it will put us back to 1950 REMEMBER, so far these are NOT inner take all states, so New Hampsters count for Bernie is what 11? and CLinton is like 9?
The count by "Non" suprdelegates my still be in her favor , Im not sure
0 Replies
roger
1
Tue 9 Feb, 2016 11:54 pm
@Robert Gentel,
I dunno. I think there was an old Will Rodgers quote having to do with the country being safest when congress was out of session
Ah, I get it now, and failing to have done so was independent of the quote.
Yeah, it's been so long with a do-nothing congress that I hadn't recently considered the prospect of a do-too-much congress but I suppose that most examples of congress doing anything will typically have nearly half the people in opposition to it given today's polarization in American politics.
0 Replies
Brandon9000
-2
Wed 10 Feb, 2016 04:04 am
@Builder,
Builder wrote:
I guess you believe the NIST report as well??
Don't change the subject. As I said, I believe that people who are attacked in their own country have a clear right to retaliate, and I believe that virtually everyone agrees with this.
...He showed up and offered money to be allowed to be in the country (after only just recently becoming persona non grata other countries). They were not co-conspirators in 9/11 and were pretty much just guilty of being a tribal country willing to have another small militia within its borders.
They did not say no to the demand to turn Osama over either, they asked for evidence that he was behind it but we were already moving to invade and weren't really going to not occupy the country if they had handed him over. ...
The Taliban had supported bin Laden and given him safe haven. From the Washington Post, shortly before 9/11, when the US asked for bin Laden and others in response to the embassy bombings:
Quote:
KABUL, Afghanistan –– Afghanistan's ruling Taliban on Wednesday said the conviction in New York of four men for the bombing of U.S. embassies was "unfair" and vowed never to hand over Osama bin Laden, accused by the United States of masterminding the attacks.
"He is a great holy warrior of Islam and a great benefactor of the Afghan people," Abdul Anan Himat, a senior official at the Taliban information ministry, said of bin Laden, a Saudi billionaire-dissident who remains in hiding in Afghanistan.
"We won't hand him over to America under any circumstances. It is our stated policy," Himat told The Associated Press in the Afghan capital of Kabul.
From a speech by President Bush gave to Congress shortly after 9/11:
"These demands are not open to negotiation or discussion. The Taliban must act and act immediately. They will hand over the terrorists, or they will share in their fate."
Repeating myself, anyone who is attacked, particularly at home, has the right to strike back.
I agree. That means any nation attacked by the US of A, has every right to retaliate. Ever heard of Cambodia? They have every right to blanket bomb your entire nation. What about North Korea? They can do the same, while defoliating your forests and food sources.
Iraq now has the right to spread depleted uranium right through all of your water supplies, and destroy your hospitals, schools, shopping malls, and housing.
Repeating myself, anyone who is attacked, particularly at home, has the right to strike back.
I agree. That means any nation attacked by the US of A, has every right to retaliate. Ever heard of Cambodia? They have every right to blanket bomb your entire nation. What about North Korea? They can do the same, while defoliating your forests and food sources.
Iraq now has the right to spread depleted uranium right through all of your water supplies, and destroy your hospitals, schools, shopping malls, and housing.
So, to make again my original point, the invasion of Afghanistan was not, as you claimed, under false pretenses. They had given safe haven and support to a person who had just intentionally killed thousands of civilians in our country and they had then refused to extradite him. Retaliation for that was not under false pretenses.
You missed several posts addressing your claim already. The Taliban requested evidence of the claims, which was not forthcoming, and the invasion was already going ahead anyways.
I agree. That means any nation attacked by the US of A, has every right to retaliate. Ever heard of Cambodia? They have every right to blanket bomb your entire nation.
Upset that global Communism was defeated are you?
Builder wrote:
What about North Korea? They can do the same, while defoliating your forests and food sources.
North Korea was the aggressor in that war.
Builder wrote:
Iraq now has the right to spread depleted uranium right through all of your water supplies, and destroy your hospitals, schools, shopping malls, and housing.
The fact that Liberals lie about the war in Iraq does not entitle Iraq to anything.
0 Replies
oralloy
-3
Wed 10 Feb, 2016 08:49 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
Repeating myself, anyone who is attacked, particularly at home, has the right to strike back. Do you not think so?
And, by the way, in 9/11, the civilians killed in New York, were the primary, intended targets.
Liberals sympathize with the 9/11 attackers, as both groups are motivated by hatred of American freedom, so Liberals will always try to justify the murder of innocent civilians and refuse to acknowledge our lawful right to defend ourselves.
If Google search results are any indicator, Americans want to know how the presidential candidates measure up – literally. Among the most popular candidate-related queries plugged into the Internet search engine are ones about the heights of the White House hopefuls.
There's a bigger history to this curiosity, and it's been deemed the "Presidential Height Index" by political scientists, campaign reporters and the like. You see, since 1900, the taller guy has won the presidential election 19 times, while the shorter candidate has won just eight times – and that includes the year 2000 in which George W. Bush, the shorter candidate, didn't win the popular vote against the taller Al Gore. In two of these elections, candidates were the same height.
Quote:
Now, in this cycle, pundits are already fretting about some of the candidates' heights. "Rubio and Paul are as tall as my iPod," conservative talking head Ann Coulter said on Fox News, according to the International Business Times. "You can't run a short candidate," she continued. Over at Bloomberg Politics, Paul was labeled as having a Michael Dukakis problem: Like Paul, Dukakis – a presidential loser – measured 5 feet 8 inches tall. Marco Rubio's a bit taller at 5 feet 10 inches, according to his campaign.
It seems that Americans have a bit of Goldilocks syndrome when it comes to height, too: Candidates must be not too short and not too tall, but just right.
Quote:
Gregg Murray, an associate professor of political science at Texas Tech University, has been studying physical components as they relate to political preference for a while now. Most recently he looked at height, weight and body mass index, or BMI, a measurement calculated from weight and height. He found there's an instinctual preference for leaders who are more "physically formidable," especially in times of strife.
"It's sort of this flash impression that people have," Murray says. Tallness is a factor, but also voters could be looking for candidates who simply look healthy and strong. "The BMI measure was right at the top end of normal weight – it was like right below being overweight," Murray explains.
This is good news for someone like former Maryland Gov. Martin O'Malley, who's 6-foot-1 and in good shape. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, who recently shed major pounds, also could benefit. "My impression is that people do not perceive Christie as unhealthy," Murray says. The 6-foot-3-inch Jeb Bush has been slimming down to fit into this category, too. "He clearly realized he needed to clean up his appearance a little bit," says Murray.
On the flip side, if voters are drawn to the "formidable," it could hurt a candidate like Bernie Sanders.
"Because he's an old guy, let's face it," Murray says.
