The Altair has Landed
Mark R. Whittington
well be heard around the planet: "Aitkin Base here, the Altair has
landed." The words will herald the return of humans to the Moon after
two thirds of a lifetime. With modern broadcast, virtual reality, and
telepresence technology, that phrase will have new meaning.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/497239/the_altair_has_landed_virtual_reality.html
kT
Get over it.
surfduke
wrote:
Please do not attempt to adjust Your t.v. set. We control the
vertical! We control the horizontal.......etc!
I hope it all comes true. I would love to have the high ground again.
The only problem is "No bucks! No Buck Rodgers!".
Let us pray that the Oil traders can be stopped from bidding up and
away our future, (And that the white house is not taken over by the
the senator from New York or the male Oprah Clone).
My nightmare is a future of folks with bad teeth, bad book lists, and
39a has been turned into a low rent housing project.
Run Ron! RUN!
Carl
Eric Chomko
Ron Paul has a "screaming Dean" episode or an Alexander "I'm in
charge" Haig claim waiting to happen if he gets that far.
Willie...@gmail.com
>
> - Show quoted text -
Has anyone noticed that ever since Nixon penetrated the Democratic
National HQ back in the days of Watergate, the Democrats have
ROUTINELY nominated their weakest candidates? And that the ONLY
reason Clinton won was because Ross Perot split the conservative
vote.
I'm sorry James Webb didn't run after being the subject of some
serious ratfucking.
Eric Chomko
That doesn't say much for Bob Dole in 1996. How do you explain Bob
Dole?
>
> I'm sorry James Webb didn't run after being the subject of some
> serious ratfucking.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Webb
Maybe in 2012?
Michael Gallagher
<pne.c...@comcast.net> wrote:
>That doesn't say much for Bob Dole in 1996. How do you explain Bob
>Dole?
>
An incumbent president --- in Dole's case, Clinton --- has a 60%
chance of being reelected right off the bat. Dole was up against
that, and, apparently, a lot of people didn't hate Clinton. No, I
don't know why either. But there you are.
----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
Eric Chomko
> On Fri, 4 Jan 2008 11:12:23 -0800 (PST), Eric Chomko
>
> >That doesn't say much for Bob Dole in 1996. How do you explain Bob
> >Dole?
>
> An incumbent president --- in Dole's case, Clinton --- has a 60%
> chance of being reelected right off the bat. Dole was up against
> that, and, apparently, a lot of people didn't hate Clinton. No, I
> don't know why either. But there you are.
>
Maybe if Bush got a BJ, then he could balance the budget too...
Quadibloc
> Has anyone noticed that ever since Nixon penetrated the Democratic
> National HQ back in the days of Watergate, the Democrats have
> ROUTINELY nominated their weakest candidates?
But the Republicans are doing the same thing, so I blame a polarized
and divided electorate. Also, since the U.S. uses something called
"open primaries", I'm not sure who the Republicans could infiltrate.
But that reminds me: if the political primaries are forced by LAW to
have open primaries, then how on Earth can the Democratic national
headquarters say to Florida, sorry, your primary won't count because
we don't want you to have it this early? (They did this in several
other states too, and the Republicans did it in some states as well.)
I would have thought they would be breaking the law doing this, as
supposedly open primaries were brought in to correct the abuses of
"machine politics". Or are open primaries just a gentleman's agreement
between the Democrats and the Republicans? (If so, I suppose it's a
good thing they can't be prosecuted for antitrust violations...)
John Savard
Rand Simberg
Quadibloc <jsa...@ecn.ab.ca> made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:
>On Jan 4, 1:26 am, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Has anyone noticed that ever since Nixon penetrated the Democratic
>> National HQ back in the days of Watergate, the Democrats have
>> ROUTINELY nominated their weakest candidates?
Few have "noticed" this, because it's not true. And the Republicans
have run weak candidates many times as well. This is just loony
paranoia.
>But the Republicans are doing the same thing, so I blame a polarized
>and divided electorate. Also, since the U.S. uses something called
>"open primaries", I'm not sure who the Republicans could infiltrate.
>
>But that reminds me: if the political primaries are forced by LAW to
>have open primaries, then how on Earth can the Democratic national
>headquarters say to Florida, sorry, your primary won't count because
>we don't want you to have it this early?
Because there is no such law. Many, in fact most states have closed
primaries.
>I would have thought they would be breaking the law doing this, as
>supposedly open primaries were brought in to correct the abuses of
>"machine politics". Or are open primaries just a gentleman's agreement
>between the Democrats and the Republicans? (If so, I suppose it's a
>good thing they can't be prosecuted for antitrust violations...)
Parties can pretty much run their primaries any way they wish
(including not having them at all, such as the caucuses in Iowa and
Nevada), and it can vary by state. There is no federal law about it.
In fact, the Constitution is completely silent on the subject of
political parties, and many of the founders opposed even having them.
Fred J. McCall
:On Jan 4, 1:26 am, Willie.Moo...@gmail.com wrote:
:
:> Has anyone noticed that ever since Nixon penetrated the Democratic
:> National HQ back in the days of Watergate, the Democrats have
:> ROUTINELY nominated their weakest candidates?
:
:But the Republicans are doing the same thing, so I blame a polarized
:and divided electorate. Also, since the U.S. uses something called
:"open primaries", I'm not sure who the Republicans could infiltrate.
:
You're mistaken. The US doesn't use 'open primaries'. Some states
within the United States do. This varies on a state by state basis.
:
:But that reminds me: if the political primaries are forced by LAW to
:have open primaries,
:
Wrong assumption.
:
:... then how on Earth can the Democratic national
:headquarters say to Florida, sorry, your primary won't count because
:we don't want you to have it this early? (They did this in several
:other states too, and the Republicans did it in some states as well.)
:
Quite easily, since it is up to the PARTY which delegates do and do
not get seated at the Convention.
Hint: Primaries are a *PARTY* function and not a government mandated
or sponsored function. That's why some states have 'caucuses', some
states have 'open primaries', some states have 'closed primaries', and
different parties *MAY* (in some states) have their primaries by
different methods on different days or may not have a primary at all.
:
:I would have thought they would be breaking the law doing this, as
:supposedly open primaries were brought in to correct the abuses of
:"machine politics". Or are open primaries just a gentleman's agreement
:between the Democrats and the Republicans? (If so, I suppose it's a
:good thing they can't be prosecuted for antitrust violations...)
:
None of the preceding paragraph is operative because your basic
assumption ('open primaries' are required by US Federal law) is
incorrect.
--
"It's always different. It's always complex. But at some point,
somebody has to draw the line. And that somebody is always me....
I am the law."
-- Buffy, The Vampire Slayer