Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

Quinnipiac:



Rubio loses 50-34, and Paul Ryan loses 50-38.

I posted this 8 hours ago

Good news for hillaryis45

Clinton had the edge in a hypothetical presidential race against New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, defeating him by 45 percent to 37 percent, according to the poll. She won by a wider 50 to 34 percent margin against Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), and 50 to 38 percent against Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), echoing earlier polling that's shown her as a formidable challenger.

But the poll also had good news for Christie, who ran the best of the three Republican candidates polled. He won against two other Democrats seen as presidential contenders, eking out a 3-point advantage over Vice President Joe Biden, and a resounding 27-point margin over New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo.

Other matchups were closer, with Rubio losing narrowly to Biden and tying with Cuomo. Ryan ran slightly behind Biden and just ahead of Cuomo.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

I'm not suggesting Pakistan isn't complex. I'm suggesting it takes some gall to confidently opine about what really happened as if you have any insight at all. What expertise do you have to be able to say something like this, "if the Pakistan gov't knew we were going after Bin Laden where he was, we'd have never gotten him"? You might as well be opining on cable news television with that kind of punditry, given that it is based on no knowledge.

International relationships and cooperation is extremely complex and rather unpredictable until you see the declassified cables some 40 years later. But at the end of the day, the Pakistani government clearly had more to lose by losing its relationship with the US than its relationship with bin Laden. Even if some realpolitik may have been played along the way, there was close cooperation. Internal politics likely required Pakistan not to participate in the raid and to claim surprise by it. I don't think it makes much sense to believe they were really surprised.



It's not self-evident. We try people that we accuse of criminal acts, we don't summarily execute them.

I like you, EV, but you're the Ned Stark of politics.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I don't know. I think it's most likely. Experts seem to think so, per the article I quoted above. There have been ISI claims to cooperation. And other evidence of cooperation. See:

http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2012-04-27/world/35453826_1_qaeda-isi-officials-osama-bin-laden

And: http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/...ok-claims-pakistan-played-role-bin-laden-raid

Mostly, though, I find it hard to believe that Pakistan, including the ISI, would find a relationship with bin Laden to be more valuable than a relationship with the US. I also think such cooperation between allies is routine, notwithstanding the public positions of governments, and that if cooperation were not given, Pakistan would be subjected to a lot more trouble than if it gave it. I think the official denials from the US and Pakistan are most likely political cover for Pakistan's government.

Thanks. I wanted you to back that up, because it was the same kind of claim you were arguing against, asserting you knew and understood how Pakistan worked. You cite the Washington Post, but mocked them pontificating about Pakistan based on " A few articles published in Western media". And you cite an article from western media in your defense of your assertion of what you think is likely.

I'm not saying you are wrong. Myself, I really don't know what to conclude. I was just reading the discussion and found you arguing your point of view as factual (or as you clarified, most likey), but you don't really have any better basis from which to make that claim than they do. You disagree, but I think you discount their perspective too steeply.

Thanks for the response, the discussion has been interesting.

 

[The Librarian]

Now this I can get behind.

 

[RustyNails]

Mostly, though, I find it hard to believe that Pakistan, including the ISI, would find a relationship with bin Laden to be more valuable than a relationship with the US. I also think such cooperation between allies is routine, notwithstanding the public positions of governments, and that if cooperation were not given, Pakistan would be subjected to a lot more trouble than if it gave it. I think the official denials from the US and Pakistan are most likely political cover for Pakistan's government.

Think the rivalry between US and Soviet Union during the cold war, but much more aggressive with flashpoints and border skirmishes near Cuban border, with the constant threat of nuclear attack looming over everyone. Now put US and Soviet Union right next to each other with a common border. That's how the situation has been with India and Pakistan since forever. That's the mindset ISI lives and breathes in. ISI treats Bin Laden (or treated) as a buffer against Indian aggression in the apocalyptic scenario. When the apocalypse happens, Pakistan Taliban, Al Qaida and other affiliated groups will be on the front lines fighting Pakistan's fight against Indian army.

Of course there will not be a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, but like I said ISI is only interested in survival of homeland. Pakistan knows for a fact that it will be vastly outnumbered by India's close to 2 million active and reserve soldiers. It will keep Taliban operational and a buffer against Indian army.

 

[Oblivion]

I posted this 8 hours ago

FEEL MY PAIN, RUSTY

 

[empty vessel]

Thanks. I wanted you to back that up, because it was the same kind of claim you were arguing against, asserting you knew and understood how Pakistan worked. You cite the Washington Post, but mocked them pontificating about Pakistan based on " A few articles published in Western media". And you cite an article from western media in your defense of your assertion of what you think is likely.

I'm not saying you are wrong. Myself, I really don't know what to conclude. I was just reading the discussion and found you arguing your point of view as factual (or as you clarified, most likey), but you don't really have any better basis from which to make that claim than they do. You disagree, but I think you discount their perspective too steeply.

Thanks for the response, the discussion has been interesting.

I don't think the contrary belief to mine is unreasonable at all. What I was arguing was not that it is unreasonable to believe that there was no cooperation from Pakistan, but that it was not unreasonable to believe that there was.

Also, maybe some clarification is in order. There is no dispute--from Pakistan or anybody--that Pakistan has cooperated a great deal with the US in its "war on terror" and its capture (and assassinations) of alleged terrorists. The question of whether Pakistan specifically cooperated in the capture of bin Laden--which both Pakistan and the US formally deny--is a far narrower question that, within the context of the broader discussion about how the US ought generally to enforce criminal laws against people abroad suspected of committing crimes against the US, was probably only a distraction.

Having said that, I shall continue the distraction.

Think the rivalry between US and Soviet Union during the cold war, but much more aggressive with flashpoints and border skirmishes near Cuban border, with the constant threat of nuclear attack looming over everyone. Now put US and Soviet Union right next to each other with a common border. That's how the situation has been with India and Pakistan since forever. That's the mindset ISI lives and breathes in. ISI treats Bin Laden (or treated) as a buffer against Indian aggression in the apocalyptic scenario. When the apocalypse happens, Pakistan Taliban, Al Qaida and other affiliated groups will be on the front lines fighting Pakistan's fight against Indian army.

Of course there will not be a nuclear war between India and Pakistan, but like I said ISI is only interested in survival of homeland. Pakistan knows for a fact that it will be vastly outnumbered by India's close to 2 million active and reserve soldiers. It will keep Taliban operational and a buffer against Indian army.

None of this strikes me as unreasonable, but I don't really see how this changes the calculus. Do you think bin Laden is worth $3 billion per year? Pakistan, or the ISI, may well feel the need to maintain those militia-like forces. Why do you presume that bin Laden's existence is necessary to that end? Bin Laden is just one person. Of course, bin Laden's prominence certainly may mean that Pakistan couldn't be seen giving him up, but that's a far cry from giving him up, pretending not to, objecting at the US violation of Pakistani sovereignty, and continuing to take $3 billion.

 

[Black Mamba]

Some officials in Pakistan probably contributed on some level with information regarding Bin Laden. You've only set up a straw man argument here.

The argument is that the Bin Laden raid is not successful if Pakistan knew the details of it. And any information about what the ISI is saying publicly to the US or its own people or reporters is worthless; they talk out both sides of their mouth at all times.

If we had asked for permission to do the raid with details, it would have failed. OBL would have been tipped off. Such details would have never been able to be kept away from the numerous ISI agents working against us.

 

[RustyNails]

None of this strikes me as unreasonable, but I don't really see how this changes the calculus. Do you think bin Laden is worth $3 billion per year? Pakistan, or the ISI, may well feel the need to maintain those militia-like forces. Why do you presume that bin Laden's existence is necessary to that end? Bin Laden is just one person. Of course, bin Laden's prominence certainly may mean that Pakistan couldn't be seen giving him up, but that's a far cry from giving him up, pretending not to, objecting at the US violation of Pakistani sovereignty, and continuing to take $3 billion.

Of course, Pakistan was between a rock and a hard place after 9/11. They supported US and took their money, provided bases to conduct war in Afghanistan and also had to give up a few number 2's from Taliban. But there's a line they won't cross, which is complete capitulation to Americans' demand. If ISI had decided to give up UBL in return for nice fat cash in US dollars, it couldn't have been a safe haven for the militia groups like Haqqani network, LeT and TeT to operate. They'd have fled elsewhere because of fear that the winds have changed and they're next, and Pakistan would've lost it's edge.

I honestly believe the government had no clue what was coming, and neither did ISI. CIA knew what it was dealing with, so it kept the whole thing in the dark.

 

[Black Mamba]

Of course, Pakistan was between a rock and a hard place after 9/11. They supported US and took their money, provided bases to conduct war in Afghanistan and also had to give up a few number 2's from Taliban. But there's a line they won't cross, which is complete capitulation to Americans' demand. If ISI had decided to give up UBL in return for nice fat cash in US dollars, it couldn't have been a safe haven for the militia groups like Haqqani network, LeT and TeT to operate. They'd have fled elsewhere because of fear that the winds have changed and they're next, and Pakistan would've lost it's edge.

I honestly believe the government had no clue what was coming, and neither did ISI. CIA knew what it was dealing with, so it kept the whole thing in the dark.

The ISI certainly had no clue. And yeah, I highly doubt anyone else did, either. We had (and still have) no idea who we can trust with information there. And even if we could trust a few, what they would do with that information could only have been detrimental. As if the ISI wouldn't figure something is up if they're info goes down the chain of command that there would be a "training exercise" unplanned around the Attabbad compound. The ISI knew for a fact where he was and for a long time (not everyone, of course, but way too many) and if they had any clue, everything would have been undone. And yes, the ISI would have protected him for sure, just as you explained.

 

[Gotchaye]

I just got phone surveyed about how much I know about stuff. I know I nailed all the science and economy questions, but I'm not sure I got the health care reform ones.

Are the following parts of the ACA that start in 2014:

Limiting the maximum deductible (this may have been an annual limit on coverage question; I'm not sure on the phrasing)?
Insurers can only charge different rates based on age, location, and tobacco use?
Some preexisting conditions thing.

I said yes to all of those.

Also I was asked when people would be able to participate in some kind of health care market thing. My choices were already, June 1, October 1, or December 1 2013, or January 1 2014. I guessed June.

Am I part of the problem? This is harder when you're not Googling the answers.

Edit: I think I got the three true/false ones right. But I'm pretty sure they were talking about the exchanges that go live in October.

 

[Hitokage]

I'd get murdered on that. I didn't pay much attention to the specific timeline of specific provisions.

 

[pigeon]

I just got phone surveyed about how much I know about stuff. I know I nailed all the science and economy questions, but I'm not sure I got the health care reform ones.

Are the following parts of the ACA that start in 2014:

Limiting the maximum deductible (this may have been an annual limit on coverage question; I'm not sure on the phrasing)?
Insurers can only charge different rates based on age, location, and tobacco use?
Some preexisting conditions thing.

I said yes to all of those.

Also I was asked when people would be able to participate in some kind of health care market thing. My choices were already, June 1, October 1, or December 1 2013, or January 1 2014. I guessed June.

Am I part of the problem? This is harder when you're not Googling the answers.

Edit: I think I got the three true/false ones right. But I'm pretty sure they were talking about the exchanges that go live in October.

Honestly, that sounds like a push poll to me. They were probably trying to educate YOU about what the bill does.

 

[Gotchaye]

Honestly, that sounds like a push poll to me. They were probably trying to educate YOU about what the bill does.

I'm sure you're getting their politics right, since one of the science questions was something like "What gas do scientists say is contributing to global warming?", but they did spend the majority of their time on what seemed like legitimate survey questions - "how closely have you been following [chavez dying, sequester, pope conclave]?" and "have you been hearing good/bad news about [economy, gas prices, financial markets]", plus a variety of simple factual questions and questions about what subject we don't teach enough of to kids and why they don't go into math and science and so on.

Basically it struck me as more comprehensive than a push poll, which I'd always imagined as pretty much opening with "Would you be more or less likely to vote for John McCain if you knew he'd fathered an illegitimate black baby?" and moving on to the next person. The poll was framed like they were trying to see how a poll of cell phones would differ from a poll of landlines.

Edit: Certainly I agree that the choices on the last question were bizarrely fine-grained.

 

[speculawyer]

Damn. The Republicans are spinning my head around. First I had to agree that although it was largely bluster, that it was decent for Rand Paul to raise the drones as a topic.

Now I am also force to agree with McCain and Lindsay Graham that Rand Paul & the other GOPers that went along with Ran Paul were being buffoons to a large degree.

McCain pointed out that if this was just about killing non-combatant Americans on American soil then this was nothing but silly pandering to the crazy-conspiracy theory base. Yes there are legit due process questions about American citizens and legit effectiveness questions about whether drones are actually effective strategy in the war on terror. But did people seriously think Obama was going to shoot non combatants Americans on American soil? WTF? Rand Paul acted like that letter from Holder was a great victory when I thought that letter was just trolling.

And Graham pointed out that none of the other GOPers got all upset about the drone program when Bush was in charge. But now when Obama is in office . . . suddenly it is a dangerous program? Why? Graham was kinda implicitly playing the race card there.

 

[kehs]

And Graham pointed out that none of the other GOPers got all upset about the drone program when Bush was in charge. But now when Obama is in office . . . suddenly it is a dangerous program? Why? Graham was kinda implicitly playing the race card there.

Don't think that last bit is fair.

The drone program has grown larger and quicker under Obama.

 

[Clevinger]

Don't think that last bit is fair.

The drone program has grown larger and quicker under Obama.

And that whole targeting an American citizen thing.

Now I am also force to agree with McCain and Lindsay Graham that Rand Paul & the other GOPers that went along with Ran Paul were being buffoons to a large degree.

Did Rubio even agree with what Rand was saying? Seemed like he was just trying to get his name in the headlines again, quoting pop culture (he's so hip!).

 

[Gallbaro]

The same thing it always has, until the last decade. Investigate and, if warranted, arrest and prosecute them for criminal acts.

What do you think the US government should do about urban gangs? The mob? The right-wing militia movement? The anti-abortion movement?

Mother rapers? Father rapers?

 

[Piecake]

Wall Street embraces Climate Change, investing heavily in companies that will benefit from climate change

This might help you out in that stupid facebook argument. Besides those evil liberal scientists, soulless profit-mongering traders now accept climate change

 

[B-Dubs]

Wall Street embraces Climate Change, investing heavily in companies that will benefit from climate change

This might help you out in that stupid facebook argument. Besides those evil liberal scientists, soulless profit-mongering traders now accept climate change

The phrasing of that headline is just bad. It's really bad, it makes it sound like they're investing in companies that are planning to build raft cities when the sea level rises instead of Green Tech and the like.

 

[Piecake]

The phrasing of that headline is just bad. It's really bad, it makes it sound like they're investing in companies that are planning to build raft cities when the sea level rises instead of Green Tech and the like.

They probably are, but it still means they accept global warming!

 

[B-Dubs]

They probably are, but it still means they accept global warming!

Yea I only read the lede of it, I'm getting into the rest now and holy shit are business people stupid as fuck.

Some advisers are attempting to look comprehensively at the opportunities as well as risks. In 2011, the management consultancy Mercer laid out various scenarios for asset values depending on how much temperatures rise. Among the “positive impacts” for warming up to 3 degrees: higher crop productivity in temperate latitudes, and a “decreased requirement for space heating.” On the negative side of the ledger: “malnutrition, heat stress, extreme events,” and “increasing adaptation costs in all regions to protect against flood risk.”

Did they really need to make a pros and cons chart? Really?

And what in the name of shit at this!

The 1,500-mile long ice sheet that covers the Danish territory is melting, exposing what Christiansen and other mining and energy executives say could be a bonanza of gold, rare earths, and base metal deposits that will attract deals and capital to one of the most remote corners of the world. For Nuna, simply put, less ice means more money.
“Last summer, we were exploring in south Greenland, mainly for gold,” Christiansen said. “It has previously been covered by a glacier, but most of that glacier has disappeared, so suddenly we had access to a lot of ground that nobody had seen before.”

Melting glaciers is BAD you idiots. It's not a good thing. Jesus Christ, these people are idiots.

 

[Piecake]

Melting glaciers is BAD you idiots. It's not a good thing. Jesus Christ, these people are idiots.

Itll be amusing once Denmark is completely underwater

 

[Aaron Strife]

What if climate change is a hoax though?

We'll have made the world a better place for nothing!

 

[B-Dubs]

Itll be amusing once Denmark is completely underwater

I actually had a line like that in there, but felt that it was a bit much. Looking back it isn't. It feels like these morons are only capable of seeing short term profit, like their actions won't have an effect on the future.

 

[RDreamer]

Speaking of climate change, that dude's still going on facebook. Crazy fuck. He just posted this and this

Someone who's on my friends list from DHP should jump in. It'll be fun!

My problem is that I'm not a fucking scientist, so I can't debunk some nutjob conspiracy website. I just tend to go with what most real scientists say is happening.

 

[B-Dubs]

Speaking of climate change, that dude's still going on facebook. Crazy fuck. He just posted this and this

Someone who's on my friends list from DHP should jump in. It'll be fun!

My problem is that I'm not a fucking scientist, so I can't debunk some nutjob conspiracy website. I just tend to go with what most real scientists say is happening.

Just looking at the bullet points on that first link I can tell you off the top of my head that most of those look wrong. And what isn't outright wrong is misinterpreted.

Also that link is from 09 back when Climategate was a thing. You should laugh at him for just that alone, because all those climategate people were shown to be idiots.

 

[Hobbestetrician]

Onion 'Short-Rib' Biden is at it again
"Uncle Joe fucked up bad."

 

[Hitokage]

• There are no data that definitively relate carbon dioxide levels to temperature changes.
• The greenhouse effect of carbon dioxide logarithmically declines with increasing concentration. At present levels, any additional carbon dioxide can have very little effect.

This isn't even consistent.

• Effects of temperature change are absolutely independent of the cause of the temperature change.

Wat.

Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and inflammatory language. For instance, the word “ever” is misused by media and in public pronouncements alike. It does not mean “in the last 20 years,” or “the last 70 years.” “Ever” means the last 4.5 billion years.

No, it means since the beginning of time 13.7 billion or so years ago. </smartass>

 

[RDreamer]

wow...

WASHINGTON -- When Congress passed the Violence Against Women Act reauthorization bill late last month, more than 130 House Republicans voted against it. But some of those same lawmakers are putting out misleading statements that make it look like they voted for the bill instead.

Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa), for one, issued a statement with the headline, "King Votes in Support of Violence Against Women Act." But King didn't vote for the VAWA bill. Instead, he voted for a GOP alternative bill that failed to advance.

"I supported VAWA in 2005, 2012, and today I voted in support of the House version to see that victims of domestic violence and sexual assault have access to the resources and protection when they need it most," King's statement reads.

Then there's Rep. Bill Johnson (R-Ohio), who disputed his VAWA vote with a constituent during a Facebook Town Hall. "Please make sure you have the facts right. I DID vote in favor of VAWA today," Johnson wrote. But he didn't.

A Johnson spokesman later told HuffPost that the congressman voted for the GOP alternative bill because the VAWA bill that passed was a "politically–motivated, constitutionally-dubious Senate version bent on dividing women into categories by race, transgender politics and sexual preference.”

The list goes on. As Steve Benen of The Maddow Blog first reported, a smattering of local newspapers have called out lawmakers including Rep. Tim Walberg (R-Mich.), Rep. Vicky Hartzler (R-Mo.), Rep. Keith Rothfus (R-Pa.) and Rep. Tim Murphy (R-Pa.) for being deceptive about how they voted.

Some Republicans found creative ways to make it look like they voted for VAWA. In a statement titled "Proud to Support House VAWA," Rep. Tim Griffin (R-Ark.) says he voted for "House passage of the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) Reauthorization (H.Res. 83)." But that measure isn't the VAWA bill or even the GOP alternative; instead, it's a resolution that authorizes a procedural step forward to begin debate on VAWA.

Aides to some of those lawmakers have pushed back on the idea they were being deceptive. Walberg spokeswoman Sarah Kuziomko told MLive.com that Walberg's statement was "in support of the version of the Violence Against Women Act that included the conscience protection clause," referring to the GOP proposal that failed.

Hartzler spokesman Steve Walsh told McClatchy that the congresswoman wasn't trying to be misleading about having only voted for the GOP alternative to VAWA.

Despite voting against VAWA, Hartzler "is happy that there will be benefits going to victims of abuse under the version that passed," Walsh said.

Rep. Robert Pittenger (R-N.C.) put out a press release titled, "Pittenger supports stronger version of VAWA," though he voted for the pared-down GOP alternative bill that didn't pass. But Pittenger spokeswoman Jamie Bowers emphasized that there were two versions of VAWA and that the congressman voted for the one he thought would do the most to protect women.

"The press release accurately conveys the facts about the competing versions of VAWA and Congressman Pittenger’s strong support for efforts to end domestic violence, combat sex trafficking, and provide meaningful support for victims," Bowers told HuffPost.

Spokespeople for King, Rothfus, Murphy and Griffin did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee spokeswoman Emily Bittner called it "shameful" that Republicans appear to be trying to take credit for something that passed without their support.

"The fact is, Tea Party Republicans want to take credit for something they fought tooth and nail for more than 500 days: a law to help protect all women and their children from domestic violence ... Tea Party House Republicans must stop saying one thing at home and doing the opposite in Washington," Bittner said in a statement

 

[Gotchaye]

Holy crap. I had to click the link after Hitokage's excerpts. That's just painful.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

Ice cold.

 

[Aaron Strife]

Ice cold.

Brian Walsh is such a petulant child. Who does he think benefits when he gets in these little bitch fights with PPP? He does it like, every time they release any poll with bad good news for Obama Democrats.

 

[NYCmetsfan]

Ice cold.

I love whoever runs PPPs twitter feed.

 

[adamsappel]

Public announcements use a great deal of hyperbole and inflammatory language. For instance, the word “ever” is misused by media and in public pronouncements alike. It does not mean “in the last 20 years,” or “the last 70 years.” “Ever” means the last 4.5 billion years.

No, it means since the beginning of time 13.7 billion or so years ago. </smartass>

At least he didn't claim that the Earth is only 6000 years old. That's something.

 

[Avon Barksdale]

I love whoever runs PPPs twitter feed.

I like PPP isn't afraid to fire back at people who take shots at them.

 

[speculawyer]

Nice. I am much happier with him doing this kind of work.

 

[B-Dubs]

Nice. I am much happier with him doing this kind of work.

I'll admit it, those aren't bad.

 

[sc0la]

You know who else was a shitty artist?

HITLER

But Hitler was a mass murdering fuck head.

Spoiler

The above is an Eddie Izzard reference. Bet you were expecting something different in this spoiler

 

[speculawyer]

You know who else was a shitty artist?

HITLER

Vegetarain too supposedly.


But it is weird how that guy who sent thousands of people to their deaths . . . is painting brightly colored fluffy dogs now. Perhaps he is trying to lighten up his mind.

 

[Oblivion]

Speaking of climate change, that dude's still going on facebook. Crazy fuck. He just posted this and this

Someone who's on my friends list from DHP should jump in. It'll be fun!

I don't know too much about climate change either, but I still want to see the funnies. Is this on your personal FB page?

 

[Hitokage]

georgewbush.tumblr.com

 

[Aaron Strife]

Vegetarain too supposedly.

Bill Clinton's a vegan. They're not all bad.

 

[sc0la]

Bill Clinton's a vegan. They're not all bad.

Is this a recent change? Seem to remember his not so secret affair with BigMacs while he was president.

 

[cooljeanius]

Is this a recent change? Seem to remember his not so secret affair with BigMacs while he was president.

Notice how thin he's gotten since he was president?

 

[Oblivion]

Haha, Lawrence O'Donnell is tearing into Rand Paul. Just called him a psychopath.

 

[watershed]

Is this a recent change? Seem to remember his not so secret affair with BigMacs while he was president.

I didn't know he became a vegan but it must have been after his heart surgery.

 

[B-Dubs]

Is this a recent change? Seem to remember his not so secret affair with BigMacs while he was president.

Probably after his by-pass.

 

[Oblivion]

Completely random question, but why is there a payroll tax cap? I'm guessing it had something to do with Ray-gun.

 

[B-Dubs]

Completely random question, but why is there a payroll tax cap? I'm guessing it had something to do with Ray-gun.

Honestly no idea. It may have been put in to get the needed votes originally, the justification being that the rich shouldn't pay into it since they won't need it. I'm actually going to look this up tomorrow, it seems like such a silly thing.

EDIT: Yea apparently the cap goes all the way back to 1937. It was actually sub 100,000 for a lot of the early 00's.