buckysieve Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Read some of his books, I had the chance to listen to a few of his radio shows. In my opinion the man is disgusting. Thankgod he is yours. I ran to the polls to vote for Franken cause I knew if he got elected it would piss off Bill O'Reilly. That alone makes this whole thing worth while.
Oxbow6 Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I ran to the polls to vote for Franken cause I knew if he got elected it would piss off Bill O'Reilly. That alone makes this whole thing worth while. So when is your state going to elect Prince to some public office???
mksioux Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Pure fiction. I challenge you to find one credible site for this. Coleman's own attorney's even say it was a clean election. Franken won because he got more votes. Deal with it. Well, might as well get this thread closed once and for all. First of all, anyone trying to understand what's going on through media accounts is largely uninformed about what's going on. Despite hundreds of stores, the media has not done a very good job of informing the public of the issues involved in this case. You need to go straight to the court decisions, and be able to meaningfully interpret them. But I'm sure you've done that and are fully informed to discuss the subject. You are correct in that Coleman's attorney conceded that the election was clean in that they couldn't find any fraudulent intent. But that does not mean the election laws were not broken that arguably resulted in Franken getting more votes than he should have legally received. Really what the election contest boiled down to is that Coleman identified a wrong that was without a judicial remedy. Coleman's most basic challenge was that election officials on election night used different standards in determining whether absentee ballots should be opened and counted. Predictably, election officials in liberal precincts used more lax standards, while officials in conservative precincts used strict standards (which is what the law requires). The Court did not dispute Coleman's basic challenge. However, the Court said that without proof of fraudulent intent, there is no judicial remedy for Coleman's complaint (i.e. it does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution). Once the absentee ballots were opened and processed into the voting machine on election night, they are comingled with all the other votes and they are official votes regardless of whether they should have been opened and counted under Minnesota law. The Court basically said that human error is a part of the process and, that without proof of fraudulent intent on behalf of election officials, they can't undo what was done. That does not mean, however, that violations of the law did not occur on election night that resulted in the counting of many absentee ballots that should not have been counted. Because this largely happened in Hennepin, Ramsey, and St. Louis Counties (heavily DFL) it likely resulted in many votes for Franken that should not have been counted. Coleman's requested solution was to ease the restrictions over the entire state to compensate for the easing of restrictions in certain precincts on election night. The Court refused. In a sense, the Court refused to create a remedy for violating the law by further violating the law. So there you have it. I actually agree with the Supreme Court decision. Coleman's argument was strained and basically asked the Court to order the counting of illegal ballots to compensate for illegal ballots that were already counted on election night. That is not a good precedent to set. But that does not mean Franken would have had more legally cast votes if everything was done legally from the start. But I'm sure you already had all the answers anyway.
Goon Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 So if I am understanding the Obama administration, if I don't pay my taxes I might get a sweet job with a big paycheck and maybe even be Secretary of State! Cool Heck you can be a member in the OBAMA administration and head the SEC.
buckysieve Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 So when is your state going to elect Prince to some public office??? As soon as he runs for something. I don't see anything embarrassing about electing Al Franken. Do we always have to elect career politicians? Franken didn't run because he has a big ego. He ran because he was a friend of Wellstone and respected him a lot and wanted to continue his work by filling his seat. This tells me his reasons for running are sincere which is more than we can say about most politicians who simply want power. Not to mention he's very smart. He went to Harvard as a math wiz. Who knows how he'll do but I'm willing to give him a chance.
star2city Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Really what the election contest boiled down to is that Coleman identified a wrong that was without a judicial remedy. Coleman's most basic challenge was that election officials on election night used different standards in determining whether absentee ballots should be opened and counted. Predictably, election officials in liberal precincts used more lax standards, while officials in conservative precincts used strict standards (which is what the law requires). The Court did not dispute Coleman's basic challenge. However, the Court said that without proof of fraudulent intent, there is no judicial remedy for Coleman's complaint (i.e. it does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution). Once the absentee ballots were opened and processed into the voting machine on election night, they are comingled with all the other votes and they are official votes regardless of whether they should have been opened and counted under Minnesota law. The Court basically said that human error is a part of the process and, that without proof of fraudulent intent on behalf of election officials, they can't undo what was done. That does not mean, however, that violations of the law did not occur on election night that resulted in the counting of many absentee ballots that should not have been counted. Because this largely happened in Hennepin, Ramsey, and St. Louis Counties (heavily DFL) it likely resulted in many votes for Franken that should not have been counted. Coleman's requested solution was to ease the restrictions over the entire state to compensate for the easing of restrictions in certain precincts on election night. The Court refused. In a sense, the Court refused to create a remedy for violating the law by further violating the law. So there you have it. I actually agree with the Supreme Court decision. Coleman's argument was strained and basically asked the Court to order the counting of illegal ballots to compensate for illegal ballots that were already counted on election night. That is not a good precedent to set. But that does not mean Franken would have had more legally cast votes if everything was done legally from the start. But I'm sure you already had all the answers anyway. Thanks for that post! One of the realities of this election is that Minnesota's once clean political reputation has been smeared and now is seen as a national disgrace. Say thanks to Hennepin and Ramsey county officials.
Goon Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Thanks for that post! One of the realities of this election is that Minnesota's once clean political reputation has been smeared and now is seen as a national disgrace. Say thanks to Hennepin and Ramsey county officials. I think Franken is going to pay for that.
Goon Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Here is an email that I just recieve from Earl Pomeroy I want to know what the other two amigo think on this bill? We shoud call them and let them know what we think and if they vote for this stupid and ridculous bill we will try very hard to have them defeated in the next election. On Friday, June 26th, the House of Representatives voted on a major energy bill aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. I believe that there is overwhelming consensus among climate-scientists that the climate is changing, which is helping to form a strong legislative consensus that action must be taken. While substantial improvements were made to the bill as it was debated in the House, in the end it is simply not in the best interest of North Dakota or our nation, and therefore I could not support it. I am concerned about the prospects that North Dakotans may face significantly higher electricity rates under the proposed cap and trade provisions. As you well know, North Dakota winters are long and cold, and require us to use substantial amounts of energy to heat our homes. We rank fourth in the country in energy consumption per capita, and over 90 percent of the electricity we use comes from coal-fired plants. So, major increases in electricity rates will hit us especially hard. In addition, our state has a large coal industry, which provides 28,000 direct and indirect jobs. The House climate change bill sets unrealistic emission reduction targets that would likely cause a major switch from coal to other, more expensive fuel sources. This would lead not only to higher energy costs for North Dakotans, but also increased unemployment from the potential closing of coal mines and coal-fired power plants. I will continue to closely monitor this legislation and will work to protect North Dakota
Goon Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Nothing on Senator Comb over site [byron Dorgan] Here is his contact number for the Grand Forks, ND office Phone (701) 746-8972 Senator Country Wide Mortage [Kent Conrad] Here is his contact number for the Grand Forks, ND office Phone Phone: (701) 775-9601 Press Releases July 1, 2009 Energy Secretary Joins Senators Conrad and Dorgan to Announce Basin Electric to Receive Up to $100 million for New Project Recovery Act Funding will go Toward New Technologies to Advance Carbon Capture and Storage Bismarck - U.S. Department of Energy Secretary Steven Chu, North Dakota Senators Kent Conrad and Byron Dorgan and North Dakota Governor John Hoeven announced today that Basin Electric Power Cooperative has been selected for up to $100 million in funding from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The project selected -- an existing power plant in Beulah, N.D.
Bison Dan Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I ran to the polls to vote for Franken cause I knew if he got elected it would piss off Bill O'Reilly. That alone makes this whole thing worth while. Now everyone knows what the phase "yellow dog democrat" means.
Goon Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 yellow dog Democrat Description of a die-hard partisan loyalist who would vote for anyone rather than vote for a Republican. Originally a term to describe the partisan loyalty of southern Democrats who would vote for a yellow dog if he ran on the Democratic ticket. It is now used to describe any staunch Democratic loyalist. On the flip side of that. [url="http://www.uta.fi/FAST/GC/poliglos.html]Blue Dog Democrat Conservative, mostly Southern Democrats, who took their name from paintings by Louisiana artist George Rodrigue, who features a blue dog in a series of political situations. .
Shawn-O Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Well, might as well get this thread closed once and for all. First of all, anyone trying to understand what's going on through media accounts is largely uninformed about what's going on. Despite hundreds of stores, the media has not done a very good job of informing the public of the issues involved in this case. You need to go straight to the court decisions, and be able to meaningfully interpret them. But I'm sure you've done that and are fully informed to discuss the subject. You are correct in that Coleman's attorney conceded that the election was clean in that they couldn't find any fraudulent intent. But that does not mean the election laws were not broken that arguably resulted in Franken getting more votes than he should have legally received. Really what the election contest boiled down to is that Coleman identified a wrong that was without a judicial remedy. Coleman's most basic challenge was that election officials on election night used different standards in determining whether absentee ballots should be opened and counted. Predictably, election officials in liberal precincts used more lax standards, while officials in conservative precincts used strict standards (which is what the law requires). The Court did not dispute Coleman's basic challenge. However, the Court said that without proof of fraudulent intent, there is no judicial remedy for Coleman's complaint (i.e. it does not violate the equal protection clause of the Constitution). Once the absentee ballots were opened and processed into the voting machine on election night, they are comingled with all the other votes and they are official votes regardless of whether they should have been opened and counted under Minnesota law. The Court basically said that human error is a part of the process and, that without proof of fraudulent intent on behalf of election officials, they can't undo what was done. That does not mean, however, that violations of the law did not occur on election night that resulted in the counting of many absentee ballots that should not have been counted. Because this largely happened in Hennepin, Ramsey, and St. Louis Counties (heavily DFL) it likely resulted in many votes for Franken that should not have been counted. Coleman's requested solution was to ease the restrictions over the entire state to compensate for the easing of restrictions in certain precincts on election night. The Court refused. In a sense, the Court refused to create a remedy for violating the law by further violating the law. So there you have it. I actually agree with the Supreme Court decision. Coleman's argument was strained and basically asked the Court to order the counting of illegal ballots to compensate for illegal ballots that were already counted on election night. That is not a good precedent to set. But that does not mean Franken would have had more legally cast votes if everything was done legally from the start. But I'm sure you already had all the answers anyway. Thanks for the post, that boils it down quite clearly. I don't know all the legal ins and outs, but a swing of 1,000 votes from the morning after the election to what was certified seems like an awful lot, maybe unprecedented in election history.
buckysieve Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Now everyone knows what the phase "yellow dog democrat" means. I could possibly vote for a republican some day but NEVER in a presidential election. Eight years of Bush made me realize replubicans should never be trusted in the white house ever again.
GeauxSioux Posted July 1, 2009 Author Posted July 1, 2009 I could possibly vote for a republican some day but NEVER in a presidential election. Eight years of Bush made me realize replubicans should never be trusted in the white house ever again. All of a sudden a North Star Republic makes more sense.
Goon Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 I could possibly vote for a republican some day but NEVER in a presidential election. Eight years of Bush made me realize replubicans should never be trusted in the white house ever again. As OBAMA quadrupled the debt in five short months making Bush look thrifty.
Goon Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 All of a sudden a North Star Republic makes more sense. Yep that would explain the socialist republic of Minnesota.
DamStrait Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Since MplsBison won't answer why he feels carbon emissions need to be capped/curbed (he has already dismissed global warming/climate change), he must have been just trolling on this thread, as he has been shown wont to do on virtually all that he posts. I'm sure he's quite pleased with his juvenile behavior.
buckysieve Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 As OBAMA quadrupled the debt in five short months making Bush look thrifty. As soon as Obama invades a country for NO reason resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands innocent civilians, 4,000 American soldiers, ruins our reputation around the world not to mention leaving us with the worst economy since the great depression, then you can compare the two. Until then you got nothing.
Flatland Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 As soon as Obama invades a country for NO reason resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands innocent civilians, 4,000 American soldiers, ruins our reputation around the world not to mention leaving us with the worst economy since the great depression, then you can compare the two. Until then you got nothing. The current topic has devolved to the point that I'm surprised it's not shut down yet, but here it goes... I could never vote for a Democratic president because of 58,000 American deaths, not to mention the deaths of up to 6 million Laotians and Vietnamese... How's that for logic. I don't blame you for being upset with the poor spending, Iraq, etc..., but saying you could never vote for a Republican again is silly since both parties make poor decisions often. Personally, I blame the legislature the most, but you can't pin the issues there on one person. Do the right thing... become a libertarian
Bison Dan Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 As soon as Obama invades a country for NO reason resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands innocent civilians, 4,000 American soldiers, ruins our reputation around the world not to mention leaving us with the worst economy since the great depression, then you can compare the two. Until then you got nothing. Freedom is never free - Ever wonder how many lives have been saved by invading? As far as our reputation who gives a rat's ass what any other country things of us. Most countries look for any excuse to hate us. Everyone hates the most powerful and richest of anything. As far as the economy goes its the same thing that happened to President Clinton at the end of his term with the Dot Com mess. Which policies did Bush put in that had the investment companies purchasing commodities contracts (they thought that oil was going to 200l) pushing up the price of oil. Or which policy did he have that had the government tell banks to give mortgages to people that couldn't afford it?
Goon Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 As soon as Obama invades a country for NO reason resulting in the deaths of tens of thousands innocent civilians, 4,000 American soldiers, ruins our reputation around the world not to mention leaving us with the worst economy since the great depression, then you can compare the two. Until then you got nothing. yeah I guess the 17 UN resolutions wasn't reason enough to ivade Iraq. Holy Cow.
Goon Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 Minnesota Aye MN-1 Walz, Timothy [D] Aye MN-4 McCollum, Betty [D] Aye MN-5 Ellison, Keith [D] Aye MN-7 Peterson, Collin [D] Aye MN-8 Oberstar, James [D] We can Blame Minnesota's leaders for voting for Cap and Trade. I guess Collin Peterson doesn't get it.
MplsBison Posted July 1, 2009 Posted July 1, 2009 You've completely missed my point. You think just one business will raise prices? Wrong. The government doesn't just tax one company. This cap and trade is pushed into every company's balance sheet. In order to keep a reasonable profit margin all companies will be forced to raise prices. As to your point about forcing their processes to be compliant, you don't know what you're talking about. There will be some CO2 capture which will be done by some companies which may have to higher a few people, but the higher operating costs is more likely to result in fewer jobs ACROSS THE ENTIRE ECONOMY, not more (unless you are talking about government jobs which I still regard as a net loss on the economy.) So one industry (carbon capture and sequestration) booms and all the rest (manufacturing, petroleum, etc) are forced to recoup the cost. Some companies will have to upgrade their process to be compliant or face going out of business. Other companies will already be compliant be will be rewarded for being green early. Net result is that jobs will be created and consumers will be the winners with better products produced at a cheaper price.
moser53 Posted July 2, 2009 Posted July 2, 2009 Freedom is never free - Ever wonder how many lives have been saved by invading? As far as our reputation who gives a rat's ass what any other country things of us. Most countries look for any excuse to hate us. Everyone hates the most powerful and richest of anything. As far as the economy goes its the same thing that happened to President Clinton at the end of his term with the Dot Com mess. Which policies did Bush put in that had the investment companies purchasing commodities contracts (they thought that oil was going to 200l) pushing up the price of oil. Or which policy did he have that had the government tell banks to give mortgages to people that couldn't afford it? According to some what the Bush adminstration did do is tell all the Federal Regulators to take the day off, then week off, then month off, then year off, then finially his two 4 year terms off.
Recommended Posts