Al Franken...is this for real?

lookout123;383074 wrote:

Sure, he's got the time. It's not like Air America really needs him these days.

Clodfobble;383113 wrote:

A senator from Minnesota? That seems a really unlikely state, to me. I don't know why.

Flint;383117 wrote:

Maybe he figures the voters of Minnesota are looking for somebody along the lines of the late Paul Wellstone.

Cloud;383172 wrote:

Why do I know who Al Franken is? I do. Just don't know why.

Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

Flint;383065 wrote:

AL FRANKEN FOR U.S. SENATE
Is this already being discussed somewhere on the Cellar? If not, why not?

Now he wants to join the longest running comedy show ever.

lookout123;515212 wrote:

Very interesting. stupid, but interesting. if they are supposed to clearly and cleanly fill in the circle or ask for a new ballot in case of a mistake and they could do neither properly, the ballot shouldn't be counted.

Cloud;383172 wrote:

Actors seem to make pretty good politicians. Why do I know who Al Franken is? I do. Just don't know why.

lookout123;515330 wrote:

Radar, you may not like them, but it would appear that Thompson, Reagan, and Schwarzenegger made the jump to politics with great success.

richlevy;515314 wrote:

I for one welcome the lizard people as our Minnesotan overlords.:D

Pico and ME;515406 wrote:

I never listened to Franken while he was on Air America, but the few times I've read something he's written, I was impressed. He may have acted like a reactionary lefty, but Bush caused a lot of people to do that. What was his 'nonsense' like?

Griff;515479 wrote:

I find him to be very much like Sean Hannity. He wouldn't be able to build an audience of his own, but can roll out the platitudes, and appeal to the bigotries of his side, making the base angry and mobilized, but lacking the talent of Limbaugh when it comes to blending lies with"humor" or actually building a movement.

TheMercenary;516267 wrote:

Hence why Air America was such a failure, not to mention all the financial trouble Frankin and and his buddies got into. Sort of like the way [COLOR="Red"]Bush[/COLOR] is throwing money out without it being monitored.

Griff;516328 wrote:

Fixed your Limbaughism.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary
Hence why Air America was such a failure, not to mention all the financial trouble Frankin and and his buddies got into. Sort of like the way the demoncratically controlled Congress is throwing money out without it being monitored.

TheMercenary;516559 wrote:

Fixed your Demoncratic way of seeing the world with rose colored glasses.

Griff;516695 wrote:

The Democrats in congress were wrong to trust the Bush administration with a blank check when he was talking down the economy. They will be fully responsible at the end of January, partisan Republicans can start bitching then. Is this a Limbaugh/Rove rewrite you're selling or your own creation?

TheMercenary;516851 wrote:

Controls that were attempted by the Repubs were shot down. Nope. You guys get this one.

Happy Monkey;516892 wrote:

Which ones were those?

TheMercenary;516851 wrote:

Not at all. It is a fact that Congress controls the purse strings of our nation. They get the responsibility for the financial failures of the last 2years. This started with the Franks and Clinton and it continues. Controls that were attempted by the Repubs were shot down. Nope. You guys get this one.

sycamore;516902 wrote:

Wow...you better hope Griff doesn't whup your ass for calling him a Democrat. ;)

TheMercenary;516896 wrote:

Those ones. Google is your friend. It has all been hashed out here before.

TheMercenary;516897 wrote:

I'll give you a hand. Start here:
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=18176

Flint;517361 wrote:

Yeah Merc, I totally Google-slapped your argument.

xoxoxoBruce;517366 wrote:

C'mon, it doesn't say that. Sheesh, you're beginning to sound like UG. :haha:

warch;517404 wrote:

One thing I do know: Ritchie, the elected official in charge of the recount is a good, honest man. So what ever HE KNOWS happens is square.

warch;517404 wrote:

Back to Al: (full disclosure: I voted for him)

One thing I do know: Ritchie, the elected official in charge of the recount is a good, honest man. So what ever happens is square.

Strange things keep happening in Minnesota, where the disputed recount in the Senate race between Norm Coleman and Al Franken may be nearing a dubious outcome. Thanks to the machinations of Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie and a meek state Canvassing Board, Mr. Franken may emerge as an illegitimate victor.

Mr. Franken started the recount 215 votes behind Senator Coleman, but he now claims a 225-vote lead and suddenly the man who was insisting on "counting every vote" wants to shut the process down. He's getting help from Mr. Ritchie and his four fellow Canvassing Board members, who have delivered inconsistent rulings and are ignoring glaring problems with the tallies.

Under Minnesota law, election officials are required to make a duplicate ballot if the original is damaged during Election Night counting. Officials are supposed to mark these as "duplicate" and segregate the original ballots. But it appears some officials may have failed to mark ballots as duplicates, which are now being counted in addition to the originals. This helps explain why more than 25 precincts now have more ballots than voters who signed in to vote. By some estimates this double counting has yielded Mr. Franken an additional 80 to 100 votes.

This disenfranchises Minnesotans whose vote counted only once. And one Canvassing Board member, State Supreme Court Justice G. Barry Anderson, has acknowledged that "very likely there was a double counting." Yet the board insists that it lacks the authority to question local officials and it is merely adding the inflated numbers to the totals.

In other cases, the board has been flagrantly inconsistent. Last month, Mr. Franken's campaign charged that one Hennepin County (Minneapolis) precinct had "lost" 133 votes, since the hand recount showed fewer ballots than machine votes recorded on Election Night. Though there is no proof to this missing vote charge -- officials may have accidentally run the ballots through the machine twice on Election Night -- the Canvassing Board chose to go with the Election Night total, rather than the actual number of ballots in the recount. That decision gave Mr. Franken a gain of 46 votes.

Minnesotans like to think that their state isn't like New Jersey or Louisiana, and typically it isn't. But we can't recall a similar recount involving optical scanning machines that has changed so many votes, and in which nearly every crucial decision worked to the advantage of the same candidate. The Coleman campaign clearly misjudged the politics here, and the apparent willingness of a partisan like Mr. Ritchie to help his preferred candidate, Mr. Franken. If the Canvassing Board certifies Mr. Franken as the winner based on the current count, it will be anointing a tainted and undeserving Senator.

Republicans are already framing the Coleman/Franken fight as an example of Democrats acting improperly. The Republican National Committee late last night sent an editorial to reporters from the conservative Wall Street Journal editorial page alleging "Funny Business in Minnesota."

Among vote caches Coleman could ask the courts to consider:

# The 654 rejected absentee ballots the Coleman campaign says may be wrongly rejected. The campaign has a request before the Minnesota Supreme Court for inclusion of those ballots. That issue might be decided this morning, which could put the kibosh on the declaration of a Franken victory. Those ballots tend to come from more Republican areas than the mistakenly rejected absentee ballots identified by county officials and included in the recount totals Saturday. If Coleman gets his way on those ballots, they could net him 50 votes or more.

# The 133 missing ballots from Ward 3, Precinct 1, in Minneapolis. Those ballots disappeared after Election Day and before the recount. The state canvassing board, upon request from the city's elections director, voted to accept the election night total from that precinct. That decision netted Franken 46 votes. If that decision were reversed in an election lawsuit, Franken would lose those votes.

# The 171 found ballots in Maplewood's Fire Station No. 7, where the city's Precinct 6 voters cast their ballots. Those votes were uncounted on Election Day, but the ballots appeared during the hand recount. Franken netted 37 votes from their appearance.

# Potentially more than 100 Franken votes from various precincts in Minneapolis. The Coleman campaign believes those votes were counted twice in the recount, after damaged original ballots were separated from their duplicates created by election judges. The campaign told the state Supreme Court it believes both the original and the duplicate ballots were tallied. The court decided it could not sort through the issue but allowed that Coleman might bring it up in an election lawsuit, in which evidence and testimony could be gathered.

If all those issues moved Coleman's way, Franken would lose more votes than his current 225-vote lead.

And that's not even a complete list of the matters the Coleman campaign might bring before a court.

The election contest may go "way back to the most ancient history," Knaak [Coleman's recount attorney] said. And if the courts agree with Coleman's doubts about the count in certain precincts, hundreds of votes could swing.

"The results of entire precincts could get thrown out," he said, although he made clear he was not necessarily advocating that.

That means Coleman would not have to see victory on every legal issue but still would need many favorable decisions.

"It is not easy by any stretch of the imagination, but it is doable," Knaak said.

There are other reasons not to go forward: expense and public opinion. If Coleman goes to court, he'd bear the brunt of both.

Minnesotans, having anxiously watched the recount for more than two months, may be just sick of the whole thing.

"You'd hear a collective moan" when the lawsuit gets filed, Knaak said.

And many of the state's voters could blame the continuing fight on Coleman, who may hope for a political future beyond the Senate.

classicman;519251 wrote:

Agreed - If the vote hadn't been challenged, then the original result would have been wrong.

Nirvana;519287 wrote:

He's good enough
He's smart enough
And by golly people like him! ;)

Nirvana;519297 wrote:

Not in my state or yours either... I just happen to appreciate his candid point of view. I think the books he wrote made right wingers uncomfortable.

TheMercenary;519271 wrote:

Well there you have it. Franken is their man. They will get what they deserve, a class clown.

piercehawkeye45;519309 wrote:

Deserve? The election might as well been between tw and UG.

piercehawkeye45;519309 wrote:

Deserve? The election might as well been between tw and UG.

richlevy;519337 wrote:

Levy's Corollary to Godwin's Law. Anyone who deliberately misspells Democrat or Republican in an attempt to score political points automatically loses the argument.

classicman;519223 wrote:

No question the piece was biased,

that was only part of the point. The other point was that the system is effed up. Its hard to believe that they can't get something which seems relatively simple done easily.

The 133 missing ballots, from example, were in an envelope from the not-exactly-shenanigans-prone University Lutheran Church of Hope in Minneapolis that got counted late on election night, then transported to a warehouse, and seem to have gone missing in the recount. Everyone spent a day combing the place for the envelope as if they were on a CSI episode, but to no avail. "You'd love to find it," says Mark Ritchie, Minnesota's secretary of state. "Out of 3 million ballots, to have one envelope missing, you know, darn it." You know, darn it is the Minnesota equivalent of self-flagellation.

Last month, Mr. Franken's campaign charged that one Hennepin County (Minneapolis) precinct had "lost" 133 votes, since the hand recount showed fewer ballots than machine votes recorded on Election Night. Though there is no proof to this missing vote charge -- officials may have accidentally run the ballots through the machine twice on Election Night -- the Canvassing Board chose to go with the Election Night total, rather than the actual number of ballots in the recount.

Griff;519448 wrote:

Franken, Kennedy, and Burris make me wonder how broken the democratic process is.

Flint;519482 wrote:

This guy Burris. He is technically correct, but, this is one of those situations where being right matters less than not making a jackass of yourself. It honestly reminds me of something I might do, just bulldoze ahead, knowing how "right" I am. I hope I don't come off like this guy.

glatt;519774 wrote:

Yeah, I'm a registered Democrat, and I just called the leaders of my party ineffectual douchbags. :mad:

glatt;519790 wrote:

Hmm. Douchebag has an "e" in it. Spellchecker doesn't like it either way.

In Germany "douche" means "shower." I used to douche every day when I was there.

TheMercenary;520319 wrote:

Well looks like Fraankenstein is going to Washington. I give him 6 months to step on his dick.

tw;520937 wrote:

Well at least he does not mistake his for a brain. Does your wife get down on her knees and worship what you use for a brain before you stick it in her? Just more comments that make TheMercenary more comfortable - especially when we talk about this whore wife.

Griff;520942 wrote:

Way too personal on the wife tw. Shut it down.

tw;520946 wrote:

As I said, I will be extremely personal and brutal if that attutide continues. What I have posted for one day has been the usual attitude from TheMercenary and classicman for months - especially since American rejected wacko extremism.

You want it to end? Then address the only reason why these posts will continue with their tone. Why TheMercenary could only marry a woman dripping gonerria. It is the only tone that low intelligent wackos understand.

Let's see. I posted this stuff only one day. How many months have TheMercenary and classicman doing it? These replies are more than justified and what they have again done once intelligent discussions. I can only be accused of Plagiarism because I am now posting in the style, tone, and attitude of TheMercenary.

You want it toned down? Then discuss the reasons for a return to this tone as Brianna has also done. Then I need not plagiarize merc. His wife is fair game because of his constant posts in recent months and perioidically over years.

Every thread can no longer discuss concepts with thought. TheMerc turns every thread into insults. Can we discuss Obama's nominees? No because of the new Cellar tone directly traceable to only a few people - one that has a wife who must be dripping gonerria - the same disease found in all recent TheMerc posts.

Your post is misdirected if you want it to stop. You must address the source of this new tone.

TheMercenary;520943 wrote:

Paybacks are a bitch.

tw;520952 wrote:

Yes. Be sure you show your wife what she really is. She gets what you earned for her repuatation. Why do I only reserve this tone for the few who have literally perverted every Cellar thread with personal attacks and no useful contributions? Well, it requires TheMercenary to have an education - because he was not smart enough to be accepted to any higher institution.

UT - welcome again to what TheMercenary, et al want the Cellar to become.

TheMercenary;520950 wrote:

Weak.

tw;520955 wrote:

Wow. More words of wisdom. But again, a four letter word. Par for him.

TheMercenary;520956 wrote:

You forgot, wacko, extremist, George Jr., Cheney, White House, Bin Laden, and all the other same old bullshit.

tw;521154 wrote:

This it tolerated?

Even April, Oynxcougar, and Barak were banned for much less.

But because he does it often or because wacko extremists are permitted such tolerance, it is acceptable? Silence encourages the 'dumbfuck' to post more of this.

If silence remains from the so many, then I will simply have to discuss more of merc’s family.

I have no choice but to respond equally. Fair is fair when your peers remains silent while his posting were, as Brianna put it, 'constant'.

You have a choice. Encourage the diminishing of the cellar by attacking me, or give me no reasons to post like TheMercenary.

Silence is no longer an option. If he continues, then Bruce has announced that he will ban tw.

April, a teenage girl who was probably only crying out for help, got banned for far less that what TheMercenary has been doing for years.

xoxoxoBruce;521164 wrote:

Yes April and Onyxcougar were not banned.

Because rather than censor the board, I ignore, as I suspect most do, these childish volleys between you two.

Undertoad;521179 wrote:

That's your opinion; but nevertheless, in the petty back-n-forth there is a line that you shouldn't cross, which you have crossed.

tw;521174 wrote:

So why did both continue to try posting by other means and get stopped again? That was not banning? Of course they were banned. Exactly the point. You stayed silent - encouraged - the childish nonsense started and routinely posted by TheMercenary. Meanwhile I replied with posts that also included supporting fact why AND no insults. (Wacko extremisms is a term just like moderate is a term.) Now that TheMercenary has accelerated his personal attack in numbers and intensity, I have again replied in kind – as anyone would be expected to after so long.

If you ban me, then an honest (logical) Bruce must also ban TheMercenary, UG, and classicman. I have simply caused you to stop ignoring your duties as a Cellar dwellar - to maintain the integrity and tone I have seen for 20 years - due to peer pressure. (Also obvious should be that I am not calling for banning - a challenge for you to see what is posted rather than apply assumptions into conclusions.)

So you still do nothing - pretend these is no problem. Where is that post threaening TheMercenary. Oh. You repeatedly attack the symptoms - not the problem. Then what I stated yesterday and accruately about his wife was necessary and unavoidable. Others also defined the problem. Add Griff to the list. Instead you ignore the facts; choose to attack the messenger who finally got your attention. Instead you attack what makes you feel rather than deal with the problem. Where is one post from you to TheMercenary to stop it? You remain both silent and in denial. You encourage him to attack piercehawkeye45, radar, and others.

TheMercenary is the reason long before I had no choice but the reply vicously and with irratation. I responded long after merc routinely posted kindergarten attacks. Yes, assume that sentence is bluntly addressing your denials and misguided response. Shame on 'Bruce the Almighty' for encouraging what then had to happen. Or go away so TheMercenary can continue to destroy the tone and attitude once found in the Cellar for 20 years.

tw;521182 wrote:

All I did is follow TheMercenary's lead. And I have no problem with doing it and doing it again. I responded after watching personal attacks on other posters AND Brianna complaining about TheMercenary using the word 'constant'. Where is you scolding of TheMercenary? You too remain silent - only scold the symptom? UT, you stay silent about the problem and the symptoms start again. That would be unavoidable because it would be necessary. I crossed no line that the problem had not already crossed and did so "constant". Did I finally get your attention? Will you finally address the problem? Address the problem and symptoms go away.

Undertoad;521188 wrote:

To sit there and defend it is weak, weak cheese, and insulting to everybody involved.

tw;521174 wrote:

So why did both continue to try posting by other means and get stopped again? That was not banning? Of course they were banned.

Exactly the point. You stayed silent - encouraged - the childish nonsense started and routinely posted by TheMercenary. Meanwhile I replied with posts that also included supporting fact why AND no insults. (Wacko extremisms is a term just like moderate is a term.) Now that TheMercenary has accelerated his personal attack in numbers and intensity, I have again replied in kind – as anyone would be expected to after so long.

If you ban me, then an honest (logical) Bruce must also ban TheMercenary, UG, and classicman. I have simply caused you to stop ignoring your duties as a Cellar dwellar - to maintain the integrity and tone I have seen for 20 years - due to peer pressure. (Also obvious should be that I am not calling for banning - a challenge for you to see what is posted rather than apply assumptions into conclusions.)

So you still do nothing - pretend these is no problem.

Where is that post threaening TheMercenary. Oh. You repeatedly attack the symptoms - not the problem. Then what I stated yesterday and accruately about his wife was necessary and unavoidable.

Others also defined the problem. Add Griff to the list. Instead you ignore the facts; choose to attack the messenger who finally got your attention. Instead you attack what makes you feel rather than deal with the problem. Where is one post from you to TheMercenary to stop it? You remain both silent and in denial. You encourage him to attack piercehawkeye45, radar, and others.

TheMercenary is the reason long before I had no choice but the reply vicously and with irratation.

I responded long after merc routinely posted kindergarten attacks. Yes, assume that sentence is bluntly addressing your denials and misguided response. Shame on 'Bruce the Almighty'

for encouraging what then had to happen. Or go away so TheMercenary can continue to destroy the tone and attitude once found in the Cellar for 20 years.

tw;521194 wrote:

You are now calling me a liar. Shame on you for calling me a liar AND for still ignoring the problem - TheMercenary. I told you my intent (which is exactly same when the same problem existed previously). If you have a problem with that, then you are letting your anger (which I intentionally provoked to get you off your ass) make decisions for you. I intentionally posted (in part) to anger you so that you would address the problem. Instead of responding logically, you attacked the victim? That pretty low.

Get your attetion? Good. Here is what you are calling a lie. You are scolding the symptoms and condoning the problem with your silence. Show me the lie in that? Instead, I am encouraging you to stop letting TheMercenary make you into a fool. What I did was necessary - as it was necessary when I did the same thing previously. What I posted was only equivalent to what TheMercenary has been posting now for months. I have no reason to apologize for addressing the increasingly unfavorable Cellar tone. And you have no logical reason to attack the symptoms while encouraging the problem. I finally got your attention. Now solve that problem.

Flint;527219 wrote:

So. Whatever happened with the Al Franken deal?

piercehawkeye45;527810 wrote:

Just allow the lizard people to take over.

An election-night count showed Coleman, who was the incumbent senator from Minnesota, ahead by a few hundred votes. A recount handed victory to his opponent, Democrat Al Franken, by 225 votes. About 3 million ballots were cast in the race.

"We have a good shot at this, and so I proceed with that in mind," Coleman said last week, calling Franken's lead "artificial."

To aid in his battle, Coleman has retained Ben Ginsberg, the lawyer who led the Florida recount efforts for the Republican side during the disputed presidential election in 2000.

Coleman's attorneys plan to argue three points:

• That nearly 12,000 absentee ballots rejected on Election Day should be recounted because at least 4,500 of them were discarded in error. If those ballots are allowed, they could flip the race back in Coleman's favor.

• That the canvassing board did not use a uniform standard when it counted 933 ballots from the discarded pile of absentee ballots. Those 933 gave Franken the edge.

• That some votes were counted twice, which also worked in Franken's favor.

The Franken side will ask the Minnesota Supreme Court on February 5 to order Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to issue a temporary election certificate so Franken can be seated in the Senate. Both men have refused, saying they will wait until the matter is resolved.

Senate recount trial judges put 4,800 more ballots in play
The decision expands the evidence that can be considered in the recount trial, giving Coleman the opportunity to put more ballots into play in his effort to erase a 225-vote lead for Franken.

By PAT DOYLE and KEVIN DUCHSCHERE, Star Tribune staff writers

Last update: February 4, 2009 - 6:41 AM
In a ruling that keeps alive Republican Norm Coleman's chances of overturning Minnesota's U.S. Senate recount, a three-judge panel on Tuesday allowed him to bring evidence to trial that as many as 4,800 absentee ballots were wrongly rejected and should now be counted.

The decision expands the evidence that can be considered in the recount trial, giving Coleman the opportunity to put more ballots into play in his effort to erase a 225-vote lead for DFLer Al Franken. The Franken campaign had tried to limit Coleman to bringing evidence on only 650 absentee ballots that he cited specifically when he filed his lawsuit challenging the recount results.

The Minnesota election court has just handed down a major ruling, completely denying Norm Coleman's motion for summary judgment that would have opened up and counted a set of roughly 4,500 rejected absentee ballots that his campaign insists were wrongly rejected and ought to be counted.
Earlier today, the court similarly [COLOR=#0000ff]rejected[/COLOR] Franken's attempt to have the ballots set aside entirely and to limit Coleman to a pool of 654 ballots, which at the time the Coleman camp was hailing as a major victory that will ensure votes are counted. But it turns out it's not that easy.

Urbane Guerrilla;531490 wrote:

I still think it's beyond belief that half the Minnesota electorate could want the likes of Al Franken for a Senator.

TGRR;531492 wrote:

Probably says more about his opponent.

Redux;531494 wrote:

I dont expect Franken to be doing Mick Jagger impersonations on the floor of the Senate.

When asked about the recount and how it is affecting him personally, Coleman said he starts every day with a prayer and that he knows “God wants me to serve.” Coleman did later temper those rather immodest remarks by adding that he “is not indispensable” and that others can serve as well. Coleman closed the interview with an appeal to Gallagher’s listeners for contributions to his campaign website.

http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cspg/smartpolitics/2009/02/coleman_says_god_wants_me_to_s.php

Urbane Guerrilla;531490 wrote:

I still think it's beyond belief that half the Minnesota electorate could want the likes of Al Franken for a Senator. Freakish. Even more freakish if Al continues to act like Al in office. It would be a pleasant -- and a complete -- surprise to discover a statesman there, but I'm not holding my breath.

fomentor;532734 wrote:

i should have a funny politically relevant caption for this but i don't

sugarpop;532786 wrote:

Is that picture even real?

xoxoxoBruce;532841 wrote:

It's the past.

Happy Monkey;532942 wrote:

Yes, but it's not official until the lawsuit is over.

Happy Monkey;533034 wrote:

A review of absentee ballots that have already been rejected twice.

And, as I mentioned above, even if a significant number of those rejections are overturned, Coleman would have to win them by a significant margin. For the required margin to be less than 10%, well over 1000 ballots would have to be found to have twice been incorrectly rejected.

Again, that is not that Coleman would win if he gets a full quarter of his requested ballots counted. That's how many he needs counted if he wants to be able to win with less than a double digit advantage over Franken - something that this election does not seem to give much hope for.

sugarpop;532785 wrote:

Hey, Jesse Ventura pulled off being governor, why not Al Franken as a senator?

OnyxCougar;533722 wrote:

I was banned?

Clodfobble;533789 wrote:

No, someone accidentally mentioned her name way earlier in the thread in a list of other people who were banned--OC herself was never banned, she just disappeared for awhile.

tw;536635 wrote:

Examples of why voters make vote counting so difficult - from The Economist:

tw;536635 wrote:

Examples of why voters make vote counting so difficult - from The Economist:

barefoot serpent;515116 wrote:

and here they are

plus the 'lizard people' ballot

classicman;536752 wrote:

I got that PH, but seriously - is there ANY DOUBT about the intent of either of those ballots. I'm sure there are much better examples of confusion, but those two appear very clear.

tw;536824 wrote:

We don't know ~snip~ Therefore we don't know

classicman;536870 wrote:

We are way past the machines - we are at the review stage.

classicman;537066 wrote:

Boy you are starting to sound like a talking point. I think I'm beginning to understand what you mean when you reference that.

I've been calling for a new election since this BS started. With that many people to have an election THAT close.... seems like the only way to get it right. We all discussed the costs of doing that, but this process sure as hell can't be cheap either.

Redux;537097 wrote:

So you want a "mulligan" or a "do-over" when elections are that close? What if it is that close a second time?

Redux;537097 wrote:

The process in MN has been recognized as better than most states.

Redux;536881 wrote:

In any case, I read recently that Coleman, if/when he loses the final state review, will attempt to take a "fast track" to the US Supreme Court, claim a violation of his 14th amendment due process rights, and suggest that a new election should be ordered by the Court.

tw;537079 wrote:

Helpful would be training on how to color pictures with crayons.

tw;537079 wrote:

His ballot has marked both.
Computer asks if he chooses to vote for neither.
He says yes.
So ballot is accepted.
Both checked marks means he intended to vote for neither and confirmed it when the machine asked.
But you say otherwise - that his intent was to vote for Franken.

tw;537079 wrote:

Why do you contradict what the machine and voter both agreed?

tw;537079 wrote:

Now, if machines do not confirm a vote and does not ask questions, then that same ballot could be a vote for Franken. Without knowing how machines work, then a voter's intent is not obvious. You may be way past the machines. But those who decide by first learning facts may not have an 'obvious' choice.

tw;537079 wrote:

Helpful would be training on how to color pictures with crayons.

classicman;537147 wrote:

I don't know.

Whoopdie-doo. If this is "better than most" then we're really screwed.

piercehawkeye45;537150 wrote:

If a second election happened solely between Franken and Coleman, the race would not be as close because of third party candidates. I also imagine that the resources needed for a second election would be enormous and most likely would just add fuel to the fire.

xoxoxoBruce;537166 wrote:

He wants to do exactly what Al Gore didn't want to do. Fuck the country.

“God wants me to serve...."

xoxoxoBruce;537166 wrote:

He wants to do exactly what Al Gore didn't want to do. Fuck the country.

xoxoxoBruce;537186 wrote:

I agree, but at least Gore had the decency to walk away rather than fuck the country.

Redux;537158 wrote:

...and I dont think the third party candidate could be left off the ballot.

You dont have "do overs" because it was close the first time.

Undertoad;537264 wrote:

I still say, some superior court should step in and tell them when to stop counting.

xoxoxoBruce;537241 wrote:

Kill Coleman.

TheMercenary;537493 wrote:

Don't kill Franken, just make him the laughing stock of the Demoncrats, well after Burris of course.

xoxoxoBruce;537186 wrote:

I agree, but at least Gore had the decency to walk away rather than fuck the country.

Urbane Guerrilla;537832 wrote:

...a bunch of rather unwashed Arabic speakers either, come to that

Urbane Guerrilla;538187 wrote:

Roughly half of the population holds opinions more in common with mine than with yours.

Urbane Guerrilla;537832 wrote:

Dear me, Bruce, why is it again you can't tell the Left, and fascist lovers everywhere, from "the country?" You kinda forgot a lot of the country is more like me on this one. The fascists, the Taliban, and the Idiot American Left -- they got the shaft all right. They are not "the country," but embarrassments to it.

Urbane Guerrilla;541566 wrote:

Hey, kid,

Urbane Guerrilla;541566 wrote:

it happened with George W. Bush, and good for us and all of humanity -- and yes, it was and is expensive, bearing the brunt of it as we did. Now we're (ill-advisedly) going to take a break from smashing nondemocracies, and that's a big lugie in the face for liberty lovers, and just fine with fascist-liking/-loving pus-lickers. I for one am not down with that.

Urbane Guerrilla;541566 wrote:

Trying to call the guy who's right a "fanatic" is like trying to tell a priest he's too goody-goody... it just makes you look like a jerk.

Urbane Guerrilla;541566 wrote:

I'm obsessed with liberty.

Urbane Guerrilla;541566 wrote:

I think liberty is so good for humans that it really ought to be obvious that no population should be without a large portion of it -- no population anywhere. You haven't anything like that to inspire your life, do you? You'd think a guy living in AZ would have a bit more bedrock sense in these matters. That's a state that likes its freedoms.

“Norm Coleman said Tuesday that the three judges hearing the U.S. Senate recount trial will have to ponder whether they'll be able to decide who won the election,” the Minneapolis Star Tribune reports. “Coleman … questioned whether the panel will be able to certify him or DFLer Al Franken as the candidate with more legitimate votes. ‘I think the court is going to have to reflect on that,’ Coleman said during a break in the trial, which is in its sixth week as he challenges recount results showing Franken ahead by 225 votes.”

“Coleman's team finished its side of the case on Monday -- the same day that Coleman attorney James Langdon wrote the judges to suggest that problems with the election were so serious that the panel may not be able to declare a winner. Franken's campaign began presenting its case on Tuesday in the St. Paul courtroom.”

The Pioneer Press adds, “Election law experts say ordering another election is not within the judges' purview -- a position strongly adopted by Franken's attorneys. ‘There is no precedent. There is no law. There is no statute. There is no rule. There is nothing in Minnesota that would suggest that one could simply suggest that one could simply start over again,’ said Franken attorney Marc Elias. He said the suggestion might reflect how the Coleman team believes their case went over the past six weeks. On Monday, the Republican's lawyers ‘provisionally’ rested their case, saying they wanted to give the court more information before resting completely.”

New DNC chairman Tim Kaine issued this statement responding to Coleman’s suggestion that it might be impossible to have a winner. “The people of Minnesota have spoken. It’s time for Norm Coleman to accept the voters’ decision, do what is best for his state and country and stop standing in the way of a Senator being seated. The stakes for our country are too high right now to suggest that the results of a democratic election, exhaustive recount, and legal proceedings be thrown out just because Norm Coleman doesn’t like the results.”

Urbane Guerrilla;543434 wrote:

Well, TG, from my international experience, exporting "the United States" and exporting liberty differ only minutely, and the difference if any isn't enough to get crabby about. If you've been outside our borders and seen for yourself, I haven't heard about it.

Urbane Guerrilla;543434 wrote:

What we are boils down to "the most successful at it." Being the best example, it's hardly sinful to export it also. It is not in any case a one-way deal.

Urbane Guerrilla;543434 wrote:

You might take a read of Thomas P.M. Barnett, too. The guy's scary good and there's a lot of interesting stuff in there. It's even intelligently nonpartisan.

Urbane Guerrilla;543434 wrote:

Jingoist? Nah. Therefore, why do you insist on connecting me with jingoism? I'd like to see your argument.

Urbane Guerrilla;543434 wrote:

You seem to be siezed with the idea that fascist and communist ideologies are something other than mass miseries.

Urbane Guerrilla;543434 wrote:

This gross misunderstanding prevents you from coming down on the side of the good, does it not?

Urbane Guerrilla;543434 wrote:

Where is there anything in fascism, communism, autocracy, or oligarchy that makes them worthy of preservation? This is not fanaticism, this is morals.

Undertoad;544588 wrote:

I downloaded the data and looked at it in Excel, just to see if I could.

On the other hand, Schultz poses a very interesting scenario, one that could bring the entire appeals process to a crashing halt and force the granting of a certificate of election.

The election-contest proceeding operates under a loser-pays system -- so if Coleman loses, his campaign committee would have to pay all the legal costs of Team Franken. Those numbers aren't publicly available, but Schultz estimates it at anywhere between $1-3 million.

And it's also normal procedure in such civil cases, Schultz explains, for a losing party that appeals to then be served a court order requiring them to place in escrow the amount for which they are currently liable. So if Franken's lawyers are smart people -- and nobody would doubt that they are -- Schultz sees it as very likely that they would seek to force Coleman's committee to procure millions of dollars up front just so they could start an appeal. ...

And after some additional legal wrangling, a decision like this could effectively end it: "A one-two combination of asking for the escrow, and having the money dry up because of the [COLOR=#aa0000]credit-card problem[/COLOR], that could very well dictate how far he goes."

classicman;551646 wrote:

Finally. Does he get to serve and extra 3 months at the end?

Happy Monkey;551654 wrote:

Three months? We could be talking years.

classicman;551674 wrote:

That is friggin ridiculous - We'd/They'd have been better off with a reelection. Coin flip, draw straws, swords, cage match or a duel. Hey, that would mean one less politician either way... I like the duel idea best.

sugarpop;551829 wrote:

YES. And if democrats did this, republicans would have them for breakfast. Coleman needs to STOP and admit defeat.

sugarpop;551829 wrote:

YES. And if [D]emocrats did this, [R]epublicans would have them for breakfast.

Urbane Guerrilla;552166 wrote:

professional comedian -- and that's the bulk of his resumé

lookout123;552294 wrote:

I think Al Franken is an asshat, but his previous career is irrelevant. We've had former actors, wrestlers, athletes, convicts, and even some lawyers elected to public office.

TheMercenary;552359 wrote:

My thoughts as well. He was an asshat and a half assed commedian and remains the same as a politician.

classicman;552303 wrote:

You apparently haven't read about him. I was rather surprised to read what he has been involved in since his SNL career. I still don't care for his political views per see, but I respect him a lot more than I did before.

Happy Monkey;552568 wrote:

Now they want a do-over in Alaska.

xoxoxoBruce;552764 wrote:

Stevens was in congress for 40 years, and like most (all?) of those long-timers he felt he was entitled to any perks he could get away with. It's very hard to prosecute these clowns because of the power and connections they have. Witnesses are intimidated, and usually covering their own ass, so to build a case prosecutors usually have to nail the witness and offer a plea bargain to get them to testify. That frustration on the part of the prosecutors sometimes makes them over zealous feeling the end justifies the means, and that's not right either.

If the damn voters would do their job we wouldn't have this problem.

xoxoxoBruce;552767 wrote:

Palin certainly wasn't ready for prime time but for Alaskans she was the lesser evil. She did OK by them for the most part, as they weren't affected by her very much in their day to day lives. Alaskans have daily concerns that make crooked politicians pale by comparison. :apaw::wolf:

xoxoxoBruce;552816 wrote:

I think I'd be safe in saying, to Alaskans, Mt Redoubt is orders of magnitude more of a concern than Jindal.

TheMercenary;552359 wrote:

My thoughts as well. He was an asshat and a half assed commedian and remains the same as a politician.

Urbane Guerrilla;552166 wrote:

It may be the Democrats in the Senate have their reservations about whether a professional comedian -- and that's the bulk of his resumé -- would amount to an asset to their party if actually sitting in Congress.

Urbane Guerrilla;552166 wrote:

It may be the Democrats in the Senate have their reservations about whether a professional comedian -- and that's the bulk of his resumé -- would amount to an asset to their party if actually sitting in Congress. They're not finding the time to beat the drums either for Franken to step up or Coleman to sit down.

classicman;552616 wrote:

I don't know what to think about that situation. I find it odd, to say the least. It appears that he may be "getting off" because of some technicality. Ugghh, I hate that.

On the other hand, maybe what some of the reports are saying about the FBI agent and her "special relationship" is true - Could it really be that this guy was framed or whatever? I personally don't think so, but....

Jill;552928 wrote:

Al Franken is a cum laude graduate of Harvard with a Bachelor's Degree in Political Science. He's a four-time Emmy winning writer and six time published author, as well as a radio host and television and movie producer. Calling him nothing more than a "professional comedian" is more than a bit disingenuous.

richlevy;552905 wrote:

Three little words - "Bedtime for Bonzo".

xoxoxoBruce;553007 wrote:

Jill, disingenuous is being too kind, that's the way UG rolls. :haha:

Redux;553089 wrote:

As well as a Cooter (from Dukes of Hazzard) and a Gopher (from Love Boat) elected to Congress.

richlevy;553422 wrote:

Fred Grandy (Gopher) served 4 terms as a congressman for Iowa. I saw him once on C-Span in a committee and was not really impressed.

Born into a family of practicing Caucasians, Grandy survived a turbulent childhood in the tough Sioux City ghetto to graduate magna cum laude from Harvard University....

...At the height of his show business success Grandy abandoned the high life of Hollywood in 1986 to return to his ancestral homeland in Iowa to seek a seat in Congress. No one including members of his immediate family gave him much of a chance. Yet he prevailed in a closely contested election and went on to serve four terms in the U. S. House of Representatives where he earned a reputation as a thoughtful legislator and chick magnet.

In 1992 he challenged his state’s incumbent governor and narrowly lost a Republican primary the outcome of which was later discovered to be influenced by a little known group known as Al Qaeda of Iowa...

http://www.wmal.com/showdj.asp?DJID=39380

Far from being an innocent party with no knowledge of Air America’s money woes, Franken was a signatory to the agreement. The document, published here for the first time, exposes how Franken misled his listeners and the press about his knowledge of the charity loan.

The Air America radio network's biggest star, Al Franken, and its former chairman, Evan Montvel Cohen, were among the signers of a confidential agreement last November that said the network would repay $875,000 to a Bronx nonprofit organization, the Gloria Wise Boys & Girls Club.

Jill;553501 wrote:

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

:: sniff ::

Jill;553501 wrote:

Oh my god. You guys have people here who actually quote Michelle Malkin as a source of credible information?

BWAAAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

:: sniff ::

TheMercenary;555260 wrote:

I can see why you would not like her. Lots of people don't. But the stuff that was posted was factual and referenced. And yea, I like some of her stuff..

Undertoad;555313 wrote:

Republicans are supposed to be the party of fear and Democrats the party of hate, there is a lot of hate in Malkin and Coulter. When it comes to pretty woman Rs I think I prefer Laura Ingraham, who is prettier and has less hate.

Urbane Guerrilla;555473 wrote:

No one of you can impeach la Malkin on the facts of the matter, though. I am afraid you must be not very enlightened. You see, you confuse indignation with active hatred. Not the same thing at all.

Redux;555475 wrote:

What facts?

That Franken signed a settlement agreement with the owners of Air America because he worked for months without been paid and, as a private citizen before running for office, he didnt want to talk about it publicly? So what?

The rest is innuendo....some nonsense about being part of a broader conspiracy to defraud the public?

There are no facts in Malkin's post that he did anything illegal or even unethical...typical Malkin.

Lanpher reminds him (Franken) to give the number for callers to reach them.

"1-800-f-u-k-b-u-s-h," Franken says. "We tried not to get that number. . . ."

The next day, in the hour before the second rehearsal, Franken and Lanpher sit together in the studio. Lanpher is intent on having Franken lay out a structure for the show. "Let's go through it hour by hour," she says. When Franken digresses, Lanpher politely insists he return his attention to the task. "I want to lay out the broad pattern first," she says.

Once that is disposed of, Franken records a satirical advertisement. Leaning toward the microphone, speaking deliberately and using a deep, patrician voice, he says, "Three, two, one . . . George W. Booosh wants to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage. But evidently Booosh has no problem with terrorist couples getting married. Right now in America there are terrorists planning to sanctify their love for each other in holy matrimony and blow up the Holland Tunnel. Call George W. Booosh and tell him America doesn't need a president who is soft on terrorist marriages. Because, unlike gays, terrorists can breed." Then, "Brought to you by the Coalition to Distract You From Important Issues."

The rehearsal show begins. He and Lanpher talk on the phone to David Sirota, of the Center for American Progress, a think tank for liberal issues. Sirota has discovered that among the members of President Bush's independent commission to study the search for weapons of mass destruction are three people who contributed to Bush's campaign. One of them was the first person Bush invited to spend the night in the Lincoln bedroom. The show's main guest is former Secretary of Labor Robert Reich, but he's not answering the phone where he had arranged to be.

"This happens all the time," Lanpher tells Franken during a break. "We'll vamp, just talk until we get him."

When Reich is finally on the line, Franken ends up listening to him so intently that he is sitting at one point with his elbows on his knees and staring at the floor, while Lanpher waves her arms to get his attention.

After Reich concludes, Franken and Lanpher perform a skit Franken wrote.

"Katherine's teaching me about radio," he says.

"Well, things might happen in the world, and on live radio you have to react to them," Lanpher says. "With a little forethought and preparation, we can handle unexpected situations like old pros."

"Exactly," Franken says. "Let's say the country is hit by another terrorist attack. It would be inappropriate for us to continue doing comedy. So let's say we're doing a show and having some fun with my Strom Thurmond impression."

"Al, he's dead," Lanpher says.

"But it's a good impression, and there's no reason I can't do him from the grave, where I think he'll be more honest," Franken says. "So he was talking about the illegitimate black daughter he had when a terrorist attack occurred."

Franken grimaces. His voice becomes high and gravelly. "Sure, I had a black daughter," he says in a Southern accent. "I screwed them all. 'Cause the pecker knows no bigotry."

Lanpher says, "Al -- "

"I even had an Amish girl," Franken says. "Lots of them. See, the Amish girl, she takes a year off. You got to get them on the year off."

"Al, there's been a terrible outbreak of small -- "

"I'm not Al," he says defiantly. "I'm Strom, and I've screwed everything."

"Stop doing comedy," Lanpher says. "There's been an outbreak of smallpox. In Seattle."

"I screwed a girl with smallpox," Franken says. "Built up my immunity. She was Bangladeshi."

"Al, stop it."

"See," Franken says, leering, "the pecker knows no bigotry."

The skit delivers them into a break for the news. Franken sits back in his chair. "This is fun," he says. "We could pull this off." Lanpher responds cautiously. "If we get really, really, really organized," she says.

TheMercenary;555291 wrote:

She is kinda cute. Unlike Coulter who can be pretty hard on the eyes and is quite a bit more bombastic than Limaugh, who I don't care for at all.

Doggone it … “Democratic U.S. Senate candidate Al Franken, front-runner in the race to challenge Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman, said on Tuesday that he has paid $70,000 in back taxes and penalties owed in 17 states, going back to 2003,” reports the Minneapolis Star Tribune. “Franken, who has earned income across the country for celebrity appearances and speeches, blamed his accountant of 18 years for failing to pay the appropriate taxes owed in each state.”

Happy Monkey;552568 wrote:

Now they want a do-over in Alaska.

"The Alaska Republican Party…believes that current Senator Mark Begich should resign his position to allow for a new, special election, so Alaskans may have the chance to vote for a senator without the improper influence of the corrupt Department of Justice,"** the Alaska Republican Party's Web site states.

TheMercenary;555514 wrote:

Well first off as a now public figure he will be required to speak about all the details publicly.

And of course the apologists for the dems are going to say it is no big deal. But there has always been enough red flags for people to question his integrity, which is quite questionable as a representative of the people. With all the taxpdodgers on the current administration I guess the bar has been set. Franken was involved in questionable financial dealings with the start up of Air America and he has not answered to them publicly. He will need to do so now.

Here is a great interview by Franken in the Rolling Stone:


http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/5939245/al_franken_is_a_big_fat_radio_host

A great example of who is going to represent MN in the Senate.
.

I will continue to rack him back and forth across the coals and expose the hipocrisy

Redux;555521 wrote:

So what you are saying is that there is no facts in the Malkin post that is factual other than that he signed a settlement agreement and as a private citizen did not disclose the fact on the air.

And the rest is innuendo.

But you never let the facts get in the way....I understand that.

richlevy;555520 wrote:

**of the administration which they blindly supported through two terms.

At least they weren't trying to go to court to get the election overturned. That would have been priceless. What's sad is that if it did get up to the Supreme Court, they might have actually found 2 or 3 justices to go for it. Their main reason for not doing it is a) it's legally indefensible b) after Bush v Gore it would have been politically suicidal and c) an overturned election would have given the Democrats a shot at the seat.

TheMercenary;555518 wrote:

Well I guess Franken gets to join the elite club in D.C. after all! Who would have thunk it.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/30/youre-al-franken-and-were-the-irs/

Maybe it is a requirement to have not paid your taxes to be a public servant of the new majority.

While a handful of Senators noted that they have found errors in past tax returns, resulting in payment of back taxes...

31 Democratic Senators returned complete surveys, compared with only 12 Republican Senators. Further, 9 Republican Senators returned surveys declining to answer the questions, compared with only 3 Democrats who returned surveys and declined to answer. 2 Republicans returned incomplete surveys. 22 Dems and 18 GOP Senators have not responded. (Additionally, Joe Lieberman has not responded and Bernie Sanders declined to answer.)

Nearly three times as many Democrats returned completed surveys - and nearly three times as many Republicans declined to answer the questions about their taxes.

TheMercenary;555523 wrote:

No there are plenty of facts that point to Franken and Air America and they were involved in some very shady lending practices.

Redux;555530 wrote:

Hardly a one-party issue.

Politico did a survey of all 99 senators earlier this year, asking about their taxes.

The results:

Redux;555531 wrote:

Cite those facts please, rather than innuendo...specifically regarding Franken and shady lending practices...as opposed to the Air America management.

Do you always hold employees responsible for actions of management...or just when it suits your agenda?

I'm not defending Franken...just looking for the plentiful facts.

TheMercenary;555533 wrote:

May hardly be a problem for one party but there is only one party in complete power and it is a big problem for them. They were to re-set the bar and things were going to be different. Pelosi made that promise to the country in 2006. So far I see nothing to believe that she or her party has lived up to her claims.

TheMercenary;555537 wrote:

Here is a nice summary. Like I said there are enough factual red flags to question Franken's integrity. Not to mention the quotes of the Rolling Stone interview are another measure of what the new standard for decorum can be for the majority.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/09/05/8271397/index.htm

TheMercenary;555545 wrote:

You can repeat your mantra of "transparency and accountability" all you want as they continue to appoint and elect people who have not paid their taxes until it was uncovered immediately before appointment.

Redux;555546 wrote:

So in your mind, Franken, the employee, is responsible for the acts of the management of Air America.

Redux;555548 wrote:

And you can ignore the facts of those legislative initiatives.

Redux;555555 wrote:

LOL....and you wonder why you drive people away here.

Redux;555561 wrote:

I'll keep posting facts (with cites) and questioning bullshit when I see it.

richlevy;555565 wrote:

I thought Merc was crazy until I read Urbane Guerilla.

Now I realize that Merc isn't the fringe, Merc is where the fringe is stitched onto the jacket.

Ever since the Republican party imploded, Merc has lost a few stitches. When the last few pop loose, it will be interesting to see where he lands.;)

TheMercenary;555568 wrote:

I'll be right behind you doing the same thing.

Undertoad;555577 wrote:

OK, in the three years since this story "broke", have there been any further investigations, new information, any arrests or convictions?

Undertoad;555577 wrote:

OK, in the three years since this story "broke", have there been any further investigations, new information, any arrests or convictions?

While Coleman's legal team prepares their appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court, a case involving Coleman's buddy Nasser Kazeminy in Texas continues to take too much time to begin. Kazeminy is accused of trying to funnel $100,000 to Coleman's family through his wife's workplace.

Both sides of the case are asking for another 30-day extension to prepare. That would be on top of the Feb. 3 delay of 60 days.

Coleman is not a party in the case, but could be under investigation by the FBI for possible violations as a U.S. Senator if he did receive the money and failed to report it. Kazeminy and Coleman have been denied any of these allegations.

http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2009/04/case_against_co.php

TheMercenary;555583 wrote:

I thought you had a problem with using blogs as a source of citation.

TheMercenary;555590 wrote:

Yea, I sort of said the same thing when I discussed "enough red flags" concerning Franken. But I see where you are setting your bar for citations.

Redux;555592 wrote:

No...you said there were "plenty of facts" to support the allegations about Franken's role in fraudulent loans.

I'll make a deal with you.

I wont cite blogs and editorials if you don't. :)

But then what would you have for most of your baseless posts?

TheMercenary;555611 wrote:

I would fall back on your process of falling back on blogs as citations when you lack similar facts. Pretty obvious.

Fact is Al Franken was up to his neck and the citations posted show that clearly.

TheMercenary;555571 wrote:

I guess if I was a Republican it would make a difference for me,

TGRR;555621 wrote:

Bwahahahahaha!

TheMercenary;555627 wrote:

You think I am a Republickin?!?! :lol2:

TGRR;555665 wrote:

You are a hopelessly partisan republican. You haven't got an independent bone in your body.

Everyone knows that.

TheMercenary;555667 wrote:

You keep believing that buddy, if it suits your fantasies about the world.

TGRR;555669 wrote:

I even asked you once.

You were actually unable to not defend Bush, even in cases where he was obviously wrong.

You want to claim to be an independent, but you aren't one. You know it, and I know it.

TheMercenary;555670 wrote:

No where did I say I was an "Independent", that must be more of your projection.

TGRR;555673 wrote:

So now you're claiming to be a democrat? :3eye:

TheMercenary;555674 wrote:

Never a Demoncrat. What I am is not significant to this discussion since you have already made your mind up. I have no responsiblity to you in that respect.

TheMercenary;555679 wrote:

Correct.

TGRR;555680 wrote:

:rollanim:

richlevy;555770 wrote:

To be fair to Merc, he might consider himself a member of one of the national third parties. Depending on the state, you can register as one of these parties. Even if someone cannot in their state, they might still consider themselves a third party member, even if they are registered as independent in their state.

I'm guessing that Merc is a member of the America First Party as a first choice, Reform Party as my second.

TGRR;555771 wrote:

I kinda lump them in as "faux independents", ie, republicans that are just ashamed to admit it.

richlevy;555772 wrote:

That's not really fair, anymore than it is to say that Green party members are actually Democrats.

Now that the "Big Tent" is on fire, maybe it's time for the pro-business or social conservative Republicans to split to another third party.

TheMercenary;555537 wrote:

Here is a nice summary. Like I said there are enough factual red flags to question Franken's integrity. Not to mention the quotes of the Rolling Stone interview are another measure of what the new standard for decorum can be for the majority.

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2005/09/05/8271397/index.htm

richlevy;555565 wrote:

I thought Merc was crazy until I read Urbane Guerilla.

Urbane Guerrilla;556762 wrote:

But back on topic, instead of personalities on the one hand and failures of imagination burdening the other --

Franken's still ahead by 312 votes statewide. And the contest is still under legal appeal at time of posting. Approximately half the people in the state wanted the comedian?? For a Senator??? WTF? Wouldn't something not quite so Stuart Smalley be a better pick?

The praiseworthy thing about all this is that the principals in the matter are largely withholding any comment. It's the decent thing to do, and they're both doing it.

Urbane Guerrilla;556762 wrote:

But back on topic, instead of personalities on the one hand and failures of imagination burdening the other --

Franken's still ahead by 312 votes statewide. And the contest is still under legal appeal at time of posting. Approximately half the people in the state wanted the comedian?? For a Senator??? WTF? Wouldn't something not quite so Stuart Smalley be a better pick?

The praiseworthy thing about all this is that the principals in the matter are largely withholding any comment. It's the decent thing to do, and they're both doing it.

Tedisco asks to be declared winner

Murphy still holds lead

By Jamie Larson


COLUMBIA COUNTY — 20th Congressional District candidate Republican Jim Tedisco submitted a petition to the Dutchess County Supreme Court Thursday asking the judge to declare him the winner of the extremely close special election race, despite the numbers currently being in favor of his opponent, Democrat Scott Murphy.


... while Tedisco’s office has said the challenges are roughly evenly split between the two camps, Columbia County lawyers for Murphy have only challenged 22 ballots, while Tedisco’s have challenged 258.

classicman;556972 wrote:

Like a little kid - it keeps getting worse every time he challenges his parents decision.

TheMercenary wrote:

Franken the Comedian, in the Senate? Actually it is quite fitting.

classicman;557298 wrote:

Is that what Michelle thinks too? :hee hee hee:

classicman;557181 wrote:

Doesn't someone have to tell him that its over? Way over? The clock is at zero. Time has run out. You lost, He won.....

sugarpop;557641 wrote:

yea, good luck with that. It's really funny, because after a PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION, it wasn't important enough to keep counting or challenging,

THAT was just liberals whining because they lost (even though they really didn't),

I don't EVER want to hear conservatives say liberals are whining when they contest a race again in the future.

TheMercenary;557770 wrote:

Don't project this one state race on the rest of the nation. I say finish it and let Franken take over his seat. Then I can start to make fun of him again. :D

Undertoad;557785 wrote:

It was important for the count to stop sometime so that we would have a POTUS. The US won't survive without one. Minnesota can survive really well without a Senator for a while.

And this event is the proof. You should pause and consider what would happen if a single state held up the Presidency for 6 months, 3 of which would be during the term of office.

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I disagree, and I still say it was wrong. The president is a much more important position that affects the entire country, and even the world. Clinton could have continued performing the duties of president until the issue was resolved.[/COLOR]

Recounts after the event by major media outlets say you are wrong.

[COLOR="DarkOrchid"]I don't think so.[/COLOR]

From where I sit in the middle, liberals are absolutely superior whiners.

Undertoad;557785 wrote:

You should pause and consider what would happen if a single state held up the Presidency for 6 months, ...

I don't think so.

The results of the study showed that had the limited county by county recounts requested by the Gore team been completed, Bush would still have been the winner of the election.

UT, from what I can tell, you are nowhere near the middle.

Undertoad;557945 wrote:

The relevant Wikipedia article:
Well, live and learn, because this is how it works:

If you're on the left, the middle looks like the right. If you're on the right, the middle looks like the left.

Redux;557954 wrote:

I would suggest that when you use your head, you would recognize serious flaws in our voter registration system that disenfranchises millions of voters every election.....many for such inane reasons as a voters name on his voter registration card, John Public, not matching the name on his drivers license, John Q Public....or a voter moving and changing his address during the period between when he registered and when he voted. ...or persons denied the right to vote because they share the name of a convicted felon in their voting precinct.

Clodfobble;558178 wrote:

It's important to note that voter registration laws vary by state. In Texas, we have "Motor Voter Registration," which means your voter registration is tied to your drivers license to begin with. That means 99% of people are automatically registered with no additional work, the name always matches exactly what's on your ID, and the address stays current as long as your drivers license is kept valid, which you are of course legally required to do. I've moved back and forth over a county line 3 times in the last 5 years, and they always notified me of all my new voter registration information.

TheMercenary;558214 wrote:

Damm those states rights. We are the Federal Government. We are here to take over, ummm, help. Yea.

TheMercenary;558227 wrote:

I know that any time someone steps in and tries to tell us that the feds should tell states how to conduct business at the state level there is a problem. No system is perfect and the one we have now works. Not perfectly but it works. There are not millions of disenfranchised voters out there. On top of that there are groups eligible to vote in some states and not so in others. That is the way it goes.

March 11, 2009
The dead vote in Harris County --UPDATED
A Harris County election official told the Senate that 24 registered voters cast ballots after their date of death, some in multiple elections.

"Several of these voters voted early and in person," said Ed Johnson, assistant director of voter registration in the Harris County tax office.

"There is voter fraud in Harris County," Johnson said. "I can't tell you how extensive it is."

Johnson said most of these voters were cleared from the rolls by 2000. He said his office every day compares obituaries with the voting lists.

Johnson said the Web site Texas Watchdog gave his office a list of 4,000 names of possible dead voters created by comparing the registration list against Social Security documents. He said they are reviewing the list.

But Johnson said Texas Watchdog gave the list to a Houston television station that found two people on the list had voted in the 2008 primary. He said the family members were upset to find their relatives' identity had been stolen.

Johnson said the cases were turned over to the district attorney's office, but there was not enough evidence to know who cast the ballots

Johnson said there was another attempt to register 121 people in 2006 at a non-existent address on Dashwood Street. He said the applications were mailed in from El Paso. The case is still under investigation.

In a third case, a college student who had a voter registration project in class in 2000 made up 61 registration applications and filed them. Johnson said she was prosecuted.

Redux;558241 wrote:

Never mind.

It was stupid of me to think you guys would engage in a serious discussion.

Carry on and I'll go back to my ACORN corner.

Redux;558241 wrote:

I'll go back to my ACORN corner.

TheMercenary;558244 wrote:

Maybe you don't think it is serious when someone says we need Federal standards for how states conduct business. I do.

classicman;558245 wrote:

Go back? You've been there the whole time.

There should be a standard policy for Federal elections and separate or equal ones for state elections.

Redux;558247 wrote:

Thanks...that is a very helpful comment.
On this, we agree.

Redux;558246 wrote:

Damn...are you really that ignorant of the meaning of states rights vs the constitutional guarantee of a right to vote or just being obstinate.

TheMercenary;558249 wrote:

Thanks...that is a very helpful comment. Condescending prick. You sound like another narcissistic a-hole on these forums.

The states' rights concept is usually used to defend a state law that the federal government seeks to override, or to oppose a perceived violation by the federal government of the bounds of federal authority.

TheMercenary;558253 wrote:

In this case the Federal government should not have the "authority" to tell states how to standardize who gets to vote or how those votes are counted. Pretty straight forward or was that too complicated for you?

Redux;558252 wrote:

IBut damn, its impossible to have a rational discussion with you (on many topics) when you choose to ignore the facts as you so often do.

Redux;558254 wrote:

The federal judiciary has ruled otherwise...repeatedly. Most recently in a challenge to HAVA.

TheMercenary;558255 wrote:

No what we have here is a failure to communicate.

Your impression is that it is impossible to have a rational discussion with you when people don't agree with everything you spew as fact when it is nothing more than an opinion. And when people fail to eventually agree with everything you say you say they are ignorant. Hardly a discussion.

I don't recall promising to put you on ignore.

Redux;558258 wrote:

You're the only one I have called ignorant :)

TheMercenary;558263 wrote:

Because I refuse to believe many of your opinions? Who made you God or a mind reader for that matter? Did you learn that when you were a lobbyist sucking up on The Hill?

Redux;558276 wrote:

Ignorance is when you ignore the facts, not opinion.

Ignorance is insisting that Congress has no oversight role in foreign affairs that justify foreign trips by Democrats.

Ignorance is insisting that the latest budget proposal was not transparent when by any and all standards it has been fully transparent.

Ignorance is insisting that the Democrats did not initiate ethics and lobbying reform when the law is presented to you.

Redux;558276 wrote:

Ignorance is when you ignore the facts, not opinion.

Ignorance is insisting that Congress has no oversight role in foreign affairs that justify foreign trips by Democrats.

Ignorance is insisting that the latest budget proposal was not transparent when by any and all standards it has been fully transparent.

TheMercenary;558329 wrote:

Still trying to justify Pelosi's jaunt to Italy> :lol:

The one they released in it's final version three days before the vote?

Congressman Jeb Hensarling (R-TX), Chairman of the Republican Study Committee, this morning issued the following statement after Democrats released a 3,565-page FY 2008 Omnibus Appropriations bill that is expected to be voted on later today.

“An initial review of this 3500 plus page bill confirms that this legislation is a bad for deal for American taxpayers, American families and the fiscal future of our children. Democrats squandered an opportunity to work together on a clean bill that is free of wasteful earmarks and budget gimmicks.

“Just three years ago, then Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi called the refusal to allow Members three days to read legislation before voting on it ‘martial law.’ Abandoning her word, Speaker Pelosi is now engaging in ‘martial law’ herself by trying to force a 3500 page bill containing 11 individual spending bills through Congress before anyone knows exactly what is in it.

“We know that this bill contains over 8000 earmarks. Those earmarks, combined with budget gimmicks that hide billions of dollars and other added-on spending ensure that the Democrats’ bill is well over the spending level requested by President Bush. While providing additional funds for our veterans is important, that extra spending must be offset elsewhere in this trillion dollar budget…

The 2006 United States midterm elections were held on Tuesday, November 7, 2006. All United States House of Representatives seats and one third of the United States Senate seats were contested in this election, as well as 36 state governorships, many state legislatures, four territorial legislatures and many state and local races. The election resulted in a sweeping victory for the Democratic Party which captured the House of Representatives, the Senate, and a majority of governorships and state legislatures from the Republican Party. Turnout was very high in the election. In some states it was reported it neared presidential levels or turnout normally expected in a presidential election.

The victory of the Democratic Party in the 2006 Congressional elections was a major historic milestone for an additional reason: it saw the election of the first woman to serve as the Speaker of the House. Nancy Pelosi, the leader of the Democrats in the House of Representatives, became the highest-ranking woman in the history of the government of the United States upon her election as Speaker in January 2007. In the United States, the Speaker is not only the presiding officer and leader of the majority party, the Speaker also directly follows the Vice President of the United States in the line of succession to the presidency. It was also the first election in U.S. history in which the losses for one side were so lopsided that the victorious party did not lose a single incumbent or open seat in Congress or governor's mansion.

classicman;558347 wrote:

How long did they have to read the 11,000 page bill earlier this year? How long should they have? How long would it really take an average person to read and comprehend all that? What was the rush to get it done "that week" again?

Redux;558350 wrote:

The next step are 13 separate appropriation bills which make up the budget, again, where Republicans will have opportunities to offer amendments on each of those bills.

Despite some initial concern last week among Democratic leaders, they successfully maneuvered around some tricky Republican amendments and kept the bill from being modified.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said that she would not make her members vote on the package again if the Senate changed it. That would have meant an extension of an existing continuing resolution. That will not be necessary and the bill will now be sent to the President, who will sign it.

Update (3/11): President Obama has signed this bill into law.

TheMercenary;558359 wrote:

Omnibus Appropriations bill (H.R. 1105)



http://senatus.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/senate-passes-2009-omnibus-appropriations-bill/

TheMercenary;558359 wrote:

Omnibus Appropriations bill (H.R. 1105)



http://senatus.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/senate-passes-2009-omnibus-appropriations-bill/

Redux;558361 wrote:

Right....Obama signed the 09 omnibus bill....which was Bush's last budget....and the Republicans didnt get everything they want..it is not an issue of transparency...they are the minority!

Redux;558358 wrote:

Re: the stimulus bill....Obama was elected to do something quickly and it includes provisions for oversight and transparency.

sugarpop;558363 wrote:

Republicans are going to continue saying no, simply because they want to obstruct anything and everything they can, whether it is good or not. They want to usurp power because they are sorry losers.

sugarpop;558363 wrote:

About the Florida election,

Redux;558368 wrote:

Your implication that because the Republcans dont get everything they want or dont want in the budgtet..and bitch and moan...that somehow there is a lack of transparency.

Bullshit.

sugarpop;558363 wrote:

About the Florida election, HBO (or maybe it was PBS) did a documentary a while back about it.

TheMercenary;558373 wrote:

:lol2: You crack me up. What an apologist! Now it is because they are the majority. Which is it?

"Hey, fuck you, we are in charge."

You are a partisan hack for the demoncrats.

Redux;558377 wrote:

Please cite the specific sections of the current House and/or Senate rules that you think allow for a lack transparency....or that provide fewer privileges for the minority than the previous rules that the Republicans implemented that limited the prvilieges of the Democrats.

Redux;558377 wrote:

I cite facts about the budget process, the ethics/earmark/lobbying reform law and you retort with bullshit.

Redux;558383 wrote:

Can you [SIZE="4"]cite[/SIZE] one fact that disputes the facts I cited about the budget process, the current rules of the House and
Senate?

The s0-called "lack of transparency" that you bitch about is opinion....where in the House/Senate rules was that transparency blocked?

classicman;558374 wrote:

Dude - can you just agree that it got slammed through in a completely unreasonable time frame? Seriously. It was so friggin blatant. you are losing cred here. It was a joke and everyone knows it. Her trip was planned and she wasn't changing her plans for anybody.


Some - absolutely - some are very good hardworking people - just like some democrats. They just have ideological differences.
On the other hand, some of them, from both parties, need to go away - they are the problem. They are the lifelong politicians who get corrupted by the power and the money.

It was a movie on HBO - It was as real as the bullshit Mikey Moore does. ie - not at all.

Redux;558391 wrote:

Your post is a quote (opinion) from a Republican.

What provisions of the current House/Senate rules are more restrictive than the previous Republican rules?

sugarpop;558392 wrote:

Charlie Christ comes to mind as a great republican who is intent on working with democrats. Arnold is another one. But the ones in the House and Senate, most of them are intent on doing everything they can to obstruct, for no reason other than they can.

TheMercenary;558375 wrote:

No, as I have posted they did not provide transparency by not releasing the details of the budget through a very short suspence. Stop being such an apologist. It was all over the news.

TheMercenary;558398 wrote:

I trust quotes from known people over some nameless faceless ex-lobbyist. I assure you.

Undertoad;558376 wrote:

I gave you documented information from the New York Times...

You gave me a weak memory of some scene that frightened you in a film made for pay TV by the guy who did the Austin Powers films.

Redux;558401 wrote:

So you have not facts to support his quote..either did he...:eek:

Undertoad;558376 wrote:

I gave you documented information from the New York Times...

You gave me a weak memory of some scene that frightened you in a film made for pay TV by the guy who did the Austin Powers films.

sugarpop;558400 wrote:

From what I remember hearing, if the budget wasn't passed the government would have shut down, like it did when Clinton was in office, and that is why it had to go through quickly. Does anyone know if that is true? Redux?

sugarpop;558406 wrote:

I think worrying about our elections is very relevant, considering how fucked up they have been for the past eight years. You think I'm stupid for wanting to fix that? All righty then. I guess you don't really believe in democracy...

classicman;558410 wrote:

If you are really worried about the elections then start looking very closely at ACORN and its ties...

Pelosi didn't share the president's dream of brotherly love breaking out in the Capitol. She was in charge, this was her bill and she would decide what was in it. To the ire of Republicans, and some Democrats, Pelosi maneuvered to put the stimulus package on an emergency fast track, cutting short debate on the bill and cutting Republicans out of the discussion. "I believe the president was absolutely sincere in looking for a bipartisan outcome," Dent says. "But the White House lost control of the process when the bill was outsourced to Pelosi."

Redux;558417 wrote:

In the words of a wise dweller...."good grief, let it go" ;)

sugarpop;558406 wrote:

So are you saying that scene wasn't real then?

I think worrying about our elections is very relevant, considering how fucked up they have been for the past eight years. You think I'm stupid for wanting to fix that? All righty then. I guess you don't really believe in democracy...

TheMercenary;558418 wrote:

There are plenty of articles out there to support what I have been saying here.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/186961

Redux;558426 wrote:

Go to the source...the House rules on the 2010 budget proposal....and point out the lack of transparency that includes several substitute Republican proposals...that are more restrictive than any previous rules.

Redux;558430 wrote:

The facts are in the House rules....including a Republican substitute proposal...equal time for debate on amendments..etc.

Republicans are bitching about a limit on amendments, which is hardly anything new....that has been the case with all recent House rules or the minority could stall the budget proposal for ever if they so desired.

In fact, there were more amendments allowed in the Budget committees this year than previous years.

TheMercenary;558441 wrote:

It was fun.... watching you try to cover for Pelosi's shenanigans as she and all the other apologist try to claim otherwise.

Aliantha;558450 wrote:

Redux, you should know by now that there's no limit to Merc's bullshit. :lol2:

TheMercenary;558425 wrote:

Do you think they are suddenly fucked up or is that just because you don't support who was in office at the time?

And if they were fucked up for the last 8 years then the election of Obamy must have been fucked up too? Right? Or are they not fucked up because you are ok that he won, even with all the fuckeduptedness in our election process?

Shutting down ACORN will be a big improvement.

Redux;558447 wrote:

My deal still holds.

I wont cite any editorials, blogs or other questionable sources as undisputed factual information if you dont.

I have no problem sticking to primary source information when the discussion calls for facts and not opinions.

Let me know if you wanna play by those rules...but it will limit your bullshit ;)

TheMercenary;558616 wrote:

I just refuse to see the world through your Obama colored glasses and call bullshit on your partisan pandering. It must bother you when people don't agree with your world views.

Redux;558678 wrote:

So I guess that means "No Deal"

Thats cool.

I will still try to cite acts of Congress, reports from non-partisan sources like the GAO or CBO or other source materials as often as I can ( I admit to falling back on biased sources on a few occasions)...

And you will cite your editorials and blogs like Malkin that support your pre-conceived opinions and imply or infer some degree of credibility.

Urbane Guerrilla;559322 wrote:

Redux is partisan, and spiritedly. He feels obliged to defend his Jackass Party from those mean ole Republicans any time somebody takes a shot at his team. It's not that we're anti-Democrat so much as we're anti-stupid and anti-feckless, and the Dems do so much of both. We're not exactly sympathetic to inflation either, having lived through quite a cycle of it and seen the rot.

sugarpop;559532 wrote:

Actually, Redux seems to the voice of reason.

sugarpop;559570 wrote:

maybe it's just because I agree with (him).

Redux;559342 wrote:

Yep...I am partisan.....never denied it.

Is that your best defense of the failed neo-con policies or are you running away from that discussion now?

One of your links about Reno.
Quote:
...Thompson also quotes John Gigliotti (from Pat Robertson's security detail) who says Michael Eppinger, an alleged organized crime figure in Miami supposedly has a video of Reno at a sex orgy...
http://www.laborers.org/NorCal_Reno.html
So person A quotes person B who alleges that person C is an organized crime figure who supposedly has a video of Reno at a sexy orgy....among other allegations.

Or this one....Janet Reno Uses Call Girls

Now thats really getting at the truth!

Urbane Guerrilla;560201 wrote:

Hey, so no proof will ever suffice for you? That tells everyone just how honest Redux is or will be. Clinton got your vote at least once? What a shame. He never got mine. The Democrats just haven't been good enough.

Urbane Guerrilla;560201 wrote:

Hey, so no proof will ever suffice for you? That tells everyone just how honest Redux is or will be. Clinton got your vote at least once? What a shame. He never got mine. The Democrats just haven't been good enough.

That's okay, though. I'll just keep on finding the Dem perfidy recorded on the net, and for months. Plenty of material there. And of course there are the paper sources too: you know, inflammatory tabloids such as National Review, American Spectator, and The Weekly Standard.

Do you know anybody who's fucked Janet Reno long enough or often enough to say for sure she's heterosexual? Any-sexual? I can't think of anyone who could tell me, either. How can you be so sure Persons A, B, and C didn't have something there? Seems more like your prejudices are speaking than your thought.

Two kinds of Democrats really impress me these days, the present rector of my church excepted. Those Democrats in uniform is one. The other one is Joe Lieberman. The rest of the national Democratic Party leadership just makes me shake my head. That ain't how you get votes or campaign contributions.

Urbane Guerrilla;560184 wrote:

Now hold on there, son... there's been a lot of smugness and BS thrown around the nation about "failed neo-con policies" and I look around me and I don't see any failure except failure to adhere to left-wing lunacies. That adds up to successes.

The Left and the Democrats manifestly wouldn't have won the war. Sadly, they haven't the gumption even to try -- or at least they did not for the greater part of the Bush Administration. They are still manifesting the same bad habits nowadays.

Which means the Republicans are back in in 2012 or before -- in the mid-terms -- to try and fix the mess the Dem Party's myopia and irresolution has left.

Any example of so-called failures will boil down to "offends the left-liberals." Offending the left-liberals has a real tendency to benefit the Republic, as the left-liberals are generally economic illiterates and pretty much incapable of correctly identifying a national enemy, for two big reasons I'm not one. Of course, the beneficial effects of offending and marginalizing the hard Left are obvious, and so large as to be almost incalculable.

If I take my time replying to something, it's because I'm giving it thought, and the only difference it makes is I've given you a chance to sneer, and to pooh-pooh, and generally to be shallow, in accordance with the brummagem values so beloved of the left of center. You wanted linked material, and I said okay, fair enough -- and I'm sifting through what I find to filter out the idiot stuff that I wouldn't trust or be swayed by either.

TheMercenary;560336 wrote:

The sooner we invade and make Mexico our 51st the better.

classicman;560387 wrote:

But think of the areas to exploit, the drug revenues and the cheap labor...

You realize its your fault for not getting the damn concrete for the wall, right?

TGRR;560434 wrote:

I did that on purpose.

Because I hate America, and love terrorist illegal aliens.

TGRR;560434 wrote:

I did that on purpose.

Because I hate America, and love terrorist illegal aliens.

classicman;560596 wrote:

You're in good company with tw then. :cool:

TheMercenary;560851 wrote:

You are just a laugh a minute asshole.

Urbane Guerrilla;562090 wrote:

TGRR, if you value anything a wise man would value, I hope you might tell us what that might be, instead of leaving us to guess.

Urbane Guerrilla;562090 wrote:

When a man's been around the block four decades or so, he's got a pretty fair grasp of what the permanent things are.

sugarpop;563341 wrote:

I think TGRR makes it apparent what things he values, most of the time anyway.

TGRR;562208 wrote:

I value Saturday night. Rock N Roll. FUN.

I've been around for 40 years or so, and I haven't seen anything permanent.

Urbane Guerrilla;563462 wrote:

Play is enjoyable, yes. And then...?

Urbane Guerrilla;563462 wrote:

AHA! There's your problem! You've never tried to find what is eternal -- or at least really, really long-term.

ST. PAUL, Minn. – A unanimous Minnesota Supreme Court ruled Tuesday that Democrat Al Franken should be certified the winner of the state's long-running Senate race, paving the way for the former Saturday Night Live comedian to be seated after an almost eight-month fight.

The high court rejected a legal challenge from Republican Norm Coleman, whose options for regaining his Senate seat are dwindling, saying Franken is entitled to the election certificate he needs to assume office.

"We affirm the decision of the trial court that Al Franken received the highest number of votes legally cast and is entitled under (Minnesota law) to receive the certificate of election as United States Senator from the State of Minnesota," the court wrote in its 5-0 ruling.

With Franken and the usual backing of two independents, Democrats will have a big enough majority to overcome Republican filibusters.

Coleman hasn't ruled out seeking federal court intervention, and has 10 days before the ruling takes effect in which to point out any errors related to the court's interpretation of law, facts or material questions in the case.

The earliest Franken would be seated is next week because the Senate is out of session for the July 4 holiday, said Jim Manley, a spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid.

Reid said Pawlenty should respect the votes of his constituents and his state's highest court.

The election certificate also requires the signature of Minnesota Secretary of State Mark Ritchie. Ritchie, a Democrat, said he was ready to sign it "as soon as the governor issues it."

sugarpop;578773 wrote:

...and every count put Franken further in the lead...

TheMercenary;578830 wrote:

The Demoncratic Clown Car arrives to the Senate. I love it. 4 years of comedy and blame.

TGRR;563690 wrote:

You gotta work to play. Problem is, this country forgot the latter. Probably because the first settlers were Puritan fucktards, and everyone seems to feel some need to emulate the humorless bastards.

TGRR;563690 wrote:

In a hundred years, you'll be dead. Have fun now.

[Dr. Emmett Brown is doubting Marty McFly's story about that he is from the future]
Dr. Emmett Brown: Then tell me, "Future Boy", who's President in the United States in 1985?
Marty McFly: Ronald Reagan.
Dr. Emmett Brown: Ronald Reagan? The actor?
[chuckles in disbelief]
Dr. Emmett Brown: Then who's VICE-President? Jerry Lewis?
[rushing out and down a hill toward his laboratory]
Dr. Emmett Brown: I suppose Jane Wyman is the First Lady!
Marty McFly: [following Doc] Whoa! Wait! Doc!
Dr. Emmett Brown: And Jack Benny is Secretary of the Treasury.
Marty McFly: [outside the lab door] Doc, you gotta listen to me.
Dr. Emmett Brown: [opens the door to the lab] I've had enough practical jokes for one evening. Good night, Future Boy!
[closes the door leaving Marty outside]

richlevy wrote:

Speaking of mixing politics and entertainment, I love the fact that there are a lot of people who believe that Stephen Colbert is really a conservative and is either pretending to parody a conservative or is actually on the level. When you can leave that many people guessing, it shows that you are a real artist......or that they are morons.

Urbane Guerrilla;559322 wrote:

...we're anti-stupid and anti-feckless...

xoxoxoBruce;579502 wrote:

You've done a marvelous job of infiltrating. :rolleyes:

Happy Monkey;578864 wrote:

Trying to make fun of Franken, and they misspell authority... Or authoritay if they were trying to riff off of South Park.

TheMercenary;578831 wrote:

Congrats guys, here is your new Senator. You should be proud. I will find some more pics for you.... :lol2:

xoxoxoBruce;579502 wrote:

You've done a marvelous job of infiltrating. :rolleyes:

Urbane Guerrilla;579986 wrote:

Bruce and Rich, when will you learn such remarks cannot be respected by people of depth?

Urbane Guerrilla;579986 wrote:

Bruce and Rich, when will you learn such remarks cannot be respected by people of depth? :rolleyes: Are you really so determined to remind me you're rather too thick to become conservatives, or something?

Urbane Guerrilla;579986 wrote:

Bruce and Rich, when will you learn such remarks cannot be respected by people of depth? :rolleyes: Are you really so determined to remind me you're rather too thick to become conservatives, or something?

Happy Monkey;579929 wrote:

And, despite having years of SNL to sift through, they had to go with, whoops, a fake photo.

TheMercenary;580189 wrote:

Regardless. His legacy will be an example of him in a diaper on SNL. I hear he is a bigger pedophile than MJ ever was.

Spexxvet;580366 wrote:

Did you hear that at your NAMBLA meeting? :eek::p

TheMercenary;580189 wrote:

Regardless. His legacy will be an example of him in a diaper on SNL. I hear he is a bigger pedophile than MJ ever was.

TheMercenary;580189 wrote:

I hear he is a bigger pedophile than MJ ever was.

richlevy;580174 wrote:

Every time I try to jump in and find the depth in any of UG's arguments, it's like trying to dive into a wet handkerchief.

richlevy;580174 wrote:

Every time I try to jump in and find the depth in any of UG's arguments, it's like trying to dive into a wet handkerchief.

TheMercenary;581090 wrote:

Read it and weap....

richlevy;580174 wrote:

I knew that sooner or later he'd drop the depth charge. Unfortunately, it's a little late to rig for silent running.

Every time I try to jump in and find the depth in any of UG's arguments, it's like trying to dive into a wet handkerchief.

tw;580173 wrote:

Oh. You are from hell. Say hi to Adolf.

BTW, he makes a great meat tenderizer - obviously.

He went on to show video of Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) arguing that it's not the government's place to decide who the government does business with and juxtaposed that with Republican sentiment on how the government should deal with ACORN. "I guess it's an efficiency thing. You don't want to waste tax-payer money giving it to someone who advises fake prostitutes how to commit imaginary crimes, you want to give it to Halliburton because they're committing real gang rape."

Shawnee123;601461 wrote:

...It's puke-worthy, but I don't expect any of you to acknowledge that fact, or to try to explain why it's different.

Shawnee123;601461 wrote:

Even YOU aren't completely without humanity.

Shawnee123;601474 wrote:

"We'll have peace when we hate gang-rapers more than we hate Al Franken..." or something like that.

I DEMAND THEY ALL STEP DOWN. RIGHT NOW. :lol:

Oh sorry, was channeling...

Shawnee123;601474 wrote:

"We'll have peace when we hate gang-rapers more than we hate Al Franken..." or something like that.

I DEMAND THEY ALL STEP DOWN. RIGHT NOW. :lol:

Oh sorry, was channeling...

Shawnee123;601461 wrote:

Just in case the rest of you partisan-pointers (who are most partisan) are missing this, or ignoring it, let me quote part of it for you:



Fuckers. Seriously, how lame is this? Where's the outrage I've heard republicans call for against Acorn? Merc? UG?

It's puke-worthy, but I don't expect any of you to acknowledge that fact, or to try to explain why it's different. Even YOU aren't completely without humanity.

classicman;602256 wrote:

Anyone - ANYONE who would vote against this bill is an idiot and really ought to recheck their allegiances - regardless of party affiliation. This is exactly what is wrong with the status quo.

richlevy;602500 wrote:

You should have read Rick Santorum's op-ed piece a few weeks ago equating the extension of the statute of limitations on child abuse with and attack on Christianity.:right:

Ricky is a real piece of [strike]shit[/strike] work.

Shawnee123;602176 wrote:

Oh, and until you mention Redux's or tw's panties, rein in your sexist comments, k?

richlevy;603584 wrote:

Well, it does appear that Mr. Franken is in the thick of things. Personally, I think making people who went bankrupt paying for their kids chemotherapy get credit counseling is ridiculous.

[youtube]TgqqSHr0wVA[/youtube]

Flint;603586 wrote:

He appears to be doing an as good or better job than any of the other clowns I've seen up there.