...why did the reporters follow the dots to BRITNEY SPEARS and KEVIN FEDERLINE while the Dubya, the bankers and Wall Street were watching the entire world's financial system collapse around them!?!
Every plane crash, no matter how small the plane is, gets investigated by the NTSB.
If someone is trying to kill themselves in a way that gets their loved ones insurance money, the last thing they want to do to kill themselves in a way that requires an investigation by a Federal agency. That's likely to lengthen the process of collecting life insurance pay-outs by a minimum of months, pretty commonly into years.
Serbians pissed off at the US for supporting Croatia and Bosnia crashed Ron Brown's well-publicised trade mission to Croatia by putting up a false instrument beacon that ran the plane in the side of a mountain.
The US covered it up. The world finds out Serbian extremists killed a memeber of Clinton's cabinet, we have to invade Serbia. Not air strikes, a full blown ground invasion.
Clinton covered it up so he wouldn't have to invade Serbia.
"The Technical and Economic Feasibility of Mining the Near-Earth Asteroids
Abstract
Future large scale commercial activities in space will require raw materials obtained from in-space sources rather than from Earth, to overcome the high cost of Earth launch. This paper reviews the prospectiveness of non-terrestrial resources and notes the competitiveness of Near-Earth-Asteroids c.f. the Moon and Phobos or Deimos in terms of accessibility and likely resources. Astronomical work over the last fifteen years has increased the number of known Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs) from about 30 to about 400. Discovery rate of NEAs is now about 50 per year.
Asteroid "geography": NEAs are classified by orbital parameters into Apollos, Amors, and Atens; in addition, the "Arjunas" are the group of small objects in very Earth-like, and therefore very accessible, orbits. Accessibility is defined in terms of velocity requirements (delta-v) for outbound and for return trajectories. Approximately 10% of NEAs are more accessible than the Moon, and maybe 50% of these are likely to be potential orebodies.
Asteroid "geology" has advanced dramatically in the last decade, via spectroscopic and dynamical studies of asteroids and comets, and meteorite studies; reasonable inferences can now be made from asteroid types defined by spectral properties to probable surface mineralogy. Many asteroids may be "volatiles bearing", containing clays, hydrated salts, and hydrocarbons. It also now seems that there are dormant cometary bodies within the population of NEAs. These are likely to contain remnant primordial ices within their cores, making them possible sources of volatiles for future space industry. Resources which would appear to be readily recoverable are thus water and other volatiles, for manufacture of propellant in orbit; and nickel-iron metal, for construction in orbit.
There have been various concepts proposed for mining and retrieval to low-earth-orbit of materials from NEAs, but methods of comparison of the economic feasibility of competing mission concepts are not well-developed. In-situ production at the asteroid of the propellant needed for materials return is an important "enabling" concept. This paper develops methods for comparison of different asteroid mining concepts, and for choosing between various product, process, mission, and engineering alternatives, so as to maximize likely project economic feasibility.
Application of celestial mechanics shows that (i) simple estimates of "global minimum" delta-v can be made; (ii) low-energy opportunities occur at approx 2-yearly intervals, for many NEAs; (iii) long synodic periods militate against multiple-return mining missions; (iv) Earth-return hyperbolic velocity should be kept low; (v) high-eccentricity targets require Hohmann transfers, and a short mining season at aphelion; (vi) low-eccentricity targets may use continuous-thrusting propulsion, and extended mining season. There is a growing subset of targets that are intermittently accessible for an outbound delta-v of under 6 km/s, and offering return departure delta-v under 2 km/sec.
Mining and processing system choices depend on the assumed regolith mineralogy and bulk handling properties, and on the assumed subsurface composition and properties. Process options are (i) in-situ fluidization; (ii) mechanical collection and thermal or magnetic separation; (iii) carbonyl process. Equipment mass estimations for volatiles extraction suggest total processing system mass of less than 5 tonnes for a teleoperated / autonomous miner mission to return 1000 tonnes to LEO.
Sensible and politically achievable propulsion and power system choices are restricted to (i) solar thermal steam rocket; (ii) solar photovoltaic arcjet; (iii) solar photovoltaic massdriver.
As for terrestrial mining projects, the Expectation (probabilistic) value of the Net Present Value is a crucial unifying concept for evaluating competing mission options. By testing system choices for their effect on NPV, one can arrive at
Know much about type of board games that have become popular in Europe in the last 10-15 years.
Games like Settlers of Cataan, Agricola, Puerto Rico, etc.?
If not, that's a good website to start.
Must spend much of life intimidated and defensive
on
How Do Games Grow Up?
·
· Score: 1
What's with the insults?
All this individual did was request information on mentally challenging games. The individual needs more mental stimulation than the average bear to achieve the goal of participating in a recreational activity... finding a way to be mentally stimulated by the activity instead of being quickly bored.
How many of you still spend hours with friends playing tic-tac-toe with your friends?
Ah... none of you. Why... are all of you "ivory tower intellectuals?"
No. Nobody plays tic-tac-toe after their childhood years because it because it becomes repetitious, pointless, and boring......kinda like the way "low information" individuals often defensively react in the presence of any form of intellectual expression above the level of Fantasy Football team lineups.
Wow.. It looks like you finally blew a gasket.....
Wrong, DUMBASS. The guy I voted for in early voting is about to become President. I got nothin' to blow a basket over.
A white trash racist like you, though, that is now claiming the primaries Obama won were manipulated has lots to meltdown over, and you have been doing just that for more than a week.
You have that post all fucked up and that appears to be even after you attempted to fix it.
Let me guess, your really afraid to answer the questions about the logic in your thought.
The guy who is defending Clintonistas plots to try to get Dem elected officials to steal the Dem nomination from rightful nominee at the same time claims he's scared of some dark force in the background was able to manipulate election in Obama's favor doesn't get to lecture anyone on logic.
The logic just doesn't stand up when you ask yourself simply questions like what is the point of the unpledged delegates if they don't vote independent of th primary result.And in the end, my point still stands.. Oh, BTW, I like the way you attempted to change the subject when things weren't working for you by first claiming i was a racist, then by claiming a filibuster and meltdown on my behalf.
I clearly never stopped pointing out you were racist white trash, DUMBASS
You're racist white trash in mid-meltdown because a Black man is a week from becoming President.
It must really yank your chain to see I didn't fall for it and stuck to the points making you look as stupid as you can be.
I don't give a shit what racist white trash think, DUMBASS. There's nobody else reading this week long rant of yours other than me and you.
And just in case you missed my point or forgot what it was with all your nonsensical babel, It's that the primary elections were manipulated to Favor Obama when it looked as if he was going to lose.
This is where you prove every point I made that you are paranoid racist white trash in mid-meltdown.
Anyone who thinks anyone other than a man named Barack Hussein Obama would create some plot to try to get a man named Barack Hussain Obama elected President of the USA is fruity loops.
Now, you can cry it wasn't, you can make shit up and point to rules out of context, you can even change your story half way through your attempts to do it, but for the rest of us, calling a spade a spade is fair game. There is no reason someone who looks at this shouldn't be scared, even if just a little.
The only thing to be afraid of on this thread is the knowledge your paranoid racist white trash DUMBASS is that someone as loathsome as you is walking the streets unsupervised.
BTW, why is it that all Obama supporters lose the ability to use logic when facts are presented that show something other then what they want to think?
Oh really. I see Obama about to become President in a few days. There's nothing for me in this situation to be upset about and lose perspective.
You've the one who's in mid-meltdown over a Black man defeating white people.
Dare to question the "Filibustering as a tactic" routine ? GET TWICE A MUCH FILIBUSTER!
I don't think you know what the word actually means.
More denial.
You use it like you heard it somewhere and think it is important.
Still more denial, DUMBASS.
Anyways, at least my answers are on the point being raised instead of alluding to something else or personal insults when the facts don't support you view. BTW, how does that feel?
When are you going to start reading phonebooks from South Carolina like Strom Thurmond did in the 50's when he was filibustering against Civil Rights legislation?
When are you going to answer the logic questions I presented to you?
They aren't "logic questions." They are mid-meltdown rantings of a bigot.
I mean the difference between what I have done and what you think is going on, beside the fact that I have a basis in reality, is that I have addressed the question or point you raised accurately and factually. Discussion is not filibustering.
It's not discussion. It's ranting.
Discussion while refusing to address the points raised could be considered filibustering if you stretch the definition a bit but then that would make your comment a filibuster instead of mine.
I don't know why you won't answer my questions about the logic of your argument. I know that it will prove you to be wrong, hell, every single article adressing the Super Delegates proves you wrong.
Wrong. Every article you've posted is general fluff piece completely lacking in specifics. I posted the text of the exact rules of the 2008 DNC applying to the situation.
Only someone deeply in denial who is in mid-meltdown would think any different.
You can't even point to a single news source that supports your position
I posted links and the text of the actual 2008 DNC rules in question.
and instead of addressing that, your diverting the attention away by making false allegations about things you know nothing about towards me. How does it fell to live in a fantasy world?
Still nothing but links to vague generalities... nothing remotely compared to the very specific rules of the 2008 DNC that proved my point.
I see that you provide no links yourself concerning the topic. Oh is that because you can't? The super delegates can decide the election independent of any primary results. That is their entire purpose.
Individual uncommitted delegate are free to do whatever they wish. Then RULE 13A makes the DNC rules committee, credendials committee, etc. forces changes in the makeup of delegation to the DNC if the freedom of those uncommitted delgates get carried away enough to alter a result noticably.
Your crazy..lol The unpledged delegates don't even count unless neither candidate gets a clear win. You went from saying that the unpledged delegates have to follow the state's primary results
Never happened.
to admitting that I'm right in the the super delegates have the freedom to vote for anyone they want to the rules comity can over turn the super delegate's vote on it's own. OK, for sake of arguement, I will give you that. It still doesn't negate my point that Ob
OMG! Look at the meltdown DUMBASS is having. He's become Dep. Sheriff Eric Cartman. "RESPECT MY A-THOR-A-TIE! RESPECT MY A-THOR-A-TIE!......with every bit as much legitimacy to be an authority as Eric Cartman had, too.
Lol.. it isn't respect my authority, it is learn something about what your spouting.
Yeah... that why you're running around trying to claim that USA TODAY ARTICLE is a better source for knowledge on the rules of the 2008 DNC than the actual text of the rules to the 2008 DNC that I provided TO YOU.
If you think me telling you to get some knowlege about the topic that you demonstrated you didn't know your ass from a hole in the ground already is a fit, then you have more problems then I can help you with.
BTW, why is it that all Obama supporters lose the ability to use logic when facts are presented that show something other then what they want to think?
Dare to question the "Filibustering as a tactic" routine ? GET TWICE A MUCH FILIBUSTER!
I don't think you know what the word actually means. You use it like you heard it somewhere and think it is important. Anyways, at least my answers are on the point being raised instead of alluding to something else or personal insults when the facts don't support you view. BTW, how does that feel?
When are you going to start reading phonebooks from South Carolina like Strom Thurmond did in the 50's when he was filibustering against Civil Rights legislation?
When are you going to answer the logic questions I presented to you? I mean the difference between what I have done and what you think is going on, beside the fact that I have a basis in reality, is that I have addressed the question or point you raised accurately and factually. Discussion is not filibustering. Discussion while refusing to address the points raised could be considered filibustering if you stretch the definition a bit but then that would make your comment a filibuster instead of mine.
I don't know why you won't answer my questions about the logic of your argument. I know that it will prove you to be wrong, hell, every single article adressing the Super Delegates proves you wrong. You can't even point to a single news source that supports your position and instead of addressing that, your diverting the attention away by making false allegations about things you know nothing about towards me. How does it fell to live in a fantasy world?
Still nothing but links to vague generalities... nothing remotely compared to the very specific rules of the 2008 DNC that proved my point.
I see that you provide no links yourself concerning the topic. Oh is that because you can't? The super delegates can decide the election independent of any primary results. That is their entire purpose.
Individual uncommitted delegate are free to do whatever they wish. Then RULE 13A makes the DNC rules committee, credendials committee, etc. forces changes in the makeup of delegation to the DNC if the freedom of those uncommitted delgates get carried away enough to alter a result noticably.
Your crazy..lol The unpledged delegates don't even count unless neither candidate gets a clear win. You went from saying that the unpledged delegates have to follow the state's primary results to admitting that I'm right in the the super delegates have the freedom to vote for anyone they want to the rules comity can over turn the super delegate's vote on it's own. OK, for sake of arguement, I will give you that. It still doesn't negate my point that Obama had help getting the nomination for president of the US from behind the scenes. So even with your convoluted chain of event's, my point still stands.
OMG! Look at the meltdown DUMBASS is having. He's become Dep. Sheriff Eric Cartman. "RESPECT MY A-THOR-A-TIE! RESPECT MY A-THOR-A-TIE!......with every bit as much legitimacy to be an authority as Eric Cartman had, too.
Dare to question the "Filibustering as a tactic" routine ? GET TWICE A MUCH FILIBUSTER!
When are you going to start reading phonebooks from South Carolina like Strom Thurmond did in the 50's when he was filibustering against Civil Rights legislation?
Still nothing but links to vague generalities... nothing remotely compared to the very specific rules of the 2008 DNC that proved my point.
Go re-read rule 13A DUMBASS!
You think that rule is written to compel any type of behavior of individual delegates?
Nope. It's written for committees within Democratic Party with the authority to compel change in delegations.
Individual uncommitted delegate are free to do whatever they wish. Then RULE 13A makes the DNC rules committee, credendials committee, etc. forces changes in the makeup of delegation to the DNC if the freedom of those uncommitted delgates get carried away enough to alter a result noticably.
If a large chunk of uncommitted delegates broke toward Clinton improperly, other nameless minor elected officials supporting Clinton from other parts of the Country would have been removed by the Credentials Committee and replaced by nameless minor elected official supporting Obama. The math ensuring a Obama nomination would have remained exactly the same.
While trying to clean up some old files/mails, I got these hilarious mathematical proofs. I donâ(TM)t remember who sent these over, but it is definitely worth filing.
Theorem : 3=4
Proof:
Suppose:
a + b = c
This can also be written as:
4a - 3a + 4b - 3b = 4c - 3c
After reorganising:
4a + 4b - 4c = 3a + 3b - 3c
Take the constants out of the brackets:
4 * (a+b-c) = 3 * (a+b-c)
Remove the same term left and right:
4 = 3
Theorem : All numbers are equal to zero.
Proof: Suppose that a=b. Then
a = b
a^2 = ab
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
(a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b)
a + b = b
a = 0
Theorem: 1$(dollar) = 1c(cent).
Proof:
And another that gives you a sense of
money disappearing...
1$ = 100c
= (10c)^2
= (0.1$)^2
= 0.01$
= 1c
Still Still trying to claim a rule that clearly applies to every single one of the 2008 DNC delegates don't apply to some of them.
Still filibustering over pages and pages to convince yourself the meaning of a phrase that is obvious and crystal clearly applies to all delegates applies straight forward that if you pretzel up the logic, and leave out words here, and only consider this when the moon is in Sagittarius on months with 31 days, well, then, it doesn't apply to people who have 2 5s in their Social Security number...
I've seen a advanced mathematics professor write a proof on a blackboard that ran across a whole wall that 5 equaled 4. Anybody can prove anything to themselves if they their pretzel up the logic the way dumbass does.
So you keep going on and keep keeping on trying to convince yourself those rules don't apply to all the delegates. If you repeat it over and over and over again enough times, maybe you might actually be successful in fooling yourself that it's true for brief periods of time.
Still trying to claim a rule that clearly applies to every single one of the 2008 DNC delegates don't apply to some of them.
You go on and keep on trying to convince yourself those rules don't apply to all the delegates. If you repeat it over and over and over again enough times, maybe you might actually be successful in fooling yourself that it's true for brief periods of time.
Then why is your dumb ass still on here claiming that the rule 13A I already posted doesn't exist.
Because your dumb ass is wrong, that why.
Rule 13A requires...
"A. Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participant."
If the delegates are being allocated in a way that doesn't fairly reflect the expressed presidential preference, then the 2008 DNC rules require the delegate allocation process continues on until the delegates do fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference.
Hey dumbass. You can ramble on and on and and attempt to fillibuster all you want. It doesn't change the fact I posted above the actual text from the actual 2008 DNC rules that proves 100% I'm 100% right and you're still 100% wrong, and looking more ridiculous with each additional post.
I posted the ACTUAL text from the ACTUAL 2008 DNC RULES, dumbass.
Don't try quote me no USA Today or MSN 6th grade reading level mini-summaries.
I posted links and text from the ACTUAL 2008 DNC RULES.
The word "superdelegate" is a press-invented nickname for elected and party officials that recieve automatic invitation. The word "superdelegate" does not appear in linked 2008 DNC rules. Go look at THE ACTUAL 2008 DNC RULES....
The term "superdelegate" is nowhere the ACTUAL 2008 DNC RULES. Officially, there is no such designation as "Superdelegate, you dumbass. The actual 2008 DNC rules say they are all delegates.
Slashdot Mirror
Look at that post of yours, coward. All personal insults. Not one fact in it.
...why did the reporters follow the dots to BRITNEY SPEARS and KEVIN FEDERLINE while the Dubya, the bankers and Wall Street were watching the entire world's financial system collapse around them!?!
This clown is jumping to a whole bunch of conclusions that evidence doesn't support.
Connell held a instrument rating. He was no rookie pilot. I think an instrument rated pilot can read a gas gage.
...Then they fight you. Then you win."
~Mahatma Gandhi
Your friendly neighborhood voice of the authority has spoken. One should never question the voice of authority. Authority is always right.
You sheep, go on back to your herd now. Move along.
Every plane crash, no matter how small the plane is, gets investigated by the NTSB.
If someone is trying to kill themselves in a way that gets their loved ones insurance money, the last thing they want to do to kill themselves in a way that requires an investigation by a Federal agency. That's likely to lengthen the process of collecting life insurance pay-outs by a minimum of months, pretty commonly into years.
Maybe the airplane turned to chocolate in midair, and can't be found because it crashed in Hershey, PA.
Just a equally likely possibility.
Don't believe those who tell you to question authority, Martin.
Never question authority, Martin.
Authority is always right.
"Baa! Baaa!" says Martin from the back of the herd.
There a whole host of laws that prevent Bush/Cheney from ordering prisoners be tortured.
They both admitted in interviews they did, though
Serbians pissed off at the US for supporting Croatia and Bosnia crashed Ron Brown's well-publicised trade mission to Croatia by putting up a false instrument beacon that ran the plane in the side of a mountain.
The US covered it up. The world finds out Serbian extremists killed a memeber of Clinton's cabinet, we have to invade Serbia. Not air strikes, a full blown ground invasion.
Clinton covered it up so he wouldn't have to invade Serbia.
Give the man his prize!
http://www.teddybear.com/
Dude... even Bill O'Reilly gave up on the Monica stuff a few years ago.
Lots of crimes are conspiracies, though.
In fact, so many conspiracies being plotted throughout history there are special Federal laws established to prosecute those crimes.
NASA's total budget request for FY 2009 was $17.6 billion...
http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/210020main_NASA_FY09_Budget_Estimates_Summary.pdf
Wanna bitch about wasting money, go yell at a banker or a broker.
"The Technical and Economic Feasibility of Mining the Near-Earth Asteroids
Abstract
Future large scale commercial activities in space will require raw materials obtained from in-space sources rather than from Earth, to overcome the high cost of Earth launch. This paper reviews the prospectiveness of non-terrestrial resources and notes the competitiveness of Near-Earth-Asteroids c.f. the Moon and Phobos or Deimos in terms of accessibility and likely resources. Astronomical work over the last fifteen years has increased the number of known Near Earth Asteroids (NEAs) from about 30 to about 400. Discovery rate of NEAs is now about 50 per year.
Asteroid "geography": NEAs are classified by orbital parameters into Apollos, Amors, and Atens; in addition, the "Arjunas" are the group of small objects in very Earth-like, and therefore very accessible, orbits. Accessibility is defined in terms of velocity requirements (delta-v) for outbound and for return trajectories. Approximately 10% of NEAs are more accessible than the Moon, and maybe 50% of these are likely to be potential orebodies.
Asteroid "geology" has advanced dramatically in the last decade, via spectroscopic and dynamical studies of asteroids and comets, and meteorite studies; reasonable inferences can now be made from asteroid types defined by spectral properties to probable surface mineralogy. Many asteroids may be "volatiles bearing", containing clays, hydrated salts, and hydrocarbons. It also now seems that there are dormant cometary bodies within the population of NEAs. These are likely to contain remnant primordial ices within their cores, making them possible sources of volatiles for future space industry. Resources which would appear to be readily recoverable are thus water and other volatiles, for manufacture of propellant in orbit; and nickel-iron metal, for construction in orbit.
There have been various concepts proposed for mining and retrieval to low-earth-orbit of materials from NEAs, but methods of comparison of the economic feasibility of competing mission concepts are not well-developed. In-situ production at the asteroid of the propellant needed for materials return is an important "enabling" concept. This paper develops methods for comparison of different asteroid mining concepts, and for choosing between various product, process, mission, and engineering alternatives, so as to maximize likely project economic feasibility.
Application of celestial mechanics shows that (i) simple estimates of "global minimum" delta-v can be made; (ii) low-energy opportunities occur at approx 2-yearly intervals, for many NEAs; (iii) long synodic periods militate against multiple-return mining missions; (iv) Earth-return hyperbolic velocity should be kept low; (v) high-eccentricity targets require Hohmann transfers, and a short mining season at aphelion; (vi) low-eccentricity targets may use continuous-thrusting propulsion, and extended mining season. There is a growing subset of targets that are intermittently accessible for an outbound delta-v of under 6 km/s, and offering return departure delta-v under 2 km/sec.
Mining and processing system choices depend on the assumed regolith mineralogy and bulk handling properties, and on the assumed subsurface composition and properties. Process options are (i) in-situ fluidization; (ii) mechanical collection and thermal or magnetic separation; (iii) carbonyl process. Equipment mass estimations for volatiles extraction suggest total processing system mass of less than 5 tonnes for a teleoperated / autonomous miner mission to return 1000 tonnes to LEO.
Sensible and politically achievable propulsion and power system choices are restricted to (i) solar thermal steam rocket; (ii) solar photovoltaic arcjet; (iii) solar photovoltaic massdriver.
As for terrestrial mining projects, the Expectation (probabilistic) value of the Net Present Value is a crucial unifying concept for evaluating competing mission options. By testing system choices for their effect on NPV, one can arrive at
Know much about type of board games that have become popular in Europe in the last 10-15 years.
Games like Settlers of Cataan, Agricola, Puerto Rico, etc.?
If not, that's a good website to start.
What's with the insults?
All this individual did was request information on mentally challenging games. The individual needs more mental stimulation than the average bear to achieve the goal of participating in a recreational activity... finding a way to be mentally stimulated by the activity instead of being quickly bored.
How many of you still spend hours with friends playing tic-tac-toe with your friends?
Ah... none of you. Why... are all of you "ivory tower intellectuals?"
No. Nobody plays tic-tac-toe after their childhood years because it because it becomes repetitious, pointless, and boring... ...kinda like the way "low information" individuals often defensively react in the presence of any form of intellectual expression above the level of Fantasy Football team lineups.
Wrong, DUMBASS. The guy I voted for in early voting is about to become President. I got nothin' to blow a basket over.
A white trash racist like you, though, that is now claiming the primaries Obama won were manipulated has lots to meltdown over, and you have been doing just that for more than a week.
The guy who is defending Clintonistas plots to try to get Dem elected officials to steal the Dem nomination from rightful nominee at the same time claims he's scared of some dark force in the background was able to manipulate election in Obama's favor doesn't get to lecture anyone on logic.
I clearly never stopped pointing out you were racist white trash, DUMBASS
You're racist white trash in mid-meltdown because a Black man is a week from becoming President.
I don't give a shit what racist white trash think, DUMBASS. There's nobody else reading this week long rant of yours other than me and you.
This is where you prove every point I made that you are paranoid racist white trash in mid-meltdown.
Anyone who thinks anyone other than a man named Barack Hussein Obama would create some plot to try to get a man named Barack Hussain Obama elected President of the USA is fruity loops.
The only thing to be afraid of on this thread is the knowledge your paranoid racist white trash DUMBASS is that someone as loathsome as you is walking the streets unsupervised.
BTW, why is it that all Obama supporters lose the ability to use logic when facts are presented that show something other then what they want to think?
I don't think you know what the word actually means.
You use it like you heard it somewhere and think it is important.
Anyways, at least my answers are on the point being raised instead of alluding to something else or personal insults when the facts don't support you view. BTW, how does that feel?
When are you going to answer the logic questions I presented to you?
I mean the difference between what I have done and what you think is going on, beside the fact that I have a basis in reality, is that I have addressed the question or point you raised accurately and factually. Discussion is not filibustering.
Discussion while refusing to address the points raised could be considered filibustering if you stretch the definition a bit but then that would make your comment a filibuster instead of mine.
I don't know why you won't answer my questions about the logic of your argument. I know that it will prove you to be wrong, hell, every single article adressing the Super Delegates proves you wrong.
You can't even point to a single news source that supports your position
and instead of addressing that, your diverting the attention away by making false allegations about things you know nothing about towards me. How does it fell to live in a fantasy world?
I see that you provide no links yourself concerning the topic. Oh is that because you can't? The super delegates can decide the election independent of any primary results. That is their entire purpose.
Your crazy..lol The unpledged delegates don't even count unless neither candidate gets a clear win. You went from saying that the unpledged delegates have to follow the state's primary results
to admitting that I'm right in the the super delegates have the freedom to vote for anyone they want to the rules comity can over turn the super delegate's vote on it's own. OK, for sake of arguement, I will give you that. It still doesn't negate my point that Ob
Lol.. it isn't respect my authority, it is learn something about what your spouting.
If you think me telling you to get some knowlege about the topic that you demonstrated you didn't know your ass from a hole in the ground already is a fit, then you have more problems then I can help you with.
BTW, why is it that all Obama supporters lose the ability to use logic when facts are presented that show something other then what they want to think?
I don't think you know what the word actually means. You use it like you heard it somewhere and think it is important. Anyways, at least my answers are on the point being raised instead of alluding to something else or personal insults when the facts don't support you view. BTW, how does that feel?
When are you going to answer the logic questions I presented to you? I mean the difference between what I have done and what you think is going on, beside the fact that I have a basis in reality, is that I have addressed the question or point you raised accurately and factually. Discussion is not filibustering. Discussion while refusing to address the points raised could be considered filibustering if you stretch the definition a bit but then that would make your comment a filibuster instead of mine.
I don't know why you won't answer my questions about the logic of your argument. I know that it will prove you to be wrong, hell, every single article adressing the Super Delegates proves you wrong. You can't even point to a single news source that supports your position and instead of addressing that, your diverting the attention away by making false allegations about things you know nothing about towards me. How does it fell to live in a fantasy world?
I see that you provide no links yourself concerning the topic. Oh is that because you can't? The super delegates can decide the election independent of any primary results. That is their entire purpose.
Your crazy..lol The unpledged delegates don't even count unless neither candidate gets a clear win. You went from saying that the unpledged delegates have to follow the state's primary results to admitting that I'm right in the the super delegates have the freedom to vote for anyone they want to the rules comity can over turn the super delegate's vote on it's own. OK, for sake of arguement, I will give you that. It still doesn't negate my point that Obama had help getting the nomination for president of the US from behind the scenes. So even with your convoluted chain of event's, my point still stands.
OMG! Look at the meltdown DUMBASS is having. He's become Dep. Sheriff Eric Cartman. "RESPECT MY A-THOR-A-TIE! RESPECT MY A-THOR-A-TIE!... ...with every bit as much legitimacy to be an authority as Eric Cartman had, too.
Dare to question the "Filibustering as a tactic" routine ? GET TWICE A MUCH FILIBUSTER!
When are you going to start reading phonebooks from South Carolina like Strom Thurmond did in the 50's when he was filibustering against Civil Rights legislation?
Still nothing but links to vague generalities... nothing remotely compared to the very specific rules of the 2008 DNC that proved my point.
Go re-read rule 13A DUMBASS!
You think that rule is written to compel any type of behavior of individual delegates?
Nope. It's written for committees within Democratic Party with the authority to compel change in delegations.
Individual uncommitted delegate are free to do whatever they wish. Then RULE 13A makes the DNC rules committee, credendials committee, etc. forces changes in the makeup of delegation to the DNC if the freedom of those uncommitted delgates get carried away enough to alter a result noticably.
If a large chunk of uncommitted delegates broke toward Clinton improperly, other nameless minor elected officials supporting Clinton from other parts of the Country would have been removed by the Credentials Committee and replaced by nameless minor elected official supporting Obama. The math ensuring a Obama nomination would have remained exactly the same.
------------
Google search "mathematics proof 5=4"
Top link on 1st page that comes up...
http://vsbabu.org/mt/archives/2003/04/29/funny_math.html
Theorems that prove basic mathematics is wrong!
While trying to clean up some old files/mails, I got these hilarious mathematical proofs. I donâ(TM)t remember who sent these over, but it is definitely worth filing.
Theorem : 3=4
Proof:
Suppose:
a + b = c
This can also be written as:
4a - 3a + 4b - 3b = 4c - 3c
After reorganising:
4a + 4b - 4c = 3a + 3b - 3c
Take the constants out of the brackets:
4 * (a+b-c) = 3 * (a+b-c)
Remove the same term left and right:
4 = 3
Theorem : All numbers are equal to zero.
Proof: Suppose that a=b. Then
a = b
a^2 = ab
a^2 - b^2 = ab - b^2
(a + b)(a - b) = b(a - b)
a + b = b
a = 0
Theorem: 1$(dollar) = 1c(cent).
Proof:
And another that gives you a sense of
money disappearing...
1$ = 100c
= (10c)^2
= (0.1$)^2
= 0.01$
= 1c
Theorem: 1 = -1 .
Proof:
1/-1 = -1/1
sqrt[ 1/-1 ] = sqrt[ -1/1 ]
sqrt[1]*sqrt[1] = sqrt[-1]*sqrt[-1]
ie 1 = -1
Th
Still Still wrong, DUMBASS.
Still Still trying to claim a rule that clearly applies to every single one of the 2008 DNC delegates don't apply to some of them.
Still filibustering over pages and pages to convince yourself the meaning of a phrase that is obvious and crystal clearly applies to all delegates applies straight forward that if you pretzel up the logic, and leave out words here, and only consider this when the moon is in Sagittarius on months with 31 days, well, then, it doesn't apply to people who have 2 5s in their Social Security number...
I've seen a advanced mathematics professor write a proof on a blackboard that ran across a whole wall that 5 equaled 4. Anybody can prove anything to themselves if they their pretzel up the logic the way dumbass does.
So you keep going on and keep keeping on trying to convince yourself those rules don't apply to all the delegates. If you repeat it over and over and over again enough times, maybe you might actually be successful in fooling yourself that it's true for brief periods of time.
Still wrong, dumbass.
Still trying to claim a rule that clearly applies to every single one of the 2008 DNC delegates don't apply to some of them.
You go on and keep on trying to convince yourself those rules don't apply to all the delegates. If you repeat it over and over and over again enough times, maybe you might actually be successful in fooling yourself that it's true for brief periods of time.
Then why is your dumb ass still on here claiming that the rule 13A I already posted doesn't exist.
Because your dumb ass is wrong, that why.
Rule 13A requires...
"A. Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participant."
If the delegates are being allocated in a way that doesn't fairly reflect the expressed presidential preference, then the 2008 DNC rules require the delegate allocation process continues on until the delegates do fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference.
Hey dumbass. You can ramble on and on and and attempt to fillibuster all you want. It doesn't change the fact I posted above the actual text from the actual 2008 DNC rules that proves 100% I'm 100% right and you're still 100% wrong, and looking more ridiculous with each additional post.
I posted the ACTUAL text from the ACTUAL 2008 DNC RULES, dumbass.
Don't try quote me no USA Today or MSN 6th grade reading level mini-summaries.
I posted links and text from the ACTUAL 2008 DNC RULES.
The word "superdelegate" is a press-invented nickname for elected and party officials that recieve automatic invitation. The word "superdelegate" does not appear in linked 2008 DNC rules. Go look at THE ACTUAL 2008 DNC RULES....
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&ct=res&cd=2&url=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fapache.3cdn.net%2F3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf&ei=OHkBSZ6sJ4nOtQOz0o2ECw&usg=AFQjCNHMLpm_nv77Ju2BtG77Ud_wkLSadA&sig2=RjRu3Sjm2gwuWgPc8Qjozw
http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:pcvk4kSKzqMJ:s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf+dnc+rules+superdelegates&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us
The term "superdelegate" is nowhere the ACTUAL 2008 DNC RULES. Officially, there is no such designation as "Superdelegate, you dumbass. The actual 2008 DNC rules say they are all delegates.