LOTTOMIKE's Blog

anyone think we will see our first quad for tennessee?

been going four years in south carolina and still no first......

i think 8888 has a good shot at hitting here soon......

a member here stated she hit multiple times on a pick 4 number straight here a while back.i'd sure love to accomplish this.be nice to take off work for a few months........

well time to roast like an oven again.summer is here in the south.suppose to be in the mid 90's today.i loved the summer growing up but now i can't breathe because its so humid.takes your breath away.pretty but i prefer to stay inside unless i work.......

i decided to keep making my list-lottomikes straights for pick 4.got lots of messages asking me to keep it up so i will.hope to help everyone roll in the cash money........

do you really think these officers are worried about you wearing you seat belt.this is another way for the government to make money off of the drivers in this country.you do need to wear your seat belt.i got back in the habit of wearing mine.but lets get real.i'd like to see how much they make this memorial day weekend coming up.......

still waiting for 5876 in any boxed combination to hit in tennessee.it has never hit in any boxed form here yet.bet on it!!!

don't you hate it when you know that your numbers are going to hit in one of three places and you only have enough to play in one place?
then you play one place and it hits in the other place you didn't have enough to bet on? this has happened to me a couple times here recently.you just have to make the right decisions........

                     




Gore back in the limelight, and setting off a buzz
A new film about him has some hoping he will reenter politics.


WASHINGTON - Al Gore, the Movie, is coming soon to a theater near you. Well, maybe. But Wednesday's release of "An Inconvenient Truth," a documentary about the former vice president's crusade against global warming, has generated a wave of buzz that has set political tongues to wagging: Will he run for president again?
The liberal blogosphere is alight with chatter over a man once parodied for his stiff, pedantic style, now garnering boffo reviews for his passion and humor. Mr. Gore outshone the likes of Tom Hanks and Halle Berry at Cannes, writes the conservative-turned- progressive Arianna Huffington in her blog. On "Saturday Night Live," Gore's recent parody of himself as president - he's solved global warming and Big Oil wants a bailout - would make a good campaign ad, say the ex-veep's fans.

   
   






   

Gore, who lost the disputed 2000 election to President Bush, insists that after two terms as Bill Clinton's vice president and two runs for the Oval Office - he first tried in 1988 - he's done with presidential politics. In interviews, he refers to himself as a "recovering politician." But he's added a new caveat: "You always have to worry about a relapse," he recently told the Atlanta Progressive News.

Add to the mix a certain wariness from the Democrats' activist, liberal wing toward the early front-runner among potential party candidates - the centrist Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York - and there's fuel for a Draft Gore movement, if he is indeed inclined to sit out the 2008 race.

"There are a whole lot of people looking for someone willing to take on the Republicans and defend Democratic principles, and do it aggressively, in an unvarnished way, without a whole lot of positioning," says Bill Carrick, a Democratic consultant based in Los Angeles. "They're looking for authenticity. Al Gore talking about global warming in this documentary, combined with being almost alone among prominent Democrats in opposing the Iraq war in the earliest stages - a lot of Democrats find that very, very attractive."

If nothing else, the kudos from the left must be a salve to Gore. After the 2000 election, he faced criticism from Democrats - including Mr. Clinton - for running a campaign many observers felt should never have been so close, given the peace and prosperity of the times. Eventually, the former senator from Tennessee, who was a founder of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council, reemerged as a favorite of Internet-based activists, endorsing Howard Dean for the Democratic nomination in 2004 and continuing to deliver speeches sponsored by Moveon.org.

Some analysts say it's not fair to compare the non-candidate, non-officeholder Gore to Mrs. Clinton, an active legislator running for reelection and possibly higher office whose every vote and statement is parsed.

"With power comes responsibility," says Jenny Backus, a Democratic consultant in Washington. "Al Gore is having fun. He has the freedom of a non-candidate."

Still, she applauds Gore for getting out there with his views. "It's great for the party to have a lot of Democrats articulating ideas," she says.

At this stage, with the party focused intently on retaking one or both houses of Congress this November, some Democratic activists prefer not to discuss publicly what the Gore chatter says about any coolness from some in the party about a possible Hillary Clinton candidacy.

"I cannot go there right now," says Gore's 2000 campaign manager, Donna Brazile, in an e-mail. "The Gore Buzz has everything to do about Al Gore and the excitement people feel about him and what he's done since 'winning the race' in 2000. Seriously, I am not into pitting this one against the other when they would make a great team - if they decide to toss their hats in the ring."

Eli Pariser, executive director of Moveon.org, also prefers to skip discussion of what Gore's rise means for Hillary Clinton. "What you're seeing with his reemergence, in an era of deep partisanship and domination of sound bites, is someone who can be a statesman and speak eloquently about most of the current issues - that really speaks to a lot of people," he says.

Still, behind a cloak of anonymity, party activists don't hesitate to opine in forums such as the National Journal Insiders Poll. In the magazine's latest poll of 138 party insiders, issued May 13, Gore moved up to fourth place among those deemed to have the best chance to win the Democratic nomination in 2008, behind Hillary Clinton, former Virginia Gov. Mark Warner, and former vice presidential candidate John Edwards. Last December, Gore sat in ninth place. But even now, Clinton remains a formidable opponent to anyone thinking of jumping in, given her fame and fundraising ability. Of the 108 insiders who responded to the poll, 72 percent gave her first-place votes.

Still, Gore remains unique among all the others: He, too, has name recognition and big-league fundraising ability, advantages that would allow him to sit on the sidelines longer than the others.

"I don't discount Gore at all," says David Axelrod, a Democratic consultant based in Chicago. "It may not be good politics, but he's got the biggest 'I told you so' in history coming. Much of what he said in 2000 has come to pass, sadly."

Ultimately, says Mr. Axelrod, in the race for the Democratic nomination, there will be "two lanes - a Hillary lane and a Somebody Else lane, and who that other lane is, it's too soon to say."

what is up with people who like to question others because they find it hard to believe you win a lottery drawing,lol.i have people questioning me like they believe i don't hit the pick 4 and i'm just making it up or something.get real.i have documented proof posted right here on this site when i win.i've hit on betslips for almost 5 grand since todd reccommended the site to me on february 8,2006.the envious,jealous,ignorance,etc. needs to stop.study the draws and you might hit instead of ranting about your losses.....

Iran Close to Atomic Bomb Know-How, Olmert Says

   

Ehud Olmert says Israel will try to persuade the Western world to impose sanctions on Iran.




   

JERUSALEM (May 21) - Iran is just a few months away from acquiring the technological know-how that will allow it to build an atomic bomb, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said in an interview broadcast Sunday.

Olmert flew to Washington on Sunday for his first meeting as prime minister with President Bush. The two leaders are expected to discuss Iran's nuclear ambitions.

Olmert told CNN's "Late Edition" that the key issue regarding Iran was not when it builds a nuclear bomb, but rather when it acquires the knowledge they need to manufacture such arms.

"This technological threshold is nearer than we anticipated before. This is because they are already engaged very seriously in enrichment," Olmert said.

"The technological threshold is very close. It can be measured in months rather than years," Olmert added, repeating statements previously made by other senior Israeli officials.

Olmert said the world could not take Iran's nuclear ambitions lightly because Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad has repeatedly called for Israel's destruction. However, he said it was unlikely Israel would act on its own, diplomatically or militarily, to deal with the problem.

   
   
   

In 1981, Israel's air force attacked the Iraqi nuclear reactor at Osirak, destroying the facility. But Olmert said the situations cannot be compared, and Israel will try to persuade the Western world to impose sanctions on Iran.

Iran has so far rejected European proposals to back off the idea of U.N.-imposed sanctions if Tehran agrees to freeze its uranium enrichment program. Another proposal the Europeans are preparing will apparently include a clause saying that if Iran refuses, it could face sanctions backed by the threat of force.

Iran, which insists its nuclear program is for peaceful, civilian purposes, says it has the right to enrich uranium.

Olmert expressed confidence that Bush would "lead other nations in taking the necessary measures to stop Iran from becoming a nuclear power."

"We will certainly try to convince other countries that, at this time, before they cross the technological threshold, that the measures will be taken to stop them," Olmert said.

looking for these in tennessee.....straight

5846,5648,4658,4856

the last couple months i got sucked into trying to make a profit with the pick 3 and i dropped some of my pick 4 numbers.HUGE MISTAKE.everyone saw how good i was doing in the pick 4 online but i started dabbling in pick 3 and dropped some of my pick 4 numbers and the dropped pick 4 numbers hit.didn't get anything mainly playing the oklahoma pick 3.i play straights in the pick 3 and pick 4.not one hit in OK pick 3.lesson learned.i know where my bread is buttered and thats where i'll stay.nothing against pick 3 because some do well with it but my thing is and will be the pick 4.can't argue with nearly five grand won in the space of a couple months in the pick 4.time to get rollin'.........

look for 5856 to hit in tennessee soon.....

Three bills aiming to "prohibit" Internet gambling are now winding their way through Congress.

Internet gambling is already prohibited, at least in most forms. The companies that operate casino, sports betting, and poker websites are all based offshore, and most of their executives risk arrest if they ever step foot on American soil.

But web-based gambling is still a $12 billion industry. And so just as has happened every other time our government has attempted to ban vice (see illicit drugs, prostitution, and alcohol), efforts to ban online gambling have not only failed, they've created more problems than they've solved.

Because the government has banned the "bet taking" side of online gaming, gambling proprietors have simply set up shop in countries where gambling is legal. That keeps them out of reach of U.S. laws, but thanks to the Internet, still well within the reach of U.S. customers. That makes the people who play these sites highly susceptible to fraud, with no recourse in U.S. courts should they be bilked out of their money.

It also makes offshore gaming a prime target for organized crime and international terrorism, given that there's no U.S. government oversight.



For now, the "bet placing" side of Internet gambling is still legal (there's some debate on this point, but most experts agree that the government can't and won't arrest you for placing a bet from your computer). Which is why, despite that it's illegal, Americans still wager billions of dollars online.

That's where this trio of congressmen comes in. Rep. Bob Goodlatte of Virginia, Sen. John Kyl of Arizona, and Rep. Jim Leach of Iowa are all upset that there are some people out there who still see gambling as the moral transgression they do. So each has proposed a bill to go after the "bet placing" side of Internet gambling.

The bills are complicated, and what finally comes out of Congress is likely to be some sort of compromise between the three. But it's safe to say that none of the Congressmen are interested (yet) in arresting actual gamblers. However, that doesn't make what they're proposing any less disturbing. Instead, the bills aim to "deputize" companies like banks and Internet service providers (ISPs) to sniff out the illegal activity of their customers.

For example, Congress may end up asking ISPs to block out gaming sites from their customers, to ban websites on their server from linking to gaming sites, or to monitor the browsing habits of their customers.

Or they may force your bank to closely monitor where your money goes, and to block any transaction not only with an offshore gaming site, but with companies that facilitate transactions between banks and gaming sites.

The privacy implications of such measures are disturbing enough. But there's also something troubling about asking private companies to become de facto law enforcement agencies (a practice that started with aggressive money laundering laws).

Depending on which version of the various Internet gambling prohibition bills passes, these companies could also end up bearing staggering compliance costs. Which, of course, they'll then pass on to consumers.

These are important issues, and they deserve an honest debate. Unfortunately, the supporters of the three bills currently under consideration aren't interested in honest debate. All are pushing their bills as part of "lobbying reform," or the GOP's attempt to save face after many of its members have succumbed to their own moral failings.

Rep. Goodlatte and Sen. Kyle in particular have attempted to push their bills as "anti-Jack Abramoff" measures, referring to the now-disgraced lobbyist. I debated Rep. Goodlatte on his bill a couple of weeks ago, and was surprised when he spent most of his time talking not about the merits of his legislation, but about how passing his bill would send an important message to the American people about lobbying and corruption in Congress.

If you're wondering what slapping a ban on the millions of Americans who wager money online has to do with the Republican Party's moral shortcomings in Washington, well, so was I.

Apparently, the reasoning goes something like this: "Because of Jack Abramoff, Congress' previous attempts to ban Internet gambling failed. So Congress should ban Internet gambling to show that it's not under the influence of Jack Abramoff."

The odd thing is, contrary to what the anti-gambling folks would have you believe, Abramoff didn't want to legalize Internet gambling. He wanted to prohibit it--but in a way that carved out exceptions for his high-rolling clients. (Abramoff's clients were a company that helped state lotteries sell tickets online, and the Indian casinos.) The various bills now under consideration are remarkably similar to the bill Jack Abramoff wanted passed.

As I mentioned, the current gambling bills are complicated. But knowledgeable people on both sides of the debate generally agree that by the time all is said and done, none of these three bills will actually ban Internet gambling. They'll ban gambling for all but those gambling interests that have politically powerful allies in Congress. Which is exactly what Jack Abramoff wanted.

State lotteries, for example, will almost certainly be able to continue to sell tickets online (it's curious how addicted state governments have become to the money generated from those "evil" games of chance, isn't it?). Horse racing is also widely expected to escape any attempt at prohibiting online bets (the anti-gambling crusader Mr. Goodlatte, interestingly enough, has taken some $10,000 in campaign contributions from the National Thoroughbred Racing Association).

Online fantasy football will stay safe, too (previous attempts to ban this growing hobby have met with furious opposition).

The funny thing is, online gaming sites are begging to be legalized and regulated. A better approach would be to allow them to set up shop in the U.S., contribute to the U.S. economy, be regulated by U.S. markets, and be subject to U.S. courts.

Of course, that approach would require Congress to treat Americans as adults, and understand that we ought to be free to spend our own money as we please. Even in ways some morally crusading Congressmen happen to find distasteful.

Radley Balko is a policy analyst for the Cato Institute specializing in "nanny state" and consumer choice issues, including alcohol and tobacco control, drug prohibition, obesity, and civil liberties. Separately, he maintains the The Agitator weblog. The opinions expressed in his column for FOXNews.com are his own and are not to be associated with Cato unless otherwise indicated.