN

Jordan Weissmann is Slate‘s senior business and economics correspondent.

Even if it’s taken a series of national scandals to give this idea a fresh push, it’s nice to see common sense gaining more steam. Previously, Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma (whose state lacks an NFL team) and the House Ways and Means Committee have proposed legislation that would strip sports leagues of their nonprofit status. But if senators representing Giants, Jets, and Seahawks fans suddenly feel comfortable getting behind this idea, that’s progress.

Chances are, yanking away the NFL’s tax exemption wouldn’t drastically change its finances. Only the league office, which considers itself a trade association for its clubs—just like the U.S. Chamber of Commerce or the National Dairy Council—is a nonprofit; the teams themselves are purely for-profit. As a result, pro football’s copious TV revenues are taxed once they’re passed down to the franchises. A separate, for-profit company called NFL Ventures, co-owned by the teams, handlesthe league’s merchandising and sponsorship earnings. Finally, the league office oftenoperates at a loss—in 2011 it finished more than $77 million in the red, while in 2012 it only had $9 million left at year’s end. Without profits, of course, there’s nothing for the government to tax.

The case of Major League Baseball is instructive for what might happen to the NFL if it were to lose its exemption. In 2007, MLB gave up its nonprofit status, reportedlybecause of new IRS rules that would have required public disclosure of its executives’ salaries. Later, it said the move was “tax-neutral.”

Congress itself doesn’t think the NFL’s tax bill would be that big. Coburn has suggested that taxing the NFL and NHL alone would raise about $91 million per year. But the Congressional Joint Committee on Taxation—probably a bit more credible in this instance—believes ending tax exemptions for allsports leagues would bring in just under $11 million per year. Booker hopes his bill would raise about $100 million over a decade, which would go to support domestic abuse programs. That’s a mere trickle compared with the geyser of cash the NFL generates each year.

So if money isn’t really the issue, what is? It’s about principles. Letting the NFL operate tax-free makes a mockery of the entire concept behind nonprofits, which is that we should give a special break to organizations that do the useful, unprofitable work normal corporations won’t.

The NFL’s lawyers like to point out that the IRS has a long history of treating sports leagues as tax-exempt. The government first gave the league office its nonprofit status in 1942, they note, and hasn’t questioned it since. Citing this history is a reasonable response to critics, such as Gregg Easterbrook, who claim that the NFL is simply benefiting from a special tax loophole that came about thanks to some brilliant lobbying in the 1960s—Congress actually inserted “professional football leagues” into the list of nonprofit trade groups covered by Section 501(c)(6) of the tax code. The code had previously covered “business leagues, chambers of commerce, real-estate boards, or boards of trade.” But this legislative carve-out doesn’t explain why, for instance, pro hockey and pro golf also get to operate tax-free.

The problem is that the NFL should never have been considered a trade association in the first place. Love or hate the lobbying they do in Washington, trade groups are supposed to work for the benefit of entire industries, and be open to any business in that industry that would like to join. If you own a butter-making factory, then by God, you can pay dues and become a member of the American Butter Institute. The NFL, in contrast, operates a legally sanctioned sports cartel. It’s not in the league’s interest to let in more teams, because that could hurt the value of existing franchises.

“To be a 501(c)(6) organization, anyone who meets your requirements for who’s part of the industry has to be allowed to join the association as a member,” Jeffrey Tenenbaum, chairman of the nonprofit organizations group at the law firm Venable,explained to ESPN last year. “With professional sporting leagues, that’s not the case; it’s a very closed circle. You can’t start a professional football team and join the NFL.”

If NFL executives were out lobbying on behalf of college football teams or arena football, we might have a different story. But they’re not. The league office is the enforcement wing and rule-making body of a profit-making operation. The same goes for leagues like the NHL, which exist for the express purpose of excluding competition.

The deeper issue at play here is that nonprofits exist to do things for the public good—things that for-profit companies generally don’t do. That’s why we give nonprofits a break from the IRS. And it’s why the government should be stingy about which kinds of organizations count and which don’t. We know that sports leagues won’t suddenly disappear if we treat them like normal corporations and ask them to pay, at most, a few million dollars to the government. Major League Baseball certainly hasn’t gone anywhere. The NFL won’t either.

IF THIS REPORT IS TRUE ABOUT NFL RUNNING BACK JON DWYER – HE’S AN ASSHOLE

JON DWYER WANTED TO HAVE SEX WITH HIS WIFE

BUT SHE REFUSED HIM

HE HEADBUTTED HER AND BROKE A NASAL BONE IN HER NOSE?

AND THEN THREW A SHOW AT HIS 18 MONTH OLD SON?

SERIOUSLY?

57 TIMES THE NFL HAS HAD THESE NIGGERS BEATING UP ON THEIR WIVES AND GIRLFRIENDS

BUT NIGGER BOY MICHAEL VICK LIKES DOGS

THE NFL SHOULD BE SUSPENDED

AND FROM NOW ON CHECK THE BACKGROUND OF ALL THESE BLACK MORONS BEFORE ALLOWING THEM ACCESS TO THE FIELD AND A PAYCHECK.

I AM MORE CONVINCED THAN EVER THAT BLACK MEN SHOULD GO TO JAIL FOR THE FIRST 4 YEARS BEFORE COLLEGE SO THEY CAN GET SCARED STRAIGHT BEFORE ENTERING THE WORLD

EITHER THAT OR KILL THEM WITH EBOLA OR A WHITE COP

THEY SEEM TO SUCK AS PEOPLE.

==================================================================>

NFL Running Back Allegedly Headbutted Wife After She Refused To Have Sex With Him

POSTED ON SEPTEMBER 18, 2014 AT 3:26 PM

NFL Running Back Allegedly Headbutted Wife After She Refused To Have Sex With Him

Jonathan Dwyer, Gerald Hodges

CREDIT: AP

On Wednesday, Arizona Cardinals running back Jonathan Dwyer was arrested in connection with two alleged domestic violence incidents involving his wife and 17-month old son. It was the 57th time that an NFL player has been arrested on a domestic violence charges since Roger Goodell become the commissioner in 2006.

 Today, the details of the allegations against Dwyer emerged and they are especially brutal. The particulars demonstrate why it can be terrifying and life-threatening to report an assault.

The statement of probable cause filed by the police details how the first incident started when Dwyer’s wife refused to have sex with him. According to the report, Dwyer’s wife bit his lip “to get away from him and stop his advances.” Then “he head-butted her in the face, which she later learned had caused a nasal bone fracture as a result of the head butt.”

The police were alerted after a neighbor heard loud arguing. Dwyer then threatened to kill himself if she reported the incident to the police, texting her a picture of a knife. So she initially denied the assault to the police.

The next day, according to the report, Dwyer punched he in the face and threw a shoe at their 17-month-old son. When she tried to call 911, he threw her cell phone from the second floor balcony. She then alerted the police when she felt safe, which was only after she was able to get to another state with her son.

The full report:

Screen Shot 2014-09-18 at 2.40.35 PM

Of the 57 players arrested for domestic violence incidents since 2006, 34 have not received any punishment at all.

The NFL’s handling of domestic violence incidents, most notably Ray Rice and Adrian Peterson this season, has come under heavy criticism from a variety of fronts, including corporate sponsors. Major advertisers like Anheuser-Busch, FedEx and Verizon have all released statements critical of the NFL in recent days. In a statement released today, Pepsi’s CEO said “I am a mother, a wife, and a passionate football fan. I am deeply disturbed that the repugnant behavior of a few players and the NFL’s acknowledged mishandling of these issues…”

Thus far, no major sponsors have terminated their relationship with the NFL. Pepsi’s CEO, while slamming the league’s response to incidents, reaffirmed her support for Roger Goodell.

Dwyer has been deactivated by the Cardinals this week. It is unclear what penalty he will ultimately receive from the league.

UPDATE

An analysis by Tara Culp-Ressler on what this disturbing incident can teach Americans about domestic violence

THIS PROVES BEYOND A SHADOW OF A DOUBT AMERICAN CONGRESS IS FUCKED UP!

OUR STUPID CONGRESS

CONFLICTED AND OBSESSED WITH HATING POTUS OBAMA

WHO WANTS TO ARM SYRIAN REBELS TO FIGHT ISIS

WENT ALONG WITH THIS STUPID ASS PLAN OF OBAMA’S AND NOW WE’RE IN A NEW

CONFLICT

WITHOUT REALLY BEING IN A WAR.

If that sounds conflicted you are correct.

Meanwhile our CONGRESS can’t help the people in America who are starving, homeless and have no jobs

But giving guns to assholes – well we have no fucking problem with that

says CONGRESS

VOTE IN NOVEMBER TO GET RID OF THESE CLOWNS.

IN TWO SHORT YEARS THE FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT WILL BE HISTORY

AND WE CAN LOOK FORWARD TO OUR FIRST WOMAN PRESIDENT

I HOPE TO GODDESS SHE IS ANYTHING BUT BLACK

JUST SAYING.

==========================================================>

Conflicted Congress Passes Obama’s New War Funding

Posted: 09/18/2014 6:39 pm EDT Updated: 1 hour ago
CAPITOL

WASHINGTON — The Senate added its conflicted stamp of approval to President Barack Obama’s request to arm and train Syrian rebels against the Islamic State, voting to fund what amounts to the start of a new war without an actual war vote.

The measure — attached to a must-pass bill to fund the government until Dec. 11 — spends $500 million to start training and arming Syrian rebels and to expand on the campaign launched in August against the extremist advance in Iraq.

The bill passed 78 to 22, and heads to the White House, where President Barack Obama, who ran as an anti-war president, is likely to sign it. It allows Obama in effect to begin hostilities against an enemy in Syria, relying on the war declarations passed with the authorizations to use military force in 2001 and 2002 that targeted al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein.

 The vote was a strong show of support for the president’s military action but revealed some unusual fractures in each party. A total of 33 Republicans voted to back the administration’s Syria request while 10 Democrats opposed it. Among those Democrats: Sen. Ed Markey (Mass.), who holds the Senate seat previously held for nearly 30 years by Secretary of State John Kerry, who is actively making the case for supporting military action in Syria.

There was also a notable split among potential 2016 presidential contenders. Republican Sens. Rand Paul (Ky.) and Ted Cruz (Texas) voted against the bill, while Sen. Marco Rubio (Fla.) supported it. Democratic Sen. Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) and independent Sen. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) voted against it.

Lawmakers and the White House agreed the AUMFs are outdated — some members don’t even think it’s constitutional for the president to apply them to current military operations against ISIS — and need to be modernized.

Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who made the case for the majority, acknowledged that the Senate needs to hold a broader debate, and a vote, on a new war authorization. Durbin said he expects that to happen only after lawmakers return from the elections in November.

“We have a special responsibility given to us by the Constitution that says the American people declare war, not the president,” Durbin said. “So we will come back and start the debate on what’s known as [an AUMF], a modern version … It’s a debate that’s long overdue.”

The debate Thursday was a study in contradictions, with senators like Durbin who backed the funding complaining about Obama’s war authority, and senators who opposed the funding saying nevertheless it is vital for the United States to stop ISIS or ISIL, as the extremists are also known.

Perhaps the highest profile opponent, Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), argued that he would have voted for a war authorization, even as he condemned intervention and mocked the idea of arming Syrian rebels under the old war declarations.

“As [Secretary of State John] Kerry understands it, we could use that [2001] authorization of force to attack the same people we’re giving the weapons to. Think about the insanity of this,” Paul said. “We’re giving weapons to people fighting in trenches with al Qaeda. We could actually attack under that formulation the very people we’re giving the weapons to. It’s absurd.”

Still, before voting against funding, Paul said ISIS was a real threat. “I think there are valid reasons for being involved, and I think we are doing the right thing, but just in the wrong way.”

Sen. Angus King (I-Maine) also argued that Obama does not have the authority to wage a new war, but he voted for the funding, calling it “the least-worst option.”

Sen. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) called ISIS “terrorist thugs” and a threat to the United States, but adamantly opposed arming the rebels “or who they might be 12 months from now.”

“I disagree with my president,” Begich said, arguing that the people who live in the area are the ones who should be “stepping up to the plate.”

Similarly, Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) said Arab nations should be the ones stepping forward and bearing the burdens, and worried that the costs would again be born by American taxpayers.

“We must stop putting wars on a credit card,” Tester said before voting for the bill. “And I wonder if once we start an overseas conflict, do we know where and when it will stop? Do we know what our spending will achieve?”

Even senators who were adamantly for tougher action were not happy with the measure they backed.

“I’ll support it. It’s long overdue support for the brave Syrians who are fighting on the front lines against a common terrorist enemy,” said Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), even as he complained that Obama should have acted two years ago, and that even now he was telegraphing his plans to the enemy.

“Two years ago, it could have been decisive, it’s not now,” McCain said. “We’re talking about 5,000 [Syrians] that we’re going to train over a year or more period, and they’re going to be fighting against an estimated 31,500 fighters.”

McCain also complained about a lack of candor over the required U.S. commitment to winning, citing former Secretary of Defense Robert Gates, who predicted “they’re not going to be successful against ISIS strictly from the air.”

“That’s the opinion not of John McCain … but Robert Gates and every military expert I have talked to,” McCain said.

Current administration military leaders have said they have no intentions of putting boots on the ground, but also warned that the circumstances could change.

After Thursday’s vote, whatever the circumstances become, Congress will not have another say until mid-November, at the earliest.

Obama later praised lawmakers for overwhelmingly voting to support the administration’s military efforts.

“I want to thank leaders in Congress for the speed and seriousness with which they approached this urgent issue,” he said during brief remarks at the White House. “Bipartisanship … is the hallmark of American foreign policy at its best.”

This article has been updated to add Obama’s comment and vote details.

CORRECTION: An earlier version incorrectly reported the vote tally. It has been corrected.

MY THOUGHTS ABOUT SCOTLAND BREAKING FROM ENGLAND

I HOPE THAT THE SCOTS DON’T BLOW THIS CHANCE TO GET AWAY FROM THE UK

I MEAN REALLY

WHO WANTS TO BE TAKEN OVER BY THE BRITS?

I’M HOPING THAT THE SCOTS DECLARE INDEPENDENCE FROM THE QUEEN

SHE’S JUST AN OLD BLOODY BITCH, NOW ISN’T SHE!

IT’S NOT LIKE SHE’S ELTON JOHN!

============================================================

Scotland’s Polls Have Closed, Vote Counting Underway In Independence Referendum

Posted: 09/18/2014 5:09 pm EDT Updated: 6 minutes ago
SCOTLAND

EDINBURGH, Scotland (AP) — From the capital of Edinburgh to the far-flung Shetland Islands, Scots embraced a historic moment — and the rest of the United Kingdom held its breath — after voters turned out in unprecedented numbers for an independence referendum that could end the country’s 307-year union with England.

After the polls closed late Thursday, many Scots settled in to stay up all night in homes and bars, awaiting the result that could change their lives, shake financial markets worldwide and boost other independence movements from Flanders to Catalonia to Quebec.

“Why not roll the dice for once?” Yes supporter Thomas Roberts said at one Edinburgh polling station. “I’m going to sit with a beer in my hand watching the results coming in.”

 A nationwide count began immediately at 32 regional centers across Scotland. At Highland Hall outside of Edinburgh, where the final result will be announced later Friday, vote-counters at dozens of tables sorted through paper ballots, watched keenly by monitors from the Yes and No camps.

Early turnout totals for a number of regions ranged from 75 percent to over 90 percent, among the highest levels seen in decades.

The first of the 32 results saw a 54-46 percent No victory in the central district of Clackmannanshire. Results from the cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow were not expected for several hours.

Eager voters had lined up outside some polling stations even before they opened Thursday. More than 4.2 million people had registered to vote — 97 percent of those eligible — including residents as young as 16.

For some, it was a day they had dreamed of for decades. For others, the time had finally come to make up their minds about the future — both for themselves and for the United Kingdom.

“Fifty years I fought for this,” said 83-year-old Isabelle Smith, a Yes supporter in Edinburgh’s maritime district of Newhaven, a former fishing port. “And we are going to win. I can feel it in my bones.”

After polls closed, some No campaigners said they were confident they had swayed enough undecided voters to stave off independence. They may have been helped by a last-minute offer from Britain’s main political parties for more powers for Scotland if they reject secession, and by fears about the future of Britain’s pensions and the National Health Service in an independent Scotland.

British Prime Minister David Cameron was expected to make a televised address about Britain’s future Friday morning after the result was announced.

The question on the ballot could not be simpler: “Should Scotland be an independent country?”

Yet it has divided Scots during months of campaigning, generating an unprecedented volume and intensity of public debate and participation. The Yes side, in particular, has energized young people and previously disillusioned working-class voters.

Polls suggest the result was too close to call. A final Ipsos MORI poll released Thursday put support for the No side at 53 percent and Yes at 47 percent. The phone survey of 991 people has a margin of error of plus or minus three percentage points.

Many questions — the currency an independent Scotland would use, its status within the 28-nation European Union and NATO, the fate of Britain’s nuclear-armed submarines, based at a Scottish port — remain uncertain or disputed after months of campaigning.

One thing was known: A Yes vote would trigger 18 months of negotiations between Scottish leaders and London-based politicians on how the two countries would separate their institutions before Scotland’s planned Independence Day on March 24, 2016.

After weeks in which the British media talked of little else, the television airwaves were almost a referendum-free zone Thursday due to electoral rules. On the streets, it was a different story, with rival Yes and No billboards and campaigners outside many polling places.

For Smith, who went to the polling station decked out in a blue-and-white pro-independence shirt and rosette, statehood for Scotland was a dream nurtured during three decades living in the U.S. with her late husband.

“The one thing America has that the Scots don’t have is confidence,” said Smith, who returned to Scotland years ago. “But they’re getting it, they’re walking tall.”

Yes campaigners insisted Scots would not allow a return to the status quo, even if the independence bid failed.

“Whatever happens, Scotland is going to be different,” said Luke Campbell, a member of the Radical Independence Movement.

But some No supporters said the pro-independence campaign had fueled bad feeling among neighbors.

“The country is divided with a hatchet. It’s so awful — and it was completely unnecessary,” said Fiona Mitchell, distributing No leaflets outside a polling station.

If the Yes side prevails, First Minister Alex Salmond will have realized a long-held dream of leading his country to independence from an alliance with England that was formed in 1707.

“This is our opportunity of a lifetime and we must seize it with both hands,” Salmond said in his final pre-vote speech.

Pro-independence forces got a last-minute boost Thursday from tennis star Andy Murray, who signaled his support of the Yes campaign in a tweet to his 2.7 million followers.

Anti-independence leaders, including former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, himself a Scot, have implored Scots not to break their links with the rest of the United Kingdom and have stressed the economic uncertainties that independence would bring. There have been fierce disputes over whether an independent Scotland could use the pound and several companies have said they would move their headquarters from Scotland to England if the Yes vote prevails.

Many Yes supporters were heading to symbolic spots like Calton Hill overlooking Edinburgh — hoping the sun would rise Friday on a new dawn of independence and not just a hangover.

But financial consultant Michael MacPhee, a No voter, said he would observe the returns coming in “with anxiety.”

Scottish independence is “the daftest idea I’ve ever heard,” he said.

___

Follow Jill Lawless on Twitter at http://Twitter.com/JillLawless

ALSO ON THE HUFFINGTON POST

 

PATRICK PATTEN NEEDS A NEW LIVER-the old one IS DRUNK

PATRICK PATTEN OF E. STROUDSBERG PA NEEDS A NEW LIVER

HE ALSO HAS DIABETES AND NEVER TAKES CARE OF HIMSELF.

HE’S LOST A FEW TOES INCLUDING HIS BIG TOE. VERY DANGEROUS

NOW HE’S DYING.

AND HIS FUCKING BITCH OF A WIFE, KATHY IS CALLING UP HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ASKING IF THEY CAN DONATE A LIVER TO HIM.

PATRICK PATTEN WAS TOLD 12 YEARS AGO THAT HE HAD TO STOP DRINKING AND HE DID NOT DO IT

NOW HE’S JAUNDICE AND SICK AND DYING

NOT ON ANY OF THE PATTENS

THIS IS ALL HIS DOING

HIS SISTERS MAY LOVE HIM BUT I DON’T.

NOW HIS FUCKING MISERABLE EXCUSE FOR A WIFE – WE ALL HATE HER

IS GOING AROUND ASKING PATRICK’S FAMILY MEMBERS IF THEY CAN DONATE A PART OF THEIR LIVERS

PATRICK, ASK YOUR DUI DAUGHTER FOR A LIVER – AT LEAST YOU’LL KEEP THAT DISEASE IN THE FAMILY

ASK YOUR OTHER DAUGHTER THAT YOU FEED CRAZY PILLS TO – IF SHE’D GIVE YOU A FUCKING LIVER

ASK YOUR “WHAT YOU DIDN’T BRING ALCOHOL?” WIFE KATHY FOR A LIVER?

NO YOUR DUMB ASS WIFE GOES AND ASKS MY SIS IN LAW TO ASK HER SONS – FOR A DONATION?

SHE DIDN’T DO IT YOU FUCKTARD

SHE COULDN’T DO IT – THOSE 30 YEAR OLD KIDS DON’T KNOW YOU, NEVER MET YOU AND YOU NEVER MADE AN EFFORT TO SEE THEM WHEN THEY WERE GROWING UP.

GO BACK TO THE DOCTORS

MAYBE  SOME ASSHOLE WILL GIVE YOU A LIVER

WE ARE ALL OUT OF ORGANS HERE IN NJ AND MASSACHUSETTS, SAN DIEGO AND WASHINGTON DC

GO FUCK YOURSELVES – YOU ARE NOT EVEN MEMBERS IN GOOD STANDING IN THIS FAMILY

YOU TELL MY PARTNER, YOUR OWN SISTER, YOU DIDN’T WANT HER TO COME AROUND ANYMORE BECAUSE SHE’S A DRUGGIE?

YOU WERE AND ARE STILL AN ALCOHOLIC WITH A DEATH WISH.

RIP PATRICK AND TAKE YOUR FUCKING SHITTY WIFE WITH YOU.

=====================================================================

SERIOUSLY FUCKED UP PEOPLE.

HERE’S ONE WAY TO GET RID OF A STUPID POLITICIAN – TORONTO MAYOR ROB FORD

IS FAT

IS UGLY

AND “KARMA” DOES NOT TURN A DEAF EAR

AND HAS A RARE FORM OF CANCER

RIP ROB

=============================================================>

people of Toronto – stop being stupid – DON’T RE ELECT ANYONE RELATED TO THIS OLF

Toronto Mayor Rob Ford Has Cancer: Doctor

Posted: 09/17/2014 5:15 pm EDT Updated: 4 hours ago
ROB FORD

TORONTO (AP) — Toronto Mayor Rob Ford’s doctor says the mayor has cancer.

Dr. Zane Cohen, a colorectal surgeon at Mount Sinai hospital, said Wednesday Ford has a malignant sarcoma tumor which he described as “very rare” and “very difficult.”

Ford has been hospitalized for a week with a tumor in his abdomen.

The mayor withdrew his re-election bid Friday as he undergoes treatment, dramatically ending a campaign he had doggedly pursued despite a stint in rehab and calls for him to quit amid drug and alcohol scandals.

Doug Ford is running for mayor in his brother’s place.

OH DAMN! MISS AMERICA FACES HEAT FROM CONSERVATIVES 4 HAVING INTERNED WITH “PLANNED PARENTHOOD”?

YEAH APPARENTLY THIS WOMAN IS SOCIALLY CONSCIOUS

AND THAT’S BAD FOR CONSERVATIVES

THEY LIKE THEIR WOMEN, UNCONSCIOUS, RAPED AND STUPID.

AND BLONDE

THAT’S WHY THEY CANNOT BELIEVE THAT THIS BLONDE MISS AMERICA

INTERNED AT PLANNED PARENTHOOD.

GOOD GRIEF!

Take away her crown!

Put her on the cross!

7 BILLION PEOPLE ON THIS PLANET

NOTE TO BREEDERS: STOP HAVING KIDS

NO YOUR KID WILL NOT SAVE THE WORLD -

IT’S MORE LIKELY THEY WILL FUCK A LOT OF PEOPLE OVER IN IT – THAT’S FOR SURE

BECAUSE OF ALL THE MEDIA ATTENTION – WHICH IS NEGATIVE – SHE IS NO LONGER ON LINKED IN~

RIDICULOUS

======================================================================>

Kira Kazantsev, newly crowned Miss America 2015, once interned at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Photo: Donald KravitzKira Kazantsev, newly crowned Miss America 2015, once interned at a Planned Parenthood clinic. Photo: Donald Kravitz 

I STAND IN SOLIDARITY WITH KIRA – SCREW THESE NEGATIVE MORONS!

WASHINGTON — Kira Kazantsev has been Miss America for only two days, but she’s already taking a stand on issues that don’t usually make their way into the pageant. Kazantsev, who is from New York, made domestic violence the focus of her platform, speaking out about how she was in an abusive relationship in college.

“I want people to stop asking, ‘Why doesn’t she just leave?'” Kazantsev said in an interview with NPR. “Every woman is an expert in her own case, and there are so many extenuating circumstances that lead to a woman staying with her abuser.” She said she felt incredibly “alone” in the relationship and wanted people to start talking about domestic violence more openly.

Now, Kazantsev is getting attention for something else. Many conservatives are criticizing her for the fact that she once interned at Planned Parenthood.

Kazantsev’s LinkedIn profile notes that for three months in 2013, she worked at Planned Parenthood in Hempstead, New York, assisting with education programs.

The pro-life site LifeNews.com wrote a piece Monday taking aim at Kazantsev’s work with a company they say “snuffs out of the lives of young baby girls.”

So the woman representing the nation as the new Miss America interned for the very organization that has killed millions of Americans in abortions.

Kazantsev worked for the abortion giant just outside New York City proper for three months, from February 2013-April 2013. One month later, one of the Planned Parenthood abortion clinics in New York City botched an abortion. The incident occurred at the Margaret Sanger Center Planned Parenthood in New York City, New York.

The criticism spread to Twitter: THESE BITCHES JUST CAN’T BE HAPPY ABOUT ANYTHING:

Here’s what is hilarious about Michelle Malkin’s response: Malkin has a house hubby who gave up his job to stay at home while Malkin promoted her blog to millions. This Miss America does not represent Malkin’s view of America because Malkin is a female dick wearing nazi from the Philippines and This Miss America has balls and is a woman who believes in her convictions. Screw Malkin – that Philappino fucktard.

BUT SINCE WHEN DOES A “MISS AMERICA” GET DISQUALIFIED FOR ACTUALLY DOING SOMETHING GOOD FOR OTHERS WITH HER LIFE?

MALKIN AND THESE MALCONTENT REPUBLICAN SQUIRTS NEED TO STFU – WOMEN HAVE RIGHTS OVER OUR BODIES – MALKIN DOES NOT QUALIFY AS A WOMAN – SHE IS A MAN WITH A PENIS PRETENDING TO BE A WOMAN. HER HUSBAND WEARS A BOOB BRA.

In a statement to The Huffington Post, Eric Ferrero, vice president of communications for Planned Parenthood, said the organization was proud of Kazantsev:

Miss America Kira Kazantsev interned last year at her local Planned Parenthood affiliate, where she supported staff members who provide sex education in the community and at local schools. Several past Miss Americas have supported Planned Parenthood’s mission, and we’re thrilled and proud that one of our former interns is the new Miss America.

Planned Parenthood is the nation’s leading provider of sex education. Every year, we provide more than one million people with accurate, nonjudgmental information about relationships, sexuality, and healthy decision-making. An overwhelming majority of the American public supports access to comprehensive sex education in middle and high schools — the type of sex education programming that Planned Parenthood provides and which gives parents tools to have conversations with their families, and helps keep young people safe and healthy.

Kazantsev, 23, has also interned for Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s (D-N.Y.) campaign and the political consulting firm Solidarity Strategies. In 2012, she helped set up the presidential debate at Hofstra University.

UPDATE: 6:21 p.m. — Kazantsev’s LinkedIn profile is no longer available.

Last but not least, OBAMA ARMS SYRIAN REBELS TO FIGHT ISIS-BOEHNER SIDES WITH OBAMA?

I felt sick all day today

This is proably the reason why.

I don’t believe we should be getting involved like this

Let the Syrians fight these assholes themselves but noooo

Obama is giving them arms and the Congress is divided (OF COURSE)

and SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE stands with the WHITE HOUSE AKA OBAMA

The world has ended.

Goodbye!

====================================================================>

Divided Congress Backs Obama’s ISIS Plan

Posted: 09/17/2014 5:09 pm EDT Updated: 2 hours ago

WASHINGTON — A divided House of Representatives voted on Wednesday to back President Barack Obama’s request to arm and train Syrian rebels to combat the Islamic State.

Upending the normal partisan divides, numerous Democrats and Republicans came down on opposite sides of the vote, with most high-ranking lawmakers backing the White House plan to spend $500 million to vet some 5,000 members of the Free Syrian Army and then supply them with weapons.

The final vote was 273-156, with a total of 159 Republicans and 114 Democrats voting in favor of the measure. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio), who rarely votes, also voted for the measure in a show of support for the president’s request.

 Even Iraq War veterans in the House were divided: Reps. Tulsi Gabbard (D-Hawaii), Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.) and Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.) voted no on arming Syrian rebels, while Reps. Kinzinger (R-Ill.), Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) and Tim Griffin (R-Ark.) voted yes.

But even many members who backed the measure — which was attached to a short-term bill meant to fund the federal government — expressed deep dissatisfaction, especially Republicans who didn’t think the effort was enough to combat the Islamic State, often referred to as ISIS or ISIL.

“The president spoke last week and he presented nothing that could be remotely considered a strategy,” said Rep. Mike Pompeo (R-Kan.) in the House floor debate. “Yet the American people understand the destruction of radical Islamic terrorism is mandatory.”

Many other lawmakers who backed the bill said it would have been better for Congress to vote on a new declaration of war to make the president’s authority clear.

“We can’t have a half-pregnant war,” said Rep. Jack Kingston (R-Ga.). “We have got to fight to win and wipe out this terrorist surge.”

Overall, the House decided that between the brutality of ISIS and the possibility that the group could someday threaten the homeland, it was better to let the White House proceed with its plans. Nevertheless, many legislators said they should be debating whether or not to give the White House explicit new war authority, rather than enabling its current military actions by providing funding without an actual vote on the use of military force.

“This vote, without a vote on a wider use of military force, will be taken by the public, the media and perhaps even the courts as a de facto authorization of military force in Syria,” said Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), whose district includes the World Trade Center site destroyed on Sept. 11.

While the Obama administration has said it welcomes a new authorization to use military force, it has not asked for one, and has asserted that the Authorizations on the Use of Military Force — one passed after the Sept. 11 attacks and one before the 2003 Iraq invasion — are sufficient, even though neither AUMF involved Syria, and the Islamic State did not exist when they were passed.

Congress is set to go on vacation at the end of this week so members may campaign for re-election, and it likely will not be back to consider a war declaration until mid-November, if ever.

Nadler and others said the situation would leave Congress without a voice on its constitutional responsibility to declare war. It would also leave numerous questions unanswered.

“This would undermine our ability to seriously debate the real questions before us,” Nadler said, laying some of them out. “How deadly is the threat we’re facing? And what will happen when American fliers are shot down over Syria and perhaps beheaded on television by ISIL? Will the demand for revenge be overwhelming? Just how steep is the slippery slope we are embarking upon? How long will the conflict last? Is there an exit strategy? What does victory look like? How much will it cost? How many U.S. lives will be lost? Whom will we be arming in Syria? Do they share our long-term interests? What are the odds those arms will be turned against us or our allies?”

Nevertheless, the Senate was expected to take up and pass the measure as soon as Thursday, leaving the constitutional questions standing until after the election. The funding for Syrian rebels was attached to a so-called “continuing resolution” that will keep the U.S. government funded until Dec. 11.

CORRECTION: An earlier version of this story incorrectly stated that 172 Democrats had voted in favor of the measure. In fact, 114 Democrats voted in favor of it.